P. 1
Vaschalde. Three letters of Philoxenus, Bishop of Mabbôgh (485-519) : being the letter to the monks, the first letter to the monks of Beth-Gaugal and the letter to Emperor Zeno. 1902.

Vaschalde. Three letters of Philoxenus, Bishop of Mabbôgh (485-519) : being the letter to the monks, the first letter to the monks of Beth-Gaugal and the letter to Emperor Zeno. 1902.

|Views: 94|Likes:
Three letters of Philoxenus, Bishop of Mabbôgh (485-519) : being the letter to the monks, the first letter to the monks of Beth-Gaugal and the letter to Emperor Zeno (1902)


Author: Philoxenus, Bp. of Hierapolis; Vaschalde, Arthur Adolphe, 1871-1942
Subject: Monophysites -- Doctrines; Incarnation; Trinity; Lord\'s Supper -- Real presence
Publisher: Roma : Tip. della R. Accademia dei Lincei
Possible copyright status: NOT_IN_COPYRIGHT
Language: English
Call number: 606138
Digitizing sponsor: MSN
Book contributor: Kelly - University of Toronto
Collection: kellylibrary; toronto
Three letters of Philoxenus, Bishop of Mabbôgh (485-519) : being the letter to the monks, the first letter to the monks of Beth-Gaugal and the letter to Emperor Zeno (1902)


Author: Philoxenus, Bp. of Hierapolis; Vaschalde, Arthur Adolphe, 1871-1942
Subject: Monophysites -- Doctrines; Incarnation; Trinity; Lord\'s Supper -- Real presence
Publisher: Roma : Tip. della R. Accademia dei Lincei
Possible copyright status: NOT_IN_COPYRIGHT
Language: English
Call number: 606138
Digitizing sponsor: MSN
Book contributor: Kelly - University of Toronto
Collection: kellylibrary; toronto

More info:

Published by: Patrologia Latina, Graeca et Orientalis on Oct 01, 2011
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

02/01/2013

pdf

text

original

G. R.

Bound by BY EQF
*^l

THREE LETTERS

OF PHILOXENUS
BISHOP OF MABBOGH
(485-519):

BEING THE LETTER TO THE MONKS, THE FIRST LETTER TO THE MONKS OF BETH-GAUGAL, AND THE LETTER TO EMPEROR ZENO
;

EDITED

FROM SYRIAC MANUSCRIPTS IN THE VATICAN LIBRARY, WITH AN ENGLISH TRANSLATION, AN INTRODUCTION TO THE LIFE, WORKS, AND DOCTRINES

OF PHILOXENUS, A THEOLOGICAL GLOSSARY, AND AN APPENDIX
OF BIBLE QUOTATIONS;

ARTHUR ADOLPHE VASCHALDE,
Member of
the Society

of the Priests of

St. Basil,

Licentiate of

Theology

A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE FACULTY OF PHILOSOPHY OF THE CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF AMERICA FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY.

TIPOGRAFIA BELLA

R.

ACCADEMIA

DEI LINCEI

PROPRIETA DEL CAV. V. SALVIUCCI

I9O2

FACULTAS PHILOSOPHIAE

N

2.

TO THE VERY REVEREND

NOEL DVRAND
SIXTH SVPERIOR GENERAL
OF THE SOCIETY OF THE PRIESTS

OF SAINT BASIL

BIOGRAPHY

The author

of this

dissertation,

ARTHUR ADOLPHE
at Saiut-Pous, de

VASCHALDE was

born March 10,

1871,

a preparatory training partment of Ard^che, France. After school of his native town, he followed the in the

public

academic courses at

St.

Barbe
to

s

College,

Annonay,

in the

same department. Coming

Canada in 1888, he took up
College,

the study of Theology at Assumption

Sandwich.

There in 1892 he entered the Society of the Priests of
Saint Basil.
Catholic

In the

fall

of

1893 he

matriculated at the

University

of

America,
under

where
Prof.

he
C.

pursued
P.

the

courses of

Holy

Scripture

Grannau,

and of Semitic Languages under Prof. H. Hyvernat, and

he received the degree of Licentiate of Theology in 1895.
After
teaching Mental

Philosophy

at

Sandwich
1900,
to

for

five

in years, he returned to the University

continue

the study of Semitic Languages under Prof. H. Hyvernat

and

of Philosophy

under Prof. E. A. Pace.

PREFACE

With
ciated

the heresy

known

as Jacobite

Monophysitism are asso
and
litera

some of the greatest names
e

in Syriac history

ture, such as Philoxenus (Aks naya) of

MabbOgh

(f 523), Severus

of Antioch (f 537), John of Telia (f 538),. Jacob of Seriigh (f 521),

Jacob Baradaeus (f 578), and many

.others.

Although this heresy

was named
Church,
its

after

Jacob Baradaeus^* tbeu founder, -of the Jacobite
can be traced
"to

origin

the

reaction which, in the

latter half of the fifth century, set in against the errors of Nesto-

rius

and Eutyches, and against the

definition of the Council of

Chalcedon respecting the existence of the two natures in Christ.
Philoxenus was one of the foremost leaders in that great move

ment and, beyond
The
extracts

question, the ablest

champion of the new

faith.

from his

works in the Bibliotheca Orientalis of
of Guidi,

Assemani and the recent publications
Budge, leave no doubt on
this point.

Frothingham and

Yet,

outside of

Budge

s

chapter on the creed of Philoxenus, but little has been written

on the doctrines of the famous bishop of Mabbogh, and, in our

manuals of Church
information

history

and of dogmatic Theology,
life

all

the

which we possess about the
is

and teachings of
writers of

Philoxenus

derived almost exclusively from Greek

the Byzantine period.

Such information, however, ought
comparison with the Syriac sources;

to be

supplemented by a
but
fair to

for it is

let the

original documents speak for themselves.

Hence, as a small con
subject,

tribution

to the
first

literature of this interesting

we

give

here for the

time the Syriac text and the English transla
:

tion of three important letters of Philoxenus

the Letter to the

Monks, the

first

Letter to the

Monks

of Beth-Gaugal,

and the

Letter to Emperor Zeno.

It has

been thought that these docu
in their entirety

ments,

if

published and translated

and taken
throw

in connection

with what has

already

been done, would

more light on the doctrines of Philoxenus than could be obtained heretofore. To emphasize this method, an appendix has been
added giving a concordance of the principal theological terms and expressions used by the author; this, we trust, will be
useful
to

such as

may wish
in the

to

pursue the same course with
In another appendix the Bible

regard to Syrian

Monophysitism.
text,

quotations, occurring

have been compared with the

Peshitta,

following in this the laudable

example of Budge in

his beautiful edition of the Discourses

of Philoxenus.

To

this

we have added
which occur

a list of the few words borrowed from the Greek,

in these three letters.

If circumstances permit, this

publication of other texts of the
this

work will be followed by the same author; in the meantime,
repaid, if
it

modest

effort

will be

amply

directs the atten

tion of others to the necessity of studying Jacobite

Monophysi

tism in the
for
it,

writings of those

who

are best

qualified to speak

namely, the Syriac Monophysite writers of the fifth

and

sixth centuries.
It is

now my pleasing duty

to

thank Prof.

Hyvernat

for

the

my Oriental studies, not only the four years I spent in his Department, but also du during
ring the five years
I

care with which he directed

was absent from the University.

I

am

besides under obligation to

him

for placing at

my

disposal the

IX

Syriac text of these three letters which he copied himself from

the Vatican Manuscripts.
I

may

not close without expressing
to Professors

my gratitude

to Prof. Guidi,

of

Rome, and

Grannan, Shahan and Pace, of this
to

University who kindly consented
fore
it

examine

this dissertation be

was printed and
Prof.

offered

many valuable

suggestions.

To

Guidi

I

am

also indebted for a description of Syr.

Mss. 135, 136, and 138 of the Vatican library, and also for the

anonymous notice on
from
S}T.

Philoxenus

which he transcribed

for

me

Ms. 155 of the Vatican.

He had

also the kindness

to read the proof-sheets of this to correct the Syriac

dissertation

and took the trouble
Manuscripts
the
in

text

on the

original

the

Vatican

Library,

thus

ensuring,

even in

apparently most
often wanted in

trifling details of punctuation,

an accuracy too

similar publications.

The

Catholic University of America,

February, 1902.
A. A. VASCHALDE.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

ABBELOOS

(J.

B.).

De

vita et scriptis Sancti Jacobi Sarugensis, Louvain

(Vanlinthout), 1867.

ABBELOOS et LAMY. Gfregorii Barhebraei chronicon ecclesiasticum, 3 vol., Louvain (Peeters), 1872. ASSEMANI (J. S.). Blbliotheca Orientalis clementino-vaticana, t. I-III,

Rome, 1719-1728. Annales ecclesiastici, 37 vol., Bar-le-Duc, 1864-1883. CANGE (Du). Glossarium ad Scriptores mediae et infimae graecitatis
BARONIUS.
2
vol.,

Lyons, 1688.
doctrina, Paris

The Catholic University Bulletin, Washington, 1895 sqq. CHABOT (J. B.). De S. Isaaci Ninivitae vita, scriptis et
(E. Leroux), 1892.

DENZINGER

(H.).

Ritus Orientalium, Coptorum, Syrorum

et

Armenorum

in administrandis sacramentis, 2 vol., Wiirzburg, 1863. DUVAL (R.). ffistoire politique, religieuse et litte raire d Edesse jusqu a la premiere croisade, Paris (Imprimerie nationale), 1892.

La

litterature syriaque (no. 2 des

anciennes litteratures

chretiennes),

2

e

ed.,

Paris (Lecoffre), 1900.

FROTHINGHAM
GIBBON
(E.).

(A. L.). Stephen Bar Sudaili, the Syrian Mystic and the book of Hierotheos, Leyden (Brill), 1886.

The
ed.,

Milman GRAFFIN (R.).

GUIDI (Ignazio). leda), Reale accademia dei Lincei (1884-85), Rome, 1886. HALLIER. Untersuchungen uber die Edessenische Chronik, Leipzig
Hinrichs, 1892.

history of the decline and fall of the Roman Empire, vol., Paris (Beaudry), 1840. Patrologia Syriaca, vol. I, Paris (F. Didot), 1894. La lettera di Filosseno ai monad di TelVAddd (Te-

8

HARDUIN. HEFELE.

Acta Conciliorum, 11

vol., Paris,

1715.
ed.,

Conciliengeschichte nach den Quellen bearbeitet, 2d. burg im Breisgau (Herder), 9 vol 1875-1890.
,

Frei

HERGENROTHER.

Histoire

de

VEglise,

traduction de

P.

Belet, 8

vol.,

Paris (V. Palme), 1880.

Journal Asiatique, Paris (E. Leroux), 9th

KRUGER

(G.).

series, t. XIV, XV, XVI. Monophysitische Streitigkeiten im Zusammenhange mit

der Reichspolitik, lena (Pohle), 1884.

LABBE-MANSI.

Sacrorum Conciliorum nova

et

amplissima

collectio,

30

vol.,

Florence, 1759-1792.

MARIN
MARTIN
MIGNB.

(Abbe).
ville

Les Moines de Constantinople depuis la fondation de la jusqu a la mort de Photius, Paris (V. Lecoffre), 1897.

(P.).

Syro-Chaldaicae Institutions, Paris (Maisonneuve), 1873. Patrologia Graeca, vol. 67, 77, 86, 86 bis, 94, 108, 121.
vol.
1,

-

Patrologia Latina,

2, 41, 48,

54, 58, 68, 78.

NEALE.

History of the holy eastern Church; the patriarchate of Alexandria, 2 vol., London (J. Masters), 1847. PETAVIUS. Dogmata theologica, ed. J. B. Fournials, 8 vol., Paris (L. Vives),

A

1865-1867.

LE QUIEN.
BENAUDOT.

Oriens Christianus, 3 vol., Paris, 1740. Historia patriarcharum alexandrinorum jacobitarum, Paris

(Fournier), 1713.

Liturgiarum Orientalium collectio, 2a ed., 2 vol., Frankfurt on the Main (J. Baer), 1847. La Revue Catholique de Louvain, Louvain, 1843 sqq. RITTER. Erdkunde im Verhaltniss zur Natur und zur Geschichte des Menschen, 2d ed., 19 vol., Berlin (Reimer), 1822-1859.
ROTHSTEIN.
n.
- -

Die Dynastie der Lahmiden von al-Hira, Berlin Reuther

Reichard, 1899.

SMITH and WAGE.
(Little,

A

Dictionary of Christian Biography, 4
Vhistoire
Pitteri),

vol.,

Boston

TILLEMONT.

Brown & C), 1877-1887. Mtmoires pour servir a
siecles,

premiers

16

vol.,

Venise (F.

ecclesiastique 1732.

des six

Histoire des Empereurs et des autres princes remarquables qui out regne durant les six premiers sitcles de VEglise, Venise (P. Pitteri) 1732. VACANT. Dictionnaire de theologie catholique, Paris (Letouzey et Ane),
1901.

WALLIS-BUDGE.

The Discourses of Philoxenus, bishop of Mabbogh, A. D. 485-519, edited from Syriac Manuscripts of the sixth and seventh centuries in the British Museum, with an English translation.
I,

Vol.

(Asher

& 0),

Syriac text; vol. 1894.

II,

Introduction,

translation,

etc.

London

WRIGHT (W. J.). Catalogue of the Syriac Manuscripts in the British Museum acquired since the year 1838, t. I-III, London, 1870-1872.
-

(2d

Article Syriac Literature in the Encyclopedia Britannica, 9th ed. edit., a short History of Syriac Literature, London, A. Ch. Black, 1894).
Stylite,

- The Chronicle of Joshua the
35, 53.

Cambridge, 1882.

Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenlandischen Gesellschaft, Leipzig, vol. 30,

ZOTENBERG

(EL). Catalogue des Manuscrits Syriaques et SabSens de la Bibliotheque Nationale, Paris (Imprimerie nationale), 1874.

CONTENTS
PART FIRST

INTRODUCTION

CHAPTER
1.

I.

THE LIFE OF PHILOXENUS.
PAG.
1

Sources

2.
3.

Early Life of Philoxenus Philoxenus at Edessa
.

3
* .

.

"

.

6

4.
5.
6.

His Struggle with Calandion His Appointment to Mabbogh His Struggle with Flavian His Exile and Death
Various Judgments on Philoxenus

"

9

.

.

"

15

7.

19

8.

CHAPTER
9.

II.

THE PUBLISHED WORKS OF PHILOXENUS.
PAG.
.
"

10.

11.
12.

The The The The

Discourses and other Texts
Letter to Abu-Nafir
Letter concerning Stephen Bar Sudaili Letter to the Monks of Teleda

25 29 34

"

"

CHAPTER

III.

~

THE DOCTRINES OF PHILOXENUS.

A) His Doctrine on the Incarnation.
13.

14.

General Considerations Philoxenus and Nestorius

PAG.

38

...

40

15. 16.

Heresy of Nestorius

PAG
.
. .

.

4

j

The Word &SOTOXOS
Communicatio Idiomatum Union of the Natures
.

42

17.
18.
19.

44 45
47 50
51

20. Philoxenus
21. 22.

Consequences of Nestorius and Eutyches

1

Theory

Heresy of Eutyches Manner of Union
Monotheletism
of Christ

53
55

23.

24. Reality of the
25.

Body

57
61
.
.
.

Other Consequences of the Eutychian Theory 26. Theory of Philoxenus on the Sufferings of Christ
28. Philoxenus

.

66
68

of the Doctrine of Philoxenus and Original Sin 29. Philoxenus and the Blessed Virgin

27.

Summing up

69
n

70

B) His Doctrine
30.

on the

Trinity.
PAG.
71

Three Persons and one Nature

31. Equality and Consubstantiality of the Persons 32. Eternal Generation of the Son 33. Procession of the

72 73

Holy Ghost

74

C)
34.

His Doctrine on the Real Presence.
. .

[Our Lord really present in the Holy Eucharist]

.

.

76

PART SECOND
CHAPTER
35. Description of the
I.

Manuscripts

PAG 31
.

CHAPTER

II.

INTRODUCTION TO THE THREE LETTERS.

A.
36.

The Letter

to the

Monks

:

Title,

date, analysis

....

.

83

B.
37.

The

first

Letter to the
*
.
. .

Monks

of

Beth-Gaugal:

Title, date,

analysis.

87
C.

38.

The Letter

to

Zeno:

Title, date, analysis

.

.

90

XV

CHAPTER

III.

ENGLISH TRANSLATION.

A.

The Letter

to

the

Monks
B.

PAG.

93

The

first

Letter

to

the

Monks
C.

of

Beth-Gaugal.

.

105

The Letter

to

Zeno

.

118

PART THIRD
SYRIAC TEXT.
A.

The Letter

to

the

Monks
B.

PAG. 127

The

first Letter to the

Monks
C.

of

Beth-Gaugal

.

146

The Letter

to

Zeno

163

APPENDICES.
I.

An anonymous

Notice on Philoxenus

PAG. 175

II.

Theological Glossary
Bible Quotations compared with the Peshitta and the Codex
Sinaiticus

177

III.

183
in the three letters

Greek words occurring

190

PART FIRST
INTRODUCTION.

CHAPTER

I.

THE LIFE OF PHILOXENUS.
Sources.
1.

The material available
Little
is

for a

biography of Philoxenus

is.

not

very

abundant.

known, especially of his early
in

life.

Yet he was a prominent leader
took place in Syria in the fifth

the great

movement which

and sixth centuries against the doctrines of Nestorius and Eutyches, and against the decrees of
of Chalcedon, a

the Council

movement which

resulted in

the
l

peculiar

heresy known by the name

of Monophysitism in specie

( )

or Jacobite

Monophysitism
facts

2

( ).

The

few

which

we

possess

regarding

Philoxenus

career are derived from sources which
classes
:

may be

divided into two

Syriac and non-Syriac.

The principal non-Syriac sources
Reader
3

consist of short passages in the works of Theodore the

(

),

x

( 2

)

HEFELE, Conciliengeschichte,
This heresy
is still

vol. II, p. 564.

( )

professed not only by the Jacobites of Syria,
(cf.

but also by the dissident Copts, Armenians, and Abyssinians D AVRIL, Documents relatifs aux d* Orient, ch.
Eglises
III).
3

ADOLPHE

( )

MIGNE, Patrologia Graeca

(P. G.}, vol. 86, p. 216.
1

Victor

Timunensis

:

2

(

),

Evagrins

( ),

Theophanes

3

( ),

and Cedre-

nus

4
( ).

These writers, however, do not always present indepen
5 ( ).

dent testimony, for some of them often merely copied their pre
decessors

The Syriac sources are

also very fragmentary.

The Vatican

Syriac Ms. 155 (Codex Syr. noster

XVI

of Assemani) contains a

biographical notice on Philoxenus by an
is

unknown

author.

This

the document from which Assemani took the four extracts he
sketch of Philoxenus
life

gives in his
17,
6

(B.

0.,

II,

pp.
I,

10,

13,

20)

(

).

We

publish

it

in extenso in

Appendix

and shall

refer to it as the
to

Anonymous

Notice.

It does

not add

much

what we already know.
are found

Scattered bits of information about
authors, espe

Philoxenus

here and there in Syriac

cially in the Letter of

Simon of Beth-Arscham concerning Bar7 (

sauma, bishop

of Nisibis

),

in

the Edessene
9 (
),

Chronicle

8

( ),

in

the so-called Chronicle of Joshua the Stylite

in the writings

of Jacob of Edessa( 10 ), and in the Ecclesiastical History of Bar-

Hebraeus ( u ).

The published writings
first

of Philoxenus

and

the

three letters which, for the
tation, supply us with a

time, are given in this disser
it is

few important data, and

probable

that

much

valuable

information

might be gathered

from

his

other works, but, unfortunately, they still remain unedited.

) MIGNE, Patrologia Latina (P. L.), vol. 68, () MIGNE, P. 6f., vol. 86 bis, pp. 2657 sqq. 3 Gf., vol. 108, pp. 325 sqq. ( ) MIGNE, P.

(

p.

949.

4
(

)

MIGNE, P.
Cf.

G., vol.

121, pp. 676 sqq.

5
( )

KRUGER, Afonophysitische Streitigkeiten im Zusammenhange
p. 4.

mil der Reichspolitik,
6

( )

Assemani quotes those extracts from Codex Syr.
(cf.

nost. XIII.

This

is

evidently an error
7

B.

0.,

I,

614).
0.), I,

( )
8

( )
9 (

Bibliotheca Orientalis clementino-vaticana (B. B. 0., I, pp. 387-429.

pp. 346-358.

)

Ed.
is

Chronicle
10
(

W. WRIGHT, Cambridge, 1882. The name of the author of this unknown (cf. DUVAL, La Litterature Syriaque, 2d. ed., p. 188).
0.,
I,

)

B.

p.

475.
vol. I, pp.

n
(

)

Ed. ABBELOOS and LAMY,

183, 195.

3

been enumerated

It is not within the scope of the present chapter to discuss
all
is

the different sources which have
sufficient to

;

but

it

show that the information which we obtain from

Syriac documents and from the writings of Philoxenus himself,

sometimes

confirms or supplements, and sometimes

corrects or

contradicts the testimony derived from non-Syriac sources.

Early Life of Philoxenus.
2.

We
;

are entirely ignorant of the year of the birth of Phi

loxenus

but as

he studied at Edessa
city

in the
2

time of Ibas

1

( ),

bishop of that
in

from 435

to

457

( ),

and

was

still

living

522

3

(

),

it is

safe to
fifth

assume that he was born

in the second

quarter of the

century.

Theodore the Reader, Evagrius, and after them, Theophanes

and Cedrenus, inform us
4

that Philoxenus was
is

of Persian

ori

gin

(

).

Their testimony
the writer of

confirmed by Simon of Beth-Arscham
notice.

and by

the anonymous
that Philoxenus

They give

the

additional

information

was born
5

at Tahal, a

village in the province of
tice says:

Beth-Garmai
of

( ).

The anonymous no

Philoxenus, bishop

illustrious

by his science,
writings.

is

MabbOgh, wise in God and the same as Mar Aksenaya who is
born in the village of Tahal,
).

famous

for his

He was
6 (

in the country of the Persians

Nothing

is

known

of

his

1

I

)

B.

0., I, p.

352.
et litteraire

la

DUVAL, Histoire politique, religieuse premiere croisade, p. 168.
( )
3

2

d Edesse jusqu d

(

)

Philoxenus wrote
p.

his Letter to the

Monks

of Senun in 522. Cf.

B.

0.,

II,

20.

4 was born a subject of Persia, he may not ( ) Although Philoxenus have been of Persian blood. The Syrian Christians living in the colonies of the Persian empire were generally called Persians.

( ) The country between the Tigris and the mountains of Kurdistan, south of the Lesser Zab and north of the Didjala (cf. DUVAL, Lit. Syr., Map.). 6 ( ) See Appendix I.

5

4

parents

;

he had a brother named Addai who studied with him
(*).

at Edessa

In a fragment of Theodore the

Reader

2 ( ),

it is

related that

some bishops from Persia

visited Philoxenus after he

had been

appointed to the see of Mabbogh, and recognized in him a slave

who had run away from
This they

his master

and had never been baptized.

told to Peter the Fuller
little

who had

consecrated

him

bishop; but Peter, caring

what ought

to be done, replied

that the episcopal consecration was sufficient to take the place
of baptism.

This
4
(

accusation

is

also

made by Theophanes
is
6
(

3

(

)

and Cedrenus

),
5

and, in
)

modern times,

repeated by the judi
).

cious Tillemont

(

and the learned Le Quien

We

have no means of determining whether Philoxenus was
is

born a slave or a free man; but there

abundant proof that

he was baptized.

The testimony

of Theophanes

and Cedrenus,

and the opinion of Tillemont and Le Quien, need not be consi
dered here, for they evidently rest on the authority of Theodore.

Now

Theodore gives his information on mere hearsay, and does
it

not confirm

by any written or public
(Philoxenus),
I

document.
relate
in

He
part

says:

Concerning him
things which
7

shall

many

I learned

from different

men through

diligent in

quiry

( ).

Evagrius does not say that Philoxenus was unbaptized,
is

and his silence

very eloquent here, for he

had received

his

information concerning Philoxenus from old

men who had

seen

with their own

eyes,

and remembered well everything that hap

pened

in

Antioch in the days of Flavian, with

whom

Philoxenus

(

)

B.

0., I, 353.

MIGNE, P. (}., vol. 86, p. 216. 3 P. G., vol. 108, p. 328. ( ) MIGNE, 4 P. G., vol. 121, p. 676. ( ) MIGNE, 5 Memoires pour servir a Vhistoire eccUsiastique des ( ) TILLEMONT, six premiers si&cles, vol. XVI, p. 677.
(

2

)

6

( )
7 (
)

LE QUIEN, Oriens
IISQi

Christianus, vol.
7TO/l/l

II.

p.

928.
tjXQlfiMfffX,

lOVTQV,

CC

TTCCQCt

dittCpOQtOV

KTlO

Ufa*. MIGNE,

P. G., vol. 86,

p.

216.

was continually
their

at

war

1

(

).

Again, the monks

of Palestine, in
in
Illyria,

famous

letter to Alcison, bishop of Nicopolis

accuse Philoxenus of various crimes, but they make no allusion
to the question

of his baptism

2

(

).

But, besides this negative evidence,

it

can be shown from

Philoxenus
of baptism.

own writings that he had received the sacrament
In his Letter to Zeno, he says
:

I

was baptized,

therefore, in the
in
I

name
I

of

Him Who

died,
for

and

I confess that
I

He

Whose name

was baptized, died

me, and

believe that
in

have put on in baptism

Him

in

Whose name and

Whose
For
I

death I

was baptized, according

to the

words of Paul.

have put on spiritually in the waters (of baptism) the Spiritual

Being
living,

Who

became

corporal,

and

I

confess

that

He Who,
raises (the
letter,

experienced

death
3 (
).

in the flesh, is

He Who
same

dead) and gives
writes:

life

And

again, in the

he

In saying
I

anathema

to these

doctrines (of

Nestorius

and Eutyches),

act according to the

Holy Books, and adhere

to the tradition of the

Fathers

from

whom
of

I

have
I

received

the true and

apostolic faith,

that faith by which
life,

have been

found worthy, with
adoption
loxenus
4 (
).

all the baptized,

of freedom,

and of

We

have no reason then

to

doubt the fact of Phi
right
is

baptism.

Assemani

is

probably

when

he

says

that the assertion of Theodore the Reader

a calumny invented

by the orthodox,
adjectum fuisse
5

ab orthodoxis in odium flagitiosissimi hominis
( );

and, as this last sentence shows, Assemani

cannot be suspected of partiality towards Philoxenus.

f

1

)

KdTsihrffapev
rf)

yctQ

sviovg

sff/aroyE^o^Tag,
.

rovg,

off a

enl $%ap(,ctvov
p.

{tvr^urj

dicta (a^ovrag

MIGNE, P.

G., vol.

86-bis,

2665.
2

( )
3
(

MIGNE,
P. 125.

ibid., p.

2657.

) 4 )
5

(

P. 126.

( )

B.

0., II, p.

12.

Philoxenus
3.

at Edessa.

his brother

At a comparatively Addai (*), came

early age Philoxenus, accompanied by
to the Persian school of
its

Edessa which

was then, and had been from the time of
the most prominent

foundation in 363,
activity

center of intellectual and literary
2

among

the
3

Syrians
),

(

).

St.

Ephrem taught
4

ten

years

there

(363-373)

(

and

in its halls
(

were trained some of the greatest
).

masters of Syriac literature

As may be
5

inferred

from

the

many
to us,

Syriac translations from the Greek which have

come down
teachings

the writings of the Greek Fathers
6
(

(

)

and the

of Aristotle

)

were held in high esteem by that famous school,
is

and the influence of both on Philoxenus

plainly noticeable

7

( ).

(0 B.
2

0.,

I,

p.

353.
p.

( )
3

( )
4
(

DUVAL, Histoire d Edesse, DUVAL, Litterature Syriaque,
Cf.

145.

p.

334.

) 5

Isaac of Antioch, Narses, and others.

( )
6

( )
7

DUVAL, Litterature Syriaque, DUVAL, ibid., p. 254.

p.

308.

among the Syrians dates century, when the spread of Nestorian doctrines had made a knowledge of Greek absolutely necessary. According to Ebed-Jesu, three professors of the Persian school of Edessa, Ibas, Koumi, and Probus, translated into Syriac the works of the Interpreter (Theodore
( )

The

influence of Aristotelian philosophy
fifth

from the beginning of the

is

of Mopsuestia) and the writings of Aristotle (B. 0., Ill, pars I, p. 85). It not believed that all the works of Aristotle were translated by them.

Probus translated and commented the
p. 254).

He

also wrote a treatise

translated by A. VAN HOONACRER, pp. 70-166). After the destruction of the Persian school of Edessa by order of Zeno in 489, the study of the philosophy of Aristotle was cultivated by

sQ^rjvsiag (DUVAL, Lit. Syr., the Prior Analytics (edited and Journal Asiatique, 9th series, t. XVI,
Ite^t

on

both the Jacobites and the Nestorians.
tice Sergius of

Among

the Jacobites,

we may no

Severus Sebokht (VII c.), Jacob of Edessa (f 708), and George, bishop of the Arabs (f 724) among the Nestorians, HenanisV I (f 701), Mar- Abba II (f 751), and especially the numerous

Res aina

(f 536),

;

scholars and physicians who lived at the court of the Abbassides in Baghdad during the ninth and tenth centuries. The Nestorians initiated the Arabs

It is there that

he became acquainted with the patristic lore of
of Cyril of Alexandria

the age, and especially with the works
for

whom

he always

professed

the greatest

admiration.
for

His
in

knowledge of the Fathers must have
his treatise

been considerable,

How One

Person of the Holy Trinity became in
*
,

carnate and suffered for us

he quotes passages not only from

SS. Ephrern and Cyril, but also from St. John Chrysostom, Eu-

sebius of Emesa, Alexander

and Theophilus

of Alexandria, St.

Athanasius,

St.
1

Basil, St.
(

Gregory of Nazianzen and Atticus of
partly from the works of those

Constantinople

).

It

is

great

masters that Philoxenus derived the wealth of theological terms

and expressions

for

which his writings are remarkable.

These

terms and expressions do not imply a servile imitation of Greek
literature,
for his style
2 and vocabulary are distinctly Syriac( );

they rather account for his deep knowledge of the principal re
ligious

works of the times, and his wonderful power

and

skill

as a controversialist.

Philoxenus was influenced
stotle.

also

by the

philosophy of Ari
the

As the examination

of his doctrines will show, his

school of Antioch, ological opinions reflect the tendencies of the
in

which the teachings of the Stagyrite held sway, no

less

than
its

those of the school of Alexandria which recognized Plato as

master.
nation.

This

is

particularly true of

his views

on

the

Incar

Like the Alexandrian Monophysites, he admits only one
mysterious
in
all

nature in Christ after the union and dwells on the

union of the

two natures and on the necessity of faith

to

the philosophy of Aristotle, and translated

it

Arabic.

The Arabs proved very apt
introduced
it

pupils.

for them from Syriac into Indeed, they soon surpassed

their teachers themselves, and, after having

made

Aristotelian philosophy

their

own, they
Lit.

to

the

scholars of

the middle

ages.

Cf.

DUVAL,
part
II,
2
^

Syr., pp. 253-263.

0) WRIGHT, Catalogue of the Syriac Mss. in the British
p.

Museum,
letters.

528.

)

I

have noted the few Greek words occurring in the three

questions relating to

the Incarnation of the Son

of

God;

but,

with the followers of the
reality of Christ
s

school of Antioch, he insists
its

on the

humanity and

consubstantiality with ours,

rejects the Gnostic

and Eutychian theories on the origin of the body of the Lord, and teaches explicitly that Christ suffered in
is,

the flesh, that

only in so far as

He became man.
who

Indeed,

he hurled anathemas against Eutyches as freely as he did against
the Nestorians and against the Catholics
crees of the Council of Chalcedon.

received

the de

But the school of Edessa was more than a home of science
and literature;
it

had become the center of the
Naturally enough,
it

religious pole
in

mics of the times.

could not remain

different to the great christological questions

which occupied the
di

minds of both the clergy and the people, and which were
scussed with as

much

ardor in the imperial palace at Constan

tinople as in churches and monasteries.

Nestorian opinions were

being spread broadcast and found
school. St. Rabbula,

their

way

into

this

famous

who was bishop
with energy

of Edessa from

412

to

435

1

( ),

after having, according to some, looked with favor

upon the new
soon as
faith.

doctrines

2

( ),

fought
that they

against

them

as

he

understood

were

subversive

of Catholic

He
at
4
( )

was one of the

strongest supporters
3 (

of Cyril of Alexandria

the Council of Ephesus (431)
Cyril
s

j,

and he translated into Syriac
J.

De

recta fide

in

Dominum Nostrum

C.,

which

he

distributed on all sides in the hope of checking the progress of
error.

But the seeds
s

of the

new heresy had taken deep

root.

Rabbula

successor, Ibas (435-457), was

openly favorable

to

Nestorius.

In collaboration with Koumi, Probus, and Mane, all

disciples of the Persian school, he had, in his youth, translated

0) DUVAL, Histoire d Edesse,
2

p.

168.

( 3

)

( ) 4

( )

DUVAL, ibid., p. 171. DUVAL, Histoire d Edesse, p. 172. DUVAL, Litterature Syriaque, p. 342.

9

l

the works of Theodore of Mopsuestia and of Diodorus of Tarsus

( );

and when

Philoxenus

came

to

Edessa, the

great

school

had

become
time of

a

hotbed of Nestorianism

and remained such up

to the
2 ( ).

its

destruction by order of
all

Emperor Zeno

in

489

However, not

the students shared the opinions of Ibas.
of

Among

those

who disagreed with him, Simon

Beth-Arscham
is

mentions Philoxenus of MabbOg, and his testimony
out by Philoxenus subsequent career,
years, he
storius.
for,

well borne

during more than sixty
of

waged an incessant war against the doctrines
Under the name

Ne-

of Nestorians he also included Catholics

and

all

those

who maintained two

natures in Christ;

for,

con

founding the notions of nature and person, he did not admit a

middle course between the Nestorian heresy and the Catholic
doctrine.

This explains why, in the same breath, he anathema

tizes not only Nestorius

and Ibas, but also Pope Leo

I,

Leo

s

dogmatic epistle

to

Flavian of Constantinople, and the definition
3

of the Council of Chalcedon

(

),

He

refers to Catholics as the

Nestorian heretics

4 ( ),

for not

admitting two persons as well as

two natures in Christ.

His Struggle with Calandion.
4.

But Philoxenus,
5

as he

tells

us

in

his

Letter to

the

Monks

( ),

did not keep his faith to himself.

It is probable that,

0) DUVAL, Hist. d Edesse, p. 174. 2 Cf. the first letter of Jacob of ( )
Bassus, published by Abbe Martin

Serugh to the Monks
D.

of Mar-

in the Z.

M.

G., vol. 30, p.

221:

there was in the city (Edessa) a school of Persians, which adhered very strongly to the doctrine of the foolish Diodorus. That school has corrupted the whole East, although it has since been destroyed by the
care of the Blessed

Now

order of the faithful
3
(

Mar Cyrus, of holy memory, bishop Emperor Zeno
.

of Edessa, and

by

)

Cf. his confession of faith

against the

Council of Chalcedon, in

Budge, The Discourses of Philoxenus,
(*)
5
(

vol. II, p. xcviii.

B.

0., II, p.

15.

)

P. 94.

10

-

after his

departure from the Persian school, he travelled through

Northern Mesopotamia and the Osrhoene province, spreading his

Monophysite doctrines and enlisting the sympathy and help of those

who agreed with him. The Monks of Amid ( ), of Arzun
J

fact
2 (
),

that

he wrote
3
(

letters

to

the

and of Senim

),

would confirm

this view,

and such

is

also the inference

which may be drawn

from his

first

Letter to the

Monks

of Beth-Gaugal, one of the
of

many

monasteries in the neighborhood
letter, as will be

Amid

4
( ).

This important
in the year 485.

shown
all

later on,

was written

It proves

beyond
there.

doubt that Philoxenus was well known by
of the letter, the nature of its con

the

monks

The tone

tents, the praises

which he bestows upon their labors on behalf

of truth, and the bitterness with which he speaks of his enemies,

show not only that the Monks of Beth-Gaugal agreed with him on matters of doctrine, but that he had in them willing and
powerful
allies

ready to help his cause and to further his plans.

However the labors of Philoxenus were not confined to the ter
ritory

around Edessa and Amid.
Syria Prima

He must
before

have come west of
year 485
;

the Euphrates into

the

for,

ac

cording to

Theodore the Header, Evagrius, Theophanes, and Ce-

drenus, he was expelled from Antioch by the patriarch Calandion

0)
of
fol.

The modern Diarbekir.
is

An

extract from the letter to the

Monks

Amid
69b.

extant in Syr. Ms. Add. 17193 of the B. M., (Wright DCCCLXI), Another fragment is found in Syr. Ms. 126 of the* Vatican (Cod.
Cf.

Syr. nost. VI).
2
(

B.

0., II, p.

37.

)

A

Arzun
Cf.

is

fragment of the letter to the Monks of found in Syr. Ms. 135 of the Vatican (Cod. Syr. nost. XI), fol. 89,
little

east of

Amid.

A

B.
3
(

0.,
)

II,

p. 45.

The

letter to the

Monks

of

Senun was not written

till

the year 522

(B.

0., II, p.

20), but Philoxenus

back

to a

much

earlier date.

acquaintance with these monks must go The letter is extant in Syr. Ms. 136 of the

Vatican,

fol.

58v-end of Ms., and in Syr
fol.

Ms. Add. 14597 of the B. M.
of

(Wright DCCXXX),
near Edessa (B.
4
(

35b-91a.
38).

The monastery
G., vol. 67, p.

Senun was situated

0., II, p.

)

Cf.

SOZOMEN

in

MIGNE, P.

1077.

11

-

doctrines of the Church and dis (482-485), for corrupting the

turbing the villages near the great city

1

(

).

We

have here a manifest allusion

to his proselytizing

work

on behalf of Monophysitism and to the crusade he had already un
dertaken against the Nestorians and against the adherents of the The times were indeed favorable to his Council of Chalcedon.

schemes.

Zeno and Acacius, patriarch of Constantinople, were The famous Henoticon of 482, which at war with the Holy See.

was

to

restore

unity
2

to

the

divided

churches, had

become a
it

decree of discord

(

).

It offended the Catholics,

because

spoke

in equivocal terms of the faith of the Fathers of Chalcedon; and
it

did not satisfy the

extreme Eutychians, because

it

did

not

condemn

explicitly the doctrine of the
if

two natures.

The proud

Acacius acted as
cedon, which

the pretensions of the 28th canon of Chal

world

3 (

),

made Constantinople the second see of the catholic had been recognized by Rome. He persuaded Zeno to
see
4
).

depose John Talaia from the

of Alexandria

and

to

appoint

Peter Mongus in his stead

(

Contrary to the discipline of the

Church, he appointed the heretic bishop, John Codonatus, to the
diocese of Tyre, thereby usurping the rights of the patriarch of

Antioch

5

(

).

Moreover, he endeavored to induce
sign

all

the bishops

of the East to

the

Henoticon and

to

communicate with
Holy See, he was

Mongus

6 (

).

Deaf

to the remonstrances of the
7

excommunicated by Felix III
the beginning
of the

(

),

and his excommunication marked
schism (484-519) during which

Eastern
off

Constantinople was cut

from the communion of Rome.

(M Locis
a
(

citatis.

)
3
)

Cf. MA.RIX,

Les Moines de Constantinople,
p.

p.
cf.

270.

(

On

this

canon of the Council of Chalcedon
527.

HEFELE, Concilien-

geschichte, vol.
4
( )

II,

TILLEMONT, Memoires, vol. XVI, p. 330. 5 TILLEMONT, ibid., p. 335. ( ) vol. 108, p. 324. () THEOPHA.NES in MIGNE, P. 7 HEFELE, op. cit., vol. II, p. 607 sqq. ( )
<?.,

-

12

affairs

Such a deplorable condition of
designs.
dion.

helped

Philoxenus

Besides, he had grievances of his own against Calan-

This holy patriarch was a zealous defender of the decrees

of the Council of Chalcedon; he persistently refused to sign the

Henoticon of Zeno

(*)

;

he would not separate himself from the

communion

of

Rome

nor acknowledge the usurper
2
(

Mongus

as the

lawful patriarch
Christ

of Alexandria

);

he

had inserted the words

King

into the Trisagion of Peter the Fuller, so as to
3

refer the crucifixion explicitly to Christ alone

( )

;

in a word,

Ca-

landion was then one of the
faith in Syria,

standard

bearers of the

Catholic

and a staunch opponent of Monophysitism.

Phi

loxenus,

who had

already espoused the cause of the Monophysites,

became
It is

his bitter enemy.

Nor was he alone

in

the

struggle.

indeed very probable that he was
4
( ),

assisted

by the

monks

of Teleda

and of Mar Bassus

5
(

),

two famous monasteries in
his letters to the

the neighborhood of Antioch.

We

know from

Monks

of Teleda and of Senun, that he had been in the

mona

steries of

Mar Bassus and

of Teleda, where

the

monks shared
active pro

his opinions.

It is possible

that he was
rate,

making an

paganda among them.

At any

Calandion, discerning in

him

an enemy of the faith and a disturber of the peace of the Church,
expelled

him from
;

his diocese

6

(

).

But

this

triumph was not of
in

long duration

for,

under pretext of having favored Leontius

his revolt against Zeno, but in reality for

refusing to sign the
8

Henoticon

7

( )

and

to

communicate with Mongus

(

),

Calandion

(

)
2
)

(

3
(

)

4
(

)

Cf. THEOPHANES in MIGNE, P. Cf., vol. 108, p. 325. TILLEMONT, Memoir es, vol. XVI, p. 366. TILLEMONT, ibid., p. 319. The modern Telladi about half way between Antioch and Aleppo.

Cf. GUIDI,
5
( 6 (
7 (
)

La

Lettera di Filosseno ai

monad

di

TeWAddd.
p.

p.

in.

)

Near Apamea.

) 8
)

See DUVAL, Lit. Syr., Map. THEODORE the READER, in MIGNE, P. Gf., vol. 86, THEOPHANES in MIGNE, P. Gf., vol. 108, p. 325.

216.

(

TILLEMONT, Memoires,

vol.

XVI,

p.

366.

13

was banished

to

Egypt and the

see of Antioch
l

passed
( ).

for

the

third time into the hands of Peter the Fuller

After this,

it

would be natural

to suppose that

Philoxenus

was connected
His
this
first

in

some way with the deposition of Calandion.

Letter to the

Monks
says
:

of Beth-Gaugal seems to warrant

supposition.

He

And

the

same

friend

of Christ

(the

Emperor) has openly declared that he gained the victory over his enemies with (the help of) your prayers, and he is ready

to give us
for the

ample reward
2

for the

work which we have undertaken

them the peace of the churches, and to drive away from
(
).

enemies of the Cross

His Appointment
5.

to

Mabbog.

The nature

of the reward to of

which Philoxenus alludes here
It
is

can only be a matter

conjecture.

worthy

of

notice,

however, that in the year 485,
dion

shortly after the exile of

Calan
see

and the

intrusion

of

Peter the
latter,

Fuller

into

the

of

Antioch, Philoxenus was, by the

consecrated bishop and
or

appointed to the

diocese

of

Hierapolis

Mabbogh

3

(

)

in the

(

) 2 )

Cf.

BARONIUS, Annales, anno 485,

t.

VIII, p. 460.

(

P. 115.

3 ( )

The modern Manbidj, northeast
Hierapolis was
a

of Antioch and almost due south
see

of

Carchemish.

metropolitan
II, pp.

and,

according to

LE QUIEN

had jurisdiction over the following thirteen dioceses or churches: Cyrrhus (Huru Peigamber), Samosata (Samsat), Doliche (Dulluk), Germanicia (Maras), Zeugma (Biredjik),
(Oriens Christianus, vol.
926-952),

Neo?), Perrha, Urima, Sura, and Marianopolis. See KIEPERT S Maps (Provinces AsiaS Reisen im tiques de V Empire Ottoman}, and his map of Prof. HAUSSRNECHT For a history and description of Hierapolis, see Orient, 1865-1869, MI. BITTER S Erdkunde im Verhdltniss zur Natur and zur Geschichte des

Europus

(Djerabis), Barbalissus (Kalaat Balis

cesarea, Sergiopolis

Menschen, 2d

ed., vol.

10 (West-Asien,

Band

IV),

pp. 1041-1061.
vol. II,

Cf. also

POCOCKE, A description of the East, London (1745), and the Archives des Missions scientifiques et 2 e serie, t. Ill, p. 347 sqq.

part

I, p.

166

sqq.,

litte raires,

Paris (1866),

14

patriarchate of Antioch.

It

was on

this occasion that his
1

name

was changed from Aksenaya to Philoxenus ( ). The anonymous notice ( 2 ) places Philoxenus consecration
1

in

the year

800

of the Greeks (A.
3 ( )

D. 488), but

this is certainly

an error.

Church historians

agree in saying that Philoxenus
is

came

to

MabbOgh

in 485,

and their testimony

confirmed by

a passage in Philoxenus
in the year

Letter to the
in

Monks

of Senun written

522 from Philippopolis
by
Justin.

Thrace, where he

had

been

exiled

Speaking

of Alexander, his

successor

The clergy and the monks of our city have been ordered by him who rules over them to As to our faith, which is that of accept his (Alexander s) faith.
Mabbogh, he says:
Peter and of the Apostles, and which during thirty-four
I

in the see of

years

have preached to them in

all ecclesiastical

assemblies, they are

commanded by him to look upon it as the heresy of the Ma4 nicheans From the Bdessene Chronicle ( 5 ) we know that ( ).
Philoxenus was exiled in the second year of Justin (519).
If

we subtract

thirty-four from this latter date, we get 485 as the
It

year of his appointment to Mabbogh.

was probably

in

the

same year that he accepted the Henoticon which, under the reigns of Zeno and Anastasius, had to be signed by all the
bishops of the East under penalty of exile
as Tillemont remarks,
6

(

),

and which was then,
7
(

the only door to the episcopate

).

Very
Philoxenus

little
life.

is

known concerning the next
There
is

thirteen years of

no doubt that he

continued his op

position to the doctrines of Nestorius

and Eutyches and propa
It is

gated his religious views in his vast province.

also pos-

J

(

)

THEOPHANES

in

MIGNE, P.
I.

6f.,

vol.

108, p. 328.

2
( 3
(
)

See Appendix
B.

) )
5

BARONIUS, anno 485, Annales,
0., II, p.

vol.

VIII, p. 456.

4
(

12.

(

)
6
)

B.

(

pire, ed.
7
(

0., I, p. 408. Of. HALLIER, Untersuch. u. d. Edess. Chr. 125. GIBBON, The history of the decline and fall of the Roman Em Milraan (1840), vol. VI, p. 29.

)

Memoires,

vol.

XVI,

p.

664.

15

sible,

as

Budge

observes, that during this time
of the

he wrote parts

or all of

many

works

which have made his name so
l

famous among Monophysite writers
written probably in 485

( ).

The Letter

to

Zeno was

when he signed the Henoticon.
life

The

Discourses on Christian

and character were composed, accor

We may also place Budge ( ), within the same period the beginning of his translation of the 3 His di Bible which was published at Mabbogh in 508 ( ).
ding
to
2

between 485 and 500.

scourses show that in the midst of turmoil and strife he found

time

for

meditation and study

;

they contain no allusion whatever
in

to the disputes

and controversies
life.

which he was engaged

for

the greater part of his

4 According to the so-called Chronicle of Joshua the Stylite ( ), The Saturnalia were Philoienus was in Edessa in May 498.

time. During seven days being celebrated there for the second the citizens gave themselves up to all kinds of games and plea
sures with the consequence that prayer and divine service were

neglected.

The pious author
one

of the Chronicle remarks that Phi-

loxenus preached only

day

against

the scandal, though he

especially should have taken

upon himself the duty of instructing

the people.

His Struggle with Flavian.
6.

In the year 498 Palladius, the Monophysite patriarch, of died

Antioch,

and was succeeded by Flavian
opponent of the

II.

The

latter5

passed for being an

Council of Chalcedon

( ),

and this

is

probably the reason

why he was appointed by Ana-

(*)
2
( ) 3
(

The Discourses of Philoxenus,
Ibid., p. LXXIII.

vol. II, p.

xxi.

)

BUDGE,

ibid., p.

xxix.
p. 25.

4
(

)

Edition Wright,

THEOPHANESIII MIGNE, P.

6f.,

vol.

108, p. 341.

16

stasius to that important see.

After his accession, however, he

declared himself in favor of the Council, renounced the

commu
This

nion of the patriarch of Alexandria

(\),

and united himself with

Macedonius of Constantinople and with Elias of Jerusalem.

change of policy drew upon him the opposition of Philoxenus,

and thus began between the two a struggle which, with some
interruptions, lasted for nearly fourteen years (499-513).
It

was probably

in the interest of his party

and

to protest

to Anastasius against

Flavian

s

appointment that Philoxenus went
learn from his Letter to the

twice to Constantinople, as

we

Monks

of Senun, in which he complains of the persecutions he suifered
at the

hands of his enemies

:

What

I

have suffered from Fla
of Antioch and of
is

vian and Macedonius,
the capital,

who were archbishops and before them from Calandion,
I

known and spo

ken of everywhere.
against

keep silence concerning

what was plotted

me
to

in the

time of the Persian
is

war among the nobles

by the care of him who

called Flavian the heretic, and

what

happened

me
Mar

in Edessa,

and

in the country of the

Apameans,

and

in that of the Antiochians

when

I

was

in the

monastery of

the blessed
I

Bassus, and also in Antioch; and again, when

went up

to the capital

on two occasions, the like things were
2 ( )
.

done unto

me by
first

the Nestorian heretics

The

of these visits to the capital
3

is

believed to have

taken place in 499

( ).

Victor Tununensis relates that a council
in

was held at Constantinople
of Flavian and Philoxenus.

that

year

under the presidency
of Anastasius, the

At the demand

council anathematized Diodorus of Tarsus, Theodore of Mopsuestia,

Theodoret of Cyrus, Ibas of Edessa, Andrew of Samosata,

Eleutherius of Tyana, Cyrus of Hierapolis, John of Cyrrhus, and
all those

who admitted two

natures in Christ and did not con-

0) Cf. LIBERATUS, MIGNE, P. L., 2 0., II, p. 15. ( ) B.
3
(

vol. 68, p.

1030.

)

DUVAL,

Lit. Syr., p. 357; B.

0.,

II, p.

15.

17
fess that

one of the Trinitj was crucified, also Leo of
epistle,

Rome and
It is pro

his

dogmatic
that

and the Council of Chalcedon
the course
to

( ).

bable

Victor

anticipates here

of

events,

and

places in the year

499 what, according
It is

Theophanes and Eva-

on. grius, took place later

hardly reasonable to suppose

that a council could be held from
triarch of Constantinople (496-511),
still less,

which Macedonius, the pa
would have been excluded;

that Flavian would have consented to preside over a

council in

company with
2 (

his
)

enemy.

Doubtless
held
at

Victor refers

here to another council
in 498, to

which

was

Constantinople

bring

about a reconciliation

between some monas

teries of the city

and the principal church from which they had

separated themselves on account of Acacius and of the Henoticon.

Whatever may have happened during Philoxenus
to the

first visit

capital,

it

is

certain

that

his

differences with

Flavian

were not settled.

The Persian war (502-505),

which

caused

untold misery and destruction in Syria and Mesopotamia, and in

Philoxenus own

province,

interrupted
in

for a
3 (
)

while the struggle

between them.
than ever.

But

it

was renewed
passage

507

with more bitterness
it

From

the

quoted above
the

would appear

that Flavian had sought to

influence

nobles, probably the

Roman
is

officials

of the country, against Philoxenus.

Certain

it

that the latter began to accuse Flavian of Nestorianism.

After

Flavian had anathematized Nestorius and his doctrine, Philoxenus
insisted that he should also anathematize

Diodorus

of

Tarsus,

Theodore

of

Mopsuestia,

Theodoret of Cyrus,

Ibas of Edessa,

Cyrus of Hierapolis, Eleutherius of Tyana, and John of Cyrrhus,

and told him that he would continue to regard him as a Nestorian, unless

he

condemned

all

these

men

together with

their

(

)

MIGNE, P.
15.

L., vol 68, p. 949.

a ( )

THEOPANES

in

MIGNE, P.
Memoires,

Gf.,

vol.

108, p. 340. Cf. also

ASSEMANI,

B.

0., II, p.
3
(

)

Cf. TII.LEMONT,

vol.

XVI,

p.

677.

2

-

18

-

doctrines (O-

To bring greater pressure

to

bear upon him, Phi-

loxenus enlisted the help of the Acephali of Egypt, and of Eleusius of

Sasima and Nicias of Laodicea,
2 ( ).

all

of

whom

shared his

opposition to Flavian

Coming again

to Constantinople,

Phi

in loxenus sought the help of the Emperor with the result that 509 Anastasius tried to force Flavian to sign the Henoticon a

second time

3

(

)

and

to

condemn

all the

bishops

whom

Philoxe-

nus had mentioned.
sent to the

Flavian

convoked a provincial synod, and

Emperor
first

a letter in which, for the sake of peace, he

confirmed the

three Councils and anathematized the persons

named by Philoxenus, but did not speak of the Council of ChalWith this procedure, however, Philoxenus was not sa cedon.
tisfied,

and he demanded that Flavian and Elias of Jerusalem,
s

Flavian
all

friend, should

condemn the Council of Chalcedon and
in Christ
4
(
).

those

who admitted two natures

He

then joined

hands with Soterichus of Cappadocia and appealed again to Ana 5 to meet at Sidon, 511-512 ( ). stasius, who gave orders for a council Flavian and Elias were both present, and Philoxenus and Sote
richus
presided.
6
(
).

We

do not know
efforts

exactly

what

took

place

there

Through the

of Flavian and Elias the Council

of Chalcedon

was not anathematized, and the council of Sidon

was dismissed without anything being done against them. There Philoxenus wrote to the Emperor accusing the two bishops
upon,
of having

acted hypocritically

7

( ).

Seeing

that
failed,

his

efforts

to

the see of Antioch dispossess Flavian of

had

he bribed the

monks
and
to

of Cynegica

and those of Syria Prirna

to rush into the city
8 (

make Flavian anathematize
vol.

the Council of Chalcedon

).

(M EVAGRIUS in MIGNE, P. G.,
2
( 3 (

86

bis, p.

2661.

)

EVAGRIUS,

ibid.
p.

)

(*)
5
(

TILLEMONT, Memoires, vol. XVI, TILLEMONT. ibid., p. 681.

679.

)

6
( )

7

(

) 8 )

(

HEFELE, Conciliengeschichte, vol. II, p. 666. TILLEMONT, ibid., p. 703. THEOPHANES in MIGNE, P. G., vol. 108, p. 361. EVAGRIUS in MIGNE, P. G., vol. 86 bis, p. 2665.

But the inhabitants, who were devoted
arms against the monks,
bodies into the Orontes.

to Flavian,

rose

up

in

slew
In a

many moment

of them, and cast

their

of weakness, and perhaps

to avoid further bloodshed, Flavian

pronounced anathema against

the Council of Chalcedon, and the four bishops, Diodonis, Theo
dore, Ibas,

and

Theodoret

1

(

).

But

Philoxenus
to

accused

him

again of insincerity,

and Flavian was banished
a
)
(
2

Petra in

Pa

lestine (Palaestina III

),

and the Monophysite monk Severus
3

was appointed patriarch

in his stead

(

).

His Exile and Death.
7.

Philoxenus did not long enjoy the fruits of victory.

The

Emperor Anastasius, his protector and friend, died in 518 and
was succeeded by the orthodox Justin
of the
I.

One

of the

first

acts

new

ruler was to unite his efforts with those of

Pope Hor-

misdas in bringing about a reconciliation between the East and
the West.

Communion with Rome was solemnly reestablished on Easter Sunday, March 24, 519 ( 4 ), and thus ended the schism
for thirty-five years

which
to the

had been a menace

to the

Church and

Empire.

The orthodox bishops who had been deposed
sees,

under Zeno and Anastasius were restored to their
recalcitrant

and the

Monophysites
mentions

sent

into

exile.

Among
neighbor

the latter

Theophanes

Philoxenus

and

his

Peter

of

Apamea
It is

5

(

).

Philoxenus was

first

banished
wrote

to

Philippopolis

in

Thrace.
of

from

there

that

he

his

Letter
the

to

the

Monks

Senun, and probably also his Letter to

Monks

of Teleda.

0) THEOPHANES, ibid.
2
(

) 3

( )

EVAGRIUS, EVAGRIUS,

ibid.
ibid., p.

2668.

4
(

)

HKKGENROTHER,
MlGNE, P.

flistoire

de V Eglise,

traduction

Belet,

vol.

II,

n.

163, p. 274.
(*)

&., VOl.

108, p. 384.

20

two of the most important of his dogmatic works.

In both of

them he condemns the

errors

of

Nestorius

and Eutyches,

and

shows clearly that the sufferings and privations of his exile did not change the opinions for which he had been fighting since he
left

Edessa over half a century before.
to

From

Philippopolis he

was brought

Gangra(

)

in Paphlagonia,

where he was mur

dered, probably in 523.

The anonymous notice (*) gives the following account of his And when he {Philoxenus) had filled the Church with death:
divine teachings and had interpreted the Books, and refuted the
faith of the Nestorians

him

into exile in

by his writings against them, they cast the city of Gangra and suffocated him with

smoke.
in

They shut him up in an upper chamber, and made smoke And thus he received the room below, and locked the doors.

the crown of martyrdom, being suffocated by
confession
.

them

in

the

true

Various Judgments on Philoxenus.
8.

Such was the death of Philoxenus. Very

different

judgments

have been passed on this remarkable man.

The Jacobites honor
his

him

as a martyr

and

saint.

They celebrate

memory on

the
of

tenth of December, the eighteenth of February and the

first

April P), and, in the profession of faith exacted in the Jacobite

Church from candidates

to

ordination, he

is

ranked

among

the
first

holy Doctors and Fathers
three Councils
4 (

who preserved the

faith of the

).

The

historians of the

Byzantine

period re-

(*)

Barhebraei Chronicon Ecclesiasticum,
197.

ed.

ABBELOOS and LA.MY,

vol. I, p.
2
(
)

See Appendix I. According to a note at the bottom of the page containing the anonymous notice, Philoxenus was put to death on account
of his opposition to the Council of Chalcedon.
3 (

)

B. 0.,

II,

p.

20.
vol. II,
p.

4
( )

DENZINGER, Ritus Orientaliwn,

104.

_
God
2
(

21
1

gard him as the vilest of men, a slave of Satan
to
).

(

),

and a stranger

and see

in

They accuse him of never having been baptized, him a Manichean and the author of the heresy of
There
is

the Iconoclasts.

evidently a great deal of exaggeration
it

on both sides and, as Budge remarks,

is

probable that we

must make some allowance
lot it

for the
life

hostility of those to
3 (

whose

has fallen to describe his

).

It is certain that

Philoxenus was baptized,
is

if

the evidence

derived from his works

worth anything.

His doctrine on the In
;

carnation does not bear out the charge of Manicheism
in

moreover,

some of

his writings

4
(
),

he explicitly rejects the teachings of
is

Mani and

of Marcion.

That he was an Iconoclast
5

not proved, and
the

the passage adduced by Assemani
of Theophanes
is

( )

to

confirm
It is

testimony
question,

far

from

conclusive.

beyond

however, that Philoxenus was always a bitter

enemy not only

of the doctrines of Nestorius and Eutyches, but also of the de
finition of the

Council of Chalcedon which he regarded as con
It is also certain that

firming the heresy of Nestorius.
sorted
to

he

re

violent

means

to

deprive
to

Flavian of the

episcopal

throne of Antioch.
opposition.

Yet he seems
the Letter of the

have been sincere in his
of Palestine to Alci-

From

Monks

son, bishop of Nicopolis, it

would appear

that, according to

some,

Philoxenus was moved to attack Flavian by what seemed to him
the interests of the faith
6 (
).

In his

Letter to the

Monks
:

of

Beth-Graugal, Philoxenus thus rebukes his adversaries
for the

1 fight

common

faith,

and

thoti settest thyself against

me

with

(

) 2
j

(

CEDRENUS EVAGRIUS
Op.
B.
cit.,

in
in

MIGNE, P. MIGNE, P.
xxiv.

G., vol.

121, p. 676.

G., vol.

86

bis,

p.

2660.

3
(

)

vol. II, p.

4
( )

BUDGE,
().,

op.
II,

cit.,

vol. II. p. cxxxvi.

5
(
j

p.

21.
G., vol. 86bis, p.
xJVx<o*>,

6
( )

EVAGRIUS in MIGNE, P.
rj

2660:

u

Ovx oidupev
Trj$

ri

(JUS

Ol

nQog &ka$iuvov TloMoi tfl-qyoVVTCU, XIVIV H^V TJQog OIVTOV
e^fdQttf

-no iav

nQcxfdaei de
JCUL
(Jitt/SaA/lf **

niarswg,

(rQ%Tttl (Jf

22

-

the heretics.

I

toil

and work day and night that the truth
to the

which was delivered
direct

Church may not be changed, and
against
those

I

the

weapons of argument

who deny the
let

Cross,

and thou insultest

me
.

(saying),

Hold thy tongue,
to

them do what they wish
I

They want me

be silent lest

should expose their
to

doctrines,
I

and thou, with them, wantest

me

remain

silent.

hasten to root out division and to end
in

the schism which they have caused
clarest

the faith, and
of the

thou de-

publicly

that I

am

the

cause

division.

They

began

a tumult, introduced a novelty,

and disturbed the peace

of all the churches, and thou considerest

me

as the

author of
of Teleda,
life
:

the

disturbance

1

( ).

In his

Letter to the

Monks

written during his exile, he says that he expects eternal

on
If

account of the persecution to which he

is

being subjected
truth, I

death

should

come
receive

to

me

on account of this

believe

that I shall

life

from

it.

And

not only (the words)

seducer and corruptor and other opprobrious names
to hear for this doctrine,

am

I

ready

but

I

am

also ready to suffer fire

and

beasts,

and
2 (

different kinds of torments,
).

and persecutions without
he asks the prayers

number
of the

And notwithstanding
his

all this,

monks that
:

the truth

own enemies may be converted and see Let us pray for them that they may repent, and
;

may
eyes

be found by the truth which seeks to find them

that their

may

be opened so that they will see what they are doing
3

and

whom
But
if

they persecute
historians

(

).

and scholars

differ in their

judgment of the

character of Philoxenus, they all agree in regarding
of the brightest stars of Syriac literature.

him

as one
4
( ),

Jacob of Edessa

whom

the Syrians call

The Interpreter, ranks him among the

I

)
8

P. 117.

(

)

GUIDI,

La

lettera di Filosseno ai

monad

di

Telt Adda,

fol.

29a,

col.

1,
3 (

lines
)

11-24.
ibid.,
p.,

GUIDI, B.

col.

2,

lines

12-18.

(*)

0., I,

475.

23

four great Syriac Doctors, putting
St.

him on an equal

footing with

Ephrem, Jacob of Serugh, and Isaac of Antioch. Bar-Hebraeus

calls

him

a most eloquent

man and wonderful

doctor

who

attacked

mightily

the party of the

Dyophysites, and set forth
life
1

healthy doctrines concerning the holy way of monastic

( ).

The moderns
ration.

are no less lavish in their praise and

admi

Assemani, who pronounces Philoxenus character, calling him
a most pernicious
heretic
like
3 (
),

a very severe
a

judgment on
2 (
),

most corrupt man
4
(
),

who would have devastated
boar
confesses
si

the

Church

of

God
5

a
:

wild

that he
alius,

wrote Syriac most elegantly
elegantissime
(

Scripsit

Syriace,

quis

).

The

late Prof.

Wright

of Cambridge,
scholar,

who
that

won

for

himself universal fame as a Syriac

says

Philoxenus

was not only a man of
6 ( ).

strife

and

action, but an
in his beautiful

elegant writer as well

Prof. Guidi, of

Rome,

edition of the Letter of Philoxenus to the

Monks

of Teleda, also

contributes his share of praise to the purity, eloquence and force
of the style of Philoxenus:
trastato
all
;

II

suo

valore

letterario e incone inferiore

ed in lui la squisita purita della lingua non
stile
7

eloquenza ed alia forza dello

(

).

And

it

is

gratifying
in this vo

to

add that the three

letters,

which are published

lume, fully confirm the universal judgment of scholars as to the
literary merits of Philoxenus,

and give

us,

besides, a

new proof

of the dialectical skill and

theological learning of that famous

Monophysite.

(

)

Chronicon
B. 0.,

eccl.,

vol. I, p.

183.

2
(

)

II, p.

12.

3 ( )

Ibid., p.
Ibid., p.

11.
18.

4
(
)

6
( )

Ibid., p. 20.

6
(

) 7

(

)

Art. Syriac Literature in Ency. Brit., 9th ed., p. 872. Op. cit., p. in.

-

24

-

CHAPTER

II.

THE PUBLISHED WOKKS OF PHILOXENUS.
Philoxenus was one of the most
prolific

writers of his age.
life,

When we
rius

think of the troubled condition of his

and of the

constant struggle that he waged against the doctrines of Nesto-

and Eutyches, and against the
it
is

definition of the Council of

Chalcedon,

indeed

marvelous that he should have found

time to write so large a number of works.

They are preserved

mostly in the libraries of the British Museum, of Oxford, Rome,

and Paris

1

( ).

They deal with a great variety of
:

topics,

and may

be classified under four principal heads
ticism and dogma. Outside of a

Scripture, liturgy, asce

hymn on
is

the

Nativity of Our
it

Lord (the authenticity of which

doubtful for

has also been
2 (
),

attributed to Severus of Antioch and to John bar Aphthon)

they are all written in prose, and, as ancients and moderns agree,
they are

among

the best specimens of the golden age of Syriac

literature. Unfortunately, the majority of them are still unpublished.

Until the year 1873, in which Martin edited in his Syro-Chal-

For a complete catalogue of the writings ascribed to Philoxenus, op. cit., vol. II, pp. XLVIII-LXVI. After ASSEMANI (B. 0., II, p. 37), BUDGE (ibid., p. LVIII, n. XLV) speaks of two letters of Philoxenus to the Monks of Teleda. As GUIDI remarks (Z. D. M. 6f., vol. 35, p. 143), we
(*)

see

BUDGE,

know
which

of one only.
is

The supposed second

letter to the

Monks

of Teleda,

the

first

of the three letters published in this dissertation, is to

be identified with the Letter to the Monks which
his treatise

Philoxenus inserted in

showing that One of the Trinity was incarnate and suffered for us. This treatise is found in Syr. Ms. Add. 12164 of the British Museum (Wright s Catal., n. DCLXXVI), and in Syr. Ms. 138 of the Vatican.
2
(

)

B.

0., II, p. 46.

25

-

daicae Institutiones

(*)

the text of the Letter to Abu-Nafir, nothing

was known of the writings of Philoxenus, except a Latin trans
lation of

two

ot

his

Anaphoras by Renandot

2

(

),

and the

brief

extracts given of several of his works in the Bibliotheca
talis of

Orien-

Assemaui

3

(

).

We

give here a review of all the published
to

works of Philoxenus, as we had

make use

of

some of them

in the exposition of his doctrines.

I.

The Discourses and other Texts.
9.

The Discourses of Philoxenus on Christian

life

and cha

racter,

the most important of his ascetical works, were published
translation) in

(Syriac text and English

1894 by Budge from
British

Syriac Mss. of the sixth

and seventh

centuries in the

Museum
The
which
is

4
(
).

text is based

on

Add.

14598

(Wright

DCCLXIV),
1

called A.

Variant readings are given from Add.

4595

(Wright

DCLXXVIII), Add. 12163
Add.

(Wright
1 4596

DCLXXV1I),

Add. 17153 ( Wright
Add. 14625 (Wright

DCLXXIX), ( Wright DCLXXX), DCLXXX1), Add. 14601 (Wright DCGXCV),

and Add. 14621 (Wright

DCCLXXIX).
and

These seven Mss. are
respectively.

referred to as B, C, D, E, F, G,
fact that the Scriptural

H

From

the

quotations in the discourses are

taken

from the Peshitta, Budge

concludes that these discourses were

(*)
2
(
)

Syro-Chaldaicae Institutiones, pp. 71-78. Liturgiarum Orientalium collectio, vol. II, pp. 300, 309.
B.
0., II,

3
(

)

Xenaias Mabugensis,

pp. 10-46.

4
(

)

These

discourses are

found in 19 Mss. of the

British

Museum,

either in whole or in part (BUDGE, op. cit., vol. II, pp. LII, xciv). They are extant also in Syr. Ms. 201 (Xlllth century) of the Billiothtque Nationale of Paris (See ZOTENBERG, Catalogue des Alanuscrits Syriaques et Sabeens
in Ms.

de la Bibliothtque Nationale, p. 149). Extracts of them in Karsuni exist 239 of the same library (ZOTENBERG, ibid., p. 194).

-

26

-

written before 508, the year in which Philoxenus published his
translation of the Bible at
of
their
l

composition
).

MabbOgh, and he places the time between 485 and the end of the fifth

century

(

These

discourses

are

thirteen

in

number.

The

first

is

a

prologue to the others; the second, third,

and fourth treat of
sixth

faith as a virtue; the fifth treats of simplicity; the

and

seventh, of the fear of God; the eighth and

ninth, of poverty;

the

tenth,

of gluttony;
thirteenth,

the

eleventh,

of

abstinence:

and the
in

twelfth

and

of fornication.

They

are

written

exquisitely pure Syriac,
qualities of style for

and

in

them

especially

we

notice those

which Jacob of Edessa admired and praised
2

the writings of Philoxenus

(

).

Besides the above discourses, Budge has also published, in
the second volume of his

work,

seven other

short

treatises

of

Philoxenus, which are very important from a dogmatic standpoint.

Though

less interesting

than his larger dogmatic writings, they
the
principles

contain, in a few

pages,

underlying his theolo

gical opinions,

and make us partly acquainted with the objections

which he urged against the Nestorians and against the adherents
of the Council of Chalcedon.
different texts.
a)

We

give here a review of these

An explanation^) of the heresies of Mani,
14529 (7th
(fol.

Marcion, and

others, from. Add.
of the British

or 8th century)

(Wright
:

DCCCLVI)
*r>o&

Museum,

65b-66b). The

title is

cnL:i

In this document, Philoxenus explains and rejects the here
sies of the

Gnostics, the Nestorians, and the Eutychians on the

Incarnation, and gives us a short statement of his

own

doctrine.

(

)

2 ( )
3 ( )

BUDGE, op. cit, vol. II, p. LXXIII. DUVAL, Litterature Syriaque, p. 230.
Vol. II; Text, p. cxxxvi; Translation, p. XLV.

b)

27
l

A

treatise against every Nestorian

(

),

from the same

Ms.

(fol.

66b-t>8a).

The

title is

:

^ixfio.i

p^y.v. K!X-I

rtLa^o
It contains seven

.

ocn
. KJLA>
<-.

chapters

or paragraphs of

which a sum
Nesto-

mary
rius,

is

given

(p.

xxxvn).

Philoxenns

anathematizes

Diodorus of Tarsus, and Theodoret of Cyrrhus, accepts the
chapters
of
Cyril of Alexandria

twelve

against Nestorius,

re

ceives the

Henoticon of Zeno, and pronounces

anathema upon

every one
c)

who would

divide Christ into two natures.
2 ( )

A

confession of faith
the same Ms.
Qo.i
(fol.

against the Council of Chal-

cedon.

From

68a-69a).

^^aiwK

.r^-io.tal&.i

oil cuao

u>Tfio.i

)o^i rtUcn

In ten short paragraphs Philoxenus anathematizes the Council
of Chalcedon for composing, as he says, a faith at variance with

that of the Council of Nice, for excommunicating Nestorius while

agreeing with him in doctrine, for distinguishing two natures in
Christ and receiving

Ibas of Edessa, Theodoret of Cyrrhus, and

Leo (the Great) of Rome.
d)
3

How

one must reply when questioned as
the same Ms.
(fol.

to

his

be

lief

( ).

From

69 b-7 la).

>ijxw

cnL.i

.r>o&

J^Q. ^

In this document, Philoxenus gives us a concise statement
of his belief in the Blessed Trinity and in the Incarnation.
e)

Twelve chapters against those who maintain two na
Christ

tures in

and one person

4
( ).

This treatise

is

found in

1

C

)

Vol. II, Text, p. oxx.
Ibid., Text, p.
Ibid., Text, p.

8
( 3 ( )

)

xcvin; Translation,
xcvi
;

p.

xxxm.

Translation, p.

XXXL

4
^

)

Ibid., Text, p. civ.

Add.

28

British

14597 (A. D. 569) (Wright DCCXXX) of the Museum, (fol. 91a-98b). The title is:

.VnocA

.

.TAJ

a

Here Philoxenus argues that if we admit two natures in Christ, we must also admit two persons, and he does not distin
guish between the Nestorian
f)

heresy

and the Catholic doctrine.
1

Twenty chapters against Nestorius
98b-105b).

(

).

From

the

same

Ms.

(fol.

coL.i

**
.

cnL.i

^ ia
twenty objections
objections rest

QO CU

icx^oai A.-ina\

In

this

treatise

Philoxenus

formulates

against the

doctrines of Nestorius.

Most of these

on the confusion of the notions of nature and person, his chief
point being this, that since the
person,
is

Word became

incarnate in His

He

also

became

incarnate in

His nature, and since there

only one nature before the Incarnation, there can be but one

after the Incarnation.

Thus

in the
in

third chapter he says:
is

If

God

the

Word became man
His nature, and

His person, and

not called

two persons, but one person who became man,

He

also

became
is

man
and

in
is

His nature who became
.

man

one,

not called two natures
g)

Ten chapters against
2 (

those

who divide Our Lord
the

after the indivisible union

).

From

same Ms.

(fol.

105b-

107b).

:

These ten chapters are directed
admitting two persons in Christ,
the Council of Chalcedon
the
union.
for

agaiiist the Nestorians for

and against the followers of
two natures after
divide

acknowledging
to

Both,

according

Philoxenus,

Our

Lord

J

(

)

Ibid., Text,

p.

cxxni; Summary,

p.

xxxix.

2
(

)

Ibid., Text, p. c;

Summary,

p.

xxxvi.

he

29

in

by admitting two persons or two natures misunderstands
speaking
the
of

Him. Here again
the
third
If

Catholic

doctrine.

Thus, in

chapter,

the adoration of the Magi, he says:

two natures be admitted in Christ, which of the two

did

the

Magi worship? If the so when they were in
ture,

divine
their

nature,

they
if

could
the

have done

own country;

human na
the

they are worthy of blame, not of praise.

Now

Book

testifies

concerning them that their action

is

worthy of praise.
worshipped the

Therefore,

when they worshipped

Christ, they

Incarnate

God

(*).

In the premises of this argument, he evi

dently supposes that Catholics adore the natures separately.

II.

The Letter
10.

to

Abu-Nafir.

Martin
65b).

2

(

The Syriac text of this letter was published in 1873 by 14529 of the British Museum (fol. 61a) from Add.
it
3
(

Fragments of
(fol.

are also found in Add.
),
:

17193 (Wright

DCCCLXI)
4

83a)

and Add. 17134 (Wright

CCCCXX1)

(fol.

4b)

( ).

The

title is

reliant

,iso

ij.2t.iJ

The synodical

letter

which Mar Aksenaya, bishop of Mabbogh,
5

wrote to Abu-Nafir, stratelates

( )

of Hira

6

( )

of

Beth-Naaman.

0)
2
(
)

Ibid.,

p.

c.

Syro-Chaldaicae Institutions, pp. 71-78.

3 ( )

4
(
)

5
( )

WRIGHT, Cat. Syr. Mss., p. 998. WRIGHT, ibid., p. 338. The magister militum of the Romans
et

(Of. vol.

Du CANGE,
II,

Gflossarium

ad Scriptores mediae
6

inftmae graecitatis,

p.

1459).

( ) A little south-east of Meshed Ali, (Cf. ROTHSTEIN, Die Dynastie der Lahmiten in al-fftra, 12, f.). At an early date, the rulers of Hira became simple lieutenants of the Persian Kings.

Date.
the

The

list

l

(

)

of the rulers of Hira does
It

not contain

name

of Abu-Nafir.

mentions, however, Abu-Yafar

who

ruled from

498

to

503, simply as a vassal or lieutenant of the

Persian King.

If

we assume

his identity
fall

with Abu-Nafir, the

date of composition of this letter would

between 498 and 503.

This document
xenus.

is

very unlike the published writings of Philodifferences of style

The obvious
it

and the glaring anachro

nisms which

contains regarding prominent events in the lives

of Nestorius and of Theodore of Mopsuestia, raise serious doubts
as
to
its
2

authenticity

(

).

Philoxenus should have

been

well

acquainted with the history of Nestorius and of Theodore, for he
spent a few years in Edessa and in Antioch, cities which were
for a

time the strongholds of Nestorianism in the East.

As no

translation of this letter has been published, a detailed analysis

of

its

contents will not be out of place here.
letter gives:

The

a) the genealogy of Nestorius

and of Theo

dore; b) their elevation to the sees of Constantinople and of
suestia; c) their

Mop

heresy; d) the
;

condemnation of Nestorius by

the Council of Ephesus

e)

the heresy of Eutyches and his con

demnation at Chalcedon; f) the return of Timothy Aelurus to
Alexandria; g) and the origin of the sect called Esaianists.
a)

Addi married a woman named Amlaka who bore him
Barbeelsemin
3

two sons: Barbeelsemin and Abasoum.
father

was the
and

of Nestorius,

Abasoum

of Theodore

(

).

Nestorius

The kingdom of Hira was founded, it is related, about 195 by ( ) Malik ben Fahm, but see ROTHSTEIN, op. c. 37 f. 2 These doubts are again increased by the strong probability that, ( ) at the time the letter is supposed to have been written, the kings of Hira
were
still

heathens.

Cf. the article of GUIDI,

Mundhir

III,

und die

bel-

den monophysitischen Bischofe in the Z. D. M. G., vol. 35, p. 142, where he shows that Mundhir III, who reigned in Hira from 505 to 513, was very
probably a heathen. 3 ( ) This genealogy makes Nestorius and Theodore
is

first

cousins.

There

no evidence of their having been related.

31

Theodore were
settled.

born

l

( )

at

Maras where the sons

of

Addi had

After they had mastered the Greek language, they were
2 ( ),

sent to Athens
b)

where they studied philosophy.

In Athens, they became acquainted with some free

men

from Constantinople who praised them before Honorius, with the
result

that Honorius
bishops,

3 ( )

commanded

that they

should

both be
of

made

Nestorius, of Constantinople,

and Theodore,

Mopsuestia.
c)

Once

in possession of their sees,

they began to corrupt

the true faith in private commentaries which they sent to each

other

4

( ),

distinguishing the Only Son of

God

into

two natures,

attributing miracles to the one, and

humiliations to the other.

d) Hearing of this, Theodosius the Younger convoked the

Council of Ephesus against the Nestorian doctrines.
rius wrote to

Then Nesto
but to

Theodore, and told him not
5

to

be afraid,

go the Council

(

),

and

to

anathematize him (Nestorius), not indeed

with the anathema which cuts one off from the kingdom of heaven,

but only in the sense in which

St.

Paul desired

to

be anathema

for the salvation of his brethren,

the sons of Israel.

(*)

p.

11).

Theodore was born at Antioch, about 350 (MIONE, P. Gf., vol. 66, and Nestorius was born in Germanicia (Maras) (SMITH, Dictionary
at Antioch.

of Christian Biography, art. Nestorianism). 2 ( ) According to all accounts, they both studied
3
( )

This

is

at variance with well
to 423.

established dates.
of the

Honorius ruled
during that

in the

West from 395

The emperors

East,

Nestorius period, were Arcadius (395-408), and Theodosius II (408-450). was consecrated bishop of Constantinople, April 10, 428, five years after

Honorius

1

death
at the
I

(Cf.

Mopsuestia

SMITH, loc. cit.), whilst Theodore became bishop of end of the year 392 or the beginning of 393 (Cf. GOTAU,
p. 610).

no evidence of any correspondence between Theodore and Nestorius, especially after the elevation of the latter to the see of Constan Nor is it tinople, for Theodore died in 428 (MIGNE, P. G-, vol. 66, p. 12).
is

Chronologic de 4 There ( )

Empire Romain,

certain that Nestorius

have maintained.

All

was ever a disciple of Theodore we know is that Nestorius and

at Antioch, as

some

his followers held the

writings of Theodore in great esteem (Cf. TILLEMONT, Memoires, vol. XII,
p. 441).
6
( )

Theodore died

in 428,

and the Council of Ephesus was held in 431.

JBRA.1Y

e)

In the days of Marcian, Eutyches rose against the Church,

from and taught that the Son of God brought His body down from the posi heaven And, because he would not recede ).
1

(

tion he

had taken, he was excommunicated by the Council of 2 After the Fathers had assembled, Leo ( ) wrote to Chalcedon.
to receive the doctrines of Nestorius
3 (
),

them

and his own tomos
yielded,

4
(

).

On

threat of deposition
office.

made by Marcian, they

because

they loved their
did not yield
;

But Dioscorus, patriarch of Alexandria, 5 he was exiled, and his secretary ( ) became patri

arch in his stead.

The Alexandrians received the new patriarch

;

with but some priests, deacons, and laymen who would not agree him they the Council of Chalcedon, did not communicate with
;

fled into

Ethiopia with Timothy

6 (

),

a disciple of Dioscorus.

the Alexandrians f) After a while,

became

sorry for having
7

received the secretary of Dioscorus; they stoned
his

him

( ),

and cast

body into the

sea.

After the

death of Marcian,

Timothy

returned to Alexandria, took possession of the see,
the Alexandrians.

and forgave
and laymen,

However, the

priests,

deacons,

who had returned with him, would not communicate with the Whoever has taken part in the Alexandrians, for they said:
r Council of Chalcedon in any way, has not the priesthood from among them took the G-ospel, Then four
.

g)
it

priests

placed

on the head of Esaias, and

made him

bishop.

From

Monks (p. 97), Philoxenus accuses Eutyches () In his Letter to the the body of Christ was made from nothing. of teaching that 2 the Great (440-461). ( ) Pope Leo did not distinguish between nature and person, As
p)

Monophysites

of the Council of Chalcedon with the Nestorians. they identified the followers P. L., The dogmatic epistle to Flavian of Constantinople MIGNE,
;

(*)

vol. 54, p. 755.
8
(

)

Proterius.

He was

from 454 to 457. patriarch of Alexandria

6
( 7
)

own people, but was stabbed to on with six of his priests in the baptistry of his cathedral death together The Good Friday 457 by the followers of Timothy himself. Cf. NEALE,
(
)

Timothy Aelurus. Proterius was not stoned by his

patriarchate of Alexandria,

vol. II,

p.

12.

33

that time on they

were

called

1

Esaianistae-Acephali
those

( ).

Con

cerning

the

belief of the Acephali, that
in

who had taken

part in the Council of Chalcedon
priesthood,

any way had not the true
that
heretics

the

letter

goes on

to

explain

confer

baptism and priesthood validly, provided they have not preached
their heresy openly.

Consequently, the baptism and the orders

conferred by the Fathers of Chalcedon after their dispersion were
valid,

because they did not preach their heresy (the
natures
in Christ), so

definition

of the two

that the

case

of those

who
case

received
of those

those sacraments

from them was
or ordained by

parallel to the

who were baptized
was only

Judas

Iscariot.

As

his heresy

in his heart, the sacraments

which he conferred

were valid.

III.

The Letter concerning Stephen Bar Sudaili.
11.

This

letter,

addressed to

Abraham and

Orestes priests of

Edessa, was published (Syriac

text

and English translation) by
Stephen

Frothingham

in

1886, in his work
and,

Bar

Sudaili

>

the

Syrian Mystic,

the
Syr.

book of Bierotheos,
Ms. 107 of the Vatican

Leyden
(fol.

(Brill).

It is extant only in

60r-63v),

which

is

of the eighth century.
:

The

close of the letter is wanting.

The

title is

(*) The origin of the Acephali, and of the Esaianists, who were only a branch of that sect, does not date from the time of Timothy, but from the time of Peter Mongus, for the Acephali separated themselves from the latter, because he accepted the Henoticon, and would not anathematize the

Council of Chalcedon. (Cf. LEONTIUS BYZ.,

De

Sectis, Act. V,

n.

2,

in

MIGNE, P. G., vol. 86, p. 1229). Their origin is posterior to 482, the year in which the Henoticon was promulgated. As to the origin of the Esaianists, some say that the hand of a certain bishop Eusebius, when dead, had been laid on the head of Esaias. Cf. NEALE, ibid., p. 22.
3

34

impossibility of

Date.

This

letter

was evidently written before the year

513, for Philoienus

refers to the

communica

differences in the faith, ting, on account of

with the bishop of
date of

Jerusalem,
its

Elias

(494-513).

Frothingham places the

when the contest between composition between 509 and 512,
its
1

the Orthodox and Monophysite parties was at

height

(

).

Bar Sudaili was a Monophysite monk of Edessa,

who had
in Egypt.

become imbued with pantheistic

doctrines,

probably

From Jerusalem where he had
his to

retired,

he had sent followers of
con

Abraham and

Orestes, priests of Edessa, with books

taining his impious teachings.
to these priests,

Hearing of

this,

Philoxenus wrote
s errors.

warning them against Bar Sudaili

Accor-

was consubstantial ding to Philoxenus, he taught that everything
with God, that the good and the wicked would receive the same
in the next world, that, on the

measure of retribution
consummation,
all

day of the

things

would return

into the

divinity

from

which they came.

In his letter Philoxenus refutes at some length

Bar Sudaili

s

pantheism and his doctrine on salvation.

IV.

The Letter
12.

to the

Monks

of Teleda.

The Syriac

text of this letter, together with an introduction

2 and an analysis of the contents, was published in 1886 by Guidi ( ). His splendid edition corresponds page for page, column for column,

and

line for line,

with the original which
(fol.

is

extant only in Syr.

Ms. 136 of the Vatican
wanting,

3a-29a).

Folios 1, 2, and 6, are

hence the letter shows no

title.

A

Syriac Ms. of the

(

)

Stephen Bar Sudaili,

p.

58.

2 ( )

La

lettera di Filosseno ai

monad

di Tell

Adda

(

Teleda},

Memoria

del

Socio IGNAZIO GUIDI. Reale Accademia del Lincei (anno

CCLXXXII,

1884-85),

Roma, 1886.

35

British

Museum, Add. 14663 (Wright DCCLI),
l

contains
title:

four

short extracts

( )

of this letter with the following

orA*.i

**

The Ms. having been
a most
difficult

injured, the reading of the letter
task.

was

and laborious
it

Guidi confesses

that the

decipherment of

cost

him much

patience and fatigue, and he

scholars for placing certainly deserves the gratitude of all Syriac

within their reach this letter of Philoxenus, which

is

one of the

best specimens of the controversial literature of that period.

Date.

From

the last sentence of

fol.

3

a, col. 2,

Assemani
his

2 (

)

concludes that

Philoxenus wrote

this

letter
I

during

exile

(519-523):

Pray

also for me, not
I

that

may be
profit

delivered

from this persecution, but that
that
fol.
it

may
cause

derive
of

from
.

it,

may become unto me
col.
1,

a

eternal

life

In

14b,

Philoxenus attacks especially one enemy, who.
3
(

as Griiidi

remarks

),

may be Paul

II,

the successor

of

Seve-

rus on the episcopal throne of Antioch.
for the decrees of
six

On

account of his zeal
of the
4
(

Chalcedon (he had placed the names

hundred and thirty Fathers of the Council

in the diptychs)

),

Paul was accused of Nestorianism, and was called
by the Monophysites
5 (

the

Jew

).

It is

probably to him that Philoxenus
If any one calls thee by the

refers in the following passage:

name

of

Jew

or heathen,

thou art angry, and thou art not angry

with thyself for voluntarily placing thy portion with them, and
contending with us in their own words
6

(

)

.

(

)

Published by GUIDI,
B. Op.
0., II, p.
cit.,

ibid.,

p.

vi.

2
(

)
3

37.

(

)

p. v,

note

1.

4
(
)

LE QUIEN, Oriens

christianus, vol. II, p. 732.
Cf.

5
(
)

also the chronological

ABBELOOS and LAMY, Barhebraei Chronicon, vol. I, p. 195. Canon of James of Edessa, edited by Brooks

in

the Z. D.
6
(

M.

G.

,

vol. 53, p.
cit.,

318.

)

GUIDI, op.

fol.

14

b,

col.

1,

lines 14-21.

36
If the identity of

-

Paul of Antioch with the adversary at

tacked by Philoxenus be granted, the letter would certainly be
posterior to 519, the year in

which Severus was exiled by Justin.
521,
in

And

it

may have been

written before the year
1

which

Paul resigned the see of Antioch

(

).

This letter was addressed to the Monks of Teleda,

accor

ding to Guidi

2

( ),

the modern Telladi, about half

way between
There

Antioch and Aleppo.
Philoxenus,
fore,
is

That these monks shared the opinions of

evident from Philoxenus
faith is for

own words

:

what that

which
;

it

is

necessary for us to die,

in a few

words we will show

not as teaching, but because
faith,

we

agree with your truth and your

and

to

show that we are
Economy.

one with you on the question of the divine

And

if

we have been

a seducer and corruptor, as
us.

the

adversaries say,

then so are you also with

But

if
it

we
is
3 (
).

have

been

sincere

and orthodox, and

this is the truth,

a

common

victory and

joy for the holy body of the Church

The

letter to the

Monks
works

of Teleda

is

one of the most im
of

portant of Philoxenus

from the

standpoint

doctrine
in form.

and

style.

It is

dogmatic

in character

and argumentative
from
it

As we

shall have occasion to

quote

frequently

when

treating of Philoxenus

doctrine on the Incarnation and the Tri

nity, a brief analysis will suffice here.

After recommending himself to the
that he

prayers of

the

monks
de
the

may

derive profit from his

sufferings,

Philoxenus
of
is

clares his belief in the Trinity

and

in the

Incarnation

Son of God.
ante omnes

He shows
and

afterwards that the same Christ
the Firstborn

both
ante
dead,

from

the

dead
the

;

omnes, because
because

He

is

God, and the Firstborn

from

He became man. Concerning the death of Christ on the

0)
2
(
)

LE QUIEN,
Op.
cit.,

ibid., p.

732.

p. in, note 4.
cit.,

3 ( )

GUIDI, op.

fol.

4 a,

col.

2,

lines 2-21.

The Immortal died
and

37

Cross, Philoxenus defends against the Nestorians the proposition
,

shows

how he understands

it.

First of all, he postulates faith as a necessary condition to be
lieve that Christ died, because faith is not

needed to believe that

God

is

immortal, and that

man

is

mortal.

Then he takes up
in

in order his adversaries
letter or treatise
(

objections. These were contained
to

a

eggartha), which seems

have had conside
1

rable influence on the religious polemics of the times

( ).

The

following are the principal objections with which he deals:
a)

How

can

God be

at the

same time mortal and

im

mortal

?

b)

Since angels do not die,

how can God,

Who made

them

immortal, die?
c)

If Life died,

who gave

it

life

again?

d)
in the

Who

ruled the universe, the three days that

God was

grave?
objections,

In answer to those different
that the

Philoxenus

shows

Word

of

God

suffered

only in so far as

He became
His
will;
living the

man;
that,
life

that

He was

not a sufferer by nature, but by
lying dead in the grave,
life

when He was

He was
His

of His divinity, for the

which

He commended

on

the
life,

Cross into the hands of His Father, was not

divine

but the

life

which

He had

taken from us.
letter,

Towards the end of the
Christ

Philoxenus rejects the words
the
Tri-

King

,

which Calandion had inserted into

sagion of Peter the Fuller.

He condemns

the addition as brin

ging in Christ after the three divine persons, or as introducing
a fourth person into the Trinity.

Philoxenus closes his letter with an anathema against Nestohus and Theodore of Mopsuestia, and
that he
is

with

the

declaration

ready to die for his faith.

l
(

)

GUIDI, op.

cit.,

p.

v.

-

38

-

CHAPTER

III.

THE DOCTRINES OF PHILOXENUS.
A) His DOCTRINE ON THE INCARNATION.

General Considerations.
13.

The dogma
with

of the Incarnation
in

was the principal theme of

religious controversy

the

fifth

century of the Church.

The

disputes

the

Gnostics,

the Arians,

and the Apollinarists
Jn

had given

rise to

many

discussions on the person of Christ.

opposition to all heresies, the Church always invoked the autho
rity

and voice

of

tradition

affirming

clearly the

unity

of the

person of the

God-man and
of union

the existence of two natures in
of

Him.
been

But the manner
explained
(*).

the

two

natures

had

not

The Fathers

illustrated it

by means of figures and
it

comparisons, but did not always speak of
phical
accuracy.

with strict philoso

Any

explanation

that

did

not

preserve

the

unity of person

and the existence

and

distinction of the two
2

natures in Christ was bound to end in error
deed, was the
case.

( ).

And

such, in

Here we

see

two

different schools at

work

:

the school of Antioch and the school of Alexandria.
their

By applying
first

own

theories to christological questions which,
faith as a necessary

of all,

demanded

condition

for

their

acceptance,

they caused the two

great

heresies of Nestorianism

and Euty-

chianism.

0) HERGENROTHER, Histoire de
vol. II, n.
2

VEglise,

traduction -de

P. Btlet,

126, p. 201.
ibid.

( )

HERGENROTHER,

The school of Antioch

39

on
the

insisted specially

human

element in Christ and on the permanent distinction of the na
tures after the union
l

( ).

Some, however, confounding the notions
far as
2

of nature and person, went so

to

acknowledge not only

two natures but two persons also
the

(

).

They did not admit that
and perfect
in

human

nature could exist

complete
or

Christ

without its connatural subsistence
of uniting the a

personality,

and,

instead

human

nature with the divine person, they united

human

person with the person of the Word.

Different

was the course pursued by the theologians of the

school of Alexandria.
in

They dwelt willingly on the divine element 3 Christ and on the mysterious union of the natures ( ). Some

applied the trichotomy of Plato to the
tion,

and, believing that

dogma man was made up
4 ( ).

of the Incarna of three
factors,

body, soul {^vyr}), and spirit (vovg), taught that Christ consisted
of the body, the soul, and the Logos

According to them, the
(vovq),

Son of God was incarnate without the rational soul
place was taken and filled by the Logos
the absorption of the

whose

Himself.

Others held
5
(

human

nature by and into the divine

).

Others again taught that the body of Christ was consubstantial
with His divine nature, and that, on the

day of the

consum

mation,
6

all

things would become of one

nature with the divi

nity

( ).

Still

another class combined,

so

to

speak,

the

tendencies

of the two schools; and, although they held that the

humanity

of Christ was real,
to
it

nay, consubstantial

with ours, they refused
not
of

the

name

of nature,

and

spoke,

two

natures in

(*)

Cf.

HEKGENROTHER,

op,

cit.,

vol. II, n. 98, p.
art.

134

;

also

VACANT,

Dictionnaire de theologie catholique,
2
(

Antioche, p. 1435.
805.
142.

) 3 ) 4
)

Nestorians.
Cf. VACANT, op. cit., art. Alexandrie, HEFELE, Conciliengeschichte, vol. II,
p.
p.

(

(

5
(
)

Strict Eutychians.

6
(
)

The Syrian Stephen Bar

Sudaili.

-

40 nature,

Christ, but of a twofold or composite

consisting of the
of the soul
of

divinity

and the humanity, united
This
l

after the
is

manner

and the body in man.

heresy

known by the name

Monophysitism in specie
tradistinction from

( )

or Jacobite Monophysitism, in con

Eutychianism proper.

Philoxenus and Severus
this doctrine in the
it

of Antioch were the principal

champions of

end of the

fifth

century and the beginning of the sixth, and
it

may
tic

be said that they reduced
life

to a theological system.

Phi

loxenus devoted his

to its propagation.
in its defence.

Most of

his

dogma
in

works were

written

It is

touched upon

many
Monks
first

of his writings, particularly in the three letters the
is

text

of which

given

here

for the first time.

The Letter

to the

deals

with

the errors

of

Nestorius and Eutyches; the
to confirm

Letter to the

Monks

of

Beth-Gaugal was written

those

monks

in

the

Monophysite
to

doctrines which they shared

with him, and the Letter
xenus

Zeno may be regarded as Philo

own

profession of faith in the mystery of the Incarnation.

In the light of

these

three

documents and of his other

published works, we
storius

shall consider

how Philoxenus opposes Ne
shall

and Eutyches, and thus

we

be

able to form an

accurate notion of his views

on the

Incarnation, and on other

points of belief of which he speaks in connection with the
subject.

main

Philoxenus and Nestorius.
14. There
is

no doubt that Philoxenus was well acquainted

with the tenets of Nestorianism, for he had studied in the Per
sian school of Edessa,
to that heresy.

which was at the time openly favorable
Syriac
the works
of

Ibas had translated into

Theodore of Mopsuestia and Diodorus of Tarsus, and two of his

(

)

HEFELE, Conciliengeschichte,

vol. II, p. 564.

disciples,

41

1

Mari of Beth-Ardasir and Marun Elitha, spread the
doctrines in

Nestorian
those

the
2

East
This

(

).

Philoxenus

was one of
began

who opposed Ibas

( ).

opposition
all his life,

which he

when only

a student, he continued
is

and

to his efforts

and those of his friends
rianism became

principally due the fact that Nesto-

confined to the Syrians of the Persian empire.

Heresy

of

Nest or ins.
and person,
its

15. Nestorius, confounding the notions of nature

could not think of the
natural subsistence.

human

nature in Christ without

con

Hence, he understood the union of the na

tures in this way, that a man, integral and complete,

was

first

formed in the Virgin Mary and united afterwards with the
of

Word

God:

Scire

autem convenit etiam de dispensatione quam
in

pro nostra salute

Domino

Christo

Dominus Deus

implevit,

quod Deus Verbum

hominem perfectum adsumpsit
fuerunt ex

ex

semine

Abraham,

et ex

David juxta praedicationem Sanctarum Scriptuilli

rarum, ejus naturae cujus et

quorum semine

erat,

hominem natura perfectum,
compositum
3

ex the

anima

rationali et
in

humana

carne
4
(

(

).

We

find

same teaching

a homily

)

of the famous Nestorian
of Philoxenus.

poet

Narses (f 507), a contemporary

Speaking

of Diodorus, Theodore of Mopsuestia,

and Nestorius, he says:

The

just have interpreted one essence

which

is

three,

and have joined

to it a

man

through the union

5 (

).

0) DUVAL, Histoire d Edesse,
2
(

p.

177.

) 3

B. 0.,
696.

I,

p.

352.
et

(

)

LABBE-MANSI, Sacrorum Conciliorumnova
p.

amplissima

collectio,

vol.

V,

4 ( ) Homelie de Narses sur les trois docteurs Nestoriens, par TAbbe MARTIN, in the Journal Asiatique; Introduction and Syriac text, 9th series, tome XIV, pp. 446-492; French translation, 9th series, tome XV,

F.

pp. 469-525. 5 ( ) Ibid

,

tome XIV,

p.

453, lines 18-19.

not united to a

42

Word was
be
the

Against this doctrine, Philoxenus holds that the

man

first

created in

womb

of the Virgin,

but that

He became man

of the Virgin without ceasing to

God. Thus, in the

Letter to Zeno, he says:

But

I

see,

with

the eye of faith, a Spiritual Being,
corporal, and Mary brought
forth,

Who,

without change, became

not a double (Son), as Nesto-

rius said, but the Only-Begotten

embodied,

Who

is

not indeed half
is

God and half man, but wholly God because He Father, and wholly man because He became (man)
gin
(*).

from

the

of the Vir

According to him, the body of the Lord was His own,
says
in

and not of another, as he
.

the

Letter to

the
or

Monks:
a

But

it

is

not at

all

in

the

sense

that a
is

man

body
it
is

distinct from

God

died,

that death

spoken of God, as

not in
distinct

the sense that

a

man

or

the

body of another
is

person
;

from God was born that birth
born, but
it

spoken of God

for, it

was not a body that was
a

was God,
;

Who became
in

body and remained

in

His nature God
it

and

it

was not a body

that was crucified, but

was God,
life
2 (

Who
).

became man, and

His death did not lose His

The Word
16.

From

Nestorius

theory on the union of the natures,

it

follows necessarily that

Mary cannot be called Osoroxog, Mother
which Catholics under
first

of God.

And

this title, in the sense in

stand

it,

he always refused to her. Thus, in his

sermon on

the Incarnation, he says:
bilis gentilitas

Habet matrem Deus? Ergo excusaPaulus ergo mendax,

matres

diis subintroducens.
CCTTCCTCOQ,

de Christi deitate dicens,

etyj^rw^,
rnatre,

avsv
sine

ysvsahoyiag
generationis

(Heb.

vii,

3),

id est,

sine patre,

sine

(>)

P. 120.
P. 99.

2

(

)

43

narratione
the Virgin,

The Word, he argues, merely passed through but was not born of her: Transiisse Deum per
J

( ).

Virglnem %QIGTOTOXOV, a Scriptura perdoctus surn; nalum, non
edoctus

sum

2

(

).

Philoxenus teaches clearly that Mary
that the

is

Mother of God, and

Word was

born of her.

In not

the

Letter to the Monks,

he says

:

For the Virgin was

indeed a channel (through

which) God (passed), but His true Mother, because

He became

man

of her

3
(

).

In the Letter to Zeno, speaking of Mary, he

uses the words

yaldath

alaha

,

which

are the exact Syriac
confess, therefore, that

equivalent of the Greek Oeoroxog:
the Virgin
is

We

OSOTOXO; (yaldath alaha), and we believe that the
after being born of her corporally,

embodied Word,
in

was wrapped

swaddling

clothes,
s)

sucked

milk, received circumcision, was

held on (His Mother
to

knees, grew in stature and was subject

His parents,

all this just as

He was

born

4
(

).

Furthermore,
title

Philoxenus argues that, by denying to
of God,

Mary

the

of Mother

we necessarily deny the
Twenty

divinity of Christ.

Thus,

in

the eighteenth of his
writes
:

Chapters against Nestorius, he
of

If the Virgin is
is

Mother
one,

God,

He Who was
Christ was

born

(of her)

God.

But the

who was born
if

of the Virgin,

who

is

he?

Jesus Christ.
if

Now,
is

Jesus

born of
Jesus

the Virgin, and
Christ
is

the Virgin not a

Mother of God,

then
5 (
).

God and

man

in

whom God
Mary
not

dwelt
only

And he

defends this peerless prerogative of

against the

Nestorians, but also against the Eutychians who, by holding that

the body of Christ was not consubstantial with ours, were obliged
to

say
:

that

the

Word became

incarnate

in,

but not

of

the

Virgin

We
In

do not say, like the erring disciples of Eutyches,

(*)
2
(

) 3
)

MARIUS MERCATOR, MIGISE, P. L., Sermon V, n. 8; MIGNE, P. L., ibid.,

vol.
p.

48, p.

760.

787.

(

P. 97.

C) P. 122.
5
( )

BUDGE,

op. cit., vol. II, p.

cxxxv.

44

that

He

(the

Word) was embodied

in

the Virgin, but

not of

her

;

but we believe (that

and not in any other way
liars

He was embodied) He might have

in her and of her,

pleased, as

those

claim

1

(

).

Communicatio Idiomatum.
17.

The commmicatio idiomatum, by which we predicate the
abstract
is

same

properties of the two natures, not indeed in the

(Godhead and manhood), but in the concrete (God and man),
impossible in the system
of Nestorius, because
its

he regards the

human

nature as existing in

own

subsistence, in other words,
in

as a person.

Thus he says that we cannot

any way attribute

death to God:
Scriptura

Quid Dei nomen deputas morti, quod a divina
in mortis

nusquam

commemorationem profertur? Quid,
in viro,
in

Paulo clamante, curn

audias:

quo definivit

Deus,

Mem
tem?

praestans omnibus,

suscitans

eum

a mortuis (Act.,

xvn,
Deita-

31), tu
(

natam
2
).

et

mortuam

inani

imaginatione judicas

And more
:

generally in his fourth

counter-anathema

against Cyril

If

any one assigns the expressions of the Gospels

and Apostolic
to

letters,

which

refer

to the

two natures in Christ,

one only of these

natures,
in

and

attributes even suffering to

the Divine Logos,

both
3

the

flesh
is

and

in the

Godhead,

let

him be anathema
the

(

).

Similar

the teaching of Narses:

To

human

nature belong the humiliations of the
raised

human

nature,
to

and not
the

to the nature

and exalted above sufferings;
4
(
).

man

belongs all that was written of the Son of

man: con

ception, birth, growth, suffering,

and death

0) P. 102.
2
(
)

3
(

)
)

4
(

Sermon VII, n. 45: MIGNE, ibid., p. 800. HEFELE, Conciliengesckichte, vol. II, p. 174. Journal Asiatique, op. cit., tome XIV, p. 476, line

25,

and

p.

477,

lines

1-3.

Thus we

see

that

the

Nestorians deity the

communicatio

in Christ with its

idiomatum because they consider the human nature as existing own personality Philoxenus rejects the com
;

municatio idiomatum by the mere
only one nature after the union.
attribute to the divine person

fact

that

he

acknowledges

He

does not admit that

we can

what we deny of the divine nature.

Thus,

in the ninth of his
:

Twenty Chapters against Nestor im,
is

he writes

If thou sayest that Christ

two natures, a divine
if

nature and a
to

human

nature,

and one person, and

thou givest

the divine person the properties of the divine nature

and the

properties of the

human

nature,

why

dost thou give to the divine

person humiliation and glory and yet

put them away from the
to

divine nature? Is His divine person inferior

His divine na
?
l

ture

?

What His

person

is,

is

not that

also

His nature

(

)

And, arguing against those who admit two natures and one per
son in Christ
doctrine
after

the
in

union,

Philoxenus

contends that their
In

involves

us

hopeless confusion.

the

sixteenth

chapter of the same tract, he says:

How

is

there no confusion,
?

when thou
thou sayest
properties,

confessest two natures and

one person

For,

when

two natures which run with their attributes, their

and their operations

,

and when thou attributes! the

divine things to the divine nature, and the

human

things to the

human

nature,

how can

confusion be avoided?

Thou answerest

(that thou avoidest confusion) by attributing to one person the

properties of the divine nature and the properties of the
nature.

human

But

tell

me:

To which nature does
or to the

this
?

one person

belong?

To the divine nature,

human

If (it belongs)

to the divine nature,

behold, the properties of the

human

nature

do not belong to the divine person;

and

if (it

belongs) to the

human

nature, behold, the properties of the divine nature do not

belong to the

human

person.

Is there

a greater confusion than

0) BUDGE, op.

cit.,

vol. II, p.

cxxix,

that which admits

46

Tell

two natures working in one person?

me: Does
If
it

this one person belong to both natures, or to one only?

belongs to both, then each nature
;

constitutes

the half of

the person

if it

belongs to one nature only, then, either the di

vine nature or the

human

nature
is

is

without
divine

a

person.

If,

on

the contrary, this one
there there
is
is

person

both
is

and human, then
If
it

only one nature

which
is

both divine and human.
1

is

not one nature, there
all

not one person
properties

(

).

Hence

that Philoxenus refers

the

and operations

of
is

Christ not only to one person, but also to one nature which

both divine and human, as he says in the Letter
of

to the

Monks

Beth-Gaugal

:

He who

does not confess that glory and hu
is

miliation are of one Son,

Who
is

one person and one nature who
2 ( ).

was embodied, such a one

an embodied devil

Union
18. storius

of the Natures.

Regarding the human nature of Christ as a person, Neunites
it

with

the

Godhead only

externally,

and

for

him the Incarnation means simply the of God in a man born of the Virgin:
est natus ex

inhabitation

of the Son

Verbum

ergo Deus non

Maria, sed in

illo,

qui ex ea natus

est,

mansit

3
(

).

According

to

him, there was only an adhesion of a

man

to the
:

person of the Word, and the

Word

dwelt in him as in a temple

Aliud quidem Deus Verbum
est Spiritus, et aliud

est, qui erat in templo,

quod operatus

templum

praeter habitantem

Deum

4 (

).

Philoxenus rejects the theory of a mere adhesion of a body
to the person of the

Word

in the Letter to

the

Monks

of Beth-

Gaugal

:

He who

imagines that there was only a mere adhe-

(*)
2
(

BUDGE,
P. 113.

ibid.,

p.

cxxxin.

) 3

(

) 4

( )

MIGNE, P. L., MIGNE, ibid.,

vol. 48, p. 769.
p.

784.

sion (of a body) to the person of Christ,

and not a real embo

diment

in the

acknowledgment of one person, such a one has no
1

relationship with Christ

( ).

And

again in the Letter to Zeno, he

says

:

I confess,

therefore, one (only) person of the

Word, and

I

believe that this

same (person)

is

also

man, that
man,
not
2

is,

God

Who
built

became man; not that He dwelt
to Himself a

in a

that

He

temple

in

which

He

dwelt

(

).

According to
born of the
of which

Nestorius, this inhabitation of the

Word

in the

man
virtue

Virgin, consisted in a certain moral

union in
in the

the

Word

dwelt in him as

God dwelt

prophets of old:
dicitur incarna-

Propterea vero Unigenitus Dei Films
tus,
rit
;

Verbum

quia semper

est

cum nomine
fuit

illo

sancto, quern Virgo pepesic,
3

quemadmodum autem
est

cum

prophetis,
(

inquit (Nesto

rius),

cum

isto,

sed majori connexione

).

This doctrine

Philoxenus rejects in the Letter to the Monks of Beth Gaugal:

He who

says that the infinite

God dwelt

in a finite

man

as

He
that

dwelt in the Prophets and in the just, and does not confess

He Who,

as God, is

infinite,

is

the

Same Who became
4 ( ).

finite

by becoming man, (such a one) has not as yet passed from

a corrupt error into the fold of the

knowledge of Christ

*

Consequences
19.

of Nestorius

Theory.

On account

of the moral union existing between the

Word

and the man
rity,

whom He

assumed, Nestorius spoke of one autho
to

one dignity
sit
;

common

both

:

Die de assumente quod
;

Deus

adjice de

assumpto quod servi forma
sit

infer postea con-

junctionis

dignitatem, quod communis

duorum

auctoritas,

quod

eadem

sit

duorum

dignitas

;

manentibusque

naturis, confitere uni-

0) P. 112. 2 P. 120. ( )
3
(

)

HARDUIN, Acta Conciliorum,
P. 112.

vol. I, p.

1319.

4
(
)

48

tatem

1

( ).

The words

of Narses, in the

homily already quoted,
of the Father,

are almost identical:

One
is

is

the

Word, the Son

without beginning; and one

the

man from

the humanity of Adam.

The Sou
to the

of G-od is two by nature,
to the

in every thing that belongs

Supreme Being and
2

man, but one by honor and
union

by authority

(

).

It is only on

the basis of that moral

that Nestorius admits one Christ, and, in Christ, one prosopon,

one will, one operation. Similarly, the Nestorian Syrians, in their
doctrine on the Incarnation, speak of two substances
(

ousia).

two

essences

(

ithutha), two natures (keyana), two hypostases (qenoma),

but

of

one

prosopon

(parsopa),

one

image (salma),
virtue

one

will

(sebhyana), one operation

(ma bedhanutha), one
3

(hayla),

and one power (sultana)
According
there
is

(

).

to Philoxenus,

Christ

is

one not merely because

only one person in
is

Him, but

in the sense also that, after

the Incarnation, there
sisting of the divinity
to

only one nature in

Him, a nature con
in the Letter

and the humanity, as he says
therefore, are the

Zeno:

Of the one Son,

two generations,
;

the one from the Father and the other from the Virgin

of the

one Son, and not of two natures, otherwise

He would

not be one.

And

if

we admit

(in

Him)

nature and nature,

we must neces

sarily

admit person and person, and consequently we must acknow
4
(
).

ledge two Sons and two Gods

As another consequence

of his theory on the union of the

two

natures, Nestorius claimed that the same worship must be given
to

both

:

Propter utentem illud

indumentum quo
videtur;
is

utitur colo

;

propter absconditum adoro quod foris
eo qui foris paret est

inseparabilis ab

Deus

5

( ).

Not only

the same worship

0) MIGNE, ibid., p. 766.

Journal Asiatique, op. cit., tome XIV, p. 453, lines 22-25. ASSEMANI, B. 0., Ill, pars 2a, p. 218. Cf. also CHABOT, De S. Isaaci Ninivitae vita, scriptis et doctnna, p. 23.
( ) 3
(

2

)

4
(

) 5 )

P. 121.

(

MIGNE, P.

L., vol. 48, p. 762.

given to both, but the
called God,

man

in

whom

the

Word

dwelt

is

actually
est

and

honored as such:

Non

per seipsum Deus

qui in utero figuratus est:
cultores
;

nam

si sic esset,

essemus hominis vere
ex illo qui assumpsit,
(*).

sed quoniam in assumpto Deus
est,

est,

qui assumptus
it

appellatus

est, et

appellatur Deus

Hence

is

that Nestorius was accused of introducing a fourth person

into the Trinity.

Thus, Proclus, bishop of Cyzicus, in a sermon
Nestorius,
said:
Si alter

preached in Constantinople against
Christus et alter Dei
erit
2 (
).

Verbum, non jam

Trinitas, sed quaternitas

Philoxenus makes the same objection against the Nestothe

rians.

In the Letter to

Monks

of

Beth-Gaugal, he says:

He who
3

distinguishes Christ into two does not worship the Tri
Also, in the Letter to the Monks, he writes
:

nity

(

).

For he

who counts another man
his doctrine

with God,

introduces

a

quaternity in

and corrupts the dogma of the Holy Trinity.
for, like
is

With
it

pagans

is

such a doctrine to be counted,
a

them,

errs

inventing
shall

new
to

god,

against
a
4

that
.

which
It

written, a

There
god, a

not be

thee

new god
( ).

adores

new

man

born of a

woman

He

urges again the same objection

against Catholics for acknowledging two natures in Christ, as

we

may

infer

from a passage
:

in his short treatise on the heresies ot

Mani, Marcion, and others

And

that addition (the definition of
at Chalcedon, admits a
5

two natures

in Christ)

which took place

quaternity and brings in Christ after the Trinity
Finally, according to the Nestorians, the

( ).

man,

in

whom

the

Word

dwelt,

merited the

title

of

God by dying

for us on the

Cross and paying

Adam

s

debt, on account of

which God raised

him from
him
6
(

the dead, bestowed immortality upon him, and exalted

).

Philoxenus rejects this doctrine and teaches emphatiibid.
ibid.,
p.

1

C

)

2
( 3

)
)

MIGNE, MIGNE,
P. 110.

780.

(

4
(

)

P. 103.

5
( ) 6 ( )

BUDGE,
Cf.

op.

cit,,

vol. II, p.
cit.,

cxxxvn,
vol.

line

17.

LABBE-MANSI, op.

V, p. 696.

cally that the

50

died for us, and that

Word

of

God was born and

He

is

immortal by nature, as he says

in the Letter to the

Monks

of Beth-Gaugal:

He who
that

says that Christ was justified by His

works, and became the equal of the
of His virtues, and

He
l

is

Most High by the practice not exalted and is not God by
is filled

His nature, such a one
the malice of the devil
sistible

is

without any virtue and

with

( ).

And he

urges, furthermore, the irre

argument

that, if
:

God has not

suffered for us in the flesh,

we

have not been redeemed

If the death

and the suffering were of

another, the redemption and life which were merited for rne would

be of man, not of

God

2 ( ).

This argument he develops at greater

length in his Letter to the

Monks

of Teleda:

By His

grace.

He

(Christ) became our brother; by His grace, we became His For by the grace (of God), there are two wonderful brothers.

things

:

the

exalted.

Most High was humbled, and the humble ones were God became man, and the sons of men (became) sons
first

of God.

There was

the humiliation of

God

and, after that,

the exaltation of man.

For he who was low could not be exalted
high, unless the

near

Him Who was

low one.

High One descended to the Such was the beginning of God s new way towards us ( 3 ).

Philoxenus and Eutyches.
20. One of the most zealous opponents of Nestorianism was
Eutyches, archimandrite of a monastery outside the walls of Con
4

stantinople

( ).

He

boasted that he had fought for the faith at
in person,

Ephesus.
is

Although he was not present there

there

no doubt that he contributed greatly to the overthrow of the
5 (

party of Nestorius

).

However

his intemperate zeal

and super-

0) P. 113. 2 109. ( ) P.
3 ( )

GUIDI, op.

cit.,

fol.

5a, col. 2, lines 3-23.

4
( )

5 ( )

HKFELE, HEFELE,

op.

cit.,

vol. II, p.

317.

ibid.

51
ticial

learning carried

him

into the opposite error, of

and he accused

of heresy every one

who spoke
not only

two natures.

Unable

to

grasp

the

difference

between

the Nestorian heresy

and the Catholic
but

doctrine, he rejected

two persons in Christ,

two

natures as well, and admitted only one nature after the union.

He was eKcommuuicated by
his heresy did not

the Council of Chalcedon (451), but
It
1

end with his condemnation.
( ).

was introduced

successively into Palestine, Egypt, and Syria
its

How

rapid was

progress

may be

seen from the fact that, a few years after

the death of Eutyches, the two great sees of Antioch and Ale

xandria were occupied by Monophysite bishops.

The
physites

error

was held

in various forms.

Although
they

all

Mono-

admitted only

one nature in Christ,

differed in

explaining

how the Godhead and

the humanity could

form one

nature; hence the anomalous fact that
those

many

of them, especially

who were not

of Greek origin, whilst professing one nature

like the Eutychians,

anathematized alike Eutyches and the Council
is

of Chalcedon.

This

particularly true of Philoxenus, as

is

clear

from many passages of his writings in which he speaks of the
doctrines of Eutyches.

These we shall consider presently.

Heresy

of

Eutyches.

21. Nestorius denies the unity of the person of Christ; Eutyches

exaggerates

it,

and goes so

far as to teach the unity of nature

2

(

).

He

acknowledges only one nature after the union, that of God made Post incarnationem vero Dei Verbi, hoc est, post flesh and man
:

nativitatem Domini Nostri Jesu Christi,
et

imam naturam
3

adorare,

hanc Dei incarnati
heretical

et

inhumanati

(

).

He

interprets in his
to Succensus
:

own

sense

the

famous words of Cyril
as the Fathers

But we say one Son, and,
1

have spoken,

one

f

)

HEFELE,

op. cit., vol. II, p. 564.
op. cit., vol. II, n.

(*)
3

HERGENRSTHER,

142. p. 228.

( )

HARDUIN, Acta Conciliorum,

vol. II, p.

142.

- 52
incarnate nature of

God

the

Word*

1

(

).

As

is

evident, however,
to

from the context of the
of Melitene
2 ( ),

letter,

from his own explanation
3
( ),

Acacius
in

and from the testimony of others
nature
(<fvaig)

Cyril,

this passage, takes the word

in the in the

meaning
meaning

of

subsistence or person

*

.

Eutyches takes

it

of

nature

,

not indeed in the sense simply that the divine nature
in a

was united with the human, but
admit
after the Incarnation,

compound

sense, so as to

after the union of the

Godhead and
is

the flesh,

only one nature.

Hence, he says that Christ

from

two natures, ex dvo yvtiswr, but not in two, sv dvo
Confiteor ex duabus naturis fuisse

(pvtfsffiv:

Dominum Nostrum

ante adu4
(
).

nationem; post adunationern vero

unam naturam

confiteor

Like Eutyches, Philoxenus admits only one nature in Christ
after the union, one

nature

consisting of the

divinity

and the

humanity.

In the Letter to the
says that

Monks

of Beth-Gaugal,
signifies

we read

:

He who
distinct

the

name

of Christ

two natures

and separate the one from the

other,

and not one nature

(keyana), and one prosopon (parsopa), and one person (qenoma),

who was embodied and became man
denies the faith and
is

of the Virgin, such a one
5

worse than those who do not believe

(

).

He

also misinterprets the words of Cyril

which we have quoted
is

above.

The expression
in Philoxenus

one nature who was embodied
writings, and
it

very

common

always occurs in a Monoafter the
:

physite sense, as
union.

implying only one nature in Christ

In the same Letter to the

Monks

of Beth-Gaugal, he says

He who
Son,

does not confess that glory and humiliation are of one
is

Who
J

one person and one nature
xcu
ol

who was embodied, such
etQrjxaai,

( )

*AW

eva

rpK^sv YtoV,
ffsactQxajuevt]}
.

10$

IIcfieQeg
(}.,

pictv

(pvaiv

rov &sov
2

Aoyov

MIGNE, P.

vol.

77, p. 232.

( )
3

( )

MIGNE, ibid., p. 181. Thus Justinian, Liber adv. Origen.,
Kal
i
,

in

MIGNE, P.

G., vol. 86, p. 1001,

says

:

ccvrog o nccnJQ
STIC

(KvoiMo$)
rij$

6ac<xi$

{J.IKV

(pvaiv sine rov Xdyov as-

TOVTOV Tw

cfvaewg

ovo^cm KVTL
166.

vnoffiaaeiog exQijaaro

??.

4
(
)

HARDUIN,
P. 111.

op. cit., vol. II, p.

f

s
)

a one
his
is

53
J

an embodied

devil

(

).

Thus again,

in the
:

first

of

Twenty Chapters against Nestorius, he writes Word and His nature are one, and if God is not one
to (the
,

If

God the

thing, and

His nature another, why, when thou comest
dost thou
4

word)

God

,

say

one God who was
nature
, ,

embodied

and when thou
v

comest

to the

word

why

dost thou not say
?
* ( 2

one nature
in the

who was embodied
seventh
after

instead of two natures
tract,

)

And
If the

chapter of the same

he argues:

Word,

He was
is

embodied,

is

two natures, the Word, after
if

He was
embo

embodied,
died

two persons also; but

the person of the

Word

is

one, the nature of the embodied

Word

is

one also,
3 (
).

for the far

person of the

Word

is

not inferior to His nature

So

Philoxenus agrees with Eutyches, and, by the expression
,

one

embodied nature of the Word
the Incarnation, one

he understands one nature after

nature

consisting of the divinity

and the

humanity.
is

He

also says in his Letter to the
is,

Monks

that Christ

from two (men tarten), that

from the divinity and the hu

manity:

Lot us beware of the impiety of those who say that

the Virgin brought forth

God and

a

man

;

who divide and count

two in

Him Who
who divide

is

the Only Son of God,

Who
God
4

is

from two,
impiety of

from the divinity and from the humanity;
those)
(Christ),

(of the

and

in this one

Who

was em

bodied, attribute humiliation to the one and glory to the other,

power

to the

one and weakness to the other

(

).

Manner

of Union.

22. Thus, we see that Philoxenus agrees with the Eutychians
in teaching one nature in Christ after the
differs

Incarnation

;

but he

from them in his explanation of the union.
P. 113.

As

St.

Thomas

(

)
2

(

)
3

(

)
4

BUDGE, BUDGE,
P. 98.

op.

cit.,

vol. II, p. cxxiii.

ibid.,

p.

cxxvi.

(

)

54

observes,
in three

some one thing may
ways
;
:

result from the union of two

others

Uno modo
fieri

ex duobus integris perfectis

rema-

nentibus

quod quidem

nou potest,
. .

nisi in iis

quorum forma
aliquid

est compositio, vel ordo, vel figura

.

;

alio

modo, modo,

fit fit

unum

ex perfectis, sed transmutatis

.

.

.

;

tertio

aliquid ex ali-

anima et corpore quibus non permhtis, sed imperfectis, sicut ex
fit

homo

l

( ).

And he shows

that

none of these ways
first,

could

take

place in the

Incarnation; not the

because

it

would

make

the union of the two natures
it

merely accidental; nor the
in the divine nature
;

second, because

would imply mutability
it

nor the third, because
the

human
did
2

nature to
not

would suppose the divine nature and Eube both incomplete ratione naturae.
himself clearly on the

tyches

explain
is

manner

of

the

union

(

),

but there
strict

no doubt that those of his disciples, who

were called

Monophysites, taught a mingling or confusion
3

of the two natures

(

).

Philoxenus rejects this

explanation on

the ground that

it

does away with the immutability of the Word.
:

Thus, in the Letter to the Monks, he says

there having been

neither change, nor mixture, nor confusion in His nature, as

God
For

Himself said by the Prophet,

I

am, and
;

I

change not

.

He Who was

not

made

is

not mutable

He Who was

not created
;

cannot change.

was embodied,
his

He became man without change He 4 and remained as He is, spiritual ( ). And, in
Therefore,

Letter to Zeno, he tells us

how he understands
flesh"
:

the

words
I

of St. John

And

the

Word was made
flesh

With John
us,

cry out that the

Word became
!

and dwelt among
is

not

by changing, God forbid
to

for

to

change

a modification, but

become

belongs to the

Economy
(the

(of the Word).
;

For

I

learn from

John and Paul that

He was
( )
2 ( 3
)

changed, none of

Word) has become those who saw and served
a
,

but that
the

Word

Summa_ Theologic-ct, pars 3 Ct aERGENROTHER, Op. cit.,
.

q.

2

a
,

art. I.
11

Vol. II,

144, p. 230.

(

)

Cf.

HsRDUiN,

op-cqit., vol. II, p. 454.

4
(

)

P. 96-97.

55
(ever)
said.
1

Besides,

God

the
I

Word Himself
change not
.

teaches

by His

Prophet,

1

am

the

Lord, and

Where you would

suppose that, by becoming embodied,
all

He was

changed,

He

testifies
if

the more to the truth of His

own immutability,
cries

and, as

already

embodied from the Virgin, He
perhaps

out to those

who
I

think

that

He was changed by becoming
1

(man),

am

the Lord, and I change not

(

).

Philoxenus holds then that the

Word was
;

not

changed by

becoming man, and
conclusion

so far

he

is

orthodox

but he draws a wrong
for

from

the truth

which he admits,

he refuses to

consider the humanity as a nature; and, to safeguard the
tability of the

immu
they
one

Word, he argues against Nestorians and Catholics
the

alike

that by teaching two natures after

Incarnation
is

admit a change, since before the Incarnation there
nature.

only

Hence,

his favorite expression
,

it

is

after the

Incar

nation as before
that the

which in his writings does not mean simply
not changed by becoming man, but implies
is

Word was

besides, that, as there
so there

only one nature before the Incarnation,
after

can be but one

the

Incarnation.

He

did

not
the

acknowledge that the
person of the

assuming of the human nature by

Word

did not perfect the

Word

in

any way, and

did not interfere in the least with the immutability of the divine
nature.

He

regards the divinity and the humanity in Christ as

forming one nature

which the Jacobites
2

call a composite

(me-

rakkebha) or double fafflfa) nature
duces to illustrate
the
soul

( ),

and the example he ad
of

the union,

is

the

example of the union
nature
3

and

the

body

into one

human

(

).

His posi

tion is impossible, for the divinity

and the humanity are com
soul of

plete in Christ, whilst the body and the

man

are

both

incomplete ratione naturae.

0) P. 121. 2 B. 0., II, ( )
3
(

p.
p.

25.
26.

)

B.

0., II,

-

56

But although Philoxenus insists on the fact that the Word became man without change, he is not always consistent, and
some of
his expressions

would point
in

to a confusion

of the

two

natures in Christ.

Thus,

the

tract
is

rC JLaA.i r_z.i.i

^ao^
discus
(*),

cuto^Q.i^vir^act 0.1*1 o^flai.i
sion between a Nestorian

which

a

theological

and an Orthodox (Monophysite)

the

Nestorian

asks:
finite?
,

Is

the humanity,

(which the divinity has

put

on),

and the
it is

Orthodox (Monophysite) answers:
is

We
vinity)

believe that

infinite, for there

not in
persons,

it

(the di

duality of natures and quaternity of

but only

unification of natures

and

trinity of persons.

It is after the
2
(
).

em

bodiment of the Dispensation (Incarnation) as before

Monotheletism.
23. One of the logical consequences of the heresy of Eutyches

was Monotheletism,

for if there is only one

nature

in Christ,

there can be but one will and one operation in

Him. Hence, the

Council of Chalcedon, in defining against Eutyches the existence
of the

two natures,

states also that the properties of each nature

are preserved:

Nusquam

sublata differentia naturarum propter
3 ( ).

unitionem, magisque salva proprietate utriusque naturae

Like the Eutychians, Philoxenus admits Monotheletism, and
teaches categorically that there
in
is

only one will and one operation

Christ.

Thus, in his profession of faith entitled rfb\QJiZA*cn 9

he says:

We

do not acknowledge in

Him

(Christ) two sons,
;

nor two persons, nor two wills, nor two natures
l

one,

God, and

(

)

This tract

is

is

as yet

unpublished.

extant in Syr. Ms. 135 of the Vatican library, and We quote from a copy in the possession of

Prof. Hyvernat.
JJ?
JJ)
.),

3

(

)

HARDUIN,

op. cit., vol. II, p. 455.

57

the other,

man

1

( ).

And

again, in the

same document:

If

any one confesses in the Only Begotten two persons or two wills,
or
let

admits a distinction of persons after the union in the womb,

him be anathema

2 (

).

Such

is

also

the

doctrine

of his
in

famous

neighbor and contemporary,

Jacob of Serugh,

who,
*

his second Letter to the

Monks

of

Mar

Bassus, says
divide,

:

I

ana

thematize also those who, after the union,

and confess,

and count
tributes,

in one

Christ (two) natures with their properties, at
so as to
s
3

and operations,
is

give to

God what

is

God

s

and

to

man what

man

( ).

Reality of the Body of Christ.
24. Another important question in christological controversies was the reality of the body of Christ.
of the two natures

and the absorption
Eutychians were led

By holding the confusion of the human by and into
to

the divine, strict
tiality of the

deny the consubstan-

body of Christ with

ours.

Hence the

assertion of

Eutyches that, although the Blessed Virgin was
with
us,

consubstantial

the

body of Christ was not
origin

4
( ).

He

did

not

explain
to

himself on the

of the body of the Lord.

According

Gennadius

5

(

),

he taught with the Gnostics that the

Word

brought

His body down from heaven.

This charge, however, he denied

at the Council of Constantinople in

448

6 (

).

Philoxenus accuses

him

of holding that the body of Christ

was made out of nothing.

(>)

B. 0.,

II,

p.

33.

2
( ) 3
(

Ibid, p. 34.

)

Z.D.M.
to the

G., vol. 30, p. 235, lines

15-17.
to

The

letters of

Jacob of

Serugh

Monks

of

published and translated
pp. 217-275.

Mar Bassus and by Abbe MARTIN
all

Paul of Edessa have been
Z. D. M.
Gf.,

in the

vol. 30,

They prove beyond

reasonable doubt that Jacob of Serugh
in

was

a Monophysite.
4
( )

6V ovde TO
Gf.,

aw u
4

MIGNE, P.
5
(

vol.

86

bis, p.

rov KVQLOV opoovGiov rj^Tv thsyev eivai 2445.
Z/.,

,

) 6
)

Liber Dogmatum, in MIGNE, P.

vol.

58, p. 981.

(

HEFELE, Conciliengeschichte,

vol. II, p. 322.

58

own opinion on
leaned
this point,

Whatever may have been Eutyches
there
is

no doubt that his
did not

doctrine

towards

Docetism,

and

consequently

appeal to the
in the

Syrian
of

Monophysites

who had been schooled
Edessa.

traditions

Antioch

and of

This

may

account partly for the fact that his doctrines

found but few followers
indeed, they
his opinions

among

the

Monophysites of the East;

made no
I

difficulty in

anathematizing Eutyches and

( ).

Phiioxenus, by teaching that the divinity and the humanity
in

Christ, although forming but one nature, are not confused nor
in

mingled

any way,

is

able,

from

his

own
follow

point of view,
necessarily

to

deny some of the consequences
Eutyches
doctrine:

which
the

from

and

so,

in

Letter to the

Monks, he

rejects the Gnostic

and Eutychian theories about the origin of

the body of the Lord:

He

(the

Word)

did not bring His body

down from heaven,

as Bardesanes said; nor

was He seen under

a false appearance or a phantom, according to the blasphemy of

Mani and Marcion; nor was (His body) made from
said

nothing, as
the

Eutyches the

fool;

nor

was

His nature

changed, as

wicked Arius

and Eunomius imagine;

nor was He,

Who
God

was

embodied, without (human) intelligence, according to the blasphe

mous

doctrine of Apollinaris

;

but

He Who

is

perfect
2

took

a body,

and became perfect

man

of the Virgin

(

).

Hence he

asserts repeatedly that the

Word became
in

incarnate in the Virgin,

and of the Virgin, and not simply
contended:

the Virgin as

Eutyches

The Word was not embodied
but

in the Virgin, as if

not also of the Virgin,

He

truly

became man in her and

of her

3
( ).

The

reality of the

body of Christ

is

a

frequent

theme
in

in

Phiioxenus

writings.

He

dwells on

it

at

great

length

his

(*)

RKNAUDOT, Historic patriarcharum alexandrinorum jacobitarum,
P. 97. P. 97.

p.

115.
2
( )

3
(

)

59

Letter to the
nity of Christ

Monks
is

of Teleda, and says not only that the

huma
of

real,

but

that, through

the

manifestation

that

same
Son

real

humanity, we are led to believe

in the divinity

of the

of

God.

Commenting on
hidden

St.

Luke, xxiv, 39, he
manifestation, that
is

says

:

To

this end Jesus was

seen in true
divinity

He might
heretic,

teach us that His

true.

For,

Thomas

did not touch an appearance, but the real

huma

To show us that He was not changed by beco I have flesh and bones ming incarnate, He (Christ) said,
nity of God.
*

,

but did not
1

say,

I

am

(flesh

and bones)
change.

,

lest

by saying
said
:

I

am

thou

shouldst

suppose a
bones
as
.

For

He
I

A
and

spirit

has not flesh and
(as

you see that
I

have

,

not

you have

see) that I
flesh

am
flesh

am
I

a

Spirit because I

am

God

;

I

and bones because

became

a body

and was

not changed.
that
I

Touch the

and the bones, and make certain and of the
words

am; put thy hand
and
believe

in the places of the nails

lance,
4

that I became
I

incarnate.

Hear the

I

have

and not

am

,

and

believe that I was not changed.
;

By

the touch

make

sure of the corporeity

from the
the

word be
corporeity;
l

lieve the

immutability; with

the

finger

touch

from the word of doctrine understand the spirituality
in the

(

).

Again,
first

same

letter,

commenting on the
Philoxenus writes
:

first

verse

of the

epistle of St. John,

How

can this be

We
life

have handled and have seen with our eyes the
if it

Word

of

was an appearance and not a

reality

that

was assumed,

as the blasphemer Eutyches said?

How
it

can this be

We

have

handled the

Word
And

,

if,

as he says,

was an appearance that
see because I

was handled?
flesh

this again

Touch and

have

and bones?

Therefore, let us cry out

against these two
life

(Nestorius and Eutyches) with a voice full of truth and
faith,

and

that

He Who was touched was God

incarnate, the

Word

)

GUIUI, op.

cit,,

fol.

20a, col.

2,

line 16-fol. 20b, col.

1,

line 21.

Who
became
flesh truly,

60

not a
1

man

distinct

from God, nor an

appearance without reality

( ).

Not only does Philoxenus

insist

on the reality of the

huma

nity of Christ, but he urges against his opponents the irresistible

argument

that, if the

body of Christ was not

real,

two of the

great ends of the Incarnation

the reparation of fallen

human

nature and our sonship

with

God through

Christ

could not
:

be obtained
(the

2 ( ).

Thus

in the Letter to Zeno,

he says

For

He

Word)

did not bring to Himself a body from heaven as the

foolish Valentin us

and Bardesanes assert

;

nor was His embodi
to

ment from nothing, because He did not wish
ture that did not exist, but

redeem a crea

He wished
3

to

renew that which,
the

created by

Him, had become old

( ).

In

Letter to

the

Monks he
our

says that, unless the Son of

God took upon Himself
of

humanity,

we could
is

not

have become the sons

God:

Herein then

a great mystery of profound love and of inef

fable salvation, that
since

He Who

is

became, not that

He might

be

He

is,

but that we, through His becoming (Incarnation),
4

might become the sons of God
to Zeno,
not,

(

).

And

again, in the Letter

The Word, therefore, became something that He was and remained something that we were not (but became),

() GUIDI,
2
( )

op.

cit.,

fol.

20b, col.

2,

line 19
is

-

fol.

21a, col.

1,

line 6.

the assertion of Theophanes (MiGNE, P. 0., vol. 108, p. 384) and of Cedrenus (MIGNE, P. G., vol. 121,

From

this

we

see

how

groundless

p.

693)

who accuse Philoxenus

of Manicheism. of the

This charge

is sufficiently

refuted by his opinion on the reality

body of Christ; besides, he
In the Letter to the

condemns Mani and Manicheism

explicitly.

Monks

of

He who says that the aspect of Christ was a false Beth-Gaugal, he says: appearance, and not a real embodiment from the nature of the Virgin, is a disciple of Mani and Marcion And in the Letter to the (p. 1 14).
Monks
of Teleda,
It

Manichean, nor a mere man,
lines 26-29).
3 (
)

was not an appearance that the Apostles touched, Jew (Gumi, op. cit., fol. 20b, col. 1,
.

P. 119.
P. 101.

4
( )

61

-

that

is,

sons of God.

For we became sons of God, although our
1

nature

was not changed

(

).

Other Consequences of the Eutychian Theory.
25.

From

their theory on the union of the

two natures

in Christ,

the Eutychians could not avoid one or the other of the two al
ternatives: either the divinity suffered, or the sufferings of Christ

were not

real.

Many

of

them held that the divine nature
to the

in

Christ suffered, as

we know from the preamble
Et
illos

definition

of the Council of Chalcedon:

qui passibilem deitatem
2

Unigeniti ausi sunt dicere, a sacro coetu expellit (Synodus)

( ).

Others attributed suffering to the whole Trinity.

Such was pro
3

bably the meaning intended by
Antioch, when,
in the year

Peter Fuller
),

( ),

patriarch
(

of
5

477

4
(

he added to the Trisagion

),

(

)

P. 119.

Cf. ST.

MIGNE, P.

L., vol. 41, p.

AUGUSTINE, De civitate Dei, lib. XXI, c. XV, in 729: Unicus enim natura Dei Filius, propter
fllius
.

nos misericordia factus est
a
(

hominis, ut nos natura

filii

hominis,

filii

Dei per ilium gratia fieremus
)
3

(
(

)
4 )
5

HARDUIN, op. cit., vol. II, p. 455. Cf. TILLEMONT, Mdmoires, vol. XVI, BARONIUS, Annales eccl., anno 477.

p.

301.

( )

tinople.

During the year 446, earthquakes were frequently felt in Constan One day, the earth shaking more violently than usual, the clergy

and the faithful withdrew into the country, and offered public prayers for During one of these public services, a boy was suddenly taken up into the air before the bishop and the people, and it is said that he heard the angels sing: ayiog o Oeos, ayiog ia^vQoq, ayiog
the salvation of their city.
ciOdvccto?,

skerjaov
it is

qpcts.

Latin Church

sung

in

Such was the origin of the Trisagion. In the Greek on Good Friday during the exposition

faithful, and it is recited in Latin Prime of the Ferial office. Peter the Fuller inserted into the Trisagion o aravgwOeig Mij UKg the words This addition was capable of a twofold The Catholics who accepted it, and some Monophysites, interpretation. understood it as referring to Christ alone. Other Monophysites, and espe

of the Cross to the veneration of the

at

.

(

cially the

Theopaschites, understood this addition as meaning that the whole Trinity had suffered. To remove all ambiguity, Calandion, patriarch of Antioch (482-485), added the words after c(6civ(tTo?, XQIGTO? Baffrtsvg

- 62

for

the words

Who

wast crucified

us

,

which gave

rise

to

bitter theological disputes, and, on one occasion, nearly cost the

emperor Anastasius his throne and his

life

l

(

).

By
his

denying the confusion of the divinity and the humanity

in that one nature

which he admits, Philoxenus

is

able,

from

own

point of view, to avoid the conclusion that the divinity

suffered.
flesh.

He

clearly teaches
in

that

Christ

suffered

only in

the

The many passages

which he speaks of the death of

the Saviour leave no doubt as to his belief on this point.

Thus, in the Letter to the Monks of Beth-Gaugal, he says

:

The
and

Spiritual

One did
not

not

die

in

so

far as

He

is

spiritual,

God

did

suffer in

so far as

He

is

God.

He

has no

beginning, to the extent that
neration from the Father.

He

is

without beginning in his ge
therefore,

He

suffered,

because
a

He

took a body,

and

He

died

because

He became
The Cross
God;
for,

brother of

mortals

2

( ).

In the Letter to Zeno, speaking of the death and
:

of the immortality of Christ, he writes

is

the herald

of the death and of the immortality of

until then,

we

believed by hearing that
experience has
death,

God

is

immortal; but, on the Cross,

shown

whilst tasting (that) both (were true), for,

He

remained
but, by

living.

Death could not attack and destroy

His

life;

His death, the power of death was destroyed,
His becoming (man),
is

so that this death (of the Son), after

a

miracle.

For

He Who

suffered death for us

was not mortal as
mortals would
is

one of us,

otherwise

the

power of death over

not have been destroyed.

From

all

men

Ave

know that what
as

mortal shall die

;

but, that the

Immortal be considered

having

thus referring explicitly the crucifixion to

Memoires, vol. XIV, p. 579 sqq.

p.

713 sqq.;

Cf. TILLEMONT, Christ alone. BARONIUS, anno 446, Annales, vol., VII,

GIBBON, Decline and Fall, ed. Milman, ( ) Les Moines de Constantinople, p. 272.
2
(

vol. VI, p.

30;

MARIN

)

P. 109.

died corporally,
the
is

63

something

new which took

place

once

on

Cross

l

( ).

It is true that

Philoxenus accepted the Trisagion with the
the Fuller, but he

addition

made by Peter

understood the ad

dition to apply to Christ alone, as can
to the

be seen from the Letter

Monks

:

Nor did He

(Christ)

become immortal by being

justified

by His works, as the wicked followers of Nestorianism

assert; but by

His nature

He

is

immortal because

He

is

God,

as the whole
art

Church of God

cries out in the Trisagion:

Thou
Holy,

Holy, God;

Thou

art

Holy, Strong

One; Thou
for us,

art

Immortal One; (Thou)
on us
2 ( ).

Who

wast crucified

have mercy

Thus

far it

might be objected that he agrees with
the
divinity,

the Theopaschites in attributing death to

but he

immediately explains himself, and
he puts on the Trisagion. and
of Peter the Fuller:

tells

us what interpretation the addition

how he understands
true

Thus does the

Church believe, thus

do the tongues which are moved by truth cry out that He,
is

Who
body

immortal by nature, God the Word, was
all,

crucified

in

for

not

that a body
(

or
3
).

a

man

distinct

from

Him was

suspended on the Cross
This doctrine
is

explained more

fully in his Letter to the

Monks

of Teleda, and he shows clearly that the

Word

suffered

only in so far as
adversaries,

He became man.
not
First,

Thus,
die,

to the objection of his
is
it

Since angels do

how
ask

believed that

God God

died
is

?

he answers

:

to

this

question

about

a blasphemy.

When
not

thou nearest that God has done any how.
Secondly,
the
angel,

thing, thou shouldst
is

ask

who
first

immortal by his nature, did not become man.

But we

say of God, of

Whom

we

confess that
to

He

died, that

He became

man, and then we attribute death

His person,

so that it is

(

)
2 )

P. 123-124. P. 101.

(

() P. 101.

64

seen that

it

is

the death

of

His becoming, not of his essence,
1

for the essence of

God

is

above death

(

).

And

he says, fur

thermore, that the objection drawn from the
spiritual

angels

and other

natures

is

irrelevant,

because none of them

became
alone, of

incarnate, and that the Word alone died because
all

He

spiritual

natures, took a body:
spiritually,

Corporally, therefore,

God
flesh,

died,

and not
in

as

He was

born according to the
is

and not

His essence.

Not similar then

the example which
tasted death be

thou bringest.
fore

If thou shouldst say that

He

He became man

of the Virgin, thou couldst well refute
spiritual natures
;

my
the

argument by the example of
only one

but

if

He

is

Who

had

corporeity,

and

if it is

not found in any other
of the
of

spiritual nature, nor in the eternal persons

Father and
the angels,

of the

Holy Ghost, nor
alone

in

the

spiritual

nature

He,

Who

among

spiritual

natures,

had by His will cor
which cannot
were written

poreity, to

Him

alone applies

the

fact of death,

happen

in the other spiritual

natures.

For, if

it

that other spiritual natures were incarnate, then death could be

predicated of other
poreity

spiritual

natures

;

if,

on

the

contrary, cor

was not

in

any of them, then none of them tasted death.
as it is written,

The Word alone became a body,

and in

Him
of
die,

alone was the mystery of death accomplished corporally.
alone of all spirits
all spirits tasted

As He
alone

became

a

true

body, so

also,

He

death truly.

Whilst the Father did not

nor the Holy Ghost, nor any of the created spiritual natures,
alone was subject to death, because

He

He

alone

became man from
of Beth-Gaugal,

our nature

2

(

).

And, in the Letter

to the

Monks

Philoxenus asserts that Christ lying in the grave as man, was,
at that very time, the Ruler of

the

universe:

When He
all,

lay

and reclined dead
rection,

in

Scheol,

He was

preparing, for
all

resur

was ruling the hosts of heaven and

creatures by

0) GUIDI, op.
2
( )

cit.,

fol.
fol.

13a, col. 2, line 22 15a,
col. 2,

-

fol.

13b, col.

1,

line

13.

GUIDI, op.

cit.,

line

26

-

fol.

15b, col. 2, line 13.

breathing in the souls,
tures,

65

limbs together and
all crea

His nod, creating bodies and putting the

and governing the worlds and
l

as

God Who

is

everywhere

(

).

It is evident, therefore,

from

all

these passages that

Phi-

loxenus attributes death to the

Word

of God, only in so far as

He became man.
the time, and such

He
is,

gives this as the belief of his
2

church at
3 (

according to Renaudot

(

)

and Assemani

),

the

common

doctrine of the Jacobites.

As we remarked above, the Eutychians who denied that the divinity in Christ had suffered were forced to admit with
the Gnostics that the sufferings of Christ were not real.
a necessary consequence of their doctrine on the origin
It

was
the

of

body

of the Lord,

which they said was not consubstantial with
it,

ours; for, as Philoxenus expresses

where there
4
( ).

is

no true

corporeity, there cannot be any true death

Philoxenus,

however, by holding fast the reality of the humanity of Christ,
puts himself in a position to

deny

the

conclusion

which

the

Eutychians could not escape. In his Letter to the
leda,

Monks

of Teof

he expresses clearly his belief in the genuineness

the

passion and death of Christ.

Arguing against the Gnostics and

the Eutychians, he says:
of faith,

Do
it

not corrupt,

rebel,

the

word

and do not make

a phantom.

For

I

did not say,

and

I

do not say, and

God

forbid that I should say that those

things were performed in the divine

Economy
birth,

in

a

false

ap
the

pearance.

The becoming (man) and

and

likewise

passion and death and all the
this took place really

human

actions between these, all

and

truly, as

becomes God.
in the

Not, indeed,
;

as the angels appeared,

was God seen

world

not as the

angels ate and drank in the house of

Abraham and

in the house

(

)

P.

108.

2

( )
3

Lit. or. coll., vol. II, p. 70.

( )

B.

0., II, p. 36.
cit.,

4
( )

GUIDI, op.

fol.

15

a,

col.

2,

lines 2-6.

66

of Lot, did

God

eat and drink

in

the

world.

That

(in

the

angels) took place in appearance only; this (in God) in the truth
of corporeity.

That
the

is

not similar to
of
his

this,

as

said the heretic

Eutyches and

followers

diabolical

doctrine

1

(

).

Theory

of

Philoxenus on the Sufferings of Christ.

26. Although Philoxenus teaches that Christ suffered truly and not in appearance, his theory concerning
sufferings and the manner
in

the

nature

of

these

which the Saviour
is

assumed

and

bore the infirmities and needs of humanity,

not in

harmony

with his own principles.

Many

passages in his writings go to
as passible
:

show that he did not regard the body of Christ
nature.

by

Thus, in the Letter to the Monks, he says
(the

Everything
but
if

that

He

Word) became, He became,

not for Himself,
because,

for us.

For

He

vas not a sufferer by His nature,

He had

suffered being a sufferer (by nature),

He would have
Monks
of Tedefects

suffered for

Himself

2
(

).

In the Letter to the
operations

leda, speaking of the
thirst,

human

and

(hunger,

fatigue, etc.)

which Christ assumed, he says

that

they

were not

in Christ as they are in us:

Not indeed
I

as they are

performed by man, were those things which
in

have enumerated by

man performed by God.

For they

are

performed
in

man
of

naturally, but (they are performed) by

God

the wonder
3 (

His Economy, supernaturally,
in the

in true

wonder

).

And

again,
is

same

letter,

he writes:
for

Therefore,

He

(Christ)

also

above death naturally,

His Incarnation took place

in a holy

manner, without intercourse, without the

concupiscence

of

sin

and death.
His
fight

Because there

is

not in
for

Him

any one of these things,
the
rest

was not His own or

Himself; nor were

0) GUIDI, ibid.,
2
(

fol.

19

a,

col.

2,

line 10;

fol.

19b,

col.

1,

line

7.

) 3 )

P. 101.

(

GUIDI, op.

cit,,

fol.

19

a,

col.

2,

lines 1-9.

67

in

of the

weak things which He assumed
by His will
been

His person (His own

or for Himself); but,
self for us.

He

fulfilled

them

in

Him

For

if

He had

subject

to

them

naturally,

they would have been performed by

Him

necessarily as by every

man, and then His victory over these things would have
for

been

Himself and not

for us.

By His

will,

therefore,

was

He

subject to them, not as by excess or defect, or as ruled by ne
cessity,
sufferer,

or as impelled

by the motion of concupiscence, or as a
by nature, but as being above
all

or as mortal
1

these

things by nature

( ).

From

these passages

it

seems

clear

that

Philoxenus
simply

re

gards the infirmities, sufferings and death of Christ

as

voluntary, not only in their assumption, but also in the

way they
Christ

were supported.

He

does not consider the humanity of

as passible naturally.

In this he departs

from

the

common
both

doctrine according to which the sufferings of Christ

were

voluntary and natural, that
rally supported.

is,

voluntarily assumed

and

natu

They were voluntary because the Son of God
of immortality

consented to forego the preternatural gifts

and

impassibility which belonged to His innocent body by virtue of

the hypostatic union, and because, after having assumed

them,

He had

full control over

them, and they were natural because

He became
mony with
manity and
teaching
of

like unto us in everything except sin.

Hence

we

see that the doctrine of Philoxenus on this point is not in har
his well
its

known

belief in the reality of Christ

s

hu

consubstantiality with our

human

nature.

In his

we already notice the germs of the heresy of Julian Halicarnassus who taught, against Severus of Antioch, that

Christ was not subject to

human

passions
2

or

exposed

to

the

changes of our corruptible nature

( ).

col. 2, line 29. Guior, op. cit, fol. lib, col. 1, line 29 Julian held that the body of Christ was incorruptible, that it was not subject to the changes of our nature. Severus maintained the con( ) 2
(

)

Among

68

-

the infirmities which Christ assumed in the Incar
igno

nation Philoxenus appears to include the moral defect of

rance or liability to error.

In the Letter to the

Monks

of Beth-

Gaugal, he says
nor fatigue, nor

:

He who
sleep,

as God. experiences neither hunger,

nor ignorance; the Same, as man, was

hungry and

thirsty,

ate

and drank, was sleepy and
1

slept,

and
of
te a
(Cf.
it

asked questions to learn
Christ as

(

).

Here,

he

evidently

affirms

man what
to

he denies of him as God.

The word
to forget

means

err

,

and in a transitive sense
voce).

PAYNE-SMITH,

Thes. Syr., sub

As Philoxenus
it

denies

of Christ as God, he seems to affirm

of

Him

as

man

;

the

words

He

asked questions to learn

confirm this view.

Summing up
27.

of the

Doctrine of Philoxenus.

From

the comparison of the errors of Nestorius and of

Eutyches with the passages adduced from Philoxenus

works, the

following points concerning his doctrine on the Incarnation seem
clear
:

trary.

Having been expelled from

their sees

by Emperor Justin

in 5 19

on

account of their Monophysite doctrines and of their opposition f the There each began Council of Chalcedon, they sought refuge in Egypt. Hence arose the famous to propagate his opinions on the body of Christ.
of disputes about the corruptibility and the incorruptibility of the body The the Lord. The controversy rose to a serious height in Alexandria.

adherents of Severus were called
ruptible
;

qpe>roA

r0fc, or

worshipers of the cor
t

the followers of Julian were

or teachers of the incorruptible.

known by the name of ce<p6aQrotfoxrJTi, The patriarch of Alexandria, Timothy II,

although inclining to the creed of Severus, tried to conciliate both parties and to remain in communion with them. After his death (536), each party chose its own patriarch. The followers of Severus, having elected Theodosius, called themselves Theodosians
;

those of Julian elected Gaianus and

became known

HEFELE, Conciliengeschichte, vol. II, NEALE, Patriarchate of Alexandria, vol. II, p. 30; PBTAVIUS, p. 573; Dogmata Theologica, De Incarn., lib. I, cap. XVI, num. XI-XIII.
as Gaianites.
Cf.

0) P. 108.

69 a) Against the Nestorians, he acknowledges only one person
in

Christ.
b)

With

the Eutychians and against the Council of Chal-

cedon, he admits only one nature after the union.
c)

This nature

is

a composite one, consisting of the di

vinity

and of the humanity,
d) united without change, mixture or confusion,
e)

after the

manner

of the soul

and the body

in

man.

f)
tial

The humanity of
is

Christ, although real

and consubstan-

with ours,
g)

not a nature, nor a person.

The

divinity

and the humanity constitute

in

Christ
of

one nature, which Philoxenus calls

One embodied nature

God

the
h)

Word

..

The expression
of

The Immortal died
and not

means

that

the
is

Word

God

suffered in the flesh,

in so far as

He

God;

so that the Trisagion,
is

with the addition introduced by

Peter the Fuller,

to

be referred to Christ alone, and not to

the other two persons of the Holy Trinity.
i)

Christ suffered by His will, which

means not only that

He assumed
sible

suffering voluntarily, but also that

He was

not pas

and mortal by nature.

Philoxenus and Original

Sin.

28. In speaking of the death of Christ in his Letter to the

Monks

of Teleda, Philoxenus gives us incidently his doctrine on

original sin.
tion of

He

acknowledges

its

existence, its effects

priva
,

original justice,

concupiscence,

and death

and

its

transmission into all those born according to the ordinary laws
of nature.

On

account of the transgression of the
is

first

precept,

death reigned, and this death
scence.

naturally mixed with concupi
into this world

Therefore every one
is

who comes
;

by way

of intercourse,
not,

born naturally mortal
little

and whether he sins or
is

whether he sins

or

much, he

in

any case subject

to

70

in with his nature
1

death, because death

is

mixed

( ).

And

in the

same
us

letter,

he states clearly that death and concupiscence
ordinary generation:
*

are in

through

God

then,

when He
anew

wished to become

man

of the Virgin in order to create us

by His becoming, was not incarnate and born from intercourse, as in the old law, so that even in His Incarnation He might be
above death and concupiscence,
follow only from intercourse.
is said,

for in every

man

these two things

Of Him,

therefore, neither of these

because

He was

conceived and begotten without intercourse.

Therefore, the Holy Ghost
of the

came

to the Virgin, that the Incarnation

Word might

take place of her in a holy

manner

2 ( ).

Philoxenus and the Blessed Virgin.
29. That Philoxenus believed in the Immaculate Conception
of the Blessed Virgin
is

very probable, not only because

it

was

a

common

doctrine in the Syriac
it

Church

in his

time

3 (
),

but also

on account of the allusions to

which we

find in his writings.

He

calls

Mary

the pure Virgin

in the Letter to the

Monks

:

Word) came down and dwelt in the pare Virgin who was sanctified by God the Spirit, and He became man of her

He

(the

without change, in everything like unto us except sin
also acknowledges in an explicit
et
iii

4 (
).

He

manner her
the

virginity ante

partum

partu.

Thus,

in the

Letter to
is

Monks

of Teleda, he

says:

Therefore,

He

(Christ)

also
in

above death naturally,
a

because His Incarnation took place

holy manner without

intercourse, without the concupiscence of sin

and death

5 (

).

And

0) GUIDI, op.
2
(
)

cit.,

fol.

lla, col.

1,

line

26

-

col. 2, line

7.

GUIDI, op. cit,

fol.

lla, col. 2, lines 8-30.

3
( )

Apud

Syros praecipue, forsitan magis dilucida et frequens
Vita S. Jacobi Sarugensis, p. 187.
line 29 col. 2
-

quam
Dei

in aliis ecclesiis occurrit perfectae civctftaQTqaUes et integrae puritatis

Genitricis assertio. ABBELOOS,
4
( )

P. 96.

5

( )

GUIDI, op.

cit..

fol.

lib,,

col.

1,

line 1.

71

again, in the

same

letter:

Also all those who are born, are not

born in a virginal manner;

He

(Christ),

on the

contrary,

was

born of the Virgin who, in His birth, preserved the signs of her
l

virginity

(

).

B
His DOCTRINE ON THE TRINITY.

Three Persons and one Nature.
30.

When

he treats of the Blessed Trinity, Philoxenus, like

the other Monophysites of his day, preserves the distinction bet

ween nature and person, which he does not admit
of the Incarnation.

in the mystery
in three di

He
in

confesses

clearly one

God

vine persons.

Thus,

the

Letter to
is

the

Monks,

he writes:

This Jesus,

God

the

Word,

our truth, with His Father and

with
one

nature

His Holy Spirit: one Trinity, one essence, one divinity, from everlasting and from eternity. For there is

not in

Him

(God) nature and nature, nor
recent or old,

essence and

essence,
in

nor anything

but One in Three

and Three

One; an eternal nature and eternal persons, one essence adored
with
its

persons from everlasting and from eternity

2 (

).

In the

Letter to the

Monks

of Teleda, speaking of the faith for

which

we must be ready
Holy Ghost

to die,

he says

:

Thus

I

believe and confess

one substantial and eternal nature of the Father, of the Son, and
of the
:

the Father,

His Son

Who

is

from

Him

;

the Son,

He

is

consubstantial with the

Who is really Father, because of Who is Son in truth, because Father; and the Holy Ghost, Who
with the Son
;

proceeds from the Father and

is glorified

one God,

(

)

GUIDI,
P. 96.

ibid., fol.

17b,

col.

1,

lines 23-26.

8
(

)

72

because
so
l

there

is

one nature; three persons, because
In this one divine nature with
2 (

they
its

are

(

).

And
I

again:

three

holy persons

have learned to believe

).

Equality and Consubstantiality of the Persons.

31. Philoxenus also teaches the equality
of the three divine persons.

and consubstantiality

In the Letter to the Monks, he calls

the Son the Splendor and the essential
the will of the essence, this

Image

of the Father

:

By

same Person (the Word) came down
natural

from heaven, that

is,

God from God,
3

Son of a natural

Father, the Splendor of the Father and His essential Image,
the

God
of

Word Who

is

over all

( ).

In the Letter to the
:

Monks

Beth-Gaugal, he calls Christ the equal of God
not confess that

He who

does

a servant, as Paul teaches, does not
of

God emptied Himself, and took the likeness of know that Christ is the equal
acknowledges in explicit terms that the Son
as
is

God

4 ( ).

He

is

consubstantial with the Father,

clear

from the opening

sentence of the

Letter to Zeno:

Christ-loving Zeno,

Em
God

peror, concerning the embodiment and the humanifying of

the

Word,

begotten

and near
by

Who is consubstantial with God the Father, and was by Him before ages and worlds, Who is always God God, Who is God the Word, because He was begotten
is

Him

without passion and, with Him,
learned,
:

not subject to time,

we have

we

believe,

and we have received from tradition

(as follows)

that

He (God

the

Word) emptied Himself and came

into the

womb

of the Virgin, without leaving the Father, without

(

)
2 )

GUIDI, op.

cit.,

fol.

4a, col. 2, line
col.
1,

22

-

fol.

4b, col. 1, line 5.

(

3
(

)

GUIDI, op. cit., fol. 4b, P. 96. Cf. Eebr. I, 3.
P. 110.

lines 26-29.

(*)

separating Himself from

73

Whom,
near

Him
is
(

with
)

Whom, and

like

unto

Whom He

always

That the testimonies as
lity of the

to the equality so

and consubstantiais

Holy Ghost are not

numerous,

accounted for by

the fact that, in his letters, Philoxenus treats mainly of the Incar
nation.
Still the

few passages in which he speaks of the Holy
to

Ghost leave no doubt as

his

belief on
is

this

point.

In the

Letter to Zeno, he says that the Son

consubstantial with the
of the Son,

Father and with the Holy Ghost
therefore,

:

The person

became embodied by the

will of the Father

and of the
that

Holy Ghost, and this embodiment daes

not

exclude

He
Son
2

may

be

consubstantial

with them,

for

He was

begotten
Virgin)

(by the Father) and

He was

born Son (of the
to the

( ).

And, in the same
as to the Father

letter,

he attributes

Holy Ghost

as well

the

power

of raising

Christ from the dead:
:

The Holy Ghost also raised Him, for (Paul says again) He (Christ) was known to be the Son of God by power, and by the
Holy Ghost according
to the resurrection

from the dead

3

( ).

Eternal Generation of the Son.
32. The eternal generation of the Son
is

often spoken of in

Philoxenus

writings especially in
Virgin.

connection with His temporal
to

generation from the
read:

In the Letter

the

Monks, we
is

And He, Whose
4
(

generation from the Father

without

beginning, was brought

forth with a beginning in His generation

from the Virgin

).

And

in the Letter to

Zeno
since

:

She (the
(the

Virgin) did not bring

Him

forth spiritually

Word)
did not

has His spiritual generation from the

Father,

and

He

(

)

P. 118. P. 121.
P. 124.

2
( )

3
(

)

4
( )

P. 98.

74

He was begotten by the Father, according to 1 the order of the (divine) nature and of the essential generation ( ).
become (man), as

Procession of the Holy Ghost.
33. That Philoxenus believed in the procession of the Holy

Ghost from the Father

is

evident from the passage adduced above

:

And

the Holy Ghost,

Who
2

proceeds from the Father and
This, in fact,

is

glorified with the

Son

( ).

was the expression

generally used in speaking of the procession of the
before the insertion of the Ftlioque*\nto the Creed
3
(

Holy Ghost
).

Not only
the

does Philoxenus affirm that the Holy

Ghost proceeds from

Father, but he considers the procession of the Holy Ghost diffe
rent from that of the Son, which
is

called generation.

In the

Letter to Zeno, giving a reason

why

the Father
:

Ghost did not become incarnate, he says
corporal generation, because

and the Holy The Father had no

He

is

always Father; nor had the

Holy Ghost, because He did not come from the Father as Son
in order to

become the Son

of the Virgin

4
(

).

But does Philoxenus

also teach that the
it

Holy Ghost proceeds
strength of the
fol

from the Son? Assemani denies
lowing
passage in

on the

Philoxenus
as the

treatise

De
from

Trinitate et Incarthe Father
is

natione:

Not indeed

Son

is

also

the Holy Ghost from the Father
is

the Son,

but both are

from the Father:

Being only; the Son, Son of the Being; the Holy
5

Ghost

is

from the Being

(

).

Here, however, Philoxenus does

(

)

P. 119.
P. 71.

2
(

) 3

(

)

Constantinople (381) runs thus: TO TIVEVIAU TO ayiov, TO xvQiov, TO {.taonoiov, TO ex TOV KxnoQevouevov, TO avv nctTQt xcd rtw avfj,r[Qo<jxvvov^ei>ov xal avvdoxctl slg
t

The

definition of the Council of

ov TG
(*)
5
(

hcchijffai

did

TWV nQoyrjTwv. HEFELE,

op.

cit.,

vol. II,

p. 11.

P.

121,
0.,
II,

)

B.

p.

20.

not deny absolute!}
7

75

-

that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Son,

but seems to imply that
the

He

does not proceed from the Son in
is,

same way

as the Son proceeds from the Father, that

by

way

of generation.

As

a matter of fact, Assemani

is

obliged to

admit that Philoxenus contradicts himself

in this passage,

and

goes against the principles he gives in the same treatise regar

ding the distinction of the three divine persons.
is

The

principle

this

:

The Father
is

is

distinguished from the Son by this only
;

that

He

Begetter unbegotten

the Son

is

distinguished from

the Father by this that

He

is

begotten, not begetter; and the

Holy Ghost
by this that
never Son

is

distinguished from the Father and from the Son
is

He
1

always Holy Ghost, and never Father and
if

(

).

Hence, argues Assemani,

the Son

is
it

distin

guished by this only that
manifestly
that

He

is

begotten, not begetter,
that the

follows

He

has everything

Father possesses,

except the power of generating; and, consequently, the power of

producing the Holy Ghost

is

common

to

Him

with the Father

2

(

).

There
himself,

is

no need, however, of making Philoxenus contradict
if

for,

we turn

to

his Letter to the

Monks

of Teleda,
in

we

find a

remarkable

testimony

concerning his

belief

the

procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son.

In this letter, after
:

declaring his faith in the Blessed Trinity, he adds

One God,
;

because there
the Father

is

one nature
is

;

three persons because they are so

Who

Father from everlasting and from

eternity,

Who
is

is

Father, not by will only, but by nature; the Son
Son, not

Who
me

essentially Son with the Father,

indeed by grace.
is

but by natural generation; and the Spirit

Who

so,

not

taphorically nor in time as the other messenger spirits
into existence, but

who came
7

Holy

Spirit,

from the nature of (men ke} ana)
3

and consubstantial with (bar keyana) the Father and the Son
Here, Philoxenus asserts that the Holy Ghost
0) Ibid., p. 2i. 2 B. 0., II, ibid. )
3
(

( ).

is

not

only

bar

(

)

GUIDI, op.

cit.,

fol.

4b, col.

1,

lines 2-21.

He
is

76

that

key ana (consubstantial with) the Father and the Son, but that
also

men key ana,

that

is,

He

proceeds from the na
see

ture of the Father

and of the Son.
is

Hence we

that

his

teaching on the Holy Ghost
the Syriac Church.

in perfect

harmony with that

of

Long

before the insertion of the Filioque

into the Creed, forty bishops from Persia assembled at Seleucia
in

410 under the presidency

of SS. Isaac

and Maruthas,

and
in

expressed their belief in the procession
the following
canon, which
is

of the

Holy Ghost

one of the

oldest

documents of
Spirit,

Syriac literature:

We
"Who

confess a Living and

Holy

the
Son,
of
in

Living Paraclete

is

from the Father and from the
will,

and one Trinity, one essence, one

embracing the faith

the three hundred and eighteen bishops which
the city of Nice.

was denned

Such

is

our confession and our faith,
1

which

we have received from our holy Fathers
the teaching of Jacob of
2

(

).

Such was also

Serugh

(

)

and other Monophysites.

C
His Doctrine on the Real Presence.
34. As regards the Holy Eucharist, there
loxenus. like the other Monophysites of his
is

no doubt that Phi3

day(

),

believed in the

LAMY, L Eglise Syriaque et la procession du Catholique de Louvain for March 1860, pp. 166 sqq. The Syriac text of this canon which LAMY published in the above article is
x

(

)

Cf. the article of

St. Esprit in

La Revue

:

2
(

)
3
)

ABBELOOS, Vita S- Jacobi Sarugensis,

p.

121.

(

RENAUDOT,

Lit. Or.

Coll, vol.

II,

p.

507.

77

real presence of Christ in the Blessed Sacrament.
to the

In his Letter
death,

Monks

of Senun, written a year or so before his

he refutes the opinion of the Nestorians who held that the body

and blood given

in

Holy

Communion were
and

not the

body and
the

blood of Christ, but the body

blood of a
to

man whom
1

Word

of

God had assumed and united
is

Himself (

).

The pas
it

sage quoted by Assemani
is

well worth reproducing here, for

one of the clearest testimonies of the Syriac Church
of the real presence
:

on the

dogma

And He
is,

(Christ) is one Sou

and and
be
that

one Lord in these
in so far as

two:

that

in so far as

He

is

God,

He became man.
as

He remained
He was

one after

He

came man,

He was

one before His Incarnation,

except
flesh,

formerly (before the Incarnation)

one without

but

now
flesh

(after the Incarnation)

He

is

one having a body.

For the
to a

which

He

took from us belongs to

Him, and not
therefore,

man

considered distinct
that

from

Himself.

And,

we

confess

we

receive the living body of the Living God, and not the

mere, simple body of a mortal
living blood of the Living

man;

likewise,

we

receive

the

One

in the sacred draughts (of

Com
"

munion), and not the mere blood of a corruptible
selves.
"

man

like our

For
;

it

was not
it

sanctified

bread that

He

called

His

body
called

nor was

wine enriched only by a blessing that
".

He
took

"

His blood

But He

said of
it
is

them that they were
written:
to his

truly His

own body and

blood, as

u

Jesus

bread, and blessed, and broke: and gave
said:
for

disciples,

and

Take

ye,

and eat: This

is

My
ye,

body, which shall be broken

you unto remission of
gave thanks, and said
:

sins.

Likewise,

taking

the
:

chalice,

He

Take

and drink of this

This

is
".

My

blood which shall be shed for you unto remission of sins
"

Thus He called the bread

"

body

and the wine

"

blood

",

not indeed (the body and blood) of another man, but His

own

2

(

).

(

)

B.

0., Ill,
0.,
II,

pars 2a, p. 290.
pp. 38, 39.

a
(

)

B.

It is

78

clear that Philoxemis acknowledges here the real presence

of Christ in the Eucharist and the

dogma
is
1

of transubstantiation.

In this he agrees with the Jacobites as
gies

plain from the litur

which have come down
Concerning the

to us

(

).

reception of

Holy

Communion, we
Letter to the
:

find

a

very

interesting

passage in

Philoxemis

Monks.

Speaking of the

Word made man,

he says

Invisible,

we

see

Him; we eat Him
embrace
nite
2
"

not tangible,
;

we handle Him; not capable
powerful; we

of being eaten
;

not capable of being tasted, we drink
is

Him Who
).

all

kiss

Him Him Who is

we
infi

(

Here, we have not only an explicit proof of his belief

in the real presence,

we

eat

Him, we drink Him

,

but probably

also an allusion to the special acts of devotion which, in the early

ages of the Church, often accompanied the reception of the Holy Eucharist. know that, in the times of persecution, the faithful

We

used to receive the Blessed Sacrament in their hand
4

3 (

),

from the

priest
selves.
for

(

),

and carry

it

home where they could communicate them
custom continued

Even

after the days of persecution, the
St.

3 long time.

John Damascene

tells

us that, in Jerusalem,

the faithful, after receiving the Blessed Sacrament in their hand,
carried it to their eyes, lips,

and forehead,

to sanctify

themselves

5
(

).

This custom obtained among the Syrians in the days of Aphraates, for he says in his seventh Demonstration: They love Our Lord,

and they lick His wounds when they receive His body, and place it over their and lick it with their tongue, as the eyes, dog licks

(

)

RENAUDOT,
P. 101.

op. cit., vol. II, pp. 449, 494.

(")

3
(

)

TERTULLIAN, De Idolatria,

cap.

VII,

in

MIGNE,

P. L.,

vol.

I,

p. 669.
4
(
)

TERTULLIAN, Liber de Corona,

cap. Ill, in

MIGNE, P.

L.,

vol. II,

p.

79.
5
(

)

De Fide orthodoxa,

lib.

IV,

cap. 13, in

MIGNE, P.

G.,

vol.

94,

p.

1149.

79

his master

(*).

It is

probably to the same custom that Philo:

xenus refers when he says in the passage quoted above

We
is

embrace
finite
.

Him Who

is

all

powerful; we kiss

Him Who

in

p.

349.

vol. I, (0 Demonstration VII, n. 21, in GRAFFIN S Patrologia Syriaca, Cf. review of the same by HYVERNAT in The Catholic University

Bulletin for April 1895, pp. 314-319.

PART SECOND.

CHAPTER

I.

DESCRIPTION OF THE MANUSCRIPTS.

35. The three letters which are published here are extant
in Syr. Mss. 135,

136, and 138 of the
extant

Vatican
(fol.

library.

The

Letter
first

to

Zeno

is

only in Ms. 135

17r-19v); the

Letter to the
(fol.

Monks
;

of Beth-Gaugal exists only in this

same

Ms.

19v-23v)

the Letter to the

Monks

is

found in Ms. 135
(fol.

(fol. 15v-17r), in

Ms. 136

(fol. 29v-35r), in

Ms. 138

120r-123r),
(fol.

and

in Syr.

Ms. Add. 12164 of the British Museum
is

126a-

130a).

The following

a

brief

description

of

these different

Manuscripts.

Ms. 135 (according

to the old catalogue

Codex

Syr.

XI

of
is

Assemani) consists of 102 vellum leaves, 26 by 18 ctm., and
written in the Estrangelo character.

Folios 1-12 have one column
are ordinarily of
It bears

each

;

the others have two.
is

The columns
same hand.

37
;

lines.

The Ms.
assigns
it

not all of the

no date

Guidi

to the seventh or eighth century (*).

(

)

From

a private communication dated

Rome, January 17, 1902.
6

belongs to the sixth century.

82

XXVII
to

Ms. 136 (Codex Nitriensis

of

the

old catalogue)
leaves,

It consists of

130 vellum

25 by 16 ctm., and has two columns
in the Estrangelo character.

a page.

It is written

138 (Codex Nitriensis XXVI of the old catalogue) contains 136 vellum leaves, 31 by 25 ctm., and has three co
Ms.

lumns

to a page.

It is written in the Estrangelo character

and

bears the date 581.
Syr.

Ms. Add. 12164 of the British Museum, written

in a

beautiful Edessene

hand of the

sixth century, consists of

141 vellum

leaves about 31 by 25 centimeters.

Each page
(Cf.

is

divided into
Cat.

three
?.,

columns of from 37
p.

to

44

lines

Wright,

Syr.

527).

-

83

-

CHAPTER

II.

INTRODUCTION TO THE THREE LETTERS.
A.

The Letter

to the

Monks.
is

36. The Syriac text of this letter

given as

it

stands in

Ms. 138, together with the

variant

readings
to in

from

Mss. 135

and 136.

These three Mss. are referred
In Add.

the notes as A,

B, C, respectively.

12164

of the

B. M., the text of

the Letter to the

Monks

presents but few unimportant variant

readings which have been omitted in this edition.
Title.

Assemani

!

(

)

takes this letter for a second letter to

the

Monks

of Teleda.

As Guidi remarks

2 ( ),

however, there
it

is

no indication of the fact in the above Mss., and
to
it

is

not
3
(

known
),

whom
simply

it

was

sent.

Assemani himself,
to the

in another place

calls

The Letter
give each
of Teleda.
011:73

Monks 4
title,

The

four Mss. which

contain

it

a

different

without any reference to
is:

the

Monks
ift. i

The

title

in
:!

Ms. 138

KL/

&C\A

^va&v.^^K
title
is:

In Ms. 136, the

caL.i
.

K*I i CM \
,
t

A

Ms. 135 gives
of faith:

it

as a letter to
.-r<Wxsa

the

monks on the subject
;

C3&V3M\

i*ixra

.^.axuisa.! calx**

1

I 2

)
) 3

B.

0., II, p.

37.
1.

(
(

Z. D.
B. 0.,

M.
II,

G., vol. 35, p. 143, note
p. 28.

)

84

The Ms. Add. 12164 gives simply:

K& 0.1^1*00:1
was not directed
circulation
to

It

seems probable that this

letter

any
the

particular monastery, but was meant for

among

monks
tence
:

of

many
To the

convents, as

we may

infer

from the opening sen

holy, pure, and faithful convents, healthy
of the truth of Christ

mem

bers of the body

God

Who

is

over all;

zealous supporters
error
(to)

of orthodoxy,

ye

who heal
in

the breaches of

which
ye
all

false

doctrines
I

have made
in

the

body of faith;
holy

whom
It
is

have seen

body and in

spirit,

mo

nasteries.

good and
is

fitting for the

truth to be declared

openly, because truth
festation

like unto light in tliet
all
.

ype of

its

mani

which

is

for

This
it
is

would justify

the

name

Letter

to the

Monks by which

known

in the

Mss.

Date.
the

Assemani, regarding this letter as a second letter to
of Teleda, naturally places the date of
its

Monks

composition

during the exile of Philoxenus (519-523), and he bases his opinion

on the following passage

:

I

heard that, after

I

had gone from

you, they circulated false reports about me, calling

me

a deceiver
all the

and corruptor

J

(

).

This, however,

merely

shows that

monks
nus
;

of these monasteries did not share the views of Philoxe

as a matter of fact, this very letter

against

whom

he wrote his

made him another enemy famous treatise How One Person
2 (

of the Holy Trinity became incarnate and suffered for us

).

This letter was evidently written after the year 477, because
it

contains the Trisagion

with the

addition

Thou

Who
many

wast

crucified for us

made

at that
it

time by Peter the Fuller, pa
written
years

triarch of Antioch; and
after that for

may have been

Philoxenus speaks of the Trisagion as being sung

(

) 2

P. 104.

( )

WRIGHT,

op.

cit..

p.

528.

generally in the churches:

85
is

But by His nature He

immortal

because

He
:

is

God, as the whole Church of God cries out in the
art Holy,

Trisagion

Thou

God
;

;

Thou

art Holy,

Strong One

;

Thou

art Holy,

Immortal One
1

(Thou)

Who

wast crucified

for us,

have mercy on us

(

).

An approximate
in

date

may

perhaps be found in the passage
to confine

which Philoxenus advises the monks not

themselves
for

to the duties of their ascetic calling,

but to go out and fight

the truth openly:

I

exhort you also to be open defenders and

preachers of the truth.
fighting

Be

not afraid of

man

;

do not desist from
are solicitous for

zealously for the truth,
life
.

saying:
life

We
is

the quiet of our ascetic

Ascetic

beautiful (indeed),

and the works of justice are worthy of
are

praise.
if

(But) these (works)
the

members whose head
members
;

is

truth,

and
:

head

is

cut

off,

the
self

perish.

Let no

man

say

I

keep
if,

my

faith to
it

my

for

thou dost not preserve

it in

thyself
2 (

seeing

perish

in others, thou

remainest negligent

).

We

know that Philo

xenus often sought the help of Monophysite monks in his strug
gles against his enemies.

According to Evagrius
those of Syria

3 (
),

he instigated

the

monks
II,

of Cynegica and

Prima against Fla
Antioch

vian

when

his efforts to deprive the latter of the see of

had

failed at the council of Sidon.

The present

letter

may be one
monks who

of the

many

that he wrote to enlist the help of the

agreed with him.
that
it

For these

different reasons, it

seems probable
struggle

was written some time during his fourteen years

with Flavian of Antioch (499-513).
Analysis.
cate,

As the

titles

in

Ms. 135 and Add. 12164 indi
4

and

as

Philoxenus

tells us

himself

( ),

this letter deals with

the question of faith,, not of faith in general as in the Discourses,

1

f

)
2
)

F. 101. P. 104.

(
3

(

)

MIGNE, P.
P. 96.

.,

vol.

86

bis,

p.

2660.

4

(

)

86

It is divided into three

but of faith relative

to the Incarnation.

parts: a prologue, a refutation

of the

Gnostic,

Nestorian, and

Eutychian theories on the Incarnation, and an epilogue.
After praising the monks for their zeal in the cause of re
ligion,

Philoxenus

tells

them that

faith

for

truth has been

revealed to enlighten every
to friends,

must be preached openly, man. It must be
If

announced not only
it

but also to enemies.

we seek
no

with ardor and experience how sweet and agreeable
it.

it is,

thing can separate us from

Philoxenus then goes on to explain

what truth

is,

and he

defends his own doctrine on the Incarnation.
a)

By becoming man,

the

Word

of

God

suffered

no

change.
b)

He

did not assume the person of a

man

in

whom He

dwelt as in a temple.
c)

heaven

;

The body which He took did not come down from nor was it a mere appearance ((favraaia). The Word was not incarnate without the
rational
so

d)
soul,

and

He assumed
Whose

our

humanity

in

and of the Virgin,
is

that He,
real

generation

from the Father

eternal,

had a

and temporal generation from the Virgin.
e)

We

must

not,

like the Nestoriaus, divide Christ
sufferings to the one

into

two persons or two natures, attributing
glory to the other; but
tion to the

and

we must
God,

refer both glory
is

and humilia
is,

Only Son

of

Who Who

from two, that

from

the divinity and from the humanity.

f) The

Word

of

God

became incarnate

for

our

salvation died for us, and the death which

He

died was suffered

by
a

Him

and not by a

man

distinct from Himself, for he

who admits
mystery of

human

person along with the

Son of God

in the

the Incarnation, introduces a fourth person into the Trinity.

In the epilogue,
satisfied

Philoxenus

advises

the
life,

monks not

to be

with the duties of contemplative
is in

but to fight cou
for their prayers,

rageously for the faith that

them

;

he asks

87

and he anathematizes Nestorius and Eutyches and
agree with them.

all those

who

B.

The FirstO) Letter
37. This letter
is

to the

Monks

of

Beth-Gaugal.

extant only in the Syr. Ms. 135 of the
title,

Vatican

(fol.

19 v-23v). The

according to the catalogue,

is

:

Date. The

first letter to

the

Monks
is

of

Beth-Gaugal

2

( )

was

evidently written before 491, for Zeno
actual possession of the throne
:

mentioned as being in

Moreover, the faithful and just
capital
3

Emperor Zeno and the

archbishop of the

return

you

thanks for the anaphoras which you have sent

(

).

There

is

another indication, however, which determines ap
letter.

proximately the date of composition of this
the

After praising

monks
:

for

their

zeal

on

behalf of the

faith,

Philoxenus

adds

And

the

same Christ-loving (Emperor) has openly de
the
victory over
is

clared that he gained

his

enemies with (the

help of) your prayers, and he
for the

ready to give us ample reward
for

work which we have undertaken

the

peace of the
of

churches, and to drive

away from

them

the

enemies

the

Cross

4

( ).

(*)

Following Assemani (B.
Letter to the

0., II, p.

35),

we have
.

called this letter

the

first

monks is mani (B.
2
(

The other letter to these Beth-Gaugal found in Ms. 136, which is the Codex Nitriensis XXVII of Asse
of
0., I, p. 569).

Monks

According to Sozomen, our only authority on this matter, Gaugal is a mountain near Diarbekir. It is perhaps identical with the KaradjaDagh, a little to the southwest of Diarhekir.
)

3

( )

P. 115.
P. 115.

(*)

The enemies
referred
to

88

Basiliscus, the
Illus,

here are not only

usurper (476-477), but especially Leontius and
bellion lasted nearly three years
till
(*),

whose

re

and who were not defeated
2 (

the early part of the

year 485

).

By

the enemies of the
bishops,

Cross, Philoxenus understands, as usual, the Nestorian

and

also all

those

who accepted the decrees
to

of the Council of

Chalcedon and refused

sign the Henoticon.

We

know from

Theophanes that

in

485 many Catholic bishops were banished
under pretext of having
but in reality
for refu

from their sees by Zeno and Acacius,
assisted the rebels (Leontius

and

Illus),

sing to sign the Henoticon

and

to
3

communicate with the Mo-

nophysite patriarch of Alexandria

( ).

This wholesale

deposition of bishops had
written, for Philoxenus

not

taken place
that Zeno
is

when the

letter

was

says

ready to drive away from the churches the enemies of the Cross.

The patriarch

of Antioch,

Calandion,

who was one

of the

first

victims of this persecution, must have been deprived of his

see

about the middle of the year 485,

for a council

was held in

Rome

on the

fifth
4

of October of that year over the question ot

his deposition (

).

Hence

it

seems very probable that
fall of

this letter
Illus,

was written some time between the

Leontius and

and the deposition of Calandion, perhaps
Analysis.
parts
:

in the

spring of 485.

This

letter, like

the preceding, consists of three

a prologue, a defence of his
to confirm

own

doctrine,

and an epilogue.

Philoxenus writes

the glad tidings already pro the

claimed

in

the

churches

(probably

promulgation

of the

Henoticon and the

overthrow of the rebels).
life,

He

praises

the

holiness of the monks, the purity of their

and the rigor of

(

)

Z. D. M.
a

BROOKS, The Chronological Canon of James of Edessa, in the also TILLEMONT, Histoire des Gf., vol. 53, p. 317; Empereurs,
Cf. TILLEMONT, ibid. MIGNE, P. Gf., vol. 108,

vol. VI, p. 516.
( )
3
(

) 4

p.

325.

( )

TILLEMONT, Memoires,

vol.

XVI,

p.

366.

their rule.

They serve

Christ

for

Christ

s

sake,

and not

for

temporal

gifts.

After stating his

own

doctrine, Philoxenus defends

it

against

Nestorius and Eutyches.
a)

The Son

of

God became man and remained

as

He

is,

God.
b)

He

did not receive any glory from the body that

He

took,

but by His Incarnation
c)

He

gave glory to our nature.

He was

incarnate of the Virgin without change.
to

d)
to

Both the divine and the human acts are

be referred

one Christ, and not to two persons or to two natures.
e)

Christ

suffered

by

His

will,

and

the

death of the

Cross was undergone not by a

man

in

whom

the

Word

dwelt,
in

but by the

Word Himself Who became man and Who,
of sentences which

His

death, did not lose the life of His nature.
/
)

Then follow a number

remind one
Philoxenus
Christ and

of the canons or
sets forth

anathemas of a council.
his views

In them
person
of

at

length

on

the

rejects the Nestorian opinions.

Many

of these sentences contain
force to the expression.

some plays on words which give additional

Thus
to the

(p.

Ill) we read:

He who
in
is

attributes

number (menyana)
persons or distin
of Christ, and has

one Christ, and counts

Him

two

guishes two sons, such a one
not been
of

not a

member

numbered
.

(la

ethm

e

ni)

among

the host of the chosen ones
:

God

And,

in the next sentence, Philoxenus says

He who
Word
"

does not confess that He, the very

Whom
",

John called

"

the

",

is

Same
e

of
of

Whom
Abraham

Matthew wrote

e

(k thabh)

Son of

David and Son
(la

such a one has not been written

ethk thebh)
.

in (the book) of the adoption of the

Heavenly

Father

In the epilogue, Philoxenus exhorts the
godless doctrines, and

monks

to fight against

he bitterly denounces his enemies.

-

90

-

c.

The Letter

to

Zeno.

38. The Letter to Emperor Zeno on the Incarnation of the

Son of God
19
v).

is

extant only in the Vatican Syr. Ms. 135
title
is
:

(fol.

17r-

The

^cd.i reliaa-iK ,ia.i

According to Assemani
after his consecration

(*),

Philoxenus wrote this letter shortly

as bishop of
this

Mabbogh, when he accepted
the

the Henoticon.

But

was

not

only

event that called

forth this .interesting document.
letter it

From

the last sentence of the

would

appear that

the

faith of Philoxenus
to the

had been

attacked, or that representations
for

had been made

Emperor

appointing to

an important metropolitan see a

man who had
syno

caused

much

trouble in Antioch, and whose
strife
*
2

name was

nymous with turmoil and

(

).

It

was then that Zeno

demanded

of

him an

exposition of his doctrine, so that Philoxenus

gives us in the present letter his

own

profession of faith in the

Incarnation, written in obedience to the

Emperor

s

orders and in
lines,

answer to his opponents:

I

have written these few

pious Emperor, and have sent

them

to

Your

Christianity, because

you have ordered
faith in Christ,

it,

to

confound the heretics who

question
as I
3

my
and

and

also to edify those

who think

do,

who. made bold by divine love, try to defend

me

( ).

What
by

were the
is

exact charges brought
certain.

against

Philoxenus

his enemies

not

From

the contents of the letter

1

C 2
( 3
(

)

B.

0., II, p.

34.

)
)

BUDGE,
P. 126.

op. cit., vol. II, p. x.

it

seems probable that he had been accused of Eutychianism
for

or

Apollinarism,

he lays emphasis on the fact that he

is

writing

about the embodiment (methgassemanutha) and the humanirying
e (methbarn sanutha) of the Son

of God.

Although these two
Incarnation
,

words are
not at all

often

loosely translated

by

they are

synonymous, and the difference of meaning between
to

them ought

be borne in mind,

especially

christological controversies of the fifth

when studying the and sixth centuries. The
taught that the
flesh
(tf<*),

Apollinarists, adopting the trichotomy of Plato,

Word

of

God

assumed in the Incarnation the
(tyvyrj),

human

and the animal soul
other words, they

but not the rational soul (voic)
e

;

in

admitted

the aagxuxfig (methgass manutha),

but rejected the

svav6Qci)7ir]<ng

(methbarn sanutha)
like

e

l

(

).

It

is

probably to clear himself of some

charge that Philoxenus
it

makes use
notice that

of those

two words here.
ethbarnas

And

is

also worthy of

the word
the

(he was
is

made man), which
found no less than

does not occur in

preceding letters,
places

three times in this one, and in
rally

where Philoxenus gene h e wa barnasa
(he be

employs the more common term

came man).
Analysis,
a)

The Word

of God, the consubstantial Son of

the Father, was incarnate in and of the Virgin.
b)

His humanity was
us.

real,

otherwise

He

could

not have

redeemed
c)

His becoming man,

like

His

essence,

was

without

change, for change belongs only to things created.

d)

He

did not

create

in

the

Virgin a

man whom He
man.
two genera

afterwards assumed, but
e)

He

is

true

God and

true

Of the Son

of

God Philoxenus
for

confesses
if

tions but not

two natures,

he argues that,

we admit two
sons.

natures, we must necessarily admit two persons and two

( )

Cf.

PETAVIUS, Dogmata

Theologica,

De

Incar., lib. II,

cap.

1

92

/) Christ died on

the Cross

without

losing the life of

His essence, and by His death
over all the children of men.

He

destroyed the power of death

g) Finally, Philoxenus anathematizes Nestorius for admit
ting in one

and the same Christ a distinction of persons and of

natures, attributing the miracles to

God and the

sufferings to a

man
for

in

whom God

dwelt; he also says anathema to
the

Eutyches
of

doing away with

Incarnation

of

the

Word

God by

denying the reality of the body which

He

assumed.

-

93

-

CHAPTER

III.

TRANSLATION
A.

(i).

e [Letter of Mtir Aks naya] which was written by him to the Monks

2

(

).

127

To the

holy, pure,

and faithful convents, healthy members of

the body of the truth of Christ
porters of orthodoxy
false
3

God Who

is

over all

;

zealous sup
||

( ),

ye who heal the breaches of error
in

which 128
ye all
4

doctrines
I

have made

the body
spirit,

of

faith

;

(to)

whom
It

have seen in body and in
is

holy monasteries

(

).

good and
is

fitting for the

truth to be declared openly,

because truth
tion

like unto

light

in

the type of

its

manifesta
to shine

which

is

for all.

For,

as

light

has

been made

on every thing so also
to enlighten
is

truth

has

been revealed in the

world

Truth,

every man, according to the words of Him and Who has given the truth: That which

Who
I tell

the sign has been
2

in the margin refer to the pages of the Syriac text, indicating where the page of the text begins. The translation made as literal as possible the words added to bring out more the meaning of the text are placed between brackets. clearly

0)

The numbers
||

;

The title in B (Vat. Syr. Ms. 135) is: By the power of Our Lord ( ) Jesus Christ, we begin to write a compilation of works of all kinds. First, the letter of the Saint Mar Aks e naya to the monks on the subject of faith.
The
3
(

title

in

C

(Vat.

Syr.

Ms. 136)

is:

Again, the second letter of

Mar Aks e naya.
) 4
( )

B

The word orthodoxy here is synonymous with Monophysitism. and C add: I, Aks naya, a disciple of you all and an humble
truth, (wish you)

member, yet found worthy of your divine in the Lord our hope.

abundant peace

94
I

tell

you

in the dark,

speak ye in the light; and that which
preach
ye

you

hear

in

your ears,

upon

the house-tops

!

( ).

And,

to teach us that

we must not only preach the truth
but that we must declare
it

in

simple words

to our friends,

also

before enemies, with that confidence that fights with death,
said to us:

He
be

And

fear ye not
2
(

them that

kill the body,

and are not

able to kill the soul
fore persecutors,

).

And

again, in the public confession

the faith which

He exhorts and urges us by His promises to declare He has delivered unto us, saying: Every one

that shall confess

Me

before men, I will also confess

him

before

My

Father

Who
Me,

is

in heaven,

and before His angels; but he that

129 shall deny

I

will also deny
3
(

him

before

the

Father

||

and

before the angels

).

Such

is

the openness, therefore, with which Jesus
to

Our God
ashamed,

commands us
and not
rity,

declare

our

truth,

and not

to

be

to blush,

and not

to be acceptors of persons in autho

and not

to seek to please those

men who

are the adversaries

of truth; for he
of Christ.

who wishes
as for

to please

men cannot be

a servant

But

him who has experienced the

love of Christ,

and tasted the sweetness of

truth, nothing shall ever
in

be able

to

diminish the ardor of his pursuit

search of the truth which
all

he loves.

For truth

is

agreeable and sweet above
that has tasted
it

things;

and
after

it

inflames every soul,

rightly, to

seek

it.

Like the divine Apostles and the holy Martyrs, every
it

one who has experienced this pleasure seeks
ardor.

with an unspeakable

Nothing was able

to

diminish the ardor of their love in
fire,

the pursuit of truth: neither

nor beasts, nor swords, nor the

combs

(of executioners),

nor exile

from country

to

country, nor

close confinement in dungeons,

nor the insults of enemies,

nor

calumnies, nor injustices, nor the inconstancy of friends, nor the

0)
2
(

St.
St.

)

3
(

)

St.

MATTHEW, MATTHEW, MATTHEW,

x, x,
x,

27. 28.

32-33.

defection of acquaintances, nor

95

separation from family, nor the

opposition of the whole world, nor the onslaught of visible and
invisible (enemies), nor anything
||

above or below, can separate 130
tasted and perceived the

from the love of Christ those

who have

truth, as St. Paul, in the ardor of this love, speaking for all those
like himself,

declared, (saying):

For

I

am

sure that neither

death, nor

life,

nor powers, nor virtues, nor height,

nor depth,

nor things present, nor things to come, shall be able to separate

me from
It

the love of Christ (our)
is

God

!

(

).

behooves every one who

a disciple of truth to

place

this mirror before his eyes,

and

to look at it constantly,

and he

shall not be cast

down by the

fear
is

of anything.
fear,

For in the
is
is

truth and love of Christ there

no

and he who fears
is

not

perfect

in

love.

Every thing that

not

from

truth

placed outside of truth: whether fear or lying, whether flattery
or respect of persons, love of pleasures or thirst for power.

These
as these

and similar things are placed outside
things cannot be in truth, those

of truth;

and,

who

are enslaved by

them cannot
||

remain in truth nor possess

faith.

For they are those
to

whose

131

god

is

their belly

2

(

)

which has become
its

them the master

of their

lives; wherever they find

pleasures and desires, there they

turn

;

they so identify themselves

with

it

that they remain slaves
flesh.

to their

shame, and never give up
as for
it is

the pleasures of the

But
warfare,
is

us,

dear (brethren), athletes in the spiritual

not becoming for us to deal thus with truth, which

our
it,

life

;

but

(it

behooves us) to renounce whatever

is

outside
joy,

of

and

to confess that in it alone are our light

and our

our wealth and our priceless treasure, and the breath of our spi
ritual life.

Now, because

it

is

necessary to

make known

the cause of
it

my

discourse,

what

it

is

about, and the reason for which

was

(

)

ROMANS, vm, 38-39.
PHILIPPIANS, in, 19. C adds

2
(

)

And whose

glory

is in

their

shame

.

96

written, I

state

clearly

the

scope of

my

discourse.

Briefly, I

(intend to) demonstrate

in writing the truth of the faith

which

I

have learned from the Holy Books and from the interpreters of the
Church,

my

masters, for the joy and consolation of those

who

love

me

in truth

and

for truth s sake,

and

for the

shame and confusion
call

of heretics, disciples of the demons,

who calumniate me and

me
132

a deceiver,
I

and insult

in

me
since

the truth which 1 have learned

and which
liars give

preach.

For,

they call

truth error,

||

these

the

name

of deceivers to the heralds of truth.
is

Who

then or what
all.
1

truth,
I

if

not Jesus

Christ,

the

God

Who

is

over

He Who
).

said,

am

the Truth, and the Light.
is

and the Life

(

This Jesus,

God

the Word,
:

our truth, with

His Father and with His Holy Spirit

one Trinity, one essence,

one divinity, one nature from everlasting and from eternity.
there
is

For

not in

Him

(God) nature and nature, nor essence and

essence, nor anything recent or old, but
in

One

in

Three and Three

One

;

an eternal nature and eternal persons, one essence adored
persons from everlasting and from eternity.
of the persons of this essence
2 (

with

its

One

is

the Mediator

of our

Confession

),

Truth from Truth, Light from Light, Living from

the Living One, and Immortal from the will of the essence
3 (
),

Him Who

does not die.

By

this

same person came down from
natural Son of a natural Father,

heaven, that

is,

God from God,

the Splendor of the Father and

His essential Image, God the
dwelt in the pure

Word Who

is

over

all.

He came down and
by God
the Spirit,

Virgin who was
133

sanctified

and

He became
||

man
sin,

of her without change,

in everything like unto us

except

there having been neither change, nor variation, nor confusion

in

His nature, as God Himself said by the Prophet,

I

am.

(

)
2
)

St.

JOHN, xiv,
has has
u

6,

(

3
(

)

B B

The Mediator

of the divinity
.

.

By

the will of the divinity

97

and

I

change not

1

( ).

For

He Who was

not

made

is

not

mu
He

table;

He Who was

not created cannot change.
;

Therefore

became man without change
as

He was

embodied, and remained

He

is.

spiritual.

He
that two

did not cause the person of a

man

to

adhere to Himself
a

might be counted

in

Him, He and

man

adhering to
is

Him.

Nor did He enter and dwell

in another,

He Who

the

Only Son, but
counted two.

He

was embodied from our nature and
of the Virgin,

He

is

not

He became man

and His person
not changed,

was not doubled;
because even
change.
in

He became
His becoming

(man), and

He was

His

essence
so

remained

without
also in

For as

He

is

in

His essence,

He remained

His becoming, that

is,

without change.

The Ancient

of days

became

a

child; the

Most High be
in the

came an

infant in the

womb, and God became man
;

womb.
;

The Spiritual One became corporal the the Intangible One was handled; He
with the Father became of us in

Invisible

One was seen

Who

is

consubstautial

His becoming, because

He,

God

the

Word, was embodied

in the Virgin

and of the Virgin.
as

He

did not bring His body

down from heaven,

Bardesanes

said; nor was

He

seen under a false appearance or a phantom,

according to

||

the blasphemy of

Mani and Marcion

;

nor was (His 134
;

body)

made from

nothing, as said Eutyches the fool

nor was His
;

nature changed, as the wicked Arius and Eunomius imagine

nor

was He,

Who

was embodied, without (human) intelligence, accor
but

ding to the blasphemous doctrine of Apollinaris;
is

He Who
of the

perfect

God took

a

body,

and became perfect

man

Virgin.

The Word was not embodied
of the Virgin, but

in the Virgin,

as

if

not also

He

truly

became man in her and of

her.

Foi

the

Virgin

was not indeed a channel (through

which)

God

l

(

)

MALACHIAS,

in, 6.

Nor again was God born
in

98

He became man
for a

(passed), but (His) true Mother, because
in another

of her.

man,

man was

not born

whom God

dwelt,

according to the teaching of the impious
disciples
;

Nestorius and his

mad

but God,

Who
from

was embodied

without change, was born of the Virgin.
into her as God, the very

For He,
forth

Who

descended

Same came

her as

and the one

Whom

she

conceived spiritually, the very

man; Same she
from the

brought forth corporally.

And He, Whose

generation

Father

is

without beginning,

was brought forth with a begin

ning in His generation from the Virgin.
(Being) of a supernatural nature,
135

He became man

;

(being)

of a supernatural nature, a supernatural nature,
nature,

||

He was

born of a creature; (being) of

He

sucked milk; (being) of a supernatural Let us beware
(

He grew

in stature.

of

the impiety of

those

who say

that the Virgin
in

)

brought forth God and a
is

man

;

who divide and count two

Him Who

the Only Son of God,
;

Who
(of

and from the humanity the impiety of those) who divide (Christ), and in this one
is

from two,

from

the divinity

God Who was embodied,
glory
to the

attribute humiliation

to the

one and

other,

power

to the one

and weakness

to the other.

Thus, indeed, do these dishonest (men) speak:
born, and the other

One was

was not born

;

one sucked and the other did

not suck; one was circumcised and the other was not; one grew and the other did not; one ( 2 ) ate and the other did not; one

drank and the other did not; one fasted and the other did not; 3 one( ) was hungry and the other was not; one slept and the
other did not; one suffered and the other did not; one died and
the other did not; and (so these) dishonest

men

divide unto one
as if

and another

all

these words which are spoken of Christ,
if

one was born truly and the other in deception, as

one suffered

0)
2
(

)

3
(

)

B B B

has

Mary
all
all

.

omits
omits

as far as

one fasted
.

.

as far as u one slept

in fact

and the other

\\

in

name, and as

if

one died in reality 130

and the other

in fraud.

But
distinct
is
(

it
l

is

not at all in the sense

that
is

a

man
2 ( )

or

a body
as
it

)

from God died, that death

spoken

of God,

not in the sense that a

man

or the
is

body of

another person
;

distinct from

God was

born, that birth
it

spoken of God

for, it

was

not a body that was born, but

was God,
it

Who

became a body,
4
(

and

3

(

)

remained

in
it

His nature God; and

was not a body that
)

was

crucified,

but

was God,
life.

Who

became man, and

in
;

His
but

death did not lose His
one

Not one with another was born

God

Who

was embodied was born.

There were not two at

the birth, nor two on the Cross; but one was born, and the

Same

one was crucified.

And

as of the Virgin, not

one in another,

nor one with another

was born, but one God became man of

her without change and the

Same

is

one in His divinity and His

humanity; so also on the Cross one was suspended and not two.
Therefore, that

God was born God was
Christ

of the Virgin, the
for all,

Church of

God

believes; (that)
declares.
is is

crucified
is

the truth of the
is

Holy Books
||

the Son, and the Son
is

God,

and God
If
it

the

Word, and the Word

consubstantial (with 137
it

God).

written that Christ was crucified,
Christ died and

is

God Who

was

crucified.

He

also rose.

Not one was the
did not die; not

Christ

Who

died,

and another the God

Who

one was the Only Son

was given for the redemption of the world, and another the Word Who was not given; not one was

Who

the Son

Who

suffered

and

died,

and another

Who

remained

without suffering.
to give

It is written,
for it

God
5
(

so
).

loved the world as

His Only Begotten Son

This Only Son

Who

(

)

2
(

) 8

(

)

(*)
6
(

BC BC BC BC
St.

omit

distinct

from

God.
God
.

omit
omit omit

of another person distinct from

and remained in His nature

God.

and in His death did not
16.

lose His life

)

JOHN, in,

was given

to

death

for

the redemption

of

the

world,

is

He

of

Whom
us"

it

is said,

The World was made
said,
2 ( ).

tiesh,

and dwelt among

(

).

Again, Paul

God was

reconciled with us by the
.

death of His Son
spare His

And

again he said,

Verily
3
(

He
).

did not

own

Son, but delivered

Him up
is

for

us all
us

This Son,

by Whose death He (God) was He delivered to suffering for us,

reconciled with

and

Whom
the Son

no other than

God

Who
Holy

was begotten of God the Father.
Books
say that
Christ,
or

Therefore, whether the

the
it

Son,
is

or

the

Only Be

gotten, or Jesus

was born and

died,

God Who was born
For we do not

and
133

died,

and not another distinct from Him.
a
||

acknowledge
Christ.

Son

Who

is

not God, nor a

God

Who

is

not

Be

not troubled, therefore,
crucified for us.

hearer, at this (statement) that

God was
God was
say,

For, if

God was born

of the Virgin,

also suspended on the Cross.

And

if a heretic

should

How
is

can

God

die?

,

ask

him

in return,

How
4

can

God

be

born?"

If then

He was

born of the
first

Woman
He
as

(

),

although
tasted
nature.

He
And

from the Father in His

generation,
is

also

death of His own will,
as,

although

He

living in His

when He became man, He remained God

change, so also,
the life of His
us,

He is, without when He tasted death for us, He did not lose For it is God Who became man for nature.
One
thee,

and

it

is

the Living

Who

tasted
faithful

death

for

our sake.

Let

them not deceive

(hearer),

by

words

fraught with fatal discord, as they say to thee,
die ?

How

can

God

answer,

When How

thou

nearest

this from them, return
?
If,

them the

can God be born

being (already) born,

1

(

)

St.

JOHN,

i,

14.

2
( 8
(
)

)

ROMANS,

v,

10.

ROMANS, vrn,

32.

(*)

B

has

u

If then

God

"was

born of the Virgin

.

He was
living, It

101

-

born

;

if existing,

He became
will
l

(man), therefore also, being

He

died of His

own

( ).

was not indeed a mortal or a man that died

for

us;

for 139
||

and every sufferer that every mortal that dies, dies for himself;
suffers, suffers for

himself; and every thing that, not existing, comes
for itself.

into existence,

comes into existence

Herein then

is

a

and of ineffable salvation, that He great mystery of profound love Who is became, not that He might be, since He is, but that we,

become the sons of through His becoming (Incarnation), might
God.
but
if

Everything that
for us.

He

became,

He became,

not for Himself,

For

He was

not a sufferer by His nature, because,

He had

suffered being a sufferer (by nature),

He would have
in

suffered for Himself.

Nor did He become mortal

punishment

with for the transgression of the (original) precept, as is the case
us,

but

He

is

immortal

because
justified

He

is

God.

2 ( )

Nor did He

become immortal by being
followers
of

by His works, as the wicked
but by

Nestorianism

assert;

His nature

He

is

immortal because

He

is

God, as the whole Church of God cries

out in the Trisagion:

Thou

art

Holy,

God; Thou
(Thou)

art Holy,

Strong One; Thou art Holy Immortal One;
crucified for us,

Who

wast

have mercy on us

.

It

is,

therefore, this Holy,

Strong, Immortal God,

Who

was

crucified for

us

3
(

).

Thus does
are

the

true
||

Church

believe, thus

do the tongues
is

which

moved HO

by truth cry out that He,

Who

immortal by nature, God the
not that a body or a

Word, was
distinct

crucified in

body

for all,

man

from

Him
4

was suspended on the Cross.
see

Invisible

(

),

we

Him

;

not tangible,
;

we handle Him

;

not capable of being eaten, we eat Him not capable of being we embrace Him Who is all powerful we tasted, we drink Him
;

;

J

( 2

)
)

(
3
(

)

B B B

omits omits

of His

own

will

.

all as far as,

as the whole Church, etc.

.

omits this whole sentence.

4
(

)

C has

Immortal

.

-

102

-

kiss

that

Him Who is infinite. Of Him, Who is immortal, we believe He died for us of Him, Who is impassible, we confess that
;

He

suffered for us.
,

*

We
John

preach unto you that which was from
in
his epistle,

the beginning
heard, which

said

that which

we have
looked
for the

we have

seen with our eyes, which
of the
seen,

we have
of
life,

upon and our hands have handled
life

Word

was manifested.
declare

And we have
the
life

and do bear witness,
which was
with the

and

unto

you

eternal,
1

Father, and hath been revealed to us
2

( ).

( )

Thou hearest how

this Apostle,

who knew

the mysteries
cries

of Christ,

preaches to thee
life,

concerning truth, and

out to
;

thee that the
that

which was with the Father, has been revealed
invisible
3
;

He Who was
||

has appeared; that
(
)

He Who was
not tangible has

141 inaudible

has been heard

that

He Who was

been handled; that

He Who was
the

silent has conversed.

Which

dost thou wish to hear,
the secrets
of

faithful (hearer), this Apostle

who knew
and his

God

Word,

or the

mad

Nestorius

wicked followers who say

that another man, distinct from the

Word, bore and

suffered everything for us ?

We, on
Word,

the contrary, believe in the Only Begotten

God

the

Who came down

and was embodied of the Virgin in an
in

ineffable

manner, and remained,

His nature, God.

We

do

not say, like the erring disciples of Eutyches, that

bodied

in

the Virgin, but not of her; but
in her

He was em we believe (that He
He
say that

was embodied)

and of

her,

and not in any other way

might have pleased, as those
to

liars claim.

We

He

wished
of the

become, and became (man) of the Virgin,

who was

seed of the house of David, as the Books teach, and as the teachers
of truth
not,

have

delivered

unto
in

us;

not

that

a

man. who was

came

into existence

the Virgin and adhered to God, as

1

(

)

I St.

JOHN,
all all

i,

1-3.

2 ( )
3

B
B

omits

as far as as far as

.(

)

omits

He Who was He Who was

invisible
silent
.

.

103

man
bore and suffered all the

the impious Nestorius said, which

with his things of his nature in agreement
||

own

nature.

Not

so
142

does truth affirm, not so does faith declare.

For he who counts
his

another

man

with God,

introduces a quaternity in
of the

doctrine
is

and destroys the

dogma

Holy
for,

Trinity.

With pagans
it

such a doctrine to be counted,
a

like

them,

errs inventing

new

god, against that which

is

written,
a

There shall not be
god, a

to thee a

new god

(

).

It adores

new

man

born of

a

woman.
It
is

not a man, therefore, that was exalted, was honored,
it

and became God; but

is

God

Who

abased Himself, humbled

Himself, emptied Himself, and became
is

God by His
for the

nature, and did not

man; and because He become God, not being God
become man, He did not
is,

(first),

same

reason, having

change, but remained one

God

as

He

and

He

is
:

counted, with

the Father and with the Spirit, one Holy Trinity

Go ye

forth,

teach all nations,

and baptize them

in the
2

name

of the Father,

and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost

( ).

One Father, with

Whom
Spirit.

there

is

no other Father; one Son with

Whom
is

there

is

no other Son; one Holy Ghost with

Whom

there

no

other

There
||

is

not (in

each divine person) one with one, and
each one of them
is

another

with another,
no

for

one

:

the Father 143

Who
the
Son.

has

body;

the
is

Son

Who

was

really

embodied; and

Holy Ghost
This
is
It,

Who

adored with the Father and with the

the Holy and Adorable Trinity

Which we

confess

;

outside of

we know no other, and anything which
outside of
It, is

is

named

and called
I

God

to

be anathematized.
holy servants

have written to you these things in haste,

of truth, not as teaching, but to

show the conformity of

my

faith

0) DEUTERONOMY, v, 7. 2 St. MATTHKW, xxvin, 19. )
(

-

104

with yours.
life

I

pray that in this (faith) I

may

depart from this
sacrifice for this

to its life,

and that
I

I

may be
Be

offered in

truth which I confess.

exhort you also to be open defenders
not afraid of
truth,
life
.

and preachers of the truth.
from fighting zealously

man

;

do not desist
are solici
beautiful

for the

saying:

We
life

tous for the quiet of our ascetic

Ascetic

is

(indeed), and the works of justice are worthy of

praise.

(But)
if

these

(works)
is

are

members whose head

is

truth, and

the

head

cut

off,

the

members
:

perish.

Let no man say
144 dost not
||

I

keep

my
if,

faith to
it

myself

;

for

thou

preserve

it in thyself,

seeing

perish in others, thou

remainest negligent.

Where

is

the virgin

who would
s

insist on
is

staying in her chamber, if she heard that her father
fire?

room
fire

on

If she remains negligent,
in

it

will

happen that the
dwells.

will

become master of the room
you
also,

which she

Therefore,
life,

without losing the purity of your monastic

be de

fenders and open preachers of the truth; and pray also for me,
I

beseech you

all

at your feet, that
as

1

may
me.

be found worthy to

suffer for iny
I

God

He
I

suffered for

heard that, after
reports

had gone from you, they circulated
calling

(\)

false

about me,
I

me

a deceiver

and

corruptor.
to

As

to myself.

pray that such an error
life.

may remain with me

my May God forgive them and grant them pardon may He open to them the gate of repentance that they may know His truth.
of
;

the end

Anathema upon Nestorius and Eutyches, and their doctri nes and their disciples upon every one who agrees with them
(
)
;

2

;

upon every one who does

not

anathematize

them with mouth

and heart, and does not confess that Christ, God the Word, one
of the Trinity,

was

crucified for us.

(

)

B

has

2
( )

B

they wrote and C omit all as far as
.

What vou have heard

.

105
If

any man love not Our Lord Jesus
(
).

Christ, let

him be

anathema
II

The End(

2

).

145

What

you have heard by word (of mouth),
to the holy friends

I

have sent to
I

you in writing, and also

whom

have not

seen in the body, by Ephrem, the bearer of this letter to

Mar

Acacius, the priest, who, for a long time, after the example of
his master, has

waged a war
is

of this kind.

Therefore, have cou

rage, for

this

the

time of the

harvest, in which

we

will

reap the new fruits of the works of justice, in the field of the
zeal for the faith of Christ God,

Who

is

over

all;

to

Whom

be glory for ever.

Amen.

JB.

The Letter
|

of St.

Mar Aksenay a
of Beth-Gaugal.

to

the pure Monks

146

Christ has, in these days, manifested the light of liedemption to the faithful people.
tidings

Behold,
in

joyful

news

and good
churches,

are

proclaimed

to-day

the midst of the
all
its

because error has been deserted by
has
full

votaries,

and

truth
is

been

exalted

by

all

its

heralds.

This

news, which
life,

of joy, together

with the reports and tidings of

I

too

wish to
this

confirm and
letter
it

make known

to

Your Holinesses through
of little worth
it

humble

of mine.

Though

in

itself,

the joyful news

contains will
I

render

dear

in your

eyes.
to

Owing

to

my

ignorance,

cannot speak anything worthy
;

be

uttered in your assemblies

therefore, I shall lean

my

discourse

I
(>)

Corinthians, xvi, 22.
far Ms. A.

a
(

)

Thus

What

follows

is

found only

in

B and

C.

-

106 find outside of itself the dignity

upon other helps, that

it

may

which

it

has not by nature.

For when an humble man speaks
will manifest itself in
his

before princes, their great kindness
regard.

Well
earned
it

you, Fathers, you are princes, and this title you have
justly by your works;
for,

where are not your labors
holy

H7

spoken of?

Where has
has not

not
||

the fame of your

monastery

spread?

Who

admired, who has not wondered at the

cruel persecutions (which) you (have suffered)?

The

(very)

men
wont

tion of your rule causes the lax to fear, for the
to

weak

are

be

afraid

when they
at

hear

of

your courageous works. But
of your
fervor,

as these

tremble

the

mention

so also the

strong take heart, and try to imitate the zeal (which you display
in)

your works.

Your conduct

is

to the indifferent

what

salt is

to food, a condiment.

And

as light dispels darkness, so also the

fame of your fervor drives away all weakness. It is not vain glory which upholds your labors, but the love of God; and therefore
you do not practise
a pure understanding,
virtue
in

appearance, but in the truth of

It is not

indeed only the figure of justice
is fixed

which you have put
thoughts.
disciples,

on,

but the truth of justice

in

your
the
life

To-day, you form an illustrious remnant

among

all

and you have preserved, so
;

to

speak, your rule of

without change

for laxity,
its

which

in every

way has injured many,
your works;
the
labor
of

has not inserted

teeth into the sound body of
is

and dejection of mind, which

wont

to

spoil

others, has not prevailed against your treasures.

Neither the fear

of

men

nor the flattery of the great has ruled over you.

You have

not bartered the truth for earthly presents, and you have not ceased
148
||

from your zeal

for the faith for the
is

sake of temporal

gifts,

and

your monastery

not

addicted

to

begging

like

those

which
of

subsist in that way.

You have

not sold Christ for sheaves

barley and loaves of bread like those
It is written that

who

sell

Him
sell

for

such prices.
(pieces)

Judas sold
in

Him

for

thirty

of

silver; but those disciples

name

(only)

Him

every

day

107
for things

more contemptible and abominable than
and not God;
1

that.

Those
is
is
<*

who
filled

act thus serve their belly

in

them

ful

that which was written by Paul

(

),

Their god
again he says,

their

belly,

and their glory their shame
is

.

And

Their

mind

wholly upon the earth

;

because

they were born for

the earth and not for heaven, their eyes are fixed altogether on

the things of the earth.

Now
cannot

the disciple
to

who knows Christ and

delights
a

in

Him

fail

experience sorrow

when he hears
suffers

blasphemy
a

against Him.
is

For as our body naturally
it

when

wound
so a

inflicted

upon

by

iron,

or

a

stone,

or

anything

else,

also does the soul of the true disciple suffer

when witnessing

blow and an insult against Christ.
||

Is

there a greater

insult

than that which the new Jews

2

( )

of our day utter, blaspheming 149
to)

Christ

face to face, subtracting from the honor (due
to
3

Him,

reviling His glory, and saying

Him,

Thou

art a

man, and

Thou makest Thyself God? * ( ). They try to show that His glory is not His own that He received everything from the favor
;

of another; that

He

is

not

God by His own

nature,
heretics),

but

was

made God

recently.

For these devils (the

without

being ashamed, speak of Christ as one speaks of
they are idols
such. It
is

idols,

because
are

who
so,

are turned

into

gods

when they

not

not
is

however, with Christ,
If then
it

godless man, but by
not, as it

nature
is

He

God.

He became what He was

written of

but

man He became God, from God He became man and remained as He is, God.
Him,
is

not that from

A

body did not take Him, but
the

He

took (a body).

For

He

did not receive any glory from

body that

He

took, but by

His embodiment
did not

He gave

glory to

our miserable nature.

He

come

to a creature to

be made God, but to be known

( 2

)
)

(

PHILIPPIANS, in, 19. The Nestorians and the adherents

of

the

Council of Chalcedon

were called
3 ( )

Jews
JOHN,

by the Monophysites.
x, 33.

St.

-

108

as God. His appearance

amongst us was not from nothing

into

something, but
not change.
in so far as

it

shows truly that

He

is

something which does

For

He was
God.

born of the Virgin corporally, and not

He

is

But because He became man of the
a beginning;
for

Virgin, in this

He had
are not
;

in so far

as

He

is,

150 not even from the

Father has

He

a

beginning.

Because

He

became man, we

ashamed

to say that

He had a begin He Who,
as
as God,

ning from the Virgin

for

He Who,
to a

as God, is without beginning,

became, as man, subject
is

beginning; and

spiritual,

infinite,

and with the Father,

became,

man, a

body, and

finitein the Virgin.

He Who,

as God, designs, fashions,

shapes, joins, and creates the fetus in the

womb,

the Same, as

man, was formed and shaped, and became a child

in person.

He
tho the

Who,

as

God, nourishes every thing, waters

it,

and gives
all

it

increase,

Who

supports,

holds,

and

preserves

things,

Same, as man, was carried and grew, was held
milk, and received
increase in His person.

in arms,

sucked
as

He Who

God

experiences neither hunger, nor fatigue, nor sleep, nor ignorance, the

Same
and

as

man was hungry and

thirsty,

ate and drank,

was sleepy
as God,
is

slept,

and asked questions to learn.
insult,

He Who,
is

above suffering and

Whose

nature

not subject to death,
face,

the Same, as man, suffered, was insulted, slapped in the
scourged,

and really

tried

by death

;

and

He Who

is

always

one without change because
the third day because
clined dead in Scheol,
151

He

is

God, rose from the grave on

He became man. When He lay and re He was preparing the resurrection for all,
and
all

was ruling the hosts of heaven

creatures by His nod,

creating bodies and putting the limbs together and breathing in

the souls, and governing the worlds and all creatures, as
is

God Who

everywhere.
It
is

a mystery

we propound
or thine.

here,

and we are not writing
is

about

things

mine

For Christ

believed
that
took,

to

be

God and man,
took
a

not in the sense that
is

we

believe

He Who
another,

bod\

one, and

the body

that

He

109 -

but

in order

to signify

by the

word
by

*

God
word

that

He was
that

begotten

by

the

Father,

and

the

man
and we do

He was embodied
humanity, and
divide

of the Virgin.

For we do not despise His
divinity,

we do not deny His

not

Him

into two.

Who
He
is

is

one even after

He was

embodied.

For upon the throne,

God and near God, and

in the

womb,

man and man
is

with men.
;

In the Father

He

is

living like the Father,
like

Son and Substance
like

with the dead,

He was dead
so far as

them and

them.

The Spiritual One did not
suffer in

die in so far as

He He

Spiritual,

and God did not

He

is

God.

has no beginning, to the extent that
in

He

is

without a beginning

His generation from the Father (?).

He

suffered, therefore, be

cause

He
like

took a body, and

He

died because

He became

a brother

of mortals.

He had
ourselves.

a beginning in the

womb, because He was

born

We

confess

without blushing that

God

became man,
fering,

that

the Impassible

and the Living One tasted death.
||

One became subject to suf The Living One then
mortal nature.

tasted death in order

to vivify (our)

God became
I

152

man, that men might become the sons of God.
that
tion

For

do not deny

He

vivified

me, and

I

do not attribute to another the redemp

which

He wrought

for

me.

If the death

and the suffering

were

of another,

the redemption and life which were merited for
It is not another, therefore,

me would
vivified

be of man, not of God.

who

me by one who died, but the very One Who died, vivified me by His own death. And if it is written God was reconciled it is not that God the Word by Christ with the world ( ), (was
!

reconciled) by a man, as the wicked (heretics) interpret, but that

God

the Father (was reconciled) by His Beloved

Son,

as this

Apostle again said,
of His Son
i

God was reconciled with us by the death

2 ( ).

He

also said

:

He

(God) did not spare His

( )

2 Corinthians,

v,

19.

2
( )

Romans,

v,

10.

-

110

-

Son. but delivered

Him

up

for

us all

!

(

).

Therefore, he

who
Sou

does not confess that
of

God

died,

does not believe that the

God

died,

but opposes

the

teaching of Paul.

For,

when Be

the Holy Books say that the Son, or Christ, or the

Only

gotten died,

it

means that God died; and the words,

In the

beginning was the

Word
is

2 (

),

are

known

to

refer

to the

Son

of God, for the Son

not different from the
said,

Word.
reconciled by

Of

this very
.

Son the Apostle

God was

His death

Therefore he

who

is

scandalized ad the

mention

of death, does not believe that the Son of

God

is

God.

He who
Trinity.

distinguishes Christ into two, does not worship the

153
||

He who He who

says that Christ

is

a man,

is

a partner

of

the

heathens and the Jews.
attributes glory
to

the

one

and

humiliation

to

another, openly confesses two sons and

makes void the redemption

which came

to

our nature.

He who
new god.

says that the person of a
sets

man who was

not

God

was made God,

up an

idol,

forms an image, and makes a

He who
know

does not confess that

God emptied Himself, and
Paul
teaches
4 ( ).

took the likeness of a servant, as that Christ
is

3
(

),

does

not

the equal of

God

He who

does not believe that the Only Son

of

God was

given for the redemption of the world in the love of the Father,
does not understand the love of

God

for the

world.

He who
cified

does not hold for certain that

He Who was

cru

was one of the Trinity, has not received the freedom and joy of baptism, and has not as yet been redeemed from the sen
tence of death and from the original curse.

0) Romans, vin, 32.
2

(
3

)

St.

JOHN,

i,

1.

( )

Philippians, n, 7.

4
(

)

Philippians, n,

6.

-

Ill

Whosoever

is

ashamed

to

declare that Christ
before

is

God, him

shall Christ put also to

shame

God and

before His holy

angels.

The
suffered,

disciple

who does not

confess that the Impassible
for
us,
is

One
not

and the Immortal One died

a heathen,

a disciple.

He who
He who
as if

does not confess that Jesus

is

Lord from

eternity,

has not the odor of Christ.
|j

says that Jesus was

made Lord and

Christ by ano- 154

ther,

He was

not so (by nature), but became so recently,

brings

God

into contempt.

He who
in

attributes

number

(*) to

the one Christ, and counts
is

Him

two persons or distinguishes two sons, such a one
of Christ,

not a

member

and has not been numbered among the host

of the chosen ones of God.

He who
Word",

does not confess that He,

Whom

John called
wrote,

the

is

the very

Same

of
2
(

Whom

Matthew

Son of

David and Son of Abraham

),

such a one has not been written

in (the book) of the adoption of the

Heavenly Father.
it

He who
the
is

says that

He

of

Whom

is

written,

He was
(

in
3
),

beginning, and

He was

with God, and

He was God
of

not the Power of the Most High, (the
to the Virgin,

Power

Whom)

the

Angel said

Thou

shalt

conceive
call

in the

womb,
4

and shalt bring
such a one
is

forth a son;

and thou shalt

His name Jesus

(

),

anathematized by the word of Jesus.
says that

He who

John wrote of
such a one
is

one,

and Matthew, Mark,
Gospel

and Luke, of another,

a stranger to the

of the Apostles and to the preaching of the Prophets.

He who
distinct

says that the

name

of Christ signifies two natures

and separate the one from the other, and not one nature

(

)

i.

e.

two persons or two natures.

2 ( )
3
(

St.
St. St.

MATTHEW,
JOHN,
i,
i,

i,

1.

) 4 )

1.

(

LUKE,

35, 31.

112
e (k yana), and one prosopon

(parsopa),

and one person (q e noma),
of the Virgin, such a one

who was embodied and became man
denies the faith and
is

worse than those

who do

not believe.

He who
Creator and a
155
||

says that there are in Christ one and another,

God

man

created as one of us, and does not confess
is

that the

Same One

the likeness of

God

as

Creator, and the

likeness of a servant

as

being in

the body, such

a

one

is

as

yet a servant of sin, and has not received the freedom of Christ.

He who

says

that,

in

the one person of Christ, there are

the Giver and

the Receiver, one giving

mercy

and

the other

receiving mercy, and does not confess that

He

is

altogether the
is filled

Giver and the Distributor of good things to others,
the malice of the devil.

with

He who
the

says that the half of Christ
is

is

the Redeemer, and
is

other

half

redeemed,
account

and does not confess that He
of
),

wholly Redeemer, on

which He was called Jesus,
this

which

is

interpreted Saviour

(

one

is

cut

off

from

the

redemption which Christ wrought by His Cross.

He who
the

does not confess that He,
is

Who

is

perfect

God and

the consnbstantial Son of the Father,

also perfect

man from
(for

human

nature, shall not be counted

among men

whom

He became

man).
imagines that there was only a mere adhesion (of

He who

a body) to the person of Christ, and not a real

embodiment

in

the acknowledgment of one person, such a one has no relationship

with Christ.

He who
as

says that
in

the infinite

God dwelt
in

in a finite

man
not

He

dwelt
that
finite

the Prophets

and

the just, and
is

does

confess

He Who,

as God, is

infinite,

the

Same Who

became

by becoming

man,

(such a one) has not as yet

passed from a corrupt
"

error into the fold of the

knowledge of

,

Christ.

()

St.

MA.TTHEW,

i,

21.

He who
our nature
||

113

who fought
for

does not confess that the Athlete,

in the desert against the Adversary, is the natural 156
far as

Son of the Father Who, in so

He became man, waged
for

war against the Adversary, but thinks that God raised up ano
ther Athlete
us,

from our nature to triumph
is

Himself and

for

such a one

a stranger to the victory of Christ.

He who
became
tues,

says that Christ

was

justified

by His works,

and

the equal of the

and that
is

He

is

Most High by the practice of His vir not exalted and is not God by His nature,
is

such a one

without any virtue and

filled

with the malice

of the devil.

He who

says that

He Who

raised the dead is one, and

He

Who

was tried by death,

another,

the

death of such (a man)

has not yet ceased.

He who
ded by the

does not believe that

He Who,

as

man, was apprehen
Cross,
is

Jews

and led
in the

to the

death of the

the

Same Who,

as God,

power of His divinity caused crea

tures to tremble, shall experience the wandering of Cain all the

days of his

life.

He who
at the

says that
is

He Who
and
2

cast out Legion

l

( )

from the

man

(in the Gospel)

one,

He Who was
(

comforted by the Angel

time of His

passion

),

another, in

such a one

dwells

Legion

whom

Jesus drove out.
does not confess that glory and humiliation are of
is

He who
one Son,

Who
is

one person and one nature

who was embodied,

such a one

an embodied devil.
says that there are this and that (person or nature) old
said,

He who
in the one

Christ, has not as yet put off the

man

.

He who

does not confess that
jj

He Who
), is

My

Father
Peter 157

worketh until now, and

I

work

3 (

the

Same

of

Whom

1
(

) 2
)

Cf.
St.
St.

(

St. LUKE, vin, LUKE, xxn, 43.

30,

and

St.

MARK,

v, 9.

3
( )

JOHN, v, 17.

114

wrote,

n

He

hath been

exalted by the right

hand

of

God and
!
>

hath received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost
in such a one the evil spirit dwells.

(

),

He who
He who

says

that the body of our Lord

came down from

heaven, has not been redeemed with the sons of men.
says that the

aspect of Christ was a false appea

rance, and not a real embodiment from the nature of the Virgin,
is

a disciple of

Mani and Marcion.

He who

says that

God

refused to take a body of our nature
for

as being defiled,

and confesses that a body was formed
off

Him

from another place, shall be cut
poreity of

from the

life

which the cor

God has prepared for us. He who does not confess that the Word became
and Abraham
from
in the flesh,

the seed

of

David

and took a

body really
forth,

and without change

the

Virgin who brought Him

has not as yet changed from the old error.

He who
doctrines
soul

does not anathematize

Nestbrius with

his

whole

soul and Eutyches with his whole mind,

and their abominable
anathematized in his

which are dangerous
in his body.

to

men,

is

and

Against
still

all these doctrines,

therefore,

we have

stood

and

stand with our whole soul, that the true faith, which was

delivered by Christ to His Church,

may remain without

change.

We
158 of
is

wage
is

this

war with

gallant

courage,

and in the struggle
gifts
for

which

for Christ,
||

the wicked.

we stand unmoved by the Nor do we fear their threats,

and honors

Our
for

Justifier

near; and

in

Him we

have placed our confidence,
that

we have

been believing for a long time
promised.

He

will do

what He has
would take
all the

And although many
in
in the

without the faith

away our hope,
more.

His true hope we are strengthened
Christ,

As

war waged against

we have

arisen

and

have desired your own cooperation, we have written to you that you
Acts, n, 33.

(>)

115

may be persuaded that we do not wish to triumph without you. You have done well to join in my conflict on behalt of truth,
because we are in the truth and the (dogma of the) Trinity
held in the same sense by you and by us. your
letters,
is

You have agreed
which you possess

in

and, by the signing of your names, you have con
( ).

firmed, not anything new, but the very truth

For

it

is

fitting

that

what we hold

in the

mind and

confess

with the tongue, we should also commit to writing, without fear

and without trembling.

For you are with God, and also with
cenobites
of Syria,
2

my humble
brethren.

person, and with all the

your
)

Moreover, the faithful and just
3
(

Emperor Zeno

(

and

the archbishop

)

of the capital return you thanks for the ana

phoras

4

(

)

which

you have sent.

And

the

same Christ-loving

(Emperor) has openly declared that he gained the victory over
his enemies
to
5
(
)

with (the help of) your prayers, and he
||

is

ready

give us ample reward
for

for the

work which we have under- 159
and
to drive

taken

the

peace of the

churches,

away from

them the enemies

of the Cross.

May
to us

those

who were accusing
the heretics,

us be put to shame and confusion, even
those liars
tics,
!

with

They are abhorrent

even more than the here
passions, have

those

men who,

corrupted by their

become
disci

workmen

in the building of the devil,

and are considered

ples on account of their garb (only).

Where

are,

false disciple, (the words),
?

I

am
is

under obli
the promise
to

gation to fight for the truth until death

Where

of thy profession?

Where

are the

vows thou madest

God?

It is probable that Philoxenus refers here to the f ) Zeno, which was promulgated in 482. Cf. B. 0., II, p. 36.
1
(")

Henoticon

of

Zeno (474-491).
Acacius, archbishop of Constantinople, (471-489). ^I-^OLJ). Themeaningof this word here seems uncertain, Cf. PAYNE-

3
(

)

4
(

)

SMITH,

Thesaurus Syriacus, sub voce,
it

p.

274.

Assemani (B.

translates

by

Oblationes

.

It

may have been an
to congratulate

0., II, 37) address or letter sent

by the Monks of Beth-Gaugal
5

to

Zeno

him over

his victory.

( )

Basiliscus, Leontius, Illus.

116

Thou hast destroyed the
thee.

seal

and hast profaned the sign put upon
:

Hearest thou not Christ saying
I will also confess

Whosoever

shall confess

Me,

him, and
);

whosoever shall

deny

Me,

I

will also deny

him
shall
it

!

(

and again,

Whosoever

shall seek to
life,

save his

life,

lose it;
2

and whosoever
this

shall lose his

shall preserve

( )

;

and

again,

Whosoever wisheth

to

be

My

disciple, let

him renounce himself, take up his cross, and
says,

follow

Me

3 ( )
;

and Paul who

Confess with thy mouth
4
( )

Our Lord Jesus Christ and believe with thy heart?
also,

Remember

besides these holy words, the teaching of the Prophets, and

the preaching of the Apostles, and the zeal of all the

Doctors

on behalf of the true
160

faith,

and, what
all
this,

is

more
||

glorious and a

much

greater wonder than

the Cross

and the humi

liation of the

Living God

Who,

for the

establishing of faith and

the redemption of men, bore and suffered all the things that had

been written of Him.
if

And

all

the heralds of the word of God,
fol

thou noticest well, were always persecuted because they
as their Lord.

lowed in the same way

Was

there ever a teacher of divine science

who

did not seal
in

his faith in the midst of afflictions, persecutions, contempt,
sults,

calumnies, injustices, cruel sufferings and bitter torments,
to

and who did not by his patience put
cuted him?

shame those who
truth
is

perse

But

I,

who announce
the

the

in the

midst of

that sufferings like these, testify

truth

with this

man.
If

Knowest thou not these
not,

things,

disciple in

name

(only)?

thou shouldst know them, and shouldst not find fault with

those

who

fight for

God

against godless doctrines.

Come

to the

help of the Lord, although
stay the

He

has no need of thee, and do not
lives in

hand of the others who give their

fighting for

(

)

St.

MATTHEW,
LUKE,

x,

32-33.

2

( )
3
(
)

St. St.

xvii, 33.

MARK, vm,
x, 9.

34.

(*)

Romans,

117

the Lord.

Hear the sentence

pronounced by God against him

who causes

his brother to stumble,
1

and tremble.

I

contend
I

for

thy inheritance

( ),

and thou contendest with me.
for

pronounce

judgment against thy enemy

thy possessions which have been
to

dilapidated, and thou becomest an adversary

me.

I

fight for

the

common

faith,

and thou
||

settest thyself against

me

with the

heretics.

I toil

and work

day and night that the truth which 161
I

was delivered

to the

Church may not be changed, and

direct

the weapons of argument against those

who deny

the Cross, and

thou upbraidest
*

me

(saying),

Hold thy tongue,

let
I

them do what
should
expose
silent.

they wish
their
I

They want me to be silent lest doctrines, and thou, with them, wantest me
.

to

remain

hasten to root out division and to end the schism which they
faith,

have caused in the

and thou declarest publicly that

I

am

the cause of the division.
novelty
2
(

),

They began a tumult, introduced a and disturbed the peace of all the churches, and thou
as the author of the disturbance.
I

considerest

me

am
is,

zealous

that

the

doctrine of the Trinity
3
(

may remain

as it

without

receiving any addition
(person),

),

without being

increased

by another

and thou accusest

me

falsely of preaching

something new.

Thou Thou

art looked

upon as a

disciple,

but thou art an adversary.

puttest on the appearance of truth, but thou art entirely on

the side of false

men.

Since thou lovest to be with

them and
like them.

blaspheuiest like them, thou wilt soon be put to

shame

Behold they are overthrown and they hide away, and they
have no protector.

The sword
it.

of justice is
I

drawn against them

and they cannot escape

This

say to the disciples in

name

0) The inheritance of faith. Probably the definition of the Council of Chalcedon regarding the two natures in Christ.
(")

) Because the Nestorians admitted two persons in Christ, Philoxenus accused them of adding a fourth person to the Trinity. He made the same accusation against Catholics for admitting two natures in Christ after the
(

3

union.

118

162 only, because,

when they

are confounded, the glory

||

of your for

titude will be all the

more manifest.

All the holy

(brethren)

who

are here
all, to

salute

you.

I also

adjure you before God, the Lord of

remember me
I

in (your)

prayers at the time of your services, for

believe that by your

prayers I

have been preserved until now.

Farewell in Our Lord

Jesus Christ

Who

crowns

our labors.

C.

||

The letter

Mar Aks e naya to Emperor Zeno on the embodiment and incarnation of God the Word.
of
Zeno,

Christ-loving
e

Emperor,

concerning

the embodi

ment (niethgass manutha) and the humanifying (methbarn e sanutha) ( ) of God the Word, Who is consubstantial with God
l

the Father, and was begotten

by
(-)

Him
God,

before ages and worlds,

Who
is

is

always God and near

Who
we

is

God the Word,
3 (
)

because

He was

begotten by

Him

without passion
learned,
:

and with

Him

not subject to time,

we have

believe, and we have

received from tradition as follows

that

He (God the Word)

emptied

Himself (

4 )

and came into the

womb

of the Virgin, without leaving

the Father, without separating Himself from

Him

with

Whom,
like the

near

Whom,

and

like unto

Whom He
He
is

always

is.

For we believe
is,

that, in so far as

He

is

God,

everywhere, that

Father and like the Holy Ghost.

(*)

As Incarnation does not render exactly the two Syriac words
, .

here,

I

have translated methgass e manutha by embodiment and methbarn 6 sanutha by These seem to be the English equivalents. humanifying
(")

&10\, apud.
This word
is

3

( )

taken here in

its

widest sense, as meaning a change

or modification of any kind.
4
(

)

Philippians, n,

7.

119

He wished
came

to give life to

diment, His passion,
to the Virgin

men by His abasement. His embo His death, and His resurrection. And He
be everywhere, and

without ceasing to

He
the 164

was embodied
For
1

in her

and of

her,

and became

man

without change.
as

He

1

did not bring to Himself a body from heaven

foolish Valentinus

and Bardesanes assert; nor

was His embodi
to

ment from nothing, because He did not wish
ture that did not exist, but

redeem a crea

He wished
old
1

to

renew that which,

created by

Him, had become

( ).

We
in

do not hold that (the Word) became
is

man

with a change

His nature, because God

not

capable
;

of change,

change
without

being a modification of things created

but, as

He

exists

having begun, so also

He was

not changed by becoming (man).

For He became man by taking a body, and not by assuming a man whom He caused to adhere to His person; otherwise, we

would be introducing an addition into the Trinity, and would be
found to admit a son of grace, outside the Son of nature.
fore,

There

whilst adoring this

God
I

the Word,

Who

is

the Only

Be

gotten Son of the Father,

believe that
for

He was
He,

really embodied,

and was born of the Holy Virgin,
forth,

Whom

she brought

has become (man) and has been embodied in her and of

her.

She did not bring

Him

forth spiritually, since (the

Word)
did not

has His spiritual generation from the Father,

and

He

become (man)

as

He was
(divine)

begotten by the Father, according to
nature

the order of the
tion.

and

of the essential genera
forth

But the Virgin brought
through

Him

corporally in

order

that,

this corporal generation,

we might be made worthy
therefore,

of the spiritual (generation).

The Word,

became

so

mething that

He was

not and remained something that
is,

we were

not (but became), that

sons of God, yet

||

remaining what we 165

were by nature. For we became sons of God, although our nature

(

)

Cf.

p.

97.

120

was

riot

changed, and

He became man
one (only)
(person)
is

by His mercy, although

His essence was not changed. O
I I

confess, therefore,

person
also

of the

Word, and
is,

believe that this

same

man, that

God Who
built

became man; not that He dwelt
to

in

a

man, not that He
It is

Himself a temple

in

which

He

dwelt.

we who

are His

temples, and
a

He

dwells in us by His Spirit.

He

did not create

man

in the

Virgin before

He

dwelt in her, a
for,

man whom He

afterwards assumed as another person;

by His embodiment
to the

from the Virgin,

He

did not unite
I

Himself

person of a
the

man, but
a
I

to our nature.
to

do not acknowledge in

Virgin

man
see,

adhering

God,

nor

a person joined to another;
Spiritual Being,
forth,

but

with the eye

of faith, a

Who, without
not a double

change, became

corporal, and Mary brought

(Son), as Nestorius said, but the Only-Begotten embodied,

Who

is

not

indeed half
is

God and

half man,

but wholly

God because

He

from the Father,
of the Virgin.

and wholly

man

because

He became

(man)
I

confess that there

was a union of the natures,
and the humanity, and
the parts
of
I

that

is,

(a union of) the divinity

divide neither
this
I

the natures nor
166
I

the persons, nor
in

and

that,

which have been united

an ineffable manner.
I

do not see

two things where they became one, nor do
are

admit one where two
con
say

known

to be.

It is not true that a
( ),

man was made, was
if

sidered independent
this,

and then assumed by God;

we

we do not we

confess that corporeity belongs to God.

If on

the contrary

believe that the body belongs to

Him, because

He was made man,
of God,

then corporeity

is

the property of the person

and not of another human person.

For the body of each

one of us does not belong to God, although

we

are the sons of

the Father and the brothers of Christ; and likewise (the body)

0) Sui

juris,

complete; literally

to his

own count

-

121
it

of that man, whether you consider

from the point of view of

the person, or of the nature only, cannot be regarded as belonging
to

God;

therefore,

it

is

not true that a body was created, was
to

acknowledged as belonging

another

(person),

and was then

taken by God and made His. With John I cry out that

the

Word became
God
forbid!

flesh

and
to

dwelt among us

!

(

),

not by

changing,
to

for

change

is

a modification, but

become

belongs to

the Eco

nomy
those

(of the

Word).

For

I

learn

from John and Paul that

(the Word) has become;

but that

He was

changed,

none of

who saw and served the Word
teaches

(ever) said.
I

Besides,

God

the

Word Himself

by

His prophet,

am

the

Lord,

and 1 change not (-). Where you would suppose that, by becom ing embodied, He was changed, He testifies all the more to
the truth of His

own

!|

immutability, and as

if

(already)

embodied 167

from the Virgin,

He
by

cries out to those

who think
I

that perhaps

He was
I

changed
.

becoming (man),

am

the Lord, and

change not

Of the one Son,

therefore,

are the two genera

tions,

the one from the Father and the other from the Virgin;

of the one Son, and not of two natures, otherwise

He would

not

be one.

For

if

we admit

(in

Him)

nature and nature,

we must

necessarily admit person and person, and consequently we must

acknowledge two Sons and two Gods.

The person
will of the

of the Son, therefore,

became embodied by the
embodi

Father and of the Holy Ghost, and His
that

ment does not exclude
with
them,
for

He may

be believed consubstantial

He was
He

begotten

Son

(by

the

Father)

and

He was

born Son of (the Virgin).

The Father had no corporal
Father; nor had the Holy

generation,

because

is

always

Ghost, because

He

did not come

from the

Father

as

Son

in

order to become the Son of the Virgin.

But that One was born,

(

) 2

St.

JOHN,

i,

14.
6.

(

)

MALACHIAS, in,

122

Who
the

was

begotten,
is

that

is,

the

Son.

And we

believe
to

that

Same

Son

by two generations, and that He,

Whom
two
Son,

belong the name and fact of Son from the Father, became truly
the Son of the Virgin;
things
168
to
for

to

Him
,

indeed belong

these

become and

to

be born
in

and because
||

He was

He was
And
that
the

born Son, that

is,

becoming

man

without changing.

since

we hear from

the Books that one person was embodied,
born,

same (person) was

and

is

the Only

Begotten

of the Father

and the Firstborn of the Virgin, we must believe
(as such)
is

that

He

is

known

even in
liable.

all the

humiliations and de

fects to

which humanity

We
alaha),

confess, therefore, that the Virgin

is

feoroxog (yaldath
after

and we believe that the embodied

Word,

being

born of her corporally, was wrapped in swaddling clothes, sucked
milk, received circumcision, was held on (His Mother
s)

knees,

grew
as

in

stature
born.

and was subject

to

His parents,

all this just

He was
He
is

He

did not need to be fed

Who

feeds (others),

since

known

(to be)

God, but

He became
then only

subject to all this

because
nature

He was made man,
and
in

although perfect and complete in His
It is in

His person.

so

far

as

He

became (man) that He grew. To Him belongs greatness by His The nature; and humiliation, because He emptied Himself.
things of the Father are His, because

He

has the same essence;
us.

and ours are His, because He became like unto
honor, because

To

Him
that

He

is

the Lord of

glory;

to

Him

humiliation,
fact

because

He

revealed Himself in the flesh.

His the

He was

hungry,

and His the
(thereby)

fact that

He

multiplied

bread.
like

He was
unto us;
169

hungry, and

showed that He became

He

fed
to

the hungry,

and (thereby) showed that the
||

power remains

Him.

For His nature was not

changed when

He

became (man), nor was the strength of His power diminished. He was baptized by John in the Jordan ( ), and the Father

0) St.

LUKE,

in, 21-22.

123
testified that

I

He

is

His Beloved Son.

recognize

the
is

Trinity

in the

Jordan: the Father

Who

speaks; the Son

Who

baptized;
as rnan,

and the Holy Ghost
and

Who

shows.

The Son was baptized

not in appearance, because the appearance of the dove be
(
)

longs to the Holy Ghost, and the appearance of the humanity

belongs to the
corporeity.

Father; but,

with the
I

Son,

it

is

the reality of
I

The One

Whom
I

have

seen

in

baptism,

have

acknowledged in the
1

womb
womb,
was

(of the Virgin),

and the One

Whom

have found

in the

contemplate stretched on the Cross.
the

One

of the Trinity
;

in

womb;

one

of the

Trinity in

baptism

one of the Trinity on the Cross.
believe in one Son, in one Father, and in
is

We
For there
Trinity,
cified

one Spirit,
in the

no other Son than the one

Who
for

is

adored

Who

accomplished the Economy

us,

and was cru
the Father
cried

between thieves. For He, at Whose baptism
This
the
3
(

testified,

is

My
He

Beloved Son
Father, into
calls

2

(

),

is

the

Same Who
I

out

on

Cross,

Thy

hands
,

commend My
certain that
Cross,

Spirit

).

Since

God
as

His Father

it is

He
is

is

His Son.

For

He Who,

man, was stretched on the

the

Same

Who

(at

that very time) was

ruling, as God, all

creatures by

His nod,

because
||

the source
if

of His natural life
that, conceived as 170

was not broken by death.

For

we believe

man, He
dead
in

is

God, we must necessarily admit that, enclosed

as

Scheol,

He

is

Life from Life, lest, because

He became
lest

(man), His essence be considered as having

changed, and

we believe that by death the

life

of

His nature was destroyed.

The Cross
lity

is

the herald of the death and of the immorta
until then,

of

God;

for,

we believed by hearing

4 (

)

that

God

(*)
2
(

The
St.
St.

voice that

was heard.

)
3

(

)

MATTHEW, in, 17. LUKE, xxm, 46.
auditu. Cf.

4
(

)

Ex

Romans,

x,

17.

124
is

immortal;

but,

on
for,

the

Cross,

experience has shown (that)

both (were true),

whilst tasting death,
life

He remained
;

living.

Death could not attack and destroy His

but, by His death,

the power of death was destroyed, so that this death (of the Son),
after

His becoming (man),

is

a miracle.

For

He Who

suffered

death for us was not mortal as one of us, otherwise the power
of death over mortals

would not have been destroyed.
is

From

all

men we know

that

what

mortal shall die

;

but, that the

Immortal

be considered as having died corporally, was something new which
took place once on the Cross.

Thus the immortality of God does not prevent us from belie ving in His death, nor does His death oblige us to deny His im
mortality.

God was

tried

by death, and

thereby

He

destroyed

the power of death
171 cannot die,

over all

the children of men.
||

As

spirits
is

He

did not die spiritually;
is

besides, His nature

immortal. But, since the body

subject to the power of death,

He was

tried

by death corporally. For there was not (in Christ)

a body adhering to God, nor

was there

(in

Him)

a

man

as

His

temple,

who was

dissolved,

and was raised up by the Word

Who
The
God,

dwelt in him, as heretics imagine.
as

But He

Who

was dissolved
body).

man, the

Same,

as God, raised

up (His own

Father also raised Him, according to the words of Paul,

His Father,

Who

hath raised
for

Him

from the dead
:

Ghost also raised Him,

(Paul says again)

The Holy ( ). He (Christ) was

1

known

to be the

Son of God by power, and by the Holy Ghost
(-).

according to the resurrection from the dead

He

also raised

Himself, as

He

said:

I

have power over
to take it

My
3
(

soul to
).

lay

it

down, and

I

have power

up again

For the

di

vinity did not leave the

body

(of Christ),

when He

cried out on

J

(

)
2

Galatians,

i,

1.

(

)
3

Romans,
St.

i,

4,

(

)

JOHN,

x,

18.

the Cross,

125

I

Father, into
not a

Thy hands
to

commend My
2 (

1

Spirit

(

).

And
God.

it

is

man

that said

the Father,
);

My
He
with

God,

why

hast

Thou forsaken Me?
because

but

called

My Him
sus

His

Father
,

He

is

consubstantial

Him, and

His God

because

He became man.

For

He Who was

pended on the Cross, by commending His Spirit into the hands
of

His Father, gave

to

the

souls

of

men

a relationship

with

the Father, and the Same, with His body, descended into Scheol,

and prepare the resurrection of the bodies that were there.

We
passion
;

do

not therefore

subject the

nature of the
distinct from
||

Word

to

nor do

we

believe that a

man

Him

died.

But we
rienced

believe that
it

He Who,

as God, is above

death, expe- 172

man. (We believe) that He is the Only Begotten Son, one of the Trinity, as is clear from His own words to His
as

disciples

:

Go

ye forth, teach all nations, and baptize

them
(

in
3

the

name
I

of the Father,

and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost

).

was baptized,

therefore, in the

name
I

of

Him Who Him
in

died,
for

and

I

confess that He, in
I

Whose name
in

was baptized, died

me, and

believe that
in

I

have put on
I

baptism

Whose
words

name and
of

Whose death
For
I

was baptized, according
on
spiritually
in

to the

Paul

4 ( ).

have

put

the waters (of

baptism) the Spiritual Being
fess that the
is

Who

became

corporal,

and

I

con

Living One
raises

Who,

experienced death
life;

in the flesh,

He Who

(the dead) and gives

thus

not

taking

anything from

the Trinity, as

the

foolish
its

Sabellius and Phopersons, like Arius
to the Trinity,

tinus have thought (to do), nor dividing

and Macedonius, nor adding another person

as

Theodore and Nestorius have imagined, nor saying that one of
its

persons

suffered a change,

like

Apollinaris

and Eutyches.

!

( )
2
(

St.
St.

)
3

(

) 4

St.

LUKE, xxm, 46. MARK, xv, 34. MATTHEW, xxvm,

19.

( )

Of. Galatiaus,

m,

27.

Therefore, I say

126
to the

anathema

impious Nestorius and

to

his doctrine, which, in the

one Christ, admits a distinction

of

natures and of persons,
173 sufferings to the

attributing the miracles to
||

God and
of the

the

man, denying openly the Economy

Word

Who
I

was made man.
also say

anathema

to

Eutyches

the heretic, and to

his

followers, because he denies that there

was a

real

embodiment

of

God from

the Virgin, and regards as hallucinations the

mys

teries of

His corporeity.
these
doctrines,
I

In saying anathema to

agree

with the

Holy Books, and adhere

to

the tradition

of the Fathers from
faith,

whom

I

have received the true and apostolic
I

that faith

by which
life,

have been made worthy, with

all

the baptized, of

of freedom, and of adoption.
I

have written these few
to

lines,

pious Emperor, and have
it,

sent

them

Your

Christianity, because you have ordered

to

confound the heretics who question
to edify those

my

faith in Christ,

and

also

who think

as I

do,

and who, made bold by

di

vine love, trv to defend me.

PART THIRD

TEXT
A.
1

cnT50
K

Kll_!=ri*cri!=no

p^AA-iG r^-X-ao

.SflC^

Vat. Syr. 138
fol.

120

r.

present text which is that of ms. 138 is called A. In ms. 135 and C ms. 136. When a variant reading B extends to more than one word, its beginning has been marked with 2 the sign *. The words between brackets are no longer legible. There is space only for 2 or 3 words; the title as given by Assemani
1

The

the notes

=

=

1

Bibl. Apost. Vatic. Catal. p.

has

been
3

taken

104 juima) **^3? oX? probably from ms. 136 and

^l>l?

H-^J ool
means

is

by no

original.

The

title in

B

is:

).

The

title

in

C

is:

128

cn_\

K iix.
1

A.XOJL.

K iascu.

.tins

r<jarA

K iaoai.l
K i U.
i-^r<^

K^cn Aisa
.l

ocb

3

K iii-

oc
a

vK*

*

ioali

,cnois?3C\r<

rtt^cXTM.-)

rt

JK

iaia

.ia.4jl=>

cA.i

pa.vs

r^v* no^vt

"

are

.

cnsa

.Ta

cna

2
.

B and C add:

6

B

H

3J

o^

J?o).

7

B adds

:

tmi

.!>

V--

8

^

-

129

-

carDCUxrj

I!

Fol. 120

v.

ocn
on\

Oo

rt iorirj

T\jr<^

rtCl^r^ A.*io

.ooi^xs

ja.a.1

relBo,z^.

r^A

.

rdu.ii^a

vv&
r^A

1

B

4
8

12

7 BC Bi^jL, fi^?. 9 B C B ^^>. I0 B )loUo, C Jicujo,. u B isu p~ii. I3 B in C no longer legible. B )o^. I4 B U?o.
s
.
.

^ C

2

B C B

B
B
Uo.

,

<*>/;

130

-

cn=>

r^ncn.l

r^.-w^ira
rrfaoo

P^Z^.TO

.floc\Acv.

-vsJapfo

.

rt

A^O.x. rt^c
nxc.i

.rdtij

rAo

rV^aso

rcA.l

rdAo

Klia

.

rt^i9acv.x.
3

rt
14

so r^

Ucn.i

vKto

.

.iz.

K*is.i

cal!53

15

1

B
yCL>.

2

B omits.
s

3

B

4

^.A.t-3

^.^^a.^.^o.
6

B

>

C JCL^JO
7

oa-a) yj^.
CHS.
oo,
v>

B C add B ^.-Xw?
^

11

C ^fo ^Q-O. I2 B C vjo. ^ IJD.
I5
-j<^_^.

8

B adds ^K^*^ Uo. B 4..^^ 9 B Jio.ji>cu2L*, v)o. I0 B vJo. I3 B C ^J. I4 B
)^>Q

.

C

B

oJL_j^^f

JJo.

131

-

.*cno

^

oc

.

onzu

13

.i

oc

1

B C omits, C adds
inst.

2

(C ^v?). 6 B **j;.^9 yOc**^j. B 8 7 B ^?CUJ. B C yl^MDf 9 C 2 B |k:L.kaa. I3 B
5 .
.

^^

:y
3

.

B

of

C

4

B vooloo)
J

^o
$

p.

.

B )^).

"

B

6

B

l

.

^ B (HWSfct^ :? B C 3.

C

132 -

Fol. 121

r.

1^, K cnW

rfjju.3

^ax*

||

peiW

.r^iit-

3

C\cp rc?.isi

K icno.JO
4

K*iit-

K JK

retirt ^

i^pt

.i

GOT

^jix.

>cnaA\*r<

K crAK K ^Asa

.^.ax*

oa=>

*

rtoa 0.10 c\

*

.K icncu
.i

12

ac

.!

Clicn

.

<jo.i

retx siL
4

w rdsoa.lo

cvo

-

1

.

ret

*>

ai

1

B omits.

l

C Li^_^*o.

;

B

O-L*>

o)

^^^

7
11

15

8 B C B ^o. 9 B C U^.v. I0 B pok*x. <^jo, I2 I3 B C k~ B lio&kk I4 B C C Ux^^ IL-O. B |LM UJ? OMAO. C |ufcJ) ? OM^JO )o)? opa^.. l6 C
<n

,

17

C

-

133
.1^.
.

or*

re!^\CU

OK* K!A.Q.r.

erArc Ocn.l reil^r^
cV.alu&xx.rc

.

Kb en

.

K*io KtiK*
rCli^K
.

KJK
i-xias.

.i

.

rc ocn

.

rt irj

rA.l

Oob

.alx>^73

r^i.l

ocn

.ca\

^.jDJ.i

r^jtsira

acbo

ao

i^

KCi^j^vi.i

orA

Kbcna

.

KtuCiz. rf.i

.i

cuen

ca*oca=3

.i

Gcno*

.

Ocn

rcS^
Ore*

ctA

,

1

B omits.

2

B C Uis.
9 +9.
7

3

B C U^o-*,.
8

4

C
9

5

B C

10

B

lu^U. o A.

6

C

B

*>wV*J.

C ^a^o.

B |uV-I

oo,.

-

134

crA

Kb cni
CU
.

.

K crAK*

01^3

=>

Fol. 121

v.

acb

.

kJ

aqa

.T^

Ocp

rc orArC

orA

A.y.1

.%\

ca\ .T^

ca\ .^rtlljjo
iCL.n.

Oo

.

oriA

2
.

B C

3

ycuJ3i.V3>o

^U>>.

B ^oo^atjo)
6

,

C
,

4
7

C
B

s

JJ.

^oo.^^j^a.9)

,

C

ua-.;.-L.^a.-9J.

B )o..^
lo
+=>.

C
C

omits.

JcH^J

J^A^
oo,

B taaxj.

9

C Uj)

135

vv.*

r<

oriAr< .l

^i^r^.l ,-Acni
^.idact ^x
a3.ix4JL*

r *T^v\

orA

Oca=3 cars

.Tu.l
15

.

rdiakK*\
14

^iwrfo
17

K ocn
15

ja

.TWO
.

.

r^A

^.i&jr^a

rC acn

r^-si
.

.TA>CV

.

relA

14

rdA .Two r^acn
rfoco
rrtj

rf^rit.

.TwO
rel\

Kl\ .TwO
.T^jO

K Ocn

^J^
19

.T-A*0*

18

.

r^Ocn ^afX
vrvdo.l

.TuO

.

r^A .Two

K oco

.TwO
.

u
.

.TWO

r^lA

.Two

.T-wO

2
.

5

B

6

B ^30 which is preferable. C oo>)|. 8 7 B U.. B o. C )o^J. 9 B
3

4

B

-*_

10

B
B C B C

"

.

B C Hj^J.
l6

I2

B IL^^O.
,

I3

C Jla^Uaee. ^ B
l8

omits.

15

o.

B AJU.

I7

B omits

C

*~.
25

B

20

2I

C

|LJ^)O.

M B

r ^)o.

I9

B

^.

Ufc^>.

B

136
2

OK
cA.l

reLx-iio

v&a.i

JL.^ja

"i-*-^

oi

rJA*r^

.

K orAK

.l

r^&tOSQ i

K oen.l

rC crArf
4

KlArf 7\V

^

K*i^

cAo

4

.K

ctAr<

KlA

oc

.Tw

.

f*\

K

.i

oc

K ocn.l
*

ocb
Gc
.

.TX.

KllS>a*ciiS3

K ^Ao^a

s

.aL^rf Ai^cn

1

WcrArc

.i

Ocp

K ca-AK K aa

.

oc

r<"V3

1

B

If^d

,0
4

tvi

^

(C |LJ-^)O
s

inst.

of *-*o).
6
I

l

B ^o.

3

B jlcL^^.

B C omit.
8
.

C

U)

t=.
9

C^)(sic).
I3

would suggest B C \j+~}. lo B omits.

-

137
.

ocp

KliaA
r^.i

in
ocp

r^cVxlsBO

Orp

K cfArf
*

.

.

ocp
3

r^.i-iw

oA
2
.

.

Tij3

Arc"

^.i

aim

ocp

Kli-i4j

0\o

oco
5
.l

,ClJD.i

ii.SBrc .i

oca ocb

*

Fol. 122

r.

ODT3

.oc

3

rcj i**

a\

.L*

rctxjji\

.l

oco

.i

oc

K orp^

cu33O

14

.a^cVrC
12

.i

rd.xi.TJD

oc

7

KLiiw aAo

.

1

B C
,

y)o.

B
3

IU
5

Jf

(C writes )^^) and
6

|j*-.)o).
8

B C ij^J.
B
9
U>^.

4

B

B C lu^Jo. 10 B o
i-ap)>

C c^.
"

7

B C )o^J.

C
B
,

Q^O.
-ae).

B

^^

*

I2

B omits.

IJ

14

B C Ul^i^

138

.i

rC .lcn

sa

r<L^.CV5a.x-

cvn^

u.li

a.ira

r<L

.am

.rt on.\r<

.

rc crAr*

.>

\

4

Co

o
r^ \h-n

5

rc .iao

.1^3

rc aaa

,020^.*^

.1.^0

?

8
11

2 a^? U-* Uo (C a^? inst. of Jl?). B 6 B omits. 4 B adds ^. B Ulo C U^o. C r a.^~. C ^-si^,. ^ B C U^a^^*.. I0 C V C omits, B adds M. I2 B omits.
1

B

]oi^)

J

7

,

B

U-^

,

O<H-JL*>

139

-

.

rf.io i cv^

AA^a^vta rfio
.p^ocai

7

.K!ra.jj

oc.i

At*

a\

.>cno^v*r< .i

ccb

.

rc^ocp.!

Q

Oc

8

rxT.i-a.Xw

.-t-k

a.T

^j

.oalx&.r)

rrt\cn

rClz.CV.Zjj

c\c

ptcusa rcA
.oco
rf^cuiJS rxfA rfacn

vyrf

.

oqp

10

cuen
,n
\

\
B adds )o.
is
5

1

B C
)l)>.

2
U->;.*.

C

^a^>f.

3

B omits.
9

4

C

joo..

6

B C

1

B

8

)OLIWCU*.

B t*^.
.

B omits which
^^>
+*+>
;

due pro

bably to the homoeoteleuton
after

oo

)<*_^>J?

C

inserts )oo

oo]^-|

and writes

^xa^o.

I0

B

,

in

C no

longer

legible.

140

rfJLxA

i

^
ocb 003.1
v .
J

=j*

ore

Fol. 122

v.

.I

oo
i

:

><TJO^ur<

Om

..TJ

>

ca*

.i

vv^al
ocno
:

r^LjLaa
Cl-i

.rC iir.

A^.

vA
c\ooo

.i

rtlsar^
V,\^<<

b\Q\

^

r^A.i

ocno

. >v**^r<

K ocn

5

C

6

Jicuso.

B
I0

^JUJL*
I4
l8

,

C

7

^JL*.
"

^-JU*.

B ^J-*^I>2

s

C

r
,

I ,

B omits.
r
-^0>^

9
15

17

B ^lV^) B B C ^i.^^iv> B ^o^uJL.o.

^JUK*..
*B

C ^00.
J

B
20

rl0>^

C
l6
,

5

^...^.^^
omits.
1.

C

ji^..)

B

I9

C

from

^

^o6))f.

^-Jm. C ?c*m*5

B C iab). B omits

1.

14 to

a-^^ I)

16.

141 -

ocno

rrfacn

ir*

i=a

r<Muiz.

nf_ic

K!xii=3

r^s itl

izartx vysr^ .r^ca\r^L\
oalx^.i
*oa\.^

K ocn K ocn
occv
.

region

O.A

.

.^.-3^.1

vv.

1

B omits.
8

2

B U.*k.v.

C IA*!^.
6

5

B fcO^s
IO

Q- 1

^-^,
,
"

4
7

C UL^*..
B .li^o.

5

B C

ol)f.

B

1J

B BC)u^)?. 9 B^^. C)o^^). B )^oj?. I4 C adds C ])^^ U^*^). I2 B C ^I^L^O^. l6 l8 I7 B B )i^. B C C V ^uua.**:*. 20 19 2I B C jis). B C B uQ-.>a^mj C ^^i^ou.
I3
a.>ft>^)?.

jcu>d^xaA^

C C

OO>^Q.O.

22

i^>)?.

,

C

omits.

003

Oc
3

rtLa.-L

>03

A 100X0
oo

.

K ^.TJJ

rfcrArC
rt oori-i

rt acoo

O.\

<

rc ocpo

\
/

K orAri
Oo

CV-\c\

*

cnlA^._r)

.1**

rf-ArC

rtL\

O.fSl^.rc O
.14JO

.

1

C

U

2
l
^>.

B C )o^).
7

3

B omits.
i-a.
]ooi.

4
8

B C
B
n

s

Uu=>.

C

6

C
B
B

adds

^ojsollo.
I0

B

)_-.-)
,

^-^
B A]O.
]6

,

C
I2

9

^

,3)?.
I4
l8

B omits

C

]ooi
I5

C
17

M

^.

3

JJo.

C adds ^,^0,.
B
sic
I9
-

B ^o3

(sic).

B ^.

B adds

U*H-

C

B k*.Jo.

-

143 -

.000

.TJJ

.^^ocnrs*

:u

AA.I

1
.t<

-i

<

iM
?

*

*"

-.

A
>o

-

K^CO

.

Fol.

123

r.

aco

4

>&ia.r2i*cn.i

-ifl.l

>cn

cars

8

rdsa.icn

canjrt

I4 I

rt!x.i

1

B C
^>?cfio

)u***).
3

2

B
^I*JQ^>

,

C
4

0*1:0

^^*U
7

o
s

^ju*
6

]J.

B cHi^^cu*.
inst.
ll

B )La-i^a^.of.

B
8

^
>

\

>e>

t

B

^^
A|.

,

(C \Z~
I0

of

H~~).

B omits.

C
I3

9 14

B C

C

omits.
IS

B frm, Aox&L.

B 1-^Ua. B ool u^.

I2

B /i^, )uo^.

B

144

4

,03

re.

.VOL. 3

K icU
ooco

r^LJt.

cnra

.^oxirC
\

^.vaQ^a
o

reL\

^

,cra\t<ii

,<DCV2v\.AJ

JC*f

0-31^1

K^oo.i

.

*
:

cniiz\

K
Kb oil

ca\r<

1

C

adds, /ioj-vx-o*.
6

?

B k~J-*?. B
/^Ux>
ll
,

3

B lS-o^o.

4

B omits.

5

B

^?.

C
I0

omits.

7

C

)^.

8

B

C

9

B afco.

B adds

oo^.

B

-

145

-

^A cn

2

Klico

.-

5

.caai
.TA*.! OC?Q
7

ca\.l

.

1

B C omits.
in

2

What

follows
4

is

wanting
s

in A,

and
6

is

found

only
7

B and C.
8

3

C

adds *u*.
v^. uUAJO.

C
9

JjiuJ.

C

omits.

C

C Us)?.

C &l

C

10

-

146

-

Vat. Syr. 135 fol. 19 v.

reLicn

K!l=JV=J

.

r^rsa*cns>3.i

r<!i5?3a.*

^.

Fol. 20

r.

a.

Ax

A

.

K .icn
,cn

tCraiOT

>oa3r<

OfX*

caA

-

147 -

GOT

r^ixJi..**.!

.

^jLUarC i

K^CU3Enr>

i^a.

Ko

.

Fol. 20

r.

O.A

.

t<A.

^

al

^
TXT.\

tr^ss .ix^Q.i

GOT

148

vwK

ri.-uj

^OAtsao^.

,o3O&ur<

K*-A

Ti.

rc

.ioca*

.

,CT3C\l3\

Fol. 20 v. a.

rtlicn jjLloVS*) )QCXA.^

^
.

fia^oa
f

^AI-.I

}o.i>ia

.

r

.i

ocn r^Llx.taza

>cno^x*r<

r^l^cb.i r^.i^r^o

.

cn\

t

a.\o

.,00

.

cars

>

on

crA

^3OToi>

TjjrC

pa.T.^3.1

OK*

cas

r<^i^.

,cn

1

The ms. has ^e
So the ms.

twice, at the end of the line and again at
line.

the beginning of the following
2

-

149

H-w r^l*.ioco*
ta.i

K .icn

cn&cvA

i.^pc a

.

cn.xr>a,x.

.Ta^Lcv Fol. 20

v. b.

pal ^a.nai^, re^rf

.

cax^i.i

r^iia^r^ crA

.

K crAK

.

AuK*

reli

.lik

r^cairi

OK*

.

AK

Kli.l )o.i?3

r^oco

^
.

al
.

^c
rc

r<!xii=>

oco

K crAr*
O.AO
.

a\

.

3.fti.i

ocn

KAK

.

cazLOii

K i^
on=>

Oco
a.T5?3

r^A
a.TSfl

^n cA

.

r^A.i

AvfcKax.

jCDOr.i

rr

Fol. 21

r.

K oco.l
B

caA

150

-

cu\

vv-a

T_*
.

003

.

Ocbo

rtfLxiia

vr^

rtf!.iajL

^XXM^ Ktoen ocn

KboD O co
.I

oco

.

oo

.

nC orAK

ocp

.

Aancv
Pol. 21
r.

.

rc*"i\jj

jxlo r^L^
.

*.

r^relk

rd.\o

^.^A
.

reli.i

ocbo

r^jciis

oc
.i

rC caAK

vr^ r^L^jl
.

Ar^LLo

vOn.lO

)alo

.

.i

l

OCT3O

.

K*.

Ocp

.

rc ca^r^

vyrt

.i

cvcno

.

vwr

^

rt in.c

n an ocn

.

ocn

K crAK^ Asa
rtboo.i
>cti=i

cos
.

is

.

Acux.

151
.

Kbcn
io
.

ia.TSa

COWV3

^ooalA,
KlsaaLO.

rtlib.icri

Kbcn ^nA-fcao

Kbcn

.

ocn

^JSfl.l

K crAK i

>cass

ja.vaJ.i

rti\r

Fol. 21 v a.

ocn

.

.

crA

,ca

.

Kt*ia,x-

ca-A

Kb 03.1

Kb en

.

152

.

rdxii=>

rC crAr*

Ktacn
.

>ca_rD

reLaK*

i^A T-JL-^

r*lA

K orAr^l

.KJK TOT^ID KlliwK A*.
Fol. 21 v.
.

A

.irj.^.

r^-lniQA .A.K

.

ooo

||

rtLai^jK
relxaia.i

0\
Ceo

.

K cnlr^ rfAd ^CJK

.A

CUa.i.ltK

oa

K!Ar<

.

^VASO.I

ocb n

r<flv-.V-Sq

rtcoAr^.i
.l

CV.-\

.

K onAnc
co

r^lAr^

.

rf-^.j.x.1

0^0
Oc
.

.

cnira.l

K ^O.Jta-a K

(

ca\r<

on ^ a 12^^.1

CCQ relL-rja-ja-CDO

.

aaiq

K*ca-\ r^.i

>cn

.

u.sa

rCcrrci
.

>OT

.
>op

,cc

Kl^.T

rc*^\l!53

K ocn
r<L\.i

>

ocn rdi
tsar<

i-**r<

_t

.

K crrei
.

oco

K ia

Kllcb.i

>cncvl^.o

Fol. 21

r.

a.

rzax*
:

^

||

\ai.i -u^acr)

:

cn^\cxQ.=)

Goo

rrfcaAK

K orAK

.i

coira.i

&Gaa KlA

.

oco

153

co

r^-T^ij

co

nT-aava.!

r*Wxj*A
.i

isar^i a era a

ccnc

:

r^_!33a.lo.i

WK

i

cone

K &J.M K ca^K a
.n.fia.i

.n^ida

K .a.Al

A.X.A*

crA

^.
Kll.t Gob
:

KbaAr^i OOQ

.i

ocri

Cop

nr ^cv.A^xA^x

za

.i^.l

ixzn

r<l\.i

ocb

.I

ccio

:

r<^VA

S?3.T.o

Fol. 2lar.

b.

K ca-AK
Kiln
ccn
r^.i

pa.ia

Kljjt-aX-Sa cop

Ar^

oa\

.

co

r

.1

.

con

r^

1

So the ms.

154

<*J.i

i^a^

^so

:

cna

K*i*CU
l^>

OQ.A

rtli.l

J

:

rCtrArfii
a.*c\rn

.i

ocn

.

r^xQ

.i^a*

>caAT>.i

oco.i

OCTJ

b

Q.A

Fol. 21av. 0.

j3

oc

OOQ

orA

ia.Sk

T<l3a3

.

rc^vlo^vs

SQ r^Lx^i=)

K acnO

\

155

.TA*

v^-a

K cnAr^ K ^O.JSfl.i
.

>ODO^V-.*r<

Oo

a*

CV.*C\cn.l

rdlco

Oo

:

cn^s

:

Oo
cT3<V\a.Xx3

relLt?3

pijal-kntft
:

Oa oa
rtlao^.i r^asa

i^o

Fol.

21a ? 3
.

.*r<^

oc.i

sn

:

cai

AvA

ocn.i

i^
oco
.1.^

Oo

ocb.i

r<^o.i?3

156 -

>ca=>.i

Fol. 22

r.

a

ocp

Kii^CU

.

r^ocn

r^At

,CY3a.a.VwO

rt-im a en
.i

a en cos
:i

oc

c\c

i

CUOc

:

nioai

rd.o.i

cn.iOJ

.

rctocn

A^-it

pa v
.i

,cno.xw

oco
:OCQ

:

cvc

:

caa

-a^.

.^.ax*

^.i.i oc

Ox

.TWO rd.sacixa

.1**

>eno^ur< .i

ocb

rdJcno Gcb.i i^ar^.i
Fol.

pa

:-

Klsix^a ocp
i

22 i.l. r^A.i

pa
.

II

v n^xiA^v^
Klx-orA

cvop

K^iia A % .T^.
^rV.i

r^licb

.

r<

.va-^.

r^Lso.T^.

tr<^

Ocia.l

.i

157

cuocn
:

ocn

99

:

cn=>

>cp

rta-t^.i.i

-ar<

^99

rtflA

oc

r<H-A-

5a.-

.

rc

vovn.T

orali.fr

Jsn

caisn

%A.O.l

^S9O

.

^JLx&

^5

oriA
rc erArc

.

.i

r^.lCl5?3

r^lA.i

:

.

rf-A.t

p3 v

158

^33

*ia

.

J..I.LW:!

^GcaiSaiicA

^sO^ Kilo

.

^

ac

am

.i.&u^.

.

Pd3L.a

K^CV.A.!*ao
.

OOcn

Fol. 22 v.

b.

crA

Ocp

>.torVo

159
A.JOJL

.sAw

.

oocn
Fol. 23 i.a.

oaliJLiii

oom

M.-

OK

K cairtflA

.

v\l

01=3

:

ca

>c

<sv

>cno

.i

Fol. 23 r.b.

1

Not

in the

ms.

-

160

-

.wO tVacn T=x

.

oacn

*.

r^.Ar>

cvx^-a O

ocn

.

ca

oocn

vrA jah\

i^>

rtlA

.

jiilfio

r*A

Fol. 23 v. a.

.r*LV5a

^A-w.i Klai-nA
a

ocn A^. rVbrAr^

^

vO.

161

-

vvA

JLX..

Fol.

23

v.

/>.

K*

A

P^CO

r^lAo

1

Ms. adds

-.

.

11

- 162

OOcn

.

1

So the ms.

-

163

-

.

\

^

^ \

A

3

Fol. 17

r. b.

ciD

&a.l=OLX^s

<fc\J53

ocn

<^\CX\O

rcip jcnow

^=>^,=3.1

oc

naA
r<t\.

.l

Oc

vso.i
*^

cucn

:

.

rCLz.icto.1

KJMOI vyr^O

enact

000.1*^
^Q.isq

164

crA

A Q.I
r^A

vyK*
^so

.

rVi^k
.

j^K

rtliSar.

^n oA

r^Ao

^ i.sapc
cA.i
>cinrj

a

crz*cKK r^.T

K ctaiaA

Fol. 17

v. a.

.

.

Qcn
fa

r^AAiA civJsq
vy* PC* rcArc*
.

r<L\

r^.1

>

nv

Qcn

r^l^^i

ocn

rfca\r<A

AA^OO

crA

nd.UA.i

ocn

T=A

ocn

.

.

vwK*
alor^
r^rart
.l

ns^ocn

.r<^v\o^\n

Ktocn

>cno^.*r<

.i

aicn

.

165

rtli.cn

.Ar^a V

.K ar<
oc

:i

Fol. 17

rtA ^i

.i&

.

K ^CUn-x--ra
x^cn
.IA

rrii.a
.

J

.i

rsaciia

.l

Clien

.

r^xjiri
i.^1^.

Ar^

>coa&x.K

Oqa

.1^

OO3.1

alo
onpo
^A^V^K
orA

.

rtlzi^an

O\

.1^

.

Klxiira

K ocn.i
cn\

.i4j

i*^
Ktxlis
.nfla

>oacxl^

cD

.

ens
.

rc iai.o

K

.

irD

i*^

CV\

cajjoi

.IA=D

^=3

vy rf
.

K^cvAo .oaa

.iA

KllK*

.^..i*

rfA

.

.IJL=I

rtla.T4.4xA

kO

rfca^K

ca^A^ cA

cno&vr<

:i

.TA*

A\OCQ,IO

.

rtA
rtliiwf<l

.iflk

.K ^cvzirtllo

K ^ocn^rttl

^.i

CUcn

K ^CXlSal OK .KlOlxA

Ms. adds

)oo>

.

i

i

aa uu

Fol. 18

r.

.

reUK

K VJJ r^Ao

.

prf&xiisa

Av\

O.i

C\cr>

i*

nfA

.

p^x.J-i=3.

ocni ni

2

r^A
OK*

K ocn

i_x-

oA

.

=i

^O Kbcn

r^iflora

reli vu oocn.i

^aK* ^j
oco

.1**

.T.=3

K oa^K K l&Oba

..i

.icafioK*

1

So the ms. Supply

2

f ?

So the ms. Supply

)i^

?

3

So the

ms. Supply

167
.i

ocb

vKto

.

cn^cv

i

<\

\

Fol. 18

r.

ocn

,TA>!

.

^v^Lwifn-K
rc
.

.i

Ocn

.

rc!ijL*ka

y\

r ^jf^K

.

K cnnc
rd.sK

^i^\o
.l

rtli=

.lO

.

Ocn

rx oco

i.*i Ocn
<^C\A

.

ocriAiAx

r^-ira

cvnp

.T&

Ocn

^.^1*

en
ri ocno

cn\

AvK^

aco
.

.

K ^vlo^uA K ia
A>a\

Av*r^Ti*

oa-A .IA
>mQ&vK

i*^

ca\

rtlsK
.

^99

K is.l
f

r<Lii^.CUtoo

tVisi
.V^.

Ay<\

,iL^uc\
.

K ooal.i

* err. ^1^1

>oon

KlA.i

rfoco

*.l

cx-lcb

.

1

So the ms. Supply

2
o^xoo>

?

So the ms. Read
~s
:

168

-

^a

^ix^soi.

^Acn
acn
.IA

cno^v.rc o .iliir^
Fal.
1*8 vi.,.
||

^K

Qcpa

:

pax^&K

003

rdAO

aA

:

crAo n

Arxo

.

K Ocn.l
cnL.iO
in.l

^ft.T^Q

r<".icn=D

.

crx_5?3 CVlrxra

O cnlx^rs r^-u^i^p
en

.Ocp

.

CYUJA
*ga

A\^a
.i

r^^xraioi
coL.l
ja

A

*.i

.

>oi

A

\

KlaK

.

i&ifioK .l
fL.io

.V.v.

rc ocn.i

A^.

crA.i

.oca

.

K$U9O^lX.t:t COD
^k

,03

onA-a.iG

.

^

MI

cb

ooL.i

.

i

<

1

In the ms.
^>o^so

^^

(with

3

dots to indicate that the

words must be transposed).

-

169 -

T-za&K

cnA^CVJL.l

r^JuM

pdAa

.

K aco

^.iiCU=>

\

.

T<L-I

1

1

>

acn
Fol. 18 v.

K*-i=3

.

rtl^jb.i

r^LsK

.

KllCU.l
rc

.i

oca\
.

.

K ^CV.JT^^.I K iix.
a=j

.^.!

aorAa

rei2>^3ii

^v^.iO^ix.K crA

.1

oca

^=*J

ii\ r^ia ccp
>\az..l

Ax.i\r<

o

Lj.i

r^cuiansa

cucn.i

:

.

.i

CUOan

.

i\
.

aA

oo

K oco U^K
.

r^

1

*t

K caK

vK

.l

a^oca

.

1

The ms.

oaa) )^o

cf.

p.

167

n.

170 rc orAre
1

Fol. 19

r. a.

KLliAuJ

rcfocn.l

,c

.1

Oo

CV\C\

.

en

>

\

\

cu

.

crucian

i

oc

K .icn

.

r
.

vfy::A>r<

00^0^0.1^9
cai^-n

rdA=>

icvA.Sk.Ji

oo^xcvtn

K .icb

.1^=0
i*

.

K&os*
oA.i

oA

^usa

r^AvwOl

The ms. U.j3

(sic).

171 -

K ncn

OK

.

r^wArdA

2nnl.i

rf-i^ i*\J| cA

.00=3

tJtol&r*

Fol. 19

r.

col Ktocn.i

.i

oco

r^rt

.

cvnxicn

^injaa^o.i
pajjarV

vyK*
.

.

vwK* aA acp

vv*K*

.

ocn

A ^

ac

cAo

.

^waiA

crA

KtiK

)oni!flo

.

cop

Kbcn

^

i

ocn

.T&

ocpo

cnlx-A

^.T^Q
i=3

Ay
ooo

-

172 yisa
rt ctAr<

cars

Fol. 19 v

a.

:u*

rVi=D

re*.T*~j*.

.to.^9

crA

.T^

.i

octaa

.

.

ca\

.

Oca\C\
.I

obcda.^

WK

vyrt

.

r^ocn.i

.iaJ orA

.

rdA

.1^

.

rtilu.l

rf_3C\cn*o

era j."=o

.1

VWAK

.

ctaA?3c\io

.TM

J^ljj^vi-K

.T

rdAo

.

vwi
OOD

caiaAcvAa

.

a>a*icx^fiQi

r^L^uLZ.ii

A

>

1

So the ms.

z

The ms.

rtllco
*Q..V.
<-.!

173 -

rtf

-JK

.i

ocb

cn

Fol. 10

v.

K hi

.\

.

.

^Aco

.

r^. i

175

APPENDIX

I

AN ANONYMOUS NOTICE ON PHILOXBNUS
Ms.
(Vat.

Syr.

155,

fol.

5

r,

a-b}.

GOT

r^ocn

.

.

Qoo.aia.fio

%i

Ktoen oiar^ Oopo

.

^.

ooa.ii.aa^L.2i

^.i

ocn

1

So the ms.

176

At the bottom
following note
:

of the

page, in

the

margin, we read

the

.

r<.z..ia,0

A^.i^A

i. sa.

L

r^ljkiz.

JJL\

:

177

APPENDIX

II

THEOLOGICAL GLOSSARY.
.

Occurs often unaccompanied by the usual

.1

,

not

in the sense of in so only in the sense of as (sicut), but also

far as
(in

(in

quantum).
est

K orAK

vyr^,

in so far as
in

He
as

is

God
is

quantum
(in

Deus);
est

re!at.ii=3

vyK

,

so

far

He

man

quantum
.

homo).
is.

jCDO^vaK
existence
of

He

Used

generally in

speaking
(to

of

the

God, and, as such, opposed to
.

K<cvcn

become).

K&O^UK

Essence; existence; substance.

In the meaning
;

of essence, opposed to the
,

noun

pdocr>

(becoming)

v. g.

cnuC\cn=>

As He

is

in

His essence,
.

so

He remained
being,
is

also in

His becoming.
substance.
rrftaA^,
,

pd-^-ir*
With
.1
,

Existing,

Supreme
called

Being,

substantial.

The Word

rtf&uri

the substantial

Image
God.

of the Father.

K crAK
in opposition
PC .X.XK
.

.

rC^rf,

K isa
Christ,

,

prffolsa

,

pf-woi

,

used

with

it.

Man.
.

Said

of

less

often

however than

the word r*.*i^3

K&cut.aK
the humanity
union, but
it

.

Humanity.

According

to the

Monophysites,

is

not considered as a nature in Christ after the

forms with the divinity one nature.
12

178

Woman. Means sometimes
Warrior, athlete.
to Christ as

the Blessed Virgin.

A

title

given by Philoxenus

Redeemer.
.

i-fla-=

Flesh,

i on -

r^ocn

,

He was made
is

flesh.

Outside of

St.

John

1.14, this expression

used but seldom to

denote the Incarnation.

K i.iL^.a
in
.

:

Adversary

;

enemy.
.

Used

also

by Philoxenus

the meaning of

the Devil
to

1^=3
denying
to

To diminish,

be

less.

Said of those

who, by

the

divinity of the Son

of

God, reduced

the Trinity

two divine persons.
Natural Son (Filius Naturalis).
.

Son of grace (Filius Adoptivus).
es-

Son of the essence, having the same
sence, Consubstantial.

The usual Syriac expression
substantial.

for

Con-

is
storians admitted a

.

Having the same measure, equal.
In Christ, the Ne-

Outside of; distinct from.

man

outside of and distinct from the

Word,

Man.

This

is

the

word

generally used with

K OOO

in

speaking of the Incarnation.

TJia^r^.
valent of the

To be humanih ed (made man). It is the equi word cvavOQWTrrjGai in the Greek Fathers.
.

K&cmLJi=\23

Humanifying.

It

is

the equivalent of
is

the word svctvQQwn^iq in the Greek Fathers, and

generally,

though loosely, translated by Incarnation.

riA\^.
also

Manifestation, revelation, transfiguration.
of

Means

the

manifestation

God

in

the

flesh,

the

Incarnation

Body.
v.

179

in

Often used

a metaphorical

sense,

g.

K iix.i

the body of

relsat-a^, the body of truth. is generally Christ the word
i^a>

In

speaking of

used.

pox^jbr^.

To put on a body,

to

be embodied;

denomi

native from paa.x.\^.

He was embodied
and

in

rx^Ao^vrs pacv refcAo&uia the Virgin and of the Virgin.
.

r<&exu5ax\jtaa

Embodiment.

It translates the

svff(ofiar(offtg of

the Greek Fathers.
in

jia.i

.

To adhere;

the

Aphel,

to

join,

to cause

to

adhere.

The Nestorians held that the Word
adhere to His person, and thus
natures in
they

of

God caused

a

man

to

admitted only a

moral union between the two
K&cvjiB.i
the likeness of
.

Christ.
.i

Likeness.

K^o.- a.^.

vwr^ rrtrAK

K&osan

,

God
be,

as Creator.
to
it

r^ocn
of the
v.

.

To

become.

When

used alone in speaking
to

Word

of God,

has the meaning

become (man)

,

g.

..ai*>$ix.K

rd\o

K cvcn
K"ocn

not changed.

relx.ii=3

He became (man) and He was K .XJK r^oco He became man
,
,

;

i_oa.-^

fVooo

,

He became

flesh;

K i^-A

Ktoco

,

He

be

came a body.
,ocn
.

Birth, generation, existence, becoming.

Applied

to

the second Person

of the
is

Trinity,

it

generally

means
,

beco

ming (man)

,

and
.

thus opposed to

K

&G^V*!"*

essence.

K&CU.TJJ

Unity, union.

The Monophysites professed not

of the natures in Christ for only the union, but also the unity

the Incarnation. they admitted only one nature ofter
re

^o^.T-w.

Novelty.

Used

also

in

the
it

sense

of

new

doctrine, heresy.

Philoxenus seems to apply

to

the definition

of the

Council of Chalcedon regarding the existence of the two

natures in Christ.

Change

;

mixture.

Change.

180

-

Though
union,

the Jacobites

admitted only one nature after the
suffered

they denied that the divinity

any

change.

X.^ rfi
Suffering
;

.

Immutability.
;

passion

Passion of Christ
,

;

alteration,

modification

v. g. even rt!x*
.

rf.jLuox.

change

is

a modification.
r^^\*.ic\^>
.

r^^u.icv^
the
right

Creed in general,

v. g.

K&,*i>

creed,

orthodoxy, which for
confession

the Jacobites

is

Mono-

physitism;

external
g.

of faith;

particular doctrine or
,

dogma,
Trinity.

v.

K

i>cv.

v_A_A^.i

K iu.iQli

the

dogma

of the

.T-*A

.

Begotten.

Generally used in speaking of the eternal
such, contrasted with

generation of the Word, and as
(he was
born).
&\.ii
.

.TI*&K

Mother of God,

tieoroxog.

Addition, increase.

In a special sense used
of the Council

by the Monophysites
of Chalcedon, which

to designate the definition

definition

they

considered as

an addition

to the faith of the Council of Nicea.

Near (apud).

K crAr*

A\o\

,

Aptid Deum.

r& pa
.

.

From

nothing, ex nihilo.
in

Water.

Used once by Philoxenus

the sense

of Baptism.

K ^x-Lsa
{-i&n^

.

Low, humble

things.

This

word denotes the

properties of the
^jsa

human
.

nature in Christ.
two.

From
is

Translates

the

Monophysite
dvo
tpvffeffw.

expression that Christ
Klajsfl
.

ex 6vo (pvctswr,

not ev

To count.

Said of

the Nestorians

who admitted
^..-u^ri
.

two persons and two natures in Christ.

caiAU30\

He was

considered to his
.

own
;

count, independent, sui juris.
Christianity.

K^cuxix^a
Philoxenus as a

Unction

Applied to Zeno by

title

of honor.

181

To adhere,
bing
the

in the

Aphel, to join.
of

Used

in descri

mere

moral

union

the

natures

taught

by

the

Nestorians concerning the Incarnation.
r^ioXkflo
.

Tube, channel.

The Eutychians

said that by

the Incarnation the

Word

passed through the Virgin as through

a channel without taking His body from her.

r^jo^^v^.

.

The old (unredeemed) man.
Generally used in speaking

Corpse

;

living body.

of the body of Christ.

A^
two persons.
ai.

To

divide.

The Nestorians divided

Christ

into

i^

.

To separate

;

to

distinguish.

Said of the Nesto

rians

who

distinguished two persons in Christ, and of the Catholics
natures.

who admitted two
.

p^.ix=^
in

Will.

The Monophysites admit only one will

Christ.

K^cu^.31
(four).

.

Quaternity.

Noun formed from rd^air^
two
persons
in

Because

they

admitted

Christ,

the

Nestorians were accused of adding a fourth person to the Trinity,

thus making
K&..!K)i

it

a quaternity.

.

The noble, exalted

things.

Said of the properties
r<$vin.

of the divine nature of Christ, and stands in opposition to

K ^vwo.a.T.^
wast crucified
for

.

Glory, praise.

It also

designates the Tri-

sagion, which, for the Monophysites, includes the words

Who

us

,

added by Peter the Fuller.

183

-

APPENDIX

III

BIBLE QUOTATIONS COMPARED WITH THE PESHITTA AND

WHEN

POSSIBLE WITH THE CODEX SINAITICUS

.

Deut.,

v. 7, (p.

142).
.

.

K^\:u*

K orApf vA

Ktoona

rd\

Phil.

iJLSfl

i-A ^Tijr*

K orAK
rdAo

vrA K*Ocai rd\

P-

Malach., Ill,

6, (pp.

133, 166, 167):

KL-irf

KUf*

Phil.

rdAo Kiiw

r^liK*

diw
Matth.,
I,

rdiK* rdirf.l AJ^3

p.

1,

(p.

154):

.

poooirarf

iao

.1*0:1

T=3

Phil

p

Same
Matth., Ill, 17,
(p.

as P.

g

169):

.iiiiti

,T=J

cucn
cucn

PhiL

>T=>

1

The following
Phil.

abbreviations are used:

=

Philoxenus.

P.
S.

= =

Peshitta.

Codex

Sinaiticus.

(A. S. Lewis,

Some Pages of

the

Four Gospels

etc.

London, 1896).

184-

>-!=

even

Matth., X, 27, (p. 128)

:

O\

<

i^r<

Matth., X, 28

(p.

128):

^o.i

K

^

^00.1

re

Phil

p.

Matth. X, 32-33
.

(p.

128)

:

Klruira ^.10
^raK )Q.IO

>ja

K .ICU.I

<

r<lx_

5a_x_=3i

cos

caa

1

This quotation
St.

is

a

combination of

St.

Matthew, X, 32-33,

and of

Luke, XII, 8-9.

185

73.1-0

KliK

oa-=a

:

r<!xljkl=3

.TD

cn=j

r.

Matth., XVI, 24

(p.

159):

>-A

K oco-i.i

Phil.

p.

Wanting.
Matth.,

S.

XXVIII, 19

(pp. 142,

172): o.

cuacua

Phil.

aacxi

p.

Wanting.
Mark, XV, 34
(p.

171):

.

,cnW

PML
p.

-

186
S.

Luke.

I,

31

(p.

154)

:

K i-s
cnsax.
rc cn

Phil.

P.

Wanting.

Luke, XVII, 33
.

(p.

159)

:

en

T,

<\

i

Phil.

cn\
p.

Same

as P.

S.

Luke,

XXIII, 46

(p.

169)

:

r^larf

Phil.

P.

i\ crA
John,

S.

1,

14

(pp. 167,

166):

.^

rfocn

Phil.

P.

Wanting.

S.

John,

III,

16

(p.

137):

.

rtoi\s\

nrtnW

Phil.

-

187

Kll^cn

s.

cnii\.i

John, V,

17

(p.

156):

.

.T-n-^.

Klx.cn-\
.

KLsw.T-^.

>=if^

Phil.

rcT.JK

.ia^ KliK

^r^
P.

Same.

rOco A\pa

.V^k-

K .tii^.

nTLx-orA

.

John, X, 18

(p.

171):

:

4iaxir< .i

,J^a

1^ rOK \Ai-

Phil.

r^Llr^

orA

John, X, 33

(p.

149)

:.

K caW vocan

^ur^.m^Lo ^UK

rdxii=3

Phil.

vvz
...^UK*
John, XIV, 6 132):
.

P-

.12.2^.0

...rdxiK ira ixiK

.T^

S.

(p.

KUwo K icncua K iixK lix.O
Same
r^-4JlOr<

re^ne r^.irt

Phil.

KllK

rd.lK

p
s
-

as P.

188

r^cra-W.i
cn_i*JSi_A^3
Phil.

Acts,

II,

33

(p.

157):

.

>-*i^r<

CUCtcnct

P.

Romans,

I,

4

(p.

171)

:

r^craLArc

.i

r^-i-a

[>]

^..T*^^

Phil.

^?3.T

r<

A\, saAi3

T^O

A

i

M,">

:

rcar^.l

Kn

^..TrO

P.

Romans,

v.

10

(p.

137)

:

K ^cvj^i-.ra K orr^ pi^
Same

^.i^rc
.

Phil.

cni-a.i
p.

Romans, VIII, 32

(pp.

137, 152):

ndA

ooi-=>

1-^ ^K*

Phil.

:

Qa*>

nfA aoio Ax.

Romans, VIII, 38-39

(p.

130)

:

pdA.i

ix-^

ni -ip^

<to-^_i

Phil.

p.

-

189

Romans, X,

9

(p.

159):

ji-^i-=

v^-saci-fiu

T^.IOK

Phil

p.

^ _i

\

-^

\7
1.

Corinth.,

XVI, 22

(p.

144)

:

^i=a-\
.

>_wi

rdA.i

^-^s
^.c.r>

Phil.

^aiw

rc

acai KjAxr.ro

Same.
2.

P.

Corinth.,

V,

19

(p.

152)

:

rel*x.x-xJj

.i-^a

K cn.AK

Phil.

.i

ocn

:

r^u.xx taa TA.

c\oo

K crK

P.

Galatians,

I,

1

(p.

171)

:

c\cb

.

,cno.-=jK

[?BLA]

K orAK

Phil

ocn
Philip. Ill, 19 (p. 148):

>cncv.=3r<

K

crir<

o

P.

^jOcn^uiO. nT.^o ^oorijaovk
cn,\A

^ocncn\r<

Phil.

.

>cn

r^L^irelra

^c\^cr)^u^.i^

.

^oerj^^caa
P.

.>cn

1

John,

I,

1-3

(p.

140)

:

oorA

[>A]

^O-^A

i^i-Ujta

Phil.

oco

190

Gen

.

Gocn
^\
i

^l*in,Qfi

rq

P.

1

^

Vs

i

>caAi*vuG

^S.*TIT..I

acn

.i

Ocn

com

GREEK WORDS OCCURRING IN THE THREE LETTERS.
>cuV

PP. 131

1. 1.

6; 145
6.
1.

1.

5; 157

itiurijs P.

146

1.

9.
1.

1.21; 158
ij?

xarrjyoQeco P. 173

11.

PP. 131
1.

6; 155

1.

22;

xouwv

P. 144
1.

1.

3.

156
173

3.

ovala P. 152
1.

12.
;

PP. 159
1.

3; 160

1.

22;

2.

ffwyyogos PP. 143 1. 12 144 1. 6. ax^aPP. 147 11. 11, 17; 159 1.6;
161
11.

os
i

PP. 171
P. 158
1.

1.

5;

173

1.

11.

19, 14.
1.

1.

20.

rdfa
rijLnj
1.

P. 164

18.
5.

P. 147

19.
1.

P. 148

1. 1.

.yPP. 129
enitfxono?

18; 146
1.

2.

rvnos P. 147

13.
1.

felSS

19.

yavTaalu P. 133

20.

THE END

ERRATA
Pag. 150 Pag. 153
1.

CORRIGE

ult.

1.

ult.

.

This reading
reads

is

doubtful.

The

ms.

more probably
is

OM*O>,

although the o

so small as to

be easily mistaken for a

^

.

a&m

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->