Who then [is he] that is faithful / unto him that made him chief priest? Make answer. God the Word? For of him it says that he was made chief priest unto him who made him. Who is he that made him chief priest? [Was it] he who was faithful unto him, or did he make himself or [was he made it] by the Father? But if he made himself chief priest, if thou sayest that that [took place] in the union in the same manner as the Word also became flesh, thou art constrained to give a nature of our own ousia unto the flesh, after which he also is called flesh in the union and not in the nature. He is truly chief priest, he who is consubstantial with us and our kinsman, on account of whom God the Word also is called chief priest. |250
For there is none that says that the one was of the other and denies that the other was of the one. Confess therefore in the first place this one who exists in the nature and next [him] who is said [to exist] through the union; for if this is not confirmed, there is not even place for it.
For each one of the names of an ousia indicates concerning him in the first place the ousia whose name it is. Bring it before the hearer, and then afterwards thou comest to the fact that they are said otherwise also and not in ousia. Consequently also when in that which is said men take first a name which is [used] of a nature, and afterwards of things which [are said] otherwise, however it may be, they are named either in the manner of homonymy or even not by nature; for this reason they cover them over as things concealed and forgotten. When therefore we speak of the things of the union, / thou sayest 'and is made man', but thou assignest this not to the union but as to the nature. But thou dissemblest the things appertaining to the nature and thou hinderest those who speak [them] as persons committing impiety. Thou allowest naught else than to take the [words] 'he became' and 'he was made' of the nature of God, although ten thousand times thou sayest [that he is] unchangeable; and thou confessest that he who made was made and exists in his nature and is called what he became; or speakest thou on the contrary in phantasy [words] which confess two natures of which Christ is [formed] and diverse natures which are diverse natures? How can men speak otherwise of the natures, unless they make use of the name of the natures, of the one and of the other?
But this [is] weighty. For this reason also I have said that it is to be remarked: he indeed has been sent unto us of the seed of Abraham through the blessing which was promised, that he might offer his body as a sacrifice on his behalf and on behalf of his kinsmen. Remark indeed that I have confessed, that all the chief priests have need of sacrifices, while Christ, as one who had no need thereof, offered himself as a sacrifice on his own behalf and on behalf of his race. Suppose that it has been so said by me; for I decline not to refute the change in your words, lest it should be supposed that, after I |251
have been refuted, I have set myself to accuse [you] because of [your] inadequacy. For even in these things God has not left me without / excuse for my thought, which is clear unto all men. For I have said that all the chief priests have need of sacrifices for their sins, except Christ; whereas I have said that Christ has offered the sacrifice of himself for himself and for his race, for his race, indeed, that he may release them from the condemnation of the signed bond of sin. While he was free from sin, [he] yet [offered himself] for himself that there might be given unto him a name which [is] more excellent than all names, and he was obedient unto death, and accepted death upon the cross, he who was free from sin. For he who was not found with sin and was obedient that he might die for us, received a name which is more excellent than all names, which was his since the beginning, from birth, since he was a little child. And although he was indeed Son and there was neither more nor less in him in authority in his sonship, yet was he made perfect that he might become a Son with authority; similarly the humanity, which from birth had to become the Son through the union and which had not authority but obedience, yet through obedience was perfected in authority and received a name which [is] more excellent than all names. Therefore he was neither passible nor yet mortal but both in authority and in honour. He was / in them all; apart from the ousia he had all the [properties] of the ousia ; he is one Son who exists in the union.
And every chief priest has need of sacrifices for his sins, but Christ had not need [thereof] for his sins but for his race, that he might release them from sin. But this was also so for his own sake; because of his unlimited obedience [it was] that he died for sinners. Both in his will and in his thought he acquired, in short, naught else than to wish and to will whatsoever God willed in him. For this reason God also was in him whatsoever he was himself, in such wise that he also became in God whatsoever God was in him for the forming of his coming into being in his likeness, [to wit] the prosôpon of God; and whatsoever the humanity became |252 by the obedience which it observed was not for his prosôpon therein, but for the prosôpon of God in God. This prosôpon will be his and [he will be] also God, in such wise that, wherein he is one, having acquired no distinction in the prosôpon, [it is] necessary to give unto him a distinction of the complete natures. But in the prosôpa of the union, the one in the other, neither by diminution nor by suppression nor by confusion is this 'one' conceived, but by taking and by giving, and by the use of the union of the one with the other, the prosôpa take and give one another but not the ousias. The one we conceive as the other and the other as the one, while the one and the other abide. For when God the Word is called God and man, there are not two prosôpa of God the Word / because the two of them are not said [to be] in ousia, but the one is said [to be] in ousia and the other in the union, and in the use of the one with the other which came about through both the natures. But he is predicated in them both, in the one and in the other: in the one indeed by ousia and in the other by union. And so also, when by reason of the very union we concede to the humanity the being said [to be] in both of them, in the ousia and in the union, we make not of necessity two prosôpa of the union, in that there is [only] one belonging to both the natures, belonging to the divinity and to the humanity as to the humanity and the divinity. In saying 'God indeed who was made man', he has not however left out the compensation, as thou conceivest this in the union, since the union with the humanity is congruous with God the Word, in such wise that he is called God in both of them. Nor again [is] the man also man and God; thou takest away the compensation from the union of the two ousias. For this reason he goes back on his word and [adds] 'the man who was made God' as depending on the union which makes the prosôpa and not the natures common.
And hear also from the same:----' He who begins and gradually advances and is brought to fullness is not God, |253 although on account of the manifestation which [took place] little by little he is so called.' Because he is called God through the manifestation, he is not to be conceived as man without prosôpon and without nature; because he is man in nature, he is for this reason God in the manifestation, in order that it may not be supposed / that he is called God for the suppression of the natures and of their properties owing to the union, or that the union of God took place only with a view to the man. Wherefore whatsoever God is by nature is said also by [reason of] the union in whatever is united, that is, man. For the man, who, as not united, was not what he is by nature, [namely] man, is called God through that which is united.
For all these things make thy protests absurd; if indeed it be that another man says that he was man who began and therefore was not God, although by reason of the union he is so called, he is not foolish; for it is the other who begins and gradually advances and is brought to fullness, and not God, and he offends your hearing in naught. But if I say that the other is he who gradually advanced and was perfected for the chief priesthood, thou rebukest me as though I were introducing another prosôpon; there is, however, no distinction between a man's saying 'the man who begins' and his saying he who begins', for all these indicate the same thing, that is, the man. 'Speak of the glory of God and the sufferings of man': 'Does not the Scripture also teach you that the divinity has not need of sanctification, but the flesh?'Why dissemblest thou these things as one who is ashamed of them and makest the sufferings of him who suffered for our sakes those of the impassible, in such wise that the debt on behalf of our salvation was paid and settled without sufferings, since / he took nothing? But thou hast done all things in |254 schema and in fiction and agreest neither with thyself nor with the Fathers. For you are not fighting against me, but through me you are fighting against these. Further, among the things whereof you accuse me, let us hear these things also:
Likewise from the same from the fourth roll. Hear then, you who are inquiring into the words: He that eateth my body. Recollect that he speaks of the body, and [that] I have not added the term 'body', in order that it may not be thought by them that I am interpreting it contrariwise: He that eateth my body and drinketh my blood abideth in me and I in him. And, after other things: But on the present subject he has said: He that eateth my body and drinketh my blood abideth in me and I in him. Recollect that he says of the body something which he says: as the living Father hath sent me. The former then has said these things of the divinity, but I of the humanity; let us therefore see who it is that interprets [them] contrariwise. As the living Father hath sent me, as they say, I then too am living, I the Word by reason of the Father. And now after this [it is written]: So he that eateth me, even he shall live. Whom do we eat? The divinity or the flesh?
Therefore, although they are willing to say that I have not interpreted contrary to the divine / scriptures, they are to be reprimanded by all men. However, since I have asked, you have considered my request impious: [was it] then that I ought not to have said whatever divine scripture says, that 'the flesh was eaten '? But divine Scripture has said simply flesh, whereas you have condemned me, since by 'flesh' I |255 conceive the flesh and not the divinity, as though I [were] one that makes distinctions, conceiving the one as flesh and the other as divinity. I distinguish not the union of the natures but the natures which are united in reference to the ousias, even as being without confusion of the one with the other. I have said the flesh and the divinity. Suppose that I was not speaking with precision; I condemn my lack of instruction and my own impiety. Only wait for me, that you may say this clearly: that the flesh and the divinity are one and the same in ousia as well as in prosôpon; and we denounce all those who think otherwise than this as impious. If you do not say this clearly, for what reason have you condemned me before God?
But some one will perhaps say: Wherefore art thou downcast? They have confessed the death of God and have condemned thee also to death. Whatever else hast thou thought in opposition to those who stand up for these things, and do not permit men not to attach death unto God and in fact defy those who confess [it] not? I know then that they have been / doing this for a long while, but now I am addressing this my discourse to those who in truth seek to be instructed lest they be deceived by the name 'Council' [and believe] that I have been condemned by the judgement of the Fathers and by the testimonies which they have cited. From all this I shall prove that there was no judgement, because they made no examination, neither amongst themselves nor with the others, nor have they been content even in schema to divest themselves of the depth of their impiety.
'For the flesh of our Lord is one thing in ousia and the divinity is another,' says Gregory; for the things whereof our Saviour [was formed] are one thing and another, the visible and the invisible are not the same and 'he who begins and gradually advances and is perfected is not God, although by reason of the manifestation which [took place] 'little by little he is so called '; and 'not artificially was he |256 in the body': and 'human was the body which [was] born of Mary', and the flesh [was] of the holy Mary. Athanasius said this: 'he took from the virgin a body in the likeness of the latter.' 'For he took not a body of an hyle precious and heavenly and came among us, but of clay, to show the greatness of his craftsmanship, in order that he might re-shape the very man who was formed of clay,' as Theophilus has said.
But Ambrose speaks of the union of the divinity and of the flesh: 'The Son of God speaks in both of them, since in him were / the two natures. He is the living bread which came down from heaven; this bread is the body, the body whereof he himself has said: This bread that I will give unto you is my body. He [it was] that came down, He [it is] that the Father has sanctified and has sent into the world. Does not Scripture also teach you that the divinity has not need of sanctification, but the flesh?'
Did I alone say this? Why have I need of other witnesses for protesting that the flesh is not in the same [manner] God the Word? or that it is [not] for it to become what God the Word is, or that it is [not] God the Word's to become flesh, although the other is predicated in the union? If you yourselves are not persuaded and believe not all these things and defy all men, what have you [to do] with me [and] with all of these? Let him who injures me injure me and him who persecutes me persecute me and him who kills me kill me; and we consider it a great favour to be deemed worthy to endure the scars of Christ on our body. If [it is] pleasing unto you to hear, hear also other things and judge if they are worthy of the judgement [which has been passed] and if these things are not [the work] of men who look askance at heaven and contend against God.
/ Likewise from the same, from the sixteenth roll. If thou examinest well all the New [Testament], thou canst not anywhere find that death is imputed unto God but either unto Christ or unto the Son or unto the Lord. For the name of Christ or of Son or of Lord, which is taken |257 for the only-begotten from the divine Scriptures, is indicative of two natures and indicates sometimes the divinity, but sometimes the humanity and sometimes both of them. When Paul, who was sent forth to preach, says We were enemies, but God has been reconciled with us through the death of His Son, he proclaims the humanity by the name of the Son. When the same [Apostle] says unto the Hebrews God hath spoken by his Son, by whom He made the worlds, he indicates the divinity; for the flesh was not the creator of the worlds, the [flesh] which has been made after many worlds. And, after other things: Nor indeed was James the brother of the divinity, nor do we preach the death of God the Word----eating the Lord's body.
Can it be believed that there is in these things [a ground of] accusation wherewith I should be accused and [for] which I should suffer what I have suffered? Because I have said that not God the Word, whose nature is immortal, died but the flesh, for this reason have I been accused? I suppose that not even the demons and they that [are] in enmity with God, have dared to say or have taught this with their voices. Or is it not because of / those who fear not God and respect not men that I have said 'If thou examinest all the New [Testament] together, thou wilt find no place where death is imputed unto God the Word, but either unto Christ or unto the Lord or unto the Son; for the name of Christ or of the Lord or of the Son, which is taken for the only-begotten from the Scriptures is indicative of two natures'. Have I lied? Thou hast the Divine Scriptures: read [them]. |258
What urgent need is there that we should speak cursorily? He has said: 'God the Word has suffered'; or else: 'Christ is not God and man of two natures and two natures.' Read. Either thou sayest [that] God the Word [is] in ousia in the two natures, of two natures and two natures, and, concerning the one ousia of God the Word, [that] it has been divided into two ousias, in such wise that, whatever is the nature of which we say that it has suffered, we attribute unto God the Word having suffered in nature in both of them; or both natures, distinct from one another, have been combined in the one ousia of God the Word, so that, of whichever we say that it has suffered, we say that it is one ousia and the same, which has been combined, that has suffered; or the ousia of the humanity has only been taken for use, that he might see and suffer, nor was it that they might make use one of the other at the same time, and to this reason the latter has contributed naught with the former to the dispensation on our behalf. And he made use thereof according to his own will / as though [it were] without feeling and without reason and without soul, without gaining aught, as the Arians say. For he who receives these things is not constrained to refer them to the prosôpon of him who endured these things, because he made not use of it in order that it might aid him, but that he might be able to suffer and fulfil all human things naturally, without that wherein he suffered or whereby he suffered being reckoned with him who suffered. Say clearly whatever thou dost wish; only [say it] clearly. Why censurest thou me as an impious person, because I have said 'If thou examinest all the New [Testament], thou wilt not find therein that death is imputed unto God the Word, but unto Christ or unto the Son or unto the Lord. For the name of Christ or of Son or of Lord, which is taken for the only-begotten in the Divine Scriptures is indicative of two natures and indicates sometimes the divinity and sometimes the humanity and 'sometimes both of them '? These things I have said, concerning them I am judged, and you are the judges of the things which are said. Speak thou!
For I ought to depose these things of thine also, as thou |259 too hast deposed against me, and to hide naught; nor indeed shall I show myself like you, who have judged my words without examination and without comparison. I have said this: 'In saying that God has not suffered and that Christ has not suffered, thou then inferrest naught else therefrom than that Christ is not God, while if thou sayest that God the Word suffered, thou confessest that Christ is God.' / So then you ought not to depose the whole section, but [only] as far as to bring forward those things which can make it known that I say these things; but the rest you ought to hide. How so? 'If thou readest all the New [Testament], thou canst not find therein that death is imputed unto God the Word, but either unto Christ or unto the Lord or unto the Son.' For thus far he can extract them and make believe that I confess not Christ [as] God; but the rest of the things which have been deposed by you clearly dispose of this supposition. For 'Christ or Lord or Son, which is taken for the only-begotten in the Divine Scriptures, is yet indicative of two natures, sometimes indeed indicating the divinity, but sometimes the humanity, and sometimes both of them'. For I have not denied that Christ is not God, but [I have said] that He is also God and God by nature; since I have said that it indicates two natures, the divinity and the humanity. It is not therefore possible that I should be accused of not confessing Christ [as] God through what I have written.
But perhaps [I am accused] because I have called Christ both man and two natures, of the divinity and of the humanity, one passible and the other impassible, and have not confessed that God the Word suffered in both the natures and in ousta, God the Word who became the ousia of man, [with the result] either that he who died lived as if he existed in schema, and we refer / unto God the Word and not unto the ousia of the man the sufferings, in whatsoever manner it be, and that the |260 humanity contributed naught to the dispensation, or that he is manifested and is able to suffer in the very human nature----for this reason it is not reckoned with the divinity----and we refer all these attributes of the divinity and of the humanity to the divinity, as those of the instrument [are referred] to the craftsman, whereas he attributes not those of the divinity unto those of the humanity, in the same way as also those of the craftsman, without whose will nothing is done, are not attributed unto the instrument. This man's meaning is not evident in the things whereof he accuses me. But the judges sit deaf and speechless, without having examined aught. Again constraint [is laid upon me] to make use of the same testimonies against them in establishing mine own [theories] and in reprimanding those who for this reason have fled from judgement, because they had no defence. But otherwise let him who has extracted my words say in passing that the name of Christ or of Son or of Lord is not indicative of two natures, of the divinity and of the humanity. I say naught else.
Read, O man, what thou hast amongst thy testimonies and contend not with a shadow: 'two natures indeed, God and man, but not two sons; for one thing and another are those things whereof our Saviour [is formed]; yet [he is] not one and another----far from it! / ----but one in the mixture: God who was made man and man who was made God.' 'He who begins and gradually advances and is perfected is not God, although by reason of his manifestation which [took place] little by little he is so called.' Have I written these things? Have I inserted aught in them all? Have you not written them? Wherefore then are you accusing me, as though I have predicated two natures of our Saviour? [He is] one thing indeed in nature in the divinity, but another however in nature in the humanity; the divinity [is] not two natures nor [is it formed] of one thing and another, neither are they by mixture in God the Word, but they are two in nature and in the union [there is] one prosôpon belonging to both of them. Yet again [it is] not as if the prosôpon of the humanity, of God |261 who was made man, were rejected in the Trinity. 'He who begins and gradually advances and is brought to fullness is not God, although by reason of his manifestation which [took place] little by little he is so called.' Neither does he say that God the Word is both of them in ousia, nor does he distinguish the humanity from the divinity in such wise that God the Word should suffer even the sufferings of the flesh and accept them in his nature in his prosôpon; for the flesh is outside, participating not in the [properties] of the divinity in its own prosôpon; but by a compensation consisting in the taking and the giving of their prosôpa he speaks of the union of the divinity and of the humanity. Of God on the one hand he says that he was made man out of humanity by union; / on the other hand he says of the humanity that it was made God from the union with the divinity, whereas it was not that it issued forth from the divinity; for 'he who begins and gradually advances and is brought to fullness is not God, although by reason of the revelation which [took place] little by little he is so called'.
Ambrose too says the same of the union of the divinity and of the flesh: 'the Son of God speaks in both of them, because there were in him both the natures.' Athanasius too says this, that our Lord, and not the divinity, came forth from Mary, and predicates also the two natures, calling indeed that of the divinity one thing and the flesh another, and predicating a union thereof. Therein there are both the natures, not in God the Word but in the Son; not indeed that the Son is one and God the Word another, but the one indeed indicates the union and the other the ousia. For the prosôpon is one thing and the ousia another, even as [it is] in respect to the Father and the Son, [who are] one thing and another indeed in the prosôpon but not one thing and another in the divinity. Further, in respect to the union of the divinity and of the flesh, in the prosôpon of the divinity of God the Word [he is] not one thing and another but the same; yet in the natures of the divinity and of the humanity [he is] one thing and |262 another. And for this reason Divine Scripture speaks lucidly of the prosôpon of the divinity and indicates them both in the prosôpon of the union. But of the ousia of the divinity and in the ousia of God / the Word there are not both of them; for the things which are said of the ousia are conceived in one something in so far as they are predicated only of the ousia.
For this reason Ambrose also speaks of the union of the divinity and spoke not of the union of the Son, although not another but out of the same. But the one indeed is indicative of the prosôpon, while the other is indicative of the nature; and for this reason, in that there has been a union of the ousias, he speaks of the union of the divinity and of the flesh, and, because the union of the natures resulted in one prosôpon , he added that the Son of God speaks in both of them, since in him are both the natures, [and] not God the Word. For God the Word is one and not two. That therefore which is known by the ousia is one thing and that which [is known] by the prosôpon is another, and that which [is known] by the natures is another, and that which indicates the union is another. For this reason I have said that 'Divine Scripture nowhere at all imputes death unto God, but either unto the Son or unto Christ or unto the Lord', in order that none may suppose that the union took place in the ousia and not in the prosôpon. And the prosôpon is not distinct, so that one nature, [that] of the humanity, would be superfluous, since the Incarnationis conceived [to consist] in the mutual use of taking and giving, but Divine Scripture sometimes after the prosôpon of the divinity and sometimes after the prosôpon of the humanity, / names him Son and Christ and Lord. Gregory has said this, Ambrose has said this, Athanasius [has said] this: 'The Lord who [was born] of Mary is indeed the Son, by ousia in the nature of the Father, but by flesh of the seed of the house of David; for [he is of] the flesh of the Virgin Mary.' |263
Have I said anything new? [Have I said] not the same things in the same words, and in the same sense? For what have you condemned me? Is it possible to imagine for what reason you have done these things by yourselves and have not waited to make your examination with all the bishops? But also it is not [possible] to flee from their accusation which they have brought against me; that which they have finally written without protest ought [here] to be written.
Likewise from the same, from the twenty-fourth roll. Now I observe in [the case of] our own people that they have acquired a great reverence and fervour of piety but have lapsed from the rest of the faith of the knowledge of God. Yet this is not [to be attributed] to the impiety of the people, but, that I may speak justly, [it is] because the very teachers have not had time at all to set before them the teaching of the exact faith. . . This man has openly said therein that none of the teachers before him has spoken before the people / aught that he has spoken.
But hear also concerning this----for this discourse is not very difficult and arduous----and ask these very persons; for they will tell the truth, though unwilling. In what treatise are these things said by me? [Is it] not in the deposit which was laid down by the holy Fathers who were assembled in Nicaea? And what was my aim? [Was it] for the reprimanding of those who have taught wrongly or [of those] who have taught correctly and holily and with piety? And I have proved to the people that my own teaching and the teaching |264 of these men [are] in agreement. Because they have not known the teaching of the Fathers they have been fighting with me, as though I were teaching outside the deposit of the Fathers. And I reprimanded them after the deposit of the Fathers, for not making known that whatsoever they were condemning is constantly in their mouths; and, lest I should reprimand them with excessive censure and vex them, I withheld myself from the accusation and I said concerning a person against whom there was no accusation: 'the teachers of the faith have no time to set before you the exactitude of the faith.' I said [it] simply without definition. How therefore have I accused all the Fathers before me as not having taught any of these things which I have taught the people, when my own aim and my work was this, namely, the teaching of them and the proving, after the deposit, that they taught these things and that I have said naught else apart from the deposit of the Fathers? But, from the ignorance and lack of instruction of the accusers they have supposed / concerning me: 'He is teaching us outside the teaching of these Fathers who have taught all of us.'