Search
Fragments of Papias - Schmidt 2:25Papias of HierapolisHe is said to have published a Second coming of Our Lord or Millennium. Irenæus and Apollinaris and others who say that after the resurrection the Lord will reign in the flesh with the saints, follow him. Tertullian also in his work On the hope of the faithful, Victorinus of Petau and Lactantius follow this view.The Canons 4:10Council of LaodiceaAs Catholics had their martyrs, so too had the heretics, and especially the Montanists or Phrygians, who greatly boasted of them. Apollinaris writes of these as may be seen in Eusebius ( H. E. , Lib. v., cap. xvj.)The Canons 24:20Council of LaodiceaSeveral heretics, for instance Bardesanes, Paul of Samosata, and Apollinaris-had composed psalms, i.e., Church hymns. The Synod of Laodicea forbade the use of any composed by private individuals, namely all unauthorized Church hymns. Luft remarks that by this it was not intended to forbid the use of all but the Bible psalms and hymns, for it is known that even after this Synod many hymns composed by individual Chris- tians, for instance, Prudentius, Clement, Ambrose, came into use in the Church. Only those not sanctioned were to be banished.Against the Donatists · Book 4 8:18Optatus of Milevisanother with the kiss of peace, not only at a stated time in the church during divine service, but also when meeting in the street. Casaubon points out that in Low Latin dignatio was used for facilitas or humanitas and quotes from Sidonius Apollinaris the phrase ' dignitate clarus, dignatione communis.' (For legitimum, cf. note 5, p. 164.)Discourse on Baptism 1:19Pacian of Barcelona6. against the Arians who, as well as Apollinaris, denied that our Lord had a human soul, see Petav. de Inc. i. 5, 5. and add ib. v. 11.Letters · Letters 11-20 2:9Ambrose of MilanThis letter is a reply to one addressed to the Bishops of Italy by Theodosius, in answer to the last. He seems in it to have "undeceived them by informing them what Maximus was, and how different his ordination was from that of Nectarius. He represented to them that these affairs, and that of Flavian, ought to be judged in the East, where all the parties were present, and that there was no reason to oblige those of the East to come unto the West." (Fleury xviii, 17, vol. 1. p. 41 Newman's Transl). The Bishops in this reply thank the Emperor for his efforts to appease the differences between the East and West, and profess the disinterestedness of their desire for a general Council, and add, as an additional reason for it, the spread of opinions attributed to Apollinaris, which require to be examined into in the presence of the parties concerned.Letters · Letters 11-20 2:14Ambrose of Milan4. For not only with regard to the persons about whom your Grace condescended to write, but with regard to others who are attempting to bring into the Church some dogma or other, said to be Apollinaris' , there were several things that affected us, to which the knife should have been applied in the presence of the parties, that a person convicted of maintaining a new dogma and proved to be in error should not shelter himself under the general name of the Faith, but at once lay down both the office and name of Bishop, which he was not entitled to by authority of doctrine, and that no threads or artifices of delusion should remain for persons hereafter wishing to deceive. For the person who is convicted, not in the presence of the parties, as your Grace has truly decided in your august and princely answer, will always lay hold of a handle for reviving the enquiry. |79Letters · Letters 11-20 10:17Ambrose of Milan18. The sense is here to be elicited probably by repeating the word 'quod,' so that the sentence should run, 'dogma nescio quod, quod Apollinaris asseritur.'Letters · Letters 41-50 6:17Ambrose of Milan1. The man of whom you have written to me as a disseminator of pernicious doctrines is a very light character, and has already received the reward of his poison. For he has been replied to publicly, and what he had sown in private he has reaped openly. I had previously esteemed him vain and envious only, but when this language of his reached |307 my ears, I immediately answered that he was infected by the venom of Apollinaris, who will not admit that our Lord Jesus became a servant for us when He took upon Him our flesh; and this, although the Apostle declares that He took on Him the form of a servant. This is the bulwark, this is the hedge of our faith; he who destroys this shall be destroyed himself, as it is written, Whoso breaketh an hedge, a serpent shall bite him.Letters · Letters 41-50 7:25Ambrose of Milan5. Wherefore as against Photinus this is our sentence, and as against Apollinaris it is also a proper safeguard; our confession, namely, that as in the form of God He lacked nothing of the Divine nature and fulness, so in that human form there was nothing wanting in Him so as to cause Him to be judged imperfect as Man; for He came in order to save man altogether. Truly it would not have been fitting that He Who had accomplished a perfect work in others should suffer it to be imperfect in Himself; for if aught was wanting to Him as Man, then He did not redeem the whole man, and if He did not redeem the whole man, He deceived us, for He said that He had come in order to save the whole man. But since it is impossible for God to lie, He deceived us not; wherefore, seeing that He came to redeem and save the whole man, He took upon Him the whole of that which belonged to human perfection.Rufinus's Epilogue to Pamphilus the Martyr's Apology for Origen 1:20Tyrannius RufinusBishop Damasus, at the time when a consultation was held in the matter of the reconciling of the followers of Apollinarius to the church, desired to have a document setting forth the faith of the church, which should be subscribed by those who wished to be reconciled. The compiling of this document he entrusted to a certain friend of his, a presbyter and a highly accomplished man, who usually acted for him in matters of this kind. When he came to compose the document, he found it necessary, in speaking of the Incarnation of our Lord, to apply to him the expression "Homo Dominicus." The Apollinarists took offence at this expression, and began to impugn it as a novelty. The writer of the document thereupon undertook to defend himself, and to confute the objectors by the authority of ancient Catholic writers; and he happened to show to one of those who complained of the novelty of the expression a book of the bishop Athanasius in which the word which was under discussion occurred. The man to whom this evidence was offered appeared to be convinced, and asked that the manuscript should be lent to him so that he might convince the rest who from their ignorance were still maintaining their objections. When he had got the manuscript into his hands he devised a perfectly new method of falsification. He first erased the passage in which the expression occurred, and then wrote in again the same words which he had erased. He returned the paper, and it was accepted without question. The controversy about this expression again arose; the manuscript was brought forward: the expression in question was found in it, but in a position where there had been an erasure: and the man who had brought forward such a manuscript lost all authority, since the erasure seemed to be the proof of malpractice and falsification.. However, in this case as in one which I mentioned before, it wasa living man who was thus treated by a living man, and he at once did all in his power to lay bare the iniquitous fraud which had been committed, and to remove the stain of this nefarious act from the man who was innocent and had done no evil of the kind, and to attach it to the real author of the deed, so that it should completely overwhelm him with infamy.Biblical Prefaces · Daniel 1:7JeromeConcerning which subject, leaving the judgment to the decision of the reader, I warn him Daniel is not to be found in the Prophets among the Hebrews, but among those which they titled the Hagiographa. Since indeed all of Scripture is divided by them into three parts, into the Law, into the Prophets, (and) into the Hagiographa, that is, into five and eight and eleven books, which is not (necessary) to explain at this time. And to those things of this prophet, or rather against this book, which Porphyry accused, the witnesses are Methodius, Eusebius, (and) Apollinaris, who, responding to his madness with many thousands of verses, I do not know whether they are satisfying to the interested reader. For which reason I entreat you, O Paula and Eustochium, pour out prayers for me to the Lord, so that as long as I am in this little body, I might write something pleasing to you, useful to the Church, (and) worthy to posterity. I am indeed not greatly moved by the judgments of the present, which on either side are in error either by love or by hate.Chronicle · Latin text of pages 188-332 78:25Jeromeb Apollinaris Asianus Hierapolitanus episcopus insignis habetur.Chronicle · Latin text of pages 188-332 95:6Jeromeb Apollinaris Laodicenus episcopus multimoda nostrae religionis scripta coraponit. 4 f Nicea, quae saepe ante corruerat, terrae motu funditus eversa. 368Chronicle · Pages 188-332 79:7Jeromeb Apollinaris, bishop of Asian Hierapolis, is considered notable.Chronicle · Pages 188-332 95:14Jeromeb Apollinaris, bishop of Laodicea, composes manifold writings of our religion. 4 f Nicea, which had often before been shaken, was utterly destroyed by an earthquake. 368Commentary on Ephesians 1:6JeromeIf there is anything, Paula and Eustochium, which holds the wise man in this life, and persuades him to remain with an equal mind amid the pressures and whirlpools of the world, I consider it to be first and foremost, meditation and knowledge of the Scriptures. For whereas we differ from other animals chiefly in that we are rational and able to speak, all reason and speech is contained in the divine books, by which we learn both God and the reason for our creation. I am amazed that some have arisen who either, giving themselves over to idleness and sleep, do not wish to learn those things which are excellent, or who think that those who have this desire for knowledge should be censured. Although I could respond more severely to them and dismiss them briefly either as offended or as placated, I will say that it is much better to read the Scriptures than to strive after the increase and accumulation of wealth. I would assert, even before an unjust judge, that my leisure pleases me and that solitude seems more delightful than any social interaction. And just as I do not criticize or condemn what they do, so they ought to grant me my foolishness. I am not very eloquent, what do you say? Read someone more skilled. I do not translate Greek into Latin as I ought, but if you have knowledge of the same language, read the Greeks; or if you are only a Latinist, do not judge this free gift, and, as the common proverb has it: 'Don't look a gift horse in the mouth.' Do I drag you into court with a writ of summons because you do not write to me (perhaps you may have read)? Let the less learned read me: perhaps if you write what you say, Tullius will admire it. Did Tertullian stop the blessed martyr Cyprian, or did Cyprian deter Lactantius, or did Lactantius stop Hilary from writing? I am silent about other triflers who chatter with me in their books. Even if they are small, they cannot stand out if they are not preceded by the second and third. We do not climb to the top unless we step on the bottom. Therefore, I beg you, who are present now, as well as holy Marcella, the unique example of widowhood, not to easily hand over my work to slanderers and enviers: neither give what is holy to dogs, nor throw pearls before swine (Matthew 7). They envy what they cannot imitate well, and consider themselves learned and educated if they speak ill of others. I beg you to answer them, so that they themselves may fix their style, connect three words as they say, sweat a little, test themselves, and learn from their own labor to forgive those who labor. You yourselves know that you have forced me, unwilling and reluctant, to this work of explanations. Not that I have ever stopped reading or asking learned men what I did not know since my youth, and only considered myself a teacher like many others. Finally, I recently went to Alexandria for this very reason, to see Didymus and to inquire of him about all the Scriptures that I had doubts about. But while it is one thing to compose one's own books, for example, on greed, faith, virginity, widows, and to join secular eloquence with testimonies from the Scriptures sought here and there, and to display pompous language in common places, it is another thing to enter into the sense of the prophet and apostle, to understand why they wrote, how they established their own opinions, what is peculiar to the Edomites, Moabites, Ammonites, Tyrians, Philistines, Egyptians, and Assyrians in the Old Law, and what we have in our hands now in the New Testament to the Romans, Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, Thessalonians, Hebrews, Colossians, and the letter we now have to the Ephesians. For it is necessary that according to the diversities of places and times, and of the people to whom they were written, they should have different causes, arguments, and origins. And just as blessed John in his Apocalypse writes to the seven churches and in each one of them reproves specific vices or approves virtues, so too does the holy apostle Paul, through each church, heal the wounds inflicted, and does not, like an unskilled doctor, want to cure all eyes with one ointment. And because we have already expressed our thoughts on the Galatians a few days ago, as you requested, now it is necessary to move on to the Ephesians, both in terms of order and meaning. And by "middle" I do not mean that it is greater than the first and last, but just as the heart is in the middle of the body, so you may understand how many difficulties and profound questions are involved in this. Paul was writing to the Ephesians, who worshipped not the huntress Diana who holds a bow and is dressed for the chase, but the many-breasted one whom the Greeks call "Polymastia", so that even from her image they lied and said that she was the nurse of all animals and living beings. But it was written to the metropolis city of Asia, in which idolatry and, as always follows idolatry, the tricks of magical arts flourished so much that Demetrius said, 'and the great temple of the goddess Diana will be regarded as nothing, and its magnificence will be destroyed, which all Asia and the whole world worships' (Acts 19:27). Finally, the Apostle stayed there for three years, preaching the Gospel of God day and night, so that with the destruction of the stronghold of idolatry, it would be easy to capture the temples of smaller cities. Scripture itself confirms this, as Paul speaks to the Ephesians, saying: "Therefore, watch, remembering that for three years I did not cease, night or day, to admonish each one of you with tears. And now I commend you to God and to the word of His grace, which is able to build you up and to give you the inheritance among all those who are sanctified" (Acts 20:31-32). For they needed the Apostle's recommendation to God, whom the error of demons had held for so long, and they knew that there were some spiritual powers, and in entrails, and in auspices, and in divinations they recognized a certain likeness of divinity. Therefore, he speaks to them again: "Therefore, I testify to you this day that I am innocent of the blood of all. For I have not failed to proclaim to you the whole will of God." And in another place: "How I did not shrink from declaring to you anything that was profitable, and teaching you in public and from house to house" (Acts 20:20). He had read in Ezekiel (Ibid., 26, 27) that the watchman who did not announce the coming of the enemy to the people would have the blood of the citizens required from his hands. Therefore, he recalled having announced to them all the will of God and everything that would be useful to them, so that he would be free from their blood. And in order for you to know that those who had believed in Ephesus had been bound by the deceptive tricks of the demons and the arts of magic, it is repeated in the same Acts of the Apostles and it is said: "Moreover, many of those who had practiced magic collected their books and burned them in front of everyone. They calculated the value of them and found it to be fifty thousand pieces of silver. So the word of the Lord continued to spread and prevail mightily" (Acts 19:19-20). We have repeated all this to show why the Apostle in this letter, or rather in this particular Epistle, has piled up obscure meanings and mysteries unknown to ages, and has taught about the power of holy and opposing virtues, about who the demons are, what they are capable of, what they were before, and how they were destroyed after the coming of Christ. Concerning whom he says: "For our wrestling is not against flesh and blood; but against principalities and powers, against the rulers of the world of this darkness, against the spirits of wickedness in the high places" (Ephesians 6:12). And in another place: "But I will tarry at Ephesus until Pentecost. For a great door and effectual is opened unto me, and there are many adversaries" (1 Corinthians 16:8-9). He stayed at Ephesus until Pentecost, a time of joy and victory, where we do not bend our knees or bow to the ground, but rising up with the Lord we are lifted up to the heights of heaven. And he remained: because the door was open to him, and not a small door, but a great one, so that having bound the strong one and overcome him, he could invade his house, plunder it, overturn it, and lead captive captivity (Matth. 12): who, gathering together the ranks of his companions, fought against the Apostle with all his might, and was defeated. And who the Ephesians were is proven especially by this, that just as John, about to relate the mystery of the ancient nativity of the Lord, reclined on His breast and drank from the purest fountain a stream of teachings (John 13 and 21), so these [Ephesians], falling upon Paul's neck as he was departing, indicated with their kisses and embraces that they possessed one treasury of knowledge with him, and bore witness to their longing for their teacher with tears. I also remind you in the preface that Origen wrote three volumes on this Epistle, whom we have followed in part. Apollinaris and Didymus also wrote some commentaries, from which we have gleaned a few things and added or subtracted some that seemed to us appropriate, so that the reader may immediately recognize at the beginning whether this work is ours or someone else's.Commentary on Hosea 1:6Jerome"If, in the explanations of all the prophets, we need the coming of the Holy Spirit, so that, by His inspiration, those things written might be unfolded by the revelation of the same Spirit, and we read of a book marked with signs in the book of Isaiah and in the Apocalypse (Isaiah 29; Apocalypse 5), which the scribes and Pharisees, who pride themselves on their knowledge of the laws, cannot read because it is sealed, and no one could discover it except for the lion of the tribe of Judah, whom God the Father marked, and who alone could reveal its mysteries, how much more must the Lord be prayed for in the explanation of Hosea the prophet and with Peter we say: ‘Explain this parable to us.’" (Matthew 13:16) Especially since the author himself attests to the obscurity of the volume at the end: "Who is wise and will understand these things, prudent, and will know them?"(Hosea XIV, 10)? We ought to accept this not as impossible, but as difficult, according to that of the Gospel: "Who thinkest thou is a faithful servant and wise, whom his Lord hath appointed over his family?"(Matt. XXIV, 65)? For who would not be immediately scandalized at the beginning of the book, and say: Hosea, the first of all the prophets, is commanded to take a prostitute as a wife, and he does not contradict? He doesn't even pretend not to want it, so as not to seem to be doing something shameful against his will; but he carries out the command gladly, as if he had wished for it, as if he regretted having been idle for a long time in terms of chastity: when we read that holy men have refused more honorable things without sin, at the command of the Lord. Moses is sent to Pharaoh and is appointed leader of the Israelite people, and yet he responds not with weakness, but with humility: "Provide someone else whom you will send" (Exod. IV, 13). Jeremiah says he is a boy so that Jerusalem will not accuse him of sinning" (Jeremiah 1). "Ezekiel is commanded to make bread from a mixture of all kinds of grain and to bake it in human feces, but he says, 'No, Lord, because nothing unclean has ever entered my mouth'" (Ezekiel 4:14). "And when Hosea heard from the Lord, 'Take a harlot for a wife' (Hosea 1:2), he did not wrinkle his forehead, he did not give testimony of sorrow with pallor, he did not show modesty by changing the blush of his cheeks, but he went on to the brothel and led the prostitute to his bed. And she is not initiated in matronly modesty; but she approves herself as luxurious and a granddaughter. For he who adheres to a prostitute becomes one body with her. (1 Corinthians VI.) Therefore, hearing this, what can we respond but that prophetic saying: 'Who is wise and will understand these things, prudent and will know them?' (Hosea XIV, 10.) And so we must say with David: 'Reveal my eyes, and I will consider the wonders of your law' (Psalm CXVIII, 18); so that the king may lead us into his chamber (Song of Solomon I) and that the veil that was placed before the eyes of Moses in reading the old Testament (Exodus XXXIV) may be removed from us (2nd Corinthians III). For as soon as the Lord spoke: "Father, into your hands I commend my spirit, and saying this he breathed out" (Luke 23:46), the veil of the temple was torn, and all secrets of the Jews were revealed. And the fountain that came forth from the house of David ((Alias Lord)) entered into the sea of solitude; and the true Elisha divided barren and deadly waters of his wisdom with salt, making them life-giving (4 Kings 4); and the bitter sea of the Law, interpreted as "bitterness," was sweetened with the wood of the gallows (Exodus 15). For we understand who Judah the patriarch, chosen to be king, is, nor do we marvel why a holy man entered unto Tamar as if to a prostitute (Gen. XXXVIII); why Samson, who is interpreted as "sun," loved Delilah, who is translated as "poor;" and because of her, he mocked and killed thousands of his adversaries (Judg. XVI); why Salmon, a just man, fathered [Boaz] with Rahab, the prostitute of Jericho, who covered herself with the wing of his cloak while lying at his feet, and the head of [the book of] the Gospel [came] away (Ruth. I, II, III). What is the reason that although David had so many wives, he made no other successor of his reign except him who was born of Bathsheba, so that not only harlots, but even adulterous women, may seem pleasing to God. Therefore, even in this prophetic passage, we read that Hosea is joined to a harlot at first and then to an adulteress, and the Lord says to him: "Go again, love a woman beloved of her friend and an adulteress", or a lover of evil, "who has become a harlot". This is the harlot and adulteress woman who washed the feet of the Lord in her tears, dried them with her hair, and honored her confession with perfumes; and while the disciples, and in particular the traitor, were indignant that it had not been sold and the price distributed to the poor, the Lord replied: "Why do you trouble the woman? She has wrought a good work upon me. For the poor you have always with you, but me you have not always." (Matth. XXVI, 10, 11). And lest we think it insignificant, that which he had done, and that the spikenard, that is, the most faithful unguent, is to be given to something other than the church, it gives us an opportunity for understanding and great faith, and promises great rewards, saying: "Amen, amen, I say to you, wherever this Gospel shall have been preached in the whole world, what she has done shall also be told in memory of her." This is the harlot of whom the Lord speaks to the Jews: "Amen I say to you, that the prostitutes and the publicans shall go into the kingdom of God before you" (Matthew 21:31). For you refused to welcome the Son of the fatherly household and the Lord of the vineyard, who planted it. This harlot hid my two brave spies, one of whom I had sent for their circumcision, the other for the gentiles. She concealed them with great kindness, raised them to her roof, and covered them with flaxen straw (Joshua 2). But when the city was conquered and she was baptized, she changed her color and was turned from darkness to light. And it is not surprising that in the image of the Lord Savior, and of the Church gathered from sinners, we remember these things, since he himself says by the Prophet in the same matter: "I will speak to the prophets; it is I who multiplied visions, and I was likened to the prophets" (Hosea 12:10), so that whatever the prophets are commanded to do, may be referred back to my own likeness. Whose wife is Ethiopian, against whom Aaron and Miriam, serving the fleshly priesthood of the Jews and serving the prophecy of the letter, murmur and offend God (Num. 12): which says in Canticle of Canticles: "I am black" "and beautiful, O daughters of Jerusalem" (Cant. 1:4). Otherwise, if we strive to make all that is prescribed for reasons to be done in truth, as a similitude, therefore Jeremiah, girded with a loincloth, in a woman's garment, among countless nations and Assyrians and Chaldeans, the most hostile peoples of the Jews, went to the Euphrates to hide his loincloth there, and after many days returned and found it had rotted and was of no use to anyone. (Jeremiah 13). How could he have gone out and traveled so far, besieged by circuits of fortifications, ditches, ramparts, and castles around Jerusalem? One who wished to exit to his own village in Anathoth located at the third milestone from the city, when captured at the gate is brought back to the authorities, beaten like a traitor and sent to prison. If that was done by mistake, since it couldn't happen: therefore, this too is a mistake, because if it happens, it is most shameful. But you will answer, with God ordering it, nothing is shameful: and we say, God commands nothing except what is honest, and by commanding the dishonorable, He makes those things honorable which are dishonorable. But since we know that God wills nothing except what is honorable, he has commanded what is honorable. I have said this more extensively in the beginning so that I might first solve the very difficult issue and, progressing by the help of God from the obstacle at the end itself, run down to safety. Moreover, I am not unaware, very dear Pammachus, that it has been passed over by many ecclesiastics; and those who have attempted to explain it, I have found among the Greeks, Apollinaris of Laodicea, who, when he left short commentaries on this and on some other Prophets in his youth, touching on the meaning rather than explaining it, was afterwards requested to write more fully on Hosea; and this book has come into our hands; but even he cannot guide his reader to a perfect understanding by excessive brevity. Origen wrote a little book concerning why in Hosea he is called Ephraim, wanting to show that whatever is said against him refers to the person of heretics. And I also read a headless and incomplete volume, which lacks both a beginning and an end. Pierius also read a very long treatise which he delivered extemporaneously and in eloquent speech on the beginning of this prophet during the vigil of Christ's passion on Sunday. And Eusebius of Caesarea, in the eighteenth book of the Ecclesiastical History, discusses certain things about the Prophet Hosea. Wherefore, about twenty-two years ago, when I was in Alexandria at the request of your holy and venerable mother-in-law, or rather mother, Paula (this is the name of the body, but it is a different matter in spirit – she who was always burning with love for the monasteries and for the Scriptures), I saw Didymus and heard him often. He was the most learned man of his time. I asked him to do what Origen had not done: write commentaries on Hosea. Upon my request, he dictated three books to me and also five on Zachariah. For even in his works Origen listed only two volumes on the same theme, barely discussing a third part from the beginning of the book until the vision of the quadriga. I mention this so that you may know whom I have had as precursors in this Prophet's field. But to speak simply and not arrogantly (as some of my friends always told me), I confess to your prudence that I have not followed them in all respects. I acted more like a judge of their work than a mere interpreter, and I said what I deemed right in each case, and what I learned from the Hebrew experts with difficulty. Among whom he is already a rare bird, while all are devoted to pleasures and money, and they carry more concern for the belly than the mind, and they consider themselves learned if in the physician's shops they detract from the labors of all. But now it is time that, setting forth the words of the prophets which have been written, we should discuss them.Commentary on Isaiah 1:9JeromeAfter the truth of history, everything should be understood spiritually: thus Judaea and Jerusalem, Babylon and the Philistines, Moab and Damascus, Egypt and the desert sea, Idumaea and Arabia, and the valley of Vision, and finally Tyre, and the Vision of the four living creatures should be understood; so that we may seek all things in their meaning, and in all these things, like a wise architect, the apostle Paul may lay the foundation, which is nothing else but Christ Jesus. And it is a great and arduous task to want to explain the entire book of Isaiah, in which the talents of our ancestors have toiled: I mean the Greeks. However, among the Latins, there is great silence, except for the renowned martyr Victorinus, who could say with the Apostle: 'Though I am unskilled in speech, yet I am not in knowledge' (2 Corinthians 11:6). For Origen wrote thirty volumes on this Prophet, according to the four editions, up to the Vision of the four living creatures in the desert, but the twenty-sixth book is not found. Others are also said to have written under his name the Vision of the Quadrupeds, two books addressed to Grata, which are considered pseudographical; and twenty-five Homilies, and Notes, which we can call Excerpts. Eusebius Pamphili also published fifteen volumes, in accordance with a historical explanation; and Didymus, with whom we recently had friendly relations, published eighteen volumes from the place where it is written: Comfort, comfort my people, says the priest: speak to the heart of Jerusalem (Isaiah XL, 1), until the end of the volume. However, Apollinaris explains everything in his own way, so that he traverses all things and passes over large spaces of the road with certain points and intervals, as if he were flying over the shortcuts: so that we believe we are reading not so much commentaries as indexes of chapters. From this you realize how difficult it is for our Latins, whose ears are fastidious and who feel nauseated at understanding the Holy Scriptures, and who are delighted only by the applause of eloquence, to pardon me if I have spoken too long; since Isaiah, according to the number of verses, is equal to or greater than the twelve Prophets. However, if I have omitted 70 points of discussion regarding Hebrew, it is because most of them are either the same or similar to the others, and I did not want to extend the books of explanation, which already exceed the limits of brevity even in their simple explanations. But now let us carry out the proposed plan.Commentary on Isaiah 39:20JeromeIt is difficult, or rather impossible, to please everyone: there is not as much variety in faces as there is in opinions. In my explanation of the twelve prophets, I seemed longer to some than necessary; and for this reason, in my commentary on Daniel, I strived for brevity, except for the last and penultimate vision, in which I had to stretch my speech due to the enormity of the obscurity. Especially in the exposition of the seventy-two weeks, in which I discussed what the African writer of time, Origen, and Eusebius of Caesarea, as well as Clement, a presbyter of the Church of Alexandria, and Apollinaris of Laodicea, said. And Hippolytus, and the Hebrews, and Tertullian, have all agreed to this in a nutshell, leaving it up to the reader's judgment to choose among the many. Therefore, what we have done out of respect for judgment, and for the honor of those who would read, may not please some, who desire to know not the opinions of the Ancients, but our own view. To them, an easy response is that I did not wish to accept one in such a way as to appear to condemn others. And certainly, if such esteemed and erudite men displease fastidious readers, what would they have done to me, who, by the weakness of my little talent, am exposed to the bites of envious people? But if those aforementioned men, whom I have called masters of the Church, understand this, let them know that I do not approve the faith of everyone, who certainly contradict each other; but I have said this in the manner of Joseph and Porphyry, who have debated extensively on this question. And if in the interpretation of the statue and its feet, and the inconsistency of its fingers, I have interpreted the iron and the clay as representing the Roman Empire, which at first may be strong but later weak, let them not blame me but the Prophets. For it is not proper to flatter princes in such a way that the truth of the Holy Scriptures is neglected, nor is it a general offense to criticize one person. When this was avoided by the kind attention of those close to me, it was suddenly taken away by the judgment of God, so that the support of my friends and the schemes of my rivals were revealed. But let's leave that for another time: now let's continue with what we have started. The eleventh book on Isaiah, O virgin of Christ Eustochium, because it will deal with a large part of the history, will be easier in the beginning and up to the first two parts; the rest should be told in a similar way, and so we must strive for brevity without causing any harm to the understanding.Commentary on Malachi 1:6JeromeWe want to interpret the last of the twelve prophets, Malachi ((or Malachim)), whose name was translated by the Seventy as 'His Messenger'. They said, 'The assumption of the word of the Lord is upon Israel in the hand of His Messenger', which is read in Hebrew as 'Malachi' (His Messenger), which rightly and explicitly means 'His Messenger', that is, My Messenger. And it should not be thought, according to the opinion of some (Origenists), that an angel came down from heaven and assumed a human body in order to speak to Israel the things that are commanded by the Lord. If names are to be interpreted, and from names there is not spiritual understanding, but the order of history is to be woven: therefore both Hosea, who is called savior, and Joel who is interpreted as Lord God, or the beginning, and the other prophets will not be men; but either angels, or the Lord and Savior, because their names resonate with this. Finally, except for the Seventy, other interpreters translated the name Malachi as it is read in Hebrew. However, the Hebrews consider Malachi to be Ezra the priest, because he mentions all the things that are contained in his book, and even here the prophet says: The lips of the priest shall keep knowledge, and they shall seek the law at his mouth, for he is the angel of the Lord of hosts (Mal. II, 7). The time also matches: 941-942, and the title matches as well, as we have said in the Psalms, which do not fabricate titles, they should be believed, those whose first psalms are designated by names. Therefore, it is to be believed that Malachi, that is, Ezra, after Haggai and Zechariah, who prophesied under Darius, existed. And for this reason, he does not have a title, because his book serves as his title: in which we learn that in the reign of King Artaxerxes of Persia, Ezra the son of Seraiah, and the others, ascended from Babylon and the king, according to the hand of his Lord God, granted all his request. And they ascended with him from the sons of Israel and the sons of the priests, and the sons of the Levites, and the singers, and the gatekeepers, and the Nethinim in Jerusalem, in the seventh year of King Artaxerxes, and they came to Jerusalem in the fifth month. This is the seventh year of the king, because on the first day of the first month he began to ascend from Babylon, and on the first day of the fifth month he came to Jerusalem. These things, my Minerva (or Minerva), and Alexander, not so much united by blood as by religion, so that I might not let go of the undertaking I have begun, and so that I might not toil in vain for your benefit, I have briefly spoken in the Prologue: in order that, relying on the help of your prayers, I might explain what follows, setting forth the words of Malachi first according to the Hebrew truth, then according to the Septuagint interpreters. Origen wrote three volumes on this book; but he did not touch the history at all, and in his usual fashion he was entirely engaged in allegorical interpretation, making no mention of Ezra at all; but he thought that it was an angel who wrote, according to what we read about John: Behold, I send my angel before your face (Matt. 11:10). We absolutely do not accept that we are compelled to take on the collapse of souls from heaven. I don't know of any other commentaries that I have read on this prophet, except for a short book by Apollinaris, of which the points of interpretation rather than the interpretation itself should be mentioned.Commentary on Matthew 1:7JeromeMatthew is the first of all, a tax collector by the name of Levi, who published the Gospel in Judea in the Hebrew language, mainly for the sake of those who believed in Jesus from among the Jews, and did not observe the shadow of the Law once the truth of the Gospel had come. Mark is the second, the interpreter of the apostle Peter, and the first bishop of the church in Alexandria. Although he himself did not see the Lord Savior, he narrated the deeds according to the faith of what he had heard the Master preach, rather than in chronological order. Lucas, the third physician, from Syria Antioch (whose praise is in the Gospel), who himself was a disciple of the apostle Paul, composed a volume in the regions of Achaia and Boeotia (2 Corinthians 8), delving into certain things deeper and, as he himself confesses in the preface, describing what he heard more than what he saw. John, the last apostle and evangelist, whom Jesus loved greatly, who reclined on the chest of the Lord (John 13 and 21), drank from the purest streams of doctrine, and alone deserved to hear from the cross: Behold, your mother (John 19:27). When he was in Asia, and the seeds of heretics Cerinthus, Ebion, and others who deny that Christ came in the flesh were already sprouting (whom he himself in his epistle calls antichrists (I John 2:18), and the apostle Paul frequently rebukes (Romans 3; 2 Corinthians 5)), he was compelled by almost all the bishops of Asia at that time, and by the embassies of many Churches, to write more deeply about the divinity of the Savior, and to break forth to Him (so to speak), the Word of God, not so much with audacity as with fortunate boldness. And the Ecclesiastical History recounts that, when he was compelled by the brothers to write, he responded that he would do so if they all prayed to God together with a declared fast. And when this was fulfilled, being filled with revelation, coming to a preface, he exclaimed from heaven: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. This was in the beginning with God (John 1). Therefore, these four Gospels were predicted long before, and it also proves the volume of Ezekiel, in which the first vision is woven as follows: And in the midst there was a likeness of four living creatures: and the appearance of their faces was like the face of a man, and the face of a lion, and the face of a calf, and the face of an eagle (Ezekiel 1:5 and 10). The first face of a man signifies Matthew, who begins to write as if from man: The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham (Matt. 1). The second [face] signifies Mark, in whom the voice of a roaring lion is heard in the wilderness: The voice of one crying in the wilderness, prepare the way of the Lord, make straight his paths (Mark 1:3). The third signifies a calf, which signifies that the evangelist Luke took his beginning from the priest Zacharias. On the fourth, John the Evangelist, who had assumed eagle's wings and was hastening to higher things, discusses the Word of God. The rest of what follows advances in the same sense. Their legs were straight, and they had feathered feet, and wherever the spirit went, they went, and they did not turn back: and their backs were full of eyes, and sparks and torches running in between, and a wheel within a wheel, and on each of the four sides there were faces. Therefore, the Apocalypse of John, after the exposition of the twenty-four elders who were holding harps and bowls, adored the Lamb of God, introduces lightning, and thunder, and seven spirits running, and a sea of glass, and four animals full of eyes (Apoc. IV and V), saying: The first animal was like a lion, and the second was like a calf, and the third was like a man, and the fourth was like a flying eagle. And a little later: They were full, he says, in their eyes, and they did not have rest day and night, saying: Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty, who was, and is, and is to come (Rev. 4:7-8). By all these things it is clearly shown that only the four Gospels should be accepted, and all the foolishness of the apocrypha should be sung to the dead heretics rather than the living Church. And I am quite surprised, beloved Eusebius, why, suddenly setting sail for Rome, you wanted this present of mine to be given to you as a kind of provision, so that, briefly explaining Matthew, I might compress it in words and expand it in meaning. If you remember my response, you would never ask for years in a few days. First of all, it is difficult to read all those who have written on the Gospels 7-8. Then, it is much more difficult, with judgment applied, to receive the best ones. I admit that I read, many years ago, twenty-five volumes of Origen on Matthew, as well as his Homilies and his commatic interpretation. And also the Commentaries of Theophilus, bishop of the city of Antioch, of the martyr Hippolytus and of Theodore, bishop of Heraclea. And those of Apollinaris of Laodicea and Didymus of Alexandria. And of the Latin authors, Hilary, Victorinus, Fortunatianus' little works, from which, even if I were to omit some small parts, something worthy would still be written in memory. But you, within two weeks, with Easter approaching and the winds blowing, force me to dictate: when the notaries should be present, when the documents should be written, when they should be corrected, and how much time should be allowed for clarification. Especially since you know that I have been ill for three months, barely able to begin walking now; and I cannot make up for the magnitude of the work with the brevity of time. Therefore, setting aside the authority of the Ancients, whom I have neither the ability to read nor follow, I have briefly arranged the historical interpretation that you particularly demanded; and at times I have mixed in the flowers of spiritual insight, reserving the complete work for the future. But if my life should be longer, or if you fulfill your promises on your return, then I will strive to complete what remains, rather I will lay the foundations and partially construct the walls, and I will place a most beautiful pinnacle, so that you may know the difference between sudden boldness in dictation and thorough diligence in writing. Surely you know, and I would be ashamed to call you as a witness to my lies, that I have dictated this small work with such speed that you might think I am more inclined to read the works of others than to compose my own. And do not think that this is said out of arrogance and confidence in my abilities, but rather because I want to show you how much influence you have with me, as I would rather endanger myself for the sake of the learned than deny you anything you diligently ask for. Therefore, I beg you, if my speech is unpolished and my words are not flowing as smoothly as usual, attribute it to my haste, not my incompetence, and when you come to Rome, bring copies with you for the Virgin Christ the Prince, who has asked me to write on the Song of Songs. Due to a prolonged illness, I have postponed my hopes for completing this work in the future. I am imposing this condition on you, that if you are to keep the writings I send to you, she must also seal them in a small chest and write her own replies afterwards.Commentary on Matthew 44:15Jerome(Verse 16 onwards) Then those who are in Judea, let them flee to the mountains; and those who are on the roof, let them not come down to take anything from their house; and those who are in the field, let them not turn back to take their cloak. The abomination of desolation can be understood, and every perverse teaching; when we see it standing in the holy place, that is, in the Church, and proclaiming itself as God, we must flee from Judea to the mountains, that is, leaving behind the letter of the law and Jewish corruption, and approach the eternal mountains, from which God wonderfully enlightens (Psalm 75); and be on the roof and in the inner room, where the fiery darts of the devil cannot reach: neither coming down and taking anything from the former way of life: nor turning back are they to seek; but rather to sow in the field of spiritual Scriptures, so that we may bear fruit from it. Neither to take off the other tunic, which the apostles are forbidden to have. On this subject, that is, on the abomination of desolation, which was spoken of by the prophet Daniel, Porphyry blasphemed against us in the thirteenth volume of his work, while standing in a holy place. To him, Eusebius of Caesarea, the bishop, responded in three volumes: the eighteenth, nineteenth, and twentieth. Apollinaris ((also known as Apollinarius)) also wrote extensively, and attempted to discuss in one chapter what has been disputed in so many thousands of verses.Letters · letter_048 1:17Jerome13. You are, no doubt, men of vast acquirements; but we too have studied in the schools, and, like you, we have learned from the precepts of Aristotle-or, rather, from those which he has derived from Gorgias-that there are different ways of speaking; and we know, among other things, that he who writes for display uses one style, and he who writes to convince, another. In the former case the debate is desultory; to confute the opposer, now this argument is adduced and now that. One argues as one pleases, saying one thing while one means another. To quote the proverb, "With one hand one offers bread, in the other one holds a stone." [Plaut. Aul. 2:2, 18] In the latter case a certain frankness and openness of countenance are necessary. For it is one thing to start a problem and another to expound what is already proved. The first calls for a disputant, the second for a teacher. I stand in the thick of the fray, my life in constant danger: you who profess to teach me are a man of books. "Do not," you say, "attack unexpectedly or wound by a side-thrust. Strike straight at your opponent. You should be ashamed to resort to feints instead of force." As if it were not the perfection of fighting to menace one part and to strike another. Read, I beg of you, Demosthenes or Cicero, or (if you do not care for pleaders whose aim is to speak plausibly rather than truly) read Plato, Theophrastus, Xenophon, Aristotle, and the rest of those who draw their respective rills of wisdom from the Socratic fountain-head. Do they show any openness? Are they devoid of artifice? Is not every word they say filled with meaning? And does not this meaning always make for victory? Origen, Methodius, Eusebius, and Apollinaris write at great length against Celsus and Porphyry. Consider how subtle are the arguments, how insidious the engines with which they overthrow what the spirit of the devil has wrought. Sometimes, it is true, they are compelled to say not what they think but what is needful; and for this reason they employ against their opponents the assertions of the Gentiles themselves. I say nothing of the Latin authors, of Tertullian, Cyprian, Minutius, Victorinus, Lactantius, Hilary, lest I should appear not so much to be defending myself as to be assailing others. I will only mention the Apostle Paul, whose words seem to me, as often as I hear them, to be not words, but peals of thunder. Read his epistles, and especially those addressed to the Romans, to the Galatians, and to the Ephesians, in all of which he stands in the thick of the battle, and you will see how skilful and how careful he is in the proofs which he draws from the Old Testament, and how warily he cloaks the object which he has in view. His words seem simplicity itself: the expressions of a guileless and unsophisticated person-one who has no skill either to plan a dilemma or to avoid it. Still, whichever way you look, they are thunderbolts. His pleading halts, yet he carries every point which he takes up. He turns his back upon his foe only to overcome him; he simulates flight, but only that he may slay. He, then, if any one, ought to be calumniated; we should speak thus to him: "The proofs which yon have used against the Jews or against other heretics bear a different meaning in their own contexts to that which they bear in your epistles. We see passages taken captive by your pen and pressed into service to win you a victory which in the volumes from which they are taken have no controversial bearing at all." May he not reply to us in the words of the Saviour: "I have one mode of speech for those that are without and another for those that are within; the crowds hear my parables, but their interpretation is for my disciples alone"? [Matt. 13:10-17] The Lord puts questions to the Pharisees, but does not elucidate them. To teach a disciple is one thing; to vanquish an opponent, another. "My mystery is for me," says the prophet; "my mystery is for me and for them that are mine." [Isa. 24:16, Vulg]Letters · letter_049 1:5Jerome3. I do not speak thus that I may provoke you to write on the subject yourself-although I know your zeal in the study of the sacred writings to be greater than my own-but that you may compel my tormentors to do so. They are educated; in their own eyes no mean scholars; competent not merely to censure but to instruct me. If they write on the subject, my view will be the sooner neglected when it is compared with theirs. Read, I pray you, and diligently consider the words of the apostle, and you will then see that-with a view to avoid misrepresentation-I have been much more gentle towards married persons than he was disposed to be. Origen, Dionysius, Pierius, Eusebius of Caesarea, Didymus, Apollinaris, have used great latitude in the interpretation of this epistle. When Pierius, sifting and expounding the apostle's meaning, comes to the words, "I would that all men were even as I myself," [1 Cor. 7:7] he makes this comment upon them: "In saying this Paul plainly preaches abstinence from marriage." Is the fault here mine, or am I responsible for harshness? Compared with this sentence of Pierius, all that I have ever written is mild indeed. Consult the commentaries of the above-named writers and take advantage of the Church libraries; you will then more speedily finish as you would wish the enterprise which you have so happily begun.Letters · letter_061 1:3Jerome1. Since you have refused to believe your own ears, I might justly decline to satisfy you by a letter; for, if you have failed to credit the living voice, it is not likely that you will give way to a written paper. But, since Christ has shown us in Himself a pattern of perfect humility, bestowing a kiss upon His betrayer and receiving the robber's repentance upon the cross, I tell you now when absent as I have told you already when present, that I read and have read Origen only as I read Apollinaris, or other writers whose books in some things the Church does not receive. I by no means say that everything contained in such books is to be condemned, but I admit that there are things in them deserving of censure. Still, as it is my task and study by reading many authors to cull different flowers from as large a number as possible, not so much making it an object to prove all things as to choose what are good. I take up many writers that from the many I may learn many things; according to that which is written "reading all things, holding fast those that are good." [1 Th. 5:21] Hence I am much surprised that you have tried to fasten upon me the doctrines of Origen, of whose mistaken teaching on many points you are up to the present altogether unaware. Am I a heretic? Why pray then do heretics dislike me so? And are you orthodox, you who either against your convictions and the words of your own mouth signed unwillingly and are consequently a prevaricator, or else signed deliberately and are consequently a heretic? You have taken no account of Egypt; you have relinquished all those provinces where numbers plead freely and openly for your sect; and you have singled out me for assault, me whonot only censure but publicly condemn all doctrines that are contrary to the church.Letters · letter_062 1:2JeromeTranquillinus, one of Jerome's Roman friends, had written (1) to tell him of the stand that Oceanus was making against the Origenists at Rome, and (2) to ask whether any parts of Origen's works might be studied with safety and profit. Jerome welcomes the tidings about Oceanus and answers the question of Tranquillinus in the affirmative. He classes Origen with Tertullian, Apollinaris and others whose works continued to he read in spite of their heresies. Written in 396 or 397 a.d.Letters · letter_070 1:5Jerome3. Cyprian, a man renowned both for his eloquence and for his martyr's death, was as-sailed-so Firmian tells us -for having used in his treatise against Demetrius passages from the Prophets and the Apostles which the latter declared to be fabricated and made up, instead of passages from the philosophers and poets whose authority he, as a heathen, could not well gainsay. Celsus and Porphyry have written against us and have been ably answered, the former by Origen, the latter by Methodius, Eusebius, and Apollinaris. Origen wrote a treatise in eight books, the work of Methodius extended to ten thousand lines while Eusebius and Apollinaris composed twenty-five and thirty volumes respectively. Read these and you will find that compared with them I am a mere tyro in learning, and that, as my wits have long lain fallow, I can barely recall as in a dream what I have learned as a boy. The emperor Julian found time during his Parthian campaign to vomit forth seven books against Christ and, as so often happens in poetic legends, only wounded himself with his own sword. Were I to try to confute him with the doctrines of philosophers and stoics you would doubtless forbid me tostrike a mad dog with the club of Hercules It is true that he presently felt in battle the hand of our Nazarene or, as he used to call him, the Galilaean, and that a spear-thrust in the vitals paid him due recompense for his foul calumnies. To prove the antiquity of the Jewish people Josephus has written two books against Appio a grammarian of Alexandria; and in these he brings forward so many quotations from secular writers as to make me marvel how a Hebrew brought up from his childhood to read the sacred scriptures could also have perused the whole library of the Greeks. Need I speak of Philo whom critics call the second or the Jewish Plato?Letters · letter_070 1:6Jerome4. Let me now run through the list of our own writers. Did not Quadratus a disciple of the apostles and bishop of the Athenian church deliver to the Emperor Hadrian (on the occasion of his visit to the Eleusinian mysteries) a treatise in defence of our religion. And so great was the admiration caused in everyone by his eminent ability that it stilled a most severe persecution. The philosopher Aristides, a man of great eloquence, presented to the same Emperor an apology for the Christians composed of extracts from philosophic writers. His example was afterwards followed by Justin another philosopher who delivered to Antoninus Plus and his sons and to the senate a treatise Against the Gentiles , in which he defended the ignominy of the cross and preached the resurrection of Christ with all freedom. Need I speak of Melito bishop of Sardis, of Apollinaris chief-priest of the Church of Hierapolis, of Dionysius bishop of the Corinthians, of Tatian, of Bardesanes, of Irenaeus successor to the martyr Pothinus; all of whom have in many volumes explained the uprisings of the several heresies and tracked them back, each to the philosophic source from which it flows. Pantaenus, a philosopher of the Stoic school, was on account of his great reputation for learning sent by Demetrius bishop of Alexandria to India, to preach Christ to the Brahmans and philosophers there. Clement, a presbyter of Alexandria, in my judgment the most learned of men, wrote eight books of Miscellanies and as many of Outline Sketches , a treatise against the Gentiles, and three volumes called the Pedagogue . Is there any want of learning in these, or are they not rather drawn from the very heart of philosophy? Imitating his example Origen wrote ten books of Miscellanies , in which he compares together the opinions held respectively by Christians and by philosophers, and confirms all the dogmas of our religion by quotations from Plato and Aristotle, from Numenius and Cornutus. Miltiades also wrote an excellent treatise against the Gentiles. Moreover Hippolytus and a Roman senator named Apollonius have each compiled apologetic works. The books of Julius Africanus who wrote a history of his own times are still extant, as also are those of Theodore who was afterwards called Gregory, a man endowed with apostolic miracles as well as with apostolic virtues. We still have the works of Dionysius bishop of Alexandria, of Anatolius chief priest of the church of Laodicea, of the presbyters Pamphilus, Pierius, Lucian, Malchion; of Eusebius bishop of Csarea, Eustathius of Antioch and Athanasius of Alexandria; of Eusebius of Emisa, of Triphyllius of Cyprus, of Asterius of Scythopolis, of the confessor Serapion, of Titus bishop of Bostra; and of the Cappadocians Basil, Gregory, and Amphilochius. All these writers so frequently interweave in their books the doctrines and maxims of the philosophers that you might easily be at a loss which to admire most, their secular erudition or their knowledge of the scriptures.Letters · letter_073 1:5Jerome2. And immediately on the first page of Genesis I found an exegesis by Origen concerning Melchizedek, in which he discusses the matter in many words and comes to the conclusion that he was an angel. With almost the same arguments your author has employed on the Holy Spirit, he speaks on the heavenly powers. I went on to his follower Didymus, and came to a like result. I turned to Hippolytus, Irenaeus, Eusebius of Caesarea, and Emisenus, Apollinaris also, and our Eustathius, who first sang the war trumpet against Arius as the Bishop of Antioch's Church: and I found that all of their opinions, with different arguments and byways, had arrived at one intersection, to say that Melchizedek was a Canaanite man, the king of the city of Jerusalem, which was first called Salem, then Jebus, and finally Jerusalem. It is not surprising if a priest of the most high God is described without circumcision and legal ceremonies, and without being of the family of Aaron, since Abel, Enoch, and Noah also pleased God and offered sacrifices, and in the book of Job we read that he himself was an offerer of gifts and a priest, and daily sacrificed offerings for his sons (Job. 1). And they say that Job himself was not from the tribe of Levi, but from the lineage of Esau: although the Hebrews think otherwise.Letters · letter_084 1:2JeromeA calm letter in which Jerome defines and justifies his own attitude towards Origen, but unduly minimizes his early enthusiasm for him. He admires him in the same way that Cyprian admired Tertullian but does not in any way adopt his errors. He then describes his own studies and recounts his obligations to Apollinaris, Didymus, and a Jew named Bar-anina. The rest of the letter deals with the errors of Origen, the state of the text of his writings, and the eulogy of him composed by the martyr Pamphilus (the authenticity of which Jerome assails without any sufficient reason). The date of the letter is 400 a.d.Letters · letter_084 1:5Jerome2. It is charged against me that I have sometimes praised Origen. If I am not mistaken I have only done so in two places, in the short preface (addressed to Damasus) to his homilies on the Song of Songs and in the prologue to my book of Hebrew Names. In these passages do the dogmas of the church come into question? Is anything said of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost? or of the resurrection of the flesh? or of the condition and material of the soul? I have merely praised the simplicity of his rendering and commentary and neither the faith nor the dogmas of the Church come in at all. Ethics only are dealt with and the mist of allegory is dispelled by a clear explanation. I have praised the commentator but not the theologian, the man of intellect but not the believer, the philosopher but not the apostle. But if men wish to know my real judgement upon Origen; let them read my commentaries upon Ecclesiastes, let them go through my three books upon the epistle to the Ephesians: they will then see that I have always opposed his doctrines. How foolish it would be to eulogize a system so far as to endorse its blasphemy! The blessed Cyprian takes Tertullian for his master, as his writings prove; yet, delighted as he is with the ability of this learned and zealous writer he does not join him in following Montanus and Maximilla. Apollinaris is the author of a most weighty book against Porphyry, and Eusebius has composed a fine history of the Church; yet of these the former has mutilated Christ's incarnate humanity, while the latter is the most open champion of the Arian impiety. "Woe," says Isaiah, "unto them that call evil good and good evil; that put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter." [Isa. 5:20] We must not detract from the virtues of our opponents-if they have any praiseworthy qualities-but neither must we praise the defects of our friends. Each several case must be judged on its own merits and not by a reference to the persons concerned. While Lucilius is rightly assailed by Horace [Hor. S. 1. 10:1-4] for the unevenness of his verses, he is equally rightly praised for his wit and his charming style.Letters · letter_084 1:6Jerome3. In my younger days I was carried away with a great passion for learning, yet I was not like some presumptuous enough to teach myself. At Antioch I frequently listened to Apollinaris of Laodicea, and attended his lectures; yet, although he instructed me in the holy scriptures, I never embraced his disputable doctrine as to their meaning. At length my head became sprinkled with gray hairs so that I looked more like a master than a disciple. Yet I went on to Alexandria and heard Didymus. And I have much to thank him for: for what I did not know I learned from him, and what I knew already I did not forget. So excellent was his teaching. Men fancied that I had now made an end of learning. Yet once more I came to Jerusalem and to Bethlehem. What trouble and expense it cost me to get Baraninas to teach me under cover of night. For by his fear of the Jews he presented to me in his own person a second edition of Nicodemus. [Joh. 3:2] Of all of these I have frequently made mention in my works. The doctrines of Apollinaris and of Didymus are mutually contradictory. The squadrons of the two leaders must drag me in different directions, for I acknowledge both as my masters. If it is expedient to hate any men and to loath any race, I have a strange dislike to those of the circumcision. For up to the present day they persecute our Lord Jesus Christ in the synagogues of Satan. [Cf. Rev. 2:9] Yet can anyone find fault with me for having had a Jew as a teacher? Does a certain person dare to bring forward against me the letter I wrote to Didymus calling him my master? It is a great crime, it would seem, for me a disciple to give to one both old and learned the name of master. And yet when I ask leave to look at the letter which has been held over so long to discredit me at last, there is nothing in it but courteous language and a few words of greeting. Such charges are both foolish and frivolous. It would be more to the point to exhibit a passage in which I have defended heresy or praised some wicked doctrine of Origen. In the portion of Isaiah which describes the crying of the two seraphim [Isa. 6:2] he explains these to be the Son and the Holy Ghost; but have not I altered this hateful explanation into a reference to the two testaments? I have the book in my hand as it was published twenty years ago. In numbers of my works and especially in my commentaries I have, as occasion has offered, mangled this heathen school. And if my opponents allege that I have done more than anyone else to form a collection of Origen's books, I answer that I only wish I could have the works of all theological writers that by diligent study of them, I might make up for the slowness of my own wits. I have made a collection of his books, I admit; but because I know everything that he has written I do not follow his errors. I speak as a Christian to Christians: believe one who has tried him. His doctrines are poisonous, they are unknown to the Holy Scriptures, nay more, they do them violence. I have read Origen, I repeat, I have read him; and if it is a crime to read him, I admit my guilt: indeed, these Alexandrian writings have emptied my purse. If you will believe me, I have never been an Origenist: if you will not believe me, I have now ceased to be one. But if even this fails to convince you, you will compel me in self-defence to write against your favourite, so that, if you will not believe me when I disclaim him, you will have to believe me when I attack him. But I find readier credence when I go wrong than when I shew amendment. And this is not surprising, for my would-be friends suppose me a fellow-disciple with them in the arcana of their system. I am loath, they fancy, to profess esoteric doctrines before persons who according to them are brute-like and made of clay. For it is an axiom with them that pearls ought not to be lightly cast before swine, nor that which is holy given to the dogs. [Matt. 7:6] They agree with David when he says: "Thy word have I hid in mine heart that I might not sin against thee;" [Ps. 119:11] and when in another place he describes the righteous man as one "who speaketh truth with his neighbour," [Ps. 15:2, Ps. 15:3 from memory] that is with those who "are of the household of faith." [Gal. 6:10] From these passages they conclude that those of us who as yet are uninitiated ought to be told falsehoods, lest, being still unweaned babes, we should be choked by too solid food. Now that perjury and lying enter into their mysteries and form a bond between them appears most clearly from the sixth book of Origen's Miscellanies, in which he harmonizes the Christian doctrine with the conceptions of Plato.Letters · letter_084 1:10Jerome7. But it will be said, "If you knew these things, why did you praise him in your works?" I should praise him today but that you and men like you praise his errors. I should still find his talent attractive, but that some people have been attracted by his impiety. "Read all things," says the apostle, "hold fast that which is good." [1 Thess. 5:21] Lactantius in his books and particularly in his letters to Demetrian altogether denies the subsistence of the Holy Spirit, and following the error of the Jews says that the passages in which he is spoken of refer to the Father or to the Son and that the words 'holy spirit' merely prove the holiness of these two persons in the Godhead. But who can forbid me to read his Institutes -in which he has written against the Gentiles with much ability-simply because this opinion of his is to be abhorred? Apollinaris has written excellent treatises against Porphyry, and I approve of his labours, although I despise his doctrine in many points because of its foolishness. If you too for your parts will but admit that Origen errs in certain things I will not say another syllable. Acknowledge that he thought amiss concerning the Son, and still more amiss concerning the Holy Spirit, point out the impiety of which he has been guilty in speaking of men's souls as having fallen from heaven, and shew that, while in word he asserts the resurrection of the flesh, he destroys the force of this language by other assertions. As, for instance, that, after many ages and one "restitution of all things," [Acts 3:21] it will be the same for Gabriel as for the devil, for Paul as for Caiaphas, for virgins as for prostitutes. When once youhave rejected these misstatements and have parted them with your censor's wand from the faith of the Church, I may read what left with safety, and having first taken the antidote need no longer dread the poison. For instance it will do me no harm to say as I have said, "Whereas in his other books Origen has surpassed all other writers, in commenting on the Song of Songs he has surpassed himself"; nor will I fear to face the words with which formerly in my younger days I spoke of him as a doctor of the churches. Will it be pretended, that I was bound to accuse a man whose works was translating by special request? that I was bound to say in my preface, "This writer whose books I translate is a heretic: beware of him, reader, read him not, flee from the viper: or, if you are bent on reading him, know that the treatises which I have translated have been garbled by heretics and wicked men; yet you need not fear, for have corrected all the places which they have corrupted," that in other words I ought to have said: "the writer that I translate is a heretic, but I, his translator, am a Catholic." The fact is that you and your party in your anxiety to be straightforward, ingenuous, and honest, have paid too little regard to the precepts of rhetoric and to the devices of oratory. For in admitting that his books On First Principles are heretical and in trying to lay the blame of this upon others, you raise difficulties for your readers; you induce them to examine the whole life of the author and to form a judgment on the question from the remainder of his writings. I on the other hand have been wise enough to emend silently what I wished to emend: thus by ignoring the crime I have averted prejudice from the criminal. Doctors tell us that serious maladies ought not to be subjected to treatment, but should be left to nature, lest the remedies applied should intensify the disease. It is now almost one hundred and fifty years since Origen died at Tyre. Yet what Latin writer has ever ventured to translate his books On the Resurrection and On First Principles , his Miscellanies and his Commentaries or as he himself calls them his Tomes? Who has ever cared by so infamous a work to cover himself with infamy? I am not more eloquent than Hilary or truer to the faith than Victorinus who both have rendered his Homilies not in exact versions but in independent paraphrases. Recently also Ambrose appropriated his Six Days' Work , but in such a way that it expressed the views of Hippolytus and Basil rather than of Origen. You profess to take me for your model, and blind as moles in relation to others you scan me with the eyes of gazelles. Well, had I been ill-disposed towards Origen, I might have translated these very books so as to make his worst writings known to Latin readers; but this I have never done; and, though many have asked me, I have always refused. For it has never been my habit to crow over the mistakes of men whose talents I admire. Origen himself, were he still alive, would soon fall out with you his would-be patrons and would say with Jacob: "Ye have troubled me to make me to stink among the inhabitants of the land." [Gen. 34:30]Letters · letter_091 1:3JeromeTo his most loving lord, son, and brother, the presbyter Jerome, Epiphanius sends greeting in the Lord. The general epistle written to all Catholics belongs particularly to you; for you, having a zeal for the faith against all heresies, particularly oppose the disciples of Origen and of Apollinaris whose poisoned roots and deeply planted impiety almighty God has dragged forth into our midst, that having been unearthed at Alexandria they might wither throughout the world. For know, my beloved son, that Amalek has been destroyed root and branch and that the trophy of the cross has been set up on the hill of Rephidim. [Cf. Exod. 17:8-14] For as when the hands of Moses were held up on high Israel prevailed, so the Lord has strengthened His servant Theophilus to plant His standard against Origen on the altar of the church of Alexandria; that in him might be fulfilled the words: "Write this for a memorial, for I will utterly put out Origen's heresy from under heaven together with that Amalek himself." And that I may not appear to be repeating the same things over and over and thus to be making my letter tedious, I send you the actual missive written to me that you may know what Theophilus has said to me, and what a great blessing the Lord has granted to my last days in approving the principles which I have always proclaimed by the testimony of so great a prelate. I fancy that by this time you also have published something and that, as I suggested in my former letter to you on this subject, you have elaborated a treatise for readers of your own language. For I hear that certain of those who have made shipwreck [1 Tim. 1:19] have come also to the West, and that, not content with their own destruction, they desire to involve others in death with them; as if they thought that the multitude of sinners lessens the guilt of sin and the flames of Gehenna do not grow in size in proportion as more logs are heaped upon them. With you and by you we send our best greetings to the reverend brothers who are with you in the monastery serving God.Letters · letter_093 1:3JeromeThe following is an epitome: We have done all that you wished, and Palestine is almost wholly free from the taint of heresy. We wish that not only the Origenists, but Jews, Samaritans and heathen also, could be put down. Origenism does not exit among us. The doctrines you describe are never heard here. We anathematize those who hold such doctrines, and also those of Apollinaris, and shall not receive anyone whom you excommunicate.Letters · letter_096 1:2JeromeA translation by Jerome of Theophilus's paschal letter for the year 401 a.d. In it Theophilus refutes at length the heresies of Apollinaris and Origen.Letters · letter_098 1:3JeromeFirst, he encourages believers to celebrate Easter to the Lord. Secondly, he refutes and slaughters the errors of Apollinaris, thirdly, those of Origen, finally, he urges heretics to repentance.Letters · letter_098 1:8Jerome4. Therefore, with all being lead astray by error, the living word of God came to our aid to lands that were ignorant of the worship of God and sustained the loneliness of truth. The witness of which thing is he who speaks: "All have sinned, becoming useless together" (Romans 3). And the prophets of Christ praying for aid: "Lord, incline your heavens and descend" (Psalm 143). Not to change the places where all things were, but in order to take on the flesh of human weakness for our salvation, as Paul sings the same: When he was rich, for our sake he became poor, so that by his poverty we might become rich (1 Corinthians 8). And he came into the world, and from the virginal womb, which he sanctified, came forth as a man, confirming by his dispensation the interpretation of his name, Emmanuel, that is, God with us, and he began to be marvelously what we are, and he did not cease to be what he was: thus assuming human nature, so that he himself might not lose what he was. Although John writes "The Word was made flesh" (John 1), that is to say, "Man", nevertheless it is not turned into flesh because God never ceased to be. To whom David also speaks: "But You are the same" (Psalms 101). And the Father from heaven testifies, saying: "Thou art my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased" (Luke 2). So that it may be said that He who was before man was made, remains through our confession having become man, Paul himself preaching with the same voice as ours: "Jesus Christ, yesterday and today, and the same forever (Hebrews 13)." For in that which he says, 'He,' he shows that he did not change his original nature, nor diminish the wealth of his divinity, who, for our sake, became poor, and assumed the full likeness of our condition. He assumed man from among so many and such beings, solely without sin; from what sort and quality of beings we are all created, not in part, but wholly, the Mediator of God and men, the man Christ Jesus (I. Tim. 2. 5), and he had nothing which is found in our resemblance, except only sin, which has no substance; for he had not lifeless flesh, and in that flesh, as God's Word, he himself was rational soul, just as the drowsy scholars of Apollinaris suspect. And saying that in the Gospel: "Now my soul is troubled" (Matthew 26:38), [he] testifies (some say "it is testified") that his divinity was subject to perturbation, which is a consequent claim of those who argue that divinity was in his body for his soul; nor again by joining only a soul together, [he] filled it up being undertaken by man, lest he be deemed to have completed the act of mediation by [merely] sharing in flesh, and in the dissimilarity of souls. Being like us in flesh, and having the soul of irrational animals - if according to their [the rationalists'] understanding the Savior's soul is irrational and without reason and feeling, [it] is impious to believe this, and far from the ecclesiastical faith, lest it be immediately struck by that praise with which the Prophet rebukes the offender, saying: Ephraim is like a senseless dove without a heart (Hosea 7:11). And if he hears like one who is irrational: he has been compared to foolish beasts, and he has become like them. For it is beyond doubt that an irrational and mindless soul is compared to irrational beasts; hence Moses also writes: you shall not muzzle the ox when it treads out the grain. And Paul in expounding the passage says: Is it for oxen that God is concerned? Does he not speak entirely for our sake?Letters · letter_098 1:10Jerome6. But it seems to be argued against them in this way as well. It is written about the Word of God: All things were made by him (John 1:3). Is it credible that the wisdom or prudence of the flesh, which they understand to be the soul of the Savior, was created by the Word of God so that the very operator of death and enmity against God might exist and that, what is wicked to say, that he was joined to those things? But if it is wicked to believe this, and the soul of the Savior possesses all virtues, then his prudence of the flesh will not be his soul, lest he be believed to have joined death and enmity against God. Let the disciples of Apollinaris cease to defend those things which he has spoken against the rules of the Church, for although he has written against the Arians and Eunomians, and overturned Origen and other heretics by his argument, nevertheless, whoever remembers that precept: You shall not show partiality in judgment (Leviticus 19:15; and Deuteronomy 1:17): he must always love the truth, not the persons; and he must know that in the dispensation of man, which the only-begotten Son of God has deigned to assume for our salvation, he who understood and wrote perversely upon his soul, may not be free from guilt. For as the Apostle says, 'If I give away all I have, and if I deliver my body to be burned, but have not love, I gain nothing.' (1 Corinthians 13) And so, be it this one, about whom we are speaking now, or Origen and other heretics, even if they wrote some things that do not contradict the ecclesiastical faith, they will nevertheless not be without fault, and on those things which are important and relevant to the salvation of believers, they contradict the ecclesiastical faith. For our Lord and Savior did not assume a soul without intellect and senses nor did he assume the middle or two parts of three, or the third part, to save imperfect humanity incompletely, since neither the middle nor the remaining parts can receive the name of perfection. And just as the perfect thing lacks the defect of the imperfect, so what is imperfect cannot be called perfect. And if he had imperfectly received our likeness, or partly, as it was spoken in the Gospel: No one takes my life from me: I have the power to lay it down, and I have the power to take it up? (John 10:18) But what is taken away and put down cannot be said to be irrational or without mind and intelligence, but rather rational and intelligible, having a mind and feeling.Letters · letter_112 2:2JeromeAll the commentators who have been our predecessors in the Lord in the work of expounding the Scriptures, have expounded either what was obscure or what was plain. If some passages were obscure, how could you, after them, presume to discuss that which they were not able to explain? If the passages were plain, it was a waste of time for you to have undertaken to treat of that which could not possibly have escaped them. This syllogism applies with peculiar force to the book of Psalms, in the interpretation of which Greek commentators have written many volumes: viz. 1 st, Origen: 2 d, Eusebius of Cæsarea; 3 d, Theodorus of Heraclea; 4 th, Asterius of Scythopolis; 5 th, Apollinaris of Laodicea; and, 6 th, Didymus of Alexandria. There are said to be minor works on selections from the Psalms, but I speak at present of the whole book. Moreover, among Latin writers the bishops Hilary of Poitiers, and Eusebius of Verceil, have translated Origen and Eusebius of Cæsarea, the former of whom has in some things been followed by our own Ambrose. Now, I put it to your wisdom to answer why you, after all the labours of so many and so competent interpreters, differ from them in your exposition of some passages? If the Psalms are obscure, it must be believed that you are as likely to be mistaken as others; if they are plain, it is incredible that these others could have fallen into mistake. In either case, your exposition has been, by your own showing, an unnecessary labour; and on the same principle, no one would ever venture to speak on any subject after others have pronounced their opinion, and no one would be at liberty to write anything regarding that which another has once handled, however important the matter might be.Letters · letter_119 1:14Jerome11. I have spoken these things with swift speech, presenting to your wisdom what the learned men thought of each place, and with which arguments they wished to approve their opinions, for my own small and insignificant authority is not so great that I, who am nothing and am only exposed to the bites of the envious, am equal to those who have gone before us in the Lord. Nor is it like the prejudiced opinion of the disciples of Pythagoras, but rather the reason of the teaching must be weighed. But if anyone of the opposing faction grumbles because I read the explanations of those whose teachings I do not accept, let him know that I am pleased to follow the advice of the Apostle: "Test everything, hold fast to what is good" (1 Thess. 5:21), and of the Savior himself who said: "Be proven money-changers, so that if anyone is a counterfeit coin, and does not have the likeness of Caesar, and is not stamped with the public image, let him be rejected." But he who prefers the face of Christ, shining with a clear light, let him be placed into the bag of our hearts. For if I wish to know dialect, or the dogmas of philosophers, and in order to return to our own knowledge of scripture; I ought not to question the simple men of the Church, whose merit lies elsewhere; and each person abounds in his own sense (especially as it is said that in a large house there are many vessels of different kinds (2 Tim. 2:20)); but those who have learned the skill from the craftsman and meditate on the Law of the Lord day and night. I myself, both in youth and in extreme old age, maintain that Origen and Eusebius of Caesarea were most learned men, but erred in the truth of dogmas. What we can say about Theodore, Acacius, and Apollinaris on the contrary, all left a memory of their studies in the explanations of the Scriptures. In the earth, gold is sought, and from the beds of rivers, shining sand is brought out: and one can find the sands of Pactolus richer in mud than in the stream. Why do my friends tear me to pieces, and, having turned against me, bark like foolish dogs? The whole of their zeal is, in fact, an eyebrow of knowledge, to criticize the work of others and to defend the treachery of the ancient fathers, so that they may lose their faith. It is my intention to read the ancients, proof every point, retain what is good, and not depart from the faith of the Catholic Church.Letters · letter_126 1:4Jerome1. I have at last received from Africa your joint letter and no longer regret the effrontery which led me, in spite of your silence to ply you both with so many missives. I hoped, indeed, by so doing to gain a reply and to learn of your welfare not indirectly from others but directly from yourselves.I well remember your little problem about the nature of the soul; although I ought not to call it little, seeing that it is one of the greatest with which the church has to deal. You ask whether it has fallen from heaven, as Pythagoras, all Platonists, and Origen suppose; or whether it is part of God's essence as the Stoics, Manes, and the Spanish Priscillianists hint. Whether souls created long since are kept in God's storehouse as some ecclesiastical writers foolishly imagine; or whether they are formed by God and introduced into bodies day by day according to that saying in the Gospel: "my Father worketh hitherto and I work;" [John 5:17] or whether, lastly, they are transmitted by propagation. This is the view of Tertullian, Apollinaris, and most western writers who hold that soul is derived from soul as body is from body and that the conditions of life are the same for men and brutes. I have given my opinion on the matter in my reply to the treatise which Rufinus presented to Anastasius, bishop of Rome, of holy memory. He strives in this by an evasive and crafty but sufficiently foolish confession to play with the simplicity of his hearers, but only succeeds in playing with his own faith or rather want of it. My book, which has been published a good while, contains an answer to the calumnies which in his various writings Rufinus has directed against me. Your reverend father Oceanus has, I think, a copy of it. But if you cannot procure it your bishop Augustine is both learned and holy. He will teach you by word of mouth and will give you his opinion, or rather mine, in his own words.Lives of Illustrious Men 18:3JeromeHe is said to have published a Second coming of Our Lord or Millennium. Irenaeus and Apollinaris and others who say that after the resurrection the Lord will reign in the flesh with the saints, follow him. Tertullian also in his work On the hope of the faithful, Victorinus of Petau and Lactantius follow this view.Lives of Illustrious Men 26:2JeromeApollinaris, bishop of Hierapolis in Asia, flourished in the reign of Marcus Antoninus Verus, to whom he addressed a notable volume in behalf of the faith of the Christians. There are extant also five other books of his Against the Nations, two On truth and Against the Cataphrygians written at the time when Montanus was making a beginning with Prisca and Maximilla.Lives of Illustrious Men 41:2JeromeSerapion, ordained bishop of Antioch in the eleventh year of the emperor Commodus, wrote a letter to Caricus and Pontius on the heresy of Montanus, in which he said "that you may know moreover that the madness of this false doctrine, that is the doctrine of a new prophecy, is reprobated by all the world, I have sent to you the letters of the most holy Apollinaris bishop of Hierapolis in Asia." He wrote a volume also to Domnus, who in time of persecution went over to the Jews, and another work on the gospel which passes under the name of Peter, a work to the church of the Rhosenses in Cilicia who by the reading of this book had turned aside to heresy. There are here and there short letters of his, harmonious in character with the ascetic life of their author.Lives of Illustrious Men 125:2JeromeAmbrose of Alexandria, pupil of Didymus, wrote a long work On doctrines against Apollinaris, and as some one has lately informed me, Commentaries on Job. He is still living.Prefaces On The Commentaries 1:16JeromeThis Commentary was specially prized by Jerome as exhibiting his true views (Letter LXXXIV. 2), and they became in consequence one of the chief subjects of controversy between him and Rufinus, who traced in them, not unjustly, the influence of Origen. It was written immediately after that on the Epistle to the Galatians, in a.d. 387, and, like that, addressed to Paula and Eustochium. In the Preface to Book i. Jerome defends himself against various accusations. He declares that he has been, in the main, his own instructor, but yet that he has constantly consulted others as to Scriptural difficulties, and that he had, not long before, been to Alexandria to consult, Didymus. "I questioned him about everything which was not clear to me in the whole range of Scripture." As to his indebtedness to Origen, he speaks as follows, certainly not blaming his doctrines: "I remark in the Prefaces, for your information. that Origen composed three volumes on this Epistle, and I have partly followed him. Apollinarisand Didymus also published some commentaries, and, though we have gleaned a few things from them, we have added or omitted such as we thought fit. The studious reader will, therefore, understand at the outset their this work is partly my own, and that I am in part indebted to others." The Preface to Books ii. and iii. is short. It speaks in praise of Marcella, who had invited him to his task, and declares that he in his monastery could not accomplish as much as that noble woman amidst the cares of her household. "I beseech you," he says, "to bear in mind that the language of this publication has not been long thought over or highly polished. In revealing the mysteries of Scripture I use almost the language of the street, and sometimes get through a thousand lines a day, in order that the explanation of the Apostle which I have begun may be completed with the aid of the prayers of Paul himself, whose Epistles I am endeavouring to explain."Prefaces On The Commentaries 2:12JeromeThis Commentary was dedicated to Pammachius, a.d. 406 (sixth consulate of Arcadius-Preface to Amos, Book iii. The Preface to Book i. is chiefly taken up with a discussion on Hosea's "wife of whoredoms." He takes the story as allegorical; it cannot be literal, for "God commands nothing but what is honourable, nor does he, by bidding men do disgraceful thins, make that conduct honourable which is disgraceful." Jerome then describes, as in former Prefaces, the chief Greek commentators, of whom Apollinaris and Origen had written very shortly on Hosea, Pierius at great length, but to little purpose; and says that he had himself obtained from Didymus of Alexandria that he should complete the Commentary of Origen. He had himself often judged independently, though with little knowledge of Hebrew, but he had been in earnest, while most scholars were "more concerned for their bellies than their hearts, and thought themselves learned if in the doctors' waiting rooms they could disparage other men's works."Prefaces to the Books of the Vulgate Version of the Old Testament 2:13JeromeThe Septuagint version of Daniel the prophet is not read by the Churches of our Lord and Saviour. They use Theodotion's version, but how this came to pass I cannot tell. Whether it be that the language is Chaldee, which differs in certain peculiarities from our speech, and the Seventy were unwilling to follow those deviations in a translation; or that the book was published in the name of the Seventy, by some one or other not familiar with Chaldee, or if there be some other reason, I know not; this one thing I can affirm-that it differs widely from the original, and is rightly rejected. For we must bear in mind that Daniel and Ezra, the former especially, were written in Hebrew letters, but in the Chaldee language, as was one section of Jeremiah; and, further, that Job has much affinity with Arabic. As for myself, when, in lily youth, after reading the flowery rhetoric of Quintilian and Tully, I entered on the vigorous study of this language, the expenditure of much time and energy barely enabled me to utter the puffing and hissing words; I seemed to be walking in a sort of underground chamber with a few scattered rays of light shining down upon me; and when at last I met with Daniel, such a sense of weariness came over me that, in a fit of despair, I could have counted all my former toil as useless. But there was a certain Hebrew who encouraged me, and was for ever quoting for my benefit the saying that "Persistent labour conquers all things"; and so, conscious that among Hebrews I was only a smatterer, I once more began to study Chaldee. And, to confess the truth, to this day I can read and understand Chaldee better than I can pronounce it. I say this to show you how hard it is to master the book of Daniel, which in Hebrew contains neither the history of Susanna, nor the hymn of the three youths, nor the fables of Bel and the Dragon; because, however, they are to be found everywhere, we have formed them into an appendix, prefixing to them an obelus, and thus making an end of them, so as not to seem to the uninformed to have cut off a large portion of the volume. I heard a certain Jewish teacher, when mocking at the history of Susanna, and saying that it was the fiction of some Greek or other, raise the same objection which Africanus brought against Origen-that these etymologies of sxisai from sxinoj , and prisai from prinoj , are to be traced to the Greek. To make the point clear to Latin readers: It is as if he were to say, playing upon the word ilex, illico pereas; or upon lentiscus, may the angel make a lentil of you, or may you perish nan lente, or may you lentus (that is pliant or compliant) be led to death, or anything else suiting the name of the tree. Then he would captiously maintain that the three youths in the furnace of raging fire had leisure enough to amuse themselves with making poetry, and to summon all the elements in turn to praise God. Or what was there miraculous, he would say, or what indication of divine inspiration, in the slaying of the dragon with a lump of pitch, or in frustrating the schemes of the priests of Bel? Such deeds were more the results of an able man's forethought than of a prophetic spirit. But when he came to Habakkuk and read that he was carried from Judaea into Chaldaea to bring a dish of food to Daniel, he asked where we found an instance in the whole of the Old Testament of any saint with an ordinary body flying through the air, and in a quarter of an hour traversing vast tracts of country. And when one of us who was rather too ready to speak adduced the instance of Ezekiel, and said that he was transported from Chaldaea into Judaea, he derided the man and proved from the book itself that Ezekiel, in spirit, saw himself carried over. And he argued that even our own Apostle, being an accomplished man and one who had been taught the law by Hebrews, had not dared to affirm that be was bodily rapt away, but had said: "Whether in the body, or out of the body, I know not; God knoweth." By these and similar arguments he used to refute the apocryphal fables in the Church's book. Leaving this for the reader to pronounce upon as he may think fit, I give warning that Daniel in Hebrew is not found among the prophets, but amongst the writers of the Hagiographa; for all Scripture is by them divided into three parts:the law, the Prophets, and the Hagiographa, which have respectively five, eight, and eleven books, a point which we cannot now discuss. But as to the objections which Porphyry raises against this prophet, or rather brings against the book, Methodius, Eusebius, and Apollinaris may be cited as witnesses, for they replied to his folly in many thousand lines of writing, whether with satisfaction to the curious reader I know not. Therefore, I beseech you, Paula and Eustochium, to pour out your supplications for me to the Lord, that so long as I am in this poor body, I may write something pleasing to you, useful to the Church, worthy of posterity. As for my contemporaries, I am indifferent to their opinions, for they pass from side to side as they are moved by love or hatred.To Pammachius Against John of Jerusalem 1:24Jerome18. I now beg you, whose eloquence is so exuberant, and who expound the truth concerning all topics in the course of one sermon, to give an answer to your interrogators in concise and clear terms. When God formed man out of slime, and through the grace of His own inspiration gave him a soul, had that soul previously existed and subsisted which was afterwards bestowed by the inspiration of God, and where was it? or did it gain its capacity both to exist and to live from the power of God, on the sixth day, when the body was formed out of the slime? You are silent regarding this, and pretend you do not know what is wanted, and busy yourself with irrelevant questions. You leave Origen untouched, and rave against the absurdities of Marcion Apollinaris, Eunomius, Manichaeus, and the other heretics. You are asked for a hand and you put out a foot, and all the while covertly insinuate the doctrine to which you hold. You speak smooth things to plain men like us, but in such a way as in no degree to displease those of your own party.Letters 88:3Augustine of HippoAll the commentators who have been our predecessors in the Lord in the work of expounding the Scriptures, have expounded either what was obscure or what was plain. If some passages were obscure, how could you, after them, presume to discuss that which they were not able to explain? If the passages were plain, it was a waste of time for you to have undertaken to treat of that which could not possibly have escaped them. This syllogism applies with peculiar force to the book of Psalms, in the interpretation of which Greek commentators have written many volumes: viz. 1 st , Origen: 2 d , Eusebius of Caesarea; 3 d , Theodorus of Heraclea; 4 th , Asterius of Scythopolis; 5 th , Apollinaris of Laodicea; and, 6 th , Didymus of Alexandria. There are said to be minor works on selections from the Psalms, but I speak at present of the whole book. Moreover, among Latin writers the bishops Hilary of Poitiers, and Eusebius of Verceil, have translated Origen and Eusebius of Caesarea, the former of whom has in some things been followed by our own Ambrose. Now, I put it to your wisdom to answer why you, after all the labours of so many and so competent interpreters, differ from them in your exposition of some passages? If the Psalms are obscure, it must be believed that you are as likely to be mistaken as others; if they are plain, it is incredible that these others could have fallen into mistake. In either case, your exposition has been, by your own showing, an unnecessary labour; and on the same principle, no one would ever venture to speak on any subject after others have pronounced their opinion, and no one would be at liberty to write anything regarding that which another has once handled, however important the matter might be.Letters 109:148Augustine of HippoCHAP. I. -- I. At last I have received your joint letter from Africa, and I do not regret the importunity with which, though you were silent, I persevered in sending letters to you, that I might obtain a reply, and learn, not through report from others, but from your own most welcome statement, that you are in health. I have not forgotten the brief query, or rather the very important theological s question, which you propounded in regard to the origin of the soul, -- does it descend from heaven, as the philosopher Pythagoras and all the Platonists and Origen think? or is it part of the essence of the Deity, as the Stoics, Manichaeus, and the Priscillianists of Spain imagine? or are souls kept in a divine treasure house wherein they were stored of old as some ecclesiastics, foolishly misled, believe? or are they daily created by God and sent into bodies, according to what is written in the gospel, "My Father worketh hitherto, and I work"?4 or are souls really produced, as Tertullian, Apollinaris, and the majority of the Western divines conjecture, by propagation, so that as the body is the offspring of body, the soul is the offspring of soul, and exists on conditions similar to those regulating the existence of the inferior animals."5 I know that I have published my opinion on this question in my brief writings against Ruffinus, in reply to a treatise addressed by him to Anastasius, of holy memory, bishop of the Roman: Church, in which, while attempting to impose upon the simplicity of his readers by a slippery and artful, yet withal foolish confession, he exposed to contempt his own faith, or, rather, his own perfidy. These books are, I think, in the possession of your holy kinsman Oceanus, for they were published long ago to meet the calumnies contained in numerous writings of Ruffinus. Be this as it may, you have in Africa that holy man and learned bishop Augustin, who will be able to teach you on this subject viva race, as the saying is, and expound to you his opinion, or, I should rather say, my own opinion stated in his words.Sermons · Sermon 375B 1:15Augustine of HippoThe error of the Apollinarists and Arians concerning the soul of Christ.Sermons · Sermon 375B 1:16Augustine of HippoDo not take anything away from the soul of Christ. For the Apollinarian heretics said that He did not have a mind, that is, the soul did not have intelligence, but the Word was for it in place of mind and intelligence. This Apollinaris said. But the Arians say: He did not have any kind of soul. Therefore, you must faithfully hold that absolutely the whole Christ is Word and soul and flesh. And when you hear: My soul is sorrowful, understand the human soul, not animal: for the soul without intellect is the soul of a beast, not a human soul. If He did not come to liberate the mind, He did not have a mind. Therefore, one Christ, the Word and soul and flesh. What is man? Soul and flesh. What is Christ? Word and man, and therefore Word and soul and flesh, one Christ. When you strike a man with fists, what of him do you strike? The soul, or the flesh? You admit that it is the flesh. And yet the soul cries out: Why do you strike me? Why do you beat me? If you were to say to the soul: Who touched you? I strike the flesh, not you; do not those who hear you saying these things mock, and judge you senseless or insane? Thus, those who scourged the flesh of the Word of God, or struck with slaps, cannot say: We scourged, or struck with slaps, the flesh, not the Word or the soul of Christ; for they scourged or struck with slaps the whole Christ, that is, the Word and the soul and the flesh: for they did not scourge or strike with slaps His dead body. And although they could not kill His soul or His very divinity, which is true life, on the cross, they delighted in killing the whole Christ in their hearts and in their evil intent. For whoever persecutes someone to kill him, wishes to extinguish him entirely, just as the whole light of a lamp is extinguished when it is shattered on the ground, so that it no longer shines at all, when any evildoer sees that it obstructs him. This cannot happen to a man in any way, that he should be entirely extinguished, who certainly has one mortal substance and another immortal: for nothing in him is mortal except the flesh. However, Christ, the only-begotten of God, could be even less entirely extinguished, although Jews thought they were extinguishing Him, who in His three substances, that is, one eternal and divine, and in two temporal, that is, human, had only one mortal, that is, His flesh; but He undoubtedly had His soul and especially His divinity immortal. And therefore, by His death of short duration, He alone could redeem us from our eternal death, who was not only flesh and human soul, but God and soul and flesh, the one only-begotten of God. For He who descended to the lower parts of the earth, He is also who ascended above all the heavens: which man alone could not do.The Seven Books on the Incarnation of the Lord, · Book 1 3:3John CassianFor these shoots of an unnatural seed are no new thing in the churches. The harvest I of the Lord's field has always had to put up I with burrs and briars, and in it the shoots of choking tares have constantly sprung up. For hence have arisen the Ebionites, Sabellians, Arians, as well as Eunomians and Macedonians, and Photinians and Apollinarians, and all the other tares of the churches, and thistles which destroy the fruits of good faith. And of these the earliest was Ebion, who while over-anxious about asserting our Lord's humanity robbed it of its union with Divinity. But after him the schism of Sabellius burst forth out of reaction against the above mentioned heresy, and as he declared that there was no distinction between the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, he impiously confounded, as far as was possible, the Persons, and failed to distinguish the holy and ineffable Trinity. Next after him whom we have mentioned there followed the blasphemy of Arian perversity, which, in order to avoid the appearance of confounding the Sacred Persons, declared that there were different and dissimilar substances in the Trinity. But after him in time though like him in wickedness came Eunomius, who, though allowing that the Persons of the Holy Trinity were divine and like each other, yet insisted that they were separate from each other; and so while admitting their likeness denied their equality. Macedonius also blaspheming against the Holy Ghost with unpardonable wickedness, while allowing that the Father and the Son were of one substance, termed the Holy Ghost a creature, and so sinned against the entire Divinity, because no injury can be offered to anything in the Trinity without affecting the entire Trinity. But Photinus, though allowing that Jesus who was born of the Virgin was God, yet erred in his notion that His Godhead began with the beginning of His manhood; while Apollinaris through inaccurately conceiving the union of God and man wrongly believed that He was without a human soul For it is as bad an error to add to our Lord Jesus Christ what does not belong to Him as to rob Him of that which is His. For where He is spoken of otherwise than as He is -even though it seems to add to His glory - yet it is an offence. And so one after another out of reaction against heresies they give rise to heresies, and all teach things different from each other, but equally opposed to the faith. And just lately also, i.e., in our own days, we saw a most poisonous heresy spring up from the greatest city of the Belgae, and though there was no doubt about its error, yet there was a doubt about its name, because it arose with a fresh head from the old stock of the Ebionites, and so it is still a question whether it ought to be called old or new. For it was new as far as its upholders were concerned; but old in the character of its errors. Indeed it blasphemously taught that our Lord Jesus Christ was born as a mere man, and maintained that the fact that He afterwards obtained the glory and power of the Godhead resulted from His human worth and not from His Divine nature; and by this it taught that He had not always His Divinity by the right of His very own Divine nature which belonged to Him, but that He obtained it afterwards as a reward for His labours and sufferings. Whereas then it blasphemously taught that our Lord and Saviour was not God at His birth, but was subsequently taken into the Godhead, it was indeed bordering on this heresy which has now sprung up, and is as it were its first cousin and akin to it, and, harmonizing both with Ebionism and these new ones, came in point of time between them, and was linked with them both in point of wickedness. And although there are some others like those which we have mentioned yet it would take too long to describe them all. Nor have we now undertaken to enumerate those that are dead and gone, but to refute those which are novel.ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY OF PHILOSTORGIUS 2:63PhilostorgiusCHAP. 11.--This impious writer, though against his will, expresses his admiration of the wisdom of Basil the Great and Gregory the theologian ; whose country Nazianzum he calls Nadiandum. But he prefers to both the one and the other Apollinaris of Laodicea, as far as regards the literature of the Scriptures, though he admits that in panegyrical discourses the latter is surpassed by Basil; while Gregory, as compared with the other two, had a much more rounded style of composition ; he was also more fluent in speech than Apollinaris, and more stately than Basil.ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY OF PHILOSTORGIUS 2:64PhilostorgiusCHAP. 12.--He says that not only Basil the Great, but also Apollinaris, wrote against the Apology of Eunomius; but that Eunomius replied to him in five books, and that when he had read only the first of these, he was struck with such profound remorse that he died. Thus does this writer show how much more highly he values falsehood than truth,ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY OF PHILOSTORGIUS 2:65PhilostorgiusCHAP. 13.--He openly calumniates these same most holy men, Basil and Gregory. For he makes out that they said that the Son was not made man, but dwelt in a human frame ; and on this account Apollinaris joined their party. He also not only accuses him on account of those matters for which he is deservedly censured by pious individuals, but he also relates that ho was carried away into another strange belief. For among other things, he asserts that he denied the resurrection of the body. |491ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY OF PHILOSTORGIUS 2:66PhilostorgiusCHAP. 14.--In the books which he wrote against Porphyry, Apollinaris far surpassed all that had been written against the same Porphyry by Eusebius. He also left far behind the books of Methodius on the same subject.ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY OF PHILOSTORGIUS 3:1PhilostorgiusCHAP. 15.--He says further, but I know not whence he derives his information, that Apollinaris was a bishop, and that Novatus was of Phrygian descent.THE ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY · Book 2 47:3Socrates ScholasticusThere were two men of the same name at Laodicea in Syria, a father and son: their name was Apollinaris; the former of them was a presbyter, and the latter a reader in that church. Both taught Greek literature, the father grammar, and the son rhetoric. The father was a native of Alexandria, and at first taught at Berytus, but afterwards removed to Laodicea, where he married, and the younger Apollinaris was born. They were contemporaries of Epiphanius the sophist, and being true friends they became intimate with him; but Theodotus bishop of Laodicea, fearing that such communication should pervert their principles, and lead them into paganism, forbade their associating with him: they, however, paid but little attention to this prohibition, their familiarity with Epiphanius being still continued. George, the successor of Theodotus, also endeavored to prevent their conversing with Epiphanius; but not being able in any way to persuade them on this point, he excommunicated them. The younger Apollinaris regarding this severe procedure as an act of injustice, and relying on the resources of his rhetorical sophistry, originated a new heresy, which was named after its inventor, and still has many supporters. Nevertheless some affirm that it was not for the reason above assigned that they dissented from George, but because they saw the unsettledness and inconsistency of his profession of faith; since he sometimes maintained that the Son is like the Father, in accordance with what had been determined in the Synod at Seleucia, and at other times countenanced the Arian view. They therefore made this a pretext for separation from him: but as no one followed their example, they introduced a new form of doctrine, and at first they asserted that in the economy of the incarnation, God the Word assumed a human body without a soul. Afterwards, as if changing mind, they retracted, admitting that he took a soul indeed, but that it was an irrational one, God the Word himself being in the place of a mind. Those who followed them and bear their name at this day affirm that this is their only point of distinction [from the Catholics]; for they recognize the consubstantiality of the persons in the Trinity. But we will make further mention of the two Apollinares in the proper place.THE ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY · Book 3 8:3Socrates ScholasticusAs soon as Eusebius reached Alexandria, he in concert with Athanasius immediately convoked a Synod. The bishops assembled on this occasion out of various cities, took into consideration many subjects of the utmost importance. They asserted the divinity of the Holy Spirit and comprehended him in the consubstantial Trinity: they also declared that the Word in being made man, assumed not only flesh, but also a soul, in accordance with the views of the early ecclesiastics. For they did not introduce any new doctrine of their own devising into the church, but contented themselves with recording their sanction of those points which ecclesiastical tradition has insisted on from the beginning, and wise Christians have demonstratively taught. Such sentiments the ancient fathers have uniformly maintained in all their controversial writings. Irenaeus, Clemens, Apollinaris of Hierapolis, and Serapion who presided over the church at Antioch, assure us in their several works, that it was the generally received opinion that Christ in his incarnation was endowed with a soul. Moreover, the Synod convened on account of Beryllus bishop of Philadelphia in Arabia, recognized the same doctrine in their letter to that prelate. Origen also every where in his extant works accepts that the Incarnate God took on himself a human soul. But he more particularly explains this mystery in the ninth volume of his Comments upon Genesis, where he shows that Adam and Eve were types of Christ and the church. That holy man Pamphilus, and Eusebius who was surnamed after him, are trustworthy witnesses on this subject: both these witnesses in their joint life of Origen, and admirable defense of him in answer to such as were prejudiced against him, prove that he was not the first who made this declaration, but that in doing so he was the mere expositor of the mystical tradition of the church. Those who assisted at the Alexandrian Council examined also with great minuteness the question concerning `Essence' or `Substance,' and `Existence,' `Subsistence,' or `Personality.' For Hosius, bishop of Cordova in Spain, who has been before referred to as having been sent by the Emperor Constantine to allay the excitement which Arius had caused, originated the controversy about these terms in his earnestness to overthrow the dogma of Sabellius the Libyan. In the council of Nicaea, however, which was held soon after, this dispute was not agitated; but in consequence of the contention about it which subsequently arose, the matter was freely discussed at Alexandria. It was there determined that such expressions as ousia and hypostasis ought not to be used in reference to God: for they argued that the word ousia is nowhere employed in the sacred Scriptures; and that the apostle has misapplied the term hypostasis owing to an inevitable necessity arising from the nature of the doctrine. They nevertheless decided that in refutation of the Sabellian error these terms were admissible, in default of more appropriate language, lest it should be supposed that one thing was indicated by a threefold designation; whereas we ought rather to believe that each of those named in the Trinity is God in his own proper person. Such were the decisions of this Synod. If we may express our own judgment concerning substance and personality, it appears to us that the Greek philosophers have given us various definitions of ousia, but have not taken the slightest notice of hypostasis. Irenaenus the grammarian indeed, in his Alphabetical [Lexicon entitled] Atticistes, even declares it to be a barbarous term; for it is not to be found in any of the ancients, except occasionally in a sense quite different from that which is attached to it in the present day. Thus Sophocles, in his tragedy entitled Phoenix, uses it to signify `treachery': in Menander it implies `sauces'; as if one should call the `sediment' at the bottom of a hogshead of wine hypostasis. But although the ancient philosophical writers scarcely noticed this word, the more modern ones have frequently used it instead of ousia. This term, as we before observed, has been variously defined: but can that which is capable of being circumscribed by a definition be applicable to God who is incomprehensible? Evagrius in his Monachicus, cautions us against rash and inconsiderate language in reference to God; forbidding all attempt to define the divinity, inasmuch as it is wholly simple in its nature: `for,' says he, `definition belongs only to things which are compound.' The same author further adds, `Every proposition has either a "genus" which is predicted, or a "species," or a "differentia," or a "proprium," or an "accidens," or that which is compounded of these: but none of these can be supposed to exist in the sacred Trinity. Let then what is inexplicable be adored in silence.' Such is the reasoning of Evagrius, of whom we shall again speak hereafter. We have indeed made a digression here, but such as will tend to illustrate the subject under consideration.THE ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY · Book 3 17:3Socrates ScholasticusThe imperial law which forbade Christians to study Greek literature, rendered the two Apollinares of whom we have above spoken, much more distinguished than before. For both being skilled in polite learning, the father as a grammarian, and the son as a rhetorician, they made themselves serviceable to the Christians at this crisis. For the former, as a grammarian, composed a grammar consistent with the Christian faith: he also translated the Books of Moses into heroic verse; and paraphrased all the historical books of the Old Testament, putting them partly into dactylic measure, and partly reducing them to the form of dramatic tragedy. He purposely employed all kinds of verse, that no form of expression peculiar to the Greek language might be unknown or unheard of amongst Christians. The younger Apollinaris, who was well trained in eloquence, expounded the gospels and apostolic doctrines in the way of dialogue, as Plato among the Greeks had done. Thus showing themselves useful to the Christian cause they overcame the subtlety of the emperor through their own labors. But Divine Providence was more potent than either their labors, or the craft of the emperor: for not long afterwards, in the manner we shall hereafter explain, the law became wholly inoperative; and the works of these men are now of no greater importance, than if they had never been written. But perhaps some one will vigorously reply saying: `On what grounds do you affirm that both these things were effected by the providence of God? That, the emperor's sudden death was very advantageous to Christianity is indeed evident: but surely the rejection of the Christian compositions of the two Apollinares, and the Christians beginning afresh to imbue their minds with the philosophy of the heathens, this works out no benefit to Christianity, for pagan philosophy teaches Polytheism, and is injurious to the promotion of true religion.' This objection I shall meet with such considerations as at present occur to me. Greek literature certainly was never recognized either by Christ or his Apostles as divinely inspired, nor on the other hand was it wholly rejected as pernicious. And this they did, I conceive, not inconsiderately. For there were many philosophers among the Greeks who were not far from the knowledge of God; and in fact these being disciplined by logical science, strenuously opposed the Epicureans and other contentious Sophists who denied Divine Providence, confuting their ignorance. And for these reasons they have become useful to all lovers of real piety: nevertheless they themselves were not acquainted with the Head of true religion, being ignorant of the mystery of Christ which `had been hidden from generations and ages.' And that this was so, the Apostle in his epistle to the Romans thus declares: `For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness. Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God has shown it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead, that they may be without excuse; because that when they knew God, they glorified him not as God.' From these words it appears that they had the knowledge of truth, which God had manifested to them; but were guilty on this account, that when they knew God, they glorified him not as God. Wherefore by not forbidding the study of the learned works of the Greeks, they left it to the discretion of those who wished to do so. This is our first argument in defense of the position we took: another may be thus put: The divinely inspired Scriptures undoubtedly inculcate doctrines that are both admirable in themselves, and heavenly in their character: they also eminently tend to produce piety and integrity of life in those who are guided by their precepts, pointing out a walk of faith which is highly approved of God. But they do not instruct us in the art of reasoning, by means of which we may be enabled successfully to resist those who oppose the truth. Besides adversaries are most easily foiled, when we can use · their own weapons against them. But this power was not supplied to Christians by the writings of the Apollinares. Julian had this in mind when he by law prohibited Christians from being educated in Greek literature, for he knew very well that the fables it contains would expose the whole pagan system, of which he had become the champion to ridicule and contempt. Even Socrates, the most celebrated of their philosophers, despised these absurdities, and was condemned on account of it, as if he had attempted to violate the sanctity of their deities. Moreover, both Christ and his Apostle enjoin us `to become discriminating money-changers,' so that we might `prove all things, and hold fast that which is good': directing us also to `beware lest any one should spoil us through philosophy and vain deceit.' But this we cannot do, unless we possess ourselves of the weapons of our adversaries: taking care that in making this acquisition we do not adopt their sentiments, but testing them, reject the evil, but retain all that is good and true: for good wherever it is found, is a property of truth. Should any one imagine that in making these assertions we wrest the Scriptures from their legitimate construction, let it be remembered that the Apostle not only does not forbid our being instructed in Greek learning, but that he himself seems by no means to have neglected it, inasmuch as he knows many of the sayings of the Greeks. Whence did he get the saying, `The Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, slow-bellies,' but from a perusal of The Oracles of Epimenides, the Cretan Initiator? Or how would he have known this, `For we are also his offspring,' had he not been acquainted with The Phenomena of Aratus the astronomer? Again this sentence, `Evil communications corrupt good manners,' is a sufficient proof that he was conversant with the tragedies of Euripides. But what need is there of enlarging on this point? It is well known that in ancient times the doctors of the church by unhindered usage were accustomed to exercise themselves in the learning of the Greeks, until they had reached an advanced age: this they did with a view to improve themselves in eloquence and to strengthen and polish their mind, and at the same time to enable them to refute the errors of the heathen. Let these remarks be sufficient in the subject suggested by the two Apollinares.THE ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY · Book 6 14:3Socrates ScholasticusBut since carping detractors have imposed upon many persons and have succeeded in deterring them from reading Origen, as though he were a blasphemous writer, I deem it not unseasonable to make a few observations respecting him. Worthless characters, and such as are destitute of ability to attain eminence themselves, often seek to get into notice by decryingthose who excel them. And first Methodius, bishop of a city in Lycia named Olympus, labored under this malady; next Eustathius, who for a short time presided over the church at Antioch; after him Apollinaris; and lastly Theophilus. This quaternion of revilers has traduced Origen, but not on the same grounds, one having found one cause of accusation against him, and another another; and thus each has demonstrated that what he has taken no objection to, he has fully accepted. For since one has attacked one opinion in particular, and another has found fault with another, it is evident that each has admitted as true what he has not assailed, giving a tacit approbation to what he has not attacked. Methodius indeed, when he had in various places railed against Origen, afterwards as if retracting all he had previously said, expresses his admiration of the man, in a dialogue which he entitled Xenon. But I affirm that from the censure of these men, greater commendation accrues to Origen. For those who have sought out whatever they deemed worthy of reprobation in him, and yet have never charged him with holding unsoundviews respecting the holy Trinity, are in this way most distinctly shown to bear witness to his orthodox piety: and by not reproaching him on this point, they commend him by their own testimony. But Athanasius the defender of the doctrine of consubstantiality, in his Discourses against the Arians continually cites this author as a witness of his own faith, interweaving his words with his own, and saying, `The most admirable and assiduous Origen,' says he, `by his own testimony confirms our doctrine concerning the Son of God, affirming him to be co-eternal with the Father.' Those therefore who load Origen with opprobrium, overlook the fact that their maledictions fall at the same time on Athanasius, the eulogist of Origen. So much will be enough for the vindication of Origen; we shah now return to the course of our history.Against Diodore of Tarsus and Theodore of Mopsuestia · Fragments of Book 2 - Against Theodore 5:6Cyril of Alexandria17. Thus far is given by Leontius of Byzantium as Diodore's. After a number of extracts of Theodore, Leontius gives five, which he attributes to Diodore with the title, The same Diodore out of Book 1 against the Synousiasts. This is the fourth of them. (Against Nestorians and Eutychians Book 3 in Gallandi, xii. G97.) Leontius' translation is a different one from that cited before the fifth Council. Gallandi assigns to Leontius the date about A.D. 610, nearly 60 years later than the Council. The fifth Council and Leontius agree in citing the work on (or as Leontius calls it, against ) the Incarnation, in fifteen books, & the four books against Apollinarius (Leontius, book 3 ubi supra pp. 695, 696: Conc. vi. 43 &c). The Council further cites yet another treatise: The same from the book against the Synousiasts or Apollinarists, which blessed Cyril put forth and answered (ib. 54, see below p. 345 and note s: so Pope Pelagius II in his Letter to Elias of Aquileia and other bishops in Istria. Conc. vi. 269). Leontius does not (as far as I see) cite this last, but is it a part of the treatise whence Leontius does cite five pieces as Diodore out of book 1 against the Synousiasts? of these five, the first is by Mercator too (p. 350 Bal.) attributed to Diodore (Mercator does not mention what book he extracted it from), the second is at p. 347, the third at p. 344, the fourth here, a piece of the fifth is by S. Cyril (p. 333) attributed to Diodore, while he attributes 2, 3, 4 to Theodore.Five tomes against Nestorius · Book 1 3:25Cyril of AlexandriaTo this empty word S. Cyril opposed his Personal Union (...) . Fleury (Eccl. Hist. Bk. 25 § 8 fin.) speaks of, as the first place in which he has met the expression S. Cyril's 2nd Letter (the first (Ecumenical Letter) to Nestorius in which he says, "The Word having united to Himself Personally flesh ensouled with a rational soul" (see 3 Epistles Parker 1872 p. 56). In the final Letter which S. Cyril and his Council of Alexandria wrote A. D. 430 to Nestorius were appended 12 Anathemas which Nestorius was required to sign (3 Epistles p. 68). These Anathemas or Chapters were much misunderstood by John Archbishop of Antioch, and his suffragans in Cilicia, Palestine, Euphratesia &c, who thought that they contained Apollinarian error; Liberatus who wrote about 125 years after tells us in his Breviarium (cap. 4 Gallandi Bibl. Patr. Vet. xii. 127) that John of Antioch "sent to Andrew and Theodoret, Bishops of his Council to reply in writing to the 12 chapters as renewing the dogma of Apollinaris.'' Theodoret too in sending his replies back to John sends him aletter beginning," I was greatly grieved on reading the Anathemas which you sent me, bidding me answer them in writing and lay bare to all their heretical meaning." S. Cyril defended his Anathemas or Chapters against the exceptions made by Andrew and Theodoret separately: in the close of his Letter to his Priest Eulogius, his Proctor at Constantinople, he says that he sends the Provost (inter alia) copies of his answers to each of these Bishops. The second chapter begins, "If any confess not that the Word out of God the Father has been united to flesh Personally, ...." No possible misunderstanding of this term, Personal Union, united Personally, seems to have occurred to S.Cyril, for in his Explanation of his Chapters made at the request of the Synod in order that they should he clearer (as the title tells us), during the days while the Council was awaiting its dismissal, as Alexander of Hierapolis writes to Constantinople to John of Antioch, S.Cyril does not allude to this. There is no trace of Andrew Bishop of Samosata having written against this 2nd chapter nor against the fifth and sixth: so prohably no objection occurred to him either. Nor does Eutherius bishop of Tyana in his Letter to John of Antioch, running briefly through the chapters, except against the Personal Union. Theodoret objects to the term, Personal Union, from its novelty and from its appearing to imply mixture. Again in his letter to the monks of Euphratesia, Osroene, Syria, Phoenicia and Cilicia, giving briefly his objections to some of the chapters, he repeats that the expressions Personal Union and concurrence (...) by Natural Union, teach some mixture and confusion of the Form of God and the form of the servant (Ep. 151 p. 1292 fin.) In answer to Theodore t's objection to the second chapter( written perhaps but a few weeks after this present treatise,) S. Cyril explains the term and says, Seeing that Nestorius is always undoing the birth after the flesh of God the Word and insinuating merely an union of dignities and saying that man is connected (...) with God, honoured with the co-name of Sonship; needs do WE opposing his words say that a Personal Union took place, Personal (...) having no other meaning than only that the nature or Person of the Word, i.e. the Word Himself, united in truth to human nature, apart from any turning and confusion (as we have full often said) is conceived of and is, One Christ, the Same God and Man.Five tomes against Nestorius · Book 2 4:5Cyril of Alexandria4. The following extract from Tillemont (Hist. Eccles. Les Apollinaristes, Art 2. t. vii pp. 001, 605 ed. 2. Paris 1700), will illustrate that dread of Apollinarianism, which not only Nestorius but John of Antioch (see a letter of his to S.Cyril, Synodicon cap. 80. Baluz. Nova Collectio Conciliorum t. i. 783; iv. 346 Col.) Theodoret and the Bishops of that Archiepiscopate felt. Apollinarianism had been their last great heretical onslaught, only about 60 years previous, and Antioch its head-quarters. Tillemont says, "Car ne voulant pas reconnoistre qu'il y eust deux substances et deux natures en J. C, l'une divine et l'autre humaine, ou bien l'une de Dieu et l'autre de la chair, non seulement ils [les Apollinaristes] soutenoient, après les Ariens, qu'il avoit une seule nature mixte et composée de la divine et de l'humaine : mais ils se reduisoient à dire que sa chair estoit consubstantielle à sa divinité, qu'une partie du Verbe avoit esté changée en chair, en os, en cheveux, en un mot en un corps et en une nature toute différente de la sienne, que ce n'avoit pas esté un corps comme le nostre, qu'il en avoit seulement la forme et l'apparence extérieure, mais qu'il estoit coeternel à la nature divine, formé de la substance mesme de la sagesse éternelle et de celle du Verbe changée en un corps passible: Qu'ainsi c'estoit la substance mesme de la sagesse qui avoit creé le monde, et la divinité du Fils consubstantielle au Père, qui avoit esté circoncise et attachée a la croix ; et non un corps terrestre comme le nostre.That Christ is One 16:24Cyril of Alexandria2. ἥ φυρμὸν ἥ κρᾶσιν . φυρμὸς implies the commingling of a dry substance with a moist, as in kneading : κρᾶσις the blending of two liquids together so as to form a compound. S. Cyril observes (ag. Nest. i. §3 above pp. 16, 17) that some of the older Fathers had used the word κρᾶσις (see Tertullian's use of it Apol. i. 21 and the passages of the other Fathers put together in p. 48 note h O.T.). S. Cyril himself in his writings on the Incarnation denies it in the sense which Apollinaris' error was importing into the word: he uses the expression of mixing to express the intensity of the union of God the Son with us, below p. 250 note i.THE COMMONITORY · A Commonitory 2:4Vincent of Lérins[5.] But here some one perhaps will ask, Since the canon of Scripture is complete, and sufficient of itself for everything, and more than sufficient, what need is there to join with it the authority of the Church's interpretation? For this reason,-because, owing to the depth of Holy Scripture, all do not accept it in one and the same sense, but one understands its words in one way, another in another; so that it seems to be capable of as many interpretations as there are interpreters. For Novatian expounds it one way, Sabellius another, Donatus another, Arius, Eunomius, Macedonius, another, Photinus, Apollinaris, Priscillian, another, Iovinian, Pelagius, Celestius, another, lastly, Nestorius another. Therefore, it is very necessary, on account of so great intricacies of such various error, that the rule for the right understanding of the prophets and apostles should be framed in accordance with the standard of Ecclesiastical and Catholic interpretation.THE COMMONITORY · A Commonitory 10:5Vincent of Lérins[28.] Blessed Moses, then, writes thus in Deuteronomy: "If there arise among you a prophet or a dreamer of dreams," that is, one holding office as a Doctor in the Church, who is believed by his disciples or auditors to teach by revelation: well,-what follows? "and giveth thee a sign or a wonder, and the sign or the wonder come to pass whereof he spake,"-he is pointing to some eminent doctor, whose learning is such that his followers believe him not only to know things human, but, moreover, to foreknow things superhuman, such as, their disciplescommonly boast, were Valentinus, Donatus, Photinus, Apollinaris, and the rest of that sort! What next? "And shall say to thee, Let us go after other gods, whom thou knowest not, and serve them." What are those other gods but strange errors which thou knowest not, that is, new and such as were never heard of before? "And let us serve them;" that is, "Let us believe them, follow them." What last? "Thou shall not hearken to the words of that prophet or dreamer of dreams." And why, I pray thee, does not God forbid to be taught what God forbids to be heard? "For the Lord, your God, trieth you, to know whether you love Him with all your heart and with all your soul." The reason is clearer than day why Divine Providence sometimes permits certain doctors of the Churches to preach new doctrines-"That the Lord your God may try you;" he says. And assuredly it is a great trial when one whom thou believest to be a prophet, a disciple of prophets, a doctor and defender of the truth, whom thou hast folded to thy breast with the utmost veneration and love, when such a one of a sudden secretly and furtively brings in noxious errrors, which thou canst neither quickly detect, being held by the prestige of former authority, nor lightly think it right to condemn, being prevented by affection for thine old master.THE COMMONITORY · A Commonitory 11:2Vincent of LérinsExamples from Church History, confirming the words of Moses,-Nestorius, Photinus, Apollinaris.THE COMMONITORY · A Commonitory 11:6Vincent of Lérins[31.] Nor is it only in the instance of Photinus that we learn the danger of this trial to the Church, and are admonished withal of the need Of double diligence in guarding the faith. Apollinaris holds out a like warning. For he gave rise to great burning questions and sore peplexities among his disciples, the Church's authority drawing them one way, their Master's influence the opposite; so that, wavering and tossed hither and thither between the two, they were at a loss what course to take.THE COMMONITORY · A Commonitory 12:2Vincent of LérinsA fuller account of the Errors of Photinus, Apollinaris and Nestorius.THE COMMONITORY · A Commonitory 12:3Vincent of Lérins[32.] Here, possibly, I may be asked for some account of the above mentioned heresies; those, namely, of Nestorius, Apollinaris, and Photinus. This, indeed, does not belong to the matter in hand: for our object is not to enlarge upon the errors of individuals, but to produce instances of a few, in whom the applicability of Moses' words may be evidently and clearly seen; that is to say, that if at any time some Master in the Church, himself also a prophet in interpreting the mysteries of the prophets, should attempt to introduce some novel doctrine into the Church of God, Divine Providence permits this to happen in order to try us. It will be useful, therefore, by way of digression, to give a brief account of the opinions of the above-named heretics, Photinus, Apollinaris, Nestorius.THE COMMONITORY · A Commonitory 12:5Vincent of Lérins[34.] Apollinaris, affecting to agree with the Church as to the unity of the Trinity, though not this even with entire soundness of belief, as to the Incarnation of the Lord, blasphemes openly. For he says that the flesh of our Saviour was either altogether devoid of a human soul, or, at all events, was devoid of a rational soul. Moreover, he says that this same flesh of the Lord was not received from the flesh of the holy Virgin Mary, but came down from heaven into the Virgin; and, ever wavering and undecided, he preaches one while that it was co-eternal with God the Word, another that it was made of the divine nature of the Word. For, denying that there are two substances in Christ, one divine, the other human, one from the Father, the other from his mother, he holds that the very nature of the Word was divided, as though one part of it remained in God, the other was converted into flesh: so that whereas the truth says that of two substances there is one Christ, he affirms, contrary to the truth, that of the one divinity of Christ there are become two substances.This, then, is the doctrine of Apollinaris.THE COMMONITORY · A Commonitory 12:7Vincent of Lérins[36.] IN these ways then do these rabid dogs, Nestorius, Apollinaris, and Photinus, bark against the Catholic faith: Photinus, by denying the Trinity; Apollinaris, by teaching that the nature of the Word is mutable, and refusing to acknowledge that there are two substances in Christ, denying moreover either that Christ had a soul at all, or, at all events, that he had a rational soul, and asserting that the Word of God supplied the place of the rational soul; Nestorius, by affirming that there were always or at any rate that once there were two Christs. But the Catholic Church, holding the right faith both concerning God and concerning our Saviour, is guilty of blasphemy neither in the mystery of the Trinity, nor in that of the Incarnation of Christ. For she worships both one Godhead in the plenitude of the Trinity, and the equality of the Trinity in one and the same majesty, and she confesses one Christ Jesus, not two; the same both God and man, the one as truly as the other. One Person indeed she believes in Him, but two substances; two substances but one Person: Two substances, because the Word of God is not mutable, so as to be convertible into flesh; one Person, lest by acknowledging two sons she should seem to worship not a Trinity, but a QuaternityTHE COMMONITORY · A Commonitory 15:5Vincent of LérinsAccursed be Apollinaris, who affirms that the Godhead of Christ is marred by conversion, and defrauds Him of the property of perfect humanity.Two letters to Pope Celestine 1:5Nestorius2. For we have also expended much energy here [in Constantinople] striving to root out from the church of God that most despicable impiety, the most harmful opinion of Apollinaris and Arius. For I do not know the extent to which some ecclesiastical men have become sick with the sickness of the aforementioned heretics, on account of their acceptance of the idea that the divinity and humanity of the only-begotten are blended ( contemperationis imaginem ex deitate et humanitate unigeniti ). These heretics both dare to make the bodily passions pour over into the divinity of the only-begotten and pretend that the divine immutability has passed over to the bodily nature. They confuse each nature through the mutability that arises through the blending, even though in reality each nature is adored through an unconfused conjunction of the highest sort ( per conjunctionem summam et inconfusam ) in the single person ( in una persona ) of the only-begotten. Blind men! They do not remember the account of the holy fathers who openly contradict them: We believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary. For this statement [is made] with the title which signifies each nature, Christ... < lacuna > [the Holy Spirit?] is co-essential ( homoousios ) with the divinity of the Father. But the humanity born in these latter times is from the holy Virgin; on account of its conjunction with divinity, the humanity is worshipped by angels and humans together.Two letters to Pope Celestine 1:10NestoriusI have learned that Cyril, the most distinguished bishop of the city of Alexandria , has become worried about reports against him that we received, and is now hunting for subterfuges to avoid a holy synod taking place due to these reports. In the meantime he is devising some other disturbances over terms and has chosen [as a point of controversy] the term Theotokos and Christotokos : the first he allows, but as for Christotokos , sometimes he removes it from the gospels, and sometimes he allows it, on the basis of what I believe is a kind of excessive prudence. In the case of the term Theotokos , I am not opposed to those who want to say it, unless it should advance to the confusion of natures in the manner of the madness of Apollinaris or Arius. Nonetheless, I have no doubt that the term Theotokos is inferior to the term Christotokos , as the latter is mentioned by the angels and the gospels. And if I were not speaking to Your Worship who is already so knowledgeable, I would need to give a very long discourse on this topic. But even without a discourse, it is known in every way to Your Beatitude, that if we should think that there are two groups opposed to each other, the one using only the term Theotokos , the other only Anthropotokos , and each group draws [others] to what it confesses or, if they have not accomplished this, puts [others] in danger of falling from the church, it would be necessary to assign someone to such an affair if it arises who exercises concern for both groups and heals the danger of both parties by means of the term taken from the gospels that signifies both natures. For as I said, the term Christotokos keeps the assertion of both parties to the proper limits, because it both removes the blasphemy of Paul of Samosata, who claimed that Christ the Lord of all was simply a human being, and also flees the wickedness of Arius and Apollinaris. Now I have written these very things to the most distinguished bishop of Alexandria , as Your Beatitude can tell from the copies I have attached to this letter of mine, as well as from the copies of what he wrote to us. Moreover, with God's help it has also been agreed to announce a world-wide synod in order to inquire into the other ecclesiastical matters. For I do not think it will be difficult to investigate a uncertainty over words, and it is not a hindrance for a discussion of the divinity of Christ the Lord.Letters · Letter 109 To Julian, Bishop of Cos 1:8Leo the GreatBut lest the instruction necessary for the confirmation of faithful spirits or the refutation of heretics should be wanting or not expressed, I have sent the letter of bishop Athanasius of holy memory addressed to bishop Epictetus , whose testimony Cyril of holy memory made use of at the Synod of Ephesus against Nestorius, because it has so clearly and carefully set forth the Incarnation of the Word', as to overthrow both Nestorius and Eutyches by anticipation in the heresies of those times. Let the followers of Eutyches and Dioscorus dare to accuse such an authority as this of ignorance or of heresy, who assert that our preaching goes astray from the teaching and the knowledge of the Fathers. But it ought to avail for the confirmation of the minds of all the Lord's priests, who, having been already detected and condemned of heresy in respect of the authorities they followed, now begin more openly to set forth their blasphemous dogma, lest, if their meaning were hid beneath the cloke of silence it might still be doubtful whether the triple error of Apollinaris , and the mad notion of the Manichees was really revived in them. And as they no longer seek to hide themselves but rise boldly against the churches of Christ, must we not take care to destroy all the strength of their attempts, observing. as I have said, such discrimination as to separate the incorrigible from the more docile spirits: for "evil conversations corrupt good manners ," and "the wise man will be sharper than the pestilent person who is chastised ;" in order that in whatever way the society of the wicked is broken up, some vessels may be snatched from the devil's hand? For we ought not to be so offended at scurrilous and empty words as to have no care for their correction.Letters · Letter 124 To the Monks of Palestine 1:6Leo the GreatNestorius, therefore, must be anathematized for believing the Blessed Virgin Mary to be mother of His manhood only, whereby he made the person of His flesh one thing, and that of His Godhead another, and did not recognize the one Christ in the Word of God and in the flesh, but spoke of the Son of God as separate and distinct from the son of man: although, without losing that unchangeable essence which belongs to Him together with the Father and the Holy Spirit from all eternity and without respect of time, the "Word became flesh" within the Virgin's womb in such wise that by that one conception and one parturition she was at the same time, in virtue of the union of the two substances, both handmaid and mother of the Lord. This Elizabeth also knew, as Luke the evangelist declares, when she said: "Whence is this to me that the mother of my Lord should come to me ?" But Eutyches also must be stricken with the same anathema, who, becoming entangled in the treacherous errors of the old heretics, has chosen the third dogma of Apollinaris : so that he denies the reality of his human flesh and Soul, and maintains the whole of our Lord Jesus Christ to be of one nature, as if the Godhead of the Word had turned itself into flesh and soul: and as if to be conceived and born, to be nursed and grow, to be crucified and die, to be buried and rise again, and to ascend into heaven and to sit on the Father's right hand, from whence He shall come to judge the living and the dead-as if all those things belonged to that essence only which admits of none of them without the reality of the flesh: seeing that the nature of the Only-begotten is the nature of the Father, the nature of the Holy Spirit, and that the undivided unity and consubstantial equality of the eternal Trinity is at once impassible and unchangeable. But if this heretic withdraws from the perverse views of Apollinaris, lest he be proved to hold that the Godhead is passible and mortal: and yet dares to pronounce the nature of the Incarnate Word that is of the Word made Flesh one, he undoubtedly crosses over into the mad view of Manichaeus and Marcion , and believes that the man Jesus Christ, the mediator between God and men, did all things in an unreal way, and had not a human body, but that a phantom-like apparition presented itself to the beholders' eyes.Letters · Letter 21 From Eutyches to Leo 1:8Leo the GreatI take refuge, therefore, with you the defender of religion and abhorrer of such factions, bringing in even still nothing strange against the faith as it was originally handed down to us, but anathematizing Apollinaris, Valentinus, Manes, and Nestorius, and those who say that the flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Saviour, descended from heaven and not from the Holy Ghost and from the holy Virgin, along with all heresies down to Simon Magus. Yet nevertheless I stand in jeopardy of my life as a heretic. I beseech you not to be prejudiced against me by their insidious designs about me, but to pronounce the sentence which shall seem to you right upon the Faith, and in future not to allow any slander to be uttered against me by this faction, nor let one be expelled and banished from the number of the orthodox who has spent his seventy years of lite in continence and all chastity, so that at the very end of life he should suffer shipwreck. I have subjoined to this my letter both documents, that which was presented by my accuser at the Synod, and that which was brought by me but not received, as well as the statement of my faith and those things which have been decreed upon the two natures by our holy Fathers .Letters · Letter 21 From Eutyches to Leo 1:10Leo the GreatI call upon you before God, who gives life to all things, and Christ Jesus, who witnessed that good confession under Pontius Pilate, that you do nothing by favour. For I have held the same as my forefathers and from my boyhood have been illuminated by the same Faith as that which was laid down by the holy Synod of 318 most blessed bishops who were gathered at Nicaea from the whole world, and which was confirmed and ratified afresh for sole acceptance by the holy Synod assembled at Ephesus: and I have never thought otherwise than as the right and only true orthodox Faith has enjoined. And I agree to everything that was laid down about the same Faith by the same holy Synod: of which Synod the leader and chief was Cyril of blessed memory bishop of the Alexandrians, the partner and sharer in the preaching and in the Faith of those saints and elect of God, Gregory the greater, and the other Gregory , Basil, Athanasius, Atticus and Proclus. Him and all of them I have held orthodox and faithful, and have honoured as saints, and have esteemed my masters. But I utter an anathema on Nestorius, Apollinaris, and all heretics down to Simon, and those who say that the flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ came down from heaven. For He who is the Word of God came down from heaven without flesh and was made flesh in the holy Virgin's womb unchangeably and unalterably as He Himself knew and willed. And He who was always perfect God before the ages, was also made perfect man in the end of the days for us and for our salvation. This my full profession may your holiness consider.Letters · Letter 22 The First from Flavian, Bp Of Constantinople to Pope Leo 1:8Leo the GreatSuch a one, therefore, has now shown himself amongst us, Eutyches, for many years a presbyter and archimandrite , pretending to hold the same belief as ours, and to have the right Faith in him: indeed he resists the blasphemy of Nestorius, and feigns a controversy with him, but the exposition of the Faith composed by the 318 holy fathers, and the letter that Cyril of holy memory wrote to Nestorius, and one by the same author on the same subject to the Easterns, these writings, to which all have given their assent, he has tried to upset, and revive the old evil dogmas of the blasphemous Valentinus and Apollinaris. He has not feared the warning of the True King: "Whoso shall cause one of the least of these little ones to stumble, it was better that a millstone should be hanged about his neck, and that he should be sunk in the depth of the sea " But casting away all shame, and shaking off the cloak which covered his error , he openly in our holy synod persisted in saying that our Lord Jesus Christ ought not to be understood by us as having two natures after His incarnation in one substance and in one person: nor yet that the Lord's flesh was of the same substance with us, as if assumed from us and united to God the Word hypostatically: but he said that the Virgin who bare him was indeed of the same substance with us according to the flesh, but the Lord Himself did not assume from her flesh of the same substance with us: but the Lord's body was not a man's body, although that which issued from the Virgin was a human body. resisting all the expositions of the holy Fathers.Letters · Letter 26 A Second One from Flavian to Leo 1:4Leo the GreatNothing, as you know, most beloved of God, is more precious to priests than piety and he right dividing of the word of truth. For all our hope and safety, and the recompense of promised good depend thereon. For this reason we must take all pains about the true Faith, and those things which have been set forth and decreed by the holy Fathers, that always, and in all circumstances, they may be kept and guarded whole and uninjured. And so it was necessary on the present occasion for us, who see the orthodox Faith suffering harm, and the heresy of Apollinaris and Valentinus being revived by the wicked monk Eutyches, not to overlook it, but publicly to disclose it for the people's safety. For this man: this Eutyches, keeping his diseased and sickly opinion hid within him, has dared to attack our gentleness, and unblushingly and shamelessly to instil his own blasphemy into many minds: saying that before the Incarnation indeed, our Saviour Jesus Christ had two natures, Godhead and manhood: but that after the union they became one nature not knowing what he says, or on what he is speaking so decidedly. For even the union of the two natures that came together in Christ did not, as your piety knows, confuse their properties in the process: but the properties of the two natures remain entire even in the union. And he added another blasphemy also, saying that the Lord's body which sprang from Mary was not of our substance, nor of human matter: but, though he calls it human, he refuses to say it was con-substantial with us or with her who bare him, according to the flesh .Letters · Letter 35 to Julian, Bishop of Cos 1:4Leo the GreatAlthough by the hands of our brothers, whom we have despatched from the city on behalf of the Faith, we hare sent a most full refutation of Eutyches' excessive heresy to our brother Flavian, yet because we have received, through our son Basil, your letter, beloved, which has given us much pleasure from the fervour of its catholic spirit, we have added this page also which agrees with the other document, that you may offer a united and strenuous resistance to those who seek to corrupt the gospel of Christ, since the wisdom and the teaching of the Holy Spirit is one and the same in you as in us: and whosoever does not receive it, is not a member of Christ's body and cannot glory in that Head in which he denies the presence of his own nature. What advantage is it to that most unwise old man under the name of the Nestorian heresy to mangle the belief of those, whose most devout faith he cannot tear to pieces: when in declaring the only-begotten Son of God to have been so born of the blessed Virgin's womb that He wore the appearance of a human body without the reality of human flesh being united to the Word, he departs as far from the right path as did Nestorius in separating the Godhead of the Word from the substance of His assumed Manhood ? From which prodigious falsehood who does not see what monstrous opinions spring? for he who denies the true Manhood of Jesus Christ, must needs be filled with many blasphemies, being claimed by Apollinaris as his own, seized upon by Valentinus, or held fast by Manichaeus: none of whom believed that there was true human flesh in Christ. But, surely, if that is not accepted, not only is it denied that He. who was in the form of God, but yet abode in the form of a slave, was born Man according to the flesh and reasonable soul: but also that He was crucified, dead, and buried, and that on the third day He rose again, and that, sitting at the right hand of the Father, he will come to judge the quick and the dead in that body in which He Himself was judged,: because these pledges of our redemption are rendered void if Christ is not believed to have the true and whole nature of true Manhood.Bibliography 1:1Sidonius ApollinarisSidonius Apollinaris, Letters. Tr. O.M. Dalton (1915) pp. clvi-clix; BibliographyBibliography 1:4Sidonius ApollinarisBaret, M. E. C. S. Sidonii Apollinaris Opera: Œuvres de Sidoine Apollinaire. Paris, 1878.Bibliography 1:5Sidonius ApollinarisBitschofsky, R. De C. Sollii Apollinaris Studiis Statianis. 1881.Bibliography 1:8Sidonius ApollinarisBüdinger, M. Apollinaris Sidonius als Politiker, in Sitzungsberichte der Wiener Akad. xcvii. 1880.Bibliography 1:15Sidonius ApollinarisFertig, M. Caius Sollius Apollinaris Sidonius und seine Zeit, nach seinen Werken dargestellt. Würzburg, 1845-8 (unfinished: three parts issued). |clviiBibliography 1:16Sidonius ApollinarisGermain, A. C. Essai historique et littéraire sur Apollinaris Sidonius. Montpellier, 1840.Bibliography 1:17Sidonius ApollinarisGrégoire, J. F., and Collombet, F. Z. Œuvres de C. Sollius Apollinaris Sidonius. Paris, 1836.Bibliography 1:18Sidonius ApollinarisGrupe, E. Zur Sprache des Apollinaris Sidonius. 1892.Bibliography 1:20Sidonius ApollinarisKaufmann, G. Die Werke des Apollinaris Sidonius als eine Quelle für die Geschichte seiner Zeit. Göttingen, 1864.Bibliography 1:23Sidonius ApollinarisSauvigny, E. Billardon de. Lettres de Caius Sidonius Apollinaris. Paris, 1787.Bibliography 1:24Sidonius ApollinarisSauvigny, E. Billardon de. Œuvres de Caius Sidonius Apollinaris . 1792.Bibliography 1:25Sidonius ApollinarisSavaron, J. C. Solli Apollinaris Opera, Jo. Savaronis studio et diligentia castigatius recognita. Paris, 1598. [Text, with Life.]Bibliography 2:1Sidonius ApollinarisSavaron, J. C. S. Apollinaris opéra; Jo. Savaro Claromontensis multo quam antea castigatius recognovit et librum commentarium adiecit. Paris, 1609. [Another edition in 1614. Savaron's commentary is still of value.]