Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadChurch Fathers: Post-Nicene Fathers Vol 09: 29.02.11 Orthodox Faith Bk III Pt 3
TOPIC: Post-Nicene Fathers Vol 09 (Other Topics in this Collection)
SUBJECT: 29.02.11 Orthodox Faith Bk III Pt 3
Other Subjects in this Topic:
Chapter IX.
In reply to the question whether there is Nature that has no Subsistence.
For although115 there is no nature without subsistence, nor essence apart from person (since in truth it is in persons and subsistences that essence and nature are to be contemplated), yet it does not necessarily follow that the natures that are united to one another in subsistence should have each its own proper subsistence. For after they have come together into one subsistence, it is possible that neither should they be without subsistence, nor should each have its own peculiar subsistence, but that both should have one and the same subsistence116 . For since one and the same subsistence of the Word has become the subsistence of the natures, neither of them is permitted to be without subsistence, nor are they allowed to have subsistences that differ from each other, or to have sometimes the subsistence of this nature and sometimes of that, but always without division or separation they both have the same subsistence—a subsistence which is not broken up into parts or divided, so that one part should belong to this, and one to that, but which belongs wholly to this and wholly to that in its absolute entirety. For the flesh of God the Word did not subsist as an independent subsistence, nor did there arise another subsistence besides that of God the Word, but as it existed in that it became rather a subsistence which subsisted in another, than one which was an independent subsistence. Wherefore, neither does it lack subsistence altogether, nor yet is there thus introduced into the Trinity another subsistence.
Chapter X.
Concerning the Trisagium (“the Thrice Holy”).
This being so117 , we declare that the addition which the vain-minded Peter the Fuller made to the Trisagium or “Thrice Holy” Hymn is blasphemous118 ; for it introduces a fourth person into the Trinity, giving a separate place to the Son of God, Who is the truly subsisting power of the Father, and a separate place to Him Who was crucified as though He were different from the “Mighty One,” or as though the Holy Trinity was considered possible, and the Father and the Holy Spirit suffered on the Cross along with the Son. Have done with this blasphemous119 and nonsensical interpolation! For we hold the words “Holy God” to refer to the Father, without limiting the title of divinity to Him alone, but acknowledging also as God the Son and the Holy Spirit: and the words “Holy and Mighty” we ascribe to the Son, without stripping the Father and the Holy Spirit of might: and the words “Holy and Immortal” we attribute to the Holy Spirit, without depriving the Father and the Son of immortality. For, indeed, we apply all the divine names simply and unconditionally to each of the subsistences in imitation of the divine Apostle’s words. But to us there is but one God, the Father, of Whom are all things, and we in Him: and one Lord Jesus Christ by Whom are all things, and we by Him120 121 And, nevertheless, we follow Gregory the Theologian122 when he says, “But to us there is but one God, the Father, of Whom are all things, and one Lord Jesus Christ, through Whom are all things, and one Holy Spirit, in Whom are all things:” for the words “of Whom” and “through Whom” and “in Whom” do not divide the natures (for neither the prepositions nor the order of the names could ever be changed), but they characterise the properties of one unconfused nature. And this becomes clear from the fact that they are once more gathered into one, if only one reads with care these words of the same Apostle, Of Him and through Him and in Him are all things: to Him be the glory for ever and ever. Amen123 .
For that the “Trisagium” refers not to the Son alone124 , but to the Holy Trinity, the divine and saintly Athanasius and Basil and Gregory, and all the band of the divinely-inspired Fathers bear witness: because, as a matter of fact, by the threefold holiness the Holy Seraphim suggest to us the three subsistences of the superessential Godhead. But by the one Lordship they denote the one essence and dominion of the supremely-divine Trinity. Gregory the Theologian of a truth says125 , “Thus, then, the Holy of Holies, which is completely veiled by the Seraphim, and is glorified with three consecrations, meet together in one lordship and one divinity.” This was the most beautiful and sublime philosophy of still another of our predecessors.
Ecclesiastical historians126 , then, say that once when the people of Constantinople were offering prayers to God to avert a threatened calamity127 , during Proclus’ tenure of the office of Archbishop, it happened that a boy was snatched up from among the people, and was taught by angelic teachers the “Thrice Holy” Hymn, “Thou Holy God, Holy and Mighty One, Holy and Immortal One, have mercy upon us:” and when once more he was restored to earth, he told what he had learned, and all the people sang the Hymn, and so the threatened calamity was averted. And in the fourth holy and great (Ecumenical Council, I mean the one at Chalcedon, we are told that it was in this form that the Hymn was sung; for the minutes of this holy assembly so record it128 . It is, therefore, a matter for laughter and ridicule that this “Thrice Holy” Hymn, taught us by the angels, and confirmed by the averting of calamity129 , ratified and established by so great an assembly of the holy Fathers, and sung first by the Seraphim as a declaration of the three subsistences of the Godhead, should be mangled and forsooth emended to suit the view of the stupid Fuller as though he were higher than the Seraphim. But oh! the arrogance! not to say folly! But we say it thus, though demons should rend us in pieces, “Do Thou, Holy God, Holy and Mighty One, Holy and Immortal One, have mercy upon us.”
Chapter XI.
Concerning the Nature as viewed in Species and in Individual, and concerning the difference between Union and Incarnation: and how this is to be understood, “The one Nature of God the Word Incarnate.”
Nature130 is regarded either abstractly as a matter of pure thought131 (for it has no independent existence): or commonly in all subsistences of the same species as their bond of union, and is then spoken of as nature viewed in species: or universally as the same, but with the addition of accidents, in one subsistence, and is spoken of as nature viewed in the individual, this being identical with nature viewed in species132 . God the Word Incarnate, therefore, did not assume the nature that is regarded as an abstraction in pure thought (for this is not incarnation, but only an imposture and a figment of incarnation), nor the nature viewed in species (for He did not assume all the subsistences): but the nature viewed in the individual, which is identical with that viewed in species. For He took on Himself the elements of our compound nature, and these not as having an independent existence or as being originally an individual, and in this way assumed by Him, but as existing in His own subsistence. For the subsistence of God the Word in itself became the subsistence of the flesh, and accordingly “the Word became flesh133 “ clearly without any change, and likewise the flesh became Word without alteration, and God became man. For the Word is God, and man is God, through having one and the same subsistence. And so it is possible to speak of tile same thing as being the nature of the Word and the nature in the individual. For it signifies strictly and exclusively neither the individual, that is, the subsistence, nor the common nature of the subsistences, but the common nature as viewed and presented in one of the subsistences.
Union, then, is one thing, and incarnation is something quite different. For union signifies only the conjunction, but not at all that with which union is effected. But incarnation (which is just the same as if one said “the putting on of man’s nature”) signifies that tile conjunction is with flesh, that is to say, with man, just as the heating of iron134 implies its union with fire. Indeed, the blessed Cyril himself, when he is interpreting the phrase, “one nature of God the Word Incarnate,” says in the second epistle to Sucensus, “For if we simply said ‘the one nature of the Word’ and then were silent, and did not add the word ‘incarnate.’ but, so to speak, quite excluded the dispensation135 , there would be some plausibility in the question they feign to ask, ‘If one nature is the whole, what becomes of the perfection in humanity, or how has the essence136 like us come to exist?’ But inasmuch as the perfection in humanity and the disclosure of the essence like us are conveyed in the word ‘incarnate,’ they must cease from relying on a mere straw” Here, then, he placed the nature of the Word over nature itself. For if He had received nature instead of subsistence, it would not have been absurd to have omitted the “incarnate.” For when we say simply one subsistence of God the Word, we do not err137 . In like manner, also, Leontius the Byzantine138 considered this phrase to refer to nature, and not to subsistence. But in the Defence which he wrote in reply to the attacks that Theodoret made on the second anathema, the blessed Cyril139 says this: “The nature of the Word, that is, the subsistence, which is the Word itself.” So that “the nature of the Word” means neither the subsistence alone, nor “the common nature of the subsistence,” but “the common nature viewed as a whole in the subsistence of the Word.”
It has been said, then, that the nature of the Word became flesh, that is, was united to flesh: but that the nature of the Word suffered in the flesh we have never heard up till now, though we have been taught that Christ suffered in the flesh. So that “the nature of the Word” does not mean “the subsistence.” It remains, therefore, to say that to become flesh is to be united with the flesh, while the Word having become flesh means that the very subsistence of the Word became without change the subsistence of the flesh. It has also been said that God became man, and man God. For the Word which is God became without alteration man. But that the Godhead became man, or became flesh, or put on the nature of man, this we have never heard. This, indeed, we have learned, that the Godhead was united to humanity in one of its subsistences, and it has been stated that God took on a different form or essence140 , to wit our own. For the name God is applicable to each of the subsistences, but we cannot use the term Godhead in reference to subsistence. For we are never told that the Godhead is the Father alone, or the Son alone, or the Holy Spirit alone. For “Godhead” implies “nature,” while “Father” implies subsistence just as “Humanity” implies nature, and “Peter” subsistence. But “God” indicates the common element of the nature, and is applicable derivatively to each of the subsistences, just as “man” is. For He Who has divine nature is God, and he who has human nature is man.
Besides all this, notice141 that the Father and the Holy Spirit take no part at all in the incarnation of the Word except in connection with the miracles, and in respect of good will and purpose.
Chapter XII.
That the holy Virgin is the Mother of God: an argument directed against the Nestorians.
Moreover we proclaim the holy Virgin to be in strict truth142 the Mother of God143 . For inasmuch as He who was born of her was true God, she who bare the true God incarnate is the true mother of God. For we hold that God was born of her, not implying that the divinity of the Word received from her the beginning of its being, but meaning that God the Word Himself, Who was begotten of the Father timelessly before the ages, and was with the Father and the Spirit without beginning anti through eternity, took up His abode in these last days for the sake of our salvation in the Virgin’s womb, and was without change made flesh and born of her. For the holy Virgin did not bare mere man but true God: and not mere God but God incarnate, Who did not bring down His body from Heaven, nor simply passed through the Virgin as channel, but received from her flesh of like essence to our own and subsisting in Himself144 . For if the body had come down from heaven and had not partaken of our nature, what would have been the use of His becoming man? For the purpose of God the Word becoming man145 was that the very same nature, which had sinned and fallen and become corrupted, should triumph over the deceiving tyrant and so be freed from corruption, just as the divine apostle puts it, For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead146 . If the first is true the second must also be true.
Although147 , however, he says, The first Adam is of the earth earthy; the second Adam is Lord from Heaven148 , he does not say that His body is from heaven, but emphasises the fact that He is not mere man. For, mark, he called Him both Adam and Lord, thus indicating His double nature. For Adam is, being interpreted, earth-born: and it is clear that man’s nature is earth-born since he is formed from earth, but the title Lord signifies His divine essence.
And again the Apostle says: God sent forth His only-begotten Son, made of a woman149 . He did not say “made by a woman.” Wherefore the divine apostle meant that the only-begotten Son of God and God is the same as He who was made man of the Virgin, and that He who was born of the Virgin is the same as the Son of God and God.
But He was born after the bodily fashion inasmuch as He became man, and did not take up His abode in a man formed beforehand, as in a prophet, but became Himself in essence and truth man, that is He caused flesh animated with the intelligent and reasonable to subsist in His own subsistence, and Himself became subsistence for it. For this is the meaning of “made of a woman.” For how could the very Word of God itself have been made under the law, if He did not become man of like essence with ourselves?
Hence it is with justice and truth that we call the holy Mary the Mother of God. For this name embraces the whole mystery of the dispensation. For if she who bore Him is the Mother of God, assuredly He Who was born of her is God and likewise also man. For how could God, Who was before the ages, have been born of a woman unless He had become man? For the son of man must clearly be man himself. But if He Who was born of a woman is Himself God, manifestly He Who was born of God the Father in accordance with the laws of an essence that is divine and knows no beginning, and He Who was in the last days born of the Virgin in accordance with the laws of an essence that has beginning and is subject to time, that is, an essence which is human, must be one and the same. The name in truth signifies the one subsistence and the two natures and the two generations Of our Lord Jesus Christ.
But we never say that the holy Virgin is the Mother of Christ150 because it was in order to do away with the title Mother of God, and to bring dishonour on the Mother of God, who alone is in truth worthy of honour above all creation, that the impure and abominable Judaizing Nestorius151 , that vessel of dishonour, invented this name for an insult152 . For David the king, and Aaron, the high priest, are also called Christ153 , for it is customary to make kings and priests by anointing: and besides every God-inspired man may be called Christ. but yet be is not by nature God: yea, the accursed Nestorius insulted Him Who was born of the Virgin by calling Him God-bearer154 . May it be far from us to speak of or think of Him as God-bearer only155 , Who is in truth God incarnate. For the Word Himself became flesh, having been in truth conceived of the Virgin, but coming forth as God with the assumed nature which, as soon as He was brought forth into being, was deified by Him, so that these three things took place simultaneously, the assumption of our nature, the coming into being, and the deification of the assumed nature by the Word. And thus it is that the holy Virgin is thought of and spoken of as the Mother of God, not only because of the nature of the Word, but also because of the deification of man’s nature, the miracles of conception and of existence being wrought together, to wit, the conception the Word, and the existence of the flesh in the Word Himself. For the very Mother of God in some marvellous manner was the means of fashioning the Framer of all things and of bestowing manhood on the God and Creator of all, Who deified the nature that He assumed, while the union preserved those things that were united just as they were united, that is to say, not only the divine nature of Christ but also His human nature, not only that which is above us but that which is of us. For He was not first made like us and only later became higher than us, but ever156 from His first coating into being He existed with the double nature, because He existed in the Word Himself from the beginning of the conception. Wherefore He is human in His own nature, but also, in some marvellous manner, of God and divine. Moreover He has the properties of the living flesh: for by reason of the dispensation157 the Word received these which are, according to the order of natural motion, truly natural158 .
Chapter XIII.
Concerning the properties of the two Natures.
Confessing, then, the same Jesus Christ, our Lord, to be perfect God and perfect man, we hold that the same has all the attributes of the Father save that of being ingenerate, and all the attributes of the first Adam, save only his sin, these attributes being body and the intelligent and rational soul; and further that He has, corresponding to the two natures, the two sets of natural qualities belonging to the two natures: two natural volitions, one divine and one human, two natural, energies, one divine and one human, two natural free-wills, one divine and one human, and two kinds of wisdom and knowledge, one divine and one human. For being of like essence with God and the Father, He wills and energises freely as God, and being also of like essence with us He likewise wills and energises freely as man. For His are the miracles and His also are the passive states.
Chapter XIV.
Concerning the volitions and free-will of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Since, then, Christ has two natures, we hold that He has also two natural wills and two natural energies. But since His two natures have one subsistence, we hold that it is one and the same person who wills and energises naturally in both natures, of which, and in which, and also which is Christ our Lord: and moreover that He wills and energises without separation but as a united whole. For He wills and energises in either form in close communion with the other159 . For things that have the same essence have also the same will and energy, while things that are different in essence are different in will and energy160 ; and vice versa, things that have the same will anti energy have the same essence, while things that are different in will and energy are different in essence.
Wherefore161 in the case of the Father and Son and Holy Spirit we recognise, from their sameness in will and energy, their sameness in nature. But in the case of the divine dispensation162 we recognise from their difference in will and energy the difference of the two natures, and as we perceive the difference of the two natures we confess that the wills and energies also are different. For just as the number of the natures of one and the same Christ, when considered and spoken of with piety, do not cause a division of the one Christ but merely bring out the fact that the difference between the natures is maintained even in the union, so it is with the number of wills and energies that belong essentially to His natures. (For He was endowed with the powers of willing and energising in both natures, for the sake of our salvation) It does not introduce division: God forbid! but merely brings out the fact that the differences between them are safeguarded and preserved even in the union. For we hold that wills and energies are faculties belonging to nature, not to subsistence; I mean those faculties of will and energy by which He Who wills and energises does so. For if we allow that they belong to subsistence, we will be forced to say that the three subsistences of the Holy Trinity have different wills and different energies.
For it is to be noted163 that willing and the manner of willing are not the same thing. For to will is a faculty of nature, just as seeing is, for all men possess it; but the manner of willing does not depend on nature but on our judgment, just as does also the manner of seeing, whether well or ill. For all men do not will in the same way, nor do they all see in the same way. And this also we will grant in connection with energies. For the manner of willing, or seeing, or energising, is the mode of using the faculties of will and sight and energy, belonging only to him who uses them, and marking him off from others by the generally accepted difference.
Simple willing then is spoken of as volition or the faculty of will164 , being a rational propension165 and natural will; but in a particular way willing, or that which underlies volition, is the object of will166 , and will dependent on judgment167 . Further that which has innate in it the faculty of volition is spoken of as capable of willing168 : as for instance the divine is capable of willing, and the human in like manner. But he who exercises volition, that is to say the subsistence, for instance Peter, is spoken of as willing.
Since, then169 , Christ is one and His subsistence is one, He also Who wills both as God and as man is one and the same. And since He has two natures endowed with volition, inasmuch as they are rational (for whatever is rational is endowed with volition and free-will), we shall postulate two volitions or natural wills in Him. For He in His own person is capable of volition in accordance with both His natures. For He assumed that faculty of volition which belongs naturally to us. And since Christ, Who in His own person wills according to either nature, is one, we shall postulate the same object of will in His case, not as though He wills only those things which He willed naturally as God (for it is no part of Godhead to will to eat or drink and so forth), but as willing also those things which human nature requires for its support170 , and this without involving any opposition in judgment, but simply as the result of the individuality of the natures. For then it was that He thus willed naturally, when His divine volition so willed and permitted the flesh to suffer and do that which was proper to it.
But that volition is implanted in man by nature171 is manifest from this. Excluding the divine life, there are three forms of life: the vegetative, the sentient, and the intellectual. The properties of the vegetative life are the functions of nourishment, and growth, and production: that of the sentient life is impulse: and that of the rational and intellectual life is freedom of will. If, then, nourishment belongs by nature to the vegetative life and impulse to the sentient, freedom of will by nature belongs to the rational and intellectual life. But freedom of will is nothing else than volition. The Word, therefore, having become flesh, endowed with life and mind and free-will, became also endowed with volition.
Further, that which is natural is not the result of training: for no one learns how to think, or live, or hunger, or thirst, or sleep. Nor do we learn how to will: so that willing is natural.
And again: if in the case of creatures devoid of reason nature rules, while nature is ruled in man who is moved of his own free-will and volition, it follows, then, that man is by nature endowed with volition.
And again: if man has been made after the image of the blessed and super-essential Godhead, and if the divine nature is by nature endowed with free-will and volition, it follows that man, as its image, is free by nature and volitive172 . For the fathers defined freedom as volition173 .
And further: if to will is a part of the nature of every man and not present in some and absent in others, and if that which is seen to be common to all is a characteristic feature of the nature that belongs to the individuals of the class, surely, then, man is by nature endowed with volition174 .
And once more: if the nature receives neither more nor less, but all are equally endowed with volition and not some more than others, then by nature man is endowed with volition175 . So that since man is by nature endowed with volition, the Lord also must be by nature endowed with volition, not only because He is God, but also because He became man. For just as He assumed our nature, so also He has assumed naturally our will. And in this way the Fathers said that He formed our will in Himself176 .
If the will is not natural, it must be either hypostatic or unnatural. But if it is hypostatic, the Son must thus, forsooth, have a different will from what the Father has: for that which is hypostatic is characteristic of subsistence only. And if it is unnatural, will must be a defection from nature: for what is unnatural is destructive of what is natural.
The God and Father of all things wills either as Father or as God. Now if as Father, His will will be different from that of the Son, for the Son is not the Father. But if as God, the Son is God and likewise the Holy Spirit is God, and so volition is part of His nature, that is, it is natural.
Besides177 , if according to the view of the Fathers, those who have one and the same will have also one and the same essence, and if the divinity and humanity of Christ have one and the same will, then assuredly these have also one and the same essence.
And again: if according to the view of the Fathers the distinction between the natures is not seen in the single will, we mast either, when we speak of the one will, cease to speak of the different natures in Christ or, when we speak of the different natures of Christ, cease to speak of the one will.
And further178 , the divine Gospel says, The Lord came into the borders of Tyre and Sidon and entered into a house, and would have no man know it; but He could not be hid179 . If, then, His divine will is omnipotent, but yet, though He would, He could not be hid, surely it was as man that He would and could not, and so as man He must be endowed with volition.
And once again180 , the Gospel tells us that, He, having come into the place, said ‘I thirst’: and they gave Him same vinegar mixed with gall, and when He had tasted it fare would not drink181 . If, then, on the one hand it was as God that tie suffered thirst and when He had tasted would not drink, surely He must be subject to passion182 also as God, for thirst and taste are passions183 . But if it was not as God but altogether as man that He was athirst, likewise as man He must be endowed with volition184 .
Moreover, the blessed Paul the Apostle says, He became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross185 . But obedience is subjection of the real will, not of the unreal will. For that which is irrational is not said to be obedient or disobedient186 . But the Lord having become obedient to the Father, became so not as God but as man. For as God He is not said to be obedient or disobedient. For these things are of the things that are trader one’s band187 , as the inspired Gregorius said188 . Wherefore, then, Christ is endowed with volition as man.
While, however, we assert that will is natural, we hold not that it is dominated by necessity, but that it is free. For if it is rational, it must be absolutely free. For it is not only the divine and uncreated nature that is free from the bonds of necessity, but also the intellectual and created nature. And this is manifest: for God, being by nature good and being by nature the Creator and by nature God, is not all this of necessity. For who is there to introduce this necessity?
It is to be observed further189 , that freedom of will is used in several senses, one in connection with God, another in connection with angels, and a third in connection with men. For used in reference to God it is to be understood in a superessential manner, and in reference to angels it is to be taken in the sense that the election is concomitant with the state190 , and admits of the interposition of no interval of time at all: for while the angel possesses free-will by nature, he uses it without let or hindrance, having neither antipathy on the part of the body to overcome nor any assailant. Again, used in reference to men, it is to be taken in the sense that the state is considered to be anterior in time to the election. For than is free and has free-will by nature, but he has also the assault of the devil to impede him and the motion of the body: and thus through the assault and the weight of the batty, election comes to be later than the state.
If, then, Adam191 obeyed of his own will and ate of his own will, surely in us the will is the first part to suffer. And if the will is the first to suffer, and the Word Incarnate did not assume this with the rest of our nature, it follows that we have not been freed from sin.
Moreover, if the faculty of free-will which is in nature is His work and yet He did not assume it, He either condemned His own workmanship as not good, or grudged us the comfort it brought, and so deprived us of the full benefit, and shewed that He was Himself subject to passion since He was not willing or not able to work out our perfect salvation.
Moreover, one cannot speak of one com pound thing made of two wills in the same way as a subsistence is a composition of two natures. Firstly because the compositions are of things in subsistence (hypotasis), not of things viewed in a different category, not in one proper to them192 : and secondly, because if we speak of composition of wills and energies, we will be obliged to speak of composition of the other natural properties, such as the uncreated and the created, the invisible and the visible, and so on. And what will be the name of the will that is compounded out of two wills? For the compound cannot be called by the name of the elements that make it up. For otherwise we should call that which is compounded of natures nature and not subsistence. And further, if we say that there is one compound will in Christ, we separate Him in will from the Father, for the Father’s will is not compound. It remains, therefore, to say that the subsistence of Christ atone is compound and common, as in the case of the natures so also in that of the natural properties.
And we cannot193 , if we wish to be accurate, speak of Christ as having judgment (γνωϖμη) and preference194 . For judgment is a disposition with reference to the decision arrived at after investigation and deliberation concerning something unknown, that is to say, after counsel and decision. And after judgment comes preference195 , which chooses out and selects the one rather than the other. But the Lord being not mere man but also God, and knowing all things, had no need of inquiry. and investigation, and counsel, and decision, and by nature made whatever is good His own and whatever is bad foreign to Him196 . For thus says Isaiah the prophet, Before the child shall know to prefer the evil, he shall choose the good; because before the child knows good or evil, he refuses wickedness by choosing the good197 . For the word “before” proves that it is not with investigation and deliberation, as is the way with us, but as God and as subsisting in a divine manner in the flesh, that is to say, being united in subsistence to the flesh, and because of His very existence and all-embracing knowledge, that He is possessed of good in His own nature. For the virtues are natural qualities198 , and are implanted in all by nature and in equal measure, even if we do not all in equal measure employ our natural energies. By the transgression we were driven from the natural to the unnatural199 . But the Lord led us back from the unnatural into the natural200 . For this is what is the meaning of in our image, after our likeness201 . And the discipline and trouble of this life were not designed as a means for our attaining virtue which was foreign to our nature, but to enable us to cast aside the evil that was foreign and contrary to our nature: just as on laboriously removing from steel the rust which is not natural to it but acquired through neglect, we reveal the natural brightness of the steel.
Observe further that the word judgment (γνωϖμη) is used in many ways and in many senses. Sometimes it signifies exhortation: as when the divine apostle says, Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord; yet I give my judgment202 : sometimes it means counsel, as when the prophet David says, They have taken crafty counsel against Thy people203 : sometimes it means a decree, as when we read in Daniel, Concerning whom (or, what) went this shameless decree forth204 ? At other times it is used in the sense of belief, or opinion, or purpose, and, to put it shortly, the word judgment has twenty-eight205 different meanings.
Footnotes
115 Another allegation of the Severian party is in view here. see Leont., De Sect., Act. 7, Contr. Nestor. et Eutych. I.; John of Dam., Dialect. 29.
116 Leont., De sect., Act 7.
117 Dam., Epist. ad Jord. Archim.
118 Text, bla/sfhmon. Variant, blasfhmi/an.
119 Text, bla/sfhmon. Variant, blasfhmi/an.
120 1 Cor. viii. 5.
121 These words which refer to the Holy Spirit are absent in R. 2930 and in I Cor. viii., but are present in other Codices and in Basil, De Spirit. Sancto, and in Greg. Nazianz., Orat. 39, and further in the Damascene himself Parallel, and elsewhere, and could not be omitted here.
122 Orat. 39.
123 Rom. xi. 36.
124 Vid. Epist. ad Jordan.
125 Orat. 42. at the beginning.
126 Epist. ad Petrum Fullonem; Theoph., Ad Arn. 5930.
127 See Niceph. Call., Hist. xviii. 51.
128 Conc. Chal., Act. I, at the end.
129 In Cod. S. Hil. is written above the line h! qehla/tou o0rgh=j pau/sei, which explains the author's meaning.
130 Niceph. Call., Hist. xviii. 51, speaks of this Hymn and also the fw=j i0laro/n as coming from the Apostles themselves. The writer of the Life of Basil supposed to be Amphilochius of Iconium, declares that the Trisagium was recited by Basil at Nicaea.
131 h@ yilh= qewri/a katanoei=tai.
132 This division is absent in some copies and is not restored in the old translation, but is not superfluous.
133 St. John i. 14.
134 tou= sidh/rou is absent in some codices and also in the old translation.
135 th\n oi0konomi0an, the incarnation.
136 h0 kaq1 h0ma/j ou0si/a.
137 Supr. ch. 6 and 7
138 Leont., De sect. Act. 8.
139 Cyril, Defens. II., Anath. cont. Thoed.
140 o0 Qeo\j morfou=rai, h!toi ou0sioutai to\ a0llo/trion. Gregory of Nazianzum in his Carmen used the term ou0siou=sqai of the word after the assumption of our nature. See also Dionys., De div. nom., ch. 2 ; Ep. ad Carmen, 4 ; &c.
141 Dion., De div. nom., ch. 8.
142 See especially Greg. Naz., Ep. I ad Cled.; Theod., Haer. fab., v. 18.
143 Greg. Naz., Epist. I. ad Cledon.
144 Ibid.
145 Infr. ch. 18.
146 1 Cor. xv. 21.
147 Greg. Naz., ibid.
148 1 Cor. xv. 47.
149 Gal. iv. 4.
150 xristoto/koj, as opposed to qeoto/koj.
151 Cyril, ad Monachos, Epist. I.
152 w0j e0phreazome/nhn is absent in Vegelinus.
153 i.e. Anointed One.
154 qeofo/roj, Deigerus. See Greg. Naz., Ep. 2, ad Cied. Basil, De Spir. Sanc., ch. 5, &c.
155 Cyril, cont. Nest., bk. I.
156 a0ei/ is absent in Vegelinus.
157 oi0konomi/aj lo/gw, by reason of the incarnation.
158 Reading gino/mena, for which Cod. R. 2930 gives u9ph=rxon.
159 Leo, Epist. 10, ad Flavian.
160 Max., Disp. cum Pyrrho.
161 Supr., bk. ii. ch. 22.
162 oi0konomi/aj. incarnation.
163 Max., Dial. cum Pyrrho ; Anast. in 9Odhgo/j, ch. 6, p. 40.
164 to\ me/n a0plw=j qe\leinm qe/lhsij, h!toi h0 qelhtikh\ du/namij.
165 o!recij.
166 qe/lhton, willed, the thing willed.
167 qe/lhma gnwmiko/n. dispositional volition, will of judgment.
168 qelhtiko/n, volitive. volitivum. volitive, is the Scholastic translation qelhtiko/n.
169 Max., Dial. cum Pyrrh.
170 Max., ibid.
171 Max., ibid.
172 qelhtiko/j, endowed with volition.
173 qe/lhsij, will.
174 qelhtiko/j.
175 qelhtiko/j.
176 kai\ kata\ tou=to oi0 Pate/rej to\ h0me/teron e0n e0autw= tupw=sai au0to=n e!fhsan qe/lhma: and according to this the Fathers said that He typified, moulded, had the form of our will in Himself.
177 Greg. Nyss., Cont. Apollin and others, Act. 10, sext. syn.
178 Max., Agatho pap. Epist. Syn. in VI Syn., Act. 4.
179 St. Mark vii. 24
180 Max., ibid.
181 St. Matt. xxvii. 33 and 34; St. John xix. 28 and 29
182 e0mpaqh/j, passible, sensible, possessed of sensibility.
183 pa/qoj, sensibility.
184 In N. is added: kai\ ei\ e\n th= h0me/ra to= pa/qouj le/gei 9 Pa/ter, ei0 dunato\n, parelqe/tw to\ poth/rion touto a0p0 e0mou=. Plh\n ou0x w0j e0gw\ qe/lw, a0ll 9 w0j su/. 'Idou= du/o qelh/seij, qei>\kh\ a!ma kai\ a0nqrwpi/nh.
185 Phil. ii. 8.
186 Max., ut supr.
187 tw=n u0po\ xei=ra ga\r tau=ta.
188 Orat. 36, some distance from the beginning.
189 Max., Disp. cum Pyrrh.
190 w0j suntrexou/shj tq e!xei th=j proxeiri/sewj, the choice, or decision, being synchronous with the moral disposition.
191 Max., Disp. cum Pyrrh.
192 prw=ton me\n, o!ti ai0 sunqe/seij tw=n e0n u9posta/sei o!ntwn, kai\ ou0 tw=n e0te/rw lo/gw, kai\ ou0 iudi/w qewroume/nwn ei0si/.
193 Max., Dial. cum Pyrrh.
194 Max., Epist. ad marin.
195 proai/resij.
196 Basil, on Ps. xliv., or rather on Isiah vii.
197 Is. vii. 16, sec. LXX.
198 Fusikai\ men ga/r ei0sin ai9 a0retai/; cf. Cicero, De leg. I.
199 Supr., bk. ii., ch. 30.
200 Max., Dial. cum Pyrrh.
201 Gen. i. 26.
202 1Cor. vii. 25.
203 Ps. lxxiii. 3.
204 Dan. ii. 15. peri\ ti/noj d0ch=lqen h0 gnw/mh h9 a0naidh\j au!th. In our A.V., Why is the decree so hasty from the king?
205 Text, kata\ ei!kosi o0ktw;: Variants, kata\ koinou=, kata\ polu/, secunda multa (old trans.), and secundum plurima (Faber). Maximus gave 28 meanings of gnw/mh.