A.A.Vaschalde, Three Letters of Philoxenus (1902). pp.1-80. Part 1.

PART FIRST
INTRODUCTION.

CHAPTER I. THE LIFE OF PHILOXENUS.

Sources.

1. The material available for a biography of Philoxenus is not very abundant. Little is known, especially
of his early life. Yet he was a prominent leader in the great movement which took place in Syria in the
fifth and sixth centuries against the doctrines of Nestorius and Eutyches, and against the decrees of the
Council of Chalcedon, a movement which resulted in the peculiar heresy known by the name of
Monophysitism in specie (1) or Jacobite Monophysitism (2).

The few facts which we possess regarding Philoxenus' career are derived from sources which may be
divided into two classes: Syriac and non-Syriac. The principal non-Syriac sources consist of short
passages in the works of Theodore the Reader ( 3), |2 Victor Tununensis (4), Evagrius (5), Theophanes (6),
and Cedrenus (7). These writers, however, do not always present independent testimony, for some of them
often merely copied their predecessors (8).

The Syriac sources are also very fragmentary. The Vatican Syriac Ms. 155 (Codex Syr. noster XVI of
Assemani) contains a biographical notice on Philoxenus by an unknown author. This is the document
from which Assemani took the four extracts he gives in his sketch of Philoxenus' life (B. O., II, pp. 10, 13,
17, 20) (9). We publish it in extenso in Appendix I, and shall refer to it as the Anonymous Notice. It does
not add much to what we already know. Scattered bits of information about Philoxenus are found here
and there in Syriac authors, especially in the Letter of Simon of Beth-Arscham concerning Barsauma,
bishop of Nisibis (10), in the Edessene Chronicle (11), in the so-called Chronicle of Joshua the Stylite ( 12), in
the writings of Jacob of Edessa (13), and in the Ecclesiastical History of Bar-Hebraeus (14). The published
writings of Philoxenus and the three letters which, for the first time, are given in this dissertation, supply
us with a few important data, and it is probable that much valuable information might be gathered from
his other works, but, unfortunately, they still remain unedited. |3

It is not within the scope of the present chapter to discuss all the different sources which have been
enumerated; but it is sufficient to show that the information which we obtain from Syriac documents and
from the writings of Philoxenus himself, sometimes confirms or supplements, and sometimes corrects or
contradicts the testimony derived from non-Syriac sources.

Early Life of Philoxenus.

2. We are entirely ignorant of the year of the birth of Philoxenus; but as he studied at Edessa in the time of Ibas ( 15),
bishop of that city from 435 to 457 (16), and was still living in 522 (17), it is safe to assume that he was born in the
second quarter of the fifth century.
Theodore the Reader, Evagrius, and after them, Theophanes and Cedrenus, inform us that Philoxenus was of Persian
origin (18). Their testimony is confirmed by Simon of Beth-Arscham and by the writer of the anonymous notice.
They give the additional information that Philoxenus was born at Tahal, a village in the province of Beth-Garmai
(19). The anonymous notice says: «Philoxenus, bishop of Mabbôgh, wise in God and illustrious by his science, is the
same as Mär Aksenäyä who is famous for his writings. He was born in the village of Tahal, in the country of the
Persians»(20). Nothing is known of his |4 parents; he had a brother named Addai who studied with him at Edessa(21).

In a fragment of Theodore the Eeader (22), it is related that some bishops from Persia visited Philoxenus after he had
been appointed to the see of Mabbôgh, and recognized in him a slave who had run away from his master and had
never been baptized. This they told to Peter the Fuller who had consecrated him bishop; but Peter, caring little what
ought to be done, replied that the episcopal consecration was sufficient to take the place of baptism. This accusation
is also made by Theophanes (23) and Cedrenus (24), and, in modern times, is repeated by the judicious Tillemont (25)
and the learned Le Quien (26).

We have no means of determining whether Philoxenus was born a slave or a free man; but there is abundant proof
that he was baptized. The testimony of Theophanes and Cedrenus, and the opinion of Tillemont and Le Quien, need
not be considered here, for they evidently rest on the authority of Theodore. Now Theodore gives his information on
mere hearsay, and does not confirm it by any written or public document. He says: «Concerning him (Philoxenus), I
shall relate in part many things which I learned from different men through diligent inquiry» ( 27). Evagrius does not
say that Philoxenus was unbaptized, and his silence is very eloquent here, for he had received his information
concerning Philoxenus from old men who had seen with their own eyes, and remembered well everything that
happened in Antioch in the days of Flavian, with whom Philoxenus |5 was continually at war (28). Again, the monks
of Palestine, in their famous letter to Alcison, bishop of Nicopolis in Illyria, accuse Philoxenus of various crimes,
but they make no allusion to the question of his baptism (29).

But, besides this negative evidence, it can be shown from Philoxenus' own writings that he had received the
sacrament of baptism. In his Letter to Zeno, he says: «I was baptized, therefore, in the name of Him Who died, and I
confess that He in Whose name I was baptized, died for me, and I believe that I have put on in baptism Him in
Whose name and in Whose death I was baptized, according to the words of Paul. For I have put on spiritually in the
waters (of baptism) the Spiritual Being Who became corporal, and I confess that He Who, living, experienced death
in the flesh, is He Who raises (the dead) and gives life»(30). And again, in the same letter, he writes: «In saying
anathema to these doctrines (of Nestorius and Eutyches), I act according to the Holy Books, and adhere to the
tradition of the Fathers from whom I have received the true and apostolic faith, that faith by which I have been
found worthy, with all the baptized, of life, of freedom, and of adoption» (31). We have no reason then to doubt the
fact of Philoxenus' baptism, Assemani is probably right when he says that the assertion of Theodore the Reader is a
calumny invented by the orthodox, «ab orthodoxis in odium flagitiosissimi hominis adjectum fuisse»( 32); and, as this
last sentence shows, Assemani cannot be suspected of partiality towards Philoxenus. |6

Philoxenus at Edessa.

3. At a comparatively early age Philoxenus, accompanied by his brother Addai (33), came to the Persian school of
Edessa which was then, and had been from the time of its foundation in 363, the most prominent center of
intellectual and literary activity among the Syrians (34). St. Ephrem taught ten years there (363-373) (35), and in its
halls were trained some of the greatest masters of Syriac literature (36). As may be inferred from the many Syriac
translations from the Greek which have come down to us, the writings of the Greek Fathers ( 37) and the teachings of
Aristotle (38) were held in high esteem by that famous school, and the influence of both on Philoxenus is plainly
noticeable (39). |7 It is there that he became acquainted with the patristic lore of the age, and especially with the works
of Cyril of Alexandria for whom he always professed the greatest admiration. His knowledge of the Fathers must
have been considerable, for in his treatise «How One Person of the Holy Trinity became incarnate and suffered for
us», he quotes passages not only from SS. Ephrem and Cyril, but also from St. John Chrysostom, Eusebius of
Emesa, Alexander and Theophilus of Alexandria, St. Athanasius, St. Basil, St. Gregory of Nazianzen and Atticus of
Constantinople (40). It is partly from the works of those great masters that Philoxenus derived the wealth of
theological terms and expressions for which his writings are remarkable. These terms and expressions do not imply
a servile imitation of Greek literature, for his style and vocabulary are distinctly Syriac (41); they rather account for
his deep knowledge of the principal religious works of the times, and his wonderful power and skill as a
controversialist.

Philoxenus was influenced also by the philosophy of Aristotle. As the examination of his doctrines will show, his
theological opinions reflect the tendencies of the school of Antioch, in which the teachings of the Stagyrite held
sway, no less than those of the school of Alexandria which recognized Plato as its master. This is particularly true of
his views on the Incarnation. Like the Alexandrian Monophysites, he admits only one nature in Christ after the
union and dwells on the mysterious union of the two natures and on the necessity of faith in all |8 questions relating
to the Incarnation of the Son of God; but, with the followers of the school of Antioch, he insists on the reality of
Christ's humanity and its consubstantiality with ours, rejects the Gnostic and Eutychian theories on the origin of the
body of the Lord, and teaches explicitly that Christ suffered in the flesh, that is, only in so far as He became man.
Indeed, he hurled anathemas against Eutyches as freely as he did against the Nestorians and against the Catholics
who received the decrees of the Council of Chalcedon.

But the school of Edessa was more than a home of science and literature; it had become the center of the religious
polemics of the times. Naturally enough, it could not remain indifferent to the great christological questions which
occupied the minds of both the clergy and the people, and which were discussed with as much ardor in the imperial
palace at Constantinople as in churches and monasteries. Nestorian opinions were being spread broadcast and found
their way into this famous school. St. Rabbula, who was bishop of Edessa from 412 to 435 (42), after having,
according to some, looked with favor upon the new doctrines (43), fought with energy against them as soon as he
understood that they were subversive of Catholic faith. He was one of the strongest supporters of Cyril of
Alexandria at the Council of Ephesus (431) (44), and he translated into Syriac (45) Cyril's De recta fide in Dominum
Nostrum J. C., which he distributed on all sides in the hope of checking the progress of error. But the seeds of the
new heresy had taken deep root. Rabbula's successor, Ibas (435-457), was openly favorable to Nestorius. In
collaboration with Koumi, Probus, and Mane, all disciples of the Persian school, he had, in his youth, translated |9
the works of Theodore of Mopsuestia and of Diodorus of Tarsus (46); and when Philoxenus came to Edessa, the great
school had become a hotbed of Nestorianism and remained such up to the time of its destruction by order of
Emperor Zeno in 489 (47).

However, not all the students shared the opinions of Ibas. Among those who disagreed with Mm, Simon of Beth-
Arscham mentions Philoxenus of Mabbôg, and his testimony is well borne out by Philoxenus' subsequent career,
for, during more than sixty years, he waged an incessant war against the doctrines of Nestorius. Under the name of
Nestorians he also included Catholics and all those who maintained two natures in Christ; for, confounding the
notions of nature and person, he did not admit a middle course between the Nestorian heresy and the Catholic
doctrine. This explains why, in the same breath, he anathematizes not only Nestorius and Ibas, but also Pope Leo I,
Leo's dogmatic epistle to Flavian of Constantinople, and the definition of the Council of Chalcedon (48), He refers to
Catholics as the Nestorian heretics (49), for not admitting two persons as well as two natures in Christ.

His Struggle with Calandion.

4. But Philoxenus, as he tells us in his Letter to the Monks (50), did not keep his faith to himself. It is probable that, |
10 after his departure from the Persian school, he travelled through Northern Mesopotamia and the Osrhoene
province, spreading his Monophysite doctrines and enlisting the sympathy and help of those who agreed with him.
The fact that he wrote letters to the Monks of Amid (51), of Arzun (52), and of Senun (53), would confirm this view,
and such is also the inference which may be drawn from his first Letter to the Monks of Bêth-Gaugal, one of the
many monasteries in the neighborhood of Amid (54). This important letter, as will be shown later on, was written in
the year 485. It proves beyond all doubt that Philoxenus was well known by the monks there. The tone of the letter,
the nature of its contents, the praises which he bestows upon their labors on behalf of truth, and the bitterness with
which he speaks of his enemies, show not only that the Monks of Bêth-Gaugal agreed with him on matters of
doctrine, but that he had in them willing and powerful allies ready to help his cause and to further his plans.
However the labors of Philoxenus were not confined to the territory around Edessa and Amid. He must have come
west of the Euphrates into Syria Prima before the year 485; for, according to Theodore the Reader, Evagrius,
Theophanes, and Cedrenus, he was expelled from Antioch by the patriarch Calandion |11 (482-485), for corrupting
the doctrines of the Church and disturbing the villages near the great city (55).
We have here a manifest allusion to his proselytizing work on behalf of Monophysitism and to the crusade he had
already undertaken against the Nestorians and against the adherents of the Council of Chalcedon. The times were
indeed favorable to his schemes. Zeno and Acacius, patriarch of Constantinople, were at war with the Holy See. The
famous Henoticon of 482, which was to restore unity to the divided churches, had become a decree of discord (56). It
offended the Catholics, because it spoke in equivocal terms of the faith of the Fathers of Chalcedon; and it did not
satisfy the extreme Eutychians, because it did not condemn explicitly the doctrine of the two natures. The proud
Acacius acted as if the pretensions of the 28th canon of Chalcedon, which made Constantinople the second see of
the catholic world (57), had been recognized by Rome. He persuaded Zeno to depose John Talaia from the see of
Alexandria and to appoint Peter Mongus in his stead (58). Contrary to the discipline of the Church, he appointed the
heretic bishop, John Codonatus, to the diocese of Tyre, thereby usurping the rights of the patriarch of Antioch (59).
Moreover, he endeavored to induce all the bishops of the East to sign the Henoticon and to communicate with
Mongus (60). Deaf to the remonstrances of the Holy See, he was excommunicated by Felix III (61), and his
excommunication marked the beginning of the Eastern schism (484-519) during which Constantinople was cut off
from the communion of Rome. |12

Such a deplorable condition of affairs helped Philoxenus' designs. Besides, he had grievances of his own against
Calandion. This holy patriarch was a zealous defender of the decrees of the Council of Chalcedon; he persistently
refused to sign the Henoticon of Zeno (62); he would not separate himself from the communion of Rome nor
acknowledge the usurper Mongus as the lawful patriarch of Alexandria (63); he had inserted the words «Christ King»
into the Trisagion of Peter the Fuller, so as to refer the crucifixion explicitly to Christ alone ( 64); in a word,
Calandion was then one of the standard bearers of the Catholic faith in Syria, and a staunch opponent of
Monophysitism. Philoxenus, who had already espoused the cause of the Monophysites, became his bitter enemy.
Nor was he alone in the struggle. It is indeed very probable that he was assisted by the monks of Teleda (65), and of
Mar Bassus (66), two famous monasteries in the neighborhood of Antioch. We know from his letters to the Monks of
Teleda and of Senün, that he had been in the monasteries of Mar Bassus and of Teleda, where the monks shared his
opinions. It is possible that he was making an active propaganda among them. At any rate, Calandion, discerning in
him an enemy of the faith and a disturber of the peace of the Church, expelled him from his diocese ( 67). But this
triumph was not of long duration; for, under pretext of having favored Leontius in his revolt against Zeno, but in
reality for refusing to sign the Henoticon (68) and to communicate with Mongus (69), Calandion |13 was banished to
Egypt and the see of Antioch passed for the third time into the hands of Peter the Fuller (70).

After this, it would be natural to suppose that Philoxenus was connected in some way with the deposition of
Calandion. His first Letter to the Monks of Beth-Gaugal seems to warrant this supposition. He says: «And the same
friend of Christ (the Emperor) has openly declared that he gained the victory over his enemies with (the help of)
your prayers, and he is ready to give us ample reward for the work which we have undertaken for the peace of the
churches, and to drive away from them the enemies of the Cross» (71).

His Appointment to Mabbôg.

5. The nature of the reward to which Philoxenus alludes here can only be a matter of conjecture. It is worthy of
notice, however, that in the year 485, shortly after the exile of Calandion and the intrusion of Peter the Fuller into
the see of Antioch, Philoxenus was, by the latter, consecrated bishop and appointed to the diocese of Hierapolis or
Mabbôgh (72) in the |14 patriarchate of Antioch. It was on this occasion that his name was changed from Aksenäyä to
Philoxenus (73).

The anonymous notice (74) places Philoxenus' consecration in the year 800 of the Greeks (A. D. 488), but this is
certainly an error. Church historians (75) agree in saying that Philoxenus came to Mabbôgh in 485, and their
testimony is confirmed by a passage in Philoxenus' Letter to the Monks of Senün written in the year 522 from
Philippopolis in Thrace, where he had been exiled by Justin. Speaking of Alexander, his successor in the see of
Mabbôgh, he says: «The clergy and the monks of our city have been ordered by him who rules over them to accept
his (Alexander's) faith. As to our faith, which is that of Peter and of the Apostles, and which during thirty-four years
I have preached to them in all ecclesiastical assemblies, they are commanded by him to look upon it as the heresy of
the Manicheans» (76). From the Edessene Chronicle (77) we know that Philoxenus was exiled in the second year of
Justin (519). If we subtract thirty-four from this latter date, we get 485 as the year of his appointment to Mabbôgh. It
was probably in the same year that he accepted the Henoticon which, under the reigns of Zeno and Anastasius, had
to be signed by all the bishops of the East under penalty of exile (78), and which was then, as Tillemont remarks, the
only door to the episcopate (79).

Very little is known concerning the next thirteen years of Philoxenus' life. There is no doubt that he continued his
opposition to the doctrines of Nestorius and Eutyches and propagated his religious views in his vast province. It is
also |15 possible, as Budge observes, that during this time «he wrote parts or all of many of the works which have
made his name so famous among Monophysite writers» (80). The Letter to Zeno was written probably in 485 when
he signed the Henoticon. The Discourses on Christian life and character were composed, according to Budge (81),
between 485 and 500. We may also place within the same period the beginning of his translation of the Bible which
was published at Mabbôgh in 508 (82). His discourses show that in the midst of turmoil and strife he found time for
meditation and study; they contain no allusion whatever to the disputes and controversies in which he was engaged
for the greater part of his life.

According to the so-called Chronicle of Joshua the Stylite (83), Philoxenus was in Edessa in May 498. The Saturnalia
were being celebrated there for the second time. During seven days the citizens gave themselves up to all kinds of
games and pleasures with the consequence that prayer and divine service were neglected. The pious author of the
Chronicle remarks that Philoxenus preached only one day against the scandal, though he especially should have
taken upon himself the duty of instructing the people.

His Struggle with Flavian.

6. In the year 498 Palladius, the Monophysite patriarch of Antioch, died and was succeeded by Flavian II. The latter
passed for being an opponent of the Council of Chalcedon (84), and this is probably the reason why he was appointed
by |16 Anastasius to that important see. After his accession, however, he declared himself in favor of the Council,
renounced the communion of the patriarch of Alexandria (85), and united himself with Macedonius of Constantinople
and with Elias of Jerusalem. This change of policy drew upon him the opposition of Philoxenus, and thus began
between the two a struggle which, with some interruptions, lasted for nearly fourteen years (499-513).

It was probably in the interest of his party and to protest to Anastasius against Flavian's appointment that Philoxenus
went twice to Constantinople, as we learn from his Letter to the Monks of Senûn, in which he complains of the
persecutions he suffered at the hands of his enemies: «What I have suffered from Flavian and Macedonius, who
were archbishops of Antioch and of the capital, and before them from Calandion, is known and spoken of
everywhere. I keep silence concerning what was plotted against me in the time of the Persian war among the nobles
by the care of him who is called Flavian the heretic, and what happened to me in Edessa, and in the country of the
Apameans, and in that of the Antiochians when I was in the monastery of the blessed Mar Bassus, and also in
Antioch; and again, when I went up to the capital on two occasions, the like things were done unto me by the
Nestorian heretics (86)».

The first of these visits to the capital is believed to have taken place in 499 (87). Victor Tununensis relates that a
council was held at Constantinople in that year under the presidency of Flavian and Philoxenus. At the demand of
Anastasius, the council anathematized Diodorus of Tarsus, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theodoret of Cyrus, Ibas of
Edessa, Andrew of Samosata, Eleutherius of Tyana, Cyrus of Hierapolis, John of Cyrrhus, and all those who
admitted two natures in Christ and did not |17 confess that one of the Trinity was crucified, also Leo of Rome and his
dogmatic epistle, and the Council of Chalcedon (88). It is probable that Victor anticipates here the course of events,
and places in the year 499 what, according to Theophanes and Evagrius, took place later on. It is hardly reasonable
to suppose that a council could be held from which Macedonius, the patriarch of Constantinople (496-511), would
have been excluded; still less, that Flavian would have consented to preside over a council in company with his
enemy. Doubtless Victor refers here to another council (89) which was held at Constantinople in 498, to bring about a
reconciliation between some monasteries of the city and the principal church from which they had separated
themselves on account of Acacius and of the Henoticon. Whatever may have happened during Philoxenus' first visit
to the capital, it is certain that his differences with Flavian were not settled. The Persian war (502-505), which
caused untold misery and destruction in Syria and Mesopotamia, and in Philoxenus' own province, interrupted for a
while the struggle between them. But it was renewed in 507 (90) with more bitterness than ever. From the passage
quoted above it would appear that Flavian had sought to influence the nobles, probably the Roman officials of the
country, against Philoxenus. Certain it is that the latter began to accuse Flavian of Nestorianism. After Flavian had
anathematized Nestorius and his doctrine, Philoxenus insisted that he should also anathematize Diodorus of Tarsus,
Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theodoret of Cyrus, Ibas of Edessa, Cyrus of Hierapolis, Eleutherius of Tyana, and John
of Cyrrhus, and told him that he would continue to regard him as a Nestorian, unless he condemned all these men
together with their |18 doctrines (91). To bring greater pressure to bear upon him, Philoxenus enlisted the help of the
Acephali of Egypt, and of Eleusins of Sasima and Nicias of Laodicea, all of whom shared his opposition to Flavian
(92). Coming again to Constantinople, Philoxenus sought the help of the Emperor with the result that in 509
Anastasius tried to force Flavian to sign the Henoticon a second time (93) and to condemn all the bishops whom
Philoxenus had mentioned. Flavian convoked a provincial synod, and sent to the Emperor a letter in which, for the
sake of peace, he confirmed the first three Councils and anathematized the persons named by Philoxenus, but did not
speak of the Council of Chalcedon. With this procedure, however, Philoxenus was not satisfied, and he demanded
that Flavian and Elias of Jerusalem, Flavian's friend, should condemn the Council of Chalcedon and all those who
admitted two natures in Christ (94). He then joined hands with Soterichus of Cappadocia and appealed again to
Anastasius, who gave orders for a council to meet at Sidon, 511-512 (95). Flavian and Elias were both present, and
Philoxenus and Soterichus presided. We do not know exactly what took place there (96). Through the efforts of
Flavian and Elias the Council of Chalcedon was not anathematized, and the council of Sidon was dismissed without
anything being done against them. Thereupon, Philoxenus wrote to the Emperor accusing the two bishops of having
acted hypocritically (97). Seeing that his efforts to dispossess Flavian of the see of Antioch had failed, he bribed the
monks of Cynegica and those of Syria Prima to rush into the city and to make Flavian anathematize the Council of
Chalcedon (98). |19 But the inhabitants, who were devoted to Flavian, rose up in arms against the monks, slew many
of them, and cast their bodies into the Orontes. In a moment of weakness, and perhaps to avoid further bloodshed,
Flavian pronounced anathema against the Council of Chalcedon, and the four bishops, Diodorus, Theodore, Ibas,
and Theodoret (99). But Philoxenus accused him again of insincerity, and Flavian was banished to Petra in Palestine
(Palaestina IIIa) (100), and the Monophysite monk Severus was appointed patriarch in his stead (101).

His Exile and Death.

7. Philoxenus did not long enjoy the fruits of victory. The Emperor Anastasius, his protector and friend, died in 518
and was succeeded by the orthodox Justin I. One of the first acts of the new ruler was to unite his efforts with those
of Pope Hormisdas in bringing about a reconciliation between the East and the West. Communion with Rome was
solemnly reestablished on Easter Sunday, March 24, 519 (102), and thus ended the schism which for thirty-five years
had been a menace to the Church and to the Empire. The orthodox bishops who had been deposed under Zeno and
Anastasius were restored to their sees, and the recalcitrant Monophysites sent into exile. Among the latter
Theophanes mentions Philoxenus and his neighbor Peter ot Apamea (103).

Philoxenus was first banished to Philippopolis in Thrace. It is from there that he wrote his Letter to the Monks of
Senün, and probably also his Letter to the Monks of Teleda, |20 two of the most important of his dogmatic works. In
both of them he condemns the errors of Nestorius and Eutyches, and shows clearly that the sufferings and privations
of his exile did not change the opinions for which he had been fighting since he left Edessa over half a century
before. From Philippopolis he was brought to Gangra(104) in Paphlagonia, where he was murdered, probably in 523.

The anonymous notice (105) gives the following account of his death: «And when he (Philoxenus) had filled the
Church with divine teachings and had interpreted the Books, and refuted the faith of the Nestorians by his writings
against them, they cast him into exile in the city of Gangra and suffocated him with smoke. They shut him up in an
upper chamber, and made smoke in the room below, and locked the doors. And thus he received the crown of
martyrdom, being suffocated by them in the true confession».

Various Judgments on Philoxenus.

8. Such was the death of Philoxeuus. Very different judgments have been passed on this remarkable man. The
Jacobites honor him as a martyr and saint. They celebrate his memory on the tenth of December, the eighteenth of
February and the first of April (106), and, in the profession of faith exacted in the Jacobite Church from candidates to
ordination, he is ranked among the holy Doctors and Fathers who preserved the faith of the first three Councils (107).
The historians of the Byzantine period |21 regard him as the vilest of men, a slave of Satan (108), and a stranger to God
(109). They accuse him of never having been baptized, and see in him a Manichean and the author of the heresy of the
Iconoclasts. There is evidently a great deal of exaggeration on both sides and, as Budge remarks, «it is probable that
we must make some allowance for the hostility of those to whose lot it has fallen to describe his life» ( 110).

It is certain that Philoxenus was baptized, if the evidence derived from his works is worth anything. His doctrine on
the Incarnation does not bear out the charge of Manicheism; moreover, in some of his writings (111), he explicitly
rejects the teachings of Mani and of Marcion. That he was an Iconoclast is not proved, and the passage adduced by
Assemani (112) to confirm the testimony of Theophanes is far from conclusive. It is beyond question, however, that
Philoxenus was always a bitter enemy not only of the doctrines of Nestorius and Eutyches, but also of the definition
of the Council of Chalcedon which he regarded as confirming the heresy of Nestorius. It is also certain that he
resorted to violent means to deprive Flavian of the episcopal throne of Antioch. Yet he seems to have been sincere in
his opposition. From the Letter of the Monks of Palestine to Alcison, bishop of Nicopolis, it would appear that,
according to some, Philoxenus was moved to attack Flavian by what seemed to him the interests of the faith ( 113). In
his Letter to the Monks of Beth-Gaugal, Philoxenus thus rebukes his adversaries: «I fight for the common faith, and
thou settest thyself against me with |22 the heretics. I toil and work day and night that the truth which was delivered
to the Church may not be changed, and I direct the weapons of argument against those who deny the Cross, and thou
insultest me (saying), «Hold thy tongue, let them do what they wish». They want me to be silent lest I should expose
their doctrines, and thou, with them, wantest me to remain silent. I hasten to root out division and to end the schism
which they have caused in the faith, and thou de-clarest publicly that I am the cause of the division. They began a
tumult, introduced a novelty, and disturbed the peace of all the churches, and thou considerest me as the author of
the disturbance» (114). In his Letter to the Monks of Teleda. written during his exile, he says that he expects eternal
life on account of the persecution to which he is being subjected: «If death should come to me on account of this
truth, I believe that I shall receive life from it. And not only (the words) seducer and corruptor and other opprobrious
names am I ready to hear for this doctrine, but I am also ready to suffer fire and beasts, and different kinds of
torments, and persecutions without number» (115). And notwithstanding all this, he asks the prayers of the monks that
his own enemies may be converted and see the truth: «Let us pray for them that they may repent, and may be found
by the truth which seeks to find them; that their eyes may be opened so that they will see what they are doing and
whom they persecute» (116).

But if historians and scholars differ in their judgment of the character of Philoxenus, they all agree in regarding him
as one of the brightest stars of Syriac literature. Jacob of Edessa (117), whom the Syrians call The Interpreter, ranks
him among the |23 four great Syriac Doctors, putting him on an equal footing with St. Ephrem, Jacob of Serugh, and
Isaac of Antioch. Bar-Hebraeus calls him «a most eloquent man and wonderful doctor who attacked mightily the
party of the Dyophysites, and set forth healthy doctrines concerning the holy way of monastic life» (118). The
moderns are no less lavish in their praise and admiration. Assemani, who pronounces a very severe judgment on
Philoxenus' character, calling him «a most corrupt man» (119), «a most pernicious heretic» (120), who would have
devastated the Church of God like a wild boar (121), confesses that he wrote Syriac most elegantly: «Scripsit Syriace,
si quis alius, elegantissime» (122). The late Prof. Wright of Cambridge, who won for himself universal fame as a
Syriac scholar, says that Philoxenus was not only a man of strife and action, but an elegant writer as well ( 123). Prof.
Guidi, of Rome, in his beautiful edition of the Letter of Philoxenus to the Monks of Teleda, also contributes his
share of praise to the purity, eloquence and force of the style of Philoxenus: «Il suo valore letterario è incontrastato;
ed in lui la squisita purità délia lingua non è inferiore all'eloquenza ed alla forza dello stile» (124). And it is gratifying
to add that the three letters, which are published in this volume, fully confirm the universal judgment of scholars as
to the literary merits of Philoxenus, and give us, besides, a new proof of the dialectical skill and theological learning
of that famous Monophysite. |24

CHAPTER II. THE PUBLISHED WORKS OF PHILOXENUS.

Philoxenus was one of the most prolific writers of his age. When we think of the troubled condition of his life, and
of the constant struggle that he waged against the doctrines of Nestorius and Eutyches, and against the definition of
the Council of Chalcedon, it is indeed marvelous that he should have found time to write so large a number of
works. They are preserved mostly in the libraries of the British Museum, of Oxford, Rome, and Paris ( 125). They deal
with a great variety of topics, and may be classified under four principal heads: Scripture, liturgy, asceticism and
dogma. Outside of a hymn on the Nativity of Our Lord (the authenticity of which is doubtful for it has also been
attributed to Severus of Antioch and to John bar Aphthon) (126), they are all written in prose, and, as ancients and
moderns agree, they are among the best specimens of the golden age of Syriac literature. Unfortunately, the majority
of them are still unpublished. Until the year 1873, in which Martin edited in his |25 Syro-Chaldaicae Institutions (127)
the text of the Letter to Abu-Nafir, nothing was known of the writings of Philoxenus, except a Latin translation of
two of his Anaphoras by Renaudot (128), and the brief extracts given of several of his works in the Bibliotheca
Orientalis of Assemani (129). We give here a review of all the published works of Philoxenus, as we had to make use
of some of them in the exposition of his doctrines.

I.

The Discourses and other Texts.

9. The Discourses of Philoxenus on Christian life and character, the most important of his ascetical works, were
published (Syriac text and English translation) in 1894 by Budge from Syriac Mss. of the sixth and seventh centuries
in the British Museum (130).

The text is based on Add. 14598 (Wright DCCLXIV), which is called A. Variant readings are given from Add.
14595 (Wright DCLXXVIII), Add. 12163 (Wright DCLXXV1I), Add. 17153 (Wright DCLXXIX), Add. 14596
(Wright DCLXXX), Add. 14625 (Wright DCLXXXI), Add. 14601 (Wright DCCXCV), and Add. 14621 (Wright
DCCLXXIX). These seven Mss. are referred to as B, C, D, E, F, G, and H respectively. From the fact that the
Scriptural quotations in the discourses are taken from the Peshitta, Budge concludes that these discourses were |26
written before 508, the year in which Philoxenus published his translation of the Bible at Mabbôgh, and he places
the time of their composition between 485 and the end of the fifth century (131).

These discourses are thirteen in number. The first is a prologue to the others; the second, third, and fourth treat of
faith as a virtue; the fifth treats of simplicity; the sixth and seventh, of the fear of God; the eighth and ninth, of
poverty; the tenth, of gluttony; the eleventh, of abstinence; and the twelfth and thirteenth, of fornication. They are
written in exquisitely pure Syriac, and in them especially we notice those qualities of style for which Jacob of
Edessa admired and praised the writings of Philoxenus (132).

Besides the above discourses, Budge has also published, in the second volume of his work, seven other short
treatises of Philoxenus, which are very important from a dogmatic standpoint. Though less interesting than his larger
dogmatic writings, they contain, in a few pages, the principles underlying his theological opinions, and make us
partly acquainted with the objections which he urged against the Nestorians and against the adherents of the Council
of Chalcedon. We give here a review of these different texts.

a) An explanation (133) of the heresies of Mani, MarcionJ and others, from. Add. 14529 (7th or 8th century) (Wright
DCCCLVI) of the British Museum, (fol. 65b-66b). The title is:

In this document, Philoxenus explains and rejects the heresies of the Gnostics, the Nestorians, and the Eutychians on
the Incarnation, and gives us a short statement of his own doctrine. |27

b) A treatise against every Nestorian (134), from the same Ms. (fol. 66b-(38a). The title is:
It contains seven chapters or paragraphs of which a summary is given (p. xxxvii). Philoxenus anathematizes
Nestorius, Diodorus of Tarsus, and Theodoret of Cyrrhus, accepts the twelve chapters of Cyril of Alexandria against
Nestorius, receives the Henoticon of Zeno, and pronounces anathema upon every one who would divide Christ into
two natures.

c) A confession of faith (135) against the Council of Chalcedon. From the same Ms. (fol. 68a-69a).

In ten short paragraphs Philoxenus anathematizes the Council of Chalcedon for composing, as he says, a faith at
variance with that of the Council of Nice, for excommunicating Nestorius while agreeing with him in doctrine, for
distinguishing two natures in Christ and receiving Ibas of Edessa, Theodoret of Cyrrhus, and Leo (the Great) of
Rome.

d) How one must reply when questioned as to his belief (136). From the same Ms. (fol. 69b-71a). [Syriac]

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

e) Twelve chapters against those who maintain two natures in Christ and one person (137). This treatise is found in |28
Add. 14597 (A. D. 569) (Wright DCCXXX) of the British Museum, (fol. 91a-98b). The title is:

Here Philoxenus argues that if we admit two natures in Christ, we must also admit two persons, and he does not
distinguish between the Nestorian heresy and the Catholic doctrine.

f) Twenty chapters against, Nestorius (138). From the same Ms. (fol. 98b-105b). [Syriac]

In this treatise Philoxenus formulates twenty objections against the doctrines of Nestorius. Most of these objections
rest on the confusion of the notions of nature and person, his chief point being this, that since the Word became
incarnate in His person, He also became incarnate in His nature, and since there is only one nature before the
Incarnation, there can be but one after the Incarnation. Thus in the third chapter he says: «If God the Word became
man in His person, and is not called two persons, but one person who became man, He also became man in His
nature, and His nature who became man is one, and is not called two natures».

g) Ten chapters against those who divide Our Lord after the indivisible union (139). From the same Ms. (fol. 105b-
107b). :
These ten chapters are directed against the Nestorians for admitting two persons in Christ, and against the followers
of the Council of Chalcedon for acknowledging two natures after the union. Both, according to Philoxenus, divide
Our Lord |29 by admitting two persons or two natures in Him. Here again he misunderstands the Catholic doctrine.
Thus, in the third chapter, speaking of the adoration of the Magi, he says: «If two natures be admitted in Christ,
which of the two did the Magi worship? If the divine nature, they could have done so when they were in their own
country; if the human nature, they are worthy of blame, not of praise. Now the Book testifies concerning them that
their action is worthy of praise. Therefore, when they worshipped Christ, they worshipped the Incarnate God» (140).
In the premises of this argument, he evidently supposes that Catholics adore the natures separately.

II.

The Letter to Abu-Nafir.

10. The Syriac text of this letter was published in 1873 by Martin (141) from Add. 14529 of the British Museum (fol.
61a-65b). Fragments of it are also found in Add. 17193 (Wright DCCCLXI) (fol. 83a) (142), and Add. 17134 (Wright
CCCCXX1) (fol. 4b) (143). The title is:

The synodical letter which Mär Aksenäyä, bishop of Mabbôgh, wrote to Abu-Nafir, stratelates ( 144) of Hira (145) of
Beth-Naaman. |30

Date. The list (146) of the rulers of Hira does not contain the name of Abu-Nafir. It mentions, however, Abu-Yafar
who ruled from 498 to 503, simply as a vassal or lieutenant of the Persian King. If we assume his identity with Abu-
Nafir, the date of composition of this letter would fall between 498 and 503. This document is very unlike the
published writings of Philoxenus. The obvious differences of style and the glaring anachronisms which it contains
regarding prominent events in the lives of Nestorius and of Theodore of Mopsuestia, raise serious doubts as to its
authenticity (147). Philoxenus should have been well acquainted with the history of Nestorius and of Theodore, for he
spent a few years in Edessa and in Antioch, cities which were for a time the strongholds of Nestorianism in the East.
As no translation of this letter has been published, a detailed analysis of its contents will not be out of place here.

The letter gives: a) the genealogy of Nestorius and of Theodore; b) their elevation to the sees of Constantinople and
of Mopsuestia; c) their heresy; d) the condemnation of Nestorius by the Council of Ephesus; e) the heresy of
Eutyches and his condemnation at Chalcedon; f) the return of Timothy Aelurus to Alexandria; g) and the origin of
the sect called Esaianists.

a) Addi married a woman named Amlaka who bore him two sons: Barbeelšemin and Abasoum. Barbeelšemin was
the father of Nestorius, Abašoum of Theodore (148). Nestorius and |31 Theodore were born (149) at Maraš where the
sons of Addi had settled. After they had mastered the Greek language, they were sent to Athens (150), where they
studied philosophy.

b) In Athens, they became acquainted with some free men from Constantinople who praised them before Honorius,
with the result that Honorius (151) commanded that they should both be made bishops, Nestorius, of Constantinople,
and Theodore, of Mopsuestia.
c) Once in possession of their sees, they began to corrupt the true faith in private commentaries which they sent to
each other (152), distinguishing the Only Son of God into two natures, attributing miracles to the one, and
humiliations to the other.

d) Hearing of this, Theodosius the Younger convoked the Council of Ephesus against the Nestorian doctrines. Then
Nestorius wrote to Theodore, and told him not to be afraid, but to go the Council (153), and to anathematize him
(Nestorius), not indeed with the anathema which cuts one off from the kingdom of heaven, but only in the sense in
which St. Paul desired to be anathema for the salvation of his brethren, the sons of Israel. |32

e) In the days of Marcian, Eutyches rose against the Church, and taught that the Son of God brought His body down
from heaven (154). And, because he would not recede from the position he had taken, he was excommunicated by the
Council of Chalcedon. After the Fathers had assembled, Leo (155) wrote to them to receive the doctrines of Nestorius
(156), and his own tomos (157). On threat of deposition made by Marcian, they yielded, because they loved their office.
But Dioscorus, patriarch of Alexandria, did not yield; he was exiled, and his secretary (158) became patriarch in his
stead. The Alexandrians received the new patriarch; but some priests, deacons, and laymen who would not agree
with the Council of Chalcedon, did not communicate with him; they fled into Ethiopia with Timothy ( 159), a disciple
of Dioscorus.

f) After a while, the Alexandrians became sorry for having received the secretary of Dioscorus; they stoned him (160),
and cast his body into the sea. After the death of Marcian, Timothy returned to Alexandria, took possession of the
see, and forgave the Alexandrians. However, the priests, deacons, and laymen, who had returned with him, would
not communicate with the Alexandrians, for they said: «Whoever has taken part in the Council of Chalcedon in any
way, has not the priesthood ».

g) Then four priests from among them took the Gospel, placed it on the head of Esaias, and made him bishop. From |
33 that time on they were called Esaianistae-Acephali ( 161). Concerning the belief of the Acephali, that those who had
taken part in the Council of Chalcedon in any way had not the true priesthood, the letter goes on to explain that
heretics confer baptism and priesthood validly, provided they have not preached their heresy openly. Consequently,
the baptism and the orders conferred by the Fathers of Chalcedon after their dispersion were valid, because they did
not preach their heresy (the definition of the two natures in Christ), so that the case of those who received those
sacraments from them was parallel to the case of those who were baptized or ordained by Judas Iscariot. As his
heresy was only in his heart, the sacraments which he conferred were valid.

III.

The Letter concerning Stephen Bar Sudaili.

11. This letter, addressed to Abraham and Orestes priests of Edessa, was published (Syriac text and English
translation) by Frothingham in 1886, in his work Stephen Bar Sudaili, the Syrian Mystic, and the book of
Hierotheos, Leyden (Brill). It is extant only in Syr. Ms. 107 of the Vatican (fol. 60r-63v), which is of the eighth
century. The close of the letter is wanting. The title is: [Syriac] |34

Date. This letter was evidently written before the year 513, for Philoxenus refers to the impossibility of
communicating, on account of differences in the faith, with the bishop of Jerusalem, Elias (494-513). Frothingham
places the date of its composition between 509 and 512, when the contest between the Orthodox and Monophysite
parties was at its height (162).

Bar Sudaili was a Monophysite monk of Edessa, who had become imbued with pantheistic doctrines, probably in
Egypt. From Jerusalem where he had retired, he had sent followers of his to Abraham and Orestes, priests of Edessa,
with books containing his impious teachings. Hearing of this, Philoxenus wrote to these priests, warning them
against Bar Sudaili's errors. According to Philoxenus, he taught that everything was consubstantial with God, that
the good and the wicked would receive the same measure of retribution in the next world, that, on the day of the
consummation, all things would return into the divinity from which they came. In his letter Philoxenus refutes at
some length Bar Sudaili's pantheism and his doctrine on salvation.

IV.

The Letter to the Monks of Teleda.

12. The Syriac text of this letter, together with an introduction and an analysis of the contents, was published in 1886
by Guidi (163). His splendid edition corresponds page for page, column for column, and line for line, with the original
which is extant only in Syr. Ms. 136 of the Vatican (fol. 3a-29a). Folios 1, 2, and 6, are wanting, hence the letter
shows no title. A Syriac Ms. of the |35 British Museum, Add. 14663 (Wright DCCLI), contains four short extracts
(164) of this letter with the following title:

The Ms. having been injured, the reading of the letter was a most difficult and laborious task. Guidi confesses that
the decipherment of it cost him much patience and fatigue, and he certainly deserves the gratitude of all Syriac
scholars for placing within their reach this letter of Philoxenus, which is one of the best specimens of the
controversial literature of that period.

Date. From the last sentence of fol. 3 a, col. 2, Assemani (165) concludes that Philoxenus wrote this letter during his
exile (519-523): «Pray also for me, not that I may be delivered from this persecution, but that I may derive profit
from it, that it may become unto me a cause of eternal life». In fol. 14b, col. 1, Philoxenus attacks especially one
enemy, who. as Guidi remarks (166), may be Paul II, the successor of Severus on the episcopal throne of Antioch. On
account of his zeal for the decrees of Chalcedon (he had placed the names of the six hundred and thirty Fathers of
the Council in the diptychs) (167), Paul was accused of Nestorianism, and was called «the Jew» by the Monophy sites
(168). It is probably to him that Philoxenus refers in the following passage: «If any one calls thee by the name of Jew
or heathen, thou art angry, and thou art not angry with thyself for voluntarily placing thy portion with them, and
contending with us in their own words (169)» . |36

If the identity of Paul of Antioch with the adversary attacked by Philoxenus be granted, the letter would certainly be
posterior to 519, the year in which Severus was exiled by Justin. And it may have been written before the year 521,
in which Paul resigned the see of Antioch (170).

This letter was addressed to the Monks of Teleda, according to Guidi (171), the modern Telladi, about half way
between Antioch and Aleppo. That these monks shared the opinions of Philoxenus, is evident from Philoxenus' own
words: «Therefore, what that faith is for which it is necessary for us to die, in a few words we will show; not as
teaching, but because we agree with your truth and your faith, and to show that we are one with you on the question
of the divine Economy. And if we have been a seducer and corruptor, as the adversaries say, then so are you also
with us. But if we have been sincere and orthodox, and this is the truth, it is a common victory and joy for the holy
body of the Church» (172).

The letter to the Monks of Teleda is one of the most important of Philoxenus' works from the standpoint of doctrine
and style. It is dogmatic in character and argumentative in form. As we shall have occasion to quote from it
frequently when treating of Philoxenus' doctrine on the Incarnation and the Trinity, a brief analysis will suffice here.

After recommending himself to the prayers of the monks that he may derive profit from his sufferings, Philoxenus
declares his belief in the Trinity and in the Incarnation of the Son of God. He shows afterwards that the same Christ
is both «ante omnes» and «the Firstborn from the dead»; ante omnes, because He is God, and the Firstborn from the
dead, because He became man. Concerning the death of Christ on the |37 Cross, Philoxenus defends against the
Nestorians the proposition «The Immortal died», and shows how he understands it. First of all, he postulates faith as
a necessary condition to believe that Christ died, because faith is not needed to believe that God is immortal, and
that man is mortal. Then he takes up in order his adversaries' objections. These were contained in a letter or treatise
('eggartha), which seems to have had considerable influence on the religious polemics of the times (173). The
following are the principal objections with which he deals:

a) How can God be at the same time mortal and immortal?

b) Since angels do not die, how can God, Who made them immortal, die?

c) If Life died, who gave it life again?

d) Who ruled the universe, the three days that God was in the grave?

In answer to those different objections, Philoxenus shows that the Word of God suffered only in so far as He became
man; that He was not a sufferer by nature, but by His will; that, when He was lying dead in the grave, He was living
the life of His divinity, for the life which He commended on the Cross into the hands of His Father, was not His
divine life, but the life which He had taken from us.

Towards the end of the letter, Philoxenus rejects the words «Christ King», which Calandion had inserted into the
Trisagion of Peter the Fuller. He condemns the addition as bringing in Christ after the three divine persons, or as
introducing a fourth person into the Trinity.

Philoxenus closes his letter with an anathema against Nestorius and Theodore of Mopsuestia, and with the
declaration that he is ready to die for his faith. |38

CHAPTER III.

THE DOCTRINES OF PHILOXENUS.

A) HIS DOCTRINE ON THE INCARNATION.

General Considerations.

13. The dogma of the Incarnation was the principal theme of religious controversy in the fifth century of the Church.
The disputes with the Gnostics, the Arians, and the Apollinarists had given rise to many discussions on the person of
Christ. In opposition to all heresies, the Church always invoked the authority and voice of tradition affirming clearly
the unity of the person of the God-man and the existence of two natures in Him. But the manner of union of the two
natures had not been explained (174). The Fathers illustrated it by means of figures and comparisons, but did not
always speak of it with strict philosophical accuracy. Any explanation that did not preserve the unity of person and
the existence and distinction of the two natures in Christ was bound to end in error ( 175). And such, indeed, was the
case. Here we see two different schools at work: the school of Antioch and the school of Alexandria. By applying
their own theories to christological questions which, first of all, demanded faith as a necessary condition for their
acceptance, they caused the two great heresies of Nestorianism and Eutychianism. |39

The school of Antioch insisted specially on the human element in Christ and on the permanent distinction of the
natures after the union (176), Some, however, confounding the notions of nature and person, went so far as to
acknowledge not only two natures but two persons also (177). They did not admit that the human nature could exist
complete and perfect in Christ without its connatural subsistence or personality, and, instead of uniting the human
nature with the divine person, they united a human person with the person of the Word.

Different was the course pursued by the theologians of the school of Alexandria. They dwelt willingly on the divine
element in Christ and on the mysterious union of the natures (178). Some applied the trichotomy of Plato to the dogma
of the Incarnation, and, believing that man was made up of three factors, body, soul (yuxh&)? and spirit (nou~j),
taught that Christ consisted of the body, the soul, and the Logos (179). According to them, the Son of God was
incarnate without the rational soul (nou~j), whose place was taken and filled by the Logos Himself. Others held the
absorption of the human nature by and into the divine (180). Others again taught that the body of Christ was
consubstantial with His divine nature, and that, on the day of the consummation, all things would become of one
nature with the divinity (181).

Still another class combined, so to speak, the tendencies of the two schools; and, although they held that the
humanity of Christ was real, nay, consubstantial with ours, they refused to it the name of nature, and spoke, not of
two natures in |40 Christ, but of a twofold or composite nature, consisting of the divinity and the humanity, united
after the manner of the soul and the body in man. This heresy is known by the name of Monophysitism in specie (182)
or Jacobite Monophysitism, in contradistinction from Eutychianism proper. Philoxenus and Severus of Antioch were
the principal champions of this doctrine in the end of the fifth century and the beginning of the sixth, and it may be
said that they reduced it to a theological system. Philoxenus devoted his life to its propagation. Most of his dogmatic
works were written in its defence. It is touched upon in many of his writings, particularly in the three letters the text
of which is given here for the first time. The Letter to the Monks deals with the errors of Nestorius and Eutyches; the
first Letter to the Monks of Beth-Gaugal was written to confirm those monks in the Monophysite doctrines which
they shared with him, and the Letter to Zeno may be regarded as Philoxenus' own profession of faith in the mystery
of the Incarnation. In the light of these three documents and of his other published works, we shall consider how
Philoxenus opposes Nestorius and Eutyches, and thus we shall be able to form an accurate notion of his views on the
Incarnation, and on other points of belief of which he speaks in connection with the main subject.

Philoxenus and Nestorius.

14. There is no doubt that Philoxenus was well acquainted with the tenets of Nestorianism, for he had studied in the
Persian school of Edessa, which was at the time openly favorable to that heresy. Ibas had translated into Syriac the
works of Theodore of Mopsuestia and Diodorus of Tarsus, and two of his |41 disciples, Mari of Beth-Ardasir and
Marun Elitha, spread the Nestorian doctrines in the East (183). Philoxenus was one of those who opposed Ibas (184).
This opposition which he began when only a student, he continued all his life, and to his efforts and those of his
friends is principally due the fact that Nestorianism became confined to the Syrians of the Persian empire.

Heresy of Nestorius.

15. Nestorius, confounding the notions of nature and person, could not think of the human nature in Christ without
its connatural subsistence. Hence, he understood the union of the natures in this way, that a man, integral and
complete, was first formed in the Virgin Mary and united afterwards with the Word of God: «Scire autem convenit
etiam de dispensatione quam pro nostra salute in Domino Christo Dominus Deus implevit, quod Deus Verbum
hominem perfectum adsumpsit ex semine Abraham, et ex David juxta praedicationem Sanctarum Scripturarum, ejus
naturae cujus et illi fuerunt ex quorum semine erat, hominem natura perfectum, ex anima rationali et humana carne
compositum» (185). We find the same teaching in a homily (186) of the famous Nestorian poet Narses († 507), a
contemporary of Philoxenus. Speaking of Diodorus, Theodore of Mopsuestia, and Nestorius, he says: «The just have
interpreted one essence which is three, and have joined to it a man through the union» ( 187). |42

Against this doctrine, Philoxenus holds that the Word was not united to a man first created in the womb of the
Virgin, but that He became man of the Virgin without ceasing to be God. Thus, in the Letter to Zeno, he says: «But I
see, with the eye of faith, a Spiritual Being, Who, without change, became corporal, and Mary brought forth, not a
double (Son), as Nestorius said, but the Only-Begotten embodied, Who is not indeed half God and half man, but
wholly God because He is from the Father, and wholly man because He became (man) of the Virgin» (188).
According to him, the body of the Lord was His own, and not of another, as he says in the Letter to the Monks: «But
it is not at all in the sense that a man or a body distinct from God died, that death is spoken of God, as it is not in the
sense that a man or the body of another person distinct from God was born that birth is spoken of God; for, it was
not a body that was born, but it was God, Who became a body and remained in His nature God; and it was not a
body that was crucified, but it was God, Who became man, and in His death did not lose His life» ( 189).
 The Word Qeoto&koj

16. From Nestorius' theory on the union of the natures, it follows necessarily that Mary cannot be called Qeoto&koj,
Mother of God. And this title, in the sense in which Catholics understand it, he always refused to her. Thus, in his
first sermon on the Incarnation, he says: «Habet matrem Deus? Ergo excusabilis gentilitas matres diis
subintroducens. Paulus ergo mendax, de Christi deitate dicens, a)pa&twr, a)mh&twr, a!neu genealogi/aj (Heb. vii,
3), id est, sine patre, sine matre, sine generationis |43 narratione» (190). The Word, he argues, merely passed through
the Virgin, but was not born of her: «Transiisse Deum per Virginem xristoto&kon, a Scriptura perdoctus sum;
natum, non edoctus sum» (191).

Philoxenus teaches clearly that Mary is Mother of God, and that the Word was born of her. In the Letter to the
Monks, he says: «For the Virgin was not indeed a channel (through which) God (passed), but His true Mother,
because He became man of her» (192). In the Letter to Zeno, speaking of Mary, he uses the words «yâldath 'alâhâ»,
which are the exact Syriac equivalent of the Greek Qeoto&koj: «We confess, therefore, that the Virgin is Qeoto&koj
(yâldath 'alâhâ), and we believe that the embodied Word, after being born of her corporally, was wrapped in
swaddling clothes, sucked milk, received circumcision, was held on (His Mother's) knees, grew in stature and was
subject to His parents, all this just as He was born» (193). Furthermore, Philoxenus argues that, by denying to Mary
the title of Mother of God, we necessarily deny the divinity of Christ. Thus, in the eighteenth of his Twenty
Chapters against Nestorius, he writes: «If the Virgin is Mother of God, He Who was born (of her) is God. But the
one, who was born of the Virgin, who is he? Jesus Christ. Now, if Jesus Christ was born of the Virgin, and if the
Virgin is Mother of God, then Jesus Christ is God and not a man in whom God dwelt» (194). And he defends this
peerless prerogative of Mary not only against the Nestorians, but also against the Eutychians who, by holding that
the body of Christ was not consubstantial with ours, were obliged to say that the Word became incarnate in, but not
of the Virgin: «We do not say, like the erring disciples of Eutyches, |44 that He (the Word) was embodied in the
Virgin, but not of her; but we believe (that He was embodied) in her and of her, and not in any other way He might
have pleased, as those liars claim» (195).

Communicatio Idiomatum.

17. The communicatio idiomatum, by which we predicate the same properties of the two natures, not indeed in the
abstract (Godhead and manhood), but in the concrete (God and man), is impossible in the system of Nestorius,
because he regards the human nature as existing in its own subsistence, in other words, as a person. Thus he says
that we cannot in any way attribute death to God: «Quid Dei nomen deputas morti, quod a divina Scriptura nusquam
in mortis commemorationem profertur? Quid, Paulo clamante, cum audias: in viro, in quo definivit Deus, fidem
praestans omnibus, suscitans eum a mortuis (Act., xvii, 31), tu natam et mortuam inani imaginatione judicas
Deitatem?» (196). And more generally in his fourth counter-anathema against Cyril: «If any one assigns the
expressions of the Gospels and Apostolic letters, which refer to the two natures in Christ, to one only of these
natures, and attributes even suffering to the Divine Logos, both in the flesh and in the Godhead, let him be
anathema»(197). Similar is the teaching of Narses: «To the human nature belong the humiliations of the human nature,
and not to the nature raised and exalted above sufferings; to the man belongs all that was written of the Son of man:
conception, birth, growth, suffering, and death» (198). |45

Thus we see that the Nestorians deny the communicatio idiomatum because they consider the human nature as
existing in Christ with its own personality; Philoxenus rejects the communicatio idiomatum by the mere fact that he
acknowledges only one nature after the union. He does not admit that we can attribute to the divine person what we
deny of the divine nature. Thus, in the ninth of his Twenty Chapters against Nestorius, he writes: «If thou sayest that
Christ is two natures, a divine nature and a human nature, and one person, and if thou givest to the divine person the
properties of the divine nature and the properties of the human nature, why dost thou give to the divine person
humiliation and glory and yet put them away from the divine nature? Is His divine person inferior to His divine
nature? What His person is, is not that also His nature?» (199) And, arguing against those who admit two natures and
one person in Christ after the union, Philoxenus contends that their doctrine involves us in hopeless confusion. In the
sixteenth chapter of the same tract, he says: «How is there no confusion, when thou confessest two natures and one
person? For, when thou sayest» two natures which run with their attributes, their properties, and their operations»,
and when thou attributest the divine things to the divine nature, and the human things to the human nature, how can
confusion be avoided? Thou answerest (that thou avoidest confusion) by attributing to one person the properties of
the divine nature and the properties of the human nature. But tell mo: To which nature does this one person belong?
To the divine nature, or to the human? If (it belongs) to the divine nature, behold, the properties of the human nature
do not belong to the divine person; and if (it belongs) to the human nature, behold, the properties of the divine nature
do not belong to the human person. Is there a greater confusion than |46 that which admits two natures working in
one person? Tell me: Does this one person belong to both natures, or to one only? If it belongs to both, then each
nature constitutes the half of the person; if it belongs to one nature only then, either the divine nature or the human
nature is without a person. If, on the contrary, this one person is both divine and human, then there is only one
nature which is both divine and human. If there is not one nature, there is not one person» (200). Hence it is that
Philoxenus refers all the properties and operations of Christ not only to one person, but also to one nature which is
both divine and human, as he says in the Letter to the Monks of Bêth-Gaugal: «He who does not confess that glory
and humiliation are of one Son, Who is one person and one nature who was embodied, such a one is an embodied
devil» (201).

Union of the Natures.

18. Regarding the human nature of Christ as a person, Nestorius unites it with the Godhead only externally, and for
him the Incarnation means simply the inhabitation of the Son of God in a man born of the Virgin: «Verbum ergo
Deus non est natus ex Maria, sed in illo, qui ex ea natus est, mansit» (202). According to him, there was only an
adhesion of a man to the person of the Word, and the Word dwelt in him as in a temple: «Aliud quidem Deus
Verbum est, qui erat in templo, quod operatus est Spiritus, et aliud templum praeter habitantem Deum» (203).

Philoxenus rejects the theory of a mere adhesion of a body to the person of the Word in the Letter to the Monks of
Bêth-Gaugal: «He who imagines that there was only a mere |47 adhesion (of a body) to the person of Christ, and not
a real embodiment in the acknowledgment of one person, such a one has no relationship with Christ» (204). And again
in the Letter to Zeno, he says: «I confess, therefore, one (only) person of the Word, and I believe that this same
(person) is also man, that is, God Who became man; not that He dwelt in a man, not that He built to Himself a
temple in which He dwelt» (205). According to Nestorius, this inhabitation of the Word in the man bora of the Virgin,
consisted in a certain moral union in virtue of which the Word dwelt in him as God dwelt in the prophets of old:
«Propterea vero Unigenitus Dei Filius Verbum dicitur incarnatus, quia semper est cum homine illo sancto, quem
Virgo peperit; quemadmodum autem fuit cum prophetis, sic, inquit (Nestorius), est cum isto, sed majori
connexione» (206). This doctrine Philoxenus rejects in the Letter to the Monks of Beth Gaugal: «He who says that the
infinite God dwelt in a finite man as He dwelt in the Prophets and in the just, and does not confess that He Who, as
God, is infinite, is the Same Who became finite by becoming man, (such a one) has not as yet passed from a corrupt
error into the fold of the knowledge of Christ» (207).

Consequences of Nestorius' Theory.

19. On account of the moral union existing between the Word and the man whom He assumed, Nestorius spoke of
one authority, one dignity common to both: «Dic de assumente quod Deus sit; adjice de assumpto quod servi forma;
infer postea conjunctionis dignitatem, quod communis sit duorum auctoritas, quod eadem sit duorum dignitas;
manentibusque naturis, confitere |48 unitatem» (208). The words of Narses, in the homily already quoted, are almost
identical: «One is the Word, the Son of the Father, without beginning; and one is the man from the humanity of
Adam. The Sou of God is two by nature, in every thing that belongs to the Supreme Being and to the man, but one
by honor and by authority» (209). It is only on the basis of that moral union that Nestorius admits one Christ, and, in
Christ, one prosopon, one will, one operation. Similarly, the Nestorian Syrians, in their doctrine on the Incarnation,
speak of two substances ('ousia). two essences ('ithûtha), two natures (keyana), two hypostases (qenomâ), but of one
prosopon (parsopä), one image (salmâ), one will (sebhyänä), one operation (ma'bedhânûtha), one virtue (hayla), and
one power (sultana) (210).

According to Philoxenus, Christ is one not merely because there is only one person in Him, but in the sense also
that, after the Incarnation, there is only one nature in Him, a nature consisting of the divinity and the humanity, as he
says in the Letter to Zeno: «Of the one Son, therefore, are the two generations, the one from the Father and the other
from the Virgin; of the one Son, and not of two natures, otherwise He would not be one. And if we admit (in Him)
nature and nature, we must necessarily admit person and person, and consequently we must acknowledge two Sons
and two Gods» (211).

As another consequence of his theory on the union of the two natures, Nestorius claimed that the same worship must
be given to both: «Propter utentem illud indumentum quo utitur colo; propter absconditum adoro quod foris videtur;
inseparabilis ab eo qui foris paret est Deus» (212). Not only is the same worship |49 given to both, but the man in
whom the Word dwelt is actually called God, and honored as such: «Non per seipsum Deus. est qui in utero
figuratus est: nam si sic esset, essemus hominis vere cultores; sed quoniam in assumpto Deus est, ex illo qui
assumpsit, qui assumptus est, appellatus est, et appellatur Deus» ( 213). Hence it is that Nestorius was accused of
introducing a fourth person into the Trinity. Thus, Proclus, bishop of Cyzicus, in a sermon preached in
Constantinople against Nestorius, said: «Si alter Christus et alter Dei Verbum, non jam Trinitas, sed quaternitas erit»
(214). Philoxenus makes the same objection against the Nestorians. In the Letter to the Monks of Beth-Gaugal, he
says: «He who distinguishes Christ into two does not worship the Trinity» ( 215). Also, in the Letter to the Monks, he
writes: «For he who counts another man with God, introduces a quaternity in his doctrine and corrupts the dogma of
the Holy Trinity. With pagans is such a doctrine to be counted, for, like them, it errs inventing a new god, against
that which is written, 'There shall not be to thee a new god'. It adores a new god, a man born of a woman» (216). He
urges again the same objection against Catholics for acknowledging two natures in Christ, as we may infer from a
passage in his short treatise on the heresies ot Mani, Marcion, and others: «And that addition (the definition of two
natures in Christ) which took place at Chalcedon, admits a quaternity and brings in Christ after the Trinity» ( 217).

Finally, according to the Nestorians, the man, in whom the Word dwelt, merited the title of God by dying for us on
the Cross and paying Adam's debt, on account of which God raised him from the dead, bestowed immortality upon
him, and exalted him (218). Philoxenus rejects this doctrine and teaches |50 emphatically that the Word of God was
born and died for us, and that He is immortal by nature, as he says in the Letter to the Monks of Beth-Gaugal: «He
who says that Christ was justified by His works, and became the equal of the Most High by the practice of His
virtues, and that He is not exalted and is not God by His nature, such a one is without any virtue and is filled with
the malice of the devil» (219). And he urges, furthermore, the irresistible argument that, if God has not suffered for us
in the flesh, we have not been redeemed: «If the death and the suffering were of another, the redemption and life
which were merited for me would be of man, not of God» (220). This argument he develops at greater length in his
Letter to the Monks of Teleda: «By His grace. He (Christ) became our brother; by His grace, we became His
brothers. For by the grace (of God), there are two wonderful things: the Most High was humbled, and the humble
ones were exalted. God became man, and the sons of men (became) sons of God. There was first the humiliation of
God and, after that, the exaltation of man. For he who was low could not be exalted near Him Who was high, unless
the High One descended to the low one. Such was the beginning of God's new way towards us» (221).

Philoxenus and Eutyches.

20. One of the most zealous opponents of Nestorianism was Eutyches, archimandrite of a monastery outside the
walls of Constantinople (222). He boasted that he had fought for the faith at Ephesus. Although he was not present
there in person, there is no doubt that he contributed greatly to the overthrow of the party of Nestorius (223). However
his intemperate zeal and |51 superficial learning carried him into the opposite error, and he accused of heresy every
one who spoke of two natures. Unable to grasp the difference between the Nestorian heresy and the Catholic
doctrine, he rejected not only two persons in Christ, but two natures as well, and admitted only one nature after the
union. He was excommunicated by the Council of Chalcedon (451), but his heresy did not end with his
condemnation. It was introduced. successively into Palestine, Egypt, and Syria (224). How rapid was its progress may
be seen from the fact that, a few years after the death of Eutyches, the two great sees of Antioch and Alexandria
were occupied by Monophysite bishops.

The error was held in various forms. Although all Monophysites admitted only one nature in Christ, they differed in
explaining how the Godhead and the humanity could form one nature; hence the anomalous fact that many of them,
especially those who were not of Greek origin, whilst professing one nature like the Eutychians, anathematized alike
Eutyches and the Council of Chalcedon. This is particularly true of Philoxenus, as is clear from many passages of
his writings in which he speaks of the doctrines of Eutyches. These we shall consider presently.
 Heresy of Eutyches.

21. Nestorius denies the unity of the person of Christ; Eutyches exaggerates it, and goes so far as to teach the unity
of nature (225). He acknowledges only one nature after the union, that of God made flesh and man: «Post
incarnationem vero Dei Verbi, hoc est, post nativitatem Domini Nostri Jesu Christi, unam naturam adorare, et hanc
Dei incarnati et inhumanati» (226). He interprets in his own heretical sense the famous words of Cyril to Succensus:
«But we say one Son, and, as the Fathers have spoken, one |52 incarnate nature of God the Word» (227). As is evident,
however, from the context of the letter, from his own explanation to Acacius of Melitene (228), and from the
testimony of others (229), Cyril, in this passage, takes the word «nature» (fu&sij) in the meaning of «subsistence or
person». Eutyches takes it in the meaning of «nature», not indeed in the sense simply that the divine nature was
united with the human, but in a compound sense, so as to admit after the Incarnation, after the union of the Godhead
and the flesh, only one nature. Hence, he says that Christ is from two natures, e0k du&o fu&sewn, but not in two,
e0n du&o fu&sesin: «Confiteor ex duabus naturis fuisse Dominum Nostrum ante adunationem; post adunationem
vero unam naturam confiteor» (230). Like Eutyches, Philoxenus admits only one nature in Christ after the union, one
nature consisting of the divinity and the humanity. In the Letter to the Monks of Bêth-Gaugal, we read: «He who
says that the name of Christ signifies two natures distinct and separate the one from the other, and not one nature
(keyana), and one prosopon (parsopa), and one person (qenoma), who was embodied and became man of the Virgin,
such a one denies the faith and is worse than those who do not believe» (231). He also misinterprets the words of Cyril
which we have quoted above. The expression «one nature who was embodied» is very common in Philoxenus'
writings, and it always occurs in a Monophysite sense, as implying only one nature in Christ after the union. In the
same Letter to the Monks of Bêth-Gaugal, he says: «He who does not confess that glory and humiliation are of one
Son, Who is one person and one nature who was embodied, such |53 a one is an embodied devil» (232). Thus again, in
the first of his Twenty Chapters against Nestorius, he writes: «If God the Word and His nature are one, and if God is
not one thing, and His nature another, why, when thou comest to (the word) 'God' , dost thou say 'one God who was
embodied' , and when thou comest to the word 'nature' , why dost thou not say 'one nature who was embodied' ,
instead of two natures?» (233) And in the seventh chapter of the same tract, he argues: «If the Word, after He was
embodied, is two natures, the Word, after He was embodied, is two persons also; but if the person of the embodied
Word is one, the nature of the embodied Word is one also, for the person of the Word is not inferior to His nature»
(234). So far Philoxenus agrees with Eutyches, and, by the expression «one embodied nature of the Word», he
understands one nature after the Incarnation, one nature consisting of the divinity and the humanity. He also says in
his Letter to the Monks that Christ is from two (men tartên), that is, from the divinity and the humanity: «Let us
beware of the impiety of those who say that the Virgin brought forth God and a man; who divide and count two in
Him Who is the Only Son of God, Who is from two, from the divinity and from the humanity; (of the impiety of
those) who divide (Christ), and in this one God Who was embodied, attribute humiliation to the one and glory to the
other, power to the one and weakness to the other «(235).

Manner of Union.

22. Thus, we see that Philoxenus agrees with the Eutcychians in teaching one nature in Christ after the Incarnation;
but he differs from them in his explanation of the union. As St. Thomas |54 observes, some one thing may result
from the union of two others in three ways: «Uno modo ex duobus integris perfectis remanentibus; quod quidem
fieri non potest, nisi in iis quorum forma est compositio, vel ordo, vel figura...; alio modo, fit aliquid unum es
perfectis, sed transmutatis...; tertio modo, fit aliquid ex aliquibus non permixtis, sed imperfectis, sicut ex anima et
corpore fit homo» (236). And he shows that none of these ways could take place in the Incarnation; not the first,
because it would make the union of the two natures merely accidental; nor the second, because it would imply
mutability in the divine nature; nor the third, because it would suppose the divine nature and the human nature to be
both incomplete rations naturae. Eutyches did not explain himself clearly on the manner of the union (237), but there
is no doubt that those of his disciples, who were called strict Monophysites, taught a mingling or confusion of the
two natures (238). Philoxenus rejects this explanation on the ground that it does away with the immutability of the
Word. Thus, in the Letter to the Monks, he says: «there having been neither change, nor mixture, nor confusion in
His nature, as God Himself said by the Prophet, «I am, and I change not». For He Who was not made is not mutable;
He Who was not created cannot change. Therefore, He became man without change; He was embodied, and
remained as He is, spiritual (239). And, in his Letter to Zeno, he tells us how he understands the words of St. John
«And the Word was made flesh»: «With John I cry out that the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, not by
changing, God forbid! for 'to change' is a modification, but 'to become' belongs to the Economy (of the Word). For I
learn from John and Paul that (the Word) has become; but that He was changed, none of those who saw and served
the Word |55 (ever) said. Besides, God the Word Himself teaches by His Prophet, 'I am the Lord, and I change not'.
Where you would suppose that, by becoming embodied, He was changed, He testifies all the more to the truth of His
own immutability, and, as if already embodied from the Virgin, He cries out to those who think that perhaps He was
changed by becoming (man), 'I am the Lord, and I change not'» (240).

Philoxenus holds then that the Word was not changed by becoming man, and so far he is orthodox; but he draws a
wrong conclusion from the truth which he admits, for he refuses to consider the humanity as a nature; and, to
safeguard the immutability of the Word, he argues against Nestorians and Catholics alike that by teaching two
natures after the Incarnation they admit a change, since before the Incarnation there is only one nature. Hence, his
favorite expression «it is after the Incarnation as before», which in his writings does not mean simply that the Word
was not changed by becoming man, but implies besides, that, as there is only one nature before the Incarnation, so
there can be but one after the Incarnation. He did not acknowledge that the assuming of the human nature by the
person of the Word did not perfect the Word in any way, and did not interfere in the least with the immutability of
the divine nature. He regards the divinity and the humanity in Christ as forming one nature which the Jacobites call a
composite (merakkebha) or double ('affifâ) nature (241), and the example he adduces to illustrate the union, is the
example of the union of the soul and the body into one human nature (242). His position is impossible, for the divinity
and the humanity are complete in Christ, whilst the body and the soul of man are both incomplete ratione naturae. |
56

But although Philoxenus insists on the fact that the Word became man without change, he is not always consistent,
and some of his expressions would point to a confusion of the two natures in Christ. Thus, in the tract [Syriac] which
is a theological discussion between a Nestorian and an Orthodox (Monophysite) (243), the Nestorian asks: «Is the
humanity, (which the divinity has put on), finite?», and the Orthodox (Monophysite) answers: «We believe that it is
infinite, for there is not in it (the divinity) duality of natures and quaternity of persons, but only unification of
natures and trinity of persons. It is after the embodiment of the Dispensation (Incarnation) as before» ( 244).

Monotheletism.

23. One of the logical consequences of the heresy of Eutyches was Monotheletism, for if there is only one nature in
Christ, there can be but one will and one operation in Him. Hence, the Council of Chalcedon, in defining against
Eutyches the existence of the two natures, states also that the properties of each nature are preserved: «Nusquam
sublata differentia naturarum propter unitionem, magisque salva proprietate utriusque naturae» (245).

Like the Eutychians, Philoxenus admits Monotheletism, and teaches categorically that there is only one will and one
operation in Christ. Thus, in his profession of faith entitled [Syriac] he says: «We do not acknowledge in Him
(Christ) two sons, nor two persons, nor two wills, nor two natures; one, God, and |57 the other, man» (246). And again,
in the same document: «If any one confesses in the Only Begotten two persons or two wills, or admits a distinction
of persons after the union in the womb, let him be anathema» (247). Such is also the doctrine of his famous neighbor
and contemporary, Jacob of Serugh, who, in his second Letter to the Monks of Mär Bassus, says: «I anathematize
also those who, after the union, divide, and confess, and count in one Christ (two) natures with their properties,
attributes, and operations, so as to give to God what is God's and to man what is man's» ( 248).

Reality of the Body of Christ.

24. Another important question in christological controversies was the reality of the body of Christ. By holding the
confusion of the two natures and the absorption of the human by and into the divine, strict Eutychians were led to
deny the consubstantiality of the body of Christ with ours. Hence the assertion of Eutyches that, although the
Blessed Virgin was consubstantial with us, the body of Christ was not (249). He did not explain himself on the origin
of the body of the Lord. According to Gennadius (250), he taught with the Gnostics that the Word brought His body
down from heaven. This charge, however, he denied at the Council of Constantinople in 448 (251). Philoxenus
accuses him of holding that the body of Christ was made out of nothing. |58 Whatever may have been Eutyches' own
opinion on this point, there is no doubt that his doctrine leaned towards Docetism, and consequently did not appeal
to the Syrian Monophysites who had been schooled in the traditions of Antioch and of Edessa. This may account
partly for the fact that his doctrines found but few followers among the Monophysites of the East; indeed, they made
no difficulty in anathematizing Eutyches and his opinions (252).

Philoxenus, by teaching that the divinity and the humanity in Christ, although forming but one nature, are not
confused nor mingled in any way, is able, from his own point of view, to deny some of the consequences which
follow necessarily from Eutyches' doctrine; and so, in the Letter to the Monks, he rejects the Gnostic and Eutychian
theories about the origin of the body of the Lord: «He (the Word) did not bring His body down from heaven, as
Bardesanes said; nor was He seen under a false appearance or a phantom, according to the blasphemy of Mani and
Marcion; nor was (His body) made from nothing, as said Eutyches the fool; nor was His nature changed, as the
wicked Arius and Ennomius imagine; nor was He, Who was embodied, without (human) intelligence, according to
the blasphemous doctrine of Apollinaris; but He Who is perfect God took a body, and became perfect man of the
Virgin» (253). Hence he asserts repeatedly that the Word became incarnate in the Virgin, and of the Virgin, and not
simply in the Virgin as Eutyches contended: «The Word was not embodied in the Virgin, as if not also of the Virgin,
but He truly became man in her and of her (254).

The reality of the body of Christ is a frequent theme in Philoxenus' writings. He dwells on it at great length in his |59
Letter to the Monks of Teleda, and says not only that the humanity of Christ is real, hut that, through the
manifestation of that same real humanity, we are led to believe in the divinity of the Son of God. Commenting on St.
Luke, xxiv, 39, he says: «To this end Jesus was seen in true manifestation, that He might teach us that His hidden
divinity is true. For, 0 heretic, Thomas did not touch an appearance, but the real humanity of God. To show us that
He was not changed by becoming incarnate, He (Christ) said, 'I have flesh and bones', but did not say, 'I am (flesh
and bones)', lest by saying I am thou shouldst suppose a change. For He said: 'A spirit has not flesh and bones as you
see that I have', and not '(as you see) that I am'. I am a Spirit because I am God; I have flesh and bones because I
became a body and was not changed. Touch the flesh and the bones, and make certain that 1 am; put thy hand in the
places of the nails and of the lance, and believe that I became incarnate. Hear the words 'I have' and not 'I am', and
believe that I was not changed. By the touch make sure of the corporeity; from the word believe the immutability;
with the finger touch the corporeity; from the word of doctrine understand the spirituality» ( 255). Again, in the same
letter, commenting on the first verse of the first epistle of St. John, Philoxenus writes: «How can this be 'We have
handled and have seen with our eyes the Word of life' if it was an appearance and not a reality that was assumed, as
the blasphemer Eutyches said? How can this be 'We have handled the Word', if, as he says, it was an appearance that
was handled? And this again 'Touch and see because I have flesh and bones?' Therefore, let us cry out against these
two (Nestorius and Eutyches) with a voice full of truth and life and faith, that He Who was touched was God
incarnate, the Word |60 Who became flesh truly, not a man distinct from God, nor an appearance without reality»
(256).

Not only does Philoxenus insist on the reality of the humanity of Christ, but he urges against his opponents the
irresistible argument that, if the body of Christ was not real, two of the great ends of the Incarnation ---- the
reparation of fallen human nature and our sonship with God through Christ ---- could not be obtained (257). Thus in
the Letter to Zeno, he says: «For He (the Word) did not bring to Himself a body from heaven as the foolish
Valentinus and Bardesanes assert; nor was His embodiment from nothing, because He did not wish to redeem a
creature that did not exist, but He wished to renew that which, created by Him, had become old» (258). In the Letter to
the Monks he says that, unless the Son of God took upon Himself our humanity, we could not have become the sons
of God: «Herein then is a great mystery of profound love and of ineffable salvation, that He Who is became, not that
He might bo since He is, but that we, through His becoming (Incarnation), might become the sons of God» (259). And
again, in the Letter to Zeno, «The Word, therefore, became something that He was not, and remained something that
we were not (but became), |61 that is, sons of God. For we became sons of God, although our nature was not
changed» (260).

Other Consequences of the Eutychian Theory.

25. From their theory on the union of the two natures in Christ, the Eutychians could not avoid one or the other of
the two alternatives: either the divinity suffered, or the sufferings of Christ were not real. Many of them held that the
divine nature in Christ suffered, as we know from the preamble to the definition of the Council of Chalcedon: «Et
illos qui passibilem deitatem Unigeniti ausi sunt dicere, a sacro coetu expellit (Synodus)» ( 261). Others attributed
suffering to the whole Trinity. Such was probably the meaning intended by Peter Fuller (262), patriarch of Antioch,
when, in the year 477 (263), he added to the Trisagion (264), |62 the words «Who wast crucified for us», which gave rise
to bitter theological disputes, and, on one occasion, nearly cost the emperor Anastasius his throne and his life ( 265).

By denying the confusion of the divinity and the humanity in that one nature which he admits, Philoxenus is able,
from his own point of view, to avoid the conclusion that the divinity suffered. He clearly teaches that Christ suffered
only in the flesh. The many passages in which he speaks of the death of the Saviour leave no doubt as to his belief
on this point.

Thus, in the Letter to the Monks of Beth-Gaugal, he says: «The Spiritual One did not die in so far as He is spiritual,
and God did not suffer in so far as He is God. He has no beginning, to the extent that He is without beginning in his
generation from the Father. He suffered, therefore, because He took a body, and He died because He became a
brother of mortals» (266). In the Letter to Zeno, speaking of the death and of the immortality of Christ, he writes:
«The Cross is the herald of the death and of the immortality of God; for, until then, we believed by hearing that God
is immortal; but, on the Cross, experience has shown (that) both (were true), for, whilst tasting death, He remained
living. Death could not attack and destroy His life; but, by His death, the power of death was destroyed, so that this
death (of the Son), after His becoming (man), is a miracle. For He Who suffered death for us was not mortal as one
of us, otherwise the power of death over mortals would not have been destroyed. From all men we know that what is
mortal shall die; but, that the Immortal be considered as having |63 died corporally, is something new which took
place once on the Cross» (267).

It is true that Philoxenus accepted the Trisagion with the addition made by Peter the Fuller, but he understood the
addition to apply to Christ alone, as can be seen from the Letter to the Monks: «Nor did He (Christ) become
immortal by being justified by His works, as the wicked followers of Nestorianism assert; but by His nature He is
immortal because He is God, as the whole Church of God cries out in the Trisagion: «Thou art Holy, God; Thou art
Holy, Strong One; Thou art Holy, Immortal One; (Thou) Who wast crucified for us, have mercy on us» (268). Thus far
it might be objected that he agrees with the Theopaschites in attributing death to the divinity, but he immediately
explains himself, and tells us what interpretation he puts on the Trisagion, and how he understands the addition of
Peter the Fuller: «Thus does the true Church believe, thus do the tongues which are moved by truth cry out that He,
Who is immortal by nature, God the Word, was crucified in body for all, not that a body or a man distinct from Him
was suspended on the Cross» (269).

This doctrine is explained more fully in his Letter to the Monks of Teleda, and he shows clearly that the Word
suffered only in so far as He beca.me man. Thus, to the objection of his adversaries, «Since angels do not die, how is
it believed that God died?» he answers: «First, to ask this question about God is a blasphemy. When thou hearest
that God has done any thing, thou shouldst not ask how. Secondly, the angel, who is immortal by his nature, did not
become man. But we first say of God, of Whom we confess that He died, that He became man, and then we attribute
death to His person, so that it is |64 seen that it is the death of His becoming, not of his essence, for the essence of
God is above death» (270). And he says, furthermore, that the objection drawn from the angels and other spiritual
natures is irrelevant, because none of them became incarnate, and that the Word alone died because He alone, of all
spiritual natures, took a body: «Corporally, therefore, God died, and not spiritually, as He was born according to the
flesh, and not in His essence. Not similar then is the example which thou bringest. If thou shouldst say that He tasted
death before He became man of the Virgin, thou couldst well refute my argument by the example of spiritual
natures; but if He is the only one Who had corporeity, and if it is not found in any other spiritual nature, nor in the
eternal persons of the Father and of the Holy Ghost, nor in the spiritual nature of the angels, He, Who alone among
spiritual natures, had by His will corporeity, to Him alone applies the fact of death, which cannot happen in the other
spiritual natures. For, if it were written that other spiritual natures were incarnate, then death could be predicated of
other spiritual natures; if, on the contrary, corporeity was not in any of them, then none of them tasted death. The
Word alone became a body, as it is written, and in Him alone was the mystery of death accomplished corporally. As
He alone of all spirits became a true body, so also, He alone of all spirits tasted death truly. Whilst the Father did not
die, nor the Holy Ghost, nor any of the created spiritual natures, He alone was subject to death, because He alone
became man from our nature» (271). And, in the Letter to the Monks of Beth-Gaugal, Philoxenus asserts that Christ
lying in the grave as man, was, at that very time, the Ruler of the universe: «When He lay and reclined dead in
Scheol, He was preparing, for all, resurrection, was ruling the hosts of heaven and all creatures by |65 His nod,
creating bodies and putting the limbs together and breathing in the souls, and governing the worlds and all creatures,
as God Who is everywhere» (272).

It is evident, therefore, from all these passages that Philoxenus attributes death to the Word of God, only in so far as
He became man. He gives this as the belief of his church at the time, and such is, according to Renaudot (273) and
Assemani (274), the common doctrine of the Jacobites.

As we remarked above, the Eutychians who denied that the divinity in Christ had suffered were forced to admit with
the Gnostics that the sufferings of Christ were not real. It was a necessary consequence of their doctrine on the
origin of the body of the Lord, which they said was not consubstantial with ours; for, as Philoxenus expresses it,
«where there is no true corporeity, there cannot be any true death» (275). Philoxenus, however, by holding fast the
reality of the humanity of Christ, puts himself in a position to deny the conclusion which the Eutychians could not
escape. In his Letter to the Monks of Teleda, he expresses clearly his belief in the genuineness of the passion and
death of Christ. Arguing against the Gnostics and the Eutychians, he says: «Do not corrupt, O rebel, the word of
faith, and do not make it a phantom. For I did not say, and I do not say, and God forbid that I should say that those
things were performed in the divine Economy in a false appearance. The becoming (man) and birth, and likewise the
passion and death and all. the human actions between these, all this took place really and truly, as becomes God.
Not, indeed, as the angels appeared, was God seen in the world; not as the angels ate and drank in the house of
Abraham and in the house |66 of Lot, did God eat and drink in the world. That (in the angels) took place in
appearance only; this (in God) in the truth of corporeity. That is not similar to this, as said the heretic Eutyches and
the followers of his diabolical doctrine» (276).

Theory of Philoxenus on the Sufferings of Christ.

26. Although Philoxenus teaches that Christ suffered truly and not in appearance, his theory concerning the nature of
these sufferings and the manner in which the Saviour assumed and bore the infirmities and needs of humanity, is not
in harmony with his own principles. Many passages in his writings go to show that he did not regard the body of
Christ as passible by nature. Thus, in the Letter to the Monks, he says: «Everything that He (the Word) became, He
became, not for Himself, but for us. For He was not a sufferer by His nature, because, if He had suffered being a
sufferer (by nature), He would have suffered for Himself» (277). In the Letter to the Monks of Teleda, speaking of the
human operations and defects (hunger, thirst, fatigue, etc.) which Christ assumed, he says that they were not in
Christ as they are in us: «Not indeed as they are performed by man, were those things which I have enumerated in
man performed by God. For they are performed by man naturally, but (they are performed) by God in the wonder of
His Economy, supernaturally, in true wonder «(278). And again, in the same letter, he writes: «Therefore, He (Christ)
is also above death naturally, for His Incarnation took place in a holy manner, without intercourse, without the
concupiscence of sin and death. Because there is not in Him any one of these things, His fight was not His own or
for Himself; nor were the rest |67 of the weak things which He assumed in His person (His own or for Himself); but,
by His will He fulfilled them in Himself for us. For if He had been subject to them naturally, they would have been
performed by Him necessarily as by every man, and then His victory over these things would have been for Himself
and not for us. By His will, therefore, was He subject to them, not as by excess or defect, or as ruled by necessity, or
as impelled by the motion of concupiscence, or as a sufferer, or as mortal by nature, but as being above all these
things by nature» (279).

From these passages it seems clear that Philoxenus regards the infirmities, sufferings and death of Christ simply as
voluntary, not only in their assumption, but also in the way they were supported. He does not consider the humanity
of Christ as passible naturally. In this he departs from the common doctrine according to which the sufferings of
Christ were both voluntary and natural, that is, voluntarily assumed and naturally supported. They were voluntary
because the Son of God consented to forego the preternatural gifts of immortality and impassibility which belonged
to His innocent body by virtue of the hypostatic union, and because, after having assumed them, He had fall control
over them, and they were natural because He became like unto us in everything except sin. Hence we see that the
doctrine of Philoxenus on this point is not in harmony with his well known belief in the reality of Christ's humanity
and its consubstantiality with our human nature. In his teaching we already notice the germs of the heresy of Julian
of Halicarnassus who taught, against Severus of Antioch, that Christ was not subject to human passions or exposed
to the changes of our corruptible nature (280). |68
Among the infirmities which Christ assumed in the Incarnation Philoxenus appears to include the moral defect of
ignorance or liability to error. In the Letter to the Monks of Beth-Gaugal, he says: «He who as God. experiences
neither hunger, nor fatigue, nor sleep, nor ignorance; the Same, as man, was hungry and thirsty, ate and drank, was
sleepy and slept, and asked questions to learn «(281). Here, he evidently affirms of Christ as man what he denies of
him as God. The word te'a means «to err», and in a transitive sense «to forget» (Cf. PAYNE-SMITH, Thes. Syr., sub
voce). As Philoxenus denies it of Christ as God, he seems to affirm it of Him as man; the words «He asked questions
to learn» confirm this view.

Summing up of the Doctrine of Philoxenus.

27. From the comparison of the errors of Nestorius and of Eutyches with the passages adduced from Philoxenus'
works, the following points concerning his doctrine on the Incarnation seem clear: |69

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

b) With the Eutychians and against the Council of Chalcedon, he admits only one nature after the union.

c) This nature is a composite one, consisting of the divinity and of the humanity,

d) united without change, mixture or confusion,

e) after the manner of the soul and the body in man.

f) The humanity of Christ, although real and consubstantial with ours, is not a nature, nor a person.

g) The divinity and the humanity constitute in Christ one nature, which Philoxenus calls «One embodied nature of
God the Word».

h) The expression «The Immortal died» means that the Word of God suffered in the flesh, and not in so far as He is
God; so that the Trisagion, with the addition introduced by Peter the Fuller, is to be referred to Christ alone, and not
to the other two persons of the Holy Trinity.

i) Christ suffered by His will, which means not only that He assumed suffering voluntarily, but also that He was not
passible and mortal by nature.

Philoxenus and Original Sin.

28. In speaking of the death of Christ in his Letter to the Monks of Teleda, Philoxenus gives us incidently his
doctrine on original sin. He acknowledges its existence, its effects ---- privation of original justice, concupiscence,
and death ----, and its transmission into all those born according to the ordinary laws of nature. «On account of the
transgression of the first precept, death reigned, and this death is naturally mixed with concupiscence. Therefore
every one who comes into this world by way of intercourse, is born naturally mortal; and whether he sins or not,
whether he sins little or much, he is in any case subject |70 to death, because death is mixed in with his nature» (282).
And in the same letter, he states clearly that death and concupiscence are in us through ordinary generation: «God
then, when He wished to become man of the Virgin in order to create us anew by His becoming, was not incarnate
and born from intercourse, as in the old law, so that even in His Incarnation He might be above death and
concupiscence, for in every man these two things follow only from intercourse. Of Him, therefore, neither of these is
said, because He was conceived and begotten without intercourse. Therefore, the Holy Ghost came to the Virgin,
that the Incarnation of the Word might take place of her in a holy manner» (283).

Philoxenus and the Blessed Virgin.

29. That Philoxenus believed in the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin is very probable, not only because
it was a common doctrine in the Syriac Church in his time (284), but also on account of the allusions to it which we
find in his writings. He calls Mary «the pure Virgin» in the Letter to the Monks: «He (the Word) came down and
dwelt in the pure Virgin who was sanctified by God the Spirit, and He became man of her without change, in
everything like unto us except sin» (285). He also acknowledges in an explicit manner her virginity ante partum et in
partu. Thus, in the Letter to the Monks of Teleda, he says: «Therefore, He (Christ) is also above death naturally,
because His Incarnation took place in a holy manner without intercourse, without the concupiscence of sin and
death» (286). And |71 again, in the same letter: «Also all those who are born, are not born in a virginal manner; He
(Christ), on the contrary, was born of the Virgin who, in His birth, preserved the signs of her virginity» (287).

His DOCTRINE ON THE TRINITY.

Three Persons and one Nature.

30. When he treats of the Blessed Trinity, Philoxenus, like the other Monophysites of his day, preserves the
distinction between nature and person, which he does not admit in the mystery of the Incarnation. He confesses
clearly one God in three divine persons. Thus, in the Letter to the Monks, he writes: «This Jesus, God the Word, is
our truth, with His Father and with His Holy Spirit: one Trinity, one essence, one divinity, one nature from
everlasting and from eternity. For there is not in Him (God) nature and nature, nor essence and essence, nor anything
recent or old, but One in Three and Three in One; an eternal nature and eternal persons, one essence adored with its
persons from everlasting and from eternity» (288). In the Letter to the Monks of Teleda, speaking of the faith for
which we must be ready to die, he says: «Thus I believe and confess one substantial and eternal nature of the Father,
of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: the Father, Who is really Father, because of His Son Who is from Him; the Son,
Who is Son in truth, because He is consubstantial with the Father; and the Holy Ghost. Who proceeds from the
Father and is glorified with the Son; one God, |72 because there is one nature; three persons, because they are so»
(289). And again: «In this one divine nature with its three holy persons I have learned to believe» (290).

Equality and Consubstantiality of the Persons.

31. Philoxenus also teaches the equality and consubstantiality of the three divine persons. In the Letter to the Monks,
he calls the Son the Splendor and the essential Image of the Father: «By the will of the essence, this same Person
(the Word) came down from heaven, that is, God from God, natural Son of a natural Father, the Splendor of the
Father and His essential Image, God the Word Who is over all» (291). In the Letter to the Monks of Beth-Gaugal, he
calls Christ the equal of God: «He who does not confess that God emptied Himself, and took the likeness of a
servant, as Paul teaches, does not know that Christ is the equal of God» (292). He acknowledges in explicit terms that
the Son is consubstantial with the Father, as is clear from the opening sentence of the Letter to Zeno: «O Christ-
loving Zeno, Emperor, concerning the embodiment and the humanifying of God the Word, Who is consubstantial
with God the Father, and was begotten by Him before ages and worlds, Who is always God and near God, Who is
God the Word, because He was begotten by Him without passion and, with Him, is not subject to time, we have
learned, we believe, and we have received from tradition (as follows): that He (God the Word) emptied Himself and
came into the womb of the Virgin, without leaving the Father, without |73 separating Himself from Him with Whom,
near Whom, and like unto Whom He always is» (293).

That the testimonies as to the equality and consubstantiality of the Holy Ghost are not so numerous, is accounted for
by the fact that, in his letters, Philoxenus treats mainly of the Incarnation. Still the few passages in which he speaks
of the Holy Ghost leave no doubt as to his belief on this point. In the Letter to Zeno, he says that the Son is
consubstantial with the Father and with the Holy Ghost: «The person of the Son, therefore, became embodied by the
will of the Father and of the Holy Ghost, and this embodiment daes not exclude that He may be consubstantial with
them, for He was begotten Son (by the Father) and He was born Son (of the Virgin)» (294). And, in the same letter, he
attributes to the Holy Ghost as well as to the Father the power of raising Christ from the dead: «The Holy Ghost also
raised Him, for (Paul says again): He (Christ) was known to be the Son of God by power, and by the Holy Ghost
according to the resurrection from the dead» (295).

Eternal Generation of the Son.

32. The eternal generation of the Son is often spoken of in Philoxenus' writings especially in connection with His
temporal generation from the Virgin. In the Letter to the Monks, we read: «And He, Whose generation from the
Father is without beginning, was brought forth with a beginning in His generation from the Virgin» ( 296). And in the
Letter to Zeno: «She (the Virgin) did not bring Him forth spiritually since (the Word) has His spiritual generation
from the Father, and He did not |74 become (man), as He was begotten bj the Father, according to the order of the
(divine) nature and of the essential generation» (297).

Procession of the Holy Ghost.

33. That Philoxenus believed in the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father is evident from the passage
adduced above: «And the Holy Ghost, Who proceeds from the Father and is glorified with the Son» (298). This, in
fact, was the expression generally used in speaking of the procession of the Holy Ghost before the insertion of the
Filioque into the Creed (299). Not only does Philoxenus affirm that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father, but he
considers the procession of the Holy Ghost different from that of the Son, which is called generation. In the Letter to
Zeno, giving a reason why the Father and the Holy Ghost did not become incarnate, he says: «The Father had no
corporal generation, because He is always Father; nor had the Holy Ghost, because He did not come from the Father
as Son in order to become the Son of the Virgin» (300).

But does Philoxenus also teach that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Son? Assemani denies it on the strength of
the following passage in Philoxenus' treatise De Trinitate et Incarnatione: «Not indeed as the Son is from the Father
is also the Holy Ghost from the Son, but both are from the Father: the Father is Being only; the Son, Son of the
Being; the Holy Ghost is from the Being» (301). Here, however, Philoxenus does |75 not deny absolutely that the Holy
Ghost proceeds from the Sou, but seems to imply that He does not proceed from the Son in the same way as the Son
proceeds from the Father, that is, by way of generation. As a matter of fact, Assemani is obliged to admit that
Philoxenus contradicts himself in this passage, and goes against the principles he gives in the same treatise regarding
the distinction of the three divine persons. The principle is this: «The Father is distinguished from the Son by this
only that He is Begetter unbegotten; the Son is distinguished from the Father by this that He is begotten, not
begetter; and the Holy Ghost is distinguished from the Father and from the Son by this that He is always Holy
Ghost, and never Father and never Son» (302). Hence, argues Assemani, if the Son is distinguished by this only that
He is begotten, not begetter, it follows manifestly that He has everything that the Father possesses, except the power
of generating; and, consequently, the power of producing the Holy Ghost is common to Him with the Father (303).
There is no need, however, of making Philoxenus contradict himself, for, if we turn to his Letter to the Monks of
Teleda, we find a remarkable testimony concerning his belief in the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son. In
this letter, after declaring his faith in the Blessed Trinity, he adds: «One God, because there is one nature; three
persons because they are so; the Father Who is Father from everlasting and from eternity, Who is Father, not by will
only, but by nature; the Son Who is essentially Son with the Father, Son, not indeed by grace, but by natural
generation; and the Spirit Who is so, not metaphorically nor in time as the other messenger spirits who came into
existence, but Holy Spirit, from the nature of (men keyänä) and consubstantial with (bar keyänä) the Father and the
Son» (304). Here. Philoxenus asserts that the Holy Ghost is not only bar |76keyana, (consubstantial with) the Father
and the Son, but that He is also men keyana, that is, that He proceeds from the nature of the Father and of the Sou.
Hence we see that his teaching on the Holy Ghost is in perfect harmony with that of the Syriac Church. Long before
the insertion of the Filioque into the Creed, forty bishops from Persia assembled at Seleucia in 410 under the
presidency of SS. Isaac and Maruthas, and expressed their belief in the procession of the Holy Ghost in the
following canon, which is one of the oldest documents of Syriac literature: «We confess a Living and Holy Spirit,
the Living Paraclete Who is from the Father and from the Son, and one Trinity, one essence, one will, embracing the
faith of the three hundred and eighteen bishops which was defined in the city of Nice. Such is our confession and
our faith, which we have received from our holy Fathers» (305). Such was also the teaching of Jacob of Serugh (306)
and other Monophysites.
 C

His Doctrine on the Real Presence.

34. As regards the Holy Eucharist, there is no doubt that Philoxenus, like the other Monophysites of his day (307),
believed in the |77 real presence of Christ in the Blessed Sacrament. In his Letter to the Monks of Senim, written a
year or so before his death, he refutes the opinion of the Nestorians who held that the body and blood given in Holy
Communion were not the body and blood of Christ, but the body and blood of a man whom the Word of God had
assumed and united to Himself (308). The passage quoted by Assemani is well worth reproducing here, for it is one of
the clearest testimonies of the Syriac Church on the dogma of the real presence: «And He (Christ) is one Son and
one Lord in these two: that is, in so far as He is God, and in so far as He became man. He remained one after He
became man, as He was one before His Incarnation, except that formerly (before the Incarnation) He was one
without flesh, but now (after the Incarnation) He is one having a body. For the flesh, which He took from us belongs
to Him, and not to a man considered distinct from Himself. And, therefore, we confess that we receive the living
body of the Living God, and not the mere, simple body of a mortal man; likewise, we receive the living blood of the
Living One in the sacred draughts (of Communion), and not the mere blood of a corruptible man like ourselves. For
it was not sanctified bread that He called "His body"; nor was it wine enriched only by a blessing that He called "His
blood". But He said of them that they were truly His own body and blood, as it is written: "Jesus took bread, and
blessed, and broke: and gave to his disciples, and said: Take ye, and eat: This is My body, which shall be broken for
you unto remission of sins. Likewise, taking the chalice, He gave thanks, and said: Take ye, and drink of this: This is
My blood which shall be shed for you unto remission of sins". Thus He called the bread "body" and the wine
"blood". not indeed (the body and blood) of another man, but His own» (309). |78 It is clear that Philoxenus
acknowledges here the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist and the dogma of transubstantiation. In this he agrees
with the Jacobites as is plain from the liturgies which have come down to us (310).

Concerning the reception of Holy Communion, wo find a very interesting passage in Philoxenus' Letter to the
Monks. Speaking of the Word made man, he says: «Invisible, we see Him; not tangible, we handle Him; not capable
of being eaten we eat Him; not capable of being tasted, we drink Him; we embrace Him Who is all powerful; we
kiss Him Who is infinite» (311). Here, we have not only an explicit proof of his belief in the real presence, «we eat
Him, we drink Him», but probably also an allusion to the special acts of devotion which, in the early ages of the
Church, often accompanied the reception of the Holy Eucharist. We know that, in the times of persecution, the
faithful used to receive the Blessed Sacrament in their hand (312), from the priest (313), and carry it home where they
could communicate themselves. Even after the days of persecution, the custom continued for a long time. St. John
Damascene tells us that, in Jerusalem, the faithful, after receiving the Blessed Sacrament in their hand, carried it to
their eyes, lips, and forehead, to sanctify themselves (314). This custom obtained among the Syrians in the days of
Aphraates, for he says in his seventh Demonstration: «They love Our Lord, and they lick His wounds when they
receive His body, and place it over their eyes, and lick it with their tongue, as the dog licks |79 his master» (315). It is
probably to the same custom that Philoxenus refers when he says in the passage quoted above: «We embrace Him
Who is all powerful; we kiss Him Who is infinite». |80

[Footnotes renumbered and placed at end]

1. (1) HEFELE, Conciliengeschichte, vol. II, p. 564.

2. (2) This heresy is still professed not only by the Jacobites of Syria, but also by the dissident Copts, Armenians, and
Abyssinians (cf. ADOLPHE D'AVRIL, Documents relatifs aux Eglises d'Orient, ch. III).

3. (3) MIGNE, Patrologia Graeca (P. G.), vol. 86, p. 216.

4. (1) MIGNE, Patrologia Latina (P. L.), vol. 68, p. 949.

5. (2) MIGNE, P. G., vol. 86 bis, pp. 2657 sqq.

6. (3) MIGNE, P. G., vol. 108, pp. 325 sqq.

7. (4) MIGNE, P. G., vol. 121, pp. 676 sqq.

8. (5) Cf. KRÜGER, Monophysitische Streitigkeiten im Zusammenhange mit der Reichspolitik, p. 4.

9. (6) Assemani quotes those extracts from Codex Syr. nost. XIII. This is evidently an error (cf. B. O., I, 614).

10. (7) Bibliotheca Orientalis clementino-vaticana (B. O.), I, pp. 346-358.

11. (8) B. O., I, pp. 387-429.

12. (9) Ed. W. WRIGHT, Cambridge, 1882. The name of the author of this Chronicle is unknown (cf. DUVAL, La
Littérature Syriaque, 2d. ed., p. 188).

13. (10) B. O., I, p. 475.

14. (11) Ed. ABBELOOS and LAMY, vol. I, pp. 183, 195.

15. (1) B. O., I, p. 352.

16. (2) DUVAL, Histoire politique, religieuse et littéraire d'Edesse jusqu'à la première- croisade, p. 168.

17. (3) Philoxenus wrote his Letter to the Monks of Senun in 522 Cf B. O., II, p. 20.

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

19. (5) The country between the Tigris and the mountains of Kurdistan, south of the Lesser Zab and north of the
Didjala (cf. DUVAL, Lit. Syr., Map.).

20. (6) See Appendix I.

21. (1) B. O., I, 353.

22. (2) MIGNE, P. Cf., vol. 86, p. 216.

23. (3) MIGNE, P. G., vol. 108, p. 328.

24. (4) MIGNE, P. G., vol. 121, p. 676.

25. (5) TILLEMONT, Mémoires pour servir à l'histoire ecclésiastique des six premiers siècles, vol. XVI, p. 677.

26. (6) LE QUIEN, Oriens Christianus, vol. II. p. 928.

27. (7) «Peri\ tou&tou, a4 polla_ para_ diafo&rwn h)kri/bwsa, a)po_ me/rouj le/cw. » MIGNE, P. G., vol. 86, p. 216.

28. (1) «Kateilh&famen ga_r e0ni/ouj e0sxatoge/rontaj, tou_j, o#sa sumbebhken e)pi\ Flabianou~ th~| mnh&mh|
diasw&zontaj». MIGNE, P. Gr., vol. 86-bis, p. 2665.
29. (2) MIGNE, ibid., p. 2657.

30. (3) P. 125.

31. (4) P. 126.

32. (5) B. O., II, p. 12.

33. (1) B. O., I, p. 353.

34. (2) Cf. DUVAL, Histoire d'Edesse, p. 145.

35. (3) DUVAL, Littérature Syriaque, p. 334.

36. (4) Isaac of Antioch, Narses, and others.

37. (5) DUVAL, Littérature Syriaque, p. 308.

38. (6) DUVAL, ibid., p. 254.

39. (7) The influence of Aristotelian philosophy among the Syrians dates from the beginning of the fifth century,
when the spread of Nestorian doctrines had made a knowledge of Greek absolutely necessary. According to Ebed-
Jesu, three professors of the Persian school of Edessa, Ibas, Koumi, and Probus, translated into Syriac the works of
the Interpreter (Theodore of Mopsuestia) and the writings of Aristotle (B. O., III, pars I, p. 85). It is not believed that
all the works of Aristotle were translated by them. Probus translated and commented the Peri\ e9rmhnei/aj
(DUVAL, Lit. Syr., p. 254). He also wrote a treatise on the Prior Analytics (edited and translated by A. VAN
HOONACKER, Journal Asiatique, 9th series, t. XVI, pp. 70-166). After the destruction of the Persian school of
Edessa by order of Zeno in 489, the study of the philosophy of Aristotle was cultivated by both the Jacobites and the
Nestorians. Among the Jacobites, we may notice Sergius of Res'aina († 536), Severus Sebokht (VII c.), Jacob of
Edessa († 708), and George, bishop of the Arabs († 724); among the Nestorians, Henaniso' I († 701), Mar-Abba II (†
751), and especially the numerous scholars and physicians who lived at the court of the Abbassides in Baghdad
during the ninth and tenth centuries. The Nestorians initiated the Arabs to the philosophy of Aristotle, and translated
it for them from Syriac into Arabic. The Arabs proved very apt pupils. Indeed, they soon surpassed their teachers
themselves, and, after having made Aristotelian philosophy their own, they introduced it to the scholars of the
middle ages. Cf. DUVAL, Lit. Syr., pp. 253-263.

40. (1) WRIGHT, Catalogue of the Syriac Mss. in the British Museum, part II, p. 528.

41. (2) I have noted the few Greek words occurring in the three letters.

42. (1) DUVAL, Histoire d'Edesse, p. 168.

43. (2) DUVAL, ibid., p. 171.

44. (3) DUVAL, Histoire d''Edesse, p. 172.

45. (4) DUVAL, Littérature Syriaque, p. 342.

46. (1) DUVAL, Hist. d'Edesse, p. 174.

47. (2) Cf. the first letter of Jacob of Serugh to the Monks of Mar-Bassus, published by Abbé Martin in the Z. D. M.
G., vol. 30, p. 221: «Now there was in the city (Edessa) a school of Persians, which adhered very strongly to the
doctrine of the foolish Diodorus. That school has corrupted the whole East, although it has since been destroyed by
the care of the Blessed Mar Cyrus, of holy memory, bishop of Edessa, and by order of the faithful Emperor Zeno».

48. (3) Cf. his confession of faith against the Council of Chalcedon, in Budge, The Discourses of Philoxenus, vol. II,
p. xcviii.

49. (4) B. O., II, p. 15.

50. (5) P. 94.

51. (1) The modern Diarbekir. An extract from the letter to the Monks of Amid is extant in Syr. Ms. Add. 17193 of
the B. M., (Wright DCCCLXI), fol. 69b. Another fragment is found in Syr. Ms. 126 of the Vatican (Cod. Syr. nost.
VI). Cf. B. O., II, p. 37.

52. (2) A little east of Amid. A fragment of the letter to the Monks of Arzün is found in Syr. Ms. 135 of the Vatican
(Cod. Syr. nost. XI), fol. 89. Cf. B. O., II, p. 45.

53. (3) The letter to the Monks of Senün was not written till the year 522 (B. O., II, p. 20), but Philoxenus'
acquaintance with these monks must go back to a much earlier date. The letter is extant in Syr. Ms. 136 of the
Vatican, fol. 58v-end of Ms., and in Syr Ms. Add. 14597 of the B. M. (Wright DCCXXX), fol. 35b-91a. The
monastery of Senün was situated near Edessa (B. O., II, p. 38).

54. (4) Cf. SOZOMEN in MIGNE, P. G., vol. 67, p. 1077.

55. (1) Locis citatis.

56. (2) Cf. MARIN, Les Moines de Constantinople, p. 270.

57. (3) On this canon of the Council of Chalcedon cf. HEFELE, Conciliengeschichte, vol. II, p. 527.

58. (4) TILLEMONT, Mémoires, vol. XVI, p. 330.

59. (5) TILLEMONT, ibid., p. 335.

60. (6) THEOPHANES in MIGNE, P. G., vol. 108, p. 324.

61. (7) HEFELE, op. cit., vol. II, p. 607 sqq.

62. (1) Cf. THEOPHANES in MIGNE, P. G., vol. 108, p. 325.

63. (2) TILLEMONT, Mémoires, vol. XVI, p. 366.

64. (3) TILLEMONT, ibid., p. 319.

65. (4) The modern Telladi about half way between Antioch and Aleppo. Cf. GUIDI, La Lettera di Filosseno ai
monaci di Tell'Addâ. p. III.

66. (5) Near Apamea. See DUVAL, Lit. Syr., Map.

67. (6) THEODORE the READER, in MIGNE, P. G., vol. 86, p. 216.
68. (7) THEOPHANES in MIGNE, P. G., vol. 108, p. 325.

69. (8) TILLEMONT, Mémoires, vol. XVI, p. 366.

70. (1) Cf. BARONIUS, Annales, anno 485, t. VIII, p. 460.

71. (2) P. 115.

72. (3) The modern Manbidj, northeast of Antioch and almost due south of Carchemish. Hierapolis was a
metropolitan see and, according to LE QUIEN (Oriens Christianus, vol. II, pp. 926-952), had jurisdiction over the
following thirteen dioceses or churches: Cyrrhus (Huru Peigamber), Samosata (Samsat), Douche (Dulluk),
Germanicia (Maras), Zeugma (Biredjik), Europus (Djerabis), Barbalissus (Kalaat Balis?), Perrha, Urima, Sura,
Neocesarea, Sergiopolis and Marianopolis. See KIEPERT'S Maps (Provinces Asiatiques de l'Empire Ottoman), and
his map of Prof. HAUSSKNECHT'S Reisen im Orient, 1865-1869, I-II. For a history and description of Hierapolis,
see BITTER'S Erdkunde im Verhältniss zur Natur and zur Geschichte des Menschen, 2d ed., vol. 10 (West-Asien,
Band IV), pp. 1041-1061. Cf. also POCOCK.E, A description of the East, London (1745), vol. II, part I, p. 166 sqq.,
and the Archives des Missions scientifiques et littéraires, Paris (1866), 2e série, t. III, p. 347 sqq.

73. (1) THEOPHANES in MIGNE, P. G., vol. 108, p. 328.

74. (2) See Appendix I.

75. (3) BARONIUS, anno 485, Annales, vol. VIII, p. 456.

76. (4) B. O., II, p. 12.

77. (5) B. O., I, p. 408. Cf. RALLIER, Untersuch, ü. d. Edess. Chr. 125.

78. (6) GIBBON, The history of the decline and fall of the Roman Empire, ed. Milman (1840), vol. VI, p. 29.

79. (7) Mémoires, vol. XVI, p. 664.

80. (1) The Discourses of Philoxenus, vol. II, p. xxi.

81. (2) Ibid., p. LXXIII.

82. (3) BUDGE, ibid., p. xxix.

83. (4) Edition Wright, p. 25.

84. (5) «fasi\ de\ Flabiano_n toi=j e0n Xalkhdo&ni do&gmasin a)ntikei=sqai». THEOPHANES in MIGNE, P. G.,
vol. 108, p. 341.

85. (1) Cf. LIBERATUS, MIGNE, P. L., vol. 68, p. 1030.

86. (2) B. O., II, p. 15.

87. (3) DUVAL, Lit. Syr., p. 357; B. O., II, p. 15.

88. (1) MIGNE, P. L., vol 68, p. 949.

89. (2) THEOPHANES in MIGNE, P. G., vol. 108, p. 340. Cf. also ASSEMANI. B. O., II, p. 15.

90. (3) Cf. TILLEMONT, Mémoires, vol. XVI, p. 677.

91. (1) EVAGRIUS in MIGNE, P. G., vol. 86 bis, p. 2661.

92. (2) EVAGRIUS, ibid.

93. (3) TILLEMONT, Mémoires, vol. XVI, p. 679.

94. (4) TILLEMONT. ibid., p. 681.

95. (5) HEFELE, Conciliengeschichte, vol. II, p. 666.

96. (6) TILLEMONT, ibid., p. 703.

97. (7) THEOPHANES in MIGNE, P. G., vol. 108, p. 361.

98. (8) EVAGRIUS in MIGNE, P. G., vol. 86 bis, p. 2665.

99. (1) THEOPHANES, ibid.

100. (2) EVAGRIUS, ibid.

101. (3) EVAGRIUS, ibid., p. 2668.

102. (4) HERGENRÖTHER, Histoire de l'Eglise, traduction Belet, vol. II, n.° 163, p. 274.

103. (5) MIGNE, P. G., vol. 108, p. 384.

104. (1) Barhebraei Chronicon Ecclesiasticum, ed. ABBELOOS and LAMY, vol. I, p. 197.

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

106. (3) B. O., II, p. 20.

107. (4) DENZINGER, Ritus Orientalium, vol. II, p. 104.

108. (1) CEDRENUS in MIGNE, P. G., vol. 121, p. 676.

109. (2) EVAGRIUS in MIGNE, P. G., vol. 86 bis, p. 2660.

110. (3) Op. cit., vol. II, p. xxiv.

111. (4) BUDGE, op. cit., vol. II. p. cxxxvi.

112. (5) B. O., II, p. 21.

113. (6) EVAGRIUS in MIGNE, P. G., vol. 86 bis, p. 2660: «Ou)k oi1damen ti/ skopwn h2 poi/an e1xqran pro_j
Flabiano_n e0kdikw~n, proga&sei de\ th~j pi/stewj, w(j oi( polloi\ dihgou~ntai, kinei=n me\n pro_j au)to_n kai\
diaba&llein a!rxetai w(j Nestoriano&n».

114. (1) P. 117.

115. (2) GUIDI, La lettera di Filosseno ai monaci di Tell'Addâ, fol. 29a, col. 1, lines 11-24.

116. (3) GUIDI, ibid., col. 2, lines 12-18.

117. (4) B. O., I, p., 475.

118. (1) Chronicon eccl., vol. I, p. 183.

119. (2) B. O., II, p. 12.

120. (3) Ibid., p. 11.

121. (4) Ibid., p. 18.

122. (5) Ibid., p. 20.

123. (6) Art. Syriac Literature in Ency. Brit., 9th ed., p. 872.

124. (7) Op. cit., p.111.

125. (1) For a complete catalogue of the writings ascribed to Philoxenus, see BUDGE, op. cit., vol. II, pp. XLVIII-
LXVI. After ASSEMANI (B. O., II, p. 37), BUDGE (ibid., p. LVIII, n°. XLV) speaks of two letters of Philoxenus to
the Monks of Teleda. As GUIDI remarks (Z. D. M. G., vol. 35, p. 143), we know of one only. The supposed second
letter to the Monks of Teleda, which is the first of the three letters published in this dissertation, is to be identified
with the Letter to the Monks which Philoxenus inserted in his treatise showing that One of the Trinity was incarnate
and suffered for us. This treatise is found in Syr. Ms. Add. 12164 of the British Museum (Wright's Catal., n°.
DCLXXVI), and in Syr. Ms. 138 of the Vatican.

126. (2) B. O., II, p. 46.

127. (1) Syro-Chaldaicae Institutiones, pp. 71-78.

128. (2) Liturgiarum Orientalium collectio, vol. II, pp. 300, 309.

129. (3) B. O., II, Xenaias Mabugensis, pp. 10-46.

130. (4) These discourses are found in 19 Mss. of the British Museum, either in whole or in part (BUDGE, op. cit.,
vol. II, pp. LII, xciv). They are extant also in Syr. Ms. 201 (XIIIth century) of the Bibliothèque Nationale of Paris
(See ZOTENBERG, Catalogue des Manuscrits Syriaques et Sabeens de la Bibliothèque Nationale, p. 149). Extracts
of them in Karsuni exist in Ms. 239 of the same library (ZOTENBERG, ibid., p. 194).

131. (1) BUDGE, op. cit., vol. II, p. LXXIII.

132. (2) DUVAL, Littérature Syriaque, p. 230.

133. (3) Vol. II; Text, p. cxxxvi; Translation, p. xlv.

134. (1) Vol. II, Text, p. cxx.

135. (2) Ibid., Text, p. xcviii; Translation, p. xxxiii.

136. (3) Ibid., Text, p. xcvi; Translation, p. xxxt.

137. (4) Ibid., Text, p. civ.

138. (1) Ibid., Text, p. cxxiii; Summary, p. xxxix.

139. (2) Ibid., Text, p. c; Summary, p. xxxvi.

140. (1) Ibid., p. c.

141. (2) Syro-Chaldaicae Institutions, pp. 71-78.

142. (3) WRIGHT, Cat. Syr. Mss., p. 998.

143. (4) WRIGHT, ibid., p. 338.

144. (5) The magister militum of the Romans (Cf. Du GANGE, Glossarium ad Scriptures mediae et infimae
graecitatis, vol. II, p. 1459).

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

146. (1) The kingdom of Hira was founded, it is related, about 195 by Malik ben Fahm, but see ROTHSTEIN, op. c.
37 f.

147. (2) These doubts are again increased by the strong probability that, at the time the letter is supposed to have
been written, the kings of Hira were still heathens. Cf. the article of GUIDI, Mundhir III, und die beiden
monophysitischen Bischöfe in the Z. D. M. G., vol. 35, p. 142, where he shows that Mundhir III, who reigned in Hira
from 505 to 513, was very probably a heathen.

148. (3) This genealogy makes Nestorius and Theodore first cousins. There is no evidence of their having been
related.

149. (1) Theodore was born at Antioch, about 350 (MIGNE, P. G., vol. 66, p. 11), and Nestorius was born in
Germanicia (Marais) (SMITH, Dictionary of Christian Biography, art. Nestorianism).

150. (2) According to all accounts, they both studied at Antioch.

151. (3) This is at variance with well established dates. Honorius ruled in the West from 395 to 423. The emperors of
the East, during that period, were Arcadius (395-408), and Theodosius II (408-450). Nestorius was consecrated
bishop of Constantinople, April 10, 428, five years after Honorius' death (Cf. SMITH, loc. cit.), whilst Theodore
became bishop of Mopsuestia at the end of the year 392 or the beginning of 393 (Cf. GOYAU, Chronologie de
l'Empire Romain, p. 610).

152. (4) There is no evidence of any correspondence between Theodore and Nestorius, especially after the elevation
of the latter to the see of Constantinople, for Theodore died in 428 (MIGNE, P. G., vol. 66, p. 12). Nor is it certain
that Nestorius was ever a disciple of Theodore at Antioch, as some have maintained. All we know is that Nestorius
and his followers held the writings of Theodore in great esteem (Cf. TILLEMONT, Mémoires, vol. XII, p. 441).

153. (5) Theodore died in 428, and the Council of Ephesus was held in 431.

154. (1) In his Letter to the Monks (p. 97), Philoxenus accuses Eutyches of teaching that the body of Christ was
made from nothing.

155. (2) Pope Leo the Great (440-461).

156. (3) As Monophysites did not distinguish between nature and person, they identified the followers of the Council
of Chalcedon with the Nestorians.

157. (4) The dogmatic epistle to Flavian of Constantinople; MIGNE, P. L., vol. 54, p. 755.

158. (5) Proterius. He was patriarch of Alexandria from 454 to 457.

159. (6) Timothy Aelurus.

160. (7) Proterius was not stoned by his own people, but was stabbed to death together with six of his priests in the
baptistry of his cathedral on Good Friday 457 by the followers of Timothy himself. Cf. NEALE, The patriarchate of
Alexandria, vol. II, p. 12.

161. (1) The origin of the Acephali, and of the Esaianists, who were only a branch of that sect, does not date from the
time of Timothy, but from the time of Peter Mongus, for the Acephali separated themselves from the latter, because
he accepted the Henoticon, and would not anathematize the Council of Chalcedon. (Cf. LEONTIUS BYZ., De
Sectis, Act. V, n.° 2, in MIGNE, P. G., vol. 86, p. 1229). Their origin is posterior to 482, the year in which the
Henoticon was promulgated. As to the origin of the Esaianists, some say that the hand of a certain bishop Eusebius,
when dead, had been laid on the head of Esaias. Cf. NEALE, ibid., p. 22.

162. (1) Stephen Bar Sudaili, p. 58.

163. (2) La lettera di Filosseno ai monad di Tell 'Adda ( Teleda), Memoria del Socio IGNAZIO GUIDI. Reale
Accademia dei Lincei (anno CCLXXXII, 1884-85), Roma, 1886.

164. (1) Published by GUIDI. ibid., p. vi.

165. (2) B. O., II, p. 37.

166. (3) Op. cit., p. v, note 1.

167. (4) LE QUIEN, Oriens christianus, vol. II, p. 732.

168. (5) ABBELOOS and LAMY, Barhebraei Chronicon, vol. I, p. 195. Cf. also the chronological Canon of James
of Edessa, edited by Brooks in the Z. D. M. G., vol. 53, p. 318.

169. (6) GUIDI, op. cit., fol. 14b, col. 1, lines 14-21.

170. (1) LE QUIEN, ibid., p. 782.

171. (2) Op. cit., p. 111, note 4.

172. (3) GUIDI, op. cit., fol. 4 a, col. 2, lines 2-21.

173. (1) GUIDI, op. cit., p. v.

174. (1) HERGENRÖTHER, Histoire de l'Eglise, traduction de P. Bélet, vol. II, n. 126, p. 201.

175. (2) HERGENRÖTHER, ibid.

176. (1) Cf. HERGENRÖTHER, op. cit., vol. II, n. 98, p. 134; also VACANT, Dictionnaire de théologie catholique,
art. Antioche, p. 1435.

177. (2) Nestorians.

178. (3) Cf. VACANT, op. cit., art. Alexandrie, p. 805.

179. (4) HEFELE, Conciliengeschichte, vol. II, p. 142.

180. (5) Strict Eutychians.

181. (6) The Syrian Stephen Bar Sudaili.

182. (1) HEFELE, Conciliengeschichte, vol. II, p. 564.

183. (1) DUVAL, Histoire d'Edesse, p. 177.

184. (2) B. O., I, p. 352.

185. (3) LABBE-MANSI, Sacrorum Conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio, vol. V, p. 696.

186. (4) Homélie de Narses sur les trois docteurs Nestoriens, par l'Abbé F. MARTIN, in the Journal Asiatique;
Introduction and Syriac text, 9th séries, tome XIV, pp. 446-492; French translation, 9th series, tome XV, pp. 469-
525.

187. (5) Ibid, tome XIV, p. 453, lines 18-19.

188. (1) P. 120.

189. (2) P. 99.

190. (1) In MARIUS MERCATOR, MIGNE, P. L., vol. 48, p. 760.

191. (2) Sermon V, n. 8; MIGNE, P. L., ibid., p. 787.

192. (3) P. 97.

193. (4) P. 122.

194. (5) BUDGE, op. cit., vol. II, p. cxxxv.

195. (1) P. 102.

196. (2) Sermon VII, n.° 45: MIGNE, ibid., p. 800.

197. (3) HEFELE, Conciliengeschichte, vol. II, p. 174.

198. (4) Journal Asiatique, op. cit., tome XIV, p. 476, line 25, and p. 477, lines 1-3.

199. (1) BUDGE, op. cit., vol. II, p. cxxix.

200. (1) BUDGE, ibid., p. cxxxiii.

201. (2) P. 113.

202. (3) MIGNE, P. L., vol. 48, p. 769.

203. (4) MIGNE, ibid., p. 784.

204. (1) P. 112.

205. (2) P. 120.

206. (3) HARDUIN, Acta Conciliorum, vol. I, p. 1319.

207. (4) P. 112.

208. (1) MIGNE, ibid., p. 766.

209. (2) Journal Asiatique, op. cit., tome XIV, p. 453, lines 22-25.

210. (3) ASSEMANI, B. O., III, pars 2a, p. 218. Cf. also CHABOT, De S. Isaaci Ninivitae vita, scriptis et doctrina,
p. 23.

211. (4) P. 121.

212. (5) MIGNE, P. L., vol. 48, p. 762.

213. (1) MIGNE, ibid.

214. (2) MIGNE, ibid., p. 780.

215. (3) P. 110.

216. (4) P. 103.

217. (5) BUDGE, op. cit., vol. II, p. cxxxvii, line 17.

218. (6) Cf. LABBE-MANSI, op. cit., vol. V, p. G96.

219. (1) P. 113.

220. (2) P. 109.

221. (3) GUIDI, op. cit., fol. 5a, col. 2, lines 3-23.

222. (4) HEFELE, op. cit., vol. II, p. 317.

223. (5) HEFELE, ibid.

224. (1) HEFELE, op. cit., vol. II, p. 564.

225. (2) HERGENRÖTHER, op. cit., vol. II, n.° 142, p. 228.

226. (3) HARDUIN, Acta Conciliorum, vol. II, p. 142.

227. (1) 'All'e3na fame\n Ui9o_n, kai\ w(j oi9 Pate/rej ei0rh&kasi, mi/an fu&sin tou~ Qeou~ Lo&gou
sesarkwme/nhn. MIGNE, P. G., vol. 77, p. 232.

228. (2) MIGNE, ibid., p. 181.

229. (3) Thus Justinian, Liber adv. Origen., in MIGNE, P. G., vol. 86, p. 1001, says: «Kai\ au)to_j o( path_r
(Kuri/lloj) o9sa&kij mi/an fu&sin ei]pe tou~ lo&gou sesarkwme/nhn, e0pi\ tou&tou tw~| th~j fu&seuj o)no&mati
a)nti\ u(posta&sewj e0xrh&sato ».

230. (4) HARDUIN, op. cit., vol. II, p. 166.

231. (5) P. 111.

232. (1) P. 113.

233. (2) BUDGE, op. cit., vol. II, p. cxxiii.

234. (3) BUDGE, ibid., p. cxxvi.

235. (4) P. 98.

236. (1) Summa Theologica, pars 3a, q. 2a, art. I.

237. (2) Cf. HERGENRÖTHER, op. cit., vol. II, n° 144, p. 230.

238. (3) Cf. HARDUIN, op. cit., vol. II, p. 454.

239. (4) P. 96-97.

240. (1) P. 121.

241. (2) B. O., II, p. 25.

242. (3) B. O., II, p. 26.

243. (1) This tract is extant in Syr. Ms. 135 of the Vatican library, and is as yet unpublished. We quote from a copy
in the possession of Prof. Hyvernat.

244. (2)
245. (3) HARDUIN, op. cit., vol II, p. 455.

246. (1) B. O., II, p. 33.

247. (2) Ibid., p. 84.

248. (3) Z.D.M.G., vol. 30, p. 235, lines 15-17. The letters of Jacob of Serugh to the Monks of Mar Bassus and to
Paul of Edessa have been published and translated by Abbé MARTIN in the Z. D. M. G., vol. 30, pp. 217-275. They
prove beyond all reasonable doubt that Jacob of Serugh was a Monophysite.

249. (4) « o4j ou)de\ to_ sw~ma tou~ Kuri/ou o(moou&sion h(mi=n e1legen ei]nai », in MIGNE, P. G., vol. 86 bis,
p. 2445.

250. (5) Liber Dogmatum, in MIGNE, P. L., vol. 58, p. 981.

251. (6) HEFELE, Conciliengeschichte, vol. II, p. 322.

252. (1) RENAUDOT, Historia patriarcharum alexandrinorum jacobitarum, p. 115.

253. (2) P. 97.

254. (3) P. 97.

255. (1) GUIDI, op. cit., fol. 20a, col. 2, line 16-fol. 20b, col. 1, line 21.

256. (1) GUIDI, op. cit., fol. 20b, col. 2, line 19 - fol. 21a, col. 1, line 6.

257. (2) From this we see how groundless is the assertion of Theophanes (MIGNE, P. G., vol. 108, p. 384) and of
Cedrenus (MIGNK, P. G., vol. 121, p. 693) who accuse Philoxenus of Manicheism. This charge is sufficiently
refuted by his opinion on the reality of the body of Christ; besides, he condemns Mani and Manicheism explicitly. In
the Letter to the Monks of Beth-Gaugal, he says: «He who says that the aspect of Christ was a false appearance, and
not a real embodiment from the nature of the Virgin, is a disciple of Mani and Marcion» (p. 114). And in the Letter
to the Monks of Teleda, «It was not an appearance that the Apostles touched, O Manichean, nor a mere man, O
Jew». (GUIDI, op. cit., fol. 20b, col. 1, lines 26-29).

258. (3) P. 119.

259. (4) P. 101.

260. (1) P. 110. Cf. ST. AUGUSTINE, De civitate Dei, lib. XXI, c. XV, in MIGNE, P. L., vol. 41, p. 729: «Unicus
enim natura Dei Filius, propter nos misericordia factus est filius hominis, ut nos natura filii hominis, filii Dei per
illum gratia fieremus».

261. (2) HARDUIN, op. cit., vol. II, p. 455.

262. (3) Cf. TILLEMONT, Mémoires, vol. XVI, p. 301.

263. (4) BARONIUS, Annales cccl., anno 477.

264. (5) During the year 446, earthquakes were frequently felt in Constantinople. One day, the earth shaking more
violently than usual, the clergy and the faithful withdrew into the country, and offered public prayers for the
salvation of their city. During one of these public services, a boy was suddenly taken up into the air before the
bishop and the people, and it is said that he heard the angels sing: a#gioj o( qeo_j, a#gioj i0sxuro_j, a#gioj
a)qa&natoj, e0le/hson h(ma~j. Such was the origin of the Trisagion. In the Latin Church it is sung in Greek on Good
Friday during the exposition of the Cross to the veneration of the faithful, and it is recited in Latin at Prime of the
Ferial office. Peter the Fuller inserted into the Trisagion the words «o( staurwqei\j di' h(ma~j». This addition was
capable of a twofold interpretation. The Catholics who accepted it, and some Monophysites, understood it as
referring to Christ alone. Other Monophysites, and especially the Theopaschites, understood this addition as
meaning that the whole Trinity had suffered. To remove all ambiguity, Calandion, patriarch of Antioch (182-485),
added the words «Xristo_j Basileu&j» after a)qa&natoj, thus referring explicitly the crucifixion to Christ alone. Cf.
TILLEMONT, Mémoires, vol. XIV, p. 713 sqq.; BARONIUS, anno 446, Annales, vol. VII, p. 579 sqq.

265. (1) GIBBON, Decline and Fall, ed. Milman, vol. VI, p. 30; MARIN Les Moines de Constantinople, p. 272.

266. (2) P. 109.

267. (1) P. 123-124.

268. (2) P. 101.

269. (3) P. 101.

270. (1) GUIDI, op. cit., fol. 13a, col. 2, line 22 - fol. 13b, col. 1, line 13.

271. (2) GUIDI, op. cit., fol. 15a, col. 2, line 26 - fol. 15b, col. 2, line 13.

272. (1) P. 108.

273. (2) Lit. or. coll., vol. II, p. 70.

274. (3) B. O., II, p. 36.

275. (4) GUIDI, op. cit., fol. 15 a, col. 2, lines 2-6.

276. (1) GUIDI, ibid., fol. 19a, col. 2, line 10; ----fol. 19b, col. 1, line 7.

277. (2) P. 101.

278. (3) GUIDI, op. cit., fol. 19 a, col. 2, lines 1-9.

279. (1) GUIDI, op. cit., fol. 11b, col. 1, line 29 ---- col. 2, line 29.

280. (2) Julian held that the body of Christ was incorruptible, that it was not subject to the changes of our nature.
Severus maintained the con trary. Having been expelled from their sees by Emperor Justin in 519 on account of their
Monophysite doctrines and of their opposition to the Council of Chalcedon, they sought refuge in Egypt. There each
began to propagate his opinions on the body of Christ. Hence arose the famous disputes about the corruptibility and
the incorruptibility of the body of the Lord. The controversy rose to a serious height in Alexandria. The adherents of
Severus were called fqartola&trai, or worshipers of the corruptible; the followers of Julian were known by the name
of a)fqartodokh~tai, or teachers of the incorruptible. The patriarch of Alexandria, Timothy II, although inclining to
the creed of Severus, tried to conciliate both parties and to remain in communion with them. After his death (536),
each party chose its own patriarch. The followers of Severus, having elected Theodosius, called themselves
Theodosians; those of Julian elected Gaianus and became known as Gaianites. ---- Cf. HEFELE,
Conciliengeschichte, vol. II, p. 573; NEALE, Patriarchate of Alexandria, vol. II, p. 30; PETAVIUS, Dogmata
Theologica, De Incarn., lib. I, cap. XVI, num. XI-XIII.

281. (1) P. 108.

282. (1) GUIDI, op. cit., fol. 11a, col. 1, line 26 - col. 2, line 7.

283. (2) GUIDI, op. cit., fol. 11a, col. 2, lines 8-30.

284. (3) Apud Syros praecipue, forsitan magis dilucida et frequens quam in aliis ccclesiis occurrit perfectae
a)namarthsi/aj et integrae puritatis Dei Genitricis assertio. ABBELOOS, Vita S. Jacobi Sarugensis, p. 187.

285. (4) P. 96.

286. (5) GUIDI, op. cit.. fol. 11b, col. 1. line 29 col. 2 - line 1.

287. (1) GUIDI, ibid., fol. 17b. col. 1. lines 23-26.

288. (2) P. 96.

289. (1) GUIDI, op. cit., fol. 4a, col. 2, line 22 - fol. 4b, col. 1, line 5.

290. (2) GUIDI, op. cit., fol. 4b, col. 1, lines 26-29.

291. (3) P. 96. Cf. Hebr, I, 3.

292. (4) P. 110.

293. (1) P. 118.

294. (2) P. 121.

295. (3) P. 124.

296. (4) P. 98.

297. (1) P. 119.

298. (2) P. 71.

299. (3) The definition of the Council of Constantinople (381) runs thus: (Histeu&omen) kai\ ei0j to_ pneu~ma to_
a#gion, to_ ku&rion, to_ zwopoio_n, to_ e0k tou~ patro_j e0kporeuo&menon, to_ su_n patri\ kai\ ui9w|~
sumproskunou&menon kai\ sundo-cazo&menon, to_ lalh~san dia_ tw~n profhtw~n. HEFELE, op. cit., vol. II, p. 11.

300. (4) P. 121.

301. (5) B. O., II, p. 20.

302. (1) Ibid., p. 21.

303. (2) B. O., II, ibid.

304. (3) GUIDI, op. cit . fol. 4b. col. 1. lines 2-21.

305. (1) Cf. the article of LAMY, L'Eglise Syriaque et la procession du St. Esprit in La Revue Catholique de
Louvain for March 1860, pp. 106 sqq. The Syriac text of this canon which LA MY published in the above article is:

306. (2) ABBELOOS, Vita S. Jacobi Sarugensis, p. 121.

307. (3) RENAUDOT, Lit. Or. Coll., vol. II, p. 507.

308. (1) B. O., III, pars 2a, p. 200.

309. (2) B. O., II, pp. 38, 39.

310. (1) RENAUDOT, op. cit., vol. II, pp. 449, 494.

311. (2) P. 101.

312. (3) TERTULLIAN, De Idolatria, cap. VII, in MIGNE, P. L., vol. I, p. 669.

313. (4) TERTULLIAN, Liber de Corona, cap. III, in MIGNE, P. L., vol. II, p. 79.

314. (5) De Fide orthodoxa, lib. IV, cap. 13, in MIGNE, P. G., vol. 94, p. 1149.

315. (1) Demonstration VII, n.° 21, in GRAFFIN'S Patrologia Syriaca, vol. I, p. 349. Cf. review of the same by
HYVERNAT in The Catholic University Bulletin for April 1895, pp. 314-319.

This text was transcribed by Roger Pearse, Ipswich, UK, 2003. All material on this
page is in the public domain - copy freely.
Greek text is rendered using the Scholars Press SPIonic font, free from here.

Early Church Fathers - Additional

Texts