The Confession of the Faith of the Fathers of the Synod of Milan

 

Confession of Faith of St. Mansuetus of Milan and the Synod held in 679, and sent to the Emperor Constantine IV to confirm the Orthodox Faith:

The Confession of the Faith of the Fathers of the Synod of Milan We do profess that we believe the Holy and Indivisible Trinity, that is to say, the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost, One God; so One as to be Three, and so Three as to be One: the Trinity in Distinct and Discrete Persons, to wit, the Father, from Whom are all things; the Son, by Whom are all things; the Holy Ghost, in Whom are all things; yet of One Godhead, One Essence, and One Substance: indeed in Three Subsistences or Persons, that the Father may be Father, the Son be Son, and the Holy Ghost be the Holy Ghost; but in One Nature and One Substance, that One God, and Only, and Supreme, may be believed; not introducing three, as Arius blasphemeth, who preached three gods, one more excellent, another less, and another inferior. But we confess the Holy Trinity in Unity, and the Unity in the Holy Trinity. For when we say the Almighty Father, the very appellation of This Fatherly Name hath respect unto the Person of the Son; and when we say the Eternal Son, it is referred unto the Person of the Eternal Father; and when we name the Holy Ghost, we shew that He Proceedeth from the Person of the Eternal Father. And when we say God the Father Almighty, the Mystery of This Name cannot be made void. For when we say Father, we shew forth the Son; and when we say Son, we declare the Father; and when we say the Eternal Father, we shew forth the Eternal Son. For if we find not the beginning of This Fatherly Name, when He was called Father, it is consequently shewn that neither do we find the beginning of the Begotten. We beseech that reason be given us, when the Father obtained this appellation, that He should be called Father; whether in time, or without time: let some man tell us when first He began to be so called. And if he shall be able to approve this, there shall be no doubt that from that beginning of the fatherly name the Son took His beginning, when the Father was so named. But if he shall fail, yea rather because he doth fail, and cannot prove nor assign the beginning of the fatherly name, when the Father began to be, let him therefore with us confess the Holy Trinity Co-Essential and Consubstantial, neither that the Father was before the Son, nor the Son after the Father, nor the Holy Ghost inferior; because, while the beginning of the Fatherly Name is not found, we know not by what reason a beginning should be ascribed unto the Son. For when we say the Everlasting God the Father, we shew the Everlasting God the Son. Therefore we profess the Holy Trinity in One Nature, and One Essence, and One Substance, and in Three Subsistences, or Persons. Moreover, we believe that the Very Word of God, that is, the Son of the Father, was Begotten without beginning: the Same, One of the Three Subsistences of the Holy Trinity, the Eternal Son, for the Dispensation wrought for us and for our salvation, came down from heaven; the Word of God Incarnate, and made Man within the Virgin’s Womb, Uniting unto Himself the Truth of our Nature from Holy and Glorious Virgin Mary, the Birthgiver of God; Perfect God and Perfect Man in Two Natures, namely of Godhead and Manhood; Consubstantial with God the Father according to the Godhead, and the Selfsame Consubstantial with us according to the Manhood; not divided into two Sons, but One and the Same Son of God and of Man, in the Truth of Two Natures, in One Subsistence or Person, the Union, namely, of Godhead and Manhood having been made; so that out of Two Perfect Natures there are not two Sons, but One and the Same Son of God and of Man, Remaining what He was, He began to be what He was not, when the Son of the Eternal Father without beginning was made the Son of Man. Therefore also Our Lord Jesus Christ is One, having in Himself the Perfection of the Divine Nature and the Perfection of the Human Nature; and He is Indeed Only-Begotten as the Word, as being Born of God the Father, and First-Born among many brethren; for the Son of God was made the Son of Man. Wherefore we also confess Two Nativities of This Same Only-Begotten Word of God: One before the ages, Begotten of the Father Incomparably; but in the last days the Incarnation of This Same from the Holy Glorious Ever-Virgin Mary, the Birthgiver of God. He Who Shone forth from the Father, Beyond Understanding, was Born of the Mother, Super-Rationally; and, being Truly God, was Truly made Man. Therefore we properly and truly confess the Holy and Glorious Mary, ever-Virgin, to be the Birthgiver of God; not because God the Word took beginning from her, but because in the last days the Only-Begotten God the Word, Who was before the ages, was Incarnate of her, and was made Man, and, whereas in His Own He was Invisible, in ours He was made Visible; and whereas He was Impassible God, He disdained not to be Passible Man, and, being Immortal, to be subject unto the laws of death. And that Very God and Lord, Who according to the Flesh was Born in Bethlehem, and was made like unto men, sin excepted, and was Crucified for men under Pontius Pilate, Him do we confess to be God, Him Man, Him the Son of God, Him the Son of Man, Him from Heaven, Him from Earth, Him Impassible, Him Passible. For the True God, Who was Begotten of God the Father Ineffably, Unspeakably, Incomprehensibly, the Very Same in time was Born of Holy Mary the Virgin, the Same Our Lord Jesus Christ, One of the Holy Trinity, to be Glorified Together with the Father and the Holy Ghost. Neither did the Holy Trinity receive the addition of a fourth Person; but we do truly confess that Our Lord Jesus Christ hath Two Natures in One Subsistence of Godhead and Manhood, without confusion, without change. Thus likewise the Rule of Piety instructeth us that He hath Two Natural Wills and Two Natural Operations, as being Perfect God and Perfect Man, One and the Selfsame Our Lord Jesus Christ: the Same Born, the Same Suffered, the Same Crucified, the Same Buried, the Same Rising Again, and Ascending into the Heavens, Sitting at the Right Hand of the Father, and Coming to Judge the quick and the dead; Whose Kingdom shall have no end. https://la.wikisource.org/wiki/Epistola_%28Damianus_Ticinensis%29 [Note: some of the text diverts, interestingly, into an Anti-Arian polemic; since the Monothelites did not embrace Arianism, we might wonder why? the answer, is that, though the Statement was Sent to the Emperor Constantine IV, or appended to a Letter to him, it must be remembered that various portions of the Lombard population in Northern Italy still embraced Arianism, even if many were converting to Orthodoxy; therefore, it makes sense that a Synod held at Milan would want to make a more general statement of Orthodox Doctrine, not just on the question of the Wills and Operations in Christ, but also to further confirm the Doctrine of the Trinity, to give it wider application in Northern Italy.]

Mass Proper Chants for Epiphany

 Mass Proper Chants for Epiphany and throughout its Octave; the only difference between the Feast Day of Epiphany itself and the days within the Octave, including the Sunday within the Octave and the Octave Day itself, are that tropes are use on the Feast Day of Epiphany itself. 

Introit

Gradual

Alleluia

Offertory with Verses

Communion Antiphon with Psalm verse and Gloria Patri

Twelve Responsories for Epiphany

 The Twelve Responsories used for Epiphany. They are also used in full for the Sunday within the Octave of Epiphany (this upcoming Sunday), as well as for the Octave Day of Epiphany; for days within the Octave, other than Sunday, only three are used.

Early Manuscripts for Mass Propers for the Transfiguration

 By the 10th century, at least, a dedicated Feast for Holy Transfiguration was being celebrated.  An early witness of this would the 10th century Rheims Sacramentary, BM Reims, MS. 214, on folio page 7v:

The Mass Propers (and Divine Office Propers) we use for the Feast of Holy Transfiguration are, as noted in our books, \derived from these and other Continental sources. One can see the old form of the Mass sheet here.

The above page from the Rheims Sacramentary contains just the Collect, Gospel, Secret, Preface, and Post-Communion as we have it.  I believe, when we did some of this research 40 years ago or so, we did find other books, that had variations in the Prefaces, etc.  Though searching through old research files and notes on some of the more obscure Masses will take some time. 

Western Orthodox Gradual Project, So Far, Part 1

 This is what we have so far using the new corrected Psalter translation:

First Sunday after Trinity

Second Sunday after Trinity

Third Sunday after Trinity

Fourth Sunday after Trinity

Fifth Sunday after Trinity

Sixth Sunday after Trinity

Seventh Sunday after Trinity

Eighth Sunday after Trinity

Ninth Sunday after Trinity

Tenth Sunday after Trinity 

Eleventh Sunday after Trinity

Twelfth Sunday after Trinity

Thirteenth Sunday after Trinity

Fourteenth Sunday after Trinity

Fifteenth Sunday after Trinity

 

There are various other scattered files I am collating. 

Mass Proper Chants for Vigil of Epiphany

Book II, Sections 1-5, Vigilius of Thapsus' "Against Eutyches"

  Against Eutyches, or Against Nestorius and Eutyches in Five Books for the Defense of the Synod of Chalcedon  

[Rough draft translation]

Vigilius, Bishop of Thapsus (+500)   

Second Book, Sections I-V

I. Various indeed and diverse, yet from one font of heretical depravity error emerged. For the worst hinge and the origin of evils, which from itself has brought forth occasions of all impieties, is this, while the power of celestial words having been defiled by the vice of those who badly understand, the sense is not weighed according to its own quality, but it is diverted into other things on account of the decision and will of the reader, otherwise than the reason of truth postulates.  But this is very easily for each one to comprehend from the schemes of all heretics. There is also another occasion of impiety, which, marvelous in manner, excessive piety has provided to the less cautious.  And by that the evil of deadly perfidy which is to be lamented much and sufficiently, from there to become impious, from whence another pious exists; from whence to draw forth the miserable burdens of captivity, from whence the power of freedom is acquired; there to be implicated in errors, where error is freed of all ignorance, from whence, from whence to become perfidious, from whence another is faithful; to be blinded by the same light, by which another is most clearly illuminated. And so that this thus to be by the manifest proofs it may  be revealed, we may compare the dogmas of the opinions of Sabellius, and of Arius, Manichaeus and Photinus, of Nestorius and of Eutyches, in which we find them thus to themselves mutally to have become opposed, so that (what is more amazing) their error may speak the witness to the truth, and the inconsonant opinions of the perfidious may harmonize into one modulation of the Right Faith, and the trophy of our victory, their vain struggles may produce. 

II. For the perfidy of Sabellious condemns the error of Arius.  Again the error of Arian dogma excludes the impiety of Sabellius.  Since Sabellius, having indeed been deceived by the plausible confession of One Nature, he thought there to be one person of the Trinity, so that from which there is One Nature of the Three, it would be understood there to be one person.  Arius, on the contrary, accepted the Tree Substiting and Distinct Persons, as They truly are, he believed there to be three natures of them; and what pertains to the Distinction, this he attributed to the disparity of the Same Persons; therefore also by merits and grades he dared to define them widely disparate.  Therefore, let the error of this [man, Arius] profit to the confutatio of Sabellian impiety, and let Sabellius hear to what extent the Persons of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost to be Three, so that Arius dares to profess them both diverse and dissimilar in nature.  Again, let this same Arius hear, unto what extent the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost to be of One Power and of One Nature, so that Sabellius says of them to be One Person.  Therefore, thine evil, O Arius, do thou correct by the evil of his, and may he correct his own evil from thine evil; so that the good which ye both hold with us, may be common to you.  For it is good that thou, O Arius, saith there to be Three Persons, but it is bad that thou dost separate Them both in grades and natures to widely.  Likewise, thou, Sabellius, it is good that thou saith the Nature to be One, but it is bad that the Truth of the One Nature confines thee to confess one person.  I bring a compendium to your discussion: indeed, not I, but Christ, Who, the controversies of your contentions, He He being the Most Judge Knower, by one sentence of the Word He decided it to be settled, saying: "I and the Father, We Are One." [John 10:30]  Therefore, by saying "I and the Father", He distinguished what Sabellius badly confounds: but by adding "We Are One," He united what Arius wrongly separates, so that "One" toward the Unity of Nature, "We Are" towards the distinction of Persons might be profitable. Such is that: "Baptize ye the nations in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost;" (Matthew 28:19); in One Name of the Three, insinuating there to be One Nature of the Godhead.  Thus the Best Judge amidst the noxious and lethal contentions of Christians He cast the Salutary Sentence of Judgment, so that he may perish by his own fault who has rejected the Sentence of the Judge.

III.  Likewise, Manichaeus, while he regards the miracles of so many powers, which the Son of God hath wrought, he does not wish to confess Him a Man.  Photinus, while he attends the nature of our body in Him, he does not judge to be God.  That one that he may protect himself, he recounts the powers, that one the infirmities.  That one preaches of the Godhead, that one alleges of the Humanity.  That one, the Majesty of so great a Name withdraws from the profession of the Humanity; this one, the Humility of the injuries which he regards unworthy for God, he remains only in the confession of the Man.  Miracles call that one away, sufferings hold this one back.  That one is led astray by the Divinity, this one is offended by the Humanity.  That one says He is God, this one says He is Man.  A great miracle, that truth is confirmed by its own opposition; and each one speaks the truth, while each one lies.  Hear thou, therefore, O Manichaeus: That He be God, thou sayest true; yet that He be not Man, thou are wrong.  Hear thou, O Photinus: Truly He is Man, so thou dost assert, although not as thou dost assert; but the Same is also God, which thou dost impiously refuse.  Unto such an extent He is God that Manichaeus denies the Man; so much He is Man, that thou dost not believe to be God.  Since, therefore, ye are both opposed to yourselves, ye do both agree with us; ye have been widely separated, in the middle is the road which ye have left; one from here, the other from there, come ye hither to us, and ye find each other: let one pass over unto the opinion of the other, so that he may not leave his own: let that which ye have privately be common to you: let him confess the Man, do thou confess the God, and with the one's proper truth, from one's proper error, at least, depart ye.  

IV. Let us now come both to Nestorius and to Eutyches, who struggled throughout the entire East to darken the serenity of the Catholic Faith with the dark clouds of perfidy.  And although the wicked doctrine, with its own authors, has been refuted, however, their nefarious followers, having seized ample occasion of the time, to such an extent they spread the pernicious and lethal venoms of the savage dogma, so that which the rampage of the founders was not able to be accomplish, the widely raging plague of these followers of noxious assertion has wounded nearly the entire Church. Since I have competently responded to these [heretics], already in one little book, now I shall briefly show their vain concerns and inane fears; it is certain the Lord Jesus Christ, according to the Catholic Faith and the preachings of the Scriptures to have Two Nativities, One from the Father without time, the other from the Mother without seed; bearing the Nature of Both These Two Nativities, namely, of God by which from the Father He was Begotten, and of Man by Which He was from the Mother Born, Christ is One and the Same God and Man.  For the Dual Nativity gave to the One Christ a Dual Nature, while He Who is God from the Father, the Same is also Man from the Mother.  Therefore, these Natures, Which He hath from Each Parent, the Apostle names Two Forms, saying concerning Him: "Who being in the Form of God, thought it not robbery to be Equal with God." (Phil. 2:6) Concerning Which Forms, whether That Which He hath from God the Father, or That Which He accepts from the Human Mother, by prophetic declaration is established to have been more clearly expressed, by Isaiah, concerning His Servile Form, Which by the baseness of the Suffering, in a certain away appeared indecorous, thus, saying: "Inglorious," he saith, "shall His visage be among men, and His Form among the sons of men." (Is. 52:14) And again: "We saw," he saith, "Him, and there was no sightliness nor beauty in Him, but His Form was despised and destitute above the sons of men." (Is. 53:2)  And this indeed concerning the Servile Form in Which He Suffered all the Injuries of the Passion, Isaiah spake.  Concerning the Form of Divinity, however, which retaining Its Own Beauty through Its Own Impassibility, although having been struck with the Injuries of the Passion, It was not able to be deformed, David sang more clearly, saying: "Beautiful in Form above the sons of men." (Ps. 44:3)  Dost thou discern in the One Person of Christ the Mystery of Each Form, that is, of Each Nature, to be contained?  The Form of the Servant is indecorous and despised: the Form of God is proclaimed beautiful and most beautiful in Him.  Let another accept this in any way; meanwhile by the Prophetic and Apostolic Proclamation we have taught Christ to have Two Forms.  Now let us teach in Both to be One and the Same, and to have One Person.  The Apostle saith: "For, what I have pardoned, in the Person of Christ." (2 Cor. 2:10)  Therefore, it is clear, Christ to Subsist in the Union of the Person from the Two Remaining Natures.  

V. Now let us see in what error Nestorius and Eutyches were deceived.  Nestrious, by introducing Two Natures, he thought there to be Two Persons; and for this reason he judged to introduce Two Christs by a sacrilegious dogma: Eutyches, considering One Person, he thought there to be One Nature, and for this reason he dared to deny the Manhood.  And because there is in Christ both the Property of the Natures and the Union of the Person, Nestorius, by attending the Property of the Natures, he forfeited the Union of the Person; and he thought there to be Two Christs, One Passible, the Other Impassible.  Eutyches, by intending One Person, he departed from the Property of the Natures, and he asserted Very Divinity suffered.  Therefore, to such an extent, there are not Two of Christ, nor Two Persons, that Eutyches believes there to be One Nature.  Again, to such an extent, there is not One Nature, but Two, so that Nestorius thinks there to be Two Christs and Two Persons.  Therefore, Nestorius, in order that he might strengthen the impiety of his own dogma, by which he wills to understand another Christ in the Passion, he uses by that testimony of the Apostle, to the Hebrews, thus of the writing: "For we have seen Jesus made a little lower than the Angels, having been Crowned with Glory and Honour, that without God He might taste death for all." (Heb. 2:9; MSS variant)  Again, Eutyches, that he might subject the Deity to the Passion, nevertheless, produces the Apostle [as] witness, saying concerning the princes of the age, who did not know the Wisdom of God: "For if they had known, they would never have Crucified the Lord of Glory." (1 Cor. 2:9)  Ye see of how great danger the matter is, either not to believe One Person in Christ, or not to be willing to profess Two Natures.  Great snares of insidious things, from either side, are stretched out, which in Prophetic Spirit, Solomon more cautiously commanded should be avoided, saying: "Be mindful, for thou dost walk in the mdist of snares." (Sirach 9:20)  For here Eutyches, from there Nestorius, stand armed with the swords of perfidy. While I defend One Person of Christ against Nestorius, I am judged, according to Eutyches, to deny the Human Nature.  While I assert Two Natures against Eutyches, I am believed, according to Nestorius, to profess Two Persons, because he believed to Two Christs and Two Persons ought to be ascribed to the Two Natures.  

Vigilius of Thapsus, Against Eutyches, Book I, Sec. XI-XV

 Against Eutyches, or Against Nestorius and Eutyches in Five Books for the Defense of the Synod of Chalcedon  

[Rough draft translation]

Vigilius, Bishop of Thapsus (+500)   

First Book, Sections XI-XV 

XI.  For also in man, if we wish to dispute more subtly, thou shalt find most things so by a certain property separated out more distinctly, that if even there should shouldst wish to find fault, thou mightest make from one man many men.  Therefore, there is no one who does not know man to consist in five senses through the ordered distinctions of bodily members; which senses thus naturally obtain the property of their own office, to have nothing in common with them, they are able to vindicate nothing for themselves concerning the property of another.  And that I may specially recall all things, sight thus properly performs the office of its own ministry, so that it is able neither to hear, nor to smell, nor to taste, nor to touch anything.  Hearing thus administers the office of its own nature, so that it endures the office of neither seeing, nor of smelling, nor of tasking, nor of touching.  Smell also thus executes in obedience of its own servitude, so that it neither hears, nor sees, nor tastes anything, nor touches.  Taste also neither sees, nor smells, nor hears, nor touches.  Touch, lastly, which is the final sense, neither enjoys vision, nor perceives hearing, nor captures smell, nor discerns taste.  And since all these species of the members are so diverse, so discrete, so established by natural properties, that they have nothing of communion, nothing of society to themselves reciprocally, but by a certain private and solitary right they fulfill the ministry of the proper function; nevertheless, one and the same is man, who, since he consists in five bodily senses, differing from one another by a five-fold property, he ought to have, according to the ravings of these men, five persons, so that as many are the properties of the senses, so great also might be the number of persons.  Then to be affected by hunger and to eat, to thirst and to drink, to sit and to walk, to go to bed and to rise from sleep, to endure cold and to be burned by fires, although the body either suffers or does these things, not without the compassion of the soul, yet these are proper of the flesh.  Likewise, to be wise, to understand, to forget, to recall in memory, to be raised in joy, to be dejected in sorrow, to tame with gentleness, to grow wild with fury and anger, and many other things similar to these, which to pursue it is long, although they are not done without the body, nevertheless they are proper of the soul.  Yes not anyone has dared or dares to say the man has two persons, in whom he discerns such great differences of properties. 

XII.  But the rashness of these men, which, according to the number of natures, inflicts a diversity of persons, by Apostolic Authority must be broken, and thoroughly destroyed.  The Apostle certainly knew Christ to be of Each Nature, while he preaches Him both Man and God, and the Same One.  Man, indeed, while he saith: "One Mediator of God and men, the Man Christ Jesus." (1 Tim. 2:5)  And again: "Just as through one man death, so through One Man the Resurrection of the dead." (1 Cor. 15:21)  And concerning His Own Son, he saith: "Who was made to Him from the seed of David according to the Flesh." (Rom. 1:3) And: "Be mindful that Jesus Christ, of the seed of David according to the Flesh, Rose from the dead." (2 Tim. 2:8)  But when God saith: "From whom is Christ, Who is over all God blessed unto the ages." (Rom. 9:5) And very many similar things to these, which it is long to commemorate.  Therefore, he who was preaching This Same One Both God and Man, so that he might show One Christ from Both Natures; I wonder how he did not fear these 'excellent' calumniators of our time, so that he might ascribe One Person to Christ, saying: "And if I have forgiven anything, [I did it] in the Person of Christ." (2 Cor. 2:10)   

XIII.  They are also accustomed to reprehend that with the audacity of the usual rashness, when they hear Catholics to say: "God and Man"; judging two persons to be able to be signified by the interposition of this syllable; but, hear thou how much more ineptly they hold this opinion.  For what is "God and Man," except He Who is God, and was also made Man; not losing what He was, but taking up what was ours.  For when we send forth first in the confession "God", and we follow up saying "and Man", we assert not only God remaining, but also the Same Man subsisting, so that neither might the Divinity depart from Itself, nor might the Humanity perish in the Divinity.  Let us see, however, lest perhaps this syllable might have been interposed by Divine Authority.  For thus we read: "And He is Man, and who shall know Him?" (Jer. 17:9, LXX) And again David: "Mother Syon will say, 'A Man', and a Man was made in her, and the Most High Himself hath founded her." (Ps. 86:5)  Why therefore did he not say simply without the placement of this verse: "A Man was made in her," but place before it saying: "And a Man was made in her"?  Or in another Prophecy why did he place "and" before it? For he ought, according to these man, to say: "A Man He is, and who shall know Him?"  unless the sense is such that, whom thou confessest God, thou not deny  the Man also was made by a similar confession.  

XIV. These men are said, indeed, if however it is true, to confess Christ from Two Natures up to His Resurrection; but after the Resurrection, they declare Him to be of One [Nature].  This, how absurd it is, and how inept, is demonstrated by the very truth of things.  For after the Resurrection, to demonstrate the Truth of His Own Body, He both ate and drank, and He Offered Himself to be touched by the Disciples, saying: "Touch ye and see yee, for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see Me to have." (Lk. 24:39)  But, perhaps, still placed on Earth He was of Each Nature; but afterwards when He Ascended to the Heavens, He began to be of the One Divine.  And what, therefore, does the Name of the Son of Man do there, if the Nature of Humanity is not there? How is an empty name ascribed to a non existing thing?  How does the truth of the name remain, if the Property of the Nature is absent?  Finally, He saith: "When the Son of Man shall come in the Glory of His Own Father."  And again: "Just as lightning goes from the East and appears even to the West, and thus shall be the Advent of the Son of Man." (Mark 8:38)  And again: "The Son of Man coming, dost thou think He will find Faith on the Earth?" (Lk. 18:8) Daniel also: "Behold," he says, "in the clouds of heaven the Son of Man was coming." (Dan. 7:13) If, therefore, the Nature of Humanity has been lost, why has its name been retained?  Or because the Name was necessary, and the matter of the Name as not necessary had to be repudiated?  Thus may they be foolish whom nothing of their own error and folly shames.  But the Lord Jesus Christ, so that He might show the Nature of our race not to have been consumed, truly calleth Himself the Son of Man.  According to which also He Intercedes [to] the Father for us, according to the words of the Apostle John, saying: "If we shall have sinned, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus.  He Intercedes for our sins." (1 John 2:1)  Tell ye, therefore to us, O "excellent doctors", when the Son Intercedeth with the Father today, according to His Own Divinity, or does He plead according to the Dispensation of Humanity?  But as much as the intention of your perfidy demonstrates (ye who destroy the Human Nature, and ye assert the Divine alone to be), He intercedes according to Divinity, He performs the office of Advocate according to the Divinity, He fulfilleth the Ministry of Priest according to the Divinity; according to the Divinity also He will be subject in the end to the Father, when all things shall have been subjected to the Same Son! 

XV.   Once we were waiting, we have awaited for a longer time where the stream of your error might take origen, and which might make a running about to; finally we find that the Eutychian heresy derived from the most bitter source of Apollinaris, even to the filthy abyss of Arius with the turbulent movements of iron; by which things into so much a bond of treachery is joined, so that he refers all things to the insult of Divinity, which Christ either spake or accomplished according to the Dispensation of the Flesh, while he contends to be merely the One Nature of Divinity.  Wherefore we exhort all men who are followers of this nefarious perfidy, while life remains, while it is permissible to repent, to change the sentiment of their own error.  And rather the Doctrine, upon the Property of Each Nature is to be followed, of Gregory, and Basil, Theophilus also, and John, the most esteemed Bishop of the City of Constantinople, and also of Cyril, Bishop of Alexandria, and of very many others indeed, who anciently flourished in the Church, whose opinions on this matter we offer seperately to be reviewed. I ask, meanwhile, the reader, may he not entirely despise the poverty of our language; for perhaps also the speech could be more eloquently adorned, but we so tempered the style, that we might commend the matter rather than the words to readers.  And especially, this work ought not to have been inflated with the boot of swelling eloquence, lest there should be any necessity of translating into Greek.  For it is more difficult to preserver the integrity of the senses in another language with equal beauty of speech.