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)
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment