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.