Since many people have come to your Reverence seeking confirmation of their faith, and you have lovingly asked me to provide a brief definition and rule of my opinion, I am writing to your Reverence what you already knew: that I have never honored and never can honor anything above the Nicene Faith, the faith of the Holy Fathers who gathered there to destroy the Arian heresy. I am, and by God's help always will be, of that faith, filling in the details of what they said incompletely about the Holy Spirit, since that question had not yet been raised at that time. Namely, we are to believe that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are of one Godhead, thus confessing that the Spirit is also God. Therefore, receive into communion those who think and teach this way, as I do. But refuse those who think differently and regard them as strangers to God and the Catholic Church. And since a question has also been raised concerning the divine Assumption of humanity, or Incarnation, state this also clearly to everyone concerning me: that I join in One the Son who was begotten of the Father and afterward of the Virgin Mary, and that I do not call Him two Sons, but worship Him as One and the same in undivided Godhead and honor. But if anyone does not agree with this statement, either now or in the future, he will give account to God at the day of judgment.
Forasmuch as many persons have come to your Reverence seeking confirmation of their faith, and therefore you have affectionately asked me to put forth a brief definition and rule of my opinion, I therefore write to your Reverence, what indeed you knew before, that I never have and never can honour anything above the Nicene Faith, that of the Holy Fathers who met there to destroy the Arian heresy; but am, and by God's help ever will be, of that faith; completing in detail that which was incompletely said by them concerning the Holy Ghost; for that question had not then been mooted, namely, that we are to believe that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are of one Godhead, thus confessing the Spirit also to be God. Receive then to communion those who think and teach thus, as I also do; but those who are otherwise minded refuse, and hold them as strangers to God and the Catholic Church. And since a question has also been mooted concerning the Divine Assumption of humanity, or Incarnation, state this also clearly to all concerning me, that I join in One the Son, who was begotten of the Father, and afterward of the Virgin Mary, and that I do not call Him two Sons, but worship Him as One and the same in undivided Godhead and honour. But if anyone does not assent to this statement, either now or hereafter, he shall give account to God at the day of judgment.
Now, what we object to and oppose in their mindless opinion about His Mind is this, to put it briefly: they are almost alone in holding the position they lay down, as it is through lack of mind that they mutilate His mind. But so they may not accuse us of having once accepted but now repudiating the faith of their beloved Vitalius which he submitted in writing at the request of the blessed Bishop Damasus of Rome, I will give a short explanation on this point as well. For these people, when they are theologizing among their genuine disciples and those who are initiated into their secrets—like the Manicheans among those they call the Elect—expose the full extent of their disease and scarcely allow any flesh at all to the Savior. But when they are refuted and pressed with the common answers about the Incarnation that Scripture presents, they do confess the orthodox words, but they twist the meaning. For they acknowledge the Manhood to be neither without soul nor without reason nor without mind, nor imperfect, but they introduce the Godhead to supply the soul and reason and mind, as though It had mingled Itself only with His flesh and not with the other properties belonging to us as human beings—although His sinlessness was far above us and was the cleansing of our passions.
Now, what we object and oppose to their mindless opinion about His Mind is this, to put it shortly; for they are almost alone in the condition which they lay down, as it is through want of mind that they mutilate His mind. But, that they may not accuse us of having once accepted but of now repudiating the faith of their beloved Vitalius which he handed in in writing at the request of the blessed Bishop Damasus of Rome, I will give a short explanation on this point also. For these men, when they are theologizing among their genuine disciples, and those who are initiated into their secrets, like the Manichæans among those whom they call the Elect, expose the full extent of their disease, and scarcely allow flesh at all to the Saviour. But when they are refuted and pressed with the common answers about the Incarnation which the Scripture presents, they confess indeed the orthodox words, but they do violence to the sense; for they acknowledge the Manhood to be neither without soul nor without reason nor without mind, nor imperfect, but they bring in the Godhead to supply the soul and reason and mind, as though It had mingled Itself only with His flesh, and not with the other properties belonging to us men; although His sinlessness was far above us, and was the cleansing of our passions.
They misinterpret the words "But we have the Mind of Christ" (1 Corinthians 2:16) in a very foolish way when they claim that His Godhead is the mind of Christ. They fail to understand the passage as we do—namely, that those who have purified their mind through imitating the mind that the Savior took from us, and who have achieved conformity with it as far as possible, are said to have the mind of Christ. This is just as people might be said to have the flesh of Christ if they have disciplined their flesh and in this way have become of the same body and partakers of Christ. As Paul says, "As we have borne the image of the earth" (1 Corinthians 15:49), "we shall also bear the image of the heavenly." In this way they declare that the Perfect Man is not the one who was tempted in every way just as we are, yet without sin (Hebrews 4:15), but rather the mixture of God and Flesh. For what, they say, can be more perfect than this?
Thus, then, they interpret wrongly the words, But we have the Mind of Christ, 1 Corinthians 2:16 and very absurdly, when they say that His Godhead is the mind of Christ, and not understanding the passage as we do, namely, that they who have purified their mind by the imitation of the mind which the Saviour took of us, and, as far as may be, have attained conformity with it, are said to have the mind of Christ; just as they might be testified to have the flesh of Christ who have trained their flesh, and in this respect have become of the same body and partakers of Christ; and so he says As we have borne the image of the earth 1 Corinthians 15:49 we shall also bear the image of the heavenly. And so they declare that the Perfect Man is not He who was in all points tempted like as we are yet without sin; Hebrews 4:15 but the mixture of God and Flesh. For what, say they, can be more perfect than this?
They play the same trick with the word that describes the Incarnation: "He was made Man." They explain this to mean not that He existed in the human nature with which He surrounded Himself, according to the Scripture "He knew what was in man," but rather that it means He associated and conversed with men. They take refuge in the expression that says "He was seen on Earth and conversed with Men." What more can anyone argue? Those who take away the Humanity and the Interior Image cleanse by their newly invented deception only our outside and what is seen. They are so far in conflict with themselves that at one time, for the sake of the flesh, they explain everything else in a crude and fleshly manner (for it is from this that they have derived their second Judaism and their foolish thousand years of delight in paradise, and almost the idea that we shall resume the same conditions again after these same thousand years). At another time they present His flesh as a phantom rather than reality, as not having been subjected to any of our experiences, not even those that are free from sin. For this purpose they use the apostolic expression, understood and spoken in a sense which is not apostolic, that our Saviour was made in the likeness of Men and found in fashion as a Man, as though by these words was expressed not the human form but some deceptive phantom and appearance.
They play the same trick with the word that describes the Incarnation, viz.: He was made Man, explaining it to mean, not, He was in the human nature with which He surrounded Himself, according to the Scripture, He knew what was in man; John 2:25 but teaching that it means, He consorted and conversed with men, and taking refuge in the expression which says that He was seen on Earth and conversed with Men. Baruch 3:37 And what can anyone contend further? They who take away the Humanity and the Interior Image cleanse by their newly invented mask only our outside, Matthew 23:25-26 and that which is seen; so far in conflict with themselves that at one time, for the sake of the flesh, they explain all the rest in a gross and carnal manner (for it is from hence that they have derived their second Judaism and their silly thousand years delight in paradise, and almost the idea that we shall resume again the same conditions after these same thousand years); and at another time they bring in His flesh as a phantom rather than a reality, as not having been subjected to any of our experiences, not even such as are free from sin; and use for this purpose the apostolic expression, understood and spoken in a sense which is not apostolic, that our Saviour was made in the likeness of Men and found in fashion as a Man, Philippians 2:7 as though by these words was expressed, not the human form, but some delusive phantom and appearance.
Since these expressions, when understood correctly, support orthodoxy but when misinterpreted are heretical, why should anyone be surprised that we received the words of Vitalius in the more orthodox sense? Our desire that they should be meant that way convinced us, even though others are angry at the intention of his writings. I think this is why Damasus himself, after being better informed and learning that they were sticking to their earlier explanations, excommunicated them and condemned their written confession of faith with an anathema. He was also upset at having been deceived by them through his own simplicity.
Since then these expressions, rightly understood, make for orthodoxy, but wrongly interpreted are heretical, what is there to be surprised at if we received the words of Vitalius in the more orthodox sense; our desire that they should be so meant persuading us, though others are angry at the intention of his writings? This is, I think, the reason why Damasus himself, having been subsequently better informed, and at the same time learning that they hold by their former explanations, excommunicated them and overturned their written confession of faith with an Anathema; as well as because he was vexed at the deceit which he had suffered from them through simplicity.
Since they have been openly convicted of this, they should not be angry but ashamed of themselves. They should not slander us but humble themselves and remove from their doorways that great and marvelous proclamation and boast of their orthodoxy, which immediately confronts everyone who enters with the question and distinction that we must worship, not a God-bearing Man, but a flesh-bearing God. What could be more unreasonable than this, even though these new heralds of truth think highly of the title? For though it has a certain sophistical appeal through the cleverness of its antithesis, and a kind of deceptive trickery pleasing to the uneducated, it is the most absurd of absurdities and the most foolish of follies. For if someone were to exchange the word Man or Flesh for God (the first would please us, the second them), and then were to use this wonderful antithesis, so divinely approved, what conclusion would we reach? That we must worship, not a God-bearing Flesh, but a Man-bearing God. What a monstrous absurdity! They proclaim to us today a wisdom hidden ever since the time of Christ—a thing worthy of our tears. For if the faith began thirty years ago, when nearly four hundred years had passed since Christ was manifested, then all that time our Gospel will have been in vain, and our faith in vain; the Martyrs will have borne their witness in vain, and so many and so great bishops will have presided over the people in vain; and Grace becomes a matter of meters and not of the faith.
Since, then, they have been openly convicted of this, let them not be angry, but let them be ashamed of themselves; and let them not slander us, but abase themselves and wipe off from their portals that great and marvellous proclamation and boast of their orthodoxy, meeting all who go in at once with the question and distinction that we must worship, not a God-bearing Man, but a flesh-bearing God. What could be more unreasonable than this, though these new heralds of truth think a great deal of the title? For though it has a certain sophistical grace through the quickness of its antithesis, and a sort of juggling quackery grateful to the uninstructed, yet it is the most absurd of absurdities and the most foolish of follies. For if one were to change the word Man or Flesh into God (the first would please us, the second them), and then were to use this wonderful antithesis, so divinely recognized, what conclusion should we arrive at? That we must worship, not a God-bearing Flesh, but a Man-bearing God. O monstrous absurdity! They proclaim to us today a wisdom hidden ever since the time of Christ — a thing worthy of our tears. For if the faith began thirty years ago, when nearly four hundred years had passed since Christ was manifested, vain all that time will have been our Gospel, and vain our faith; in vain will the Martyrs have borne their witness, and in vain have so many and so great Prelates presided over the people; and Grace is a matter of metres and not of the faith.
Who wouldn't marvel at their learning, when they take it upon themselves to divide up the things of Christ? They assign to his manhood sayings like "he was born," "he was tempted," "he was hungry," "he was thirsty," "he was tired," "he was asleep." But they credit to his divinity things like these: he was glorified by angels, he overcame the tempter, he fed the people in the wilderness (and fed them in such a way), and he walked on the sea. They say that on one hand "Where have you laid Lazarus?" belongs to us, but the loud voice "Lazarus, come forth" and raising someone who had been dead four days is above our nature. They claim that "he was in agony," "he was crucified," "he was buried" belong to the veil, while on the other hand "he was confident," "he rose again," "he ascended" belong to the inner treasure. Then they accuse us of introducing two natures—separate or conflicting—and of dividing the supernatural and wondrous union. They should either stop doing what they accuse us of, or stop accusing us of what they themselves do, at least if they want to be consistent and not put forward both their own principles and their opponents' at the same time. Their reasoning is so flawed that it conflicts both with itself and with the truth. They are so unaware and unashamed of this that they don't even notice when they contradict themselves. Now, if anyone thinks we write all this willingly rather than under compulsion, and that we are discouraging unity instead of doing everything we can to promote it, let him know he is very much mistaken and has completely misjudged our desires. Nothing is or ever has been more valuable to us than peace, as the facts themselves prove, even though their actions and brawling against us completely rule out unanimity.
And who will not marvel at their learning, in that on their own authority they divide the things of Christ, and assign to His Manhood such sayings as He was born, He was tempted, He was hungry, He was thirsty, He was wearied, He was asleep; but reckon to His Divinity such as these: He was glorified by Angels, He overcame the Tempter, He fed the people in the wilderness, and He fed them in such a manner, and He walked upon the sea; and say on the one hand that the Where have you laid Lazarus? John 11:34 belongs to us, but the loud voice Lazarus, Come Forth and the raising him that had been four days dead, is above our nature; and that while the He was in an Agony, He was crucified, He was buried, belongs to the Veil, on the other hand, He was confident, He rose again, He ascended, belong to the Inner Treasure; and then they accuse us of introducing two natures, separate or conflicting, and of dividing the supernatural and wondrous Union. They ought, either not to do that of which they accuse us, or not to accuse us of that which they do; so at least if they are resolved to be consistent and not to propound at once their own and their opponents' principles. Such is their want of reason; it conflicts both with itself and with the truth to such an extent that they are neither conscious nor ashamed of it when they fall out with themselves. Now, if anyone thinks that we write all this willingly and not upon compulsion, and that we are dissuading from unity, and not doing our utmost to promote it, let him know that he is very much mistaken, and has not made at all a good guess at our desires, for nothing is or ever has been more valuable in our eyes than peace, as the facts themselves prove; though their actions and brawlings against us altogether exclude unanimity.