A
B. Entirely so.
A. I think it has not lacked a minute examination at least according to my own judgment; but what is your opinion, Hermias?
B. I could rightly praise it as being correct and polished.
A. Since we have passed over a lengthier discussion of that matter, do you wish us to speak on those things which pertain to the incarnation of the Only-Begotten, and to explain its mystery as clearly as we are able—insofar as this can be performed by those who see in a mirror and in an enigma, and who know only in part, according to the measure of the gift of the bounty that the Holy Spirit has provided, as the divine Paul says? B
B. You speak excellently. For "no one says, Lord Jesus, except in the Holy Spirit, and no one says, Anathema Jesus, except in Beelzebul." But since it seems that you wish to enter this arena and undergo so heavy a labor, know that you will provide me great utility beyond others. For I would most willingly understand the true and sincere word about Christ, which is exposed to no reproach. For some, intoxicated by various opinions, deform the beauty of those things which have been handed down concerning Him in both the New and the Old Testament.
A. There is nothing, friend, that the unskilled do not dare, and they rush most readily into the snare of hell, as it is written, C and into the net of death, not understanding what they say or what they affirm. But recount, I implore you, who among them are the notorious ones, and what are their extraordinary trifles?
B. Certainly. For some have dared to assert that the Word of God indeed appeared as man, but that He did not carry flesh from the Virgin. They invent only an imaginary appearance of the mystery. Others, feigning shame if they seem to worship a man, and refusing to decorate earthly flesh with divine honors, and laboring from excessive ignorance under a spurious and corrupted sense of modesty, say that the Word begotten from the Father was changed into the nature of bones, nerves, and flesh; these wretches receive the birth of Emmanuel from the Virgin with great laughter, and judge this excellent and divine dispensation to be unseemly. Others also believe that the God Word, coeternal with the Father, was begotten late, and that He was brought into being scarcely at that time, when the first beginnings of his birth D
A according to the flesh were received.
There are others who have impiously rushed into such madness that they deny that the Word from the Father subsists hypostatically, but contend that the word is something merely uttered, as it is understood when spoken by a man. Such are Marcellus and Photinus. Others, however, it seems, believe that the Only-Begotten was truly made man and became incarnate, but they do not believe that the flesh which He assumed was perfectly animated by a rational soul possessing a mind such as ours. Rather, B by forcing the Word of God and the holy temple of the Virgin into a certain most absolute unity—as they suppose—they say that the Word dwelt in it, and that He made the flesh He assumed His own body, but He Himself occupied the place of the rational and intellectual soul.
Others again establish opinions altogether contrary to those of these men, affirming that Emmanuel is constituted and woven together from the Word of God and a rational soul and body, that is, simply from a perfect humanity; yet they have not kept his glory and honor entirely whole and uninjured. For they divide the one Christ into two, and by introducing a coarse sort of division among them, they show Him as though separated into two parts—declaring that the one who was born of the Virgin is one, a perfect man, and that the Word from God the Father is another. C They do not merely distinguish what the nature of the Word is and what that of the flesh, nor are they willing to dwell only on the differences between these (for in this they do not stray from the correct sentiment), but they constitute this one as man, and that one, indeed, they name the Son naturally and truly as God. Yet they wish to be called Christians, and indeed, by writing certain little treatises on this matter, they have dared to speak in these very words: "For the Word from God the Father is the Son by nature and in truth. But the other is Son only homonymously with the Son." And after other things, again: "The Word of God is not flesh, but has assumed a man. For the Only-Begotten is primarily and in Himself the Son of God, the Creator of all; but the man whom He assumed, not being God by nature, is called by the same name as Him, on account of the One who assumed him, who is truly the Son of God." D For that saying: "No one knows the Son except the Father" (Matt. xi. 27), signifies the one who is the Son from the Father by nature and in truth. But that which was said by Gabriel: "Do not fear, Mary; for you have found grace with God, and behold, you will conceive in your womb, and will bring forth a son, and you will call his name Jesus" (Luke i. 30), applies to the man.
But these things are theirs. We, however, shall never think in this way. For the Word will never persuade us to abandon the direct path and cross over into another, to go astray into ways that lead us away from the truth. But do you explain to us your own sentiment, for I am eagerly waiting to hear it, and to recognize the very truth of the matter.
A. O difficult thing, and a task most heavy. For do you not know, my friend, that if anyone were to choose to make a long discourse upon each of these points, and a thorough investigation...
he would consume no small amount of time, and with difficult labors and inescapable toils, would he with difficulty accomplish it? B. It is true.
A A. Let us, then, omitting if you please long arguments, and examining each point very briefly, come, let us say, and before other things to the Docetists: "You err, not knowing the Scriptures," nor indeed the great mystery of godliness, that is, Christ, "who was manifested in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen by angels, preached among the nations, believed on in the world, taken up in glory." I judge that those who think otherwise must either condemn the opinion of the ancients and call the teachers of the whole world liars—to whom Christ himself said, "Go, teach all nations"—or, if they shrink from this crime, they must embrace the true and sincere doctrine concerning Christ, and, bidding farewell to their own rashness and ignorance, cling tenaciously to the Holy Scriptures, and, insisting upon the straight and in no way erroneous path of the holy ones, strive toward the truth itself. For I think the mystery of godliness is nothing other than the Word from God the Father himself, who was manifested in the flesh. For he was born of the holy Virgin, having taken the form of a slave. And he was seen by angels, who sang praises to the one born, saying: "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will among men." And indeed, they also announced to the shepherds the Word of God who was born in the flesh for us: "Behold," they say, "there is born to you today a Savior, who is Christ the Lord, in the city of David. And this shall be a sign to you: you will find a babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger."
B If, however, the birth through the Virgin occurred, and the manifestation in the flesh took place, how is this not a futile babbling, and how is it not to be considered madness and insanity to assign the name of "phantasm" to such a manifest incarnation? For if it were a shadow and an imaginary appearance, and not a true incarnation, then neither did the Virgin give birth, nor did the Word from God the Father take hold of the seed of Abraham: he therefore has not become like his brethren. For we do not consist of a shadow or some imaginary appearance, but we dwell in bodies that can both be touched and seen, and, clothed in this earthly flesh, we are subject to corruption and the passions. If, therefore, the Word has not become flesh, he cannot even be of assistance to those who are tempted in that in which he himself suffered when he was tempted. For a shadow could not suffer any contrary affection. The whole profit of his passion for us truly vanishes into nothing. For what kind of back did he offer for us, or what kind of cheek did he present to those striking him, that he might endure the lashes of the Jews? Or in what way could anyone believe that he had his hands and feet transfixed with nails, if he did not appear in the flesh? Or what side, I pray, did Pilate’s soldiers pierce, showing to those who were watching blood mixed with water flowing out? And if anything more must be said, he did not die for us, nor indeed has Christ risen. For if this is not admitted as truth, faith is made void, and the cross is gone.
and the salvation and life of the world is undone, and the hope of those who have fallen asleep in the faith is destroyed entirely. A For it seemed to the blessed Paul to be so, who says: “For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He was seen by Cephas, then by the twelve. After that He was seen by above five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain to this present, but some have fallen asleep. After that He was seen by James, then by all the apostles, and last of all He was seen by me also, as by one born out of due time.” And after other things, again: “Now if Christ be preached that He rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ is not risen. And if Christ be not risen, then our preaching is vain, and your faith is also vain. Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God, because we have testified of God B that He raised up Christ, whom He did not raise up, if so be that the dead rise not.” For tell me, in what way could a shadow die? How then did the Father raise up Christ, if He were a shadow and a phantom, and not subject to the bonds of death? Away then with their vomit; rather, let us consider it a fable and the foamings of an unholy mind. For the disciple of our Savior forewarns us of such people, writing: “Many false prophets have gone out into the world. Hereby is the Spirit of God known. Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God. And this is that spirit of Antichrist, whereof you have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.” For if He did not become man, nor ascended in the flesh to the Father and God in the heavens, C He could not return from heaven to us, clearly as man and in the flesh. Or do I not seem to you to speak the truth? B. Quite so. A. But to think and to hold, out of immense dullness, that the Word begotten of God refused to be born of the holy Virgin, and rejected our nature, but rather contends that He was changed into earthly flesh, is the mark of those who blaspheme the dispensation and are determined to find fault with the divine counsels. For the Creator of the whole universe, and the Word of God who is abundant in mercy, emptied Himself, having become man for our sake, D born of a woman, in order that, since the children—that is, we—are partakers of blood and flesh, He also Himself likewise might partake of the same, “that through death He might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil, and deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.” For so the holy Scripture says. But they, this most excellent and most glorious counsel of God, as if of little
value, condemn, and as though they themselves were able to devise better things, they reject the decrees of his wisdom. For they do not think that the Word born of the Virgin ought to be believed, but rather imagine that the nature of the Word was transformed into this weak body, and they picture a change to him in whom no change can fall. A For the nature of God is firmly rooted and established in its own goods, and it remains immutably in its own state. For created nature, which was brought into being in time, is subject to change, and this can truly be said of such a thing. For whatever has received an origin of existence, it is also in a way innate to it that it can be changed. But God, who surpasses all understanding, and possesses an existence free from birth and death, is superior to all change; and just as he far exceeds all created things by the reason of his own nature, B and that, too, incomparably, so also in the things that are wont to happen to creatures established by him, he far surpasses them; and he is subject to nothing that could bring him harm. Therefore, the goods of the Divinity are firm and stable. Those of creatures, however, are subject to alterations and changes, and are close to corruption. And the prophet Jeremiah, understanding this perfectly and reflecting upon it most rightly, exclaims thus to God: “Thou sittest for ever, but we are perishing for ever.” For God sits as if on his own throne, always ruling and commanding all things, and no affection has power over him. We, however, since we are gifted with a nature most prone to alteration and change, perish for ever, that is, we are corruptible C and mutable in every time and age. The Divinity, therefore, can never be changed at any time, nor be moved from its firmness by any affection; on the contrary, corruptible and mutable nature—that is, created nature—cannot be endowed with essential immutability, nor boast in the possession of the goods of the divine nature. For it will rightly hear: “For what hast thou that thou didst not receive?” Now, that the nature of the Word is altogether immutable, while created nature is altogether mutable, anyone can most easily understand from David singing in the Spirit: “The heavens shall perish, but thou shalt remain, and all shall grow old as a garment: and as a vesture shalt thou change them, and they shall be changed. But thou art always the same, and thy years shall not fail.” D Where, therefore, did the Word of God remain, if it is truly said that, having laid aside his firmness and stability, he was translated to what he was not, and was transformed into the nature of flesh and a corruptible state? Is this not rather delirium and madness, that having abandoned that which is firmly and immovably established, it has descended into what it was not, and has been transformed into the nature of flesh, and into that which is corruptible? B. It is indeed. A. For it will be possible with equal rashness to say, which is not inconsistent, that earthly nature also can ascend to the nature of the Divinity, and into one
A of all essences, form a constitution. For if the very nature of the Divinity, according to their thunderstruck ravings, has passed over into the nature of the flesh, nothing would hinder our own inferior nature from also overleaping the flesh and being transformed into the Divinity and into the highest essence. But we shall not yield our assent to their foolishness; rather, we shall rely upon the divine Scriptures, with the prophet saying: B "Behold, the Virgin shall conceive in her womb, and shall bring forth a Son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel," and with the blessed Gabriel confirming this prediction and declaring the divine will to the Virgin: "Fear not, Mary," he said, "for behold, you shall conceive in your womb, and shall bring forth a Son, and shall call his name Jesus." We believe that Emmanuel was truly born of a woman; and we shall not reject the glorious and admirable dignity of our nature, thinking rightly.
B. You speak most correctly. For God laid hold of, not His own proper and peculiar nature (for nothing of benefit to us would have resulted from that), nor even that of angels, but the seed of Abraham, as it is written. For it was thus, and not otherwise, that the race which had slipped into corruption was to be restored. C
A. What then? Is not this also something to be wondered at besides these things, Hermias?
B. What do you mean?
A. For they have, as it were, bid farewell to the God-inspired Scripture, and, yielding their mind to seducing spirits, they have fallen into such folly and juvenile rashness as to think that He who is the creator of the ages, the Word co-eternal with God and the Father, received the beginning of His existence only at that time when He was born according to the flesh, and to imagine that He who precedes all ages and time is "late-born," so that finally, in the last times of the Incarnation, God became a Father, and that He through whom and in whom all things are, was, as it were, cast into the womb of the Virgin so that He might exist and subsist. Do you not think that D those who so readily embrace such old-womanish and detestable myths, and have filled their own minds with sheer stupidity, have arrived at the very limit of all evils? "Their throat is, in truth, an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips, whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness."
B. I agree; for the word of the Psalmist is true.
A. For is it not also necessary that He through whom all things were made should have pre-existed everything?
B. You speak rightly.
A. And what, then, would they do, when John writes: "In the beginning was the Word, and all things were made through Him, and without Him was not anything made"? And again: "That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen"
A with our eyes, which we looked upon and our hands handled, concerning the Word of life; and the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was manifested to us." And now Christ Himself declares His own existence's antiquity, which was invisible to the Jews. For when they said, "You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?" He countered clearly, "Amen, amen, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am." To whom, indeed, is that phrase attributed—without any addition, and also clearly that "I am"—what, I ask, can recognize the principle of His generation? Or in what way could He who was in the beginning, beyond all understanding, be received as having been called into existence in time? If anyone chooses to argue more learnedly against these matters, it would not be difficult, by bringing forward the words of holy Scripture, to rout their madnesses. But I, since these things are so manifestly false and shameful, have considered it superfluous to spend more effort in refuting them.
B. You speak rightly.
A. Therefore, let us betake ourselves to another (opinion) akin to the condemned one. For some adulterate the beauty of the truth, just like some currency, B lifting up their horn on high and speaking iniquity against God, as it is written. For they imagine the Only-begotten not to have His own existence, nor to subsist in His own hypostasis: but that the Word is simply a discourse and speech that consists only in utterance by God, and they say, poor wretches, that it dwelt in a man, and by composing Jesus in this way, they say He is holier than the saints, yet not truly God. Wherefore, as the disciple of our Savior says: "Who is the liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, who denies the Father and the Son. Everyone who denies the Son, does not have the Father; he who confesses the Son has the Father also." For the one is recognized in the other both by us and by the holy angels. C For no one could understand what a Father is unless he conceives in his mind a Son who subsists and is begotten; nor again could one understand what the Son is, unless he thinks that the Father has begotten. I consider it necessary, therefore, also to say truly: If the Son does not exist, then neither can the Father be truly grasped by thought. For where is there a Father, if He has not truly begotten? Or if He has begotten that which does not subsist, nor has any existence at all, that which is begotten will be absolutely nothing. For that which does not subsist is equal to nothing, or rather, it is nothing at all. And so God will be the Father of nothing. But, O miserable ones, I would say to such teachers: Your dogmas are empty trifles; or else respond to me as I ask: D In what way is the excessive love of God and the Father toward us (shown)? And if He gave for us the Son, who in your opinion does not exist, then He gave nothing for us, and the Word was not made flesh, and He did not endure the venerable cross, nor
did He abolish the power of death, nor did He rise again. For if He is nothing, and non-existent according to you, how then could these things have happened to Him? A The word of holy Scripture then has deceived those who have believed, and the firmness of our faith vanishes into nothingness. B. Absit! A. What then? Does not the divine word signify to us that the Son exists in the form of God, and call Him the image and character of the Begetter? B. Most certainly. A. And images are like their archetypes. B. How could they not be? A. Therefore, if the image were not hypostatic, and if the character could not be conceived of as existing in its own right, they would necessarily have to admit that the one whose character it is also lacks a hypostasis; and the disgrace of the image will redound even upon the archetype. B Do you agree? B. I agree. A. Furthermore, tell me: Did Philip, who was exceedingly studious of piety, desire to see the Father who is and subsists in hypostasis, saying, "Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us," or did he desire to see one who does not exist and lacks hypostasis? B. He desired to see the one who truly exists, of course. A. If then the Son is nothing, as One who does not subsist—according to the unrestrained audacity of those people—why did He present Himself to us as the image and exact knowledge of the Father, saying, "Have I been so long time with you, and yet you have not known me, Philip? He that has seen me has seen the Father. Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? I and the Father are one"? But I do not think that anyone would ever perceive the One who subsists in one who does not subsist, nor would anyone ever consider the same thing to be both subsisting and non-subsisting. Yet how shall the Father be in the Son, and the Son in turn in the Father, unless it be truly said that if the Word does not subsist in Himself, the Father Himself also runs the risk, having in Himself nothing, and being understood to exist in nothing? For that which does not exist at all, is understood to be nothing. C B. This is a harsh argument. For it contains in itself a great absurdity and harshness, the doctrine of our adversaries. A. Yet someone might well wonder in what way the Father created all things in the Son, when He had not yet attained to being. But if someone asks whether to those things which exist... D
BONAVENTURA VULCANIUS'S NOTES.
(5) Isid. epist. 63, lib. III: "Therefore he who says that the Son is posterior to the Father, from whom He shone forth without a beginning, the same person destroys that which characterizes the untainted essence, as far as it lies in him." That is: Wherefore he who states that the Son is posterior to the Father, from whom He shines forth eternally, even that essence which He marks with that character—insofar as it is within him—he overturns. For that which Cyril calls the archetype, Isidore calls the Father, that is to say the characteristic.A B. I would answer, that it is "being." For God is called Creator and is good, specifically by this name, that He granted being to those things which at one time were not.
A. You speak excellently. For thus the nature of things stands. The condition of creatures is therefore better than His by whom all things received their origin; if this one is said not to exist, while those things both exist and are known to be in their own being.
B. Far be such blasphemy! "For the Word of God is living and effectual," as it is written. Therefore He also said, “I am the life.”
A. But one cannot understand life, when it does not subsist. Yet it is life by nature. For it can in no way lie. It is therefore a wretched lie, and a delirium of a most foolish mind, that the Word who appeared from God should not subsist of Himself.
B. Absolutely. For He Himself said to Moses: “I am the One Who Is.” But how could one ever think that that which truly is, does not retain its own hypostasis?
A. Rightly, therefore, shall we detest the great madness of those who think thus.
B. By all means.
A. But neither, Hermias, do we approve of those who have learned to diligently pursue the truth.
B. Whom, I pray?
A. Those who say that the flesh united to the Word lacks a rational soul. For they clothe the Word only with flesh endowed with vital and sensitive motion, and bring Him into the world, attributing the faculty of mind and soul to the Only-Begotten. For they shudder, I know not for what reason, to confess that the Word is united to a man who fully possesses himself by reason of his humanity—that is, one who consists of soul and body—but, having ignored the tradition of the most ancient faith, they think they ought to follow their own private opinions and human reasonings, thinking otherwise than is certainly fitting. B
B. But what is their reasoning for such a dogma?
A. I will tell you. We, according to the Scriptures, say that the mediator of God and men is composed of our humanity, which is perfect according to its own nature, and of the Son who has naturally appeared from God—that is, the Only-Begotten. We assert, however, that from the meeting and ineffable concurrence of unequal and dissimilar natures, a unity is made. We acknowledge, C nevertheless, one Christ and Lord and Son, and in the same one we recognize and understand Him to be truly both God and man. We are accustomed, moreover, to preserve a completely indivisible unity, believing the same One to be both Only-Begotten and firstborn: Only-Begotten, indeed, as the Word from God the Father, and as having appeared from His essence; but firstborn, inasmuch as He was made man and is among many brothers. D As
A for He is one God the Father, from whom are all things, so also one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things. For we recognize that He who is through whom are all things, the Word, is God by nature, even if He has become flesh, that is, man.
B. You have spoken most correctly.
A. But their dogmas do not very much agree with our sentiments concerning Him. For without doubt, they too accept Jesus Christ, thinking most excellently on this point. But they strongly recoil, as if it were highly impious, from dividing Emmanuel into two; yet, depriving the flesh of a human and rational soul, they say that the Word from God is united to it. And they have discovered a certain plausible reason, as they think, for this. For they say that things which come together B by composition for the constitution of one perfect being are wont to be seen as parts and from imperfect things, whereas that which is perfect by itself and in its own nature does not need composition from parts. Therefore, they say, we must by all means beware of positing a perfect man (the temple which is united to the Word), so that the composition which is understood in Christ may preserve its own perfect and irreprehensible reason. And they will add, I think, this other point: If, they say, we constitute Emmanuel from a perfect man and from the Word who is from the Father, it is no small fear, or rather it will be clearly necessary, that we think and speak of two sons and two Christs.
B. What then shall we answer them?
A. First, that we ought not to diminish the singular perfection of the most ancient faith, which has come down to us from the very holy apostles, by over-curious subtleties, nor yet to subject those things which exceed our intellect to exhaustive investigations, nor again to come forward C like some arbiters and, as those who set the boundaries, rashly say that some things are right, but others are not, or that they ought to be otherwise; but rather that we should leave the way of His own counsels to the all-wise God, and not rashly criticize those things which have been approved by God as right. For we shall hear Him saying clearly: "For my counsels are not as your counsels (4), nor are my ways as your ways, but as the heaven is distant from the earth, so is my way distant from your ways, and your thoughts from my thoughts." Then that which seems to them to have been found wisely will be discovered to be utterly stale and ignorant. For if anyone should choose to divest that divine temple of a rational soul, the union D of the two will not be from imperfect things; far from it. For it is, indeed, confessedly—as regarding the whole man, I mean the one from soul and body, solely and by itself...
as a part A is the flesh. But God the Word is not understood to be a part of anything, nor yet imperfect, O noble sirs. For He is most perfect in His own nature. Where, then, will there be a concurrence from imperfect things to one certain perfect thing? If it is indeed from a perfect Word and an imperfect flesh, in so far as it reaches the account of a man perfect according to his own nature. But we will by no means worship two Sons, nor will we speak of two Christs, even if we believe the gathering into unity of Emmanuel to have been accomplished from a perfect man and from God the Word. For just as, according to what seems to be correct to those people, if one were to say it is from flesh alone and the Word who appeared from God the Father, no process will persuade them to set the flesh as a part and, on the other hand, the Only-Begotten as a part, and to confess a duality of Christs, but they will receive Emmanuel as one Lord Jesus Christ (for they are seen to think exactly rightly on this); so too, even if we say that the Word from God, in an ineffable manner and one transcending the intellect, has been B together with and united to a perfect man—it being clear that he is one constituted of soul and body—we shall not conceive of a duality of sons, but one and the same, being by nature God and having appeared from the very essence of God and the Father, but in the last times of the age having become man, and having been born through the holy Virgin, and being worshipped by us ourselves and by the holy angels according to the Scriptures.
B. What then, if they should say that our state needed only the advent of the Only-Begotten? And that, since He wished to be seen by mortals and to dwell with men, and to show us the way of the evangelical life, He put on flesh similar to us by an admirable dispensation? For the Deity, in its own nature, cannot be seen.
A. Certainly they will be found to have been ignorant of the scope of the incarnation, and to have understood in no way the great mystery of godliness. For if the incarnation, or "becoming man," occurred for this sole reason, that He might be seen by mortals, and nothing else was added thereby to human nature, how would it not have been better for us also to embrace the opinion of the Docetae? For they, while clothing the Word with flesh and an earthly body at the same time, fabulously assert that He was seen as a man, yet miserable [though they are], they openly admit that He was the author of the best things. But truly, if the Word from God C brought no benefit to human nature, even though He became flesh, would you not consider it better to clear Him from carnal impurity, and to imagine that He used an earthly body only once, and thus fulfilled the scope He had set for Himself?
B. What then was the reason for His advent into flesh, or what was the mode of the incarnation, or for whose sake it was done, I would like to understand.
A. Come then, hear the sacred Scriptures, and directing the edge D of your mind keenly to the words of the holy apostles, see that which is sought. For the wise Paul thus
speaks to us, having Christ himself speaking within him: "Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; and deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage." And again, explaining another way to us, he says: "For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit." Is it not therefore most manifest, and obscure to none of mortals, that the Only-Begotten became like us, that is, a perfect man, so that he might deliver our earthly body from the corruption that had invaded it, having for our sake descended in the economy of union into identity with us according to the law and rule of life, and making the human soul his own, he rendered it superior to sin by the firmness and immutability of his own nature, staining it as it were with a dye?
B. I do not think this matter unclear. For it carries within itself the likely—or rather, the true—reasoning.
A. Just as, then, because the Word who quickens all things became flesh, it overcomes the power of death and corruption; in the same way, I think, since it became the soul of him who knows not how to sin, it possesses henceforth a firm and immutable state in all good things, and is incomparably stronger than the sin that formerly held sway. For the first man is Christ, who "did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth," and is established as the root and as it were the first-fruits of those who are transformed into the newness of life in the Spirit, and who will transmit C the incorruption of the body and the firmness and stability of the Godhead, as in participation and by grace, to the whole human race. And knowing this, the divine Paul writes: "And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly." For by the image of the earthy he meant the prone state toward sin and the death that was thereby cast upon us; but by the image of the heavenly—that is, of Christ—the firmness unto sanctification, and the recovery and restoration from death and corruption unto incorruption and life. We say, therefore, that the Word was united to the whole man. For surely he would not have deemed the better part in us, that is, the soul, worthy of no account, bestowing the toils of his manifestation upon the flesh alone. But the mystery of the economy was beautifully accomplished through both. He used them as an instrument: indeed, his own flesh for the works of the flesh, and for natural infirmities, and for all those things that are far from blame; and again, his own soul for human D and...
the soul A of all, providing a ransom, even if he rose again, being life by nature, as God. And so the divine Peter says, "Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day. Therefore, being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne; he seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption" (Acts II, 29-31). For it is not right to say that the flesh united to the Word could be subject to eternal corruption, nor, on the other hand, that the divine soul could be made subject to the gates of hell. For he was not left in hell, as the divine Peter also said. For he does not say that the nature which cannot be grasped or overcome by death, that is, the Godhead of the Only-Begotten, was brought back from the subterranean B caverns. For the thing would not be worthy of admiration if the Word from God did not remain in hell, since by the efficacy of his Godhead and its admirable nature, and in a way that exceeds reason, he fills all things and pervades all things. For the Godhead is superior to every place, and limitation, and measurable magnitude, nor is it contained by anything. But it is a thing for everyone to admire above all measure, that the body, corruptible by its own nature, revived, since it was united to the incorruptible Word. But the divine soul, which had obtained its meeting and union with the Word, descended indeed into hell, and using its divine power and faculty, it appeared even to the spirits who were in hell. Therefore he also said to those who were in bonds, "Go forth," and to those who were in darkness, "Be revealed." And it seems to me that the blessed Peter says something of this kind C about the Word of God and the soul that was united to him by the dispensation: "For it is better, if the will of God be so, that ye suffer for well doing, than for evil doing. For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit: by which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison; which sometime were disobedient" (1 Petr. III, 17-20). For not even, I think, would one say that the Godhead of the Only-Begotten, naked and by itself, descended into hell and preached to the spirits there, being altogether invisible. For the Godhead is more excellent than that it can be seen; nor shall we concede that the Godhead was transformed into the appearance of a soul by some imaginary D semblance; but we must reject semblance in every way; rather, just as to those who still live in the flesh, so also to those in hell
A he proclaimed, having for his own burden the soul united to Him. And deep perhaps, and truly ineffable, and not to be grasped by our minds, is the manner of this union. Yet this is what we ought to consider: that it is not without loss, but entirely foolish, to carry our curious investigations into matters beyond our capacity, and to attempt to understand what cannot be understood. Or do you not know that this profound mystery, which transcends the mind within us, is honored by simple faith? To ask with unwanted inquiries, "How can these things be?"—leaving that to Nicodemus and those like him—let us, without any hesitation, firmly embrace the oracles of the Holy Spirit, and believe Christ Himself when He says: "Amen, amen I say to you, we speak what we know, and we testify to what we have seen."
D. You speak rightly.
A. Let all trifles, therefore, and baseless fables, and lies, and the imposture of polished phrases depart; for we do not accept what is prone to corruption, even if opponents deafen our ears with bombastic and exquisite words. For our divine B mystery does not lie in the persuasive words of human wisdom, but in the demonstration of the Spirit.
A Being, then, God and Lord of all, according to the Scriptures, the Only-Begotten appeared to us. For He was seen on earth and shone upon those who were in darkness, having become man—not by appearance (away with such a thought, for it is sheer madness to imagine or say that), nor yet by being transferred into flesh through change and alteration. For the Word of God is unchangeable, and is always existing in the same way and manner. Nor, again, did His existence begin with the flesh at one and the same time (for He Himself is the Creator of the ages), nor did He become merely a sermon devoid of subsistence, or a bare word in a man. For He who once called things that were not into existence and being, necessarily existed beforehand; for He is Life, being by nature from the Life of God and the Father, and He is understood as existing in His own proper subsistence. Nor, further, did He put on only flesh, bereft of a rational soul, but He was truly born of a woman, and appeared as a man, living and existing, the co-eternal Word of God and the Father, having taken the form of a servant. And as He is perfect in divinity, so is He also perfect in humanity, not composed of divinity and flesh alone into one Christ and Lord and Son, but out of two perfect things—by which I mean humanity and divinity—miraculously united into one and the same.
B What, then, did the holy Virgin give birth to? A man, or the Word from God?
BON. VULCANI NOTES
Furthermore, the divine discourse also says this: that what is stated is not sufficient, even if it be true in itself, and even if it could effectively make faith penetrate the human soul, unless a certain power is also divinely given to the speaker, and grace flowers upon the things that are said, and unless this itself is bestowed by God upon those who speak with fruit and effect. The Prophet says, therefore, in the sixtieth psalm: "The Lord will give a word to those who preach with great power."
This same passage from Paul is cited in the Philocalia, ch. 15, to prove that same divine power of persuasion was bestowed upon the unlearned fishermen.
Eusebius, at the beginning of his *Evangelical Preparation*, for *in the persuasion of the words of human wisdom*... In this, Eusebius agrees with Origen, that both read it as a substantive, not an adjective. And there is no reason why *peitho* [persuasion] should be derived from the verb *peitho* [to persuade]; this is something even learned men have noted. But as for me, having thought a long time about this passage, a certain conjecture has come to mind, which I respectfully propose for theologians to examine. Perhaps it was written in this way at one time or another, and this word was placed at the end of a line with a certain mark added to it, which is a reversed sigma with two dots between it, signifying—that is, what we today note as *i.*; and then in the margin there was placed a gloss and interpretation for the word to which the note we just mentioned was added (which frequently occurs in Greek manuscript codices), which was read for the letter sigma, *s*; and thus, from *peitho*, it became *peithois*. My conjecture is supported by the passage of Origen, cited in the same way, who interprets the meaning of this word in a broad sense, even including dialectic (for Zeno compared dialectic to the fist, but rhetoric to the open hand). I might have thought, therefore, that the passage of Paul could be read so: *and my word and my preaching [is] not in the persuasion of words of human wisdom*, that is to say, in suadela [persuasion]; which is the same as if one were to say, "in dialectical demonstration." But if we read it as *persuasions* [in the plural], there is no need to add anything, if we understand or supply "dialectical words and arguments, because *sophia* among the Greeks signifies not only wisdom, but also art, so that even ancient physicians and grammarians were called *sophoi* [wise men], which anyone who translates as 'wise' does not correctly render, but rather 'skilled in that art'." I have proposed my conjecture on this passage of Paul, and if, because of the consensus of all editions which have been printed, it is not approved by the learned, I gladly join in their opinion and depart from my own, and easily bear my conjecture being thought little of. I will only add this, that there are some places in the sacred Letters which, although they are read in the same way in all Greek or Latin exemplars, Cyril alone deviates from the reading used by everyone. Concerning one of these places, it now comes to my mind, from the third book *On Adoration in Spirit and Truth*, which I once translated into Latin while I was in Spain at the court of Cardinal Francisco de Mendoza, Bishop of Burgos, and which were printed at Toledo by Jac. Ayala in the year 1574. For there, Cyril, interpreting that passage of Exodus xiv, "And stretch out your hand over the sea, and break it," for "and break it, dry it up," translates it... So, book 3 of *De adorat.*, that passage from Psalm xcvii, which in all codices of the Old Testament—indeed, even among all the authors citing this very passage whom it has happened for me to see—is read thus; Cyril alone, for *agapai* [loves], reads *agapen* [love], and indeed he reads it much more significantly.
A. And truly this is to err, and to deflect from the truth. For these things are not to be torn apart, so that you should set up man apart, and God the Word apart, and fashion for us an Emmanuel endowed with a double person. For would not someone deservedly reproach us, if we, having abandoned the true and right sentiment, should rather follow things which the sacred Scripture condemns? For so does one of the disciples of Christ say: “But you, A beloved, be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ, that they told you that at the last of times there shall come mockers walking according to their own desires in impieties. These are they who separate themselves, animal men, having not the Spirit.”
B. Must they not, therefore, be separated in any way?
A. By no means. Even if at most we say that there are two after the union, and that each is understood according to its part, it must be known that the mind does indeed consider a certain difference of natures (for humanity and divinity are not the same), but at the same time, along with this consideration, it contemplates the concurrence of both into a unity. Therefore, he proceeded from the Father as God, but from the Virgin as man. For the Word, who ineffably and beyond human intellect blossomed forth from God the Father, is said to have been born also from a woman, when He assumed humanity and humbled Himself to that which He was not; not that He might lose His divinity, but that He might be believed to be God, and that He might have borne our form on earth, not as dwelling in a B man, but as having become this very thing, namely man by nature, while His own glory remained intact. Therefore, that divine Paul, collecting into one in the way of the economy the divinity and humanity which are separated by a great difference and divided by an immense disparity from being of the same substance, and indicating one Christ, and Son, and God from both, says: “Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called an apostle, set apart for the Gospel of God, which He promised before by His prophets in the holy Scriptures, concerning His Son, who was made of the seed of David according to the flesh, who was determined to be the Son of God in power according to the Spirit of sanctification.” Behold, he clearly says that he was set apart for the Gospel of God, although writing openly: “For we do not preach ourselves, but Christ Jesus C the Lord.” And again: “For I judged not myself to know anything among you, except Jesus Christ, and Him crucified.” But while he names Him Son of God, he also says that He was born of the seed of David, and insists that He was determined also to be the Son of God. How then, tell me, is He God, who has sprouted forth from the seed of David? And He who is Son before the ages and eternally, inasmuch as He has appeared from God, in what way was He determined to be the Son of God, as if He were brought forward to a beginning of existence? For He said of Himself, the Lord said to me: “You are my Son, today I have begotten you.” And yet, “today” in some way always signifies to us not the past, but rather the present time. D
B B. I have been more than a little perplexed, and I would say that it is truly difficult for many others to be able to grasp this.
A. To those who divide and separate A Emmanuel, this is truly difficult and impassable; but to those who bind Him into unity, the unadulterated knowledge of the sacred dogmas is very near at hand and most ready. For the Son, who is coeternal with the Father and before all ages, when He descended into human nature—not having slipped away from being God, but having assumed the human—ought reasonably to be understood as having also been born from the seed of David, and as having the most recent, that is, the birth in humanity. And that which He assumed is not alien to Him, but is truly His own. It is therefore reckoned as being one with Him, just as one can also observe in the constitution of man. For man is composed of things different in nature, namely, soul and body; nevertheless, the composite is considered one man, to the extent that sometimes the whole animal is named from the flesh alone, and when the soul is named, the composite is understood. By the same reasoning, therefore, one must also judge regarding Christ. For there is one Son, and one Lord Jesus Christ, both before the flesh and when He was made man. And we will not deny the Lord who redeemed us, even if He were to be signified to us through human things and by the measure of His emptying.
B. I do not quite follow; I would wish for it to be explained more clearly.
A. Our Lord Jesus Christ said to the Jews: “If you were Abraham’s children, you would do the works of Abraham; but now you seek to kill Me, a man who has told you the truth which I heard from God; this Abraham did not do.” C And Paul also writes concerning Him: “Who in the days of His flesh, offering up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto Him who was able to save Him from death, and heard for His reverence. And although He was the Son of God, He learned obedience from the things which He suffered.” Shall we, therefore, on account of this very thing, consider Christ to be a mere man, and in no way superior to us?
B. Far be it.
A. But shall we admit that the wisdom and power of God came to such a point of weakness that He feared death and asked to be saved from it by the Father, and so deny that Emmanuel is the true Life? Or, by referring this humility of words to His humanity and the measure of our nature, will we think correctly, and contemplating His supermundane glory from the things D of which He is God, will we understand Him to be both man and God, or God incarnate?
B. Tell me how.
A. Let the most wise Paul come into our midst, and cry out and say these things: “But we speak wisdom among those who are perfect, yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the rulers of this world, who are coming to nothing.”
A For if they had known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. Moreover, in addition to these things: “Who being the brightness of his glory and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high, being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.” Although he is and is called the Lord of glory, how is he not far superior to all created things and those brought into being? I pass over things human, B for they are indeed very small; yet I will say that if one were to name Angels, and Principalities, and Thrones, and Dominions, and were to make mention even of the highest Seraphim, one would confess that they fall behind such transcendent glory, if indeed one has a mind that is not corrupted. For it is a peerless honor, and one that befits only the nature of the God of all, who rules the entire universe. How then could the one who was crucified be the Lord of glory? And yet the Brightness of the Father, and the Character of his essence, the one upholding all things by the word of his power, is said to have been made better than the angels—perhaps, as I suppose, because he took on a lesser state when he appeared as man. For it is written: “We see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honor.” Shall we, therefore, cast away the Word who appeared from God the Father—the Word who possesses an essential superiority to himself and an exact likeness to him—and see him as being inferior to the glory of angels because of the smallness of the economy?
B. By no means. For I do not think that we ought to strip the Word of God C from God entirely of the properties of humanity after his union with the flesh, nor, on the other hand, to deprive the human element of divine glory if it is understood and spoken of in Christ. But you must know that some are asking: “Who then is truly Jesus Christ? The man from the woman, or the Word from God?”
A. It is utterly foolish to contend keenly over superfluous matters and to shout back with trivial and vain word-battles. I would say, however, that it is dangerous and not without penalty to divide [him] into two, and to set up the man and the Word apart from one another, when the economy does not allow it, and the God-inspired Scripture cries out that Christ is one. For I argue that one ought not to name “Jesus Christ” either the Word from God without humanity, nor the temple born from the Virgin not united to the Word. D For the Word from God, ineffably joined through an economic union to humanity, is known as Christ; he is above humanity, as God by nature and Son, yet he is “higher” than the glory befitting God by only a little, insofar as he is man. Wherefore, at one time he said, “He who has seen me has seen the Father; I and the Father are one,” but at another time, in turn: “My Father is greater than I.”
A For he is not less than the Father in terms of the identity of essence and of similarity in every respect; he says he is less by reason of his humanity. And he is proclaimed in the Holy Scriptures, sometimes as being entirely man, with his divinity hidden B economically, and sometimes, in turn, as God, with his humanity hidden; but by neither account is any injury done to him, because of the arrival of both titles into one.
B. How do you mean? For I do not quite follow your meaning.
A. The Hebrew of Hebrews and of the tribe of Benjamin, the called apostle, writes to those who have been justified by faith and have put to death the members of the flesh—I mean fornication, passion, evil desire, and covetousness: “For you have died, and your life is hidden with Christ in God.” C He himself also says elsewhere concerning his own disciples: “Holy Father, keep them in your name, which you have given me, so that they may be one, just as we are. When I was with them, I kept them in your name, which you gave me, and I guarded them, and not one of them was lost, except the son of perdition, so that the Scripture might be fulfilled. But now I am coming to you, and I speak these things in the world, that they may have my joy fulfilled in themselves.” Do you understand, then, how in these passages it seems to be signified to us D from humanity alone?
B. You speak very correctly.
A. For we surely would not think that he has been hidden or departed from the world, even though he says clearly: “Amen, amen, I say to you, that where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I in the midst of them.” And again: “Behold, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” Indeed, you may also see the most holy Paul frequently denying that he ought to be proclaimed as a man: “For Paul,” he says, “an apostle, not from men, nor through man, but through Jesus Christ.” And again, in addition to these things: “But I make known to you, brothers, the Gospel, which was preached by me, that it is not according to man. For neither did I receive it from man, nor was I taught it, but through a revelation of Jesus Christ.” And indeed, he says elsewhere: “And even if we have known Christ according to the flesh, yet now we know him no longer.” Who, then, is Jesus Christ, who flashes such an ineffable, unerring, and divine revelation of his own mysteries upon himself? Is it not the Word become flesh, who did not disdain to be born of a woman for our sake?
B. Certainly. For I remember the blessed Gabriel saying thus to the holy Virgin: “Do not be afraid, Mary; for behold, you will conceive in your womb, and will bring forth a son, and you shall call his name Jesus.”
A I believe that this new name has been given to the Word by the Father through the voice of the angel. For it was proclaimed in the prophetic oracle: “And they shall call his name new, which the Lord shall name.”
A. Since, therefore, the Son, who is coeternal with the Father and existing before all ages, and who is the Only-Begotten, has in the last times of the age become man, and has been born of a woman, and has been defined as a Son, and has been named the Firstborn, and has become “among many brothers,” B then the Father, by nature, also defines this name, following, so to speak, the laws of fatherhood. You have gladdened us, rightly understanding the manner of the dispensation.
B. The same, then, is both only-begotten and firstborn?
A. Surely you should not think otherwise than this, my friend. For the Only-Begotten, as God, is the firstborn among us by reason of the unity through the incarnation, and is called “among many brothers” as man, so that we too might be in him and through him sons of God, both naturally and by grace. Naturally, indeed, as in him and him alone; but by participation and according to grace, through him in the Spirit. Just as, therefore, the title “Only-Begotten” became proper to the humanity in Christ because it was united to the Word through that meeting of the incarnation, so the title “Firstborn” and “among many brothers” is proper to the Word because of his being united to flesh. Yet, having his being as God fixed, and remaining always immune to change, he does not depart from his own glory. Therefore, that holy and blessed multitude of the heavenly spirits has been commanded to adore him together with us. For it would certainly have been very natural for them to have refused the adoration, and to have shrunk from offering honor, seeing the lowliness of the humanity, and to have disdained to give glory to him who for our sake was made like us, and they could have been accused of no error by reason of that. For the mystery of Christ was still unknown even to them; but the Holy Spirit revealed it to them, and did not permit those who were sanctified to act impiously. Therefore the divine Paul says: “And when he bringeth the Firstborn into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God adore him.”
[BON. VULCANII NOTÆ.] God does not announce the name, showing by this very fact that he exists by nature. For a name, as it might happen peculiarly to a man, could not exist for God. Nevertheless, he is named in many ways from the things that he naturally is. For he is Light, and Life, and Power, and Truth, Only-Begotten, and Splendor, and the Character of him who begat him, Mercy, and Wisdom, and Justice, and Redemption. Isidore of Pelusium, in his letters, book one, elegantly explains that the name of God before the incarnation was unutterable, and he makes Jacob, when he struggled with God, as in Genesis XXXII, asking what his name was, to have received this answer: It is not for the law, nor for those who were before the law, to know this; and he makes God thus saying to Jacob: In the last time, when the fullness of times shall have come, and the sins of men shall have been multiplied, I shall be called Jesus, which is interpreted Savior; for I shall undergo that dispensation in the flesh for the salvation of those who have sinned.
A For as to the natural property of the divinity, he excels the entire world, and exists outside of it as God; yet he has entered into it, declared to be a part of the world as man, and yet he did not on this account fall away from the divine glory. For he is worshipped as the Only-Begotten, even if he be called the Firstborn, which is evidently most appropriate to the measures of humanity.
B. Shall we therefore worship Emmanuel as a man?
A. Far be it. For this is most vain, and full of fraud and error. For in this way we shall in no respect differ from those who worship the creature rather than the Creator, who have indeed changed the truth of God into a lie, as it is written. B If we follow their opinion, we shall also hear along with them: "Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into the likeness of an image of a corruptible man, and of birds, and of four-footed beasts, and of creeping things." C For shall we not also ourselves become like them, and fellow-sufferers with those mentioned, by changing the glory of God into a lie, by offering worship to Emmanuel in the likeness of an image of a corruptible man, as if to a mere man and one of us?
B. Certainly.
A. What then? Shall not the very host of angels from above also be counted with those who have fallen into such madness?
B. It must be so.
A. And I consider that we shall cast upon them the reproach for being led astray, which pertains to the flock of the gentiles, and it will be infected with the inextricable stain of the ancient guilt. For it has erred even now, no less than of old, and has been ignorant of the path that leads to the truth. And Paul, as it appears, abundantly testifies to this, addressing them and saying: "But then indeed, not knowing God, you served those who by nature are not gods. But now, having known God, or rather having been known by God, how do you turn again to the weak and beggarly elements, to which you desire to be in bondage again?" For what kind of God have they known, if Christ is not God by nature, in whom they have believed? And if they have served a man, they have fallen into the snares of their ancient error. Do I seem to be speaking the truth to you?
B. Entirely so.
A. See therefore how now, by necessary and evident arguments, we are all but unwillingly compelled to the conclusion that we must wisely worship the Son as God by nature, even when he appears in our form, since the coalescing or concurrence into unity can not inaptly remove that difficulty which might otherwise arise from the suspicion of humanity.
B. How do you mean?
A. For the nature of the Word, having assumed humanity, is not mere humanity, but rather, overcoming by its own glory that which was assumed, it keeps its divinity in unshaken...
A integrity and firmness. Feeling this to be true, the disciples worshipped Him, saying, "Truly Thou art the Son of God," when they saw Him walking upon the waters, although He was in the flesh as we are; for He traversed the highest waves miraculously, as God.
B. But who was it that said to the woman in Samaria: "You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know"? Furthermore, how shall He be one who is to be worshipped, if He is numbered among those who worship?
A. Frequently, O friend, you sing this "Who" song to me, I know not how invented by the ignorant. For Christ is not divided in any way. He who speaks to the woman was the one and only Lord Jesus Christ, composed in an ineffable manner B of the humanity that worships and the divinity that is worshipped. Just as perhaps someone else might speak differently of Him: in that He is God, He is considered to be the Lord of glory; but in that He became a man, glorified by a participation from God, He needed glory, saying: "Father, glorify Thy Son." But, "One Lord, one faith, one baptism," according to what is written. Therefore, just as one is the faith in Christ, and one in truth is the baptism—even though we are baptized and believe in the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit—in the C same manner and reason, I think, there is one worship of the Father, and of the Son who became man, and of the Holy Spirit. For the Only-Begotten shall by no means be excluded from being worshipped by us and by the holy angels, even if He became flesh and dwelt among us, and has been called the firstborn among many brothers.
Since, then, what would be the definition of the faith in Him, how is it not worthwhile to inquire? For those who wish to think rightly would not, I suppose, say that we have believed in only the Word who proceeds from God, stripping Him of the flesh; nor, on the other hand, shall we neglect to say this; for it shall be said immediately.
B. What is it that you say?
A. Indeed, our faith is directed not as if toward one of us, nor yet as toward a mere man, but toward God who D is naturally and truly in the person of Christ. And the wise Paul also concurs with this opinion, writing: "For we do not preach ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord; and ourselves your servants through Jesus, because God who said that light should shine out of darkness, He has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ." Behold, the illumination of the knowledge of God and the Father has clearly and plainly shone forth in the person of Christ. Therefore He also said: "He who has seen me, has seen the Father. I and the Father are one." The divine character is not bodily, but in virtue and glory most befitting to God; and this was pure in Christ. And He wished to be known both through these things and through the excellence of His works, in order to raise the minds of the listeners to the knowledge of Him, since otherwise the appearance of the flesh might somewhat obscure Him. "For if I do..."
not the works of my Father," He says, "do not believe me. But if I do, even if you do not believe me, believe my works." I believe that Christ uttered these words at that time, knowing that the matter was not without its own usefulness. For since they did not think that He who had become man for our sake was God by nature, but simply a man like us, and because of this some were withholding faith from Him, He necessarily cut away their fear and hesitation to believe. By attributing faith to the nature of the Godhead, as if in the person of the Father, and not ascribing it to our lowliness, He said: "He who believes in me, does not believe in me, but in Him who sent me." Is this not as if He said: O you who give credence to my words, do not think anything lowly or abject concerning me; but rather be convinced of this, that whoever believes in me—whom you behold in the flesh—will not be believing simply in a man, but in the Father Himself through me, the Son, who have in all things equality and likeness with the Father; and though I have indeed been incarnate for your sake, and have taken upon myself a lowly garment—to wit, humanity—I remain by the equality of nature and operation, and by identity of glory, most perfectly similar and equal to the Father.
B. So it seems.
A. Yet, you may understand Him as not rejecting faith in another way as well: B but as receiving it, without any division or difference, into His own person, even though He has become flesh. For after He had healed the man who was blind from birth, and had infused into him a sweet and unfamiliar light, he was deservedly an object of wonder to all. And while this man, liberated from that infirmity, was being judged by the Jews and was professing Christ to be his physician, Christ approached him and said: "Do you believe in the Son of God?" And when he exclaimed: "Who is he, Lord, that I may believe in him?" He answered him saying: "You have both seen him, and it is he who speaks with you." He replied: "I believe, Lord," and he worshipped Him. How then is it not manifest to all that the divine and supreme nature cannot be seen by the eyes of any? "For no man has seen God at any time," as it is written. If, therefore, distinguishing His humanity, He had wished that this very Word who has appeared from God the Father should be believed in as naked and alone—and if He was exhorting the man who had now been cured not to consider with himself what the nature of God might be, C but rather showed it corporally, so that it might be permissible to behold it with the very eyes (for He said: "You have both seen him, and it is he who speaks with you"), should we not judge that He was showing [His] flesh?
B. Most certainly.
A. But then, how can He Himself be the flesh, unless it be understood according to the union, as existing as His very own—much as it almost happens also in us? For no one could show separately, nor yet imperfectly, the man similar to us, the man I say, who is composed of soul
A and body, and from His flesh alone.
B. I agree. For you speak correctly.
A. The wise John also writes elsewhere: "Many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book. But these are written, that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God, and that believing you may have life in his name." And one might admire no less the divine Peter, speaking to the Jews clearly and openly: "Ye rulers of the people, and elders, if we this day be examined of the good deed done to the impotent man, by what means he is made whole, be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole." And after some other words: "Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved." Who then is it, who both endured death and has risen in glory, and is from Nazareth, if not Jesus Christ, that is to say, He who before all ages was ineffably begotten of the Father, B yet in the last and final time of the age, was also born corporally of a woman? Therefore, he who accepts faith in Him shall carry off an exceptional prize; for he shall be called a son of God: "For as many as received him, to them gave he power," he says, "to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name, which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God." For in order that He might become pre-eminent in all things, as it is written, He was indeed born through a woman. But since He is the first-fruits of the creation being reformed unto God through sanctification, He was Himself also shown to be born of the Spirit before others, surpassing the junction of man and woman; not because He was branding or condemning nature with any disgrace or blemish (for marriage is an honorable thing, and He who created man in the beginning made them male and female), but because He was already attributing to it something greater and incomparably more excellent. For He wished us to be called C born of the Spirit, not of men. "And therefore," He says, "call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven. And all ye are brethren." Consequently, belief in Him is entirely blameless, or rather it is even honored by the forgiveness of transgressions. For the excellent Paul writes in this way again: "Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ." And I shall not hesitate in the least, as I have already said before, to recapitulate and say that Christ Jesus is not conceived of as the Word from God naked and by Himself, but when He assumed humanity and was clad in flesh, and being and appearing in such a form,
A the Father pointed Him out to the holy apostles, a voice having been made from above such as this: “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear Him.” Understand, then, how He says not, “In this is my Son,” so that He might not be thought of as one within another, as if He were different, but as one and the same according to the union of the incarnation. But that it is wrong and of the most dangerous sort to oppose this opinion, John will easily persuade us by writing thus, that this is the testimony of God, which He has testified concerning His Son: “He who believes in the Son of God has the testimony of God in himself. He who does not believe God has made Him a liar, because he has not believed in the testimony which God has testified concerning His Son.” And He has testified that This One, who is seen in the flesh and in the form of a servant, is singly and specifically my true Son. What then? Shall we not also say that the glorious grace conferred through holy baptism, and the vivification which is in it, and the participation of God through sanctification in the Spirit, have been brought about through Jesus Christ?
B. Entirely so. For I remember John B saying: “He who comes after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry: He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire.”
A. Are we then to judge it to be the work of our humanity to be able to baptize with the Holy Spirit and with fire?
B. By what means could that be?
A. And yet, speaking of the man who was about to come and appear, he affirms that He Himself baptizes with fire and the Holy Spirit, not imparting to those baptized a foreign spirit in a servile or ministerial manner, but as God by nature with supreme authority, bestowing the Spirit who is from Himself and proper to Himself, through whom also the divine character is stamped upon us. For we are reformed to the divine image in Christ Jesus, nor do we undergo a bodily reforming (for C that would be utterly absurd to say), but by the participation of the Holy Spirit, we have Him Himself within us, so that we may joyfully exclaim that saying: “My soul shall be joyful in the Lord; for He has clothed me with the garments of salvation, and with the robe of righteousness He has covered me.” “For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ,” he says.
B. Have we, therefore, been baptized into a man, and shall we say that this is true?
A. Use good words, my friend. What are you doing? You are transferring our hope to the earth. For we have been baptized not simply into a man, but into God incarnate, and One who remits the punishment and the ancient debts of those who have believed in Him. Whence also the divine Peter, addressing the Jews, said: D “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission
A of your sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” For by dissolving the sins of him who adheres to Him, He thereafter anoints him with His own Spirit, which He Himself sends forth, as the Word from God the Father, and pours it out upon us from His own nature. Yet, making this a common thing in a certain way through the dispensation in the flesh, by reason of the union, He also breathed upon them as a man, corporally. For He breathed on the apostles, saying: “Receive the Holy Spirit.” And He does not give the Spirit by measure, according to the word of John, but He Himself sends Him forth from Himself, just as the Father does. And so the divine Paul, removing all difference in this regard, is seen at one time attributing it to God the Father Himself, and at another time to the Son. For he writes thus: “But you are not in the flesh, but in the spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His. But if Christ is in you, the body is dead because of sin, but the Spirit is life because of righteousness.”
B. It is evident, then, that the Spirit is the Spirit of the Son, and not only insofar as He is the Word who has shone forth from the Father, but also even if He be considered as having become man for our sake.
A. He is [the Spirit] as His own, because He is from the Father, in the consubstantial Offspring, the Word who was born from Him; and if it is said that He receives, it is when the One who lacks the properties of the Godhead in His own nature became man. And so, although He Himself is the life of all things, because of His ineffable birth from the living Father, He is said to be vivified with us. Yet it is possible, nevertheless, to see Him conferring the glory of divine operation upon His own flesh, and conversely, by that union which occurred from the incarnation, taking the properties of the flesh unto His own nature. B
B. In what way do you mean?
A. Would you not say that it is most fitting for the Word, who is by nature from God the Father, to come from above and from heaven, and to be able to give life to those to whom He wills to infuse life?
B. I certainly would.
A. What then? Would you say that creating in a divine manner is among human works?
B. I certainly would not.
A. Why then does He vivify us as God, yet not only by the participation of the Holy Spirit, but also by setting before us the flesh He assumed to be eaten? For He said: “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink His blood, you do not have life in yourselves.” And when the Jews were at one time railing at Him, and—I know not how—were intent on setting their judgment upon the better things against the blessed Moses, speaking openly: “Our fathers ate the manna in the desert, as it is written: ‘He gave them bread from heaven to eat.’ What sign do You perform, that we may believe You? What work do You do, as if You had brought down your body from above and from heaven?” He says:
“Amen, amen, I say to you, Moses has not given you the bread from heaven, but My Father gives you the true bread from heaven. For the bread of God is He who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.” A And furthermore, as if pointing out with his finger that he is incarnate, he says: “I am the living bread, which came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread which I will give is My flesh for the life of the world. He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him. And as the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats Me, he also will live because of Me.”
Yet how is it not strictly accurate to say that the flesh did not descend from heaven, but was from the Virgin, as it is written? But that they are not separate, but unite into one, and that the properties of the natures are in a certain way mixed together, is evident from very many places. For to Nicodemus, who did not understand the mystery but unskillfully cried out, “How can these things be?” he said, “If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things? And no one has ascended into heaven but He who came down from heaven, the Son of God.” But to the Jews, who were equally as unskillful as he and who—I know not how—chose to mock Him because He called His own body life-giving and from heaven, he says, “Does this offend you? What then if you should see the Son of Man ascending where He was before?” Shall we not say that Emmanuel was born of a woman? B
B. Certainly. A. Where, then, was He before? Or how did He ascend, when He says He is there, even though the body born of the holy Virgin was united to Him? Or shall we not admit that flesh which is composed of earth cannot give life, in so far as it pertains to its own nature? B. It is so. A. How, then, is the flesh life-giving? Or how can it be considered to be from heaven, when it is from the earth? B. By reason of the union, I suppose, with the Word who is living and sent down from heaven. A. You think most correctly and in agreement with the holy Scriptures. For it could not be otherwise than that He is Creator by virtue of His divinity, and when He is not conceived apart from the flesh. C And I will make the divine Paul a helper in this argument again, writing thus: “Giving thanks to the God and Father, who has qualified us to share in the inheritance of the saints in light, who has delivered us from the power of darkness and translated us into the kingdom of the Son of His love, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins; who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; for in Him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible D and invisible, whether Thrones or Dominions, or
A Principalities, or Powers, all things were created through Him and for Him, and He is before all, and in Him all things consist, and He is the head of the body of the Church, who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in all things He might be preeminent. For in Him all the fullness of divinity was pleased to dwell, and through Him to reconcile all things to Himself, having made peace through the blood of His cross, whether things on earth or things in heaven. Behold how openly he says that all things were created through Him and in Him, and that He is before all, and that all things consist in Him. Furthermore, he says that He is the firstborn from the dead, and that He has made peace through His blood for whatever things are in heaven and whatever things are on earth. But who is the firstborn from the dead, if not Christ Jesus, that is to say, the Word in flesh and with flesh? For the Word, being God, could not die, nor could He be called the creator of the whole universe, being a man like us, unless He had indeed created as God, even if, after the unity, He cannot be understood without flesh. Yet He is the firstborn from the dead in that He appeared as a man, even if, on account of the incarnation, He did not cease to be God. Does anything in these things seem to you to be open to criticism?
B. Not in the least.
A. You may see that others too, who were moved by the divine Spirit, proceed via the same arguments. For John says: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. This was in the beginning with God. All things were created through Him, and without Him not one thing was created." And Paul again: "There is one God the Father, from whom are all things; one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things." But if there were any distinction after the Word was united with the flesh, and if this divided Him into a certain diversity—I mean a duality of sons, as you seem to think—how could all things have been created through Jesus Christ? But all things were indeed created through Him. It is evident, therefore, that whatever belongs by nature and essentially to the Word who proceeds from the Father, remains also in Him even when He has become flesh. It is dangerous, therefore, to dare to divide and separate these things. For there is one Lord Jesus Christ, and through Him the Father created all things.
B. That is true.
A. He is, therefore, also creator by reason of His divinity; and life-giving, D as being Life; yet, on the other hand, by reason of what is human, and by those properties which exceed man, He is composed into one intermediate being. For He is the Mediator of God and men, according to the Scriptures, existing by nature as God—and not without flesh—and truly man—not nude and simply like us, but existing as what He was, even though He has become flesh. For it is written that "Jesus Christ is yesterday and today; the same He is also unto the ages." For do we not believe that He was born through the holy Virgin
A in the final times of the age as Emmanuel? B. We do. For we shall not contradict the holy Scriptures. A. But tell me, my friend, does that "yesterday and today" not signify to us, O dear friend, the present time and that which has already passed? B. I assert that it does. A. How then could the same one be [yesterday and today] regarding that which has passed, even though He had not yet taken on generation according to the flesh? B. Because the Word was even in the beginning, and as one having appeared from the eternal and immutable God and Father, He possesses within His own nature that which is eternal and immutable. A. I praise your opinion; for it is most correct. But tell me this as well. B. What is that? A. Is the name Jesus Christ not very recent, having been bestowed upon the Word at the very time of the incarnation? B. This has surely been shown to us by very many arguments. A. Understand, therefore, that it says Christ Jesus—and B not simply the Word—is the same yesterday and today, and unto the ages. How then would human nature possess immutability and remain in the same state, when it actually undergoes change, and indeed, before all else, that change which is from non-being to being and living? B. Has the holy Scripture therefore strayed from the truth, in saying that He who is today did not exist beforehand? A. I would by no means say that. Far from it. Christ Jesus is the same yesterday and today, and unto the ages. I would by no means deny the antiquity and immutability of the Word, even though He has become flesh; but I would rather judge that, by reason of the union with His own flesh, He who was yesterday and existed before is declared and shown to be the same once again. For this reason the senseless Jews hated Him and wanted to stone Him, not giving faith to Him. For this kept them astonished: that while appearing as a man similar to us, He laid claim to an antiquity greater than what falls to man, saying as God: "Amen, amen C I say to you, before Abraham was, I am." To which they replied: "You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?" Furthermore, John also says: "He who comes after me has been made before me, because He was prior to me." Yet how does he say that one whom he knew to be a man and called Emmanuel was made before him and was prior to him, when He was born after him? B. He says He was made before him by reason of glory, as I at least understand it. A. But you shall understand in a few words that it is false and absurd to think so. For if we interpret that "before"
A with regard to the excellence of glory, then by the same reasoning we shall also say of the "after" that it clearly denotes a secondary place in glory. B B. It must therefore be concluded, in my judgment, that Christ is inferior to John in glory. For he said: "A man comes after me." A A. Far from such an absurdity! For we shall easily judge that the matter is not so, if we rightly understand that which is written in the Psalms: "For who in the clouds shall be equal to the Lord? And who shall be like unto God among the sons of God?" It must be attributed to him, therefore, even when possessing flesh, the prerogative of antiquity, inasmuch as he is God naturally united to flesh, and he who is accustomed to communicate the goods of his own nature to his own body. B B. You speak excellently. C A. But you may learn that this is so, and is rightly said, from other testimonies as well, my friend, if you would only choose to. For God says somewhere, through one of the holy prophets, concerning the Christ who is from the seed of David according to the flesh: "And you, Bethlehem, house of Ephrath, you are little to be among the thousands of Judah; out of you shall come forth to me one who is to be ruler in Israel, and his goings forth are from the beginning, from the days of eternity." D And concerning the sons of Israel, the most divine Paul says thus: "For all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, and all ate the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank of the spiritual rock that followed them, and the rock was Christ." Consider, then, in Christ Jesus, by reason of the union according to the economy, the antiquity specifically of the Word. Is the account not clear? For he says that the Bethlehemite, as man and born of a woman, has his goings forth from the beginning of the age. For in the beginning was the Word who became flesh, and before all ages, and he himself was the rock, sating Israel—who was athirst—with unexpected and sudden springs of water, although he was born according to the flesh and humanity in the last times, and was anointed for his mission into the world by God and the Father. A For he was not named Christ for the sake of anything else, but because of this; and the rock, according to Paul, was Christ. Or will you say that the matter is open to doubt? B B. By no means. C A. The wise John will also confirm and defend this doctrine, all but bringing the natures together, and leading the power and virtue of the properties that belong to each into one confluent stream. For see what he says: "That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we looked upon and our hands have handled, concerning the Word of life; and the life was manifested, and we have seen it and bear witness, and we proclaim to you the eternal life which was with the Father, and appeared to us." Behold, he clearly says that he who was from the beginning was both seen and permitted himself to be touched. For Thomas had cried out: "My Lord and my God," when he had tested with his finger the side
A of the body and the perforations or nail-holes. Indeed, the divine Luke says that the holy apostles were eyewitnesses and ministers of the Word. For he who is incorporeal became visible, and he who cannot be touched became manageable, not having as an alien covering the flesh from the earth, but making it his own temple, and being known with it as God and Lord. You know, I suppose, what the most holy Paul writes: "For none of us lives to himself, and none of us dies to himself. For if we live, we live to the Lord; and if we die, we die to the Lord. Whether we live therefore, or die, we are the Lord's. For to this end Christ both died and rose and lived again, that he might be lord both of the dead and the living." It is therefore established that he who is Lord of the dead and the living really is so, and for no other cause than this alone—that he died and rose again for their sake. B. Certainly. A. Whom, then, shall we say has undergone death and has risen again? B. The Son, of course. A. You speak rightly indeed concerning the Son, and I approve of that. But I would like to learn from you whether the Word from God the Father is mortal and subject to corruption, or rather, as Life, is he above death and corruption? B. I would affirm the latter. A. How, then, is he numbered among the dead, he who is free according to the Scriptures? For the Word, by himself, could not die. B. Because when his flesh died, he himself is said to have suffered this. A. You think most correctly. Therefore, not without the flesh, but rather together with it, he obtained the glory of dominion—he who died and rose according to the law of the flesh and a nature like ours. To die is indeed a human passion, but by rising again he demonstrated a divine power and operation, so that through both C he might be recognized: both as similar to us, and as superior to us, being God of the universe, and though he became with us, he is seen with the Father. Recognizing him in this way, Nathanael said: "Rabbi, you are the Son of God; you are the King of Israel." And he himself said to his own disciples: "You call me Lord and Master, and you say well, for so I am." And proving this by deed itself, he remits sins, and gave authority against unclean spirits so as to be able to cast them out, and to heal every kind of disease among the people. For was it not in the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth that the man lame in both his feet, sitting at the gate called Beautiful, was healed? And in this same way Aeneas was freed from a long and most grievous illness, when the divine Paul said to him: "Aeneas, Jesus Christ heals you." B. It is true. A. Being therefore compelled D from every side to the truth and
truth, and most diligently endeavoring to trace out what is agreeable to the holy Scriptures, and following the opinions of the Fathers, we believe that He who is from the root of Jesse, who is from the seed of David, who is from a woman according to the flesh, who is with us under the law as man, and above us, above the law, as God; who for our sake is with us among the dead, and who above us is by Himself life-giving and life; is in very truth the Son of God. B Neither stripping the human of its divinity, nor again divesting the Word of His humanity after that ineffable union, but confessing one and the same Son, who from two realities has appeared ineffably as one thing from both, according to a union that is truly supreme, and not according to a change of nature. For how much they who thus think shall gain, the disciple of Christ clearly declares, saying: "Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God abideth in him, and he in God." And that Jesus Christ, who is of David according to the flesh, is naturally and truly the Son of God, inasmuch as the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, confirms that wise John, saying: "And we know that the Son of God is come, and has given us an understanding, that we may know the true God, and that we may be in His true Son [Jesus Christ]. This is the true God and eternal life." And through Him, and with Him, to God and the Father be glory with the Holy Spirit, for ever and ever. Amen.
BY THE SAME THAT CHRIST IS ONE
C A. There can be no satiety at all of divine teachings for those who are truly sound of mind and have gathered the life-giving knowledge into their understanding. For it is written: "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God." For the word that is from God is nourishment for the mind, and the spiritual bread that strengthens the heart of man, as is sung in the book of Psalms. B. You speak rightly. A. The wise and eloquent men of the Greeks have admired...