He appeared, and conversed with men, although He is by nature God and sits with the Father.
B. You speak rightly.
A. The divinely inspired Scripture will cry out against the ignorance of both of them, unfolding the truth to us and demonstrating that their reasonings are empty and foolish, while leading those who are accustomed to contemplate the mystery hidden herein with the keen and accurate eye of the mind, onto the path of divinity. B
B. But who might these be who have so unholily corrupted the venerable and ineffable dispensation of our Savior (for you seem to me to be not a little troubled on this account), I would like to learn from you.
A. You conjecture well. For I have been zealous for the Lord, and against this very thing I am deeply and fiercely vexed. But I fear to see the end to which the reasonings of those men will lead. For they corrupt the faith delivered to us, employing the inventions of a recently sprung-up dragon, and pouring into the souls of the simpler ones certain cold and distorted things, full of folly.
B. Then who is this recently manifest dragon, and what sort of things are those which he prattles against the dogmas of the truth? Explain, I beseech you.
A. The recently manifest dragon is that wicked one who has a tongue drunk with poison, and who, having despised the tradition of those who taught the sacred mysteries of the world, or rather, having as good as bid farewell to the whole of divinely inspired Scripture, and having introduced novelties according to his own whim, says that the holy Virgin is not Theotokos, but rather Christotokos and Anthropotokos; and furthermore, he has superadded other things, discordant and struck with madness, to the upright and sincere dogmas of the universal Church. C
B. You mean Nestorius, I suppose. For I already understand in some way, but what is the matter, my good man, with his words, I cannot grasp; and how does he say the holy Virgin is not Theotokos?
A. For he says, "She did not beget God." For the Word was even before her, and indeed even before every age and time, being coeternal with God and the Father. They will then openly deny even this, that Emmanuel is God, and he has absurdly interpreted what the Evangelist said: "Which being interpreted, is God with us." For God and the Father clearly affirmed through the voice of the prophets that He who was born of the holy Virgin according to the flesh ought to be called God-incarnate. D
B. And yet it seems that to them, things are not so; but they contend that God, or the Word who is from God, has become "with us" by way of assistance. For He saved the world through Him who was born of a woman.
A. Was He not, I beseech you, even with Moses, and from the land
A of the Egyptians and the oppression there, freeing Israel with a mighty hand and an uplifted arm, as it is written? Shall we not also find Jesus clearly saying thereafter: "And as I was with Moses, so will I be with you"? B. It is true. A. Why, then, was no one of those called Emmanuel, but the name suited only Him who, in the final times of the age, was born of a woman according to the flesh in a manner beyond wonder? B. In what way, then, shall we judge God to have been born of a woman? Is it as if the Word has become a participant in a substance that is in her and from her? A. Far be it from us to conceive such a vain and absurd opinion in our minds. For it would be erroneous and clearly of a mind turned away from the truth, to think that the ineffable essence of the Only-Begotten is a fruit or offspring of the flesh. But He was, as God, co-eternal with the Father who begat Him, and was begotten of Him by nature in an ineffable manner. But if they wish to know clearly how and in what manner He appeared in a form like our own and became man, the divine evangelist John will clarify it, saying: "And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, glory as of the Only-Begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth." B. But if the Word became flesh, they say, He no longer remained the Word, but rather ceased to be what He was. A. But this is mere delirium and madness, C and nothing else than the figment of a disturbed mind. For they think, as it seems, that through the words "became," a change and alteration is necessarily signified. B. Yes, they say, and they confirm their own opinion with the authority of Holy Scripture. For it is said somewhere, they say, concerning the wife of Lot, that "she became a pillar of salt," and concerning the rod of Moses, that he cast it upon the ground, "and it became a serpent." For a natural change took place in these. A. Therefore, when some chant, "And the Lord has become my refuge," and again, "Lord, you have become a refuge for us in generation and generation," what would they answer? Shall the God who is celebrated here, having ceased to be God, be changed into a refuge, and be naturally transposed into something else which He was not at the beginning? And how is this matter not clearly alien to God, who exists by nature? For being immutable by nature, He remains strictly what He was and is always, even if it be said to some that He has become a refuge. B. You have spoken most excellently and most correctly. A. Since, therefore, mention of God is made, if the expression "He became" is used by anyone, how is it not absurd, and indeed extremely absurd, to imagine that it signifies some change, and not rather to attempt to understand it in another way, and to reflect sensibly upon
A that which is in the highest degree fitting and becoming to the immutable God? How, then, are we to say that the Word became flesh, while ever maintaining, as B peculiar, essential, and innate to Him, the immutability that is His own? The all-wise Paul, the steward of His mysteries, the minister of the evangelical preaching, clarifies this, saying: "Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men, and being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross." For though the only-begotten Word of God is God and exists as God by nature, the radiance of His glory and the exact imprint of the nature of Him who begat Him, He became man, and did not turn into flesh, nor undergo mixture, or blending, or anything of that sort, but rather stooped down unto emptying, and for the sake of the joy set before Him, despised shame and did not disdain the poverty of humanity. For He willed, as God, to manifest the flesh, which was subject to death and sin, as superior to death and sin, and to restore it to that which it was in the beginning, having made it His own; and not soulless, as some imagine, but rather animated by a rational soul. Nor, indeed, did He disdain to tread the path becoming to the affair, but is said to have undergone the birth that is according to us, while remaining what He was. For He was born miraculously according to the flesh, even though He, the intangible and bodiless one, was seen by those on earth in a form like ours. Yet, having decided to become man, C and in Himself and Him alone to render our nature resplendent with the dignities of the Godhead—for He was the same, both God and man at once, and in the likeness of man, in that He was also God with it, but in fashion as a man—for God was in a form like ours, and the Lord was in the form of a servant. For it is in this way that we say He became flesh. On this account, we also insist that the holy Virgin is Theotokos.
B. Would you like us to set their arguments against yours, that we may make the examination of the notions more precise, or shall we simply trust your account and conclude that the matter stands as you say?
A. Everything that might be said by us is, I suppose, beyond reproach, provided it is said wisely and expertly, and is not discordant with the divinely inspired Scriptures. But do you yourself state what you think; for a counter-argument might bring forth something of use.
B. The divine Paul, they say, writes regarding the Son, as one having become a curse and sin. For he says, "He who knew no sin, He made sin on our behalf." And again, "Christ D
A redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us." But they say that His having become so does not mean He became curse and sin itself absolutely; rather, the holy Scripture signifies something else by this, and they say we should understand the expression, "And the Word became flesh," in the same way.
A. And yet, just as in the saying that He became a curse and sin, His having become flesh is simultaneously introduced, and this notion precedes those things that followed for Him.
B. How do you mean?
A. For whenever someone might say to them, "He who knew no sin has become sin for us, and He redeemed from the curse of the law those who were under the law, having become a curse for them"—then how could one doubt, since it is clear in the times during which the Only-Begotten was incarnate and became man, that this is the case? Therefore, along with the accounts of the incarnation, those things which were economically brought about through it for Him who underwent a voluntary emptying are also admitted, such as, for instance, hungering and growing weary. For just as He to whom all power belongs would not have grown weary, nor would He be said to have hungered—being Himself the nourishment and life of all—had He not appropriated a body naturally subject to hunger and weariness; so too, He would never have been numbered among the transgressors—for we say he became sin in this way—nor would He have become a curse, undergoing the cross for our sake, had He not become flesh; that is to say, had He not been incarnate and become man, undergoing the birth that is according to us in a manner befitting a human being, I mean that through the holy Virgin.
B. I agree. For you think rightly.
A. But it is also foolish in another way to imagine and to say that the Word became flesh just as He became a curse and sin.
B. In what way do you mean?
A. For was the Word accursed in order that He might loose the curse, and did the Father Himself make Him sin in order to do away with sin? B
NOTES OF BONAVENTURA VULCANIUS
(10) For a greater understanding of those things which Cyril says here regarding the fact that the Word was made flesh, what Isidore of Pelusium has in his first book of letters is not of little value, saying: "It is not right to look for natural proofs for supernatural things." For although the Word indeed truly became flesh, Christ is not merely a naked man; but being incarnate, He is rather God in both natures, and the one Son of God subsists. And it would not be irrelevant to add a letter from the third book of the same author, in which he declares why the Son of God is called the Word, which reads thus: "The divine and ineffable Son, who is worshipped by us, is deservedly called the Word: not because He is only a word and an interpreter of the Father, as some think; but because He creates more quickly than a word, and because He was begotten without passion. But being the Word, He is also existent in Himself and has a peculiar property. For because He is not lacking in subsistence, the Word Himself says that He has words, saying: 'He who hears my words and does them.' If, therefore, the Word has words, He is not lacking in subsistence; but being hypostatically subsistent, because He came forth without passion, He is called the Word."
B B. So also say they themselves. A. If, then, the matter is as they think it to be—that the Word became flesh in the same way that He became a curse and sin—for the sake of the destruction of the flesh, then how does He declare it to be incorruptible and deathless, as if He had accomplished this in the first place in His own flesh? For He did not allow it to remain mortal and subject to corruption (Adam having transmitted to us the penalty for the transgression); rather, He made it, as being the flesh of the incorruptible God, that is, His own, to be above death and corruption.
B. You speak rightly.
A. But the holy Scripture says somewhere that the first man—that is, Adam—was made into a living soul, but the latter—I mean Christ—was made into a life-giving spirit (I Cor. xv, 45). Therefore, just as for the sake of the destruction of the curse and sin He became a curse and sin, so we say that for the sake of the overturning of the life that is a living soul, He became a life-giving spirit. For, twisting the power of "becoming" into an absurd meaning, they say that He became flesh in the same way as He became a curse and sin. If so, then the incarnation—that is, the humanization—of the Word must be destroyed; and if that is admitted as true, the whole rationale of the mystery for us will collapse. For Christ was neither born, nor did He die, nor was He raised, according to the Scriptures. Where, then, is our faith, or the word of faith which we preach? For how did God raise Him from the dead if He did not also die? And how could He have died if He had not been born according to the flesh? And where, too, is the resurrection of the dead, which brings to the saints the hope of endless life, if Christ has not been raised? And where is the vivification of human bodies, which is accomplished through the participation of His holy flesh and blood?
B. We say, therefore, that the Word became flesh, according to the birth in the flesh from a woman, which He is said to have undergone in the final times of the century, although He existed before all centuries as God.
A. Certainly. For thus He did become in every way similar to us, apart from sin. And the most wise Paul will testify to this, saying: "Forasmuch then as the children have partaken 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. For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham. Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren" (Heb. ii, 14-17). And the "in all things" likeness has, as a beginning and an initial movement of the matter, the birth from a woman, and the manifestation in the flesh of Him who cannot be seen according to His own nature, and the dispensational habitation.
A And the lowly state in humanity of Him who shines forth upon the highest thrones; and that He who possesses lordship by nature should become of servile condition: "For the Word was God."
B. You reason correctly. But you should know that they also say this—for they think it impossible to be understood, and thus absurd to imagine and speak of the Word, who exists from God the Father in an ineffable manner and one that surpasses the intellect, as having also undergone a second birth from a woman. For they say it suffices for Him to have been generated once from the Father in a divine manner.
A. Therefore, they insult the Son; and they say that He did not counsel well for Himself, B by undergoing voluntary emptying for our sake. They render vain and empty the venerable and great mystery of religion, and they determine that that illustrious and singular dispensation of the Only-begotten in the flesh is altogether fruitless for men. But the Truth itself proves that their trifles ought to have no place; rather, it convicts them of babbling most ineptly and of understanding the mystery of Christ in no way at all. For God and Father did indeed beget the Son from Himself, by one generation. But it pleased Him to restore the human race in Him through the incarnation, or "humanation," which absolutely had to take place through a birth from a woman, so that, by the likeness which the Word born from God has with us, the law of sin might be condemned in the members of our flesh; and that, in the likeness of the death of Him who knew no death, death might be done away. "For if we have been planted together," he says, "in the likeness of His death, we shall be also in the likeness of His resurrection." C It was necessary, therefore, that He who always exists should be born according to the flesh, transferring our things into Himself, so that we, the offspring of the flesh—that is, we who are corruptible and perishing—might abide in Him, seeing that He made what is ours His own, and His own ours. For He was in need for our sake, being rich, that we might become rich by His poverty. But those who assert that the Word from God did not Himself become flesh from a woman, or undergo birth according to the flesh, do away with the whole dispensation of our salvation. For if He, while rich, did not become poor of His own immense kindness, lowering Himself to our state, then we have not attained the things that are His: but we still remain in our ancient need, and are subject to the curse, and to death, and to sin. For by the very fact that the Word was made flesh, those things which had happened to human nature from the curse and condemnation were taken away. D Therefore, if they tear out the root of our salvation and subvert the foundation of our hope, what then is left for us? For if the Word was not made flesh, as I have said, not even the empire of death has been shaken off, and sin has not been abolished in any way, but we are still subject to the transgressions of the first parent, that is, of Adam, and have not been translated into a better state.
I mean [the state] through our Savior Christ of all.
B. I understand what you mean. B
A. But who, then, might be understood by us to have become a partaker of blood and flesh in a way similar to us, as being different from us by nature? For no one would say that it is appropriate for a man to become a partaker of humanity. For how could a man be understood to have received what he is by nature, as if it were something other than what he is? Does my discourse not seem to you to be in accord with the truth?
B. Entirely so.
A. Consider also in another way how impious and absurd it is to attempt to abolish the birth of the Word of God from a woman according to the flesh. For by what means could he give life to his own body, if it were not his own, he who is Life? Or how does the blood of Jesus cleanse us from every sin, if it is that of a common man who is subject to sin? How did God and Father send his Son, born of a woman, born under the law? How did he condemn sin in the flesh? For it was not of a common man, whose nature is held under the empire and yoke of sin along with us, to condemn sin. But since it became the body of him who does not know sin, for that reason, and most justly, it shook off the tyranny of sin, and because it is enriched with the properties of the Word, which has been ineffably united to it, it is holy and life-giving, and full of divine activity and operation. C And we, as in a first-fruits in Christ, have also been transformed, and shown to be superior to corruption and sin. And it is true that, according to the voice of the blessed Paul, "As we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly," that is to say, of Christ. And Christ is understood as the heavenly man; not as if he brought down flesh to us from above and from heaven, but because, being God the Word, he descended from the heavens; and having undergone the likeness to us, that is, having endured birth according to the flesh from a woman, he remained what he was, clearly from above and from the heavens, and above all as God, even with the flesh. For thus does the divine John somewhere say about him: "He that cometh from above is above all." For he remained Lord of all, even though by reason of the incarnation he took the form of a servant, and because of these things the mystery of Christ is truly wondrous. And therefore, the God and Father said somewhere to the Jews through one of the prophets: "Behold, you despisers, and wonder, and perish; for I work a work in your days, a work which you will not believe, even if one should declare it to you." D For the mystery of Christ will be in danger of being disbelieved because of the greatness of the miracle. God was in humanity, and in the conditions of our life, he who is above all creation; invisible, but visible according to the flesh; he who is from heaven and from above, in the form of the earthy; he who cannot be touched, yet is touchable; he who by his own nature is free, [yet] in the form of a servant; he...
who blesses the creation, yet became a curse; he who is all righteousness, yet was numbered among the transgressors of the law; he who is Life itself, yet suffered death. For it was not the body of any other, but rather that of the Son himself according to nature, which underwent death. Do you have anything to object to these things, as if they were not rightly done or rightly said by us? B. By no means. A. But observe this other point for me as well. B. What is it, I pray you? A. Christ said some place to those who seek to deny the resurrection of the dead: "Have you not read that he who made man at the beginning, made them male and female?" And the divine Paul also writes: "Marriage is honorable in all, and the bed undefiled." How, then, did the only-begotten Word of God, when he willed to undergo our likeness, not wish the laws of humanity to prevail for the constitution or generation of his own flesh? For he did not choose to be born from wedlock and marriage, but from a chaste Virgin who knew no man, being pregnant by the Spirit, for the power of God overshadowed her, as it is written. Since, therefore, God does not despise marriage, but rather adorns it with his own blessing, for what reason he who is the Word of God existing as God should have wished the Virgin pregnant by the Spirit to be the mother of his own flesh, I cannot easily say. Yet how would the occasion for this matter not be clear to anyone who considers it? For the Son descended, or became man, in order to restore our state as if within himself; and firstly, indeed, into a certain holy and admirable birth and life. But he himself was also the first born from the Spirit (I speak according to the flesh), so that through this grace might as if by a path pass also to us, that we, having obtained intellectual regeneration from God through the Spirit—not from blood, nor from the will of the flesh, nor from the will of man—and having attained spiritual conformity with him who is by nature and truly the Son, might call God Father, and thus remain incorruptible, no longer having that former one as father, that is, Adam, in whom we also were corrupted. Wherefore Christ also said, in one place: "And call no man your father on earth: for one is your Father, who is in heaven." But in another place, as one who for this reason descended unto us, in order that he might lead us unto his own divine dignity: "I go to my Father and your Father, and my God and your God." For he who is in heaven is D his Father by nature, but our God. But when he who is by nature and truly the Son became man similar to us, he says that he has a God, indeed by reason of the emptying. Yet he has also given us his own Father; for it is written: "As many as received him, to them he gave power to become the children of God, even to them that believe on his name." But if we should ignorantly deny that there occurred, in the mode of birth unto our likeness, he who is from the Father [end of page]
A and the Word of God, who holds the primacy in all things, according to the voice of the most wise Paul—to whom, then, are we being fashioned, that we might be called children of God by the Spirit? From whom have we received the first-fruits of this matter, or indeed who at all is it that sends this dignity unto us? They would say, as I suppose, even they themselves: The Word who became man. But then how will this be true, unless he himself became flesh—that is, man—having made for himself a human body by an indissoluble union, so that it may be understood as his own, and not that of any other? For in this way he will send unto us also the grace of adoption, and we too shall be born of the Spirit, seeing that it is human nature which has attained this in him first of all. And it seems to me that the divine Paul, having thought upon something of this kind within himself, said very rightly somewhere: "As we have borne the image of the earthy, B we shall also bear the image of the heavenly." And he called the first man earthy, from the earth, and the second from heaven. "But such as is the earthy," he says, "such also are the earthy; and such as is the heavenly, such also are the heavenly." For we are earthy, since, from the earthy Adam, the curse of corruption has fallen upon us, through which also the law of sin, which is in the members of the flesh, has crept in. But we have become heavenly, having obtained this in Christ. For being God by nature, and from God and from above, he descended to our estate in an unusual and strange manner, having been born according to the flesh of the Spirit, in order that we too might remain holy and incorruptible in him, as if from a second C principle and root, with the grace manifestly descending unto us.
B. You have spoken most excellently.
A. But in what way do they also say that he was made like unto his brethren in all things—that is, unto us? Or who at all could be understood as having undergone our likeness, if he were not different in nature, and not one of those like unto us? For that which is made like to some things must of necessity be different from them, and not identical to them, but rather of a different species, or indeed of a different nature. The Only-Begotten, therefore, being unlike us in nature, is said to have been made like, having become as we are—that is, D man. And this could happen, and most rightly and only so, in the birth that is like unto ours, even if it be miraculous in his case. For it was God who was being incarnate. Let it be confessed, however, that the body united to him was endowed with an intellectual soul. For he did not bypass the more excellent part of us—that is, the soul—and take thought only for the earthly body; but being God the Word, he wisely provided for both soul and body together.
B. I agree; for you think rightly.
A. If then the adversaries should say that the holy Virgin must in no way be called Theotokos, but rather Christotokos, they are openly blaspheming, and they drive away the fact that Christ is truly God and Son. For if they believe him to be truly God, as being like our
Only-begotten who has come to be for our sake, why do they shudder to call the one who bore him Theotokos, with respect to the flesh, I say?
B. Indeed, they say: For the name "Christ" is fitting to belong privately to him who is from a woman and from the seed of David, for the reason that he was anointed by the Holy Spirit. But the Word from God, as far as his own nature is concerned, is in no way in need of such a grace, if indeed he is holy by nature. For does not the name "Christ" signify that some anointing has taken place?
A. You speak rightly, indeed, that it is because he has been anointed that he is called Christ, just as surely the apostle is so called because of the apostolate, and the angel because of the message. For names of this kind indicate certain actions, not particular substances, nor indeed do they declare confirmed persons. For even the prophets have been called "christs," according to that which is sung in the Psalms: "Touch not my christs, and do no evil among my prophets." And the prophet Habakkuk also says: "You went forth for the salvation of your people, to save your christs." B But mark this: for they do not themselves claim that Christ is one, and the Son, as the Lord who has become man and the Only-begotten Word of God who has been incarnate.
B. They might perhaps contend this. They wish, at any rate, that this name, "Christ," should not so befit the Word begotten from God the Father, because, certainly, he was not anointed according to his own nature, inasmuch as he is God. But they also add this further point: For neither, they say, is it one of those names that are predicated by us concerning the Father and the Holy Spirit.
A. The argument is not yet sufficiently clear. Explain it therefore. For you will act rightly.
B. Listen, then. There are very many and diverse appellations of the Son in the holy Scriptures. For he is called God and Lord, and light and life, and also king and Lord of hosts, holy and almighty. C But if anyone were to predicate these same things also concerning the Father or the Holy Spirit, he would by no means be in error. For of one nature, the excellence of the titles will also altogether be one. If, therefore, the name "Christ" truly befits the Only-begotten, it should, they say, be assigned indifferently, along with other titles, also to the Father and the Holy Spirit. But since it is vehemently absurd to ascribe that name to the Father and the Holy Spirit, neither will it likely befit the Only-begotten himself; but rather it will be truly attributed to him who is from the seed of David, concerning whom it can be rightly judged and stated that he has been anointed by the Spirit.
A. We ourselves also say, indeed, that the names of the divine titles are common to the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, and we are accustomed to honor with equal glory both the Father, and the Son who was begotten from Him, and furthermore the Holy Spirit. But, O good men, I would say that the name "Christ," that is, "anointed," and
A this matter, that is, the anointing, came to pass for the Only-Begotten after the modes of the emptying, bringing a manifest declaration of the incarnation, or humanation, to those who hear. For that He was anointed insofar as He appeared as man, he would indicate very well. If, therefore, we were not examining the Word from the perspective of the economy in the flesh, but were instead considering the Only-Begotten Word of God as He was before He underwent the emptying, then it would indeed be altogether absurd to call Him Christ, who is not anointed. But since the divine and most holy Scripture says that He was made flesh, the anointing would then surely be appropriate for Him, as it occurred in relation to the incarnation, which is His own. Thus, the all-wise Paul writes: "For both He who sanctifies and those who are being sanctified are all of one; for which cause He is not ashamed to call them brethren, saying, I will declare Thy name unto My brethren." For He was sanctified with us when He became like us. And that it was truly the Son who was anointed insofar as He became flesh, that is, perfect man, the divine David will provide assurance, saying to Him: "Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of Thy kingdom. Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity: therefore God, Thy God, hath anointed Thee with the oil of gladness above Thy fellows." B Observe, therefore, how, having called Him God and given Him a throne forever, he says that He was anointed by God—it is clear that this means by the Father—with an exceptional anointing above those who share in it, that is, ourselves. For even if He was made man, although He was God the Word, He was even then in no way lacking the goods of His own nature, being perfect in Himself and "full of grace and truth," according to the voice of John; and He Himself indeed has everything that is fitting for God in its completeness, and "from His fulness we all have received," according to the Scripture. Therefore, He is called Christ, having joined to the state of His own humanity things that are His own, even though He is not understood as being anointed according to the nature of His divinity, or insofar as He is considered God. For tell me, I ask, how else could Christ, the Son and Lord, be understood if the Only-Begotten scorns the anointing and refuses the conditions of the emptying? C D [B.] They proceed by a path far different from ours, interpreting the mystery of piety unskillfully. For they say that God the Word took a perfect man, existing from the seed of Abraham and David, as the Scriptures declare, being by nature exactly what they were whose seed He was—a man perfect in nature, consisting of an intellectual soul and human flesh—which man, being of the same nature as we are, having been fashioned by the power of the Holy Spirit in the Virgin's womb, and having been made under the law, so that He might redeem us all from the servitude of the law, having obtained the adoption of children long since predestined, He joined and attached to Himself in an admirable manner, and willed that He should die according to the human custom; but He raised the same
A from the dead, and carried Him up into heaven, and set Him at the right hand of God. Whence, since He exists above every Principality and Power, and Virtue and Domination, and above every name that is named, not only in this age, but also in the one to come, He receives worship from all creation, as having an inseparable conjunction with the divine nature; so that, in respect to God and in the understanding of all creation, it offers worship to Him. And we do not say two sons, nor two lords. But since the Son is by essence God the Word, the only-begotten Son of the Father, to whom this one is conjoined and is a participant, he also acquires the common appellation and glory with Him. And the Lord is by essence God the Word, to whom this one is conjoined, and becomes a participant also of the honor; and therefore we do not say two sons, nor two lords. For since He is manifest who by His essence is Lord and Son, having an inseparable conjunction with Him, he who was assumed for the sake of our salvation is also simultaneously introduced and understood with the appellation and glory of the Son and of the Lord.
A O vast ignorance and madness of those who persuade themselves that the matter is so! For this thing is mere unbelief and an innovation of impious inventions, and a subversion of the entire divine and sacred proclamation, which proclaims one Lord Jesus Christ the Son of God, to wit, the Word from God the Father who became man and was incarnate, so that the same is at once God and man, and that all things, divine and furthermore human, are of one. For this One, while He exists always in so far as He is God, underwent a nativity according to the flesh from a woman. It is therefore of one and the same to be and exist from eternity, and in the last times to have been born according to the flesh. C He who is holy according to nature, as being God, was sanctified with us, in so far as He appeared as man, to whom it is proper to be sanctified. And since He excelled in highest dignity as Lord by nature, He assumed a servile form as His own, and called the Father His God; and although He himself is life and life-giving as God, He is said to be vivified by the Father in so far as He was made man. All things therefore are His, and He did not disdain the dispensation in the flesh, which the Father Himself also approved: since the things that Paul says are true. For elsewhere he thus says: “Him who knew no sin, He made to be sin for us, that we might become the justice of God in Him.” And elsewhere again: “He who spared not His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all, that with Him He might freely give us all things.” Does my opinion seem to you agreeable to the sacred Scriptures?
B. Entirely so.
A. But if, as the adversaries wish and persuade themselves, the only-begotten Word of God, having taken a man from the seed of David and Abraham, caused him to be formed in the holy Virgin, and joined this one to Himself, and willed that he should experience death, and also, having raised him from
A the dead, took him up into heaven, and made him sit at the right hand of God—then it would seem that it is spoken of in vain, by the holy Fathers, and by us ourselves, and indeed by all of Holy Scripture, that he became man. For the all-wise John seems to me to signify nothing other than this when he wrote: “The Word was made flesh.” But the entire mystery of the dispensation in the flesh will be turned quite in the opposite direction. For one cannot see the Word, being God by nature and having come forth from God, as having emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant, and having humbled Himself; but on the contrary, man is elevated into the glory of the Godhead and the superiority over all things, and he, receiving the form of God, is exalted even more, having become an assessor with the Father. Or does what I say not seem true to you?
B. Entirely so.
A. But if it is true, as they say, and the Only-Begotten deemed the incarnation unworthy, what ignominy did He then despise? Or in what way did He become obedient to the Father even unto death, even the death of the cross? And if, having taken a man, He led him into the trial of death, and having raised him up into the heavens, He appointed him as an assessor with the Father, where then will His own throne appear, if they do not say there are two sons, but rather one sitting [in the throne], the one from the seed of David and Abraham, plainly? Or how could He Himself be called the Savior of the world, and not rather be a mediator or agent for a man, through whom we were saved? And thus, by becoming man, he becomes the end of the law and the prophets, existing as someone other than himself. For the law speaks [of] the mystery of Christ, and Moses wrote about him, who also became our pedagogue unto him. But faith goes off into nothingness, for it perishes; and wherever it does, our venerable mystery is entirely [destroyed]. This is what the all-excellent Paul clarifies, saying: “Do not say in your heart: Who shall ascend into heaven? that is, to bring Christ down; or who shall descend into the abyss? that is, to bring Christ up from the dead. But what does the Scripture say? The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart, that is, the word of faith which we preach; because if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.” How then is the mystery of godliness any longer great and glorious and in the highest degree wondrous, if one must believe, as those who are distorted from the truth say, that a man was taken and, having been relatively conjoined to the God Word, died and came to life again, and was taken up into D heaven? And to some perhaps it will appear unbelievable, if He is not God by nature and in truth, that he should glory in the seats of the Godhead, with the one who is the Son by nature perhaps having been thrust out. And the angels and archangels, and the Seraphim more eminent than these, would stand round [him]—not to minister and serve the true Son and God, but rather a man, who has obtained the name of sonship by participation and—
A in a borrowed manner, and who has been enriched by the grace that we have, and esteemed worthy of such honor as is fit for God. For do they not shudder in the least, even when they say this, those who are on the opposite side? Is not their doctrine replete with the utmost impiety and ungodliness? For that which is given and introduced [from without], would rightly be rejected, and that which comes from outside and is adventitious is not free from the suspicion of harm: to say nothing of the blasphemy and absurdity of the doctrine, since they drag the excellence of the incarnation down to disgrace, and declare our divine and most holy worship to be anthropolatry—that is, the worship of man—and, leading us away from the worship of the true Son, they wish to persuade us to worship someone who is only relatively joined to him, whom they wish to place above all Principality and Power and Dominion B—imposing the stain of error not only on those who live on earth, but even on the heavenly and rational powers themselves, if they, together with us, worship not the Son who was incarnate by nature and is truly the Word who shone forth from the essence of God and the Father, but another man from the seed of David, who has been made God only by will and external adornments, but is not in truth so.
B. But even if he is viewed specifically as a man, they say, he is yet worshipped relative to God and by a conception of all creation.
A. By what manner, I ask you, can this relation which they so proclaim be understood or established by us? But come, let us investigate the divine and holy Scripture, and seek from it the rationale of this question. When of old the Israelites, despising the fear of God, spoke bitterly against Moses and Aaron, Moses and Aaron called out to them: "Who is it that you murmur against? For not against us, but against God is this your complaint." C For they had indeed sinned against Moses and Aaron, but the deed itself pertained to the glory of God, and the thought of those who were inflicting the injury was being referred to Him. Yet Moses and Aaron were not gods, nor did the creature worship them relative to God. God reigned through the prophets in Israel according to the flesh. Later, they approached the divine Samuel, saying: "Make us a king, just as the other nations have." And he, inspired by the Spirit, was annoyed, and rightly so; but he heard God saying: "It is not you they have despised, but Me, that I should not reign over them." Lo, here again the manner of the contempt is clearly referred to God. Moreover, the Savior and Lord of all Himself, regarding those who are oppressed by need, says: "Whatever you did for one of these least, you did for Me." D Therefore, by this reasoning, if one were said to honor him who is of the seed of David, does he bestow it upon the Son? And unless one has believed, does he truly offend Him who is by nature the Son, who also wishes to be worshipped himself, and believed in by us in exactly the same way? How, then, is a servant not made equal in honor with the Master, and in the excellence of divinity
in such a way as to remain equal and without difference. For if it were so, how would that which is created not have become of equal honor with the Master, and that which is made equal in the A excellences of divinity, and a new God, according to the Scriptures? And yet, there is brought into the holy and consubstantial Trinity that which is of a different nature from it, and is worshipped along with it, and partakes in the glory equal to it.
B. They say that this relation must be accepted in a certain sense. For they argue that we worship, as God, the Word of God who has been inseparably conjoined to the one who is of the seed of David.
A. Does it suffice, then, for rendering to him the glory befitting God, and for raising him above the measure of created things, that he is merely conjoined to Him; and will this make him, who is not God, an object of worship? But I find someone saying to God through the lyre of the Psalmist: "My soul hath stuck close behind thee" (Ps. LXII, 9). And the blessed Paul also writes: "He that is joined to the Lord, is one spirit" (I Cor. VI, 17). Shall we then, I ask you, worship these also with the worship due to God, on the ground that they are joined to Him? And yet, although one might call it being conjoined, the word "stucking to" (or gluing) possesses, I suspect, a significance more emphatic and more worthy of esteem—if it is true to say that whatever is glued to something else has a very intense connection with it.
B. It seems so.
A. Why then, having rejected the name of "union," which is nevertheless a term familiar to us, or rather one that has flowed down to us from the holy Fathers, do they prefer to call it "conjunction"? And yet, "union" does not in any way confound the things of which it is predicated; rather, it indicates the B concurrence into one of those things which are understood to be united. For "one" is not said strictly or entirely of that which is simple and of one nature only, but also of things composed of two or even more [parts], and even of things of different natures. For thus do the experts in these matters hold. Most craftily, therefore, they divide the one who is by nature and truly the Son, who became man and took flesh, into two: they reject the "union," but C call it a "conjunction"—such as anyone else might happen to have with God, as if he were joined to Him by virtue and holiness, according to that which was rightly said by the prophet to those who fall into sloth: "Gather yourselves together and be gathered together, O nation not instructed, before you become as a passing flower" (Sophon. II, 1-2). A disciple might be joined to a teacher in his love of learning, and we to one another, not in one way, but in many. And perhaps an assistant in some matter D might reasonably be thought not to be disjoined, in terms of will, from the one who took him as an assistant. This, however, is what the "conjunction" of the innovators seems rather to signify. For you have heard them arguing ignorantly that the Word of God, having taken a man as if he were another and different son, set him up, as it were, as an assistant and an executor of His own divine will, so that he might even undergo death, and rise again, and having ascended into heaven, sit upon the thrones of the ineffable divinity.
For is it not entirely and absolutely clear from these words that he who is seen is altogether different from Him who is the Son by nature and in truth?
B. I agree.
A. But since they have once fallen into such folly as to suppose and to declare that the only-begotten Word of God did not Himself become such as we are, but took a man, in what way, I ask, do they wish for this assumption to be understood by us? Is it as though he were commissioned by Him to perform something that pleased Him, just as is said by one of the holy prophets: «And the Lord said unto me: Go, prophesy unto my people Israel»? For did He not take a herdsman and make him a prophet, and appoint him as an executor of His own commands?
B. They would perhaps say that the assumption did not take place in exactly this way, but rather as we understand the phrase: «Taking the form of a servant.»
A. Therefore, according to the inseparable union, that which is taken is rightly considered to be the proper possession of Him who took it; so that Jesus is indeed God, and the Son of the true God, one and the same, as the Word from God the Father; begotten divinely before all ages and time, but in the last times of the age, the same according to the flesh from a woman. B
B. For the form of a servant was not of some other, but became His own.
A. How do you mean? Tell me, I pray, can that which is by nature a servant be said not absurdly to have taken the form of a servant, or rather that which is truly free, and essentially superior to the measures of servitude?
B. I would think that which is free. For that which one already was by nature, how could it become so again?
A. Observe, then, that although C the only-begotten Word of God became like us and underwent a servile condition by reason of His humanity, He nevertheless testified to His natural freedom when, in the collection of the drachmas, He said: «Then are the children free.» He receives, therefore, the form of a servant, taking upon Himself those things which are annexed to the emptying, and not disdaining the likeness of us. For it could not be that in any other way servitude could be exchanged for honor, unless that which is proper to servitude had become His own, so that it might be illuminated by His glory. D For that which is superior always prevails, and the disgrace that arose in us from servitude has been abolished. For He who is above us became similar to us, and He who is free by nature underwent a servile condition. Therefore, dignity has also been propagated to us. For we too have been called sons of God, and have claimed for ourselves the Father who is peculiarly His own. For those things which were proper to men became also His. Wherefore, when we say that He took the form of a servant, the entire mystery of the dispensation in the flesh is contained therein. But if those who profess one Son and Lord, the Word from God the Father, say that a man is simply conjoined to Him who is the Son by nature, and that he shares in the sonship and even the glory of the one who is of the seed of David, it is time for us to speak to those who have chosen to think in this way.
We ought, out of the compassion that we owe A one to another, to lament and exclaim: *“Who will give water to my head, and a fountain of tears to my eyes, and I will bewail this my people day and night?”* For they have been led to a reprobate mind, denying the Lord who redeemed them. Indeed, they imagine for us a duality of sons unequal in nature, and they crown the servant with divine glory, and adorn some spurious son with an equal excellence of honor to that of the natural and true Son, even though God says clearly: *“I will not give my glory to another.”* For how is he who is adorned by a mere and solitary conjunction, assumed in the place of a minister, and deemed worthy of sonship—just as we ourselves are—and who by grace and gift has been made a participant in glory from another, not different B and separate from the natural and true Son? Emmanuel is not, therefore, to be divided into a man apart and the Word of God apart.
B. By no means.
A. I say that we must confess that God became man, and that he is the same one, both this and that. For he did not cease to be God by becoming man, nor again did he shun the dispensation in the flesh, despising the measure of self-emptying.
B. His body, therefore, they say, is consubstantial with the Trinity; for in this way, and in no other, could he be understood as one and the only Son.
A. But how is this not already nonsense, and a clear proof of a mind gone astray? For how could one see in an identity of essence things that are so far separated from one another by the definitions of their nature? For Deity is one thing, C and humanity is another; for we speak of the union as having taken place between these. For no one would say that the things united are one in number, but rather two, and perhaps even more.
B. They say, therefore, that the terms must be divided.
A. They are not to be divided, as I have said, into a particular and peculiar diversity, such as would cause them to subsist separated from one another and apart; but rather they must be gathered into an indissoluble union. For the Word became flesh, as John testifies.
B. Are the natures, therefore, confused, and has one emerged from the two?
A. Then who would be so senseless and ignorant as to think either that the divine nature of the Word has been altered D into that which it was not, or that the flesh has migrated, by way of mutation, into the nature of the Word himself? For it is impossible that we should say he is one Son and has one nature, even if he did become incarnate by assuming flesh that possesses a rational soul. For the humanity became his own, as I said, and it is understood by us in no other way than that in this very manner he is at once God and man.
B. Will there not, then, be two natures, of God and of man?
A A. Deitas is one thing, and humanity another, according to the respective definitions of each: yet these, in some unusual way that surpasses our understanding, have come together into a unity, without any confusion or change. But the manner of this unity can in no way be understood.
B. And how, from two things, namely Godhead and humanity, can Christ be considered one?
A. I would not consider it in any other way than that in which two things converge with one another in an inseparable union that surpasses understanding, as I have said.
B. For example?
A. Do we not call a man like ourselves one, and speak of his nature as one, even though he is not uniform and simple, but rather composed of two things, I mean soul and body?
B. We do.
A. If, then, someone were to set the flesh apart, and separate from it the soul that is united to it, would he not, by dividing into two men him who is one, subvert the very definition of humanity?
B. But the all-wise Paul writes: "For even if our outer man is perishing, yet the inner is being renewed day by day."
A. You speak correctly. For he knew, and knew clearly, the things from which the one consists, and he posited the difference as perceptible by contemplation alone. He calls the soul the inner man, and the flesh the outer. For he is mindful of the sacred Scriptures, which sometimes signify the whole man to us by a part, as when God says: "I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh"; and Moses, speaking to the Israelites: "With seventy-five souls your fathers went down into Egypt." And we shall find that the same has happened in the case of Emmanuel himself. For after the union, with the flesh, I say, even if one calls him only-begotten and God from God, he is not considered to exist without the flesh or humanity. And again, even if one calls him man, he does not exclude him from being God and Lord.
B. But if we say that there is one nature of the Son, even if he is understood as incarnate, it is absolutely necessary that we posit that confusion and mixing have occurred, with the human nature being in some way absorbed into him. For what is human nature when compared with the excellence of the Godhead? C
A. He is surely vehemently ignorant who would say that confusion and mixing have occurred. And we have not declared that one nature resulted from him who is incarnate and has dwelt among men.men. Nor can anyone demonstrate this by necessary and true syllogisms. But if they establish their own will as a law for us, they have entered upon a counsel which they cannot sustain. For we must adhere, not to them, but to sacred Scripture. If, however, they think that because human nature, when compared with divine excellence, is absolutely nothing, it is therefore absorbed and consumed, as they say, then—
A we will answer: "You err, not knowing the Scriptures, nor the power of God." For it was not impossible for the all-loving God to show Himself bearable and tolerable to human condition; and this He prefigured for us by instructing Moses, and by depicting the mystery of the incarnation, as it were, still in types and shadows. For He entered into the bush in the form of fire in the desert, and the fire shone in the bush, yet it did not consume it. And Moses was astonished at the sight of that thing. B Yet how could the wood not be inconsistent with the fire? The material, which is so easily kindled, endured the force of the flame. But it was, as I said, an adumbration of the mystery, declaring that the divine nature of the Word would be tolerable to human weakness, as He Himself willed; for nothing is absolutely impossible to Him.
B. How rightly you know they are unwilling to think so!
A. Then, without doubt, the reasoning maintained by them proclaims to us two sons and two Christs.
B. Two, indeed, they deny. But they say that the one who is Son by nature is the Word from God the Father; C but the one who was assumed, while he is a man by nature of David, is the Son of God because he was assumed by the Word of God, and because the Word of God dwelt in him, he attained this same dignity and is a Son by grace.
A. Then into what complete lack of mind and sense must those who hold such views have fallen? Or how do they not speak of a duality of sons, separating man and God from one another? If, according to their opinion, this one is Son by nature and truly, but that one has the sonship by grace and attained this dignity because the Word was dwelling in him; D does the one who is after our likeness, then, have something greater? For [the Word] dwells in us, too, and the most holy Paul strengthens us with regard to this, saying: "For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, of whom the whole family in heaven and on earth is named, that he would grant you, according to the riches of his glory, to be strengthened with might by his Spirit in the inner man; that Christ may dwell in your hearts." For He is in us through the Spirit, "in whom we cry, Abba, Father." Therefore, in no way would "those things that are after our manner" be in a state of deficiency if we have been deemed worthy of the same things by God and Father. For we, too, are sons and gods by grace. And we have been brought entirely into this supereminent and admirable dignity, as having the Only-begotten Word of God dwelling in us. It would be impious and utterly insane to say that Jesus was deemed worthy of [this] sonship, and that he received this honor as if in the measure of grace.
B. Tell me how.
A. I will tell you. For in the first place, as I said, he is a different—
B Son, Christ, and Lord, besides the One who is true and by nature, if one should conceive of him from this. Furthermore, another impossible thing is introduced by them, and one that is not unreasonably at variance with correct reasoning.
B. What is that?
A. The all-wise John says concerning Christ: "He came unto his own, and his own received him not. But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God." C If, therefore, he who possesses sonship by grace, and has obtained an acquired dignity to be what he is, can bestow upon others what he himself has barely acquired—does not the matter seem to you to be inconsistent with the truth?
B. Entirely.
A. But that which is not inherent by nature, but is rather added from without, could it not become something that can be cast off, in so far as it is possible?
B. How could it not?
A. Therefore, it would be among the possibilities that the Son could some day fall from his sonship. For that which is not established by nature is not placed beyond the risk of being lost.
B. It seems so.
A. But it can be perceived by another line of reasoning how full of shame and absurdity their doctrine is. For if it is true that that which is by adoption and grace is a likeness of that which is naturally and truly: by what means are we sons by adoption, having our relationship directed toward him as if toward a true Son, if he himself is reckoned among us as one of the adopted? D And by what means, in the evangelical parables, is he sent as a son after the servants, the keepers of the vineyard seeing whom, they said: "This is the heir; come, let us kill him"? He who appeared in the flesh, then, and experienced the cruelty of the Jews, is truly Son and free, as being born of a free nature, and not from among those who are under the yoke, in so far as he is considered God; even though he has become like us who are subject to the yoke, the son of servitude. Yet that which is by nature and truly Son, and who is outside every yoke and higher than every creature, is He toward whom we have been fashioned as sons by adoption and grace.
B. We do not say, they reply, that the man is the Son of God, so that we may not affirm two sons by nature. For just as the Word who came down from heaven is not the son of David by nature, so neither is he who is from the seed of David the Son of God by nature.
A. Therefore they will be divided into two sons, and both will be found to be falsely so named? One might say, I think, that the mystery of Christ is an empty and vain imposture, if the matter stands as these delirious heretics claim. Where, then, will there be unity? And for what cause will they say it was brought about? Furthermore, that he became flesh will also be discovered to be untrue, and a superfluous invention, if he has not been called the Son of David
A. But I think they should also hear from us what was said by Christ himself to the teachers of the Jews: "What think you of Christ? Whose son is he?" And if they say, "David's," they will hear from us: "How then does David in the Spirit call him Lord, saying: The Lord said to my Lord: Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool?" If, therefore, David in the Spirit calls him Lord, how is he his Son, if he is not by nature and truly the Son, as the heretics think? Or how does it come to pass, tell me, that he sits with God, and shares the throne with the Ruler of all? And yet, as the most wise Paul says, to none of the angels has the Father ever said: "You are my Son." B Nor even: "Sit at my right hand." Furthermore, how will he who was born of a woman sit in that supreme dignity and on the throne of divinity, far above every Principality and Dominion, and Thrones and Authorities, and every name that is named? Observe, then, how the Lord, saying: "If therefore David in the Spirit calls him Lord, how is he his Son?" seeks to persuade those who would be searchers for the truth that the Word, having become a participant in flesh and blood, has remained one Son even in this way; declaring him to be God by his divine pre-eminence and lordship, but having become a human being, by the fact that he calls him the Son of David.
B. They might perhaps say to these things, as far as I can conjecture: Then must it also be confessed that he who is from the seed of David is from the essence of God and the Father? C
A. But how could such a question not be considered very full of foolishness, and judged by the studious lovers of truth as plainly repugnant to the power of the mystery?
B. Tell me how.
A. Do not divide these things for me, as if you were speaking of someone other than the one Christ and Lord the Son—I mean him who is from the seed of David. For the logic of truth desires that the only-begotten Son, born of God the Father, be himself and no other, he who is from David according to the flesh. Therefore, those should not be heard who, out of a certain immense insanity, claim that just as the Word who descended from heaven is not by nature the Son of David, so neither is he who is from the seed of David the Son of God by nature. D For the Word, who naturally and truly shone forth from the Father, when he took to himself flesh and blood—as I said just now—remained the same; that is, by nature and truly the Son of the Father, being one and alone, and not as one other with another, so that one person of him might be understood. For gathering together in this way toward a true union, and toward that which is above mind and reason—things which are distinct from one another in the logic of their natures—we shall walk the unerring path of faith. For we say that Jesus Christ himself is one and the same: from God the Father as the Word who is God, but from the seed [of David] according to the flesh.
Word, has his existence from God the Father; but rather they contend that that man, who, as they claim, was assumed through conjunction, was created from the seed of the divine David. B. That is what they say. A. The Word, then, who is God by nature and in truth, will certainly and in all ways surpass him who is from the seed of David. He will excel him B by as much as the difference between the natures represents an interval. Or, if the matter is not as I say, why do they make a distinction? For to the one they attribute the faculty of glory, while the other they introduce as one who has received it, as though it were a gift or a benefit he has obtained. But he who receives is inferior and posterior to him who gives; and he who is made a partaker of glory by another is lower than he who imparts the glory. B. I believe that they themselves also establish the greatest difference between God and men. A. How then does the all-wise Paul, the minister of divine mysteries, who had that very One who is preached dwelling within him and who spoke in the Spirit, call Him who is from the Jews according to the flesh "God," and say that He is "blessed C for ever, amen"? What is superior to God, who is above all? And what greater thing could one discern in the Word who is begotten from the Father than in Him who is from the Jews according to the flesh, if indeed he is someone other than He, and a Son in a separate sense, and that not in truth? B. But, they say, he who is from the seed of David was admitted through conjunction, and since the Word who is God dwelt within him, he shares in the dignity and honor with Him. And this the most holy Paul will teach, writing concerning Him: "That he became obedient to the Father unto death, even death on a cross. Therefore God also highly exalted him, and bestowed on him the name which is above every name"; D that is to say, God. A. Do they therefore say that the name which is above every name was bestowed by God specifically and as to a different Son, the one who is from the seed of David? B. Yes, they say so. For how could that which the Only-begotten already possesses by nature, being God and God from God, be something given to Him? A. Therefore, if it is not said of Him that He received it, let us examine carefully why the divine Paul wrote: "For have this mind in yourselves, which was also in Christ Jesus: who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of man, and being found in fashion
A as a man, he humbled himself, becoming obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name. If, therefore, according to them, he who is of the seed of David is considered solely and exclusively as man, having received the name which is above every name, they present him as pre-existing in the form of God and not thinking it robbery to be equal with God, and, in addition to this, having taken the form of a servant, clearly as one not having it and not being it before he received it. And yet, as they themselves say and recognize in their thought, he is himself the form of a servant. How then could he receive it as though he did not have it? Or how could he be thought of as having been made in the likeness of men, and also be found in the fashion of a man? Would not the very power of these considerations force them, even against their will, to the knowledge of the truth? B. Of what kind? A. For God the Word, existing in the form of God and the Father, the character of his substance, who is in all respects equally endowed with the Begetter, emptied himself. B. And what is this emptying? A. It is the taking of flesh, and the form of a servant, and becoming in the likeness of us—of Him who, according to his own nature, is in no way like us, but surpasses every creature by far. Thus he humbled himself, descending B economically to the measures of human nature. But even so, he remained God, in such a way that he had not that which he possessed by nature as something received. Therefore he also said to the Father and God in heaven: "Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was." For they would not, I suppose, say that he, as the one born of the seed of David in the last times of the age, is asking for a pre-cosmic glory as his own, if he is a Son distinct from the one who is so by nature and in truth; rather, such a voice would befit the divinity. For he had to be fashioned to the measures of human nature, C and yet preserve the excellence of the divine dignity essentially subsisting in him, just as in the Father. Since, how will that saying be true, "There shall be no new god in thee," if, according to them, a man is made god by conjunction with the Word, and is shown to be a fellow-throne and participant of glory with the Father? B. You speak rightly. A. But how can that which was wisely said through the voice of Paul be understood: "For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,) but to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus D Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him"? Since there is one Lord Jesus Christ, and Paul most rightly says that all things were brought into birth through him, what shall we do, O noble men, when you define the man who was assumed, as you say, by the Word, as...
the creator of all?
B. He is the Son from God the Father by nature, that is, the Only-Begotten.
A. Yet that great minister of the divine mysteries asserts that all things were brought into existence through Jesus Christ, and that he is one and the same. But I will repeat what we said when examining the name of Christ, namely, that it signifies anointing. For because he is anointed, someone is called Christ. Either, therefore, let them say that the Word from God the Father is anointed in his own nature and stood in need of sanctification by the Holy Spirit, becoming a participant of it from him; or let them teach how Christ is to be understood as one who is not anointed. And how, moreover, could he be called Jesus, the Only-Begotten Word of God, when the blessed Gabriel says to the holy Virgin: "Do not fear, Mary; for behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus. For he will save his people from their sins." B
B. Therefore, shall we say that all things were made through this man, and that he who in the last times of the age was born of a woman is the Creator of heaven and earth, and in short of all things that are in them?
A. You ought to think so. For does not the Scripture say, I pray you, "The Word was made flesh"? Is he not called the Son of man? Did he not take the form of a servant? Did he not empty himself, being made in the likeness of men, and found in habit as a man? If, however, they deny the incarnation, the holy disciples will withstand them, saying: "And we have seen and bear witness that the Father has sent the Son, the Savior of the world. Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God remains in him, and he in God." And again: "By this the Spirit of God is known: Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God; and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not of God." C Then, what reason is there to say regarding a man that he assumed flesh? It is more fitting for him who is outside flesh, and is not similar to our nature, to assume flesh and to come with it into this world, in such a way that he remains what he was. Therefore, although he was made man, nothing prevents us from believing that all things were brought into existence through him, in so far as he is God and coeternal with the Father. For the Word, existing as God, has not been changed, even though he assumed flesh endowed with an intelligent soul: and he did not join a man to himself, as those innovators of the faith maintain, but became flesh himself, as I have said, that is, he became man. D For in this way, the anointing also fits him without reproach. And he will also be called Jesus, as he himself truly is the one who endured the birth from a woman according to the flesh. For he thus saved his own people, not as a man joined to God, but as God having become like to those who
A were in danger; so that in him, as in the firstborn, the human race might be fashioned anew unto that which it was in the beginning. For all things were new in him.
B. We shall therefore reject this opinion as erroneous, that a man is joined to God the Word and has become a partaker of glory along with him, and has been adopted as a son by grace.
A. Certainly. For it cannot be proved from the holy Scriptures; but it is rather a fabrication of a weak, lazy, and novelty-seeking intellect, and one of a mind that cannot perceive the depth of the mystery. For where could you find any such thing in the holy Scripture? For the divine Paul, while clarifying the mystery of the incarnation of the Only-begotten remarkably well, says: «Since, therefore, the children have shared in flesh and blood, he himself likewise shared in the same things, that through death he might destroy him who had the power of death, that is, the devil.» B And again in another place: «For what was impossible for the law, 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 justification of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit.» We say that he shared in flesh and blood, not according to an understanding that resembles those who look at appearances—not one who dwelt in flesh and blood by his own nature, and could not be otherwise—but one who was never that, and was of a different nature from ours: but that he was made also from a woman, and in the likeness of sinful flesh, C he who on our account, in accordance with us, and along with being for our sake, is perceived as God. For the Word became flesh, but not flesh of sin; rather, it was in the likeness of sinful flesh. He lived among those on earth as a man, and he was made in the likeness of the one among us, but not with us under sin; rather, he was beyond the ability to commit a fault. For the same one was God at once and man. But those who treat such a venerable and miraculous economy in this way, I know not how, join a man to the Only-begotten merely relatively, adorned with external and imported honors, and made splendid by a glory that is not his own; and they claim he is not God in truth, but a partaker and participant of God, a falsely-named D Son, a Savior who is himself saved, and a Redeemer who is himself redeemed—even though the blessed Paul has written thus: «For the grace of God our Savior has appeared to all men, instructing us that, denying ungodliness and worldly desires, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly in this present age, awaiting the blessed hope and appearing of the glory of the great God and our Savior Jesus Christ.»
B. Yes, they say. For since he was once deemed worthy of the conjunction with God the Word, he too was called great God, even though he was born from the seed of David.
A. O, the vast stupidity!
THAT CHRIST IS ONE
Since they say they are [themselves]A plentes, they became fools, according to Scripture. For, as I said, they subvert the entire force and virtue of the mystery of Christ in the opposite direction. And what they say—that he was deemed worthy of that honor—is nothing other than to set forth some common man, and ignorantly to propose for worship a certain diversity and duality of sons, of whom one is by nature and truly the Son, while the other is adoptive and spurious, and having nothing that is his own; so that it may be said to him just as it is to us: "What have you that you did not receive?" Furthermore, what are we to conclude about the most wise Paul, who says: "For the Son of God, Jesus Christ, who was preached among you by us, through me and Silvanus and Timothy, was not in him Yes and No, but in him was Yes"? For how would it not be Yes AND NO, if he is said to be God and is not God? If that title, Son and Lord, is spoken of him falsely? But if the matter stands as these men wish, it would behoove him also, I think, to say: "By the grace of God I am what I am." For that which is not naturally inherent, but is acquired from without and given by another, should not be claimed by him who received it, but by him who gave and bestowed it. But in what way did he say, "I am the truth," if there is nothing of truth in him? And yet, the darkness would have encompassed him too, if he were lying. But "he committed no sin, nor was any guile found in his mouth," as it is written. B. Certainly not. A. What, then, was the emptying, or to whom did it happen? For one cannot see anyone being emptied, B C but rather, on the contrary, being filled, whereas he otherwise holds fullness by his own nature. Nor did he need help from another; and receiving it would be superfluous for him, since he is most perfect by his own nature and lacks nothing. But "of Christ's fullness we all have received," nor could the heralds of the divine oracles have lied. For Christ is full, and there is nothing at all in him which he has received from another, insofar as he is considered and is God: even though it has also become his own to receive, on account of the condition of human nature, and insofar as he appeared similar to us. For to us, indeed, it may rightly be said: "For what do you have that you did not receive?" B. Indeed, they say, there is one Christ, and Son, and Lord, the Word from God the Father, with him who is from the seed of David meanwhile joined. A. But one might say to them, O best of men: he who has another joined to him cannot be considered one, but one with one—that is, with another—and these two must necessarily be two. But he will be understood to be one in truth as the Son, if we say that it is the selfsame one who is, on the one hand, the Word of God divinely begotten from God, and, D on the other, miraculously made man and in the flesh from a woman. But if, setting apart and distinguishing him who is from the seed of David from the one who is in truth God and Son...
[how would he be called Christ, who is not anointed, as we have already said?]]
A They do not wish to acknowledge him as such, but rather maintain that he is a partaker of sonship and alien glory; and not without reason, I think, shall we find that the slanders made against him by the Jews were directed at this point. For they were saying: "For a good work we do not stone you, but for blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself God."
B And yet, they say that the one Christ is both God and true Son.
A It is clear that this is the Word from God, who has taken to himself, by way of conjunction, him who is from the seed of David.
B But if he is not the very same as the Word from God the Father—who is also according to the flesh from a woman—but rather one alongside another, how could he be called Christ, he who is not anointed, as we have already said?
A Therefore, if he who is from the seed of David is not other than the Word from God the Father, then let him also be called pre-eternal.
B How then does the all-wise Paul, in putting forth the opinion—as if he were challenging it in questions and saying, "Jesus Christ yesterday and today, the same, and into the ages"? If therefore he is someone else—for he says, "Jesus [is] yesterday and today"—he will be the same "also into the ages," being clearly something recent, both yesterday and today, even though the Word of God coexists with his own Father.
A C They do wrong, indeed, by diverting the truth toward what they think themselves in their ignorance, and by corrupting the accuracy of the holy Scriptures. But if anyone says that Christ Jesus is also pre-eternal, he would not err from the truth, if there is one Son and Lord, the pre-eternal Word, who endured a birth according to the flesh from a woman in the last times of the age. And that the Word, having become a man like us, has not been changed, the Spirit-bearing speaker has indicated by saying: "Jesus Christ yesterday and today, the same, and into the ages." He uses "yesterday" as significant of past time, "today" for the present, and "into the ages" for the present and the future.
But if they think they have thought of something clever, by taking "yesterday and today" to mean "recent," and by insisting and saying: "If he is who was yesterday and today, how could he also be into the ages?"—we too shall shift the force of the questioning to the opposite. For the Word who is "into the ages," how could he take upon himself "yesterday and today," if Christ is one and is not divided, according to the voice of the divine Paul? That he wishes to be known by us in this way, you may learn from this: for although he was seen in the flesh and had entered into the measures of human nature, he bore witness to his own pre-eternal existence, saying: "Amen, amen, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am." And again: "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 descended from heaven, the Son of man." For as the Word existing always and pre-eternally, D he descended from the heavens; then the same appeared as a man similar to us, as...
one Christ and Lord, and when he became flesh, he spoke in this manner. B
B They have devised another argument as well. For they say that he who is from the seed of David is to be considered the Son of God, just as the Word himself from God the Father is said to be the Son of David. For he is one by nature, not another.
A Therefore, let a manner of true praise be admitted, so that the Word who became flesh—that is, man—is to be believed in this way; and for this reason, he is not a fictitious Son of David, but rather as one who appeared from him according to the flesh, and remained what he was, namely, God from God. And indeed, the ministers of the evangelical proclamations, recognizing the same one as being at once God and man, have framed their accounts concerning him for our sake. For it is written concerning the blessed Baptist, that "The next day he sees Jesus coming to him, and says: Behold the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world. This is he of whom I said: After me comes a man, who has become before me, because he was prior to me, and I did not know him, but that he might be manifested to Israel, therefore I came baptizing in water." Understand, then, how, by calling him a man and naming him a lamb, he says that it is not another who takes away the sin of the world, and he assigns to him this great and truly immense and divine dignity. He says he was made before him and is prior to him, although he was later in terms of the time in which he was born according to the flesh. For although Emmanuel, insofar as he is man, was born after him, yet he was before all ages as God. Therefore, it belongs to the same one to be both recent by reason of his human nature, and eternal by reason of his divine nature. For this reason, also, the most excellent Peter, not looking upon the Word as bare and without flesh, but as he who had appeared in flesh and blood, gave a manifest and most certain profession of faith in him, saying: "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." To which Christ responded: "Blessed are you, Simon, son of Jonah, because flesh and blood has not revealed it to you, but my Father who is in heaven." But if the mystery were not truly profound, and if God were not in the flesh—or if he were merely a man, as they wish, who had obtained his sonship by grace—how would there have been such need for a teacher of the mystery, to the extent that no mortal revealed it to the disciple, but he was taught it by the Father himself? Furthermore, when the disciples once saw him walking upon the sea, astonished by the miracle, they made a profession of their faith, saying: "Truly you are the Son of God." But if he is illegitimate and falsely named, and if his being Son is adventitious to him, let them accuse them of lying, which they even confirmed with an oath. For they added "truly," asserting him to be the Son of God and Father.
B You have spoken excellently.
A In what way, then, does the Son of man also have his own angels, and shine in the glory of his C Father
A with his own angels?" And again: "And the Son of man shall send his own angels." If they still disbelieve, and yet see him crowned with divine glory and with such radiant and supreme dignity, they will hear him saying: "If you do not believe me, believe my works." And again: "If I do not the works of my Father, do not believe me. But if I do them, even if you do not believe me, believe the works." For to see in a man the excellence of ineffable glory, not as something alien or added to him by grace, but as his own, how will it not persuade us that he was God in a form like our own, and in truth the Son of the God over all? B
B. They say that he called the angels his own, and performed these miracles, because the Word indwelling in him granted to him his own glory and efficacy. For it is written: "Jesus of Nazareth, whom God anointed with the Holy Spirit and with power, who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed by the devil." Anointed, therefore, with power and Spirit, he was a worker of miracles.
A. Therefore, since the Word, being God, is holy by nature and possesses omnipotence essentially, he could not in any way be in need of power from another, or be thought of as having an external sanctification. Who, then, is he who is anointed with power and the Holy Spirit?
B. They would perhaps say it is the man who was assumed by way of conjunction C and apart, and of whom the all-wise Paul speaks: "But to us there is one God the Father, of whom are all things, and we for him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we through him." How, therefore, I ask you, are all things through a man? And why is he listed immediately as Son with the Father, without anyone mediating? Furthermore, where shall we place the Only-begotten, if we raise the man to his place, and that, too, as they say, acting by power from him, and being honored through him? Has not their argument deviated from what is reasonable? Is it not led far from the mark, and, as having erred altogether from the truth, does it not deserve to be met with laughter? D
B. They say that the Word of God is called man in a certain way, such as this. For just as the man who was assumed by him was born indeed in Bethlehem of Judea, but was called a Nazarene because he lived in Nazareth, so also the Word of God is called man because he dwells in man.
A. O decrepit old wives' tales, and the babblings of one who has lost his mind and knows how to do nothing else! "Awake, you who are drunk," not from wine, let someone shout to those who hold the opposite view, "why do you distort the truth, and, subverting the power of the divine dogmas, wander away from the royal road?" For it is not, as the
A Word made flesh appears to be, but rather a "man-dweller," that is, an inhabitant of man; and it would be appropriate to call Him not "man," but "human." Just as he who lived in Nazareth is called a Nazarene, and not Nazareth.
Indeed, there is nothing at all to prevent it, if their fabrication is true, from calling the Father and the Holy Spirit "man" along with the Son. For the fullness of the holy and consubstantial Trinity dwells in us through the Spirit. Whence also Paul says: "Do you not know that you are God's temple and that the Spirit of God dwells in you?" And indeed, Christ himself says: "If anyone loves me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come and make our home with him." But the Father is in no way called "man," nor is the Holy Spirit, because they have dwelt in us. B But these men mock the mystery of the incarnation, twisting such right and venerable dogmas of the Church into absurdity. But let our discourse proceed again, having dismissed their ravings. For if they claim that He performed miracles because the Word was in Him, they establish Him as one of the holy prophets. For He also performed miracles through the hands of the prophets. But if they acknowledge the Son in these, they make Him of a prophetic or apostolic status.
B. For is He not, they say, called a prophet and an apostle? You would not be mistaken.
A. Moses indeed said to those who were of the blood of Israel: "The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet from among your brothers, like me." And the divine Paul also writes: "Therefore, holy brothers, partakers of a heavenly calling, consider the apostle and high priest of our profession, Jesus." Therefore, let them say—for I will ask—would it be a matter of honor for any man to be adorned with the grace of prophecy or with the apostolic office, and even to be called a high priest? C
B. I think so.
A. But these things would be judged small and unworthy of Christ, in so far as He is understood to be God. Although, through these things, He is seen to have been emptied, and to have accepted them along with human nature. But just as, being by nature God and truly Lord, He took the form of a servant, and having become in it, and in the assumption of things pertaining to us, He thus also gave the spirit of prophecy, and appointing apostles, and creating high priests, He was made like His brothers in all things; for He was thus called both prophet, and apostle, and high priest. D
B. But even if they grant Him to be a prophet, they do not say that He became one of the prophets, but rather that He far surpasses them. For they have obtained a certain and defined grace, as it seemed good to God, and which occurred to them in time; but He was full of Divinity even from birth itself; for the Word of God existing was with Him.
A. Therefore, in the quantity of grace, and in the length of time...
Christ surpassed those who existed before him, the holy prophets, and this is his preeminence. But the task before us is to inquire whether he was a prophet at all, not whether he was greater or lesser or superior; so that in the fact of his being a prophet, and in his not exceeding our own condition, his humility consists, even though this is believed to have existed from the beginning, just as in the case of the divine Baptist, of whom the blessed angel says: "And he shall be filled with the Holy Spirit yet from his mother's womb." A Then how was the one a servant, while the other is adorned with the sovereign dignities of the Lord? And concerning himself, the blessed John says: "He who is from the earth, speaks of the earth"; but concerning Emmanuel: "He who comes from above, is above all."
B. But perhaps they would say that the Word begotten of God the Father is from above and above all; yet they fear to attribute human things to him, lest they should seem to do him an injury and diminish his glory. Therefore they contend that he assumed a man and joined him to himself, into whom those things might fall and of whom the properties of a man might be spoken, so that the very nature of the Word should suffer no detriment whatsoever. B
A. Therefore, the one who was assumed would be, and would be spoken of, as entirely distinct from him. But we shall in no way follow their folly, nor shall we make them the definers and innovators of our faith, leaving behind sacred Scripture and despising the tradition of the holy apostles and evangelists; nor, because such a feeble and most ignorant mind has settled upon them, and they are unable to perceive the depth of the mystery, shall we therefore join ourselves to their error and labor under the same ignorance as them, neglecting the rectitude of the truth. For we are not unaware of what the most holy Paul wrote, that we ought "to cast down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, and to bring every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ." C But, do you have others to mention by which they are offended, and at which they stumble like the Jews at the stone of stumbling?
B. I have indeed many which I will pursue by speaking of them one by one. They say, therefore, that Christ was sanctified by the Father; for it is written: "And John bears witness, saying: I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and he remained upon him; and I did not know him, but he who sent me to baptize with water, he said to me: Upon whom you see the Spirit descending and remaining upon him, this is he who baptizes with the Holy Spirit. And I have seen and borne witness that this is the Son of God." D And Paul also wrote concerning him: "For both he who sanctifies and those who are sanctified are all of one." For the Word, being God and holy by nature, would least of all be sanctified. It remains, therefore, to say that the man who was assumed by him through conjunction was sanctified.
A But how is it that he who is baptized, and who received the manifest descent of the Spirit, baptizes in the Holy Spirit and fulfills things that are proper and fitting only to the divine nature? For he is the dispenser of sanctification; and showing this to be his own good, the Word who became man breathed upon the holy apostles, saying, "Receive the Holy Spirit; whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven; whose you shall retain, they are retained." But how, most clearly showing him who was sanctified, the divine Baptist testified that this is the Son of God, singularly and alone? For it behooved this teacher of the whole world, if indeed he knew of another besides the true Son, to explain the truth of the matter and to say openly, "This is he who, by reason of conjunction with him who is truly and by nature the Son, has become a son by gift and grace." Yet he said nothing of the sort, but knowing him to be one and the same, both the Word from God the Father and from the seed of David according to the flesh, he says that he was sanctified insofar as he is man, and that he sanctifies insofar as he is perceived as God. For there was, as I have said, both this and that within him. If, therefore, he has not become man, if he has not been born of a woman according to the flesh, we take away the properties of human nature from him. But if it is true that he lowered himself to kenosis and became like us, why do those who most ignorantly tear down the artifice of the economy in the flesh subtract from him those things through which he underwent kenosis?
B If, therefore, it is said that he also received glory, and has become Lord, and has been exalted by the Father, and was declared king, will you ascribe these also to the Word of God C without any diminution of his own glory?
A That the nature of the Word of God is indeed full of all glory and kingdom and true dominion, how could it be a matter of doubt for anyone? And that the divine dignity is fittingly attributed to him? But when he became man, to whom all things are given and are acquired—even though he abounds in all things by reason [of his nature] and imparts to all from his own fullness—he receives after a human manner. And the miracle in Christ is new and unheard of: dominion in the form of a servant; divine glory in human frailty; and royal dignity in servitude—insofar as it pertains to the condition of human nature—and the highest eminence endowed with humility. For the Only-Begotten became man, not that he might remain in the measures of kenosis, but that, receiving along with it its properties, he might still be understood as God by nature, and might illuminate the nature of man in himself, declaring it to be a participant in holy and divine dignities. For we shall find that the saints themselves, even after he became man, call the Son the glory of God and the Father, and indeed also king, and furthermore Lord. For Isaiah says somewhere thus: "As a man shall glean the olive, so shall they glean them, and when the vintage has ceased, these shall cry out with a voice. But those who shall have been left upon..."
the earth shall rejoice with the glory of the Lord." And again, another of the saints says: "Be enlightened, be enlightened, O Jerusalem; for your light has come, and the glory of the Lord has risen upon you. For behold, darkness and cloud shall cover the earth, but upon you the Lord shall appear, and the glory of the Lord shall be seen upon you." B James, his disciple, says: "My brethren, do not hold the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ of glory in respect of persons." And Peter the divine says: "If you are reproached in Christ, blessed are you, for the spirit of the glory and the power of God, and who is his Spirit, shall rest upon you."
B B. These are now sufficient. But I would have you tell me how that which is written concerning Christ ought to be understood by us: "Who in the days of his flesh, having offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears to him who was able to save him from death, was heard for his reverence. And though he was the Son, he learned obedience from the things which he suffered; and having been perfected, he became the cause of eternal salvation to all who obey him." I shall add to these sayings also that one: "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" For they say these things are foreign to God the Word, and I would judge them to be far inferior to his dignity and excellence.
A. I myself also easily understand that these things do not befit the Word begotten of God the Father, if we remove that which is from the administration in the flesh, and do not admit what Scripture testifies, namely, that he became flesh. But since we hold this firmly, and any doubt in this matter is joined with impiety, let us weigh the mystery of the incarnation as much as we can. The Word from God, therefore, appeared to us in the form of our likeness, assisting human nature in ten thousand ways, and excellently demonstrating to us the path that leads to all things good. It was necessary, therefore, to say—when temptation invades those who are in danger for the love of God—what sort of people they who wish to institute a praiseworthy and excellent life ought to be: whether prone to sloth, and given over to pleasures, relaxing the soul into cheerfulness and joy; or rather, intently fixed in prayers, and seen weeping before the Savior, and eagerly desiring his assistance, and endowed with a brave heart, even if he should will that we also suffer. It was furthermore useful to know what is the limit of obedience, and what and how great the reward of endurance that is proposed. Christ, therefore, became for us the figure and example of all these things, which the divine Peter also confirms, saying: "For what glory is it, if, when you are doing wrong and are buffeted, you endure it? But if when you do good and suffer for it you endure it, this is acceptable before God; because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example that you should follow his steps."
A Since, therefore, the Word of God was not without share in the modes of emptying Himself, but in the days of His flesh became an example to us, it was possible for Him, without blame, to use the measures of humanity, to offer prayers, to pour forth tears, and to await and implore the Savior, even though He is the Son. For the Apostle, carried away by the Spirit, was in a way struck by the magnitude of the mystery, that He who is by nature and truly the existing Son, and radiant in the splendors of divinity, humbled Himself to such a degree B as not to refuse to undergo the lowliness of human poverty. But, as I said, the example of this matter looked to our own great benefit: that we should be taught that we ought not to deflect into another path when the time demands fortitude; which anyone can understand very well from this. For Christ says elsewhere: « Do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell. » And elsewhere: « If anyone wishes to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow Me. » And what else could it mean that we ought to follow Him, other than that we must bravely resist temptations, with the invocation of divine help, not negligently and remissly, but rather using most fervent prayers, shedding from our eyes pious tears; not carelessly and weakly, but rather employing most earnest supplications and letting fall the tear of devotion?
B. You speak rightly. But if He says, « My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me? » what would anyone think of that? C They would think, as I suppose, that these are the voices of the man He assumed, of one afflicted, naturally, and who could not endure the assault of temptation for long, or one mourning out of human pusillanimity. For He also said to His disciples: « My soul is sorrowful even unto death »; and He even addressed His own Father thus: « Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as You will. »
A. And yet this is nothing other than what we just said: « Who in the days of His flesh offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears to Him who was able to save Him from death. » But if anyone thinks that Christ D reached such a state of pusillanimity that He conceived the highest sorrow out of an inability to bear the passion, overcome by fear and defeated by weakness, he truly accuses Him of not being God; and in that case, as it appears, he would judge in vain that He rebuked Peter.
B. In what way?
A. For Christ says to Peter: « Behold, we are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be delivered into the hands of sinners, and they will mock Him, and they will crucify Him, and on the third day He will rise again. » Peter
A however, because he was a lover of God, says: « Far be this from You, Lord; this shall not be to You. » And what does Christ say to him? « Get behind Me, Satan; you are a stumbling block to Me, for you do not mind the things of God, but the things of men. » And yet, how did the disciple sin by wishing to remove temptation from his teacher, if it was intolerable to him, and had cast him down into a state of weakness that could break the spirit of him who was commanding his own disciples to overcome the terrors of death and to count suffering as nothing, if they saw that the will of God was being accomplished through it? I marvel, indeed, that while they declare Him to be joined to the Only-Begotten and to be assumed into a partnership of divine dignities or properties, they subject Him to the fear of death, so that He is seen to be plainly naked like one of us, and to have received no benefit from the communication of divine dignities.
B. What, then, is the rationale of the economy in these matters?
A. It is mystical and admirable to those who rightly understand the mystery of Christ. For observe for me the words that are appropriate to the B emptying and are not at all foreign to the condition of human nature, spoken at the proper time and opportunity, so that He who is above every creature may be seen to have been made in every respect like us. And this will also be followed by that.
B. What sort of thing do you mean?
A. Since we had become accursed by reason of the transgression in Adam, and had fallen into the snare of death, being abandoned by God, and yet all things have been made new in Christ, and there has been a return of our state to what was in the beginning: it was necessarily required that the second Adam from heaven, who is beyond all sin, the all-holy and undefiled first-fruits of the second race, that is to say, Christ, should deliver human nature from the judgment and should call back C upon it the favor from above and from the Father, and should dissolve the abandonment through obedience and total subjection. For He committed no sin, but human nature in Him has been enriched with the blameless and the entirely faultless [condition], so that He might at length be able, with boldness, to cry out: « My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me? » Consider, for, that the Only-Begotten, having become man as one of us, uttered such voices on behalf of the entire nature, as if saying: The first man has sinned, he slipped into disobedience, he neglected the commandment that was given, and through the deceptions of the serpent he was snatched away into disobedience; therefore, D and very deservedly, he has been made subject to corruption and has come under judgment; but me You have planted as a second beginning for those upon the earth; I have been made the second Adam. In me you see human nature cleansed, having achieved what is free from fault, holy and all-holy. Bestow, then, the blessings of Your kindness, dissolve the abandonment, rebuke the corruption, and let there be an end to the things resulting from wrath. For I have conquered Satan, who had long ago gained mastery. For he found in me nothing
A of his own entirely. Such, as I think, is the sense of the words of the Savior; for He was not calling for the favor of the Father on His own behalf, but on ours. For just as into the whole nature of man, as if from the first root, I mean Adam, the consequences of wrath passed—for “death reigned from Adam even until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the transgression of Adam”—so also the things from our second beginning, that is to say, Christ, will again pass through into the entire human race; and the all-wise Paul will confirm this, saying: “For if by the transgression of the one the many died, much more the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one man Jesus Christ abounded to the many.” And again: “For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all shall be made alive.”
B. It is therefore foolish and entirely discordant with the sacred Scriptures to think and to say that the man who was assumed, as if abandoned by the Word who was joined to him, made use of human utterances.
A. It would indeed be impious, my friend, and a proof of extreme madness, and by no means alien to those who do not know how to think aright. For since they sunder and separate entirely both utterances and things, and attribute these to the Only-Begotten alone and uniquely, but those to a certain other Son who is different from Him and born of a woman, they have in this way strayed from the straight and most unerring path, and from clearly knowing the mystery of Christ. B
B. Are we not, therefore, to separate the utterances or the things, when the evangelical and apostolic preachings are brought into the midst?
A. By no means, insofar as it concerns two persons and two hypostases distinct from one another, and totally separated from each other. For since there is but one Son, the Word who for our sake became man, I would say that all things are His, both utterances and things, those befitting God and, in addition, those that are human.
B. So then, even if He is said to have grown weary from the journey, and to have hungered, and to have taken sleep, is it fitting, tell me, to ascribe to the God Word such trivial and lowly things?
A. To Him while yet naked and not yet incarnate, and before He submitted to the kenosis, C it would not be fitting at all—and you judge rightly; but to Him as incarnate and having been emptied, what harm, pray, do you think such a thing could inflict upon Him? For just as we say that His flesh became His very own, so too, in turn, we establish that by the communion of the incarnation, and by reason of the kenosis, the inconveniences and the weakness of the flesh are also His. For He was made like His brothers in all things, sin alone excepted. And do not be amazed if we say that He, together with the flesh, also appropriated for Himself the weaknesses of the flesh, whence even the external insults ferociously inflicted upon Him by the Jews He again took to Himself, saying through the voice of the Psalmist: D
A “They divided my garments among themselves, and upon my vesture they cast lots.” B And again: “All who saw me derided me; they spoke with their lips, and shook their head.”
B. Therefore, even if He should say, for instance, “He who has seen me, has seen the Father; I and the Father are one,” and again to the Jews, “Why do you seek to kill me, a man who has spoken to you the truth which I heard from God?” shall we grant that these statements and those belong to one and the same person?
A. Assuredly; for Christ is not divided in any way, but He is believed by all who adore Him to be the one and only true Son. For the image of the invisible God, the effulgence of the glory of the Father’s substance, the character of His essence, took the form of a servant, not as linking a man to Himself, as some say, but rather becoming Himself in it, while remaining even so in the likeness toward God and Father. The all-wise B Paul, therefore, wrote that “God, who said light should shine out of darkness, He has shone in our hearts for the illumination of the knowledge of the glory of God, in the face of Christ Jesus.” Behold, then, how the illumination of the divine and ineffable glory of God and Father shines forth in the face of Christ. For the Only-Begotten shows in Himself the glory of the Father, even though He has become man. For He alone is considered and called Christ, and no other; or rather, let our opponents teach us how anyone could perceive the C illumination of the divine glory, or the knowledge of it, in some ordinary man? For we shall not perceive God in the form of a man, except in the Word alone, who was made like us and became man, yet who remained in this state too by nature truly the Son, and it was paradoxically possible to see even this, inasmuch as He is understood to be God. And so the steward of His mysteries, having named Him Christ Jesus, as having become like us and incarnated, saw Him being with the God who is such by nature and in truth; for he writes like this: “But I have written to you more boldly in part, as one reminding you because of the grace given to me by God, that I should be a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles, performing the priestly service of the Gospel of God.” Zechariah also prophesies to his own child, I mean the Baptist: D “And you, child, shall be called the prophet of the Most High; you shall go before the face of the Lord, to prepare His people.” Then the divine Baptist points out the Most High and Lord, saying: “Behold the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world. This is He of whom I said: After me comes a man who was made before me, because He was before me.” Is it then right to doubt that the Word from God the Father is one and only and truly the Son, with the flesh united to Him—a flesh not inanimate according to some, as I have said, but endowed with an intelligent soul—and that with it He is one person altogether?
B Indeed, I would not for a moment doubt it. "For there is one Lord, one faith, one baptism." But if it is said that Christ progressed in age, in wisdom, and in grace, to whom would these things have happened? For since the Word from God the Father is full and perfect in Himself, what kind of increase of anything, I ask, could He receive? But since He Himself is wisdom, He would not be said to have received wisdom. They say, therefore, that one must search to find out to whom these things happened.
A Another Son and Lord must, it seems, be introduced [760 A] because some are unable to attain the depth of the Holy Scriptures. Yet the wise evangelist, when he brings forward the incarnate Word, shows Him to have been sent economically B into His own flesh, and to have progressed according to the laws of that nature which He had made His own. For it is of human nature to progress in age and wisdom—I would add, also in grace—as understanding in each person somehow concurs and advances along with the increase of the body. It is less in infants, greater in children. Indeed, it was not impossible for the Word of God, begotten of the Father, to raise up the body united to Him even from the very swaddling clothes, and to bring it to perfect age; and it would have been most easy for Him to bestow exquisite and admirable wisdom even upon an infant. But this would have been something like a prodigy, and foreign to the rationale of the incarnation. For the mystery was accomplished quietly and modestly. Therefore, He willed that the laws of human nature should prevail in Himself economically. For this, too, is to be referred to the likeness of ourselves. For we proceed from small to great, as time carries us toward the increase of age, and our understanding is not unlike C nor ill-suited to that age. Thus, the Word from the Father, insofar as He is God, is perfect in Himself, and stands in need of absolutely nothing, not even of increase. But He made our nature His own when He was made like us, even though we know that in this respect also He is superior to us, as God. And hence Paul, although he knew perfectly well that He had been made flesh, yet contemplating the eminence of the Godhead, does not dare to call Him a man in certain places. For instance, he writes thus to the Galatians: "Paul, an apostle, not from men, nor through man, but through Jesus Christ." And elsewhere: "For I make known to you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but through the revelation of Jesus Christ."
B It is to be attributed to Him, therefore, that He is said to progress in age and wisdom, just as also to hunger and to be weary, and other things of this kind. Furthermore, if He should be said to have suffered, and to have been brought to life by the Father, we shall attribute these things to Him as well.
A For we say that they are His own in so far as He made them His own through the incarnation, and together with the flesh He also assumed the properties of the flesh; since no other is understood by us...
as the Son, but the Lord Himself has A saved us, giving His own blood as a ransom for the life of all. B "For we were redeemed not with corruptible things, with silver or gold, but with the precious blood as of a lamb spotless and undefiled, Christ, who offered Himself for us to God and the Father as an odor of a sweet smell." And for this, the most learned in the law, Paul, will sustain us, writing: "Be therefore imitators of God, as beloved children, and walk in love, as Christ also loved us and delivered Himself up for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God for an odor of a sweet smell." Since Christ has become a sweet smell for us, having shown in Himself the human nature that possesses no fault, we have gained boldness through Him and in Him toward the Father and God who is in the heavens. For it is written: "Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holies by the blood of Christ, which He has inaugurated for us, a new and living way through the veil, that is, His flesh." Understand, then, how he speaks of His blood and His flesh, which he also calls a veil, and indeed very aptly, so that just as the holy veil in the temple performed the work of covering the Holy of Holies quite well, some such thing might also be understood to be performed by the Lord's flesh, not permitting, in a manner of speaking, the supreme and exceptional excellence and glory of the God Word, who is united to it, to be seen bare and without a covering. C And indeed, some supposed Christ to be Elias or one of the prophets. The Jews, however, not understanding at all the mystery concerning Him, scoffing, said: "Is not this the carpenter's son? How then does He say, 'Because I have descended from heaven'?" For the Deity is not by nature visible. Yet He appeared to mortals in a form like ours, He who by reason of His own nature cannot be seen; and He has appeared to us as God, being Lord. And this, I think, the divine David teaches, saying: "God shall come manifestly, our God, and shall not keep silence."
B. You think rightly; however, they do not contend that these things are so, but are far from it. For they wish by no means to attribute the passion of the cross to the Word who was begotten of God, but rather say that that man who was assumed by Him according to equality of honor was provided D to endure the outrages from the Jews, and the sufferings on the cross, and indeed the death itself; and that he himself became the author of our salvation, having returned to life by the power of the Word conjoined with him, and having abolished the dominion of death.
A. Might they then be able to produce from the holy Scriptures a true argument for us regarding these things? Or do they innovate upon the faith, speaking from their own hearts, and not from the mouth of the Lord, as it is written? Or perhaps they are ignorant of how to say: "But far be it from me to glory except in the cross of Christ, through whom the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world."
"" B Very well, they say; for the all-wise Paul confirms us in this, writing thus: "For it was fitting for him, for whom are all things and through whom are all things, in bringing many sons to glory, to perfect the pioneer of their salvation through suffering." For, they say, the One in whom are all things, and through whom are all things, could be none other than the Word begotten of God. He, therefore, perfected through suffering the pioneer of our salvation, that is, him who is of the seed of David.
A We have not, then, been redeemed by God—for how, or from whence could that be?—but rather by the blood of another; and some supposititious or surrogate man has died for us, and he is a son in name only. And that great and venerable mystery of the incarnation of the Only-Begotten would have been mere trifles and imposture; nor indeed has He become man. We shall call Him Savior and Redeemer, not, however, the Only-Begotten, but rather that other person who gave his own blood for us. And yet, the most holy Paul writes to some thus: "It was necessary, therefore, that the copies of the things in the heavens should be purified with these things, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. For Christ has not entered into holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us. Nor yet that He should offer Himself often, as the high priest enters into the Holy of Holies every year with blood of another; for then He must have suffered often since the foundation of the world; but now once, at the end of the ages, He has appeared to put away sin by His own sacrifice." B The type, therefore, involves the approach being made in the blood of another, and some being purified. But the truth of the matter, that is, the Truth itself, will surely receive the better portion—namely, that Jesus does this in His own blood, entering not into some transient tabernacle made with hands, which is understood in shadow and in types, but into the heavenly and true one, that is, into heaven. For it is necessary that the copies of the things in the heavens be purified with these, that is, with figurative and alien things; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. It must be sought, therefore, and indeed necessarily in Christ, what it is that is better than the types; I mean the Truth, which is in His own blood.
C You speak rightly.
D Since, however, they insult the apostolic saying, as if it were referred to a common man, come, let us repeat the whole passage from the beginning, as far as it relates to our proposed discussion. It is written, therefore: "But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, for the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor. For it was fitting for him, for whom are all things and through whom are all things, in bringing many sons to glory, to perfect the pioneer of their salvation through suffering. For both He who sanctifies and those who are being sanctified are all of one; for which reason He is not ashamed to call them brethren, saying: I will declare
A thy name to my brethren. And again: Behold, I and the children whom God hath given me. Since, therefore, the children have partaken of flesh and blood, He also Himself likewise participated in the same, that through death He might destroy him who had the power of death, that is, the devil, and deliver those who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage. For surely He does not take hold of angels, but He takes hold of the seed of Abraham. Whence He ought in all things to be made like unto His brethren. B Behold, for behold, and indeed most clearly, in saying that He was made lower than the angels by reason of the passion of death, and yet was crowned for it with glory and honor, he makes manifest the One of whom he speaks, namely, the Only-Begotten. For he says that He became a participant of flesh and blood just as we are, and that He took hold not of angels, but of the seed of Abraham. For it was fitting for God and the Father, through whom are all things and by whom are all things, having brought the Son into emptying and to have become man, as having taken the form of a servant, to make perfect through sufferings, consecrating His own flesh as a ransom for the life of all. C For Christ is set forth for us, the spotless sacrifice, and by one oblation He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified, re-forming human nature to that which it was in the beginning. “For all things in Him are new.” For that God and the Father gave His own Son for us, the all-wise Paul no less confirms, writing about Him: “He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all, how shall He not also with Him freely give us all things?” But we call the Son of God "own," the Word begotten from His very essence; but that He was given for us, it was not as naked and devoid of flesh, but when He became flesh. And that it is said He suffered, brings no detriment to Him. For He suffered not by the nature of His divinity, D but in His own flesh. For God and the Father, as I just said, made Him who knew no sin to be sin for our sake, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him. Do we then think that He became sin? Or is it rather that He was made like unto those who were under sin, and for this reason He is also called sin? B. You speak rightly. A. Just as, therefore, He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for our sake, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him (for human nature has been justified in Him); so also He allowed Him who knew no death (for the Word is life and the life-giver) to suffer in the flesh, while remaining exempt from suffering in so far as He is understood to be God, so that we might live through Him and in Him. For this reason also the passion of Christ has been named the likeness of death. It is written therefore: “For if we have been planted together in the likeness of His death, we shall be also in the likeness of His resurrection.” For the Word lived while His holy flesh underwent death, so that, death having been defeated and corruption trodden underfoot, the power and virtue of the resurrection might pass into the whole human race. For it is true,
as it is written: "For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive." For in what way would we say that the nature of man was benefited by the mystery of the dispensation of the Only-Begotten in the flesh, if the Word, being God, had not become flesh? If He had not humbled Himself even to emptying, and if He who is above all creation had not descended into our state? If He had not become a body of life, that which was subject to destruction, so that it might pass beyond death and corruption? We do not, therefore, say that the Word from God the Father Himself suffered in the flesh for our sake. B B. Most certainly not. A Since it is true what Paul says of Him: "Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; for in Him all things were created, visible and invisible, whether Thrones, or Dominions, or Principalities, or Powers; all things were created through Him and in Him. And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist; and He is the head of the body, the Church, who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things He might have the preeminence." B Behold, therefore, and indeed most clearly, he says that the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation, visible and invisible, through whom are all things and in whom all things exist, has been given as head to the Church, and is also the firstborn from the dead. For He makes His own, as I said, the things that belong to His own flesh; and He endured the cross, despising shame. We do not say that it was simply a man, C who had been adorned I know not how by conjunction with Him, who was given for us; but it is the Lord of glory Himself who was crucified. "For if they had known, He says, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory." He suffered for us and on our behalf in the flesh, according to the Scriptures, "who is according to the flesh from the Jews, who is God over all, and blessed for ever. Amen." For so did the herald and apostle, who had Christ Himself within him, the most holy Paul, write. But tell me this besides: how should they understand that which was said by Christ to the Samaritan woman: "You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews"? Yet He has saved us, not an ambassador, not an angel, D but the Lord Himself; not by another's death and a common and vulgar man interceding, but by His own blood. Therefore, and with very good reason, the most wise Paul says: "Anyone who has set aside the law of Moses dies without mercy on the evidence of two or three witnesses; how much worse punishment do you think he will deserve, who has trampled underfoot the Son of God, and has counted the blood of the covenant as common, and has insulted the Spirit of grace, in whom he was sanctified?" But if the venerable blood is not that of the true Son who became man, but rather that of some bastard, different from Him, and who was adopted into Sonship by grace, how can they not consider it common? Therefore, even if it is said that He suffered in the flesh, the impassibility is preserved for Him, insofar as He is understood to be God. Wherefore the divine Peter also says: "Christ, having once"
suffered for sins on our behalf, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the Spirit." For an intelligent person might ask, I suppose, why the spirit-bearing man did not simply and indefinitely say that He suffered, but added, "in the flesh." He knew, he knew he was speaking of God; therefore, he attributed impassibility to Him in so far as He is understood as God, and most artfully added "in the flesh," concerning which passion could take place.
B B. But they say that it is like a prodigy, and inclined far toward the unbelievable, to claim that the same one both suffered and did not suffer. For either He did not suffer at all, as God, or, if He is said to have suffered, how could He be God? Therefore, only the one from the seed of David is to be considered to have suffered.
A. But how would it not be a very clear demonstration of a feeble mind to think and say such a thing? For God the Father did not hand over for us a common man, taken in the order of a mediator, and adorned with the glory of sonship [merely] in name, and honored by a relative conjunction; but the Word, who exceeds every creature, born from His very essence, and made like us for our sake, so that He might be seen as equal in value to the life of all. But, I think, it is among the most absurd things, since the Only-Begotten became flesh according to the Scriptures, as I said, and did not disdain the economy, to somehow reproach and blame Him, as though He had acted against His own glory, and had chosen to suffer in the flesh contrary to what was fitting. But, my noble friends, this was [a] thing salutary to the whole world. Since He who is by nature God, upon whom no passion can fall, desired to suffer for this reason, He donned the flesh susceptible to suffering, and declared it His own, so that the suffering might be said to be His, because not [the suffering] of another, but His own body had suffered. Since, therefore, the manner of the economy grants Him, without reproach, that He should choose to suffer in the flesh, but not suffer in His Divinity (for God and man were at once in Him), those who are of the opposite opinion babble and, most foolishly adulterating the power of the mystery, think that they are rendering a unity full of praise. For it seemed to them in some way that choosing to suffer in the flesh at all cast a certain blame upon Him, but it was otherwise glorious. For that He is superior to death and corruption, existing as Life and Life-giver, God, the resurrection has testified. For He raised up His own temple. Therefore the divine Paul says: C «For I am not ashamed of the Gospel; for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth.» And again: «For the word of the cross is to them that are perishing foolishness; but unto us who are being saved it is the power of God. But unto those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ is the power of God and the wisdom of God.» And indeed, He the Son Himself, when about to ascend to the saving passion,
said: «Now is the Son of man glorified, and God is glorified in him, and God shall glorify him in Himself, and straightway shall He glorify him.» For He rose again, having despoiled hell, and this not long after, but in a way immediately and right on the heels of His passion.
B. But the all-wise Paul says: «Do you seek a proof of Christ who speaks in me; who is not weak, but is mighty in us? For though He was crucified out of weakness, yet He lives by the power of God.» How then, pray, could anyone say that the Word Himself was weakened, and that He lives by the power of God?
A. Do we not in general lay it down that the Word of God became flesh and assumed human nature?
B. Certainly.
A. Therefore, He who was weakened in the flesh, insofar as He was manifested as man, lived also by the power of God—not indeed by a power alien to Him, but by that which was inherent in Him. For God was in the flesh.
B. But yet the Father is said to have raised Him up; for it is written: «According to the working of the might of His power, which He wrought in Christ, raising Him from the dead, and setting Him at His right hand in the heavenly places, far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named.»
A. But we say that He C is the life-giving power of the Father, and that He is endowed with the dignities of the Father, even if He became flesh; which He Himself bears witness to, saying: «For as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, even so the Son also gives life to whom He will.» And as He who can perform this without trouble, He addressed the crowds of the Jews, saying: «Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.» Moreover, when He had risen, He sat at the right hand of the Father in the heavenly places, far above all Principality and Power, Thrones and Dominions, and above every name that is named. Is He, then, a different Son D from the Word begotten of Him, adorned only with a naked conjunction with Him, and having obtained the name of Deity by grace? Or is He rather the Son, who is by nature and in truth, having been made in the likeness of men and found in habit as a man through the incarnation?
B. They might perhaps say that the man from the seed of David was joined to Him in equality of honor, to whom indeed it would be appropriate to suffer death.
A. But equality of honor, when it is said to be conferred upon someone, would not be one in number, as I have said before, but one with another. But I consider these to be two, and unequal by reason of nature, if indeed there must be an inferior who is affected by honor, since...
it is A of all things most fraught with danger to dare to reduce to equality with the Master the servant, with the Creator the creature, with the King of all things that which is under the yoke, with Him who is beyond all things that which is numbered among all things.
B. Clarify this for us then still further.
A. Although, as I suppose, the argument which I have labored through on these very points is clear and sufficient, I would not be at all loath to add to what I have already said other things as well, and, clothed as it were in a complete suit of armor of every kind of defense for the sacred dogmas, I would set up the truth against those who think otherwise. B For that the only-begotten Word of God, with no other son acting as mediator for the economy besides Himself and being connected to Him only relatively, has abolished the power of death, but rather the Word of God Himself through Himself, He will prove, saying: "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only-begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life." But while lifting up high the love of God and the Father for the world, and saying that it was immeasurably vast and supernatural, do those of the opposite party diminish it by belittling the human aspect, saying that it was not the true Son who was given for us, C but one of those like us, having the grace of sonship by adoption, whom they promote to the place of the Son by nature—when it was the Only-begotten who was given for us? Furthermore, since John clearly writes: "The only-begotten God, who is in the bosom of the Father," how could anyone fail to wonder at their ignorance, as they thrust the only-begotten God the Word out of the economy and introduce instead, as I said, someone who has been decorated with external notions and who possesses the name of divinity D as an adventitious thing? Then what is so great and worthy of admiration in the Father's love, if He gave only a part of the world, and that a small one, for it? Or perhaps one might even correctly say that the world has been redeemed having nothing from God, but has contributed its own parts to this redemption.
B. They say that the Only-begotten was given by the Father so that He might administer our affairs, not that He Himself should suffer anything human in His own nature; for that is impossible.
A. He Himself, to be sure, suffers nothing at all in His own nature. For being incorporeal as God, He is surely positioned beyond all passion. But since, according to His own word—I mean, through the lyre of the Psalmist—a body was prepared for Him by the Father, He came in the flesh to do His will. And this was the redemption through the venerable and precious cross and the recapitulation of all things, being accomplished excellently through Him and in Him. And the excellent Paul also agrees with what I have said, writing thus: "Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus, who, being in the form of God, thought not..."
that it was a robbery to be equal to God, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men, and found in fashion as a man. He humbled Himself, becoming obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. Wherefore God also highly exalted Him, and gave Him the name which is above every name, that in the name of Jesus Christ every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." A For who do you say this is, who, being in the form of God and the Father, and while it was possible for Him to remain in equality with Him, did not think that such surpassing and divine dignity, and excellence over all things, was a robbery? Is it not the Word of God, who shone forth from the Father? And how, then, is this matter not manifest to all? But He, being the same in the form and equality of the Father, having taken the form of a servant—not according to some loose conjunction—having been made in the likeness of men, and found in fashion as a man (for He was also God at the same time), humbled Himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.
B B. But it is said, they say, concerning Him, that God gave Him the name which is above every name, so that in the name of Jesus every knee should bow. But since this was the Word, and consequently God, how can He be understood to have received it? It is necessary, therefore, to understand that the name which is above every name was rather given to the man who was assumed, so that we may not seem to think anything regarding the Only-Begotten that is alien to Him.
A. Nay, but is it not far better to say that it was given by the Father to the Son who is by nature, for our sake incarnate, so that God may be understood to be even in human nature, and established in the highest exaltation, He who humbled Himself for us, lest some new and recent god should be proposed to angels and men, to whom the glory of divinity does not essentially belong, but came from without, as if by the sole will of God and the Father? C To the Word Himself, therefore, born of God the Father, we say that the name which is above every name has been given.
B. Assuredly.
A. Nor indeed does our discourse wander from the scope, if it is true that He did not think it robbery to be equal to God. But He descended to that which is not glorious, in so far as He was made man. Therefore He also said: "The Father is greater than I," although He is always in Him, in so far as He is God, and born of Him according to nature, having total likeness to Him, and being illustrious with the glory of the deity. It was necessary, therefore, that He who for our sake lowered Himself to the conditions of human nature should in no way be deprived of His natural splendor and excellence; D but that He who was emptied and made like us should possess the fullness of the Deity, and in His humility have the height
in humiliation [brings] that which is sublime, and that which is his by nature, as if received, because of his humanity, to be worshipped by all. For to him every knee bows, of those in heaven and on earth, and every order gives glory. For Christ Jesus is believed to be Lord, to the glory of God the Father. And indeed, he said to the Father and God who is in the heavens: "Father, glorify me with the glory which I had, before the world was, with you." Tell me, then, was that man whom they say was assumed by the Only-begotten by way of a relative conjunction, [in existence] before the world was?
B. By no means.
A. Who, then, is it who asks for that glory, which he claims he was possessed of even before the foundation of the world, and that he existed always and for all time with God? Is it not the Word of God, coeternal with the Father, sitting on the same throne and coexisting with him, of whom the all-wise John the Evangelist says: "The Word was with God, and the Word was God"?
B. How could it be otherwise?
A. Just as the Lord of glory, then, having lowered himself down to the shame of the form of a servant, asks for the restoration of the glory which he had from eternity, and does this in a manner befitting humanity; so too, existsing always as God, [he returns] to the preeminence and glory of his own divinity from our human condition, so that, as to one [being] henceforth the natural and true Son, even though having become similar to us and incarnate, every knee may bow, as I just said. For by thinking and believing in this way, I believe we free both heaven and earth from the charge of man-worship. For it is written: "You shall worship the Lord your God, and him only shall you serve."
B. The discourse on this matter might require many helps. Go on, therefore, and explain the mystery to us by other lines of reasoning.
A. I shall proceed, and most willingly. I would say that they have wandered from the truth, because they couple another son for us, one from the seed of David, with the natural and true Son—namely, the Only-begotten—even though the holy Scripture clearly cries out: "The first man is of the earth, earthly; the second is from heaven, heavenly." Moreover, the Son himself says: "I have descended from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of him who sent me. And this is the will of him who sent me, that of all he has given me I should lose none, but should raise it up in the last day." Who, then, do they say it is who has descended from heaven? For the body was born of a woman.
B. The Word, clearly, who was begotten of God the Father. For I do not think they choose to hold any other view than this.
A. You speak correctly, my friend. For the all-wise John also wrote somewhere: "He who comes from above is above all." And so, how, when the Father wills
A to raise up all that has been given to him, and since the thing itself is good and furthermore befitting to God (for it is God-befitting to save), did He [the Son] Himself say that He descended, not that He might do His own will, but that of the Father? Could any of us, therefore, suppose that the Son who is begotten from the Father falls short of the kindness of God and the Father, and that He is not in the least good, and that it is unbefitting B to Him to raise up what was given to Him and deliver it from corruption? B. We are in danger [of thinking so]. A. And yet we might argue, and very reasonably, that since the Father is good, His Son also is good in reality. For the tree is known by its fruit, according to His own word. He will also speak truly, saying: "He who has seen me has seen the Father. I and the Father are one." B. You speak correctly. Explain, therefore, yourself what seems to have been spoken obscurely. A. We say that it was not against the will of the Son to abolish death and to banish corruption from human bodies. "For He does not delight in the destruction of the living; for the generations of the world are salutary," as it is written. "But by the envy of the devil death entered into the world." But C the most sorrowful empire of death could not be cast off in any other way than through the incarnation of the Only-Begotten alone. Therefore, He appeared in our form, and made the body which was subject to corruption His own, according to the principles that inhere in nature, so that, since He Himself is life (for He has been begotten from the life of the Father), He might implant His own good into it, that is, life. But since it pleased Him altogether, out of kindness and benevolence toward the human race, to undergo our likeness, it was also necessary that He should suffer, as the impiety of the Jews raged against Him. But the ignominy joined with the passion was grievous to Him. And so, when the time was at hand in which He had to undergo the cross for the life of all, in order to make it clear that the passion did not occur against His will, He approached it in a human manner D and addressed the Father in the form of prayer, saying: "Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as you will." He says that He who came down from heaven did not do that which brought pain unwillingly, so that He might accomplish for those on earth the resurrection, of which He alone has been the initiator for human nature. For He has become the firstborn from the dead according to the flesh, and the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. Therefore, the passion was His, and no one else's, insofar as He was made man, even though He remained impassible insofar as He is understood to be God. B. So I believe. A. But remember also the holy Scripture saying: "The first man Adam became a living soul; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit."
A
B. Do we then say that the last Adam, the Word from God the Father, is called by this name?
A. Not narrowly, as I said, but rather as one made like unto us. We say that it is He, since it is not human, but rather divine, to give life. And He has been called the last Adam, as having been made from Adam according to the flesh, and as the second principle for those who dwell upon the earth: human nature being restored in Him to a newness of life, in sanctification and immortality, through the resurrection from the dead. For death was thus abolished and rendered void, since the natural Life could not suffer Its own body to be subjected to destruction, inasmuch as it was not possible for Christ to be overcome by it, according to the voice of the divine Paul. B And thus the fruit of that glorious deed passed even unto us.
B. You speak well.
A. But mark this for me as well, in addition to these things.
B. What is it that you say?
A. Christ said somewhere to His holy apostles: "Go, make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." We have been baptized, therefore, into a holy and consubstantial Trinity: into the Father, I say, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Or is what I said not true?
B. And how could it not be?
A. Do we not then understand the Father to be He who has begotten, and the Son, on the other hand, to be the only-begotten God the Word who was begotten of Him by nature?
B. Absolutely.
A. How then are we baptized into His death, according to the voice of the blessed Paul: "For as many," he says, "as were baptized into Christ, were baptized into His death"? C But there is one Lord, one faith, one baptism; and he would by no means have said that we were baptized into some other, different son, one who is from the seed of David. Since, however, He who is God by nature is understood to be beyond passion, and yet He willed to suffer in order that He might save those who were subject to destruction, He was made in all things like unto men, and willed to be born of a woman according to the flesh, and made His own, as I said, a body capable of tasting death, and again of rising again, so that, while He Himself remained beyond passion, He might be said to have suffered in His own flesh. For He saved that which was lost. And so He said clearly: "I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep." And again: "No one takes my life from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it up again." D But it belongs not to any one of us, nor indeed to any ordinary man, to have the power to lay down his life and take it up again. But the Only-Begotten, and truly the Son, both laid it down and took it up, delivering us from the snares of death. One might see this very well, even in the books of Moses, as it were in shadows, being prefigured in ancient times; for He delivered from death
and destruction, the slaughter of the lamb, those from Israel, and He softened the Destroyer. But this thing was a type of Christ. For Christ our Passover was sacrificed for us, that He might destroy the unyielding power of death, and by His own blood might acquire the world under heaven. For we have been bought with a price, and we are not our own. For One died for all, the One more precious than all, that those who live might no longer live for themselves, but for Him who died for them and rose again. Paul also concurs with these things, saying, “For I through the law died to the law, that I might live to God; I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me.” Therefore we are all Christ’s, and through Him we have been reconciled to the Father, since He suffered in the flesh for us, that He might render us cleansed. For it is written B that, “Therefore Jesus also, that He might sanctify the people with His own blood, suffered outside the gate.” And again: “And you, who once were alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now He has reconciled in the body of His flesh through death, to present you holy, and blameless, and irreproachable in His sight.” Understand, therefore, in what manner He calls it His "own" blood and "own" flesh, namely that which was given for us, so that we may not say that it is of some other son distinct from Him, and who is decorated with Him only by conjunction, and endowed with an assumed glory, lacking essential dignity and eminence; but that, like a garment or a mask, he bears the name of the Son and God who is supreme over all. For if He were naturally such as our adversaries think, it would by no means be suitable for Him to say, “I am the truth.” For how could that which is not as it is called, but is bastard and of a false name, be true? But Christ is truth, and is above all, as God; for the Word remained what He was, even though He became flesh, so that He who is above all, and made amongst all, because of human C nature, has His being beyond all things and beyond the measures of creation, that the one saved might be above all and beyond the condition of creaturehood.
B. But they say that a great ignominy is branded upon the God-Word if it is said that He suffered; and our venerable mystery will perhaps even be rendered infamous by this.
A. But having despised the shame, He chose to suffer in the flesh for us, according to the Scriptures. I, for my part, would judge it to be a malady of the Jewish mind and a vice of Gentile ignorance to say that the passion of the cross is a disgrace. The divine Paul therefore writes: “Since the Jews ask for signs, and the Greeks seek after wisdom; but we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews indeed a stumbling block, and to the Gentiles foolishness, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks,
Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God; because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
B B. In what way? For I do not understand it at all.
A. Does he not say that the passion of the cross was a stumbling block to the Jews, and foolishness to the Greeks? For the former, when they saw him hanging on the wood and shaking their bloodthirsty heads at him, said: “If thou art the Son of God, come down from the cross, and we will believe thee.” They thought that he had been seized and had suffered being overcome by their violence; for they were mistaken, not thinking that he was truly the Son of God, but looking only to the flesh. The Greeks, however, since they could by no means understand the depth of the mystery, consider it to be foolishness that it should be said by us that Christ died for the life of the world. But this very thing which seems to be foolish is wiser than men. For the word is deep, and truly full of the highest wisdom, that which is, as he says, concerning Christ our Savior for all; and that which is considered by the crowds of the Jews to be weak is stronger than men. For the only-begotten Word of God has saved us, having undergone likeness to us, so that having suffered in the flesh and having been raised from the dead, he might declare our nature to be superior to death and corruption. And that which has been accomplished is beyond our ability. Therefore, that which is in our weakness C and seems to have been performed in suffering is stronger than men, and possesses a demonstration of God-befitting power.
B. Then how, they say, can the same one not suffer?
A. Having suffered by his own flesh, and not by the nature of his divinity—and the argument concerning these things is entirely ineffable, and no mind could reach such strong and sublime thoughts. Nevertheless, clinging to those reasonings which are most consistent with the truth, and contemplating the argument concerning probability, we do not alienate him from the saying that he suffered, lest we say that his birth according to the flesh, which preceded the passion, did not belong to him but to some other person, nor, on the other hand, do we define those things which are of the flesh as having been performed in his divine and supreme nature. But let it be understood, as I said, that he suffered in his own flesh, even though he did not suffer in his divinity. But in what way, this cannot be sufficiently explained by any examples. For all things are inferior to the truth of the thing itself. There comes, however, to my mind a certain image, which from those things that we handle with our hands raises us to the height of that which surpasses all reason. For just as iron, or some other such material, having communed with the assaults of fire, receives it and admits the flame; but if it should happen to be struck by someone, the material indeed receives the injury, but the nature of the fire itself is not harmed at all by the striker: so in some way you will understand the Son to have suffered in the flesh, but not at all in his divinity. And the power of the examples is indeed small, as I said, but it brings somewhat closer to the knowledge of the truth those who have chosen not to disobey the holy Scriptures.
B
B. You speak rightly.
A. For if the flesh, having been united to the Word ineffably and above mind and reason, did not immediately become the Word’s own, how could it be considered life-giving? “For I,” he says, “am the living bread, which came down from heaven, and gives life to the world. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread which I shall give is my flesh, for the life of the world.” But if that flesh is of a Son other than He, who had been joined to Him by a certain relative conjunction and called to equality of honor by grace, how does He call it His own, while being unable to lie? And how could the flesh of any other person give life to the world, unless it had become the proper flesh of the Life—obviously that is, of the Word who is from God the Father, concerning whom the divine John says: “And we know that the Son of God has come and has given us an understanding, so that we may know the True One, and we are in His true Son, Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life.”
B. But, I imagine, they will object that even this was said by Him and very clearly: “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.” We understand, therefore, they say, that the precious body and blood are not those of the Word of God, but rather those of the man who is joined to Him. C
A. But what, then, will they decide about the great mystery of our religion? For the emptying of the Word of God will be abolished, as it seems; He who, being in the form and equality of the Father, willed for our sake to take the form of a servant, and to become like us, and partaker of flesh and blood, and to bestow the administration of the incarnation upon the whole world. For it has been saved through it, with the Father summing up all things in Him, both those in heaven and those on earth, as it is written. If, therefore, they do not say that it is the Only-Begotten Himself speaking in both a divine and human manner: “And the bread which I shall give is my flesh for the life of the world,” but rather that some other Son of man, distinct from Him, has saved us, then he is not the Lord as the Scriptures preach Him, but one of us, and from then on those subject to corruption are given life not by one who possesses the power to give life as God, but by one of those subject to corruption who, like us, has received life by grace. D But if it is true that the Word became flesh according to the Scriptures, and appeared on earth, and conversed with men, bearing the form of a servant as His own, He will also be called the Son of man; and if some are indignant at this, they will be found to have sinned grievously. For there is no other way the flesh could be made life-giving, which by its own nature necessarily had to be corrupted and perish, unless it had become the property of the Word who gives life to all things. For in this way it worked and supplied what was proper to the Word Himself, having communed with His life-giving power. And it is not at all surprising. For if it is true that to the stuffs
A with which fire comes into contact, although they are not hot by their own nature, it shows them to be hot—for it infuses into them very abundantly the efficacy of the power inherent in it—how much more does God the Word, when He is in His own flesh, infuse His own life-giving power and efficacy, having united it to Himself and shown it to be His own, without confusion, without change, and in the manner that He Himself knows?
B. Is it therefore necessary to confess, with no other intermediary, that the body of the Word who is from the Father has become perfectly His own, even if it be thought of as ensouled by a rational soul?
A. Certainly, if we are to hold the unerring word of faith, and if we are lovers B of the truth of the dogmas, and not turning aside from the straight path of the holy Fathers, nor indeed abandoning the royal road and being carried off into a reprobate mind by the empty babblings of certain people, but rather building upon that very foundation, which is Christ. “For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid,” as the wise architect and steward of the mysteries of God has truly written. Therefore, we believe that there is one Son of God and the Father, and we understand our Lord Jesus Christ in one person, begotten indeed from God and the Father divinely, as Word, before all ages and time; but in the last times of the age, the same one having been made flesh from a woman. And we ascribe to Him both the divine and the human properties, and we say that His birth according to the flesh, and the suffering upon the cross, were His own, since He adapted to Himself all things that were proper to His own flesh, while the nature of the Godhead remained impassible C in its essence. For in this way every knee bows to Him, and every tongue confesses that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. Amen.