Scholia on the Incarnation of the Only-Begotten

SAINT CYRIL ARCHBISHOP OF ALEXANDRIA

SCHOLIA ON THE INCARNATION OF THE ONLY-BEGOTTEN

(From the edition of P. Garnier, in the Works of Marius Mercator, with the addition of the Greek fragments which John Aubert had from the Royal codex.)

ADMONITION

This treatise, no less useful than it is excellent, is entitled *Scholia on the Incarnation of the Only-Begotten*, for the reason that it contains not only an explanation of three terms—*Christ, Emmanuel, Jesus*—which are difficult to understand and whose prior knowledge is necessary for discussing the mystery of the Lord’s Incarnation; but also a resolution of the complicated question of how two natures, without confusion and change, have joined into the unity of a divine person, and that not in a relative or moral sense, but in a natural and substantial one: which is the pivot of the entire question that has agitated the whole world with such great commotion.

There is no reason to doubt who the author was, when Theodoret in his second dialogue which is called *Inconfusus*, Leo the Great in epistle 97, the Council of Chalcedon in the second session at the end, Facundus of Hermiane in books VII and XI, Leontius the Scholastic in book I against the Nestorians and Eutychians, and others, not only mention this work as having been edited by Cyril, but also draw testimonies from it to confirm the faith. Add to this that in the Royal library in Paris a considerable portion is preserved in Greek, inscribed with Cyril’s name, which John Aubert translated into his Greek-Latin edition of the Works of Cyril, volume V, part 1.

At what time it was composed, it is possible to conjecture from the fact that, although the holy defender of the faith disputes against Nestorius, he nevertheless does not address him by name, although he is not accustomed to keep silent after a condemnation—or even before a condemnation—as soon as the suit is, as it were, initiated and legal proceedings have begun; that is, after the synodical epistle sent with the letters of the supreme pontiff containing the sentence of deposition from the Egyptian synod, and the twelve articles which are called the anathematisms. Therefore, it must be said to have been composed before the Council of Ephesus.

But at what place, and at what more precise time? Perhaps someone might think at Ephesus, at the time when Cyril, under pressure from the Catholics themselves, was forced to explain some things which seemed a little too harsh or obscure in the anathematisms, especially in order to repel the odium cast upon him by his adversaries: as if he shared the sentiments of the Apollinarists, that there is a single nature in Christ, and that the divine Word was turned into flesh.

I, however, think it was written at Alexandria, much earlier: for Cyril wrote this work before he responded either to Andrew of Samosata or to Theodoret, who were criticizing the anathematisms, in order to instruct those who were going to dispute for the faith about the primary definitions, as it were, of the terms, and about several other matters which would be used in the course of the dispute. And indeed he provided this instruction, if my opinion does not deceive me, when the question first flared up among the Alexandrians, and they were not yet sufficiently educated by the exercise of their minds; and when Cyril himself was also first entering into the struggle for Christ against Nestorius, having given his prior letters of admonition. This treatise was therefore written at about the same time as the epistle to the monks of Egypt—that is, around the middle or at least toward the end of the year 429. For the subject matter of both is the same, and there seems to be no difference other than in method, which is more rhetorical in the epistle, and almost scholastic in the *Scholia*.

Three things lead me to this opinion. First, that the *Scholia* were written before the Council of Ephesus, as has been established above: yet not a short time before, since Andrew of Samosata in Anastasius the Sinaite mentions this work as having been widely circulated. Second, that it appears to be a sort of elementary doctrine handed down to minds uninstructed in the controversy: for it consists of the exposition of terms, distinctions necessary for resolving objections, and examples made to explain the matter. Third, that in the entire work no mention is made of the supreme pontiff himself; but only of those things which are read in the first, second, and third sermons of Nestorius against the rule of faith, even though this question was one worth being addressed because of its own subtlety or necessity. But it arose from a homily of Proclus, which was harshly criticized by Nestorius, about which no report could have reached Alexandria before the time defined thus far.

^A The question of the translator is slightly more difficult. Whoever he may have been, he must have written in the fifth century, or rather in the times of Cyril: for from this very version, which is now held—and which Leo the Great, immediately after the death of Cyril, quoted as from the common text, and the Council of Chalcedon, and Facundus of Hermiane, which they cite from the places previously mentioned. Someone might not unjustly believe that this work should be attributed to one of those Alexandrians whose Latinity Cyril excused to Saint Celestine, when he sent the documents translated by them. ^B But it seems more probable to identify the translator as Marius Mercator, a man otherwise skilled in better Latinity: for it is found among his works in both the manuscript codices we have used; and he lived at the age in which it was being written, and inflamed with the zeal of the faith, he put into Latin what the Greek defenders of the faith were writing; and in his preface to the sermons of Nestorius, he testified that he had disregarded the rules of Latinity in translating the works of Nestorius and Cyril. In these, he says, I have endeavored to translate word for word, as far as could be done, so that I might not later be proven a falsifier rather than a true translator. Give pardon, therefore, pious reader, if either the discourse is less elegant, or the novelty of the words used here and there has perchance offended your ear. I chose to be exposed to the tongues of critics rather than to stray too far from the truth of the meanings to be expressed, where the danger of falsity lies in everything.

Non-trivial labor had to be expended by us in amending a version so ancient, and thus, as is to be expected, corrupted by scribes: manuscript codices and printed books indeed helped. ^C But since there is only one version for all, and it is no less depraved by the notaries than it was neglected by the translator, as often as the Greek texts did not shine forth—and they did not often shine forth—it was necessary to divine what words the translator had used, that we might restore them to the best of our ability: for it was against our principles to change anything, nor could we have done so even if it were permitted from elsewhere, since the Greek text is lacking in many places; for that which we have is taken either from Theodoret, or from the Chalcedonian synod, or from the Royal library.

But the work emerges excellent, and adorned with the highest praises of the holy Fathers, not only more amended, which is certainly not a minor thing; but also about a fourth part more extensive than it is read either in the editions of Cyril's works or in the collections of the councils. We will indicate what is missing in the common books, where there is need. The common codices of the whole work possess twenty-eight chapters; the Marian manuscript has thirty-five; Photius counts no more than nineteen, having reduced to this number all those which, in others, are separated for reasons surely not the best. It is worth the effort to write out the words of Photius: "Another book is also read, inscribed thus:

SchOLION ON THE INCARNATION OF THE UNIGENITE.

Facundus of Hermiane can be seen to have found a different division in the codex he used: for what Photius indicates as the eighth chapter, he calls the seventh; and the tenth, what is set as the eleventh in Photius. For thus he writes: "Cyril in the book which he called Scholia, under the seventh title, which we say is the emptying, says, 'The soul, all things that are of the body, etc.'" (Lib. xi, c. 7.) And later: "Again, however, in the same book, under the tenth title, let us observe what he has said, or what the title itself at first glance proposes; for he promised that he would show this in it, saying (Ibid.), that with God the Word united to the true humanity, the substances nevertheless remained unconfused. And that he might prove this, he added these things: 'The holy tabernacle was erected according to the will of God through the desert,' etc." Although a mistake could easily have crept into either place, if only the number had been written in Roman letters, as is credible, VII, XI: for a third vowel could easily have been removed in one place and added in the other by careless scribes. Wherefore the reading of Facundus seems to me to need correction, while that of Photius is to be retained, having however joined into one the two chapters concerning the coal or the lily: which examples equally contribute to proving what is proposed in the title. And it is indeed proper to believe that a specific argument was inscribed to each individual chapter, which was to be treated; and that it did not happen, as is read in the printed books, that individual chapters were clumsily and [Greek: ἀμεθόδως] (without method) assigned to individual testimonies or examples. Moreover, the codex of Mercator was able to offer no assistance in confirming either opinion, since it has the titles without any numbers.

Therefore, although the distribution of the chapters, which is accepted by custom, must be religiously preserved, it nevertheless seemed worth the effort if the numbers of the Scholia of Photius were appended to each of the common chapters, and here, with the titles of the individual chapters from Mercator proposed, the whole work were exhibited through a synopsis.

Of Cyril, Bishop of Alexandria, on the Incarnation of the Unigenite.

^A

CAP. V. For what cause the Word of God is said to have been emptied. CAP. VI. How there is one Christ. CAP. VII. How there is one Emmanuel. CAP. VIII. What we say the union is. CAP. IX. That the flesh itself, having a rational soul, became the body of the incorporeal divinity; and that if we wish to divide it from Him, we shall without a doubt weaken the dispensation which is understood in Christ. CAP. X. That God the Word being united to true humanity, they have nevertheless remained of unconfused substance. CAP. XI. That, although He was God the Word, He was made man, nor was He simply a man honored by a bare conjunction, called to an equal dignity or authority with the Word of God, as seems to some. CAP. XII. That Christ Jesus is called the Word of God made man. CAP. XIII. That Christ is not a man-bearing (θεοφόρος) man, nor did the Word of God merely inhabit a man; but rather He became flesh, or perfect man, according to the Scriptures. CAP. XIV. Apostolic sayings in which Christ is named God. CAP. XV. How one ought to understand: The Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us: and how the Word, who is God, is sent; and how [the body] is called His own body. CAP. XVI. How the holy Virgin is to be understood as Theotokos. CAP. XVII. That the Unigenite, appearing, is named both God and man. CAP. XVIII. Concerning the passion of Christ, that it is useful. That it is spoken of one and the same [person] according to one thing and another, ^B and he is not divided into two. CAP. XIX. Against those who say that things human pertain to the Word of God only by relation.

Moreover, although the Marian codex provides five chapters, and those prolix, which are commonly missing, I would hardly venture, however, to promise that the work is even now published in its entirety, if any credence is to be given to Anastasius Sinaita: for he cites a passage about the stater found in the mouth of a fish, which is not found in the Scholia in the form they are currently had. But I strongly suspect that Anastasius, slipping in his memory, cited the Scholia for another work; and this suspicion seems the more probable because he testified that he had composed his book, the *Odegoi*, from memory rather than by reading the authors, and he warns the reader to verify or even restore the testimonies.

Furthermore, on the occasion of the Scholia, from which Theodoret brought forward three testimonies in his second [Eranistes] dialogue, I cannot omit what I have conjectured about those testimonies which, in the Council of Chalcedon, were appended to the letter of Saint Leo: namely, that they were appended by Theodoret; for they are all read word for word in the dialogue I mentioned, and there is no mention or promise of any such being provided in the whole letter. Add the fact that Theodoret is said by Facundus to have asserted the letter of Leo against the Palestinians and Illyrians who were protesting, having brought forward, of course—as the acts of the Council of Chalcedon have it—the testimony which is read among the appendices. But there would have been no need for it to have been brought forward had it already been appended to the letter; for it would undoubtedly have been read at the same time, and other things likewise, if indeed any existed at that time. ^C What of the fact that the letter, turned into the Greek tongue, was produced by Theodoret or, certainly, by those who were devoted to Theodoret's party—and indeed, defiled by the translators—which is the last thing Leo himself complains about before the Emperor Marcian? Furthermore, in the letter the pontiff sets forth many chapters of faith, not only against Eutyches, but also against Nestorius; yet no pieces of testimony are appended other than those which avail for asserting the distinction of the natures, and which had been employed in the dialogue called *Inconfusus* to refute those who were suspected by Theodoret of being tainted with Apollinarianism; those which are written in the books against Nestorius, and which are read in the very dialogue cited, are not brought forward.

How much value this short work possesses may be estimated most of all from the fact that hardly any of the subsequent commentators, who wished to use the authority of Cyril in expounding the mystery of the Incarnation, failed to take some testimony from the Scholia. Add that Cyril himself may seem to have commended this effusion of his when he wrote to Eulogius: "The same book," he says, "contains towards the end certain brief expositions concerning the dispensation of Christ, and those quite beautiful and useful." It is necessary that the expositions he mentions do not differ from the Scholia, or from the subsequent treatise on the Incarnation of the Word, or from the dialogue appended: for he wrote nothing else about which there could be any doubt. But it surely differs from the subsequent treatise, which is in truth one certain discourse; it differs also from the dialogue just mentioned: for who would call a dialogue by the proper name of an exposition? Although the dialogue could be appended to the Scholia as a kind of epitome and as a *hypomnema*.

With how accurate a method it is written is clear from the series. Starting from the interpretation of simple words, Cyril explains what Christ is, what Emmanuel is, what Jesus is, what one is, and what union is. Then, turning his speech to the propositions which are accustomed to be used in this matter, he discourses on the manner in which Christ is one, one Emmanuel, one Jesus, that is, one Lord, etc. ^D Then [he explains] how the Word is said to be emptied, united to flesh, made man, yet not on that account changed, nor stripped of divinity. From there [he explains] in what way Christ is not a God-bearing (θεοφόρος) man, or one acted upon by the divinity, but [is] truly man and God; then in what manner the Word is said to dwell in us, to be sent to us, to have His own body, and how one is to understand

Virgo sancta. Finally, that the Only-begotten, appearing in visible flesh, is named God and man: how He suffered, and in what sense, finally refutes those who think that things human do not befit God in any other way than by relation alone. Otherwise, as I have already noted, the individual chapters are almost all full of useful distinctions for avoiding the objections of heretics.

OF SAINT CYRIL ON THE INCARNATION OF THE ONLY-BEGOTTEN

CHAPTER I. What is Christ.

^A The name “Christ” possesses neither the force of a definition, nor does it signify the substance of something, whatever it might be; just as, for instance, “man,” or “horse,” or “ox” do. Rather, it has a meaning signifying a thing that happens to someone. For some of the ancients were anointed with oil, as it seemed good to God at that time, and the anointing was a sign of kingship for them. Prophets, moreover, were anointed sensibly by the Holy Spirit, so that from this they were also called “christs” (anointed ones). Thus the blessed David sings from the person of God, and says: “Touch not my christs, and do no evil against my prophets.” And the prophet Habakkuk also says: “Thou wentest forth for the salvation of thy people, to save thy christs.”

^B But in the case of Christ, the Savior of all of us, we say that an anointing indeed took place. Yet it was neither symbolic, as being seen in oil, nor that which is in prophetic grace; nor, indeed, that which is understood to occur for the accomplishment of some such business—of the kind we say happened in the case of Cyrus, king of the Persians and Medes, who campaigned against the Babylonians, the Almighty God inciting him to this. For it is said: “Thus says the Lord to my anointed (Christ) Cyrus, whose right hand I have taken hold of.” And yet, although he was an idolater, he was called “Christ” because he had been, as it were, anointed to be king by a divine decree from above, and had been appointed by God to take the Babylonians by force.

^C But that other interpretation is more appropriate to Christ. For since, because of Adam’s transgression, sin had reigned over all, and the Holy Spirit had departed, and...

rat, and for this cause he was involved in all evils; but there was need again, through the compassion of God, that he who was ascending to the state in the beginning be deemed worthy of the Spirit; the Only-begotten Word of God became man. ^A And he was seen by those on earth with a fleshly body, then he became free from sin, so that in him and in him alone the human nature, crowned with the praises of sinlessness, might be enriched with the Holy Spirit and thus be fashioned toward God through sanctification. And thus the grace also passes over to us, having taken its beginning from Christ, who is the first-born among us; and because of this, the blessed David, teaching us, sings to the Son: "Thou hast loved justice and hated iniquity; therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness."

The Son is therefore anointed according to our manner, ^B as I have said, with the praises of sinlessness; the human nature being made illustrious in him, and being already deemed worthy to partake of the Holy Spirit—not departing anymore as before, but rather remaining within it. Therefore it is also written that "the Spirit descended upon Christ, and remained upon him." Christ is therefore called the Word of God who for our sake and like us became man, and is in the form of a servant; and he is anointed humanly according to the flesh, but he anoints divinely with his own Spirit those who believe in him.

CHAPTER II.

How Emmanuel ought to be understood.

Emmanuel the Word of God is named, because he took hold of the seed of Abraham, and in like manner as we partook of flesh and blood. "Emmanuel," however, is interpreted as "God with us." Now we confess that the Word of God was with us, not locally: for in what place is God not, who fills all things? Nor because he appears to be present with us by way of assistance; for it was said in this manner to Joshua the son of Nun: "And as I was with Moses, so will I be with thee." But because what is done in our affairs, that is, in humanity, is not a desertion of his own nature: for the Word of God is inconvertible.

But for what reason, when it is plainly said to Joshua the son of Nun, that ^C "as I was with Moses, so will I be with thee," is he not nevertheless named Emmanuel? The reason itself is this: for even if he is said to have been with any of the saints, we do not say that the Word of God became "with us," except at that time when, according to what Baruch says, "he was seen upon the earth, and conversed with men, and found out all the way of knowledge, and gave it to Jacob his servant, and to Israel his beloved: and afterwards he was seen upon earth, and conversed with men." For he himself is our God, and no other shall be compared to him.

For as far as the nature of God pertains, he was not with us; for there is a great difference between deity and humanity; and very great is the difference between the natures.

Therefore the divine David, toward the mystical closeness [al. most intimate union], called out to the Word of God, who had not yet come to us, saying in the spirit: "Why, O Lord, hast thou departed far off?" who, when he remained what he was, took hold of the seed of Abraham, as I said; and he took also the form of a servant, and was seen as a man on earth.

But Christ and Emmanuel designate for us the same Son—partly because he is anointed in our manner, receiving the spirit for the human nature, so that in him and first [al. the human nature receiving the spirit in him, as first]. For he was placed as the beginning of the race, and again he himself anoints, as God, with the Holy Spirit those who believe in him: partly, because he was with us according to the reasons I have just rendered, and concerning this the prophet Isaiah makes us certain, saying: "Behold a virgin shall conceive in the womb, and shall bring forth a son, and his name shall be called Emmanuel." ^D For when the holy Virgin had become pregnant by the Holy Spirit, but had brought forth a son according to the flesh, then also he was called Emmanuel: for he was with us, by the carnal generation of the incorporeal; and it was,

which was signified by the voice of David: "God shall come manifestly, our God, and shall not keep silence" ^A; and that [I] imagine to be this: "I who spoke, behold I am present." For He who spoke through the prophets, as the Word still incorporeal, arrived also corporally.

CAP. III. What is Jesus.

In the intention, indeed, by which it is necessary for the Son of God to be called one by us, it is the same thing, both Christ, and Emmanuel, and Jesus; and this, as it were, is a name made from the thing itself: "For He," He says, "shall save His people from their sins" ^B. For just as Emmanuel signified that the Word of God had become with us through birth from a woman; and Christ, because, having become man, He is called anointed according to us humanly: so also Jesus, because He has saved His own people, which most especially demonstrates Him to be truly and by nature the Lord of all. For He should not be called a creature of common man; but it is more fitting to say that all things are that of the Only-Begotten, even if He were made man.

Perhaps someone may say: But Israel was called the people of God. To this we say, that it was indeed called the people of God, and that was true. But because it was led into defection, and made a calf through the desert, it was ^C dishonored by God: for He deigned no longer to call it His own people, but destined it now for a man. But not so with us: for we are His own sons, for the reason that He is also God, and through Him all things were created. For thus says David: "Because He made us, and not we ourselves; but we are His people and the sheep of His hands" ^D. Finally, He Himself also said of us: "My sheep hear my voice, and they follow me." And again: "I have other sheep, which are not of this fold, and them I must bring, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd." And He also commanded the blessed Peter: "Simon, son of John, do you love me? Feed my lambs, feed my sheep."

CAP. IV. For what reason the Word of God is called man.

He is called man (while by nature He is God, the Word of the Father), because in like manner to us He partook of blood and flesh. For thus He appeared on earth, and did not abandon what He was, but assumed the nature of humanity, perfect in its own definition.

Nevertheless, even in humanity He remained God, and is the Lord of all, as one who is born of the Father by nature and in truth. And this the most wise Paul most evidently shows us: "For the first man," he says, "is of the earth, earthly; the second is from heaven."

But the holy Virgin brought forth a temple only for the Word; but He is called from heaven, and rightly, Emmanuel: for from above and from the substance of God and the Father His Word was born; but He descended to us, then when He was made man; yet even so He is from above. Moreover, John has testified to this, saying: "He who comes from above is above all." And Christ Himself says to the people of the Jews: "You are from beneath, I am from above." And again: "I am not of this world," although He was called part of the world as man; but there was with this also that He was above the world as God. For we surely remember Him saying: "And no one has ascended into heaven, but He who has descended from heaven, the Son of man." But we say that the Son of man has descended from heaven, through the dispensatory union, the Word bestowing upon His own flesh the brightness of His own glory and divine majesty.

CAP. V. For what reason the Word of God is said to be emptied.

The Word of God, full according to nature, and perfect in every part, and distributing good things from His own fullness to the creature, for this reason says: "I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh." We say that He was emptied; nothing in His own nature was violated, nor, so that He would be otherwise than He was, was He changed, nor made inferior in any part: for He is also in Himself inconvertible and immutable, as is His generator, and He was never capable of any passion. But when He was made flesh, that is, man, He made the poverty of humanity His own. First, that He was once made man, even though He remained God: then that He took the form of a servant, He who is free according to His own nature, as Son. And so, while He Himself is the Lord of glory, He is said to receive glory; while He Himself is life, He is reported to be made alive, and receives power in all things, while He Himself is the King of all; and while equal to God the Father, He was obedient, suffering the cross, and the rest. But while these indeed are consistent with the measure of humanity, He nevertheless judges them to be appropriate to Him with the flesh, and fulfills the dispensation, remaining what He was.

CAP. VI. How Christ is one.

The divine Paul writes: "For although there are many gods and many lords in heaven and on earth; yet to us there is one God the Father, from whom are all things, and we from Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we through Him." And the most wise John said of the Word of God, that "all things were made through Him, and"

without him nothing was made. The blessed Gabriel was evangelizing the holy Virgin, saying: "Behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a Son, and you shall call his name Jesus." Since therefore the divine Paul reminds us that all things were made through Christ Jesus; and since he confirms the weight of his statement and declares that the Maker of all things was God, which the divine evangelist truly says; and since the voice of the angel also designates that Jesus Christ was truly born of the holy Virgin, we do not understand God the Word without humanity; ^B but we declare that one has been produced from both, and that the God-man has been produced—the same one who was born of the Father, as the Word, divinely, and born of a woman, as man, humanly. He is not called as if starting his beginning of substance then, when he is said to have been born according to the flesh, but that he was born before all ages and, at the moment when the time demanded that he should fulfill the dispensation, he was also born from a woman according to the flesh. [Therefore, although others have been called by a similar title "christs," there is nevertheless only one through whom all things exist, Jesus Christ; not that a man was made the maker of all things,] but that God the Word: "For whom all things were made, in a like manner to us partook of flesh and blood," and was called man, yet did not lose what he was: thus indeed even in the flesh he is understood to be the rightful maker of all things.

CAP. VII. How Emmanuel is one.

In the latest ages God the Word is said to have been made man, and, as the divine Paul says: "through his sacrifice was manifested." And what is the sacrifice? "For he offered his own body for us as an odor of sweetness to God and the Father, and entered once into the holy places, not through the blood of goats or bulls, but through his own blood. For thus for those believing in him he purchased eternal remission." Therefore, there were indeed many holy men before him; but none of them was named Emmanuel. For what cause? For the time had not yet come when he who is superior to every creature ought to be with us, that is, to come into our nature through the flesh. The Only-Begotten was made man, then, when he underwent fleshly generation through the holy Virgin. For it was said even to Jesus the son of Nun: "As I was with you." But he was not Emmanuel. He was also with Moses; but not even he was named Emmanuel. Therefore, as often as we hear that the name "God with us" was given to the Son, let us understand it wisely, not that he was with us in the latest times in the same way he is said to have been with the saints at times: for to them he was only a helper; but with us he was, that is, he was made like to us, though he had not lost his own nature: for he is unchangeable, as God.

CAP. VIII. What we say unification is.

(1) Unification is brought about in many ways: for some who are divided in disposition or opinion, and who are at odds with one another, are said to be unified through a social reconciliation, having cast aside their hostility. We also say those things are unified which are glued together, or are joined in other ways, either by composition, or by mixture, or by tempering. Whenever, however, we say that the Word of God is unified to our nature, the mode of his unification seems to be superior to every human thought. For that mysterious union, not known to anyone at all unless to him to whom all things are known, was not made through the aforementioned modes. ^C And it is nothing strange if we are overcome in such a thought, when we, investigating how things that concern us subsist, confess that their perception is beyond the discovery of our mind; and in what way do we suppose the soul of man to be unified to its own body? Who is there who is able to express this? But if it is necessary for those who are accustomed to hardly understanding small things—and also for those who are able to understand—to conjecture about matters so subtle and transcending all reason: we say that it is fitting to think (although speech is inferior to the truth) ^D that this is the unification of Emmanuel, such as anyone might consider...

that such is the union of Emmanuel, just as one might understand the soul of man to have ^A in relation to its own body. For the soul considers all things that are the body's to be its own, even though it is by its own nature devoid of the body's passions, both the natural ones and those that accrue from without. For the body is moved toward natural appetites, and the indwelling soul perceives this through the union; yet it participates in no way, though it indeed considers the result of the appetite to be its own enjoyment. And if, perchance, the body should be lacerated, and lacerated by iron, it suffers with it, as if its own body were suffering; yet it itself in its own nature would suffer nothing of what has been inflicted.

Nevertheless, we also speak of the union in the case of Emmanuel as being beyond this. For it was necessary that the soul united to its own body suffer with it, so that, fleeing from torments, it might submit its neck to God in obedience. ^B But in the case of God the Word, it is wrong to say that He suffers with [the body] in its torments; for the Divine is impassible, and not at all like things that pertain to us. Yet He was united to flesh possessing a rational soul; and while it was suffering, He was, in an impassible way, aware of what was happening to it, and while He would, as God, dispel the weaknesses of the flesh, He would indeed still appropriate them as belonging to His own body. Thus, He is also said to have hungered, and to have grown weary, and to have suffered for us.

Therefore, the union of the Word with the human nature might not unreasonably be compared to things among us. For just as the body is of a different nature from the soul, and yet one man is formed and called from both, ^C so also from the perfect subsistence of God the Word, and indeed from a humanity that is perfect according to its own concept, one is Christ, the same being at once both God and man. And the Word appropriates, as I have said, the things of His own flesh, because the body is His and not another's; but He communicates to His own flesh, as it were, the operation of the divine power residing in Him, so that He is able even to make the dead live and to heal those in sickness.

CHAPTER IX. Concerning the coal.

If it is necessary, also making use of examples from the divinely inspired Scripture, to demonstrate the manner of the union as if in symbols, come, let us speak. The blessed Isaiah says: "There was sent to me one of the Seraphim; and in his hand he had a coal, which he had taken with tongs ^D from the altar; and he came to me, and touched my lips, and said: Behold, this has touched thy lips, and it shall take away thy iniquities, and shall purge thy sins." We say that the coal is a figure and image of

[Beginning] ...as a double set for ourselves, and a likeness of the Word made man: which, if it has touched our lips, that is to say, if we have confessed faith in Him, then it renders us pure from all sin and frees us from ancient charges. ^B Furthermore, it is possible to see, as in an image, in the coal—the Word of God indeed united to humanity, yet not having cast off what He was, but rather having transformed the thing assumed, that is, the thing united, into His own glory and operation. For just as fire, when it joins with wood and penetrates it, fully grasps it, and although it does not cease to be wood, it transforms its power ^C and appearance, and bestows itself entirely upon the wood, and together with it is now accounted as some one thing: understand the same concerning Christ. For God, being united ineffably to humanity, has indeed preserved it in that which it was, and He Himself remained what He was; yet, having been united once, He is now accounted as one with it, making its things His own, while He Himself also bestows upon it the operation of His own nature.

CAP. X.

That the very flesh, having a rational soul, became the body of the incorporeal divinity: and that, if we wish to separate these from one another, we shall without doubt undermine the dispensation which is understood in Christ.

CAP. XI.

That, although the Word of God was united to humanity, the substances (that is, the subsistences) nevertheless remained unconfused.

of acacia wood, two cubits and a half in length, and a cubit and a half in breadth, and a cubit and a half in height; and you shall overlay it with pure gold, within and without you shall overlay it. Now the incorruptible wood is a type of the incorruptible body, for cedar is incorruptible; but the gold, as a substance more precious than all others, indicates to us the majesty of the divine essence.

Observe, therefore, how the ^B Ark was overlaid in its entirety with pure gold, both within and without. For the Word of God was united to the holy flesh, and this, I think, is that outer overlaying of the Ark. And that He made the rational soul, which was within the body, His very own, is shown by the command that it should be overlaid with gold within as well. From this we also know that the natures, or rather the hypostases, remained unconfused. For the gold, when applied to the wood, remained what it was; and while the wood was enriched by the glory of the gold, nevertheless it did not cease to be wood. That the Ark stands as a type of Christ can be proven by many arguments, for it marched before those who were of Israel, seeking rest for them. And Christ says somewhere: "I will go and prepare a place for you."

CAP. XII.

^B Quod cum esset Deus Verbum, factus sit homo, nec homo simpliciter, nuda conjunctione honoratus, vocatus sit ad parem dignitatem Dei Verbi, sive auctoritatem, sicut quibusdam videtur.

Divinus Paulus ^C magnum quidem ait esse mysterium pietatis. And in truth, the situation is thus: He was manifested in the flesh, being the Word of God; and was justified in the Spirit. For in no way does He appear to be contained by our infirmities, although in our likeness He was made man: for He committed no sin; and He appeared also to the angels. Nor were they ignorant of His generation according to the flesh, but He was preached to the Gentiles as God having become man; and thus He was believed in the world. The divine Paul proved this, writing thus: "Wherefore remember, that you at one time Gentiles in the flesh, who were called uncircumcision by that which is called circumcision in the flesh made by hands, that you were at that time without Christ, being aliens from the conversation of Israel, and strangers to the covenants, having no hope of the promise, and without God in this world." Therefore, the Gentiles were in the world without God, because they were without Christ. But because they recognized Him to be truly and by nature God, they too were recognized by Him, confessing the faith, and He Himself was assumed in glory, a divine glory indeed. For the blessed David sings: "God is ascended in jubilation." Truly, He ascended with His body, not in naked divinity: for God was incarnate.

We believe, therefore, not in one who was merely a man similar to us, honored by grace, lest we be found to be worshippers of a man; but rather in the Lord, who appeared in the form of a servant, and who was truly similar to us, yet in His humanity remained God: for the Word of God, having assumed flesh, did not lay aside what He was; yet the same one is understood as God and man at once.

And the rationale of the faith is indeed so, and rightly. But if by chance someone says, "What evil is there if a man similar to us be understood to apprehend divinity, rather than God becoming man?" we shall respond that there are a thousand things which can be brought to counter this, and which almost point by a nod that we ought to resist stubbornly, and not believe it to be so.

For come, before other things in the dispensation which was made with flesh, let us discern the mode, and let us more subtly examine the nature of our affairs: the nature of man was in peril and was depressed by extreme evils, condemned to curse and death, and entangled in the snares of sin, and it was in darkness; it did not know God who is such by nature and truth; for God it worshipped the creature. How, therefore, could it be liberated from such evils? Or shall we say that it was proper for humanity to apprehend the divine nature, which it did not know at all, what the dignity of the celestial nature might be, since it was occupied by the darkness of ignorance and defiled by the filth of sin? How could it come to pass that it should apprehend the holy nature and receive the glory which no one finds unless he has received it? Let us concede that perhaps it knew and understood—

apprehending God [i.e., the Godhead]. For who is it that might have taught? “For how shall they believe, unless they have heard?” But this is not to apprehend the Godhead, and to grasp the glory which belongs to it.

Therefore, it is more fitting, and indeed correct, to feel thus: that God the Word, wishing to save that which was perishing, descended to us, and brought Himself into that which He was not, so that the nature of man might become what it was not; and [by doing so] He manifested the dignities of the divine majesty through the union—a nature which was lifted up far beyond [its own] nature, rather than being cast down below the immutable God. It was fitting that the incorruptible nature should apprehend the corruptible, so that it might deliver it from corruption. It was fitting that He who had not known sin should be made conformable to sinners, so that He might restrain sins. For just as wherever there is light, the gloom of darkness perishes; so also, when immortality is present, every plague surely shrinks away in flight; and when He is present who does not know sin (He who also made for Himself a body that is without sin), every sin will yield.

That the Word, however, while being God, was made man, and that Christ is not to be understood as a man who was “deified,” I shall endeavor to show also from the Sacred Scriptures. The blessed Paul says, therefore, concerning the Only-Begotten: “Who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God; but emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men, and found in habit as a man. He humbled Himself, becoming obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. Therefore, God also has highly exalted Him, and given 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 on earth, and things under the earth, and every tongue should confess that the Lord Jesus Christ is in the glory of God the Father” ^B.

What then shall we say? That He exists in the form of God and in the equality of the Father, and did not consider this as robbery, but rather descended into emptiness, and into the form of a servant, and humbled Himself, and was made in our likeness? If He were a man made from a woman, naked and alone: how could He have possessed the fullness, so that He is understood to have emptied Himself? Or in what height was He previously placed, that He is said to have humbled Himself? Or how was He made in the likeness of men, who was what He was before by nature, even if it were not said that He was made such? And where He is emptied, assuming the fullness of the Godhead? Or how is He not made the Most High, who is said to have ascended into heavenly glory?

Therefore, we say that God the Word was not made man [in the sense of becoming a human person], but rather that He was made in emptiness, on account of humanity, He who was in the equality and form of the Father: for He was emptied in this way, on account of our likeness, while being full, as God. He was humbled on account of the flesh, in such a way that He does not descend from the height of divine majesty; for He has a most high seat. He was made in the likeness of men, while being of the same form as the Father, as being the image of His substance. But since He was once made as we are, He is said to have ascended with the flesh into the glory of the Godhead, which He indeed possesses as His own, yet He was in it after another manner on account of humanity: for the Lord of all is believed to be [so], even with the flesh.

Moreover, every knee bends to Him, and this not to the pain and reproach of the Father, but rather to His glory: for He rejoices, and is glorified, while the Son is worshipped by men, even though He has been made similar to us. It is written again: “For He does not take hold of angels, but He takes hold of the seed of Abraham; whence it behooved Him to be made like His brethren in all things” ^C. Behold, God the Word takes hold of the seed of Abraham, and not that some I-know-not-who similar to us takes hold of the Godhead, and He Himself is assimilated to us, and is called our brother, as a man, not as regards the nature of the Godhead. “Since the children have participated in flesh and blood, He Himself likewise shared in the same, that through death He might destroy him who has the authority of death, that is, the devil, and might deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime held in bondage” ^D. Behold, again, Himself, in like manner as we, shared in blood and flesh, and that matter has a consequence immediately linked and proximate; for it is written: “For what was impossible for the law, in which it was weak through the flesh, God sent His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin condemned sin in the flesh.” Attend again, that it is not shown as a man affecting the divine nature, and ascending to its dignity; but rather God and Father sending His own Son, in the likeness of sinful flesh, that He might destroy sin. Therefore the Word, while being God, brought Himself into emptiness by becoming man, and is not seen as a man simply affecting divine glory, but as Christ. 787

CAP. XIII. That Christ Jesus is called God the Word who has become man.

Considering more subtly the mystery of the dispensation of the Only-Begotten made flesh, we assert this, keeping the faith right and true: that the Word of God the Father Himself, true God from true God, and light from light,

^A became flesh and was made man; he descended, he suffered, and he has risen from the dead. For so the holy and great Synod defined the Symbol of the faith.

Being engaged in investigation, and desiring to learn what it truly means for the Word to become flesh and to be made man, we shall establish that this does not mean the assumption of a man as if in a conjunction formed by equality of dignity, or authority, or merely by the homonymy of sonship, but rather that he became a man like us, while yet remaining changeless and unalterable, so as to rescue, by his own nature, him who had come to be in flesh and blood by the economy of the assumption.

^B There is, then, one who, even before the incarnation, is called by the divinely inspired Scripture: Only-Begotten, and Word, and God, and Image, and Radiance, and Character of the Father’s substance, Life, Glory, Light, Wisdom, Power, Arm, Right Hand, Most High, Magnificence, Lord Sabaoth, and other such names that truly befit the Divinity; and after the incarnation: man, Christ, Jesus, Propitiation, Mediator, First-fruits of them that sleep, First-born from the dead, second Adam, Head of the body of the Church—with the former names still following him. For all things are his, both the first and those which came to be in the final times of the age.

There is, then, one God, true before the incarnation, and who in his humanity has remained what he was, and is, and shall be. Therefore, the one Lord Jesus Christ is not to be divided into a man separately and into God separately; rather, we say it is one and the same Jesus Christ, knowing the difference of the natures, and keeping them unconfused with one another.

^C Whenever, therefore, holy Scripture says that "in Christ dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily," we do not say this as though the Word of God dwelt in another Christ, in a man separately; nor, dividing things that are united, do we understand two sons. Rather, we mean that holy Scripture calls the humanity of the Word of God "Christ"—as a part, sometimes—having placed it in the position of a temple, which he possesses as his own. And it is written somewhere also concerning human souls: "And they that dwell in houses of clay, of which we also are of the same clay." ^D Shall we, then, because it calls human bodies "houses of clay" and affirms that souls dwell in them, divide the one man into two men? And yet, how is it not entirely blameless to say also that his Spirit dwells in a man? So, even if the form of the language proceeds through such modes, as it can happen in no other way, we must not therefore think that the natures of things are harmed, but rather we ought to understand them and hasten to keep them in the straight path of truth.

Whenever, therefore, certain things which have obtained a nature unlike each other are seen to be gathered into a unity by composition, and then one of these is said to dwell within ^A the other, it is not to be divided into two, for the convention of unity is in no way violated, even if what is united is named by us by its own names, which is what both would be. For it is said, as I have stated, that his spirit also dwells in a man, yet he is not called a man, and then his spirit separately, and then his body separately. And the divine Paul commemorates some such thing for us by an oblique significance [that is, obscurely and as if enigmatically], saying: "For though our outward man perish, yet the inward man is renewed day by day." If, then, anyone should say that our inward man dwells in the outward man, he has indeed spoken the truth, yet he will not be seen to divide the one into two. Also, the prophet Isaiah says somewhere: ^B "With my spirit within me I will awake for thee, O God." Is his spirit, then, said to watch unto God as something other than himself? And yet, how would it not seem most absurd to say such a thing? Therefore, it is necessary to know the figures of speech, yet not to depart from the proper understanding, but rather to refer the force of the statements to the sense which is fitting for each thing.

^C If it is said that Jesus "increased in age, and wisdom and grace," this is a matter of the dispensation. For the Word of God permitted the humanity to advance according to its own custom, and, as it were, gradually wished to declare the glory of His own divinity, and as the body grew in age, to extend His own [glory] as well, so that nothing might appear novel, and that it might not terrify some by excessive novelty. Especially since they also said this: "How knoweth this man letters, having never learned?" Therefore, bodily growth, and advancement in grace and wisdom, befits the measures of humanity; but we confess the Word of God Himself to be most perfect by His own nature, not in need of advancement, nor of wisdom, nor of grace. For He Himself imparts to the creature both wisdom and grace, and all good things.

If, indeed, Jesus is said to have suffered, the passion will be of the dispensation; but it is called His, and very rightly so, because His own proper body is that which suffered, and He who could not suffer was in the suffering body, for He is impassable as God: yet regarding the insolence of those who insulted Him, He would have suffered, if He could suffer. Therefore, since the Only-Begotten became like us, as often as He is called man by the divine Scripture, let us look to the dispensation and confess Him to be God by nature in this way as well.

^D

CAP. XIV. Examples from divine Scripture that the Word of God remained God when He became man. Concerning the propitiatory.

God says somewhere to the high priest Moses: "And you shall make a propitiatory of pure gold, two cubits and a half in length, and a cubit and a half in height: and you shall make two Cherubim adorned with graven work, and you shall place them on either side. One Cherub shall be on this side, and one Cherub on that side of the propitiatory. And you shall make two Cherubim upon the two sides. The Cherubim shall be extending their wings..."

overshadowing with their wings [the mercy seat]; and their faces shall look one toward another toward the mercy seat.” ^A This is a most certain enigma, that God the Word remained God even in his humanity, and in his own glory and majesty, even though, because of the dispensation, he was made like unto us. For he was made the propitiation for us through faith, being Emmanuel. And the most wise John proved this to us, saying: “My little children, I write these things to you, that you may not sin. But if anyone sins, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the just; and he is the propitiation for our sins.” Paul also says: “Whom God has set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood.”

Furthermore, observe the Cherubim standing around the mercy seat, overshadowing it with their wings, but turned toward the mercy seat and keeping their eyes fixed, as it were, upon the Lord’s will. For the holy multitude of heavenly spirits looks only toward the will of God, and is never satisfied with the sight of God. So the prophet Isaiah says that he saw the Son on a throne high and lifted up, with the Seraphim standing around and obeying him as God.

CAP. XV. Of the rod of Moses.

The divine Moses was once destined to liberate Israel from the violence of the Egyptians. But because it was necessary to teach those who were under the yoke of unusual servitude that God was already reconciled to them, he ordered him to perform signs; for a miracle often leads us to faith. Moses therefore said to God Almighty: “But if they do not believe me, nor listen to my voice, saying: ‘The Lord did not appear to you,’ what shall I say to them?” Then the Lord said: “What is that which you have in your hand?” He answered: “A rod.” And He said to him: “Cast it on the ground.” And it became a serpent, and Moses fled from it. And the Lord said to Moses: “Stretch out your hand, and take it by the tail.” And he stretched out his hand and took it by the tail, and it became a rod in his hand. “That they may believe you, that the Lord God of their fathers, the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob has appeared to you.” Observe in this, in nature and truth, the Son of God, as a certain rod of the Father; and a rod is an insignia of sovereignty: “For to the Son He gave to have power over all things.” Whence also the divine David says: “Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a rod of equity is the rod of thy kingdom.” But he cast it on the ground, that is, he surrounded it with an earthly body, or sent it to earth through his humanity; for then he was made in the likeness of wicked men, namely, that the sign of wickedness is the serpent.

And that this is true, we know from this. For the Lord himself, ^B our Jesus Christ, in image and figure, because of the dispensation made with the flesh, is taken for the brazen serpent which Moses lifted up, that it might avert the bite of the serpents. For He says: “And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the desert, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that all who believe in Him may not perish, but may have eternal life.” For just as the serpent made of brass was a cause of salvation to those in danger (for they were healed by looking upon it), in the same way also our Lord Jesus Christ, to those who see him indeed in the likeness of the wicked, in that he was made man, yet are not ignorant that he is God the giver of life, will be the cause of life, and grants the ability to avoid venomous animals, that is, the opposing powers.

And let this also be a figure of this matter, that the rod of Moses devoured other rods which the magicians had cast upon the ground. Therefore the rod was indeed cast onto the ground; yet it did not remain there always. But it was resumed into what it was: for although it was made, as I said before, in the likeness of our rod of the Father, that is, the Son, through whom He has authority over all things; yet, when the dispensation was fulfilled, it flew back into heaven, and was again as a rod of equity and sovereignty in the hand of the Father: for He sits at the right hand of His Begetter in His own majesty, obtaining the highest seats, even with the flesh.

CAP. XVI. Of the hand of Moses leprous and entirely healed.

“And the Lord God said to him again: Put your hand into your bosom; and he brought his hand out of his bosom, and it became as white as snow. And He said again: Put your hand into your bosom; and he put his hand into his bosom, and brought it out of his bosom, and it was again restored to the color of his flesh.” The divine Scripture calls the Son of God himself the right hand of God and the Father. For it introduced Him saying: “I have established the heaven with my hand”; and the divine David also sings: “By the Word of the Lord the heavens were established.” Observe therefore, that while his hand was hidden in the bosom of Moses, it was not yet made leprous, but when brought out it was made leprous immediately; then it was put back, and “it was restored,” he says, “to the color of his flesh.” Therefore, as long as God the Word was in the bosom of the Father, he shone with the brightness of divinity; but when in some way he was outside through incarnation or ^C humanity, he was made in the likeness of the flesh of sin, and was reckoned among the wicked. For the divine Paul says, “Him who knew no sin, for our sake He made to be sin, so that we might become the justice of God in him.” I think the leprosy signifies this, for according to the law the leper is unclean. But ^D

for he was again in the bosom of the Father (he was taken up into the resurrection from the dead), having brought forth again the world that seemed pure: for our Lord Jesus Christ will come after times in the sincerity of divinity and glory, although he did not cast off our likeness. For blessed Paul says of Christ: "So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many. Unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation" (Heb. ix, 28). ^A Therefore, as often as the Holy Scripture names Christ Jesus to us, do not think of him as a human being apart, not truly united to the Word of God himself; but imagine him rather to be the Word of God the Father, Jesus Christ, since he has become man.

CAP. XVII. That Christ was not a God-bearing man, nor did the Word of God simply dwell in a man; but that he rather became flesh, or perfect man, according to the Scriptures.

Those who hold an immaculate faith in Christ, approved by all right testimonies, let them say, to be sure, that he, the Word of God from God the Father, descended into humiliation, taking the form of a servant, and making for himself a body that is born of a Virgin; that he became like us, and was called the Son of Man. ^B For he is God indeed according to the spirit; but the same one is man according to the flesh. Then the divine Paul addressed the Jewish people, saying: "God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son" (Heb. i, 1). And in what way is it understood that God and Father has spoken in these last days in the Son? For he spoke to those of old through him, giving the law, and therefore the Son himself says his are the words, brought forth through the most wise Moses. For he says: "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away" (Matth. v, 17). Add also the prophet's voice: "I that speak, behold I am he" (Isa. lii, 6). ^C Therefore, when the Son was made in flesh, then the Father spoke to us in him, as blessed Paul says, in these last days. But lest we believe too little, that he is indeed the one who is the Son even before the ages, he added immediately: "By whom also he made the worlds" (Heb. i, 2), mentioning too that he is the "brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person" (Heb. i, 3). Therefore, he who was made man is indeed he by whom God the Father made the worlds; and not, as some think, that he was in a man, so that he is understood by us as having God dwelling within him as a human being. For if they truly believe that these things stand correctly, the blessed evangelist John will seem to be superfluous when he says: "And the Word was made flesh" (John i, 14). For where then is the necessity of the incarnation? Or why does he call the Word of God incarnate, if he was not made flesh? Do you wish for the incarnation? And he signifies that he was made similar to us, and yet remained even so above us, indeed above the whole creation itself.

But I think it necessary to prove and persuade also by examples what I have said, that the Only-begotten was made man, and is God, even with flesh, and did not merely dwell in a man, making him a "God-bearer" like others who were partakers of his divinity.

CAP. XVIII. That Emmanuel had God dwelling in him otherwise than we do.

^D God says somewhere about us: "I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people" (Lev. xxvi, 12; 2 Cor. vi, 16). And can it not be so said of our Lord Jesus Christ himself: "Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him... and the Father and I will come unto him, and make our abode with him" (Apoc. iii, 20; John xiv, 16)? We are even named the temple of God: "For ye are the temple of the living God," he says (2 Cor. vi, 16). And again: "Know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God?" (1 Cor. vi, 19). Truly, if they say this, let them openly confess that Emmanuel also has God dwelling in himself, just as each one of us does; when they see him worshipped by us as much as by the angels, in heaven alike and on earth, let them blush as those who think diverse and alien things, and know not the purpose of the sacred Scriptures, nor have in themselves the faith which they delivered to us, who in the beginning both saw and ministered unto the Word.

But if they say that he is God, and is glorified as God, because the Word of God the Father merely dwelt in him, and not because he was made man, they shall hear from us again: If it is enough for those who have God dwelling in them that they can therefore truly be gods and be worshipped by men, then surely all angels and men are gods and to be worshipped; for God dwells in holy angels. We also have him in us through the Holy Spirit; but this is not enough to show that those who have the Holy Spirit are by nature gods and to be worshipped. Therefore Emmanuel is not God and to be worshipped because God dwelt in him as in an ordinary man, and by understanding the Word of God separately and in part; but because he was made flesh, that is, man: for the same one remained both God, and to be worshipped.

792

CAP. XIX. Apostolic sayings in which Christ is named God.

Speaking of the mystery concerning Christ: "Which in other ages," he says, "was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his..."

...as it is now revealed to his holy apostles.” And: “The mystery which hath been hidden from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints, to whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory, whom we preach.” ^A If therefore he is a God-bearer, and not God in truth, how is he himself the riches of the glory of the mystery which is preached among the Gentiles? Or how is he preached as God at all?

CAP. XX.

CAP. XXI.

Chapter XXII.

CHAPTER XXIII.

That he truly made his preaching according to divine revelation is made clear by his own words: “Then fourteen years after I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and took Titus with me also. And I went up by revelation, and communicated unto them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation, lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain.” 793 Preaching Christ to the Gentiles as God, he calls his mystery divine everywhere. He went up to Jerusalem by revelation, and communicated to those who were of reputation, that is, to the holy apostles or disciples, lest he should run in vain. But when he had descended from Jerusalem and had again been among the flocks of the Gentiles, did he amend anything of his previous [teaching]? Did he not persevere in confessing Christ as God? And for that reason he writes to some: “I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into another gospel: which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.” And he says again: “But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which ye have received, let him be accursed.” For what reason, therefore, omitting all others, granted they had the indwelling God, did he preach only Jesus as God?

Chapter XXIV.

bear witness to man: for He Himself knew what was in man. If he were a "God-bearer" ^A, how is it that many were not deceived, those who believed in His name at Jerusalem? Or why does He alone know what is in man, especially since no one else knows? For God is said to have fashioned our hearts individually. Or why does He alone remit sins? For it says: "Because the Son has power on earth to remit sins." Why does He alone sit as assessor of God and Father, apart from others? Why do the angels attend only Him? Why did He teach us to consider the Father who is in heaven as common, yet attribute Him to Himself in a special way?

But perhaps you will say that such expressions are to be attributed to the Word inhabiting Him. Was it not necessary, therefore, according to the measure befitting the prophets, for Him also to say: "Thus says the Lord"? But when He wished to ratify things above the law, assuming to Himself authority ^B appropriate to a lawgiver, He said: "I say unto you."

How does He claim to be free, and not subject to God? Is it because He is the Son in truth? And if He were a "God-bearer," would he also be free according to nature? For the God of this one is free, and is unbound; for He alone exacts tribute as if from all; and as if in the place of debtors, He receives religion from all. Even if Christ is the end of the law and the prophets, and yet is a "God-bearer"; is it not permissible to say that the end of the prophetic proclamations has brought upon us the charge of man-worship? Furthermore, the law indeed proclaimed: "You shall adore the Lord your God, and Him only shall you serve." Through this instruction, it led us to Christ, as though to a knowledge better than that of those who had lived in shadows: are we, therefore, spurning the God ^C of the law and the prophets, to adore a man having God inhabiting him? For where was it more excellent to understand God? In heaven, or on earth? In the Seraphim, or in a terrestrial body?

If He were a "God-bearer," how did He almost in the same way as us partake of flesh and blood? For if, because God inhabited Him, this is sufficient for Him to partake of flesh and blood just as we do; and if to partake of these things is the very same thing as to have become man: He inhabited also many saints; therefore has He been made man not once, but very often. Why then ^D is He said to have appeared "once in the consummation of the ages, for the destruction of sin, by His own sacrifice"?

Moreover, how do the divine Scriptures preach one coming of the Word to us, if He were a "God-bearer"? If He also became a temple of God, how is Christ also in us? Is it like a temple within temples? Or as God is more in temples through the Spirit? If He were a "God-bearer," why is His body alone life-giving? For it was necessary that the bodies of others also—

The divine Paul also wrote somewhere: "He who has made void the law of Moses, dies without any mercy on two or three witnesses; how much more do you think he deserves worse punishments, who has trampled underfoot the Son of God, and has held the blood of the testament unclean?" Yet the law was divine, and its commands given through angels. How, then, will he be worthy of a worse punishment, who has held the blood of Christ to be unclean? Or how is the religion that is according to the law better than faith in Christ? But, as we have said before, Christ is not like other saints, a "God-bearer," but rather God truly, and possesses glory higher than all the world, because since He is by nature the Word of God, He was made flesh, or perfect man: for we believe the animated and rational being, which was united to Him, to be a body, and the union is entirely true.

CHAPTER XXV

How it behooves us to understand: "The Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us"; and how His own body is spoken of.

The blessed Paul commemorates that the only-begotten Word of God took hold of the seed of Abraham; and also, that He partook of flesh and blood almost as we do. We are mindful, however, of John also; for he says: "The Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us." This, therefore, was the intention for spiritual men, to teach that the Word of God is not capable of change; or that it is not right for Him to undergo a transformation, which is more fitting for a creature: so that what was not, might perhaps drift into that state of its own accord; or that another, against His will, might be impelled to another nature? Far be it. For He remains the same, excluding every transformation from His nature, knowing not how to suffer the shadow of change: for that supernal and heavenly nature is always fixed in its own.

How, therefore, the Word was made flesh, it is necessary to see. Indeed, divine Scripture generally calls man "flesh," and as if from a part, it makes a signification of the whole animal, and not infrequently it also acts in the same way from the soul alone; for it is written that "All flesh shall see the salvation of God." And the divine Paul himself: "I did not consent," he says, "to flesh and blood." Moreover, the pontiff Moses addressed those who are from Israel: "With seventy-five souls your fathers descended into Egypt." But you would not on that account say that naked souls without bodies descended into Egypt; nor, furthermore, that God granted His salvation to inanimate bodies, and to flesh alone. As often, therefore, as we hear that the Word was made flesh, we understand man—

^A who is one, the Son, the Only-begotten, having become flesh and man.

(2) But he seems to me to suggest the entire nature of man with great wisdom, for he says that the Word dwelt in us, not, as I suppose, for the sake of another’s gratification, nor commemorating that the incarnation of the Word had occurred, except that we, too, being enriched by participation in Him through the Holy Spirit, might gain the benefit of adoption. Therefore, we believe that an absolute and true unity has been brought about in Christ. But if Christ is said to dwell in us, He will cause an inhabitancy by relation (σχετικήν). It is not so, however, when God is said to have dwelt in Christ: “For in Him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily*,” not by participation, or by a simple relation (σχέσιν), as if the sun were shining or fire were imparting to others the heat inherent in it; but, if I may so say, the very divine and pure nature, according to all that it is, makes an inhabitancy for itself, through a true unity, as we said before, in the temple which was born of the Virgin: for in this way Christ Jesus is both one and is understood to be so.

That our discourse is surpassed by the sum of these expressions, I do not deny; but let not the mystery of Christ be disbelieved for that reason; rather, let it be held in higher regard as being truly miraculous. For by how much it is superior to every mind and word, by so much more should it be placed beyond all admiration.

But we do not say that the Word became flesh—that is, perfect man—in such a way as to be contained by the measure of a body; for that is most absurd. Rather, ^C we believe that He fills even this in such a way as He is wont to fill heaven and earth, and the things that are set beneath: for all things are full of God, and all things are small to Him. But how He is whole in each, and in all things, is difficult to understand and to express, nay, indeed, even impossible. This, however, as I suppose, He possesses because He is incorporeal and indivisible.

But the body of the Word is called “His own” by us: not as a man’s laughter is his own, or the neighing of a horse; but because, having become His own through a true union, it provides for Him the function of an instrument, to carry out the things which He performs in the accustomed manner, except for sin alone.

But if it should chance that God the Word is also said to have been sent, let no one among you be alarmed, thinking this: Whither will the incorporeal go, or whither will He withdraw to, by Whom all things are filled? Let him know rather that there is another mode of mission. It is not that he who is sent changes from place to place; but that he undertakes a more sacred ministry, which we learn was also enjoined upon the disciples by Christ, the Savior of all.

Finally, the divine Paul also says of Christ: ^A "Therefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our confession, Jesus" (Heb. 3:1). Observe, however, that while he shows him ministering in the manner of men, even though by nature he is God, he then also attributes to him the office of apostleship. But, as we have said before, there is nothing absurd if the Word of God is also said to be sent by the Father, for he most certainly fills all things and is absent from no place; but we, interpreting divine matters with human words, are accustomed to understand the dispensation of the immortal nature through the figurations of the body.

Finally, since the Holy Spirit fills all things, the blessed Paul writes and says: "But because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, by which we cry: Abba, Father" (Gal. 4:6). And the Savior himself says: "It is expedient for you that I go; for if I do not go away, the Paraclete will not come to you" (John 16:7). It is necessary, therefore, referring all things to the principle of piety, to follow with a sure understanding; for by doing this we shall most benefit ourselves.

CAP. XXVI. How the holy Virgin is understood to be the Theotokos.

^C The Word of God and the Father was indeed born in an inestimable manner; and this generation transcends every sense and thought, and is befitting to an incorporeal nature. Nevertheless, that which is born is understood to be the proper offspring of the Begetter, and of the same substance with him; and therefore he is also named the Son, the name indeed indicating, as it were, a true and sincere progeny; but since the Father is living forever, it is necessary that he also live forever, on account of whom the Father is. Therefore, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was God, and the Word was with God" (John 1:1), as the shrewdest Evangelist commemorates. In the consummation of the ages, however, for us men and for our salvation, he was incarnate and was made man; not losing what he was, but retaining his own unchangeable nature, and one always placed on the pinnacle of divinity; undergoing, however, for our sake, the emptying ^D out in the manner of a dispensation; and not dishonoring—that is, not despising—the poverty that is appropriate to human nature: for "though he was rich, he became poor, as it is written: that we might become rich by his poverty" (II Cor. 8:9). He was made man, therefore, and is said to have suffered generation from a woman. Therefore, because he took to himself a body truly united from the holy Virgin; thence we call the holy Virgin Theotokos, because she gave birth to him humanly, or according to the flesh, even though he had generation from the Father before the ages.

But for some to opine that the Word took his beginning from this point, when he was made man, is most full of impiety and fury. For the Savior himself showed them to be most senseless, saying of himself: ^A "Amen I say to you, before Abraham was, I am" (John 8:58). For how else was he before Abraham, who was born according to the flesh many times later? But their own arguments will, I think, be sufficiently refuted by the divine John, who says: "This was he of whom I spoke: He who comes after me, who was made before me, because he was before me" (John 1:30).

794 Leaving aside, therefore, contending in such a frivolous matter without cause, let us come rather to that which might even bring some benefit, so that some may not take it ill when they hear that the holy Virgin is the Theotokos, nor fill their minds with Jewish unbelief, or indeed even pagan impiety. For the Jews used to attack Christ, saying: "For a good work we do not stone you; but for blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself God" (John 10:33). But truly the children of the pagans deride the dogmas of the Church, hearing that God was begotten from a woman; but they indeed will eat the fruits of their own madness, and will hear from us: "The fool speaks foolishly, and his heart will understand vain things." For the account of our mystery, though it is a stumbling block to the Jews and foolishness to the Gentiles (I Cor. 1:23), is yet to us, because we know it, truly admirable and salutary and most worthy of belief: and if there were any person at all who dared to say that this earthly flesh had been the mother of the naked divinity, and that a nature superior to every creature had been born, this would be insanity and fury. For neither ^B is the divine nature made from the earth; nor will corruption ever become the root of incorruption; nor will mortality breed life; nor will the shoot of a tangible body become the incorporeal; nor will the uncreated be born from the created; nor what is without beginning from that which has a beginning.

But since we affirm that the Word of God was made according to us, and that he took on a body similar to our bodies, and most truly united it to himself, by an arcane and ineffable reason, and was thus made man and born carnally, what is absurd, or what ought not to be believed? Especially since the human soul, as we have very often said, though it is of a different nature from the body, is born nevertheless with it, when it is united to it, nor does anyone think that the nature of the body provides the beginning of the substance of the soul; but God indeed sends it in an inestimable manner into the body, and it is born also with it: yet we define one animal from both, namely man. Therefore, the Word was indeed God, but was made man, and because he was born according to the flesh, on account of humanity it is necessary that she who gave birth to him be the Theotokos: for if she did not give birth to God, certainly he will not be called God who was begotten by her; but if holy Scripture names him God, she herself gave birth to God made man, inasmuch as ^C humanity could not be otherwise, unless through generation from a woman. How, therefore, is she who gave birth to him not the Theotokos? But that he is the true God, who was born thence, we learn from holy Scripture.

SCHOLIA ON THE INCARNATION OF THE ONLY-BEGOTTEN

CAP. XXVII. Sayings concerning Christ.

Chapter XXVIII. Another.

“Hear me, you islands, and listen, you nations. After much time He shall stand, says the Lord; from the womb of my mother He shall call my name.” Since the Word is God, He was not ignorant that He would suffer generation, being incarnate from a woman for our sake. But He knew that He would be called Christ Jesus by God and the Father; preaching to us all a new name for the Son, which is blessed on earth. Observe, moreover, that He names His own mother, who bore His body. Therefore if she acknowledges that He is true God, she who bore Him carnally is called Theotokos, and indeed rightly; but if He is not God—which some think boldly, or rather, impiously—the holy Virgin herself ought to be deprived of this name by which she is said to be Theotokos. ^D

CAP. XXIX. That the Only-Begotten is named God and appearing as man.

He names Him also in another place the God of Abraham, saying: “The princes of the peoples are gathered together with the God of Abraham.” For with the eyes of his mind, taught by the illumination of the Holy Spirit in the knowledge of things to come, he beheld the princes of the peoples, that is, the holy apostles, in the service of our Lord Jesus Christ. Since, therefore, the “God of Abraham” and “God of...

Jacob, who is born of a woman, be named, and my soul be saved.” For Emmanuel is God by nature. Why is the holy Virgin not Theotokos?

CAP. XXX.

The prophet Habacuc says: “O Lord, I have heard your report, and I was afraid. I considered your works, and I was terrified. In the midst of two animals you shall be known: in the coming of the time you shall be revealed in him: when my soul is troubled, you will be mindful of mercy in wrath. God shall come from Theman, and the Holy One from mount Pharan.” See how he shall be known in the midst of two animals: for when he had been born of a woman, and had lived until the time of the precious cross; “by the grace of God,” as the blessed Paul says, “he tasted death for everyone.” But because he was God by nature, he rose again into everlasting life. He is known, therefore, as the One who endured the precious cross for us in the midst of two animals. For he himself says somewhere to the Jews: “When you have lifted up the Son of man, then you shall know that I am.” See also how, in naming God himself, he declares that he shall come from Theman and from mount Pharan (now Theman is interpreted as “the South”): for Christ appeared, not from the regions of the North, but from the Southern Judaea, in which Bethlehem also is. Since, therefore, He who is called Lord and God has come from the Southern Judaea, and was born in Bethlehem; why is the holy Virgin not Theotokos?

CHAPTER XXXI.

It is written in Genesis: “Jacob was left alone, and a man wrestled with him until morning: and he saw that he was not prevailing against him, and he touched the breadth of his thigh, while he wrestled with him, and said to him: Let me go, for the dawn is ascending. But he said: I will not let you go, unless you bless me.” And among other things: “He blessed him there, and called the name of that place, the face of God: for I have seen, he said, God face to face, and my soul is saved: the sun also rose, and the face of God passed by; but he was limping on his thigh.” The mystical sense of the Scriptures is indeed such: it seems to indicate the struggle of the Jews, who were wrestling almost with Christ himself; who nevertheless were overcome, and were themselves also to obtain his blessing, if by faith they had converted to him in the latter times. Yet he was certainly a man who was wrestling, and Jacob nevertheless named him the face of God; nor that only, but he knew him to be God in truth: “For I have seen,” he said, “God face to face, and my soul is saved.”

^BBut the face of God is also spoken of. For he is the “figure of the substance of the Father,” and he so called himself among the Jews, when he said of God and the Father: “Neither have you seen his face, and you do not have his word abiding in you, because whom he has sent, him you do not believe.”

That God is in truth the man who was wrestling with Jacob, the sacred letter will again provide assurance; for it said: “The Lord said to Jacob: Arise, go up to the place Bethlehem, and dwell there, and make there an altar to God, who appeared to you when you were fleeing from the face of your brother Esau.” For returning from Mesopotamia by the command of God, and fearing Esau, Jacob sent across his children and all his possessions: “And he was left alone, and a man was wrestling with him.”

CHAPTER XXXII.

The blessed Daniel, explaining a terrible vision to us, says: “I was watching, in the vision of the night, and behold, with the clouds of heaven, as it were a Son of man coming, and he reached as far as the Ancient of days, and they brought him into his presence, and to him was given honor, and a kingdom: and all peoples, tribes, and tongues shall serve him: his power is an eternal power, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom shall not be destroyed.” You hear how he mentions that he saw not a man simply, lest one of us, and equal to us, Emmanuel be believed to be; but as a Son of man. ^C (For since the Word is God by nature, yet he was made in the likeness of men, and was found in habit as a man,” so that in him both might be understood, that is, neither man naked, nor the Word without humanity and flesh.) Yet he mentions that the sovereignty and honor, which he always has, was given to him: for he says that “all peoples, tribes, and tongues shall serve him.” Since therefore the only-begotten Word of God, even while placed in humanity, has a creature serving him, and has the sovereignty of the Father as his own, and the holy Virgin brought forth that very One according to the flesh; how is she not understood to be Theotokos?

CHAPTER XXXIII.

Regarding the passion of Christ; and that it is useful that one and the same thing is said of one and the same Person, and we do not divide it into two.

St. Paul explains the saving passion to us, for he says: “Now by the grace of God he tasted death for everyone,” and not only that: “For I delivered to you first of all, that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins, according to the Scriptures, and that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day.” ^D To this also the most wise Peter:

SCHOLIA ON THE INCARNATION OF THE ONLY-BEGOTTEN

"Since Christ," he says, "has suffered for us in the flesh." Since ^A we therefore believe our one Lord Jesus Christ—that is, the Word of God seen in human form, or having become man like us—how can we attribute passion to Him and yet preserve Him as impassible, as God?

The passion was one of dispensation, with the Word of God Himself directing those things which are proper to the flesh on account of the ineffable union, while remaining outside of passion insofar as His nature is concerned; for God is impassible. Nor is this surprising, when we see even the human soul: if the body has suffered something, the soul remains outside of that passion insofar as its nature is concerned, yet it is understood not to be outside of it, because the body that suffers is its own. ^B And although it is intangible and simple, yet that which suffers is not alien to it. You will understand this also regarding Christ, the Savior of all. But I shall use examples which might show us, as if by an enigma, that the Only-Begotten truly communicated in the passion insofar as it pertains to the familiarity of His body, yet remained devoid of passion as God.

God Almighty commanded Moses to perform signs very wisely so that Israel might believe he was sent by God and that he might be delivered from violence; he says: "And you shall take water from the river, and pour it upon the land, and the water which you take from the river shall be blood upon the land." We say that water is a figure of life, and that the Son from the Father, going forth like a river, is life by His nature, in the sense of the same substance; and thus He givens life to all things. "But when," he says, "you pour the water upon the land, it shall be blood." The Word, when He was made flesh from the earth—that is, when He wrapped Himself in flesh from the earth—then it is said that He suffered in it a death similar to ours, although by nature He is life.

Chapter XXXIV. Another.

In Leviticus, God signifies that the leper is polluted and unclean, and that he ought therefore to be cast out of the camp; and if the disease is healed, in this way he is to be purified: "And he shall take two clean birds, and cedar wood, and scarlet, and hyssop; and the priest shall command, and he shall kill one bird in an earthen vessel over living water, and he shall take the bird that is alive, and shall wash it in the blood of the bird that was killed in the living water, and he shall sprinkle upon him who has been cleansed from the leprosy seven times, and he shall be clean." The most precious blood of Christ and the purification of the most holy baptism indeed make us clean and wash away the filth of pollution and repel the mortality of carnal concupiscence. But look at this: omitting the examination of the force of the scriptures, we shall record what is expedient for the mystery in the present [discussion]. ^A Christ is compared to two birds, not because they are two sons, but because one is formed from two—divinity and humanity brought into one. But the birds of the world: for our God, Jesus Christ, committed no sin; but He was the holy Word, and by the rational account of divinity and humanity. They are compared to birds because He is, as it were, on high above the earth and from above from heaven; for Christ is man from heaven, even if the holy Virgin gave birth to His flesh; in that way, therefore, He is from above and from heaven. For God the Word, who is from above and from the Father, taking flesh from the holy Virgin and esteeming it as His own, just as if He had brought it from above and from heaven, said: "No one has ascended into heaven but He who descended from heaven, the Son of Man, who is in heaven." For He always attributes to His own flesh those things which are His; but once united, it is now reckoned as one with Him.

Moreover, see that when one bird is killed, the other is washed in its blood, yet it does not die; and what is this? The Word was living, even though His own flesh had died, and He said that He shared in the passion, on account of the union and familiarity He had with the flesh. Therefore, He indeed lives as God; but He made the body His own and thus familiarly received in Himself the passions of the body, when He Himself suffered nothing in His own nature. It is therefore useful and necessary that we understand in the one Christ that which is constituted of one and the same according to one thing and another, and that it is not permitted to be divided into two, even if they are said to be diverse among themselves and to exist in act as things that do not converge.

^C There is also something of this sort which I say. We say that the Word of God was born according to the flesh of a woman, although He Himself provides existence to all things and calls those not yet born to nativity. It is born according to one thing and another, in that He is understood as a man like us; but He calls all things to nativity, in that He is God by nature.

It is also written of Him: "The boy grew and was strengthened, and was filled with wisdom and grace." Since He is perfect by nature as God, and imparts spiritual gifts to the saints from His plenitude; since He Himself is the Giver of wisdom and grace, how does the boy grow, and how is He filled with wisdom and grace? According to one thing and another: for since He is the same man and God at once, on account of the union He conducts the things proper to humanity; but He is perfect, and the Giver of both wisdom and grace, as God.

He is also called both first-born and only-begotten; but if anyone wishes to scrutinize the very force of the words, He is the first-born who is the first-born among many brothers; but the only-begotten, as only-begotten, is no longer the first-born, nor among many brothers. But He is Himself both this and that; how, therefore? According to one thing and another: for He is the first-born, as ^D among many brothers, on account of the...

among many brothers, by reason of his humanity; for even then he was among many brothers: for the Only-begotten ^A is the same, as having been born alone from the Father alone, and as God.

He is said to have been sanctified through the Spirit, though he himself is accustomed to sanctify those who approach him; being baptized according to the flesh, he who baptized in the Holy Spirit. How then does the same one both sanctify and is sanctified, baptizes and is baptized? It is "by this and by that": for he is sanctified humanly, just as he is also baptized; but he sanctifies divinely, and baptizes in the Holy Spirit.

When he himself raises the dead, he rose from the dead, and though being Life by nature, he is said to be vivified; how so? By this and by that, indeed: for he himself rose from the dead, and is said to be vivified according to the flesh; but he vivifies and raises the dead, as God; he suffers, and does not suffer, by this and by that: he suffers humanly in the flesh, in that he is human; but he remains impassible divinely, as God. [A - Greek text omitted here as it repeats the preceding Latin sense]

He is therefore called the firstborn. The man born blind from his birth worshipped the one Son, when he was healed in a special and miraculous way. For, "when Jesus had found him in the temple, he said: Dost thou believe in the Son of God? but he said: Who is he, Lord, that I may believe in him?" Christ indeed, showing himself with his body to him, said: "Thou hast both seen him, and it is he who speaketh with thee." You see that he uses the singular number, not permitting God and man to be understood separately; nay, indeed, even if someone were to name the man Emmanuel, he would by no means signify a common man; but the Word of God united to our nature. Him, as one, the blessed disciples worshipped, when, seeing him walking upon the waters in miraculous ways, they worshipped, saying: "Truly thou art the Son of God."

He himself worshipped with us: "For you, he says, worship that which you know not; we worship that which we know"; and he is also to be worshipped: "For every knee shall bow to him." This also is "by this and by that." For he worships, because he assumed a nature which ought to worship; but the same one is worshipped, as a nature greater than the one worshipping, because he is understood as God. But by worship, one must not divide into man separately and God separately; nor do we say that man is worshipped with him as if joined to God by equality of dignity, with separate substances (for that is the height of extreme impiety): but we worship the one man made, and incarnate Word of God; yet so that we believe the body united to him had a rational soul just as we do. For God Almighty did not command that there be two firstborns to be worshipped, as much by us as by the holy angels. For one is he who is introduced into the inhabited world; and if we search into the manner of the introduction more inquisitively, we shall find the mystery of the carnal dispensation. He was introduced into the inhabited world, then, when he was made man, although by his nature he appears to be very far removed from the world, and is believed truly to be in the eminence of divinity: for he is other than the elements, being their creator. Therefore, he is above those things which he himself created, according to nature, because by nature he is God. Yet one, as I said before, is to be worshipped.

If, however, we were to say that man is co-worshipped with God, we shall induce a very wide division: for the particle "co-" (which is *cum* in Latin), unless it is placed in the signification of unity which is through composition, will force two to be understood entirely. For just as no one is said to dine with himself, nor to feast with, or to worship with, or to walk with himself; for the preposition placed before the verb brings in the signification of two persons: so also if anyone should say that man is co-worshipped with God, he plainly declares two sons, and disjointed from one another; for the reason of unity, if it be understood only in the equality of dignity or authority, is proved not to be true, which has already been proved by us at length before.

CAP. XXXV. Against those who say that it is only by relation that human things befit the Word of God.

Some babble regarding the carnal dispensation of the Only-begotten, and the venerable, and great, and to the supernal spirits most lovable mystery, through which we have even been saved, bringing it down to fragile senses, they contaminate the beauty and lustre of the truth; when it behooves them, not to attempt to strengthen if something seems to have a show of correctness to themselves; but to look rather, with the subtle and sharp eye of the mind, at the intent of the sacred Scriptures, and to walk thus upon the right path, following those things which the most holy Fathers examined, who, instructed by the illuminations of the holy Spirit, established for us the symbol of faith, saying that the Word of God, who was inestimably born from the substance of the Father, through whom all things were made, that are in heaven and that are in earth, for us men and for the sake of our salvation descended, was made man, suffered, ascended into heaven, and will come after the times to judge the living and the dead.

There are some, however, who, thinking themselves to be learned and knowledgeable, and puffed up with haughtiness and swelling, who if they hear these words, will mock; and they deem the things that are so rightly said to be more in the nature of ravings: when, especially—

^A we believe that the knowledge of the truth was made clear to the holy Fathers by the illumination of the Holy Spirit. But these men, as if they alone could perceive things better, do not believe that the only-begotten Son of God, who is of His substance, the God Word, suffered in His own flesh for our sake—even though, understood as God, He possesses it in His nature that He cannot suffer—but they place the man, who was born of the holy Virgin, apart and separately. Then, attributing to Him, insofar as it seems to them, a manner of glory, they say that He was united to the Word of God the Father; and explaining the reason for this union, they say that equality of dignity or authority was given to Him by God, and that He is therefore called by a similar appellation, both Christ, and Son, and Lord. But if it is said that the man, whom they themselves have devised, also suffered something, they say that it must be referred to God the Word Himself, because He is joined to Him in equality of dignity, even though the natures are divided and each is what it is.

I will explain the force of these opinions, as much as I am able, by proposing examples from the Holy Scriptures. Christ hungered, He was weary from the journey, He slept, He entered into a boat, He was beaten with rods by ministers, He was scourged by Pilate, He received the spittle of the soldiers; they pierced His side with a lance, and offered to His mouth wine mingled with gall; He tasted death, suffered on the cross, and endured other insults of the Jews. These things they acknowledge happened to the man indeed, but they refer them to the person of the true Son. But we believe, as in one God the Father, omnipotent, the maker of all things visible and invisible; so also in one Lord Jesus Christ, His Son. But we refuse to divide Emmanuel into a man apart and the Word apart. Knowing that the Word became man as we are, we truly say that He is the same one, God from God; but humanly, a man from a woman as we are. Furthermore, because of this affinity, we affirm that He endured indeed the infirmities of the flesh, but that He preserved the impassibility of His own nature, because He was not man alone, but the same also God by nature; and just as His body was His own, so also the natural, blameless passions of the body, and even those things that were inflicted upon Him by the insolence of some.

He suffered impassibly, because He did not humble Himself for that reason, that He might be merely similar to us; but because, as I said before, He had reserved that which pertains to His nature, to be superior to all. But if we were to say that by transformation or change of His nature He had passed into the nature of flesh, it would be necessary for us in every way, even against our will, to confess that the arcane and divine nature was passible. But if, ^B although He was made man as we are, He remained unchanged—for it is proper to the heavenly nature that it cannot suffer—then, through the union, the body was made passible: it behooves Him to suffer, the body being His own; but He Himself remains impassible, because it is His own property that He cannot suffer.

But if Emmanuel was glorified through the passion, as He Himself said, when He was about to suffer the precious cross for us: "Now is the Son of man glorified," why do they not blush to attribute the glory of the passion to the man who has only a conjunction with Him in equality of dignity? For, as they themselves think, He joined to Himself, according to the will and pleasure of the Father, a man simply, and made him equal to His own glory, and granted that he be named by a similar appellation, Christ, and Son, and God, and Lord.

Therefore, the Word was not truly incarnate, nor was He turned into a man at all. Or does it perhaps produce no detriment if one were even to call the holy doctors of the whole world false and liars? Or let them say ^C—or rather let them proceed into the midst to prove—that the mode of conjunction introduced by them has the force of an incarnation, and that it is the definition of the Word having become man. Or if they do not think that things are so, why do they devise for us a mode of non-conjunction, neglecting the truth? When it behooves them to say that the Word of God and the Father was united to our humanity: for so it would be understood that He suffered in His own flesh, as a human; but as far as concerns the nature of the divinity, He is void of all vexation, as God.

That, however, by naming a relation, which I know not how they have discovered, they detract from the glory of Emmanuel; and that they make Him hardly one of the holy prophets; and that they place Him among the measures of the many, and in that, without doubt, they are caught—this I will prove further, setting forth examples of divine Scripture.

The people of Israel once murmured in the desert against Moses and Aaron, saying: "Would that we had died, struck down by the Lord in Egypt, when we sat by the flesh pots, and ate to satiety." The most wise Moses then says (for it was appropriate to refute those who were so rashly impatient): "But what are we? For your murmuring is not against us, but against God." For the omnipotent God also reigned in those times, through the holy prophets, in the people of Israel.

But they, being pusillanimous in this also, approached the divine Samuel, saying: "Behold, you have grown old, and your sons do not walk in your ways; and now appoint for us a king, who may judge us, as the other nations have." The prophet bore this with too much annoyance. But the omnipotent God says: "Hear the voice of the people, as he has spoken to you; because they have not rejected you, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them." And Christ also says somewhere to the holy apo- ^D stles:

"He that receives you receives me." ^A And likewise, when he is about to speak as judge from his tribunal, he will say: "Come, you blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world." For he acknowledges their own manner of probity familiarly regarding those things which were well planned by them: "As long as you did it," he says, "unto one of these least, you did it unto me."

Behold, the manner of this relation is clearly recognized in these things. The people of Israel murmured against Moses and Aaron, and the matter indeed had a relation to God; yet Moses and Aaron were men similar to us. In the same way, you will understand this also in the others whom we mentioned just now: they were indeed, as I said before, holy and admirable men, yet they were men similar to us. Is it therefore also in this manner that the man conjoined to God the Word—as they say—has a relation to these, his own passions? And how, then, would he not be a common man, and separate, and nothing else? Therefore, he is not truly God Emmanuel, he is not the only-begotten Son, he is not God by nature.

Then, for what reason is no one else among men honored by God the Word with an equality of dignity or authority? But they contend that this one alone received all equal things; especially when God, the Savior of all, does not judge according to person, but with a just judgment, as he himself commemorates. Why, therefore, does he sit alone? How will he come as judge, with the angels attending? Moreover, why is he alone worshipped as much by us as by the heavenly spirits? But he says, "It is very much: we find that you also do this; for you confess that he himself has suffered, insofar as you attribute the passions to him in the flesh, though you preserve him as impassible as God." But we, most excellent sir, when we have first united the Word and the man, we indeed attribute the passions to the flesh, ^B yet we preserve the impassibility as belonging to God. For even if he be made similar to us, we must nevertheless know the majesty of his heavenly dignity and his divine eminence.

The unity, therefore, having been premised as a sort of foundation of faith, we confess that he suffered in the flesh; but we confess that he remained outside of passions, since he possesses in himself that he cannot suffer. If, however, we place God and man in parts, dividing the natures from one another, and say that the Word only according to relationship led those things which happened to the body, then the Emmanuel who was born from the holy Virgin, which is interpreted as "God with us," has the manner of Moses and Aaron.

800 Therefore, even if through the holy prophets he says: "I gave my back to the scourging; and my cheeks to the palms of the hands; and I did not turn away my face from the confusion of spittle." Furthermore: "They pierced my hands and my feet; they numbered all my bones." And furthermore: "They gave gall for my food, and for my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink." We attribute all these things to the Only-begotten, who suffered these things for us in the flesh by dispensation, according to the Scriptures: "By his stripes we were healed, and he was infirm for our sins." We acknowledge him to be impassible by nature; for if, as I said before, the same one is both man and God at once, the passions are certainly those of his humanity, ^C but it is the property of God that he be understood as impassible.

Holding these things in this way, we shall preserve piety, and going along with right thoughts and senses, we shall arrive at the prize of the heavenly calling in Christ, through whom, and with whom, to God and the Father be glory with the Holy Spirit for ever and ever. Amen.

OF THE BLESSED CYRIL, ARCHBISHOP OF ALEXANDRIA, ON THE INCARNATION OF THE WORD OF GOD, THE SON OF THE FATHER.

^A [Germanus] (or most correct) understanding of divine Scripture, entering the mind of the holy, is wont to adorn the souls of the holy, whom the Holy Spirit leads into the oceans of the eternal knowledge and wisdom of Christ; through which the Father of all, God, is glorified. I shall therefore open to you, as it is written, the secret, invisible treasures. By treasures, I mean the eyes of the mind for correct knowledge, seeing soundly and without harm. For God does not bestow imperfect gifts upon those who have known Him, nor such as are circumscribed by the boundaries of human thought; for our Lord God, who is perfect, bestows the abundance of His goods perfectly upon those who live worthily of Him; for He is naturally a lover of those who serve Him with a pure heart and without hypocrisy. Let everyone, therefore, who has chosen to think rightly come to the eternal fountain, Christ, hearing Him calling out through the Gospel: "If anyone thirsts, let him come to Me, and drink." For it is not proper for us, before having known the mystery of godliness, to investigate or discourse simply about Christ the God. There are some, therefore, who steal into the souls of the hearers by fraud, asserting that the God Word assumed a man, and for this reason, He proceeded through the holy Virgin, and this same ^B man has been deified by the God Word, not understanding the mystery of godliness, and making the grace of the economy of the Only-Begotten with flesh of little account. But we, brothers, have not been taught thus; we know one and the same, born through the holy Virgin Theotokos Mary, God perfect and man perfect, with a rational soul. For this reason, we also call the holy Virgin Theotokos, and we say that the God Word dwelt in her essentially, not in appearance but by operation; the same to be two months old, and three months old, at once Son of God and Son of man. But indeed, even those utterances of the human, and also those of the divine power, which the divine Scriptures declare to us concerning Him, ^C...