who desire to be saved, we exhort you not to endure, as we have already said, the swarm of synods brought forward under the pretext of faith: that at Ariminum, that at Sirmium, that in Isauria, that in Thrace, those in Constantinople, and those at Antioch—many and A disorderly as they are. But let only the faith confessed at Nicaea by the Fathers prevail among you; in which also all the Fathers, even those now fighting against it, were present, as we have said before, and to which they subscribed; so that the Apostle may say of us also: "I praise you, that in all things you are mindful of me, and as I have delivered to you the traditions, you keep them."
11. For this Nicene synod is truly a monument inscribed against all heresies. It confutes those who blaspheme against the Holy Spirit and call Him a creature. For when the Fathers had treated of faith in the Son, they immediately added: "We believe also in the Holy Spirit," so that, having confessed a perfect and full faith in the Holy Trinity, they might exhibit therein the mark of the Christian faith and the teaching of the Catholic Church. B For it is manifest to you and to all, and no Christian could have a doubtful mind on this point, that our faith is not in a creature, but in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of all things visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, His only-begotten Son; and in one Holy Spirit, one God known in the holy and perfect Trinity. In whose name being baptized, and in which being united to the Godhead, we believe that we shall inherit the kingdom of heaven in Christ Jesus our Lord, through whom to the Father be glory and power for ever. Amen. C
ADMONITION TO THE EPISTLE TO EPICTETUS
1. This epistle has been most celebrated among ancient writers: for Epiphanius brings it forward in its entirety in his 77th Heresy; Cyril also makes mention of this in his epistle to John of Antioch and in other places: and he says that it had been corrupted long ago by heretics, because they saw that their errors were being refuted in it; yet that it had been restored to its pristine integrity by him through the collation of copies. But such corrupted copies have not reached our own age: for it is that which now exists in the published Athanasian works, and is altogether orthodox, and very similar to that which is read in Epiphanius. Moreover, the passage of Cyril is cited by Rusticus the deacon, *Against the Acephali*, ch. 2. The *Epistle to Epictetus* is also mentioned, and excerpts from it are brought forward, by councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon, Pope Leo, Theodoret, and Gelasius in his book *On the Two Natures in Christ*, all of whom are to be noted in their own places below. Likewise, many passages are brought forward from here by Leontius of Byzantium in his second book, towards the end. And Apollinarius himself, a man truly most deplorable, in a fragment of his epistle to Serapion preserved in Leontius of Byzantium, says that he [wrote] the epistle.
A II. Led by the occasion of the Commentaries which Epictetus, the Bishop of Corinth, had sent to him, he wrote back this epistle to him. For there were at Corinth, according to what Epictetus reported, certain men who had proposed and stirred up opinions concerning the faith that were most impious; they said, namely: 1st, that the body born of Mary was consubstantial with the divinity of the Word; 2nd, that the Word had been changed into flesh, bones, hair, and the entire body. Which opinion is ascribed to the Marcionites in the Dialogue which circulates under the name of Origen. 3rd, that the Lord possessed a body by fiction and not by nature. Which error was indeed most ancient; for it is mentioned by Ignatius in his epistle to the Trallians, ch. 10, and then by all the Fathers; 4th, that the divinity itself was circumcised and nailed to the cross; 5th, that the Word did not at all form a body for himself from Mary, but from his own substance; 6th, that he who says the body of the Lord is from Mary admits not a Trinity, but a Quaternity. Gregory Nazianzen attributes the greatest part of these opinions to Apollinarius in Orat. 46, p. 722. Yet that error of the Apollinarians—by which they denied that a human mind exists in Christ, which seems to have been the hallmark of that sect—does not appear here; but Athanasius touches here only on those matters which had come into controversy at Corinth. Nor does he lightly reprove Epictetus for having allowed such things even to be proposed. And having refuted all those opinions very briefly, closing the epistle, he testifies that he rejoices greatly that the matter finally resulted in everyone of those disputing remaining in the catholic faith.
B III. Furthermore, Epiphanius attacks the Apollinarians under the name of "Dimæritæ" (two-partists) in heresy LXXVII, the reason for which appellation is revealed by Gregory Nazianzen when he says in Orat. 46, p. 722: that body and soul in Christ are the *trimerois*, the third part. The Apollinarians indeed said that in Christ one part of man, namely the *nous* or mind, was supplied by the Word, and that the Word alone, joined to the body and the soul (namely the sensitive soul, as they kept saying), constituted the whole Christ. Therefore, since according to the opinion of the Catholics, Christ consisted of three parts—the Word, the human mind, and the ensouled body—those who removed one part from them, namely the mind, from the other two, were called *dimoiritai*: for *dimoirion* to the Greeks means "two-thirds," an example of which meaning is often to be observed in our *Analecta Graeca*, p. 319 et seq. Otherwise, we think this epistle can be dated to about the year 371, as is discussed more fully in the *Life of Athanasius*.
OF OUR HOLY FATHER ATHANASIUS, ARCHBISHOP OF ALEXANDRIA, EPISTLE TO EPICTETUS OF CORINTH, AGAINST THE HERETICS (91).
A To my beloved brother and most desired fellow-minister Epictetus, Athanasius sends greetings in the Lord.
1. I indeed believed that the vain loquacity of all the heretics who have ever existed, having ceased from B
A the Council which took place at Nicaea; for the faith confessed there by the Fathers in accordance with the divine Scriptures is sufficient to overthrow all impiety and to establish the pious faith in Christ. Therefore, even now, when various councils have been held in Gaul, in B Spain, and in great Rome, all who came together unanimously, as though moved by one and the same Spirit, anathematized those who still remained in hiding and held to the views of Arius—I refer to Auxentius of Milan, and Ursacius, Valens, and Gaius from Pannonia—and they wrote everywhere (because such men devise for themselves names of councils) that no council should be named in the Catholic Church except only the one that took place at Nicaea, which is a trophy against all heresy, and especially against the Arian, on account of which the council was then held. C How, then, do some still attempt to dispute or to make inquiries after so many such events? If they are indeed from the Arians, it is no wonder if they calumniate what has been written against them, just as the Gentiles, hearing: "The idols of the nations are silver and gold, the work of men's hands" (Ps. cxviii, 4), consider the teaching concerning the divine cross to be foolishness. But if those who desire to discuss the matter entirely anew are of the number of those who seem to think correctly and to favor what was promulgated by the Fathers, they do nothing else than, as it is written (Habacuc ii, 15), providing their neighbor with a muddied overthrow, while they D contend in words not for any utility, but for the ruin of the simple.
2. I write this after reading the commentaries offered to me by your piety, which I wish had never been written, so that not even the slightest memory of these things might be transmitted to posterity. For who has ever heard such things? Who has taught them, or who has learned them? "For out of Zion shall go forth the law of God, and the Word of the Lord from Jerusalem" (Isa. ii, 3); but these—whence have they come forth? What hell has belched forth the statement that the body born of Mary is consubstantial with the Godhead of the Word? Or that the Word is changed into flesh, and bones, and hair, and into the whole body?
A Or who in the Church, or from among Christians, has ever heard that the Lord possessed a body by fiction and not by nature? Or who has proceeded to such a pitch of impiety as to say and think that the Godhead itself, which is consubstantial with the Father, was circumcised and became imperfect, having been perfect before? And that what was nailed to the wood was not a body, but the very substance of the Wisdom of God, the Maker of all things? Who, hearing these things—that the Word did not from Mary, but from His own substance, fashion for Himself a passible body—would call him who says such things a Christian? Who devised this impious and forbidden notion, or to whom could it occur to say: "He who says that the Lord's body is from Mary no longer believes in a Trinity, but in a Quaternity in the Godhead"? As if those who think this way were saying that the flesh which the Savior put on from Mary is of the substance of the Trinity.
Moreover, from where have some again vomited forth an impiety equal to those mentioned above, saying that the body is not distinct from the divinity of the Word, but has been coeternal with Him throughout, because it consists of the substance of Wisdom? B By what manner have men who are called Christians even dared to waver as to whether the Lord who was born of Mary is, in His substance and nature, the Son of God, while according to the flesh He is from the seed of David and from the flesh of the holy Mary? And who indeed have been of such temerity as to say that Christ, who suffered and was crucified in the flesh, is not the Lord and Savior and God and Son of the Father? Or how do they wish to be called Christians who say that the Word came into a holy man, just as into one of the prophets, and that He did not Himself become man by taking a body from Mary, but that Christ is one thing, and the Word of God C who was before Mary and before the ages the Son of the Father is another? Or by what reason, I ask, can they be Christians who say that the Son is one thing and the Word of God another?
3. These things were in the Commentaries, different indeed in words, but having one and the same intention and the same power looking toward impiety. On account of these things, those who pride themselves on the confession of the Fathers which took place at Nicaea were disputing and contending with one another. I for my part have admired your piety, which bears with such things, and that you did not impose silence upon those who were speaking such things, nor did you set before them the pious faith, so that D
A they might hear and grow quiet, or by resisting, be considered heretics. For the things mentioned are neither speakable nor hearable among Christians, but are in every way alien to the apostolic teaching. For this reason, then, I too have caused the things from them, as mentioned before, to be written down plainly in the letter, so that the hearer might perceive the shame and impiety in them. And even if it were necessary to accuse and refute at greater length the foolishness of those who conceived such things, yet it would have been better for the letter to end here and to write nothing more; for things shown to be so manifestly wicked need not be worried over or examined further, lest they be thought by the contentious to be ambiguous. It suffices to answer these things with these words alone, and to say: It is enough that these things are not of the Catholic Church, nor did the Fathers hold these opinions. But that the inventors of these evils might not, from total silence, find an occasion of shamelessness B for themselves, it is well to mention a few things from the divine Scriptures; perhaps in this way they might be struck with shame and cease from these filthy thoughts.
4. Whence did it come to you to say, O men, that the body is consubstantial with the divinity of the Word (for it is well to begin from this, so that, this being shown to be rotten, all other things of this kind might also be shown to be such)? From the divine Scriptures, indeed, it is not possible to find this, for they say that God came to be in a human body. But the Fathers who gathered at Nicaea C declared that not the body, but the Son Himself is consubstantial with the Father, and that He is from the substance of the Father, but that the body, they admitted, was from Mary again, according to the Scriptures. Either, therefore, reject the synod at Nicaea, and as heretics introduce these things; or, if you wish to be children of the Fathers, do not think otherwise than what they themselves wrote. For from this it is also possible for you to see the absurdity: if the Word is consubstantial with the body, which holds its nature from the earth, and the Word is likewise, according to the confession of the Fathers, consubstantial with the Father; then the Father Himself will be consubstantial with the body that came to be out of the earth. And why do you still find fault with the Arians for saying D that the Son is a creature, when you yourselves say that the Father is consubstantial with created things? And passing into another impiety, you say that the Word has been turned into flesh, and bones, and hair, and nerves, and the whole body, and has changed from His own nature. For it is time for you to explicitly say that He is from the earth.
A For the nature of the bones and of the whole body is from the earth. What then is this great madness, that you should even fight among yourselves? For by saying that the Word is consubstantial with the body, you signify one thing compared with another; but when you affirm that He has been changed into flesh, you imagine a change of the Word Himself. And who then will endure you any longer, even just uttering these things? For you have declined into impiety more than any heresy. For if the Word is consubstantial with the body, the mention and the need of Mary are superfluous, since the body is able to be eternal even before Mary, just as the Word Himself is—if indeed, according to you, He is consubstantial with the body. And what is the need of the advent of the Word, that He should either put on that which was consubstantial to Him, or, having changed from His own nature, be made a body? For the Deity does not take hold of Itself, so that It might put on that which is consubstantial to Itself. Neither did the Word, who redeems the sins of others, sin, that He, having changed B into a body, should offer Himself for Himself as a sacrifice, and redeem Himself.
5. But it is not so, God forbid! For *He takes hold of the seed of Abraham*, as the Apostle said; whence *He ought to be made like His brethren in all things*, and to take a body similar to ours. For this reason, therefore, Mary is truly present, that He might take this from her, and offer it as His own for us. And Isaiah indeed signaled her, saying: *Behold, the Virgin*; but Gabriel is sent to her not simply to a virgin, but to a *virgin betrothed to a man*; that by the mention of the spouse he might indicate that Mary was truly a human being. And Scripture mentions the birth, and says: *He wrapped Him in swaddling clothes*; and the breasts which He suckled were called blessed, and a sacrifice was offered, as of One who had opened the womb of the One who *bore Him—all these things were signs of the Virgin who gave birth. And Gabriel also safely brought good tidings to her, saying not simply, "that which is born in you," lest a body introduced from outside should be thought to be in her; but *of you*, that it might be believed that what was born was by nature from her, C this clearly demonstrating to nature, that it is impossible for a virgin to have milk without having given birth, and impossible for a body to be nourished with milk and swaddled, if it had not first been born by nature. This is what was circumcised on the eighth day; this is what Simeon received into his arms; this became a child and grew, twelve
A years old, and came to the thirtieth year. For the essence of the Word was not, as some have supposed, changed and circumcised, as it is unalterable and unchanging; for the Saviour himself says: *See, see*, that I am he, and I have not changed; while Paul writes: *Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever.* But it was in the body that was circumcised, and carried, and ate, and drank, and laboured, and was nailed to the wood, and suffered, that the impassible and incorporeal Word of God existed. This was the same body that was placed in the tomb, while the Word went forth (although he was in no way separated from the body) to preach to the spirits in prison, as Peter said.
6. What most exposes the folly of those who say that the Word was changed into bone and flesh: if this were so, there would have been no need for a tomb; for the body itself would have departed by its own power to preach to the spirits B held in Hades. But in reality, the Word himself went to preach, while Joseph wrapped the body in a linen shroud and laid it in Golgotha; and it was made plain to all that the body was not the Word, but was the body of the Word. And Thomas felt this same body when it had risen from the dead, and saw in it the marks of the nails, which the Word himself had endured, seeing them being nailed into his own body; and, though able to prevent it, he did not prevent it, but made the things of the body his own, as if they were his own, the incorporeal Word. Indeed, when the body was struck by the servant, as if he himself were suffering, he said: *Why do you strike me?* And although the Word was intangible by nature, he nevertheless said: *I gave my back to the scourges, and my cheeks to blows, and I did not turn away my face from the shame of spitting.* For the things C that the human body of the Word suffered, these things, being joined to it, the Word referred to himself, so that we might be able to become partakers of the divinity of the Word. And it was a paradox that he was the one suffering and not suffering: suffering, indeed, in that his own body was suffering, and he was in the one who was suffering; and not suffering, in that the Word, being God by nature, is impassible. And he himself, the incorporeal, was in the suffering body, while the body held within itself the impassible Word, who was causing the D weaknesses of the body to disappear. He did this
and the matter stood in such a way, that the Word, by taking what is ours and offering it in sacrifice, would completely consume it, and then, by clothing us with his own, would give the Apostle the occasion to say: *For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality* 8.
7. B But these things were not done in fiction, as some have supposed, far be it! But the Savior having truly become man, from this the salvation of the whole man has been achieved. For if the Word was in the body by grace, as they say, and that which is called "by grace" is a phantasy, then the salvation and resurrection of men is also found to be in appearance only, according to the most impious Manichaean. 38 But salvation is surely not a phantasy, nor is the salvation of the body alone, but that of the whole man, soul and body, has truly been accomplished in the Word himself. C Therefore, that which is from Mary is human by nature according to the divine Scriptures, and it was the true body of the Lord; and it was true, since it was the same as ours; for Mary is our sister, since we all spring from Adam. And no one could doubt this, if he remembers what Luke wrote. For after he had risen from the dead, since some supposed they were not seeing the Lord in the body from Mary, but were beholding a spirit instead of this, he said: *See my hands and my feet, and the marks of the nails, that it is I myself. Feel me, and see, for a spirit has not flesh and bones as you see me have.* And having said this, he showed 41 them his hands and his feet. From which those who dared to say that the Lord had been changed into flesh and bones can again be refuted. For he did not say, "As you see me being flesh and bones," but "having [them]"; so that the Word himself might not be thought to have been transformed into these things, but himself D to be believed as having them both before his death and after his resurrection.
8. Since these things are thus demonstrated, it is superfluous to touch upon others or to argue further about them, since the body in which the Word was, is not consubstantial with the Divinity, but was truly born from Mary; and the Word himself was not changed into bones and flesh, but came to be in flesh. 44 For what is said by John: *The Word was made flesh*, has this meaning, just as it is also found in a similar way of speaking.
A It is possible to discover this; for it is written by Paul: *Christ became a curse for us*. And just as He did not become a curse Himself, but because He took upon Himself the curse for us, it is said that He became a curse; so too the Word became flesh, not because He was changed into flesh, but because He took up for our sake a living flesh, and became man. For to say, *The Word became flesh*, is again the same as saying, *The Word became man*, according to what is said in Joel: *I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh*; for the promise did not regard those unreasoning animals, but men only, for whose sake the Lord also became man. B Since this statement has this meaning, all who have imagined that the flesh from Mary existed before her, and that before her the Word had a human soul in which He always existed before His coming, will deservedly find themselves refuted. Those also will be silenced who say that the flesh is not capable of death, but is of an immortal nature. For if He did not die, how did Paul deliver to the Corinthians what he also received: *That Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures*? And how, after all, did He even rise again, if He did not also die? But they will blush greatly 50 who have even for a moment entertained the thought that a quaternity can be formed instead of the Trinity, if the body is said to be from Mary. For if, they say, we call the body consubstantial with the Word, the Trinity remains a Trinity, with nothing foreign being introduced into it by the Word; but if we call the body from Mary human, it is necessary, since the body is foreign in substance, and the Word is in it, that a quaternity arises in place of the Trinity on account of the addition of the body.
9. While they speak thus, they do not consider how they contradict themselves. For even if they deny that the body is from Mary, but say that it is consubstantial with the Word itself, nonetheless 52 (which they disguise, lest they be thought to think such things) they will be shown, according to their own line of reasoning, to be speaking of a quaternity. For just as the Son, according to the Fathers, while being consubstantial with the Father, is not the Father Himself, but the Son is said to be consubstantial with the Father; so the consubstantial body of the Word is not the Word Himself, but is another thing in relation to the Word.
A Since it is another, according to them, their Trinity will be a quaternity. For the true, and truly perfect, and indivisible Trinity does not admit of an addition; it is only that which they themselves have invented. And how can they still be Christians, who invent another God besides Him who truly is? Again, in their other sophism, it is possible to see great folly: if, because the body of the Savior is said in the Scriptures to be from Mary and to be human, they think that a quaternity is spoken of instead of a Trinity, as if an addition were made because of the body, they wander far, equating the work with the Maker, and supposing that the Deity can receive an addition. And they have been ignorant that the Word became flesh not for an addition to the Deity, but so that the flesh might B rise; nor did He come forth from Mary so that the Word might be improved, but so that He might redeem the race of men. How, then, do they think that the body, redeemed and vivified by the Word, makes an addition to the Deity of the Word who vivified it? For rather, a great addition was made to the human body itself from its communion and union with the Word. For from being mortal, it became immortal; and being animate, it became spiritual; and being made from the earth, it passed through the heavenly gates. The Trinity, however, even with the Word taking a body from Mary, is a Trinity, not receiving addition nor subtraction; but it is always perfect, and one Deity is known in the Trinity, and thus in the Church one God is preached, the Father of the Word.
10. C By this same reasoning, those also will be silent henceforth who at some time said that He who came forth from Mary was not the Christ, and Lord, and God. For if God was not in the body, how, as soon as He came forth from Mary, was He called Emmanuel, which is translated, "God with us" (Matth. 1, 23)? And how also did Paul, if the Word was not in the flesh, write to the Romans: "From whom is the Christ according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed for ever, amen" (Rom. IX, 5)? Therefore, let those who before denied that the One who was crucified is God also confess that they have erred, being persuaded by the divine Scriptures; and especially by Thomas, who, after D seeing in Him the marks of the nails, cried out: "My Lord and my God" (Joan. XX, 28). For the Son, being God and Lord of glory, was nevertheless in the body that was ignominiously nailed and treated with insult. Now the body indeed was suffering, being pierced on the wood, and from its side flowed blood
and water; but inasmuch as it was the temple of the Word, it was filled with the Godhead. For this reason, then, the sun, seeing its own Creator enduring such things in the body that was being abused, drew back its rays and darkened the earth. But the body itself, though possessing a mortal nature, rose up above its own nature because of the Word that was in it; and it ceased from the corruption that is according to nature, and having put on the Word who is above man, it became incorruptible.
11. But that some should conjecture and say that the Word came into a certain man born of Mary in the same way as He came into each of the prophets, it is useless to argue, since their madness carries its own manifest refutation. B For if the Word came in such a way, why did this one come forth from a Virgin, and not, like the others, from a man and a woman? For in that way every one of the saints was born. Or why, if the Word came in such a way, is the death of each individual not said to have been endured for our sake, but that of this one alone? Or why, when the Word came to each of the prophets, is He said to have come to the Son of Mary alone, once and for all, at the consummation of the ages? Or why, with the Word coming as He had come into those holy men who existed before, have all those others, having died, not yet risen, while the Son of Mary alone C rose on the third day? Or why, when the Word came in a similar manner to the others, is the Son of Mary alone called Emmanuel, as though His body were filled with Godhead, having been born of her? For "Emmanuel" is interpreted as, "God with us." Or why, if He came in such a way, when any of the saints was eating, drinking, toiling, and dying, is it not said that the Word Himself was eating, drinking, toiling, and dying, but this is said only of the Son of Mary? For whatever that body suffered, these things are spoken of as if the Word Himself were suffering them. And while of all others it is said only that they were born and begotten, of the Son of Mary alone is it said: D *And the Word was made flesh*.
12. From these things it is shown that in relation to all the others the Word had come for the sake of prophesying; but from Mary, the Word Himself, having taken flesh, went forth as man, being by nature and in substance the Word of God, but according to the flesh [He was] from the seed of David and from flesh.