That Christ Is One 1

OF SAINT CYRIL, THAT CHRIST IS ONE. {A} Of the sacred teachings there could be no satiety at all for those who are truly sound of mind and have gathered into their understanding the life-giving knowledge.

For "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God."

For the word that comes from God is food for the mind, and spiritual bread that strengthens the heart of man, as is sung in the book of Psalms.

{A} Now the wise men and choice spirits of the Greeks have admired fine speech, and among the things most zealously pursued by them is eloquence; they pride themselves on the mere prettiness of words and exult in the pomp of diction.

And the poets' material is falsehood, fashioned into rhythms and meters to be charming and melodious, while their concern for truth is altogether slight; they are also feeble and lacking in any right and profitable opinion, that is, I mean, concerning the God who is by nature and truly God—or rather, as the most holy Paul says:

"They became vain in their reasonings, and their senseless heart was darkened."

"Professing to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into the likeness of an image of corruptible man, and of birds, and of four-footed beasts, and of creeping things."

And so God said concerning them through the voice of Isaiah:

"Know that their heart is ashes, and they go astray."

{A} But so much, then, for the affairs of those people.

Yet those who have become inventors of unholy heresies—the profane and apostate, who open wide their unbridled mouth against the divine glory and speak perverse things—might be caught having slipped through madness into a foolishness no less than that of the Greeks, or perhaps even into something beyond it.

For "it would have been better for them not to have known the way of truth, than, having known it, to turn back from the holy commandment delivered to them."

For there has befallen them what the true proverb says: "A dog returning to its own vomit, and a washed sow to wallowing in the mire."

"They went out from us, but they were not of us."

{A} But our discussion of such matters comes opportunely.

For some senselessly drag down the only-begotten Word of God from his supreme pre-eminence, and lower him from equality with the Father and God, denying that he is consubstantial with him, and refusing to crown him with natural and unvarying identity.

Others, treading as it were the same path as those just named, and slipping into the snare of death and the springboard of Hades, pervert the mystery of the Only-begotten's economy in the flesh, and practice a folly sister to that of the former.

For the former, well-nigh dragging down the Word who was begotten of God the Father (not yet incarnate) from the heights of the Godhead, so far as it lies with them, would be convicted—

—him who by nature is and sits enthroned together with the Father.

{A} And so the God-inspired Scripture will cry out against the ignorance found in both groups, championing the truth, declaring the doctrine held by those people to be feeble and silly, and setting upon the paths of the Godhead those accustomed to contemplate the mystery concerning him with a keen and accurate eye of mind.

But who might they be that have so unholily debased the Savior's economy, which is so august and ineffable? For you seem to be no little distressed at this very thing, and I should like to inquire of you.

For "with zeal I have been zealous for the Lord," and goaded toward this very matter, I am greatly troubled.

And seeing where the arguments of those people will at last overturn, I am afraid.

For they adulterate the faith delivered to us, employing the inventions of a newly-appeared serpent, and pouring into the souls of the simpler folk, like venom, certain cold and perverse things, full of folly.

{A} Then who is this newly-appeared serpent, and what sort of nonsense has he babbled against the doctrines of truth? Tell me, for I ask.

{B} The newly-appeared serpent is this crooked one, whose tongue is drunk with venom, who has all but bidden farewell to the tradition of the world's hierophants—nay rather, to the whole God-inspired Scripture—and has innovated according to his own fancy, saying that the holy Virgin is not Theotokos (God-bearer) but rather Christotokos (Christ-bearer) and Anthropotokos (man-bearer), and has besides foisted upon the right and pure doctrines of the catholic Church other discordant and stupefying things.

{A} You mean Nestorius, I think.

For I already somehow understand; but what, my good man, is the substance of his arguments, I cannot grasp.

And how does he say the holy Virgin is not Theotokos? {B} "For," he says, "she did not bring forth God."

"For the Word was even before her—nay rather, even before all ages and time—being co-eternal with God and the Father."

{A} They will then deny this too openly, that Emmanuel is God; and in vain, it seems, does the evangelist interpret the name when he says:

For thus, God and the Father clearly affirmed through the prophet's voice, that he who was born according to the flesh of the holy Virgin should be so named, as God who had become man.

{B} And yet it does not seem to them to be so; rather they would say that God became with us—that is, the Word from God—according to the modes of succor.

"For he saved the world under heaven through him who was born of a woman."

{A} For was he not, tell me, also with Moses when he delivered Israel from the land of the Egyptians and from the rapacity there, "with a mighty hand and an uplifted arm," as it is written? And shall we not also find him afterward saying plainly to Joshua:

"And as I was with Moses, so will I also be with you"? {B} True.

{A} Why then was none of those men called Emmanuel, but the name fitted him alone who was wondrously born of a woman according to the flesh in the last times of the age? {B} Shall we then suppose that God was born of a woman in some such way—as though the Word partook of an existence in her and from her? {A} Away with such cold thoughtlessness!

For the words are those of one raving, and of a mind diseased and turned to what it ought not, to suppose that the ineffable existence of the Only-begotten became the fruit of flesh.

But he was, as God, co-eternal with the Father who begot him, and begotten of him by nature, ineffably.

Yet if they wish to know clearly how and in what manner he appeared in the form belonging to us and became man, the divinely-eloquent evangelist John will make it plain, saying:

"And the Word became flesh, and tabernacled among us, and we beheld his glory, glory as of the Only-begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth."

{B} "But if the Word became flesh," they say, "he no longer remained Word, but rather departed from being what he was."

And these are the inventions of a deranged mind, and nothing else.

For they suppose, as it seems, by an inescapable and necessary argument, that "became" is indicative of change and alteration.

{B} "Yes," they say, and indeed they buttress their own argument, taking it from the very God-inspired Scripture itself.

For it is said somewhere, he says, concerning Lot's wife, that "she became a pillar of salt."

And indeed concerning Moses' rod also, that "he cast it on the ground, and it became a serpent."

For in these cases a natural change took place.

{A} Therefore, when some sing:

"And the Lord became to me a refuge," and again:

"Lord, you have become our refuge in generation and generation"—what would they say? Has he who is hymned abandoned being God and, by transformation, passed over into being a refuge, and naturally changed into something other than what he was at the beginning? {B} And how is the thing not unseemly and unfitting for him who is truly God by nature? For being by nature unchangeable, he surely remains altogether what he was and ever is, even if he is said by some to have become a refuge.

{A} Excellently and most rightly have you spoken.

Therefore, when mention of God has been brought into the midst, if the word "became" is spoken by anyone, how is it not utterly unlearned and unholy to suppose that it signifies change, and not rather to try to understand it in some other way, and prudently to turn it round to what is most fitting and proper to the unchangeable God? {B} How then do we say that the Word became flesh, while ever keeping the unchangeable and unalterable as proper, essential, and innate to him? {A} The all-wise Paul, the steward of his mysteries, the priestly minister of the gospel proclamations, will make it plain, saying:

"Let this mind be in each of you which was also in Christ Jesus, who, being in the form of God, did not consider equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, becoming in the likeness of men; and being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, becoming obedient unto death, even death on a cross."

For although being God and from God by nature, his only-begotten Word, the radiance of his glory and the express image of the substance of the one who begot him, became man—not by being turned into flesh, nor by enduring confusion or mixture or any other such thing, but rather by lowering himself into emptying, and "for the joy set before him enduring shame, despising it," and not dishonoring the poverty of humanity.

For he willed, as God, to render the flesh that was held by death and sin superior to death and sin, and to restore it to its primal state, making it his own—and not soulless, as some hold, but rather ensouled with a rational soul.

And not deeming it unworthy to go the path befitting the matter, he is said to have endured the birth that is like ours, while remaining what he was.

For he was wondrously born according to the flesh of a woman;

for there was no other way, being God by nature, for the intangible and bodiless one to be seen by those on earth except in the form like ours.

Except that, having decided to become man, in himself and himself alone he might render our nature pre-eminent through the dignities of the Godhead;

for the same one was at once both God and man, and in the likeness of man (in that, together with this, he was also God), but in fashion as a man.

For thus we say that he became flesh.

Therefore we also affirm the holy Virgin to be Theotokos.

{B} Do you wish that, setting their arguments over against yours, we should make a finer test of the ideas; or shall we simply concede to you, as you speak, that what you have supposed to be sound is so? {A} Unobjectionable, as I think, is everything that might be said by us wisely and knowledgeably and not discordantly with the God-inspired Scriptures.

But declare yourself too what seems good.

For the opposition might bring forth something profitable.

{B} The divinely-eloquent Paul writes, they say, concerning the Son, as one who became both curse and sin:

"Him who knew no sin he made sin on our behalf."

"Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse on our behalf."

And they say that he became not literally curse and sin, but that the sacred Scripture means something else besides this.

Thus, they say, the phrase "And the Word became flesh" ought to be understood by us.

{A} And yet, just as in saying that he became curse and sin, so likewise that he became flesh is jointly implied, and it carries an idea prior to what follows it.

{B} How do you mean? For when anyone should say to them:

"He who knew no sin became sin on our behalf, and ransomed those under the law from the curse of the law, having become a curse on their behalf"—

—then how could anyone doubt that this was clearly at the times in which the Only-begotten was incarnate and became man? {A} Therefore there are taken in along with the words about the incarnation also the things economically brought upon him who suffered the voluntary emptying for its sake—such as hungering and growing weary.

For just as he—to whom belongs all power—would not have grown weary, nor would he have been said to hunger (being himself the food and life of all), had he not first appropriated a body whose nature it is to hunger and grow weary; so neither would he ever have been reckoned among the lawless—for thus we say he became sin—nor would he have become a curse, enduring the cross for our sake, had he not become flesh, that is, become incarnate and made man, enduring our birth (for our sake) in a manner befitting man, the birth, I mean, through the holy Virgin.

{A} And it is foolish in yet another way to suppose and say that the Word became flesh in just the way that he became curse and sin.

{B} In what way do you mean? {A} For was it not that, in order to loose the curse, he was made accursed, and in order to put an end to sin, the Father made him sin? {B} So they themselves also say.

{A} Therefore, if it is true, according to what they have supposed to be sound, that the Word became flesh just as he also became curse and sin, then he became flesh for the destruction of flesh.

Then how does he render it incorruptible and indestructible, as having first accomplished this in his own flesh? For surely he did not leave it to remain mortal and under corruption, with Adam transmitting to us the penalty for the transgression, but rather, as the flesh of the incorruptible God—that is, his own, his very own—he set it beyond death and corruption.

{A} The sacred Scripture said somewhere that the first man, that is Adam, "became a living soul," but the latter—I mean Christ—"a life-giving spirit."

Then, just as for the destruction of curse and sin he became curse and sin, do we likewise say that for the overturning of being a living soul he became a life-giving spirit? For turning the force of "became" into the absurd, they say that he became flesh in just the same way as also curse and sin.

Therefore the incarnation, or at least the becoming-man, of the Word must be done away with.

And if this is accepted as truth, the whole account of the mystery is gone from us: Christ was neither born, nor died, nor has been raised according to the Scriptures.

Where then is the faith, or the word of faith which we proclaim? For how did God raise him from the dead if he also did not die? And how could he have died if he was not born according to the flesh? And where is the resurrection of the dead, bringing to the saints the hope of unending life, if Christ has not been raised? And where is the making-alive of human bodies, accomplished by participation in his holy flesh and blood? {B} We say, then, that the Word became flesh according to his birth in the flesh from a woman, which he is said to have endured in the last times of the age, although existing as God before all ages.

For thus he came to be in likeness to us in every single respect, apart from sin.

And the all-wise Paul will testify, saying:

"...likewise himself partook of the same things, that through death he might bring to nought him who had the power of death, that is, the devil, and might deliver those who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage."

"For surely he does not take hold of angels, but he takes hold of the seed of Abraham."

"Wherefore he was obliged in all things to be made like unto his brethren."

And the being-made-like in all things has, as a beginning and inroad of the matter, the bringing-forth from a woman, and the manifestation in flesh of him who by his own nature is invisible, and the economic descent into our condition of him who is among the supreme names, and the lowliness in humanity of him who shines forth on the highest thrones, and the coming-to-be within servile measures of him who is in natural lordship.

Yet know that they will also say this: that it would perhaps be impossible and unseemly to suppose and say that the Word, who was begotten of God the Father ineffably and above understanding, also endured a second birth from a woman.

"For it suffices for him," they say, "to have been begotten once from the Father in a manner befitting God."

{A} Therefore they reproach the Son and say that he did not deliberate rightly, in that he endured the voluntary emptying for our sake.

And the august and great mystery of godliness is somehow already abolished and made vain, and they declare the skillful artistry of the Only-begotten's economy in the flesh to be useless to those on earth.

But the word of truth does not allow their stammerings to prevail; rather it will convict them of having babbled most senselessly, and of in no way knowing the mystery of Christ.

For God and the Father has begotten the Son out of himself by a single begetting.

Except that he was well-pleased to save the human race in him, by the mode of the incarnation, or at least the becoming-man, which entirely and altogether had to come to pass through birth—namely, that from a woman—so that, by the likeness to us of the Word who was begotten of God, the law of sin in the members of the flesh might be condemned, and death be brought to nought in the likeness of the death of him who knew it not.

"For if we have become united together," he says, "in the likeness of his death, we shall also be in the likeness of his resurrection."

Therefore of necessity he who is and who exists was born according to the flesh, transferring our things into himself, so that the offspring of the flesh—that is, we who are corruptible and perishing—might abide in him, who now has our things as his own, in order that we too might have his.

But those who say that the Word from God did not himself become flesh, or did not endure the birth in the flesh from a woman, do away with the economy.

For if, being rich, he had not become poor, lowering himself to our condition out of love for mankind, neither would we have been enriched with his things, but we are still in poverty, held fast by curse and death and sin.

For the Word's becoming flesh holds the release and overturning of the things that befell man's nature out of curse and judgment.

Therefore, if they dig up the root of our salvation and uproot the foundation of hope, where will the things after it any longer rest? For if the Word did not become flesh, as I said, neither was the power of death shaken down, and sin has in no way been brought to nought, and we are still liable to the transgressions of the first man—that is, Adam—having no ascent to the better, the ascent, I mean, through Christ the Savior of us all.

{A} And who could be thought by us to be the one who partook of blood and flesh in like manner as we, as being other than us by nature? For surely no one would say that it befits a man to partake of humanity.

For what one is by nature, how could one be thought to have received, as though it were something other than what one is? Does not the argument have much probability? {B} Most certainly.

...the birth from a woman according to the flesh.

For in what way could his body make us alive if it is not his own, his who is life? How does the blood of Jesus cleanse us from all sin if it is that of a common man and one under sin? How did God and the Father send his Son, born of a woman, born under the law? How did he condemn sin in the flesh? For it did not belong to a common man, who has a nature tyrannized along with us by sin, to condemn sin.

But since it became the body of him who knew no transgression, for this very reason and most fittingly it shook off the tyranny of sin, and is enriched with the property of the Word who was united to it ineffably and beyond telling; it is holy and life-giving, and full of divine activity.

And as in a firstfruits in Christ, we too are transelemented into being superior to corruption and sin.

And it is true that, according to the word of the blessed Paul:

"Just as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly"—that is, of Christ.

And Christ is understood to be the heavenly man, not as having brought down the flesh to us from above and from heaven, but because, being God the Word, he came down from the heavens, and having undergone the likeness to us—that is, having endured the birth in the flesh from a woman—he remained what he was, namely from above and from the heavens, and over all as God, even with the flesh.

For thus, somewhere, the divinely-eloquent John says concerning him:

"He who comes from above is over all."

For he has remained Lord of all even while economically coming to be in the form of the slave; and for these reasons the mystery of Christ is truly paradoxical.

And so God and the Father said somewhere to the Jews through one of the prophets:

"Behold, you despisers, and vanish away, and marvel; for I work a work in your days, a work which you will in no way believe though someone declare it to you."

For the mystery of Christ is in danger of being disbelieved because of the excess of the wonder.

God was in humanity and in our condition—he who is above all creation; the invisible, visible according to the flesh; he who is from heaven and from above, in the form of those made of dust; the intangible, touchable; he who by his own nature is free, in the form of a slave; he who blesses creation, accursed; and in the lawless, all righteousness; and in the semblance of death, the Life came to be.

For the body that tasted death was not that of some other one, but rather of him who is by nature the Son.

Have you, then, anything to find fault with in these things, as not being well put, or at least as having been said by us? {B} Not at all.

{A} Consider for me this too, in addition to these things.

{B} What is it you say? {A} Christ said somewhere to those who wished to do away with the resurrection of the dead:

"Have you not read that he who made man in the beginning made them male and female?" And the divinely-eloquent Paul also writes:

"Marriage is honorable in all, and the bed undefiled."

Then how did the only-begotten Word of God, having willed to undergo the likeness to us, not allow the laws of humanity to prevail for the constitution, that is the generation, of his own flesh? For he did not consent to take it from bed and marriage, but from a holy and unmarried virgin, who conceived of the Spirit, the power of God overshadowing her, as it is written.

Therefore, since God did not dishonor marriage, but rather even honored it with a blessing, why did he... a virgin conceiving of the Spirit... of his own flesh...

{A} And yet how would the cause of this not become evident to all who consider that matter? For the Son came, as I said—that is, became man—to re-elementize our condition as in himself, and first into a holy and wondrous and truly paradoxical melting-away and life.

...not of the will of man, but having from God through the Spirit our spiritual regeneration, and the spiritual conformity to the Son who is by nature and truly, we call God Father, and so remain incorruptible, as no longer having the first man—that is, Adam—as father, in whom we also were corrupted.

And so Christ said in one place that "Call no man your father on the earth, for one is your Father who is in the heavens."

But in another place, as having for this reason come down into our condition that he might lead us to his own and God-befitting dignity:

"I go to my Father and your Father, and my God and your God."

For he who is in the heavens is by nature his Father, but our God.

But since he who is by nature and truly the Son became like us, he says that he has him as God, according to the account befitting the emptying.

For it is written that "As many as received him, to them he gave authority to become children of God, to those who believe in his name."

But if we senselessly do away with the Word from God the Father (he who is pre-eminent in all things, according to the word of the most wise Paul) coming-to-be in the bringing-forth that is according to us, toward whom thereafter, being conformed, shall we be designated born of God through the Spirit? Having received from whom the firstfruits of the matter, or who at all is the one sending the dignity unto us? {B} They would say, as I think, even they themselves:

"From the Word who became man."

{A} Then how will this be true unless he himself became flesh, that is man, making the human body his own according to an indivisible union, so that it is understood to be his and no other's? For thus he will send the grace of adoption unto us also, and we too shall be born of the Spirit, inasmuch as man's nature obtained this in him and first.

And it seems to me that the divinely-eloquent Paul, having pondered some such thing within himself, said somewhere most rightly:

"For just as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly"; and "the first man is of the earth, earthy, but the second is from heaven"; but "as is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy; and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly."

For we are earthy in that, from earthy Adam, the curse of corruption fell upon us, through which also the law of sin entered in, the law in the members of the flesh.

But we have become heavenly in that we received the matter in Christ.

For being God by nature and from God and from above, he came down into our condition in an unusual and strange way, having become born according to the flesh of the Spirit, so that we too might remain holy and incorruptible after his pattern, since the grace plainly descends to us as from a beginning and a second root, namely himself.

{A} But in what way do they say that he was made like his brethren in all things—that is, like us? Or who at all could be conceived as the one who underwent the likeness, unless he was by nature other and not within our condition? For that which is made like to some must surely be in every way different from them, and not like them, but rather of another kind, or at least of another nature.

Therefore, being unlike us according to nature, the Only-begotten is said to have been made like us, having become as we are—that is, man.

And this could come to pass most rightly, and only, as in the bringing-forth according to us, even if in his case paradoxically.

For it was God who was being incarnate.

Yet let it be confessed that the body united to him was ensouled rationally.

For he did not, dismissing the better part in us—that is, the soul—take thought for the earthly body alone, but, being God, the Word wisely provided beforehand for soul and body together.

{A} Therefore, if those on the opposite side say that the holy Virgin ought by no means to be named Theotokos, but rather Christotokos, they openly blaspheme, and drive Christ away from being God and truly Son—

—her who bore him, I mean according to the flesh. {B} "Yes," they say.

Surely the name "Christ" would suggest some anointing that took place, would it not? {A} You said rightly that one is named "Christ" (anointed) only because of having been anointed, just as indeed one is an "apostle" because of the sending, and an "angel" (messenger) because of the announcing.

For such names make manifest certain matters, not individual hypostases, nor confessed persons.

For even the prophets are called "anointed ones," according to what is hymned in the Psalms:

"Touch not my anointed ones, and do my prophets no harm."

And the prophet Habakkuk also said:

"You went forth for the salvation of your people, to save your anointed ones."

For do they not themselves say that there is one Christ and Son, as the only-begotten Word of God become man and incarnate as Lord? {B} They might perhaps say so; yet they do not wish the name "Christ" to be more fitting to the Word who was begotten of God the Father, on the ground that he was not anointed in his own nature as God.

And to this they add the following as well:

"For surely," they say, "it is not one of those names which might be spoken by us also of the Father himself, or even of the Holy Spirit."

{A} The argument is not yet quite clear.

For it is possible to see in the God-inspired Scriptures that the title of the Son is set forth most abundantly and variously.

For he has been named God, and Lord, and light, and life, and moreover also king, and Lord of hosts, and holy, and almighty.

But if anyone should wish to say these same things of the Father himself, or at least of the Holy Spirit, he would not miss what is fitting;

for of one nature there will surely be also one pre-eminence of dignities.

If, then, "Christ" is truly a name fitting to the Only-begotten, let it go—they say—indiscriminately, along with the others, also for the Father himself and the Holy Spirit.

But since it is altogether implausible to apply it to the Father and to the Holy Spirit, neither, according to reason, will it apply to the Only-begotten himself.

{A} We too ourselves say that the names of the God-befitting dignities are common to Father and Son and Holy Spirit, and we are accustomed to crown together with equal honors the one who was begotten of the Father, namely the Son, and besides the Holy Spirit.

Except, O best of men—I would say—the name "Christ," and the thing itself, that is the anointing, has accrued to the Only-begotten together with the modes of the emptying, introducing to the hearers a clear manifestation of the becoming-man.

For that he was anointed in that he appeared as man, this would signify very well.

If, then, we were not examining the very account of the economy in the flesh, but it were set before us to behold the only-begotten Word of God as being somewhere outside, for the time being, of the measures of the emptying, it would indeed be most reasonably altogether silly to name "Christ" him who was not anointed.

But since the divine and most sacred Scripture says that he became flesh, the anointing would now also befit him, having come to pass in connection with the incarnation, which is his.

And so the all-wise Paul writes:

"For both he who sanctifies and those who are sanctified are all of one."

"I will declare your name to my brethren."

For he was sanctified together with us when he became as we are.

"Your throne, O God, is forever and ever."

"A scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom."

"...You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness; therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness above your fellows."

Understand, then, how, having called him God and given him a throne forever, he says he was anointed by God—plainly the Father—with an exceptional anointing above those who share in him, that is, above us.

For even if he became man, although being God the Word, yet even so he was in need of nothing of the good things of his own nature, being self-complete and "full of grace and truth," according to the word of John.

And he himself has perfectly unto every single God-befitting thing, but from his fullness we all received, according to what is written.

Therefore, appropriating together with the measures of his own humanity also the things belonging to it, he is named "Christ," even if he be not thought to have been anointed, according, I mean, to the nature of the Godhead, or at least in so far as he is understood to be God.

For tell me, how could he otherwise be understood as one Christ and Son and Lord, if the Only-begotten deems the anointing unworthy of him, and does not endure the measures of the emptying? {B} They go somehow by a different path than we, interpreting senselessly the mystery of godliness.

"And we say neither two sons nor two lords; but since God the Word, the only-begotten Son of the Father, is Son according to substance, to whom this one is conjoined and of whom he partakes, he shares in the appellation and honor of Son; and since God the Word, to whom this one is conjoined, is Lord according to substance, he shares in the honor."

"And therefore we say neither two sons nor two lords, since—when he who is Lord and Son according to substance is manifest—the one who was assumed for the sake of our salvation, having an inseparable conjunction with him, is carried up together with him into the naming and honor of the Son and the Lord."

{A} Alas for the folly and the witless mind of those who have somehow supposed these things to be so!

For the thing is unbelief and nothing else, and a novelty of impious inventions, and an overturning of the divine and sacred proclamations, which have cried aloud one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God—plainly the Word from God the Father, become man and incarnate—so that the same one is at once both God and man, and that of one are all things, both the God-befitting and besides the human.

For this one, existing and subsisting always, according to his being God, endured the birth according to the flesh from a woman.

Therefore both the existing and subsisting eternally and the being born according to the flesh in the last times belong to one and the same; who, being holy by nature as God, was sanctified together with us in that he appeared as man, to whom sanctification might befit.

And being in lordly dignities, and having the form of the slave as his own, he named the Father his God.

Being life and life-giving as God, he is said to be made alive by the Father in that he appeared as man.

...one dishonors the economy, which the Father himself also approved, if the things spoken through the voice of Paul are true:

"Him who knew no sin he made sin on our behalf, that we might become the righteousness of God in him"; and at another time again:

"He who did not spare his own Son, but delivered him up on behalf of us all, how shall he not also with him freely give us all things?"

And, as is fitting, the mystery of the economy in the flesh has been turned round to the entirely opposite.

For it is not possible to see how, being God by nature and having appeared from God, the Word lowered himself into emptying, taking the form of a slave, and humbled himself; but rather, from the contrary side, man was carried up into the glory of the Godhead and the pre-eminence over all things, and received also the form of God, and was rather exalted, having become enthroned together with the Father.

Is not what I say true? {B} Most certainly.

For the law speaks the mystery of Christ, and concerning him Moses has written, who also became our tutor unto him.

But the faith somehow departs into nothing, for... altogether our august mystery has flowed away into nothing.

Which indeed the all-excellent Paul also makes plain, saying:

"Say not in your heart:

'Who shall ascend into heaven?' (that is, to bring Christ down); or 'Who shall descend into the abyss?' (that is, to bring Christ up [from the dead])."

"But what does the Scripture say? 'The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart'—that is, the word of faith which we proclaim—that if you confess with your mouth, 'Lord Jesus,' and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you shall be saved."

How then is the mystery of godliness still great and glorious and in the highest wonder, if one must believe that, as the perverse say, a man was assumed and conjoined relatively to God the Word, and died and came back to life and was carried up into heaven? And it might perhaps seem incredible to some, unless being God by nature and truly, he glories in the seats of the Godhead—the Son who is by nature having perhaps somehow been expelled—and the angels and archangels and, beyond these still, the Seraphim stand by, holding the ministering rank, not to the one who is according to truth the Son and God, but rather to a man who became rich in the name of sonship by participation and by insertion and in a manner according to us, and was deemed worthy of so most-God-befitting an honor.

For those on the opposite side shudder least of all even at saying this.

...has been filled? For that which is given and inserted would be liable to rejection, and that which is procured from outside does not have its loss free from suspicion.

And I pass over in silence what is still ill-sounding and discordant to put into words.

{B} "But even if he be understood as a man individually," they say, "by reference to God and in conception he has the worship from all creation."

{A} Then in what way, tell me, would it befit this much-bruited "reference" of theirs to be understood and spoken of by us? Come, let us busily search the divine and sacred Scripture, and behold from it the thing sought.

Now, having once slighted the reverence due to God, those of Israel bitterly assailed Moses and Aaron.

Then Moses and Aaron declared aloud:

"What are we, that you murmur against us? For your murmuring is not against us, but against God."

For they were offending against Moses and Aaron, but the deed touched the divine glory, and the manner of the suspicion of the insolent ones had its reference upon it.

Yet Moses and Aaron were not gods, nor did creation worship them by reference to God.

God was reigning, through the prophets, over Israel according to the flesh.

Then they came saying to the divinely-eloquent Samuel:

"Make us a king, like also all the other nations."

At this the Spirit-bearer was embittered, and very reasonably so, but he heard God saying:

"They have not rejected you, but rather me, that I should not reign over them."

Behold then again, here also clearly, the manner of the rejection has its reference unto God.

And indeed the Savior and Lord of all himself says concerning those in need:

"Inasmuch as you did it to one of these least, you did it to me."

{A} Is it then sufficient, for his needing to take the glory befitting God and to be carried beyond the measures of creation, merely to be conjoined to him? And will this make worshipful one who is not God? But I find someone saying to God through the lyre of the Psalmist:

"My soul has cleaved after you."

And the blessed Paul also writes:

"He who cleaves to the Lord is one spirit."

...holds the conjunction with much intensity.

{A} But why, then, dismissing "union"—although it is a term well-worn among us ourselves, and indeed one coming down to us from the holy Fathers—do they name it "conjunction"? And yet "union" in no way confuses the things of which it might be spoken, but rather shows the running-together into some one thing of the things conceived as united.

And it is not only the simple and uniform that might be called "one" wholly and altogether, but indeed also the things composed out of two or more, and even out of diverse kinds.

Therefore, most mischievously dividing into two the one Son who by nature and truly became man and is incarnate, they decline "union," but name it "conjunction," such as perhaps even some other might have toward God, as being bound, so to speak, by virtue and sanctification, according to what was rightly said by one of the prophets to those sinking into sloth:

"Gather yourselves together and be bound together, O nation undisciplined, before you become as a flower passing away."

And a disciple might be conjoined to a teacher according to the love of learning, and we to one another, not in one way, but in many.

Or perhaps even the assistant in some matter might reasonably be conceived as not unconjoined, according to free choice, to the one who took him for assistance.

But what the "conjunction" of the innovators seems rather to make clear to us:

Is it not, then, that through these arguments he is seen to be wholly and altogether other than the one who is by nature and truly Son? {B} I affirm it.

{A} But since they have once slipped into this ignorance, so as to suppose and say that the only-begotten Word of God did not rather himself become as we are, but took a man, in what manner then do they wish the assumption to be understood by us? For do they wish it as one taken up by him for the purpose of accomplishing something according to his will, just as indeed also one of the holy prophets†

†"I was no prophet, neither a prophet's son, but I was a herdsman, and a dresser of sycamore fruit; and the Lord took me from the flock," and the Lord said to me:

"Go, prophesy to my people Israel"? For being a herdsman, he set him as a prophet, and made him a minister of his own wills.

{B} They would perhaps say that the assuming did not at all happen in this way, but rather as the phrase "taking the form of a slave" might be understood by us.

{A} Therefore, what was taken would reasonably be understood as having become, according to an indivisible union, the very own of the one who took it, so that Jesus is both God, and the truly-according-to-truth Son of God, one and only, as the Word from God the Father, begotten divinely before all ages and time, the same one according to the flesh from a woman in the last times of the age.

For the form of the slave was not another's, but became his own.

{B} How do you mean? {A} For tell me, would that which is by nature a slave not unfittingly be said to take the form of a slave, or that which is truly free, and lies essentially above the measures of slavery? {B} The free, I suppose.

For that which one is by nature, how could one still become it? {A} Behold then that, although the only-begotten Word of God became as we are, and entered into the measures of slavery according to the human element, the natural freedom bore witness to him in the contribution of the didrachmas, when he said:

"Then are the sons free."

And that which is superior always prevails, and the shame from slavery was done away by us.

And thus the dignity has passed over to us also.

For we too have been called sons of God, and have inscribed as Father him who is his own in a particular sense.

For the human things have become his too.

Therefore, in his being said to take the form of the slave lies the whole mystery of the economy in the flesh.

"My glory I will not give to another."

For how is he not another, in a particular sense, beside the one who is by nature and truly Son—he who is honored by a bare and mere conjunction, and is taken in the rank of an attendant, and is deemed worthy of sonship just as we ourselves, and has partaken of the glory from another, having been brought to this by gift and grace? {B} Should not Emmanuel then be divided into a man individually and into God the Word? {A} By no means.

And I say that he must be called God who has become man, and that this and that are at one and the same time the same one.

For neither has he departed from being God in becoming man, nor indeed does he hold the economy unacceptable, having dishonored the measure of the emptying.

{B} "Then was his body," they say, "consubstantial with the Word?"

"For thus, and not otherwise, would one and only Son be understood."

{A} And yet how are these things not already nonsense and a clear demonstration of a raving mind? For how could anyone see in identity of substance the things so far separated from one another by the accounts of nature? For Godhead is one thing, and humanity another.

Since of what things do we say the union came to pass? For one would not say that the things united are one in number, but rather two, perhaps, or even more than this.

{A} It must not be divided, as I said, into an individual otherness, the otherness consisting in being apart from one another and separately.

But rather it must be brought together into an unsundered union.

For the Word became flesh, according to the word of John.

{B} Have the two natures, then, been confused and become one?

{A} Then who would be so thunderstruck and unlearned as either to suppose that the divine nature of the Word was turned into what it was not, or that the flesh passed over, according to the mode of alteration, into the nature of the Word himself? For it is impossible.

Yet we say that there is one Son and one nature of him, even if he be conceived as having come to be in the assumption of flesh possessing a rational soul.

For the human element, as I said, became his, and is understood by us in no other way except that according to this very mode he is at once both God and man.

{B} Then would there not be two natures, of God and of man?

{A} Godhead and humanity are each something different, according to the accounts inherent in each.

But in Christ they were, strangely and beyond understanding, run together into unity, apart from confusion and change.

And the mode of the union is altogether inconceivable.

{B} And how, out of two—Godhead and humanity—would one Christ be conceived? {A} In no other way, I think, than in that in which things brought together with one another might be in an unsundered union, and the one beyond understanding, as I said.

{B} Such as what, namely? {A} Do we not say that the man understood according to us is one, and that there is one nature of him, although he does not have the single-form, but is rather composed of two—I mean of soul and body? {B} We do say so.

{A} Let no one, taking the flesh separately and setting apart from it the soul united to it, cut up the one man into two men, and corrupt the account of rightness! {B} And yet the all-wise Paul writes:

"...our outward man is being destroyed, yet the inward is being renewed day by day."

For he knew, he knew clearly, the things out of which the one is, and renders the difference apprehensible by contemplation alone.

And he names the inward man the soul, and indeed also the flesh the outward.

"I will pour out from my Spirit upon all flesh"; and indeed Moses, conversing with those of Israel:

"In seventy-five souls your fathers went down into Egypt"—and we shall find this coming to pass in the case of Emmanuel himself.

For after the union—I mean that with the flesh—even if one should call him Only-begotten and God from God, he would not be understood to exist apart from flesh or at least from humanity.

And even if one should call him man, this will not drive him away from being God and Lord.

{B} But if we say that there is one nature of the Son, even if he be conceived as incarnate, there is surely every necessity to confess that a mixing and blending came to pass, with the nature of man being, as it were, stolen away in him.

For what is man's nature compared to the pre-eminence of the Godhead? {A} Most certainly, O comrade, superfluous in speech is he who says that a mixing and blending came to pass, if indeed one nature of the Son, incarnate and become man, be confessed by us.