Panarion (Against Heresies) 1 part 75/82

For the promise did not extend even to irrational creatures, but is for human beings, for whose sake also the Lord became man.

Since this saying has this meaning, those who have supposed that the flesh which is from Mary existed before Mary, and that the Word had a human soul before this, and that he had always existed in it before his sojourning here, will fittingly condemn themselves altogether.

And those who have said that the flesh was not capable of receiving death, but that it belonged to an immortal nature, will also cease from this error.

For if he did not die, how did Paul hand on to the Corinthians what he also had received, that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures? And how did he rise at all, if he had not first died? Those who ever conceived the notion that the Trinity could become a Tetrad, if the body were said to be from Mary, ought to blush greatly.

For, they say, if we call the body consubstantial with the Word, the Trinity remains a Trinity, since the Word introduces into it nothing foreign.

But if we call the body from Mary human, then, since the body is by essence foreign to the Word, and the Word is within it, it is necessary that a Tetrad results instead of a Trinity, on account of the addition of the body.

In saying these things, they do not perceive how they fall into contradiction with themselves.

For even if they do not say the body is from Mary, but that it is consubstantial with the Word, none the less — the very thing they were pretending not to hold, lest they be thought to believe it — they will be shown, according to their own reasoning, to be speaking of a Tetrad.

For just as the Son, being according to them consubstantial with the Father, is not himself the Father, but is called the Son consubstantial with the Father, so too the body consubstantial with the Word is not itself the Word, but is other in relation to the Word.

But since it is other, their Trinity, according to their own reasoning, becomes a Tetrad.

For it is not the true, really perfect, and undivided Trinity that admits of addition, but the one devised by these people.

And how are they still Christians, devising something other beside the God who truly is? For again, in another sophistry of theirs, one may see their folly.

They are deceived, making the creature equal to the Creator, and supposing that the Godhead can receive addition.

And they have failed to understand that the Word did not become flesh for the addition of Godhead, but that the flesh might rise; nor did he proceed from Mary in order that the Word might be improved, but that he might redeem the human race.

How then do they suppose that the body, redeemed and made alive through the Word, effects an addition to the Godhead of the Word who made it alive? For rather, it is to the human element itself that a great addition has come about, from its communion and union with the Word.

From mortal it became immortal, and being natural, it became spiritual; and having come from earth, it passed through the gates of heaven.

The Trinity, however, even when the Word has taken a body from Mary, remains a Trinity, admitting neither addition nor subtraction, but is always perfect; and in the Trinity one Godhead is known, and thus in the Church one God, the Father of the Word, is proclaimed.

From this, therefore, those who once said that he who came forth from Mary was not himself the Christ and Lord and God will henceforth be silenced.

For if he was not God in the body, how, immediately upon coming forth from Mary, was he called Emmanuel, which, being interpreted, is 'God with us'? And how, if the Word was not in the flesh, did Paul write to the Romans, 'from whom is Christ according to the flesh, who is God over all, blessed for ever, Amen'? Let those, then, who formerly denied that the Crucified One was God, confess that they were mistaken, being persuaded by all the divine scriptures, and especially by Thomas, who, after seeing in him the marks of the nails, cried out, 'My Lord and my God.'

For the Son, being God and the Lord of glory, was in the body that was ingloriously nailed and dishonored; and the body indeed suffered, being pierced upon the wood, and blood and water flowed from its side, but being the temple of the Word, it was filled with the Godhead.

For this reason the sun, seeing its own Maker enduring outrage in the body, withdrew its rays and darkened the earth; and the body itself, though possessing a mortal nature, rose beyond its own nature on account of the Word within it, and it has ceased from corruption according to nature, and has become the garment of the Word; and having put on the Word who is above man, it has become incorruptible.

As for those who imagine and say that, just as the word came upon each of the prophets, so too the Word came upon a certain man from Mary, it is superfluous to labor over the point, since the condemnation of their folly is plain.

For if he came in this way, why was this one born of a virgin, and not likewise of a man and a woman? For thus was each of the saints also born.

Or why, if the Word came in this way upon each of them, is it not said that the death of each was on our behalf, but only the death of this one? And why, when the Word sojourned upon each of the prophets, is it said, only in the case of the one from Mary, that he sojourned once for all at the consummation of the ages? Or why, if he came in the same way as he came upon the saints before him, did all the others, having died, not yet rise again, while the one from Mary alone rose on the third day? Or why, if the Word came likewise upon the others, is it said that only the one from Mary is Emmanuel, as though the body born of her were filled with Godhead? For Emmanuel is interpreted 'God with us.'

Or why, if he came in this way, when each of the saints ate and drank and toiled and died, is it not said that it was he himself who was eating and toiling and dying, but only in the case of the one from Mary? For whatever this body suffered is spoken of as though he himself were suffering it.

And whereas of all the others it is only said that they were brought forth and born, of the one from Mary alone it is said, 'And the Word became flesh.'

This one the Father also showed forth at the Jordan and on the mountain, saying, 'This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.'

Him the Arians denied, but we acknowledge him, worshiping him, not dividing the Son and the Word, but knowing that the Word himself is the Son, through whom all things came into being and through whom we have been set free.

Wherefore we have marveled how, among you, there could have arisen any contention at all concerning matters so evident.

But thanks be to God: as much as we grieved when reading through the records, so much did we rejoice at their outcome.

For they departed in agreement and were reconciled in peace, upon the confession of the pious and orthodox faith.

This, then, after much prior deliberation, has moved even me to write these few things, considering that, from my silence, grief might arise instead of joy for those who, by their agreement, have given us occasion to rejoice.

I ask, then, first your Reverence, and secondly those who hear this, to receive it with a good conscience; and if anything is lacking with regard to piety, to correct it and make it known to me; but if, as coming from one unskilled in speech, it has been written neither worthily nor completely, that all should pardon our weakness in speaking.

Since, then, the letter has been inserted, and we were moved to write not only from what we heard from them, or from others, concerning what was said, but it has also become plain to all that we have slandered no one.

Next I shall take up the matter concerning them, so that from every side we may not be suspected by anyone of slandering our brethren — though indeed I still pray for them, even now, that they may correct what seems to grieve us, so that neither they may suffer harm from us, nor we from them.

For many times we have interceded on this matter and exhorted them, and we still persist in exhorting them, to lay aside their contentiousness and to follow the divine ordinance of the apostles and evangelists and fathers, and the confession of the faith that is without excessive curiosity, steadfast, unmovable, and most just in all things.

But others have said in our hearing that the Lord, when he came, took not this flesh of ours, nor one like ours, but another different from ours.

And would that they spoke this way out of a desire to glorify and praise him!

For we too say that the body is holy and undefiled.

For he committed no sin, neither was deceit found in his mouth. And this is plain to everyone who speaks and thinks piously concerning Christ.

But we, even if we say it is the very same body — just as it is the very body of ours that he took — say that with him his body is undefiled, whereas in us who have transgressed it is not so; not because the body in itself is something foreign, alien, inferior, and diminished, but because of our sins and transgressions — it is for this reason.

For the Lord did not take one kind of body while we have another, but it is the very same body, guarded in him and kept undefiled.

But others of them, even up to now being carried away by a certain contentiousness, led on by alien suspicions, not according to the teaching of the fathers, nor holding fast the head of the faith, from whom the whole body, being supplied and knit together through joints and ligaments, grows with the growth of God, as the apostle says, but rather, as though their hearing had been muddied by certain outsiders, drawing nearer to Valentinus and Marcion and Mani, they too, allegedly for the honor of Christ, indulge in imagination rather than speak the truth.

...to concede these vain words, after the manner of Valentinus and the aforementioned heresies...

Whenever we confess the body of Christ to be, in every respect, completely †...overcuriously†...

It is written concerning such people who are busybodies, and accomplish nothing.

For, startling the minds of the more simple-hearted, they immediately say:

'Did he, then, have need of the customary functions of the flesh, or of relieving himself, or of the privy, or of the other such things?'

Such things seem to be wise, but are in fact terrible, and rather silly nonsense, as the prophet says: 'For who required these things at your hands?' For concerning which of the saints — although the prophets were human beings and not gods, and likewise the evangelists and the rest, who consisted of soul and flesh, being as we are, and not disputed to be so — was it ever written concerning such matters? Where, rather, has scripture not testified to more solemn things concerning the saints, let alone concerning the Lord Christ?

Let those who terrify the sheep, and startle the doves, and scatter the lambs and flocks of Christ, tell us: where was it recorded how Moses prepared for his forty-day fast? Where did Elijah attend to necessities at the brook Cherith, when in the morning he ate bread and in the evening meat, brought to him by ravens at God's command? For it would have been foolish for scripture to speak of such things, just as it is foolish for these people now to inquire into them.

For what benefit is there in such things? Or what use is there, except only toward unbelief, having, on account of frigid talk and vain subversion, only pretexts for prejudice? Let them tell us again, by what reasoning, when God willed it, he caused that for forty years the hair of the sons of Israel should not grow long, nor their sandals grow old, nor their garments wear out or become soiled.

Had these people, then, come down from heaven? Were such as these gods? And yet they were by no means praiseworthy, but in many things provoked God to jealousy.

Were they not of like nature with us? But it was so that God might show that all things are possible with him, and that it is within his power both for things to happen and not to happen.

For lest anyone should again attribute to those people something above nature, on account of the marvels that came upon them from God — that is, that their hair did not grow, and their garments did not wear out, and the like, and that man ate the bread of angels — the divine writing, safeguarding this for our benefit, says: 'Let each one take an iron peg in his belt, so that when he sits down in a place, he may dig and cover up his own excrement, because you are a holy people, and the Lord dwells in the midst of the camp.'

In support of this, the children of the Hebrews also adduce a tradition, that the pattern continued for them for a certain time, until God willed to show this wonder among them, though they also ate meat and quail, it happened that they had no need of this.

And if among the Hebrews, on account of glory toward their own fathers, this is celebrated, whether more by way of an added embellishment out of favor, or in accordance with truth — even though they know that those on whose behalf they plead were mere human beings, corruptible and not gods, and consisting of flesh and blood and soul — who among them, then, will tolerate hearing such bold assertions concerning Christ, the Word of God who came from above, and his glorious and true incarnate presence in all things? In which he fulfilled what was spoken, 'tempted in all points as we are, yet without sin.'

For it was possible for him, even though he truly possessed our flesh, not to do what seem to us base things, but to do such things as were dignified and befitting, proportionate to his Godhead — through whom also the sons of Israel did not have their hair grow, and their garments were not soiled, and those other things that, according to tradition, happened to them.

But that he also had garments made by human hands is beyond doubt.

For they divided his garments among themselves, and cast lots for his clothing.

And if the garment was made by human hands, it is clear that it was made of wool and of linen.

But when he willed to show the power of his Godhead, having been transfigured, he showed his face as the sun, and his garments white as snow.

For all things are possible to him who is powerful, so as, beyond expectation, to transform even insensate and lifeless things into glory and brightness under his touch, as with the rod of Moses, as with the sandals of the sons of Israel.

For it is confessed by all that the holy apostles were human beings, corruptible in their bodies as we are, but incorruptible on account of the glory of God dwelling in them; and the shadow of Peter healed all who were brought to him having infirmities, and handkerchiefs and aprons from the garments of Paul worked mighty deeds.

And how do these people meddle so curiously with God, fabricating certain shameful suspicions, concerning which there has never been any need at all for discussion — not for a prophet, not for an evangelist, not for an apostle, not for a writer? For however much of this sort these people say — even if they should wickedly conjecture ten thousand things beyond this — they will not overturn our ancestral faith, which truly proclaims Christ as man.

For Christ was truly born in the flesh, from Mary the ever-virgin, through the Holy Spirit, and immediately from his conception he is called Emmanuel, which is 'God with us'; and he is not born a second time.

And the child fled into Egypt with Joseph and Mary, since they sought the child's life, inasmuch as he could be killed in the flesh.

But he was worshiped by the Magi as true God, having been born in the flesh in truth and not in appearance.

And going up from Egypt, on account of Joseph's fear, he did not enter Jerusalem, because of Archelaus, inasmuch as the child could be seized and, before the appointed time, suffer in the flesh what he was destined to suffer.

But he was hindered by John, being recognized by the servant as Master, because he was truly God having become man.

But he did not accept the honor offered by his own servant on this occasion, so that he might fulfill all righteousness in the flesh, leaving us the pattern of salvation in a true and perfect incarnation.

But he also truly grew weary from his journey, and he did not merely grow weary, but also sat down, because he had truly become man; and he cried out, saying, 'Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest,' so that he might show that his Godhead was sufficient to give rest to all the multitudes of the world who come to him.

But he was also tempted by the devil, and remained forty days neither eating nor drinking, that he might show the self-sufficiency of his own divinity.

For he did not endure it while hungering, as one who practices self-control philosophically after our manner, straining and constraining himself, but without any lack, on account of his true divinity.

And afterward, says the Scripture, he hungered, that he might show the true incarnation of the divinity, the divinity yielding to the fleshly presence so as to partake of reasonable and genuine needs, lest the genuineness of the natural sequence should obscure the true incarnation.

For indeed, at the fig tree he hungered, and he made real clay;

but God spoke a word to the fig tree, and it came to pass; and on the boat he rebuked the wind, and it ceased; and through the spittle and the clay -- by the word of his own divinity, by the spittle of his own becoming man, and by the clay again, as with Adam -- he graciously fashioned and gave to this man his missing member; all things being perfectly in him, suffering in the flesh, but impassible in divinity, until he rose from the dead, thereafter suffering not at all, no longer dying at all.

But if some, because he did not receive his body from the seed of a man, should think it of a different kind, it is not altogether the case, on this account, that it is not according to our body.

For since it is confessed to be from Mary, it was ours.

For Mary too was nothing other than our bodies, since Adam also was not from the seed of a man, but was fashioned from the earth.

Had he been of the seed of a man, he would have been of a different kind from our bodies.

For we have been born from him, and we are not of a different kind from his body, even though we have been born from the seed of a man and from the womb of a woman.

But some, often being clever about these matters and holding notions in mind, fell away from the point at hand; while others again, from among those who came to us, adding countless other things and going beyond in superfluous talk, slandered the man who is renowned with much praise.

And indeed, I think, in truth they went beyond what was necessary -- whether out of simplicity, or out of inattentiveness, or according to their own notions -- going forth and pronouncing such things, and so they have caused the disturbance.

But now let my discourse concerning these superfluous matters be sufficient up to this point, so that those who read may understand that we are consumed neither by envy nor by hatred toward the man.

For we pray that he may not be divided from the church of Christ and from the sweetness of the whole brotherhood, but that he may lay aside his stubborn insistence on strife concerning this teaching, and return, according to what is said: 'Return, return, O Shulammite; return, that we may look upon you.'

Nevertheless, I will again take up the sequence concerning the matter at hand.

He is unwilling to call the enfleshed presence of Christ perfect, and he even rejects the salvation of some, instilling fear and saying that one must not say that the same one assumed a perfect man -- allegedly on the basis of the saying, 'The Lord takes up the meek.'

But there is nothing remarkable, nor can anyone show any difference in this, in saying that the Lord 'took up' flesh or 'received' a perfect incarnation -- just as, often among us, many words happen to be used as synonyms.

For it says, 'taking up the meek is the Lord,' and 'he took me from the flocks of the sheep,' and 'he was taken up'; and two men said:

'Why do you stand looking, men of Galilee? This one who has been taken up from you...'

And 'to take up' does not at all have a single distinct sense, whether one says 'he took up,' or 'he took,' or 'he formed for himself' his own incarnation; nor can those who wish to rise up against the innocent, saying that one must not speak this way, frighten us by means of this word.

And let no one suppose that we are slandering anyone, or speaking these words about this matter in a mocking manner.

For many times I considered writing about this, lest anyone should suppose that we were rising up against him out of enmity.

For no one has harmed us at all, humanly speaking, nor has he seized anything of ours in the world.

But though I was minded not to write, I was compelled by the truth itself, lest I should pass over anyone who has thought something contrary to the faith -- so that also afterward the godly, when they encounter this, may recognize that our discourse is not for the sake of worldly rivalry.

For rather this man would benefit us the most, both as regards the world and as regards love, if he agreed in mind with the holy church of God in everything, together with all, and did not bring in secretly any strange word.

Whether, then, with him, or with those who have been discipled by him, this teaching is understood otherwise and is uttered in passing under such a figure and pretext, I am not able to say.

But often we have pondered and have been astonished, that on account of this teaching the insistence of contention and of struggle is defended by them even unto death.

And from this we came to know that perhaps this teaching is uttered among them with some further hidden meaning.

For whenever you question some of them, they all give differing reports; and some say that the Lord did not receive a perfect incarnation, nor did he become a perfect man.

But since this became something to be avoided by many, thereafter they resorted to evasive speech, as we later learned precisely from their own mouth.

For when we came to the city of Antioch, we met with their leading men, among whom was also Vitalis the bishop, a most devout man in his life, his bearing, and his conduct.

[We urged them] to agree with the faith of the holy church and to let go of the contentious word.

For what is it that stands between us? For this man had a dispute with a certain venerable and eminent man, Paulinus the bishop, and Paulinus with the aforesaid Vitalis, who had been summoned by us.

Wishing, then, to reconcile both of them into peace -- for both seemed to preach the orthodox faith, and each had a dispute for some particular reason --

For Vitalis brought against Paulinus a charge concerning, as it were, the name of Sabellius -- on account of which, when we arrived, we withheld full communion with Paulinus, until he persuaded us by means of a written statement, through which he had already previously, for the sake of his defense, given his assent to the blessed Athanasius.

For he brought forward and gave to us a copy of this document with a signature, containing clearly a statement about the Trinity together with the mind concerning the incarnation of Christ, in the hand of our blessed father Athanasius himself -- which statement I have appended below.

A copy, by the hand of Paulinus the bishop.

I, Paulinus the bishop, believe just as I received from the fathers: that the Father exists and subsists as perfect, and the Son subsists as perfect, and the Holy Spirit subsists as perfect.

Wherefore I also accept the aforewritten interpretation concerning the three hypostases and the one hypostasis, that is, essence, and those who believe accordingly:

For it is pious to believe and confess the Trinity in one Godhead.

And concerning the incarnation, which took place for our sake, of the Word of the Father, I believe just as it has been written above, that, according to John, the Word became flesh.

Not according to the most impious, who say that he underwent a change, but that for our sake he became man, being born of the holy virgin and of the Holy Spirit.

For the Savior did not have a soulless, or insensate, or mindless body.

And in the hand of bishop Athanasius:

For it was not possible, since the Lord became man for our sake, that his body should be without mind.

Wherefore I anathematize those who reject the faith confessed at Nicaea and who do not confess that the Son is of the essence of the Father, or that he is consubstantial with the Father.

I also anathematize those who say that the Holy Spirit is a creature that came into being through the Son.

Moreover, I anathematize the heresy of Sabellius and of Photinus, and every heresy, standing firm in the faith according to Nicaea and in all that has been written above.

We also said to brother Vitalis and those with him:

'What do you yourselves say? If there is anything standing between you, set it right.'

But they said that they do not say Christ became a perfect man.

But he immediately answered, 'Yes, we confess that Christ took upon himself a perfect man.'

And this was astonishing to those who heard it, and full of joy.

But knowing the mindset of those who, through pretexts, appropriate the understanding of their own brethren, we persisted in precision, asking, 'Do you confess that Christ took flesh by nature?' And he agreed, saying, 'Yes.'

'From Mary the holy virgin, without the seed of a man, and through the Holy Spirit?' And he confessed this too.

'Did God the Word, the Son of God, coming by nature from the virgin, take up the flesh?' And he agreed, though with reluctance.

And now we were established in joy, since from certain persons who had come to us in Cyprus we had heard, concerning the aforementioned followers, that they did not confess at all that the flesh was from Mary.

But when that most devout man himself confessed that our Lord Jesus Christ had taken the flesh from Mary, he was again asked by us whether he had also taken a soul.

And to this also he likewise agreed with reluctance, saying that one must not speak otherwise, but must be truthful in all things.

For the one who writes about the truth for mankind must give his whole mind to it, keeping the fear of God before his eyes, and composing nothing falsified with regard to the profession of Scripture.

[We asked whether] Vitalis [confesses that Christ] also took the human soul:

For this was the one who had said, 'Yes, Christ was a perfect man.'

Then, after questioning him concerning the soul and the flesh, we then asked:

'Did Christ, in coming, take a mind?' And he immediately denied it, saying, 'No.'

'How then do you say that he became a perfect man?' And he then disclosed his own reasoning of mind, saying that we call him a perfect man if we set the divinity in place of the mind, together with the flesh and the soul, so that he is a perfect man consisting of flesh and soul and divinity in place of the mind.

So, when the contention had become known, and we had discussed much concerning this and had established from Scripture that one must confess that God the Word took up all things perfectly, and had perfectly administered the incarnation in his enfleshed presence, and has this in perfection, and that after the resurrection from the dead he has united it to himself and has it, gloriously, wholly spiritual and no other, united in himself together with his own divinity, having brought the whole perfection to completion as one divinity, and sits in heaven at the right hand of the Father, upon the throne of glory of his eternal lordship and kingdom -- thereafter we rose up, not having persuaded either party, on account of the contention at hand.

But from this we understood that the issue for them is not really about the mind, but that behind the question of the mind lies a different underlying opinion.

For at one time they did not even confess that he had taken a soul.

But when we objected and said, 'For what is the mind? Do you consider this to be a hypostasis in man? Then would man be composed of many parts?' -- then by some it was supposed that the spirit that is always spoken of in man in the divine Scripture is this [mind].

But when we showed that the mind is not the spirit, since the Apostle clearly says, 'I will sing with the mind, I will sing with the spirit,' from this point there were many arguments, but we were not able to persuade them, since they were contentious.

Then again, when some of us said, 'Well then? Do you say that the mind is a hypostasis?', while others said that it is not a hypostasis — since we had persuaded them that one ought to think neither it nor what is called the spirit of man to be a hypostasis, because of the saying, 'I will sing psalms with the mind, I will sing psalms also with the spirit' — and since they had nothing to say in reply to this, we said: