Epistle to Epictetus, Bishop of Corinth, against heretics

“Epistle to Epictetus, Bishop of Corinth, against heretics” (12 chapters) written by St. Athanasius the Great in 371-372. and is devoted to Christological issues. Bishop Epictetus of Corinth addressed St. Athanasius for advice regarding the Christological disputes that had arisen in his Church. Some argued that the Word was transformed into flesh and changed in His own nature. Others taught that the Word descended on a holy man as one of the prophets, and did not Himself become a man, receiving a body from Mary. St. Athanasius rejects both understandings as contrary to the Catholic faith. Refuting the first, he claims that the true Word was made man and the body of the Lord was human by nature, borrowed from Mary and true. Against the teachings of other saints. Athanasius affirms the personal identity of the Word and Christ. In the “Epistle to Epictetus...” the fathers of the Council of Chalcedon saw an expression of their own convictions. *The title of the work in Greek is Ἐπιστολὴ πρὸς ̓Επίκτητον. *The title of the work in Latin is Epistula ad Epictetum episcopum Corinthi. To my lord, beloved brother and most desired co-servant, Epictetus, Athanasius wishes to rejoice in the Lord. 1) I thought that all the idle talk of all heretics, no matter how many there were, ceased as a result of the former Council in Nicaea; because faith, in accordance with the Divine Scriptures, confessed by the Fathers on him, is sufficient to overthrow all ungodliness and to confirm pious faith in Christ. Therefore, at the now various Councils in Gaul, in Spain and in great Rome, all those present, with common consent, as if moved by one Spirit, anathematized those who still philosophize in secret in the Arian way, I mean Auxentius of Mediolan, Ursatius, Valens and Gaius from Pannonia. And since people like these themselves invented the names of Councils, the Fathers wrote everywhere, in the universal Church, not to display any Council except the one that took place in Nicaea - this sign of victory over all heresy, especially over the Arian heresy, for the reason of which this Council was then especially convened. Therefore, how, even after this, do some people undertake to enter into reasoning and research? If they are from among the Arians, then it is not surprising that they condemn what is written against them, just like the pagans, hearing: “Idols of silver and gold, the works of human hands” (Psalm 113:12), the doctrine of the divine cross is considered “madness” (1 Cor. 1:23). If, from among those who consider themselves to be true believers and lovers of what the Fathers proclaimed, there are those who wish to resume the study; then they do nothing more than, as it is written, “intoxicate their friend with muddy corruption” (Hab. 2:15), and start a dispute not for any benefit, but only for the destruction of simple-minded people. 2) I am writing this, having read in the notes delivered from your piety, which would have been better not to have been written at all, so that those who will come after us will not have any memory of it. For who has ever heard anything like this? Who taught or learned this? “For out of Zion shall come the law of God, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem” (Isa. 2, 3); where did this come from? What hell spewed out such a speech: that the body born of Mary is consubstantial with the Divinity of the Word; or that the Word was transformed into flesh, bones, hair, and the whole body, and changed in His own nature? Who in the Church, or among Christians in general, has heard that the Lord bore upon Himself a body by appropriation, and not by nature so called? Or who fell into such wickedness as to think and say that the Divinity itself, consubstantial with the Father, was circumcised, and from perfect became imperfect, and that what was nailed to the tree was not the body, but the very creative essence of Wisdom? Who, hearing that the Word did not form from Mary, but from his own essence, formed a pleasurable body for himself, will call the one who affirms this a Christian? Who invented this vile wickedness - to come to the conclusion and say that he who claims that the body of the Lord is from Mary recognizes in the Divinity not a Trinity, but a quaternity? Those who reason in this way will therefore say that the flesh in which the Savior clothed himself, having received it from Mary, belongs to the essence of the Trinity itself. Where else did some take and vomit up an impiety equal to what was said above, namely, that the body is not later than the Divinity of the Word, but was always co-eternal with Him, because it was composed of the essence of Wisdom itself? How did those who call themselves Christians dare to doubt that the Lord, who came from Mary, is in essence and nature the Son of God, and “in the flesh - from the seed of David” (Rom. 1:3) and from the flesh of Holy Mary? Have some really stretched out their audacity to the point of saying: Christ, who suffered in the flesh and was crucified, is not the Lord, the Savior, God, the Son of the Father? Or, as Christians want to be called, those who claim that the Word descended on a holy man, as on one of the Prophets, and did not itself become a man, having received a body from Mary, and another is Christ, and another is God’s Word, who was the Son of the Father before Mary and before the ages? And how can they be Christians who claim that one is the Son, and another is the Word of God? 3) This was contained in the notes, and although it was expressed in many different words, they contained one thought and the same force directed towards evil. Those who boasted of the Nicene Confession of the Fathers discussed and argued about this among themselves. And I marveled at the patience of your piety and the fact that you did not force those who affirm this to be silent and did not offer them pious faith, so that they either calmed down after listening, or began to contradict, and were recognized as heretics. What was retold is unworthy for Christians to read and listen to, but in all respects it is alien to the Apostolic teaching. Therefore, as I said above, I expressed their thoughts in the message in bare words, so that everyone who heard them would see their vileness and wickedness. And although it would be appropriate to expand on the accusation and denunciation of the folly of those who think so, it is good to conclude the message with this and not write anything more. For what is so bad at first glance should not be further exposed and inquisitively examined, lest lovers of debate regard it as something still subject to doubt. Or it would be appropriate to respond to such speeches with one thing and say: it is enough that this is not the teaching of the universal Church and the Fathers did not think so. But so that the inventors of evil in our complete silence do not find a pretext for shamelessness, it is good to remember a little from the Divine Scriptures: brought to shame by this, they will perhaps abandon their vile inventions. 4) How did it come to your mind to say that the body is consubstantial with the Divinity of the Word? For it is decent to begin with this, so that when the rottenness of such an opinion is revealed, it turns out that everything like this is the same. It is impossible to find this in the divine Scriptures; they say that there was God in a human body. And the Fathers who met at Nicea called not the body, but the Son himself, consubstantial with the Father, and confessed about the Son that He is from the Father’s essence, and about the body, also in agreement with the Scriptures, that it is from Mary. Therefore, either reject the Council of Nicea and, like heretics, introduce this teaching, or, if you want to be children of the Fathers, do not philosophize beyond what they wrote. The absurdity of this teaching can also be seen from the following. If the Word is consubstantial with the body, borrowing its nature from the earth; and, according to the confession of the Fathers, the Word is consubstantial with the Father: then the Father himself will be consubstantial with the body that came from the earth. Why do you blame the Arians, who call the Son a creature, when you yourself call the Father consubstantial with creatures, and fall into another wickedness, saying that the Word was transformed into flesh, bones, hair, sinews and into the whole body, and changed in His own nature? It remains for you to clearly say that the Son came from the earth; because the nature of the bones and the whole body is from the earth. Therefore, what kind of recklessness is it to contradict ourselves? For by calling the Word consubstantial with the body, you mean the identity of one with the other; and when you say that the Word was transformed into flesh, you imagine a change in the Word itself. And who will finally allow you to even say just this? You have turned into wickedness more than any heresy. If the Word is consubstantial with the body, then mention of Mary and Her ministry is unnecessary, because the body could have existed before Mary, and it is eternal, just as the Word itself is eternal, unless, as you say, the Word is consubstantial with the body. And what need is there for the coming of the Word, so that He could either be clothed with His own essence, or, having changed in His own nature, become a body? It is not the Divinity that takes on Himself in order to be clothed with its own essence, and it is not the Word that sins, atoning for the sins of others, so that He, having changed into a body, can offer Himself as a sacrifice for Himself and atone for Himself. 5) Not really; Let this not happen! “He receives from the seed of Abraham,” as the Apostle says, “but from here he must become like the brethren in everything” (Heb. 2:16, 17), and receive a body similar to ours. For this reason, Mary was truly chosen to serve, so that He would receive the body from Her, and offer it as His own for us. And Isaiah prophetically pointed to Her, saying: “Behold, the Virgin” (Isa. 7:14). Gabriel is sent to Her, not just to the Virgin, but “to the Virgin betrothed to a man” (Luke 1:27), in order to show, by mentioning the husband to whom she was betrothed, that Mary is truly a human being. Therefore, the Scripture also mentions birth, and says: “wives” (Luke 2:7), and the breasts “that pissed” are called blessed (Luke 11:27), and a sacrifice was made as for the one born “from the opening of the lie” (Luke 2:23). All this served as an indication of the Virgin giving birth. And Gabriel clearly, with special caution, preached the gospel to Her, saying not simply: what is born “in You,” so that they would not think that it enters Her from the outside; but what is born “of You” (Luke 1:35) 1, as evidence that it is born of Her by nature. This is clearly shown by nature itself; because it is impossible for a virgin to have milk without giving birth, and it is impossible for a body to feed on milk and be given birth without first being born by nature. This one, born on the eighth day, was circumcised; This is what Simeon took into his arms; this became a youth and grew, became twelve years old and reached the age of thirty. For it was not the very essence of the Word, unchangeable and immutable, as some have imagined, that was changed and circumcised. The Savior Himself says: you see, you see, for I am, “and I do not change” (Malach. 3:6), and Paul wrote: “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today, and forever” (Heb. 13:8). But in the body that was circumcised, carried, ate food and drink, grew tired, nailed to the tree and suffered, there was the dispassionate and incorporeal Word of God. The body was placed in the tomb when, without leaving it, the Word went down, as Peter said, to preach to “those in spiritual prison” (1 Peter 3:19). 6) This most of all reveals the foolishness of those who claim that the Word was changed into bones and flesh. If this were so, then there would be no need for a coffin, because the body itself would descend to preach to the spirits who were in hell. And now he came down to preach the Word, and Joseph wrapped the body in a shroud and laid it on Golgotha; and it became clear to everyone that the body was not the Word, but the body of the Word. And this body, risen from the dead, was touched by Thomas, and he saw on it the “ulcers of nails” (John 20:25), which the Word itself suffered, seeing His own body being nailed, and although it could have prevented it, it did not prevent it; even the disembodied Word seemed to have assimilated to Himself everything that was characteristic of the body. And indeed, when the servant dealt a blow to the body, the Word, as if enduring it Himself, said: “Why do you slay Me” (John 18:23). And although the Word is by nature inviolable, it nevertheless said: “I put My cloaks on the wounds, and My cheeks on the blows, but I did not turn My face away from the cold of spitting” (Isa. 50:6). For whatever the human body of the Word endured, the Word united with it took to Himself, so that we could partake of the Divinity of the Word. And what is extraordinary, One and the same suffered and did not suffer: He suffered because His own body suffered, and He was in the suffering body; and did not suffer, because the Word, who is by nature God, is impassive. It was disembodied in a painful body, but the body had in itself the dispassionate Word, destroying the infirmities of the body itself. This Word did this, and it happened in such a way that the Word, having taken upon Himself what is ours and offered it as a sacrifice, could destroy it and finally, having clothed us in His own, give the Apostle a reason to say: “It is fitting for this corruptible to be clothed with incorruptibility, and for this dead thing to be clothed with immortality” (1 Cor. 15:53). 7) This was not done by appropriation, as some also imagined; Let this not happen! But since the Savior truly, in reality, became a man, the salvation of the whole man was accomplished. For if, as they say, the Word was in a body by appropriation so called; and what is called by appropriation is a mental representation: then it turns out that the salvation and resurrection of people, according to the most evil Manichaeus, is imaginary so-called. But our salvation is not a mental idea, and the salvation of not just the body, but the whole person, that is, soul and body, is actually accomplished in the Word itself. So, the Lord's body, according to the divine Scriptures, was human by nature, borrowed from Mary and true: it was true because it was identical with ours. Mary is our sister, because we are all from Adam. And let no one doubt this, remembering what Luke wrote. For after the resurrection from the dead, when some thought that they saw the Lord not in the body borrowed from Mary, but instead a spirit appeared to them, the Lord said: “See My hand and My nose and the wounds of the nails, as I myself am: touch Me and see that a spirit does not have flesh and bones, as you see Me. And this river showed them hand and nose” (Luke 24:39–40). By this again those who dare to say that the Lord has changed into flesh and bones can be convicted. He did not say: “as you see me” existing “flesh and bones”, but: “having”, to eliminate the thought that the Word itself has changed in them, to certify that he has them even after the resurrection, as he had before death. 8) And when this has been proven in this way, it will be unnecessary to touch upon the rest and reveal it in any way. For the body in which the Word was is not consubstantial with the Godhead, but was truly born of Mary; and the Word itself was not changed into flesh and bones, but appeared in the flesh. This is the meaning of what John said: “The Word became flesh” (John 1:14), as can be seen from such an expression. Paul writes: “Christ... became a curse against us” (Gal. 3:13). Just as He himself did not become a curse, but because He took a curse upon Himself for us, it is said that “there was a curse”; so “he became flesh,” not being changed into flesh, but because for our sake he took upon himself living flesh and became a man. To say: “The Word became flesh” again means the same thing as to say: the Word became man, according to what was said in Joel: “I will pour out My Spirit on all flesh” (Joel 2:28); because this promise did not extend to dumb animals, but refers to people, for whose sake the Lord became man. since this saying has such a meaning; then in justice let all who think that the flesh of Mary existed before Mary, and that the Word before Her had any human soul, and before His coming was always with it, condemn themselves. Let those who assert that the flesh of Christ is inaccessible to death, but immortal by nature, be silent. If Christ had not died, then how would Paul have betrayed the Corinthians, “even as he received it, that Christ died for our sins, according to the Scriptures” (1 Cor. 15:3)? How would Christ have been resurrected if he had not died? Let those who thought that instead of the Trinity there would be a quaternity be covered with great shame if they say that the body is from Mary. They say: if we call the body consubstantial with the Word, then the Trinity will remain the Trinity, because the Word does not introduce anything alien into It. And if we call the body of Mary human, then since this body is essentially alien to the Word, and the Word abides in it; then it is necessary, after the addition of the body, instead of the Trinity there will be a quaternity. 9) When they say this, they do not understand that they are contradicting themselves. For although the body of Christ is not called taken from Mary, it is called consubstantial with the Word; but nevertheless, from their own concept it will be clear that they themselves share the opinion that they present themselves as evading, and introduce the quaternity. For just as the Son, according to the teaching of the Fathers, being consubstantial with the Father, is not the Father himself, but in distinction from the Father is called consubstantial Son: so the body, consubstantial with the Word, is not the Word itself, but is something else with the Word. And if otherwise, then, according to their teaching, their Trinity will be a fourfold; because it is not the Trinity that is true and truly perfect and indivisible, but the one that is invented by them, which allows for addition. And are Christians already imagining something other than the real God? But in their other reasoning one can again discern their great recklessness. If from what is found and said in the Scriptures that the body of the Savior from Mary is human, they conclude that instead of the Trinity the quaternity is called, as if the body served as an addition to the Divinity; then many are mistaken, equating the creature with the Creator, and thinking that the Divinity can allow addition. They do not know that “the Word became flesh” (John 1:14) not for the purpose of being added to the Divinity, but in order to resurrect the flesh. The Word did not come from Mary to perfect Himself, but to redeem the human race. How then do they think that the body, redeemed and quickened by the Word, served the life-giving Word as an addition to the Divinity? Rather, for the human body itself there was a great addition from the communication and union of the Word with it. For from mortal it became immortal; being soulful, it became spiritual; being from the earth, it passed through the gates of heaven. The Trinity, and after the Word receives the body from Mary, is the Trinity, does not allow either addition or subtraction, but is always perfect. And in the Trinity the one Divinity is recognized, and thus the one God, the Father of the Word, is preached in the Church. 10) As a result of this, let those who once asserted that He who came from Mary is not Christ, Lord and God, finally be silent. For, if God was not in the flesh, then why is He who came from Mary directly called Immanuel, “even if we say: God is with us” (Matthew 1:23)? If the Word was not in the flesh, then why did Paul write to the Romans: “from them is Christ according to the flesh, who is God above all, blessed forever, Amen” (Rom. 9:5)? Therefore, those who previously denied that the Crucified One is God, let them confess their error, having been convinced by the divine Scriptures, especially by the example of Thomas, who, having seen on Him “the marks of the nails” ( John 20:25), exclaimed: “My Lord and my God” (John 20:28). For the Son, the God and Lord of glory, was in the body, ignominiously nailed and mocked. Although the body suffered, blood and water flowed from its ribs; however, being the church of the Word, it was filled with the Divinity, seeing its Creator. suffering in desecrated flesh, hid the rays and darkened the earth. And the body itself, having a mortal nature, was resurrected (which was higher than its nature), because of the Word existing in it, and put aside natural corruption, but having put on the Word, which is higher than man, it became incorruptible. 11) About what some imagine and say, as if the Word, as happened with each of the Prophets, descended on one person from Mary, it is unnecessary to go into details; because their madness clearly exposes itself. For if the Word came down in the same way as it did on the Prophets; then why is this Man from the Virgin, why is He not from husband and wife? For this is how each of the Saints was born. Or, if this is how the Word came down, then why is it not said about the death of everyone, but about the death of Him alone, that it was for us? Why, when the Word descended on each of the Prophets, is one Man from Mary spoken of as having come once at the end of the ages? Or why, when the Word descended, as it descended on the former Saints, all the others died and were not resurrected, but the only Man from Mary was resurrected after three days? Or why, when the Word descended in a similar way on others, the one Man from Mary is called Immanuel, to signify that the body born of Her is filled with Divinity? For the name “Immanuel” is interpreted: “God with us” (Matthew 1:23). Or why, if this is how the Word descended, when each of the Saints eats food, drinks, gets tired, dies, it is not said that the Word itself eats food, drinks, gets tired, dies, but this is said only about the one Man from Mary? For it is said of Him that the body of this Man suffered, as if the Word itself suffered. And when about all the others it is said only that they were born, about the one Man from Mary it is said: “and the Word became flesh” (John 1:14). 12) From this it is revealed that to all others there was a Word for the gift of prophecy; from Mary the Word itself took flesh, and man came into existence, who by nature and essence is the Word of God, and “according to the flesh... of the seed of David” and of Mary’s flesh was made man, as Paul said (Rom. 1:3). The Father showed him both on the Jordan and on the mountain, saying: “This is my beloved Son, in whom I was well pleased” (Matt. 3:17; Matt. 17:5). The Arians denied Him, but we recognize Him and worship Him, not dividing the Son and the Word, but knowing that the Son is the very Word “by whom all things were” (John 1:3), and we are redeemed. Therefore, it is surprising to us why you are arguing about a matter so clear. But thanks be to the Lord! As much as we were saddened when reading the notes, we were so happy at the end of the matter; because they parted in agreement, and were reconciled in the confession of the pious and Orthodox faith. This, after much preliminary consideration, prompted me to write this short message. For I feared that those who, by their agreement, gave us the opportunity to rejoice, from my silence, instead of joy, there would be sadness. So, I beg, first of all, your reverence, and secondly, everyone who hears, to accept this with a good conscience, and, if anything is lacking in piety, to correct it and tell me; and if something is written by me, as an ignoramus in words, not according to the merits of the subject and imperfectly, excuse my weakness in words. Greet all the brothers who are with you. All who exist with me greet you. Be healthy in the Lord, beloved and truly desired. These words, missing in the Slavic translation: “from You”, are read in many Greek copies: (τὸ γεννώμενον ἐκ σοῦ) You might be interested in: