Against Appolinarius, book one. On the Incarnation of Our Lord Jesus Christ

Essay “Against Appolinarius, book one. About the Incarnation against Our Lord Jesus Christ" (22 chapters), directed against Apollinaris of Laodicea (the younger), written around 380, after the death of St. Athanasius the Great. Among the possible compilers of this work, researchers highlight St. Eustathius, Archbishop of Antioch and Marcellus of Ancyra. The treatise contains a detailed refutation of the errors of the Apollinarians, without mentioning the name of Apollinaris. The work defends the integrity of human nature in Christ, as well as the essential points of church Christology: - the doctrine of the duality of natures in Jesus Christ and their hypostatic union; - about the necessity for the work of redemption of the complete human soul in Christ, about His acceptance of a true human body from the Virgin Mary; - about the legality of Divine worship given by Christians to the Son of Man, etc. The author writes that in the Person and life of the God-man the deification of human nature took place in all its life moments. *The title of the work in Greek is Περὶ σαρκώσεως κατὰ ̓Απολλιναρίου. *The title of the work in Latin is De incarnatione contra Apollinarem. 1) This is the pious man’s unrelenting course of action, beloved, to honor everything with silence, and with grateful exclamations to praise the benefactor of God, according to the saying of Scripture, which says: he will sit alone and be silent (Lamentations 3:28), and in silence he will do what is proper to himself. The words: alone, and: characteristic of oneself, mean that he weighs his behavior judiciously, and takes care of God’s commandment. But you, having seen a very serious weariness in those who, apparently, say the same thing, ask about the faith that we have, and want to know what is the guilt of those who, thinking about themselves that they are rightly philosophizing, are not afraid with great immoderation to say what is unlawful, which, being carried away by those who are not established in the faith, do not even notice that they are in error. For if they had been established in the faith, they would not have been convinced by such words. But since they do not want to think for themselves, they easily accept such legends, from which excessive arrogance and many vices vegetate. Turning away their gaze out of hatred, they ignore the Prophetic instructions, the Apostolic commandments, the Fatherly admonitions, even the clearest sayings of the Lord. Therefore, it is necessary, to the best of our ability, to expose them, so that either some of them, having come to their senses, will see the light, or they will not be able to deceive others, promising them the clearest concept of Christ, while they do not understand, neither what they say, nor what they affirm about them (1 Tim. 1:7). 2) The Fathers said that the Son is consubstantial with the Father, is the true God from the true God, perfect from the perfect, and also that for our salvation He descended, became incarnate, became man, and then suffered and was resurrected. But so that, hearing about suffering and resurrection, no one imagines that God the Word changes, threatening condemnation, they decided to confess the immutability and immutability of the Son. Heretics, however, either imagine changeability in the Word, or assume that the economy of suffering was accomplished only in appearance, calling the flesh of Christ either uncreated and heavenly, or consubstantial with the Divine. Moreover, they say that in Christ, instead of our inner man, there is a heavenly mind; because Christ used the external image that clothed Him as an instrument, and it is impossible for Him to be a perfect man. For where there is a perfect man, there is sin, and two perfect ones cannot become one; otherwise, in Christ, as in us, there will be a struggle of sin, and Christ, like us, will have a need for purification, if He, having become a man, took into Himself that which thinks in us and moves the body. On the contrary, say the heretics, Christ took upon Himself the unreasonable, so that in this unreasonable He Himself could be the mind, and not taste sin at all, both in the Divine and in the unreasonable flesh. For the flesh of the one who sets it in motion, that is, thinks, could not sin if he himself had not premeditated the sinful act, and had not acted through the body to bring the sin to completion. Therefore, Christ showed in Himself the renewal of the flesh in His likeness, but the renewal of what thinks in us is demonstrated by each one in himself through imitation, likeness and abstinence from sin. And thus Christ is understood to be without sin. 3) Such are their false ideas and intentions of evasion; but they do not adhere to one reason, because there are many deviations of unbelief invented by human reason. Therefore, let us point out to them the will of God's good pleasure (for it is said: the Lord swears, and will not repent - Ps. 109:4), to the fulfillment of the true economy itself, to the grace of all-perfect goodness, asking together about their intentions: do they agree with the Prophetic instructions, will they follow the Apostolic commandments, are they in accordance with the Fatherly admonitions, not Will the clear sayings of the Lord be set aside, so that from the Prophetic instructions and the Apostolic commandments and the deeds accomplished by the Lord, both the confession of truth and the denunciation of error will flow. So, say, you, inventors of your new gospel, while there is one Gospel and there is no other, where are you commanded to call the flesh uncreated, and thus either represent the Divinity of the Word as changed into flesh, or consider the economy of suffering, death and resurrection to be only a ghost? For the one Holy Trinity of the Divinity is uncreated, eternal, immutable and unchangeable. since Christ was raised up in the flesh from men, from our brethren, as it is written (Acts 3:22), and according to the foretelling of the Law he had to suffer and become the firstborn from the resurrection of the dead (Acts 26:23); then how do you call the uncreated thing painful, or do you call the painful thing uncreated? For by calling the uncreated essence of the Word painful, you blaspheme the Divinity; and the satisfying flesh, with bones, blood, soul, united into the whole composition of our body, made tangible and visible, calling it uncreated, you fall into two errors: either you recognize the feeling and enduring of suffering, in accordance with the wicked Manichaeans, as a dream, or you also assume the essence of the uncreated Divinity. And after this, why do you blame those who represent God in human form according to the flesh? 4) But you say that the flesh became uncreated from union with the uncreated. This very thing will show that your delusion exposes itself. The union of the flesh with the Divinity of the Word took place in the mother's womb, because the Word, descending from heaven, from the womb erected for itself flesh that did not pre-exist before the descent of the Word or before the Mother of God Mary, who alone descends from Adam, and descends from Abraham and David, together with Joseph betrothed to Her; since both of them, according to what is written, are one in the flesh (Gen. 2:24) not by carnal union, but by origin from one; for it is testified that they remained inviolable to each other. So, Christ is born in Bethlehem of Judea, calls father Joseph, who, like Mary, is descended from David, is placed in swaddling clothes, is carried into the church by Simeon, accepts circumcision of the flesh according to the law, and grows over the years. Therefore, if the flesh became uncreated through union, then why did it not suddenly appear perfect, but, according to the will of the Word, the body grew? To attribute growth to the uncreated is wicked. For the uncreated is called uncreated by its very nature, and does not allow for either increase or decrease. And what is in communion or unity with the uncreated is called, although it actually belongs to the uncreated, but not the most uncreated, so that the goodness of unity does not fall into oblivion, the obligatory power of goodness is not destroyed, and humanity is still subject to weakness when it learns from your teaching. that he had no union with God, did not fall into hopelessness, and grace was not thereby despised. For who has heard that the body of the Lord is uncreated? and knowing about himself that he himself is created and created, will he not come to the thought that the Holy Scriptures are false, and that he has no fellowship with Christ? If the uncreated one took upon himself the uncreated body, then the first creation was destroyed, the prototype Adam perished, from whom we, by succession of the flesh, trace our race to this day. Therefore, how did Christ make us His partakers? Why does the Apostle say: holy and sanctified, of one are all (Heb. 2:11)? 5) Let no one dare to think about the Divinity of the Son, as if He, as the most wicked Arians dare to say, is from God just like us; or, from God by the appearance of only the flesh, by that form of a servant, that is, the primordial Adam, which the existing God took upon Himself in the image of God. In creatures, what is generally called uncreated is that which has not yet been realized, that which has not come into being. Therefore, not supposing that the Word had no flesh, do you intend in a plausible statement to include at the same time the denial of the existence of the flesh, so that, by calling the flesh uncreated, thereby not recognizing it? For we imagine the one being of the Divine as uncreated. Therefore, it is wicked to call the uncreated flesh suffering, and to call the suffering flesh uncreated; It is impious to think that the created nature of humanity did not become His property through unity with the Word, but is coeternal with Him, and by the identity of nature is equal to the nature of God. For the Lord clearly showed that he has flesh, and blood, and bones, and a soul that grieves, is indignant and grieves (Matt. 26:37; John 12:27). But no one will say that this is in the nature of the Divine; This was done by God’s own nature when the Word deigned to accept human birth and restore His creation, weakened by sin, corruption and death, in Himself in a renewed image. Therefore, He created the condemnation of sin on earth, the abolition of the oath on the tree, deliverance from corruption in the tomb, the destruction of death in hell, going everywhere to bring about the salvation of the whole person, showing in Himself the image of our image. For what need was there for God to be born from a wife, for the Creator of centuries to grow with the passage of time and count the years for Himself, or even to endure the cross, tomb and hell to which we fell, if He had not sought us out, reviving us by taking upon Himself our image, calling us to liken and imitate the perfect image? And if there had not been a pre-existence of perfection, lacking nothing in anything, then how would it have been possible to imitate perfection, in accordance with what the Apostle says: putting off the old man (Col. 3:9) and putting on the new man, created by God in righteousness and in the likeness of the truth (Eph. 4, 24)? 6) Therefore, where did you learn from, calling the flesh uncreated? If nature, as a result of transformation, becomes uncreated, this means that it becomes both invisible and immortal, and, moreover, not through death, but as inaccessible to death. How did the Lord die if He descended uncreated and uncreated to earth? Or how did He become visible and tangible, according to what is written: we saw and touched with our hands (1 John 1:1)? Why do you say what is not written, and what is impermissible to even think about? For give to all heretics the most wicked thought, which was once held by the so-called Rhetorius, the wickedness of which is terrible to even speak of. Therefore, either reject the Divine Scriptures, or, recognizing them, do not intend to utter other verbs, filled with incorrigible lies, beyond what is written. But you also say: “We do not worship the creature.” Pointless! Why don’t you consider that the created body of the Lord should also receive the worship due to non-creatures? It became the body of the uncreated Word, and you offer worship to Him whose body it became. So, due worship is given to him, worship befitting the Divine; because the Word is God, and the body is His own body. When the wives approached the Lord, He held them back and said: Do not touch Me, for I will not sigh to My Father (John 20:17), giving them to understand that an ascension is necessary and that there will be one ascension. She came, ate His nose, and worshiped Him (Matthew 28:9); they held their feet and worshiped God; the feet had bones and flesh for touching, but they were God’s, and the women worshiped God. In another place the Lord said: Handle Me, and know that a Spirit does not have flesh and bones, as you see Me (Luke 24:39), although He was a Spirit; for the Spirit is God (John 4:24). And why, saying and proving that he has flesh and bones, did he say: The Spirit does not have flesh and bones, as you see Me, not being flesh and bones, but having them? - Does He not teach by this that the nature of the Spirit is inexpressible, but tangibility itself is a property of a body similar to ours, which He borrowed from the Virgin in no other way, but by natural birth, so that by nature it was a body, and also by nature it was inseparable from the Divinity of the Word? Thus death also occurred, the body accepted it by nature, and the Word suffered by will, and freely gave up His own body to death, in order to suffer naturally for us, and to rise for us Divinely. So the whole work of birth and death has as its goal our recovery and restoration. 7) When this is really so, and is confessed by the universal Church of God, then why again do you call it a body from heaven? And tell me, why did Christ create it? Is it really in order to bring from heaven to earth a body that is invisible to make visible, inaccessible to reproach to those who receive reproach, impassive and immortal to mortals and those who suffer? What kind of benefit was shown by this, O vain ones, if, as you say, in Christ the same thing happened that happened in the primordial Adam, if Christ did not restore Adam’s fall with an incomparable restoration, appearing in the likeness of the flesh of sin and condemning sin in the flesh (Rom. 8:3), so that he lived in the flesh on earth, and showed that flesh inaccessible to sin, which Adam had at the first creation sinless, but through transgression made him accessible to sin, and fell into corruption and death? Christ again creates this very flesh in accordance with sinless nature, as proof that the Creator is not the author of sin, and restores it according to the prototype creation of his own nature, in order to Himself be an example of sinlessness. Therefore, the deceived ones think in vain, claiming that the body of the Lord is from heaven. What Adam cast down from heaven to earth, Christ raised from earth to heaven; What in Adam was sinless and uncondemned, and was cast down into corruption and the condemnation of death, Christ showed in Himself incorruptible and redeeming from death, since He has the power on earth to forgive sins, to reveal incorruption from the grave, to destroy death by descending into hell, and to preach the gospel of resurrection to everyone. God created man for incorruptibility and created him in the image of His ever-present: but through the envy of the devil death came into the world (Wis. 2:24). And over whom death reigned into decay, he did not despise him, having himself become a man, he did not turn into a human image, and only showed a non-gloomy appearance, disdaining human existence; but God, who exists by nature, is born by man, so that both natures will be one, perfect in everything, showing natural and true birth. Why is it said? and giving Him a name above every name (Phil. 2:9) to reign in heaven and have the power to execute judgment. 8) For the Word - the Creator of the universe - appeared as the son of man, becoming none other than the second Adam, so that from the name we might know the truth. And the Apostle shows that the First-Created is more firstborn, pointing first to the spiritual, and then to the spiritual. By naming the spiritual and the spiritual, he does not show two different bodies, but one and the same body, the first in the power and nature of the soul, and therefore spiritual, and the second in the power and nature of the spirit, and therefore spiritual; because God the Word is Spirit. For this is how we should understand what is said about us in words: the spiritual one strives for everything; but the soulful man does not accept the spirit (1 Cor. 2:14-15). Although both have the same body, the Apostle shows that what is part of the spirit is understood to be spiritual, but he who is under the power of only the soul turns out to be spiritual. Why, finally, if we agree with you, is Christ not simply called a man, like a new man who came from heaven, but it is said that He became the son of man? Therefore, if on earth He became the son of man, although He was born not from the seed of a man, but from the Holy Spirit; then let him, of course, be the son of the one primordial Adam. For there is no mention of any other man existing in heaven except Adam, who was created from the earth, so that Christ might have a body from heaven and be the son of another man besides Adam. Therefore, Matthew calls Him the son of Abraham and David according to the flesh, and Luke in his genealogy calls Him the son of David and God. Therefore, if you are disciples of the Gospels, do not speak untruths against God, but be conformed to what is written and done. If you want to say something other than what is written, then why do you argue with us, who are convinced not to listen to anything and not to speak beyond what is written; because the Lord says: if you continue in My word, you will be free indeed (John 8:31). 9) Therefore, how can you be considered faithful or Christians if you do not conform to written sayings, are not convinced by events, but dare to define what is above nature? Food is not enough work for you to give as a man, and how much work do you give to the Lord (Isa. 7:13)? If those who did not believe the Prophets were condemned, how much more will you be condemned, those who do not believe the Lord himself? How dare you change this, or think differently about what He Himself wanted and was pleased to do to sweep away sin and death (Heb. 9:26)? If we confess Him, then He also confesses us. And if we deny Him, then He will deny us. Even if we do not believe, He remains faithful: for He cannot deny Himself (2 Tim. 2:13). How immeasurably your foolishness is to say what is not written, and to hold opinions alien to piety! You even accept calling the flesh consubstantial with the Divine, not noticing that you are falling into deep impiety. For you have invented this assertion in order to either deny your flesh or blaspheme the Divinity, saying: “Of course, we call Him who was born of Mary consubstantial with the Father.” But this, as you think, your praise will turn out to be either unnecessary or meaningless. For who among the faithful does not confess that God the Word came and Man came from the Virgin Holy Mary, being of one substance with the Father, and became man from the seed of Abraham, who is also called a son, and that the Word, one in essence with God, became in the flesh the son of David? Therefore, from the seed of David, the prophets, apostles, and evangelists produce the genealogy of Christ according to the flesh. Why are you not ashamed to affirm and say that the flesh, which traces its genealogy from the seed of David, is consubstantial with the Word? Or else, as we said, it is senseless to assert this, not understanding that the consubstantial, just as it has the identity of nature, also shows in itself its own perfection. Just as the Son, who is confessed to be consubstantial in relation to the Father, is also confessed to be perfect in relation to the perfect, so is the Holy Spirit; because the Trinity is consubstantial. Therefore, give your perfection to the consubstantial flesh, with the perfection of the Word. And, in your opinion, instead of the Trinity, the Quaternary will be preached. What an impious invention! 10) But you say: “the flesh became of one substance with the Word.” Tell me: how did you become consubstantial? Was she made the Word, but was she also made the Spirit? If, however, not being Divine by nature, she becomes Divine through transformation; then why do you blame the Arians, who give the same concept about the Word? Scripture says: The Word became flesh (John 1:14). It is not said: the flesh was made the Word, because it was made flesh of the Word, and not of any man; but: the Word became flesh, that is, God became man. And it is said: flesh became, so that you do not lose sight of the name: flesh. Are you not content with the unfused natural unity of the Word with the flesh, which became His own, and no longer listen, and do not want to believe that God became man, not being content with that praise that surpasses all imagination, which is attributed to the body of God, according to the word of the one who said: Who will transform the body of our humility, so that this may be conformed to the body of His glory (Phil. 3, 21)? This is the indication of the future age, and, moreover, the body of His glory is reflected. Yes, and the Lord says: when the Son of man comes, he means the Son of God, who became the son of man, and at the same time the Judge of the living and the dead, the King and the Lord, and the true God. Do you really want to abolish the naming of the body, or even the fact that Christ is called a man? How can you read the Divine Scriptures? Matthew writes: the book of the kinship of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham (Matthew 1:1); and John wrote: in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was to God, and God was the Word (John 1:1). If you want to consider the Word separately, as God and as the son of David; then, in your opinion, there are two Christs involved. If, taught by the divine Scriptures, you believe that the Word, being God, became the son of man, then you will know that there is one Christ, both God and man; and the twofold sermon about His coming will serve for you as convincing evidence of His suffering and dispassion, when, for example, the Apostle says: the man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself redemption for us (1 Tim. 2:5-6), who is God above all, is blessed forever, Amen (Rom. 9, 5); and again, writing to Timothy, he said: remember Christ Jesus, risen from the dead, from the seed of David (2 Tim. 2:8); and he again says: We proclaim His death until He comes (1 Cor. 11:26). 11) Therefore, if, as a result of the confession of consubstantiality, you destroy the name of the flesh and the fact that Christ is called man; then - either, turning the Scriptures into nothing, you no longer proclaim His death until He comes, or, proclaiming the death of the consubstantial, according to your words, to the Father and the Holy Spirit, and not confessing that Christ suffered in the flesh, you call the very Divinity of the Father and the Holy Spirit accessible to death. And in this you have become more wicked than all heretics. For death touched the flesh of the consubstantial Word; It was not the Father, not the Holy Spirit, who bore the flesh, as the wicked followers of Valentine imagine, but the Word became flesh. Why do we, confessing Christ as God and man, say this not for the sake of division (let there be no such thing!), but again in accordance with the Scriptures, so that, since suffering and death are completed, and are proclaimed until the end, then we confess both suffering and death pertaining to the flesh of the Word, and believe about the Word itself that It is immutable and unchangeable. Therefore, the same one both suffers and does not suffer; according to the Divine nature, passionless, immutable and unchangeable, he suffers in the flesh, as Peter said (1 Peter 4:1), and wanted to taste death, because the man Christ became the Mediator of God and men, giving Himself deliverance for us (1 Tim. 2:5-6), and also because he became the Mediator of God and men - but there is only one mediator, God but there is one (Gal. 3:20). 12) Therefore, those who claim that one is the suffering Son, and another is not suffering, are mistaken. For no one else, except the Word, accepted death and suffering. But the passionless and incorporeal Word itself, having received the birth of human flesh, fulfilled everything so that He might have something to offer for us. And about the Son it is said: he was better than the angels (Heb. 1:4). It is not the Word itself, the Creator of Angels, that has become better, as if it were once lower than the Angels; but the slave form, which the Word itself appropriated to Himself by natural birth, shone forth better after birth from the primordial, and assimilates us to Himself, having become, as it is said, cohabitants with the Holy Ones and close to God (Eph. 2:19). By nature the flesh became God's, which actually belongs to the Divinity of the Word, but is not consubstantial with Him, as if co-eternal. She became His own by nature and inseparable by unity, and comes from the seed of David, Abraham and Adam, from whom we were born. And if the flesh is consubstantial and coeternal with the Word; then, as a result of this, you call all creatures coeternal with God who created all things. Are they Christians who have already entangled themselves in such networks? Consubstantial, passionless and inaccessible to death allows for unity with that which is consubstantial with Him, not by hypostasis, but by nature; according to hypostasis, He reveals His own perfection; and therefore, with your supposedly pious invention, you either deny the flesh received from the Virgin Mary, or you blaspheme the Divinity. If, however, you recognize both the Son and the Holy Spirit as consubstantial with the Father in the same sense as the suffering flesh; then why do you blame us for allegedly introducing a quaternity instead of the Trinity, when you yourself involuntarily recognize a quaternity instead of the Trinity, saying that the flesh is consubstantial with the Trinity? Therefore, your faith is vain; for your wisdom is like the wisdom of the wicked Arians; and you understand poorly what is said: The Word became flesh. The Word was not made flesh so that the Word would no longer be the Word; but in order for the Word to be in the flesh, He became flesh: that is, so that the Word could always be the Word, and have flesh, in which God the Word accepted suffering and death in human form, descending to the tomb and hell, in which He also performed the resurrection from the dead, presenting evidence of flesh, blood and soul in His own and inseparable flesh, according to what is written, from the seed of David. What did Marcion claim that was different from yours? Is it not that the body appeared from heaven in human likeness, and not in reality? What else did Manichaeus say? Is it not that the body is God-like, has the same resemblance to our body, but is alien to human flesh, whose very nature, and not activity, he wickedly called sin? Such is their wickedness. 13) Therefore, the pious should not resort to such inventions; he must confess that the Word, which existed before the ages and was consubstantial with the Father, finally from the Holy Virgin and Mother of God again produced the formation and creation of Adam, appropriating it for Himself by unity with him, and thus the man Christ the eternal God appeared. And we are the children of Christ, according to what is written, of His flesh and of His bones (Eph. 5:30). Therefore, what does it mean to compete in inventions so that by human wisdom you can determine what is beyond human understanding? and say: “in Christ, instead of the man within us, there is a heavenly mind”? What a lawless thought; What powerless and indecent words of those who do not understand, firstly, that Christ is called so not uniformly, but that in this one name lies the meaning of both, both Divinity and humanity. For this reason Christ is called man, Christ is also called God; Christ is God and man, and there is one Christ. Therefore, your false thinking is vain, according to which you intend to see in Christ something other than Christ. For those, perhaps, who are called Christs in an improper sense can be considered as you believe. But the one true Christ by nature is indescribable by the human mind, as you dare to do in your arrogance. Neither the Prophet, nor the Apostle, nor any of the Evangelists said what you are about to say, having lost all shame in your soul. If there is another Christ besides the heavenly mind that was in Him, and this mind is perfect; then, according to you, there will be two Christs. And it turns out that you yourself hold on to the thought that you apparently condemn. But the Prophets also had a heavenly mind, who spoke the heavenly and the future as the present. In general, why are you planning to assert this, as if our inner man is not recognized in Christ? What can you say about the soul? Is it that both body and soul are an external man, as others call flesh and blood? But just as the body and blood, being visible, do not escape touch and injury, so prove to us that the soul does not escape this, that it is visible. And if you cannot prove this, then it is clear that the soul, like the body, is neither visible nor killed by man, as the Lord said (Matthew 10:28). Therefore, make sure that our inner man is a soul. This proves the first creation, this reveals the final solution, and not only is this proven in us, but apparently it was also in the death of Christ itself. The body reached only the grave, and the soul descended to hell; while these places are separated by a great distance, the tomb received a bodily coming into itself, and there was a body in it, and hell was incorporeal. 14) And why, when the Lord was there without a body, did death recognize Him as a man? Because the image of His own soul, uncontained by the bonds of death, as held by them, He showed to the souls contained in bonds, Himself appearing among them in order to break the bonds of the souls contained in hell, and to put a firm limit on the resurrection, and so that the Creator and Maker of man, who subjected Him to condemnation, would by His very own presence in His image completely free man. For even death, having overcome, did not subjugate the human soul of the Word to keep it in bonds, and also corruption, having painfully captured the body, does not produce destruction, of course - not without special providence for this. It is wicked to imagine anything like that. On the contrary, He who examined the disobedience and carried out the judgment pronounced a twofold sentence on punishment, saying to the earthly: you are earth and you will come to earth (Gen. 3, 19), why, according to the Master’s sentence, the body is subject to corruption, and the soul: you will die (Gen. 2, 17). And thus, a person is divided into two parts, and is condemned to go to two places. Therefore, it became necessary for the One who pronounced the sentence to cancel His sentence, appearing in the image of a condemned, but uncondemned and sinless, so that the reconciliation of God with man could take place, and the liberation of the whole man would be accomplished by man in the renewal of the image of His Son, our Lord Jesus Christ. And if you can indicate another place of condemnation, then it would be fair to tell you that a person is divided into three parts. And although he was called from two places, he still remains bound in a third place. If you cannot indicate any other place other than the tomb and hell, from which man is completely freed, because Christ freed us in His image, similar to ours, but perfect and most true; then why do you affirm this, as if man is not yet reconciled with God? Why did the Savior come? Or was he powerless to free an entire person? Or was he disgusted by the mind of having sinned once? Or was he afraid, lest He Himself become involved in sin if He, God, became a perfect man? But those who think this way are filled with wickedness. – How do you define sin, agreeing with the most evil Manichaeus, asserting that sin is natural? 15) With such wisdom you accuse the Creator of nature. When God created Adam at the beginning, did he really make sin innate in him? What was the need for the commandment? Why did he condemn him who had sinned? Why did Adam not know good and evil before he disobeyed? Whom God created for incorruption in the image of His ever-present, He created him by nature sinless and by free will. Through envy, death came into the world through the devil (Wisdom 2:24), because the devil invented the idea of ​​crime. And thus, by disobeying God’s commandment, man became accessible to the hostile presence within him. And sin in human nature already affected every lust. It was not the very nature that the devil produced in him. Let this not happen! The devil is not the creator of nature, as the Manichaeans impiously call him; but by crime he caused the corruption of nature; and thus death reigned over all people. Therefore, it is said, the Son of God has come to destroy the works of the devil (1 John 3:8). What works of the devil did the Son of God destroy? since that nature, which God created sinless, the devil seduced into transgressing the commandment of God, and into inventing the sin of death; then God the Word restored in Himself a nature inaccessible to the devil’s seduction and the invention of sin. And therefore, the Lord said: the prince of this world is coming, and in Me he will find nothing (John 14:30). If the prince of this world has not found any of his works in Christ; then, all the more, Christ did not provide any of His creations to the prince of this world. Or, when Christ showed perfect renewal, the devil did not find anything in Him so that the complete salvation of the whole man, both rational soul and body, could be accomplished, and the resurrection would be complete. Therefore, it is in vain that the Arians lie, supposing that the Savior took upon Himself only flesh, and impiously transferring the concept of suffering to the impassive Divinity. It is in vain that you, by another thought, philosophizing like them, assert that Christ used an externally clothed, i.e., articulate image, instead of the inner man in us in Christ, the heavenly mind. How did He grieve, grieve, and pray? It is written: And Jesus was troubled in spirit (John 11:33). This is not characteristic of unreasonable flesh and not of the immutable Divinity. but the soul that thinks, grieves, is confused, grieves and intelligently feels suffering. 16) Therefore, if you do not want to understand it this way, then which of the three presented images of representation will you choose, that is, dreams, blasphemy and truth? Assuming that what is said has only the appearance of truth; then what has happened will have to be recognized as a dream. And if it is said in truth, the soul of the Lord, having the Word of God in its mind, became completely alien to the thoughts peculiar to it; it is wicked to think that the irreplaceable has changed to the point of sorrow, melancholy and confusion. And if the Gospels say that Jesus was troubled in spirit; then the Lord points to the mind, saying: My soul is troubled (John 12:27). If the Lord expresses the thoughts of His soul; then he does this out of sympathy with our soul, so that in this way we understand that this is His suffering, and confess Him as passionless. For just as He redeemed us with the blood of His flesh, so by the thought of His soul He wins the victory for us, saying: I have overcome the world (John 16:33). And in another place it is said: to him who gave us victory (1 Cor. 15:57). But just as the blood of Christ is recognized by the pious not as something ordinary, as it is for unbelievers, but as saving; so the said thought of Christ is not surrounded by human weakness, but expresses the Divine nature. And thus Christ is called perfect God and perfect man; not because Divine perfection changed into human perfection (which is ungodly), not because two perfections are recognized separately in Him (which is alien to piety), and not because of success in virtue and appropriation of truth (let this not happen!); but according to the fullness of being, both will be one, perfect in everything, together God and man. That is why the Lord said: Now my soul is troubled and sorrowful. He said: now, that is, when he wanted; however, he showed what really happened; for He did not call that which was not in Him inherent in Himself, as if we were talking about something imaginary; because all this happened by nature and in reality itself. 17) So, since the Lord became man by nature, and not by so-called appropriation, you cannot attribute sin to the Creator in nature or in activity. Because it is in our nature. due to our weakness, the sinful struggle and the growth of all things continue; but the incarnation of the Word, accomplished in accordance with God’s nature, became inaccessible to what is still happening, due to our decay, in us. That is why the teaching was taught to us - to put off the old man and put on the new. And the wonderful thing about this is that the Lord became man, and man except for sin, because a complete renewal took place, so that His power would be revealed. And from what He Himself, by His will, established in nature, He took upon Himself what He desired, that is, birth from a wife, growth, numbering of years, fatigue, hunger, thirst, sleep, sadness, death, resurrection. Therefore, where the human body was decaying, there Jesus allows His own body to be laid down, and where the human soul was restrained by death, there Christ shows that His soul is human, so that He, as a man, would not be restrained by death, and as God would destroy the power of death, so that where corruption was sown, incorruption would grow there, so that where death reigned, there He would be immortal, appearing in the form of a human soul, show immortality; and thus make us partakers of His incorruption and immortality, in the hope of the resurrection from the dead, that, according to what is written, this corruptible will put on incorruption, and this mortal will put on immortality (1 Cor. 15:54), and as it is also written: just as by one man sin came into the world, and death by sin, so by one man Jesus Christ will grace reign righteousness leading to eternal life (Rom. 5:12.21). Therefore, how do you say: “Instead of the inner man in us, there is a heavenly mind in Christ?” Did He not divide man into two, the outer and the inner, both in the tomb and in hell? And it was impossible to give one instead of the other as a redemption price; on the contrary, He gave body for body, and soul for soul, perfect being for the whole man. Such is the replacement of Christ, over whom the enemies of life - the Jews - mocked at the cross, passing by and nodding their heads. For hell could not bear the coming of the unveiled Deity. The Prophets and Apostles testify to this. 18) But what we affirm can also be seen in the economy of the cross. The Lord, by the outpouring of blood, showed the undoubted existence of the flesh; by the flow of blood and water, he revealed undefiled purity, and that the body was God’s; and by crying out, he bowed his head, gave up his spirit, and revealed the inner parts of his body, that is, his soul, about which he said: I lay it down for my sheep (John 10:15). And therefore, the betrayal of the spirit should not be called the retreat of the Divine, but the separation of the soul. For if the retreat of the Divine were followed by death or mortification of the body, then He would have died by His own, and not ours, death. And how would one descend to hell unveiled by the Divine? And where will be the soul that the Lord promised to lay down for the sheep, and about which the Prophets foretold? If the separation of the soul occurred, then it is therefore said that He accepted our death, that is, He suffered a resolution similar to ours, just as He suffered a birth. 19) Therefore, your false thinking is vain. For how would death have occurred if the Word had not formed for Himself both internal and external, that is, soul and body? How would Christ pay the ransom price for a whole person? Or how would the power of death have suffered complete destruction if Christ had not made the one who sinned according to understanding, that is, the soul, sinless in Himself? Death still reigns over the inner man. And over what else has she ever reigned, if not over a soul that has sinned according to its understanding? So it is said: the soul that sins will die (Ezek. 18:20); It was for her that Christ laid down His own soul, giving it as the price of redemption. What did God condemn first? Is it a creation of the Creator, or a work of creation? If God condemned the creation of the Creator, then He condemned Himself. And He will be the same as people. If it is wicked to think this way about God and He condemned the work of creation, then He blots out the work and renews the creation: For we are creation, creatures for good works (Eph. 2:10). 20) But you also say: “We call him born of Mary God.” Why do you call, like Marcion, God who appeared and God who came inviolably, having a nature that does not accept human flesh? Or why do you call God, like Paul of Samosata? For this is a sign of his wickedness - to confess that he was born of Mary as God, predestined before the ages, but having received the beginning of being from Mary. But Samosatsky, in his wickedness, yielding to Christ more than you do, confesses in Him the active Word from heaven and Wisdom; and you admit only a heavenly mind in an animate body. But neither the animate body is yet a perfect man, nor the heavenly mind is yet God. The body is called animate because it contains the soul as an independent entity. The body of man is called body, and not soul: and the soul of man is not called body; one thing is different from the other, that is, the spirit from the body. It is said: who understands the mind of the Lord (Rom. 11:34)? The Lord's mind is not yet the Lord, but His will, or advice, or action directed towards something. How do you contrive to say this, distorting the thought of God’s Word with self-composed sayings? But this is not how the Church of God received it, and this is not how it betrayed it. On the contrary, she teaches, as it is written, that God, the Word, who existed before the ages with God, came at the end of the ages, and was born of the Holy Virgin and of the Holy Spirit as a son of man, according to what is written: until then you gave birth to your firstborn Son (Matthew 1:25), as if He were the firstborn of many brethren (Rom. 8:29) He, the true God, must suffer for us as men and redeem us from suffering and death, like God. Therefore, it is in vain for you to imagine, thinking that through imitation you can bring about a renewal in yourself of that which thinks and moves the flesh, not realizing that imitation is an imitation of a previous action; Otherwise, it cannot be called imitation. But while you confess the renewal of one flesh in Christ, you are mistaken and utter blasphemy. For if without Christ it is possible for people to bring about a renewal in themselves of that which moves the flesh, and the mover will follow the moveable; then what was the need for the coming of Christ? 21) Those who claim that the Word descended as if it were only one of the Prophets are delusional. For which of the Prophets, being God, became man? Why did the law accomplish nothing (Heb. 7:19)? Why is there a royal death also over those who have not sinned in the likeness of the first-born (Rom. 5:14)? Why did the Lord say: if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed (John 8:36)? Is it not according to the renewal that is in Him, is it not according to the perfection by which we believers are renewed, through imitation of the perfect renewal of Christ and according to fellowship in him? But you invented everything in order to lead to one thought - denial. And you, evading the exact meaning, call the soul - sometimes an unreasonable mind, sometimes an innate sin, and sometimes you expel it as a doer of sin; and you call the flesh, sometimes uncreated, sometimes heavenly, sometimes consubstantial with the Word, so that you can stand firmly in complete denial. So Arius, having fallen from the faith, in the ineffable and true birth of the Son from the Father, found suffering, and cutting, and outflow, so that with these wicked sayings those unconfirmed in the faith would be thrown into the ditch of iniquity. For the pit is deep for the mouth of a transgressor (Proverbs 22:15). So again, Sabellius, having invented a non-existent Son and a non-existent Holy Spirit, and accusing us of the division of the Divinity, of the multiplicity of principles and gods, is confirmed in Jewish opinion. So Manichaeus, not believing in the incarnation and incarnation of the Lord, became wicked in everything, claiming that man is subordinate to two creators, the evil one and the good one. So you slander us for recognizing two sons, and call us man-worshippers, or reproach us for sin, not in order to stand in piety yourself, but in order to give success to your delusion with these evil inventions, and with your wicked sayings to deviate those who are not established in it from the faith. But the solid foundation of God stands, having this seal (2 Tim. 2:19). 22) I wrote this, beloved (although it was more appropriate not to write anything, because the Gospel tradition is enough); since you asked us about faith, and for the sake of those who want to stand by their inventions, and do not judge that those who speak from their own speak a lie (John 8:44). For it is impossible for human reason to express the beauty and glory of the body of Christ; We must confess what has happened, as it is written, and worship the existing God, for the glory and confession of His love for mankind and in the hope of our salvation in Christ Jesus our Lord. Amen. You might be interested in: