About the flesh of Christ

The work “On the Flesh of Christ” (25 chapters, 202-208) was written by Tertullian against Gnostic errors in the field of Christology (Marcion, Apelles, Valentinus, etc.), which recognized the true and actual incarnation of the heavenly Christ as impossible. Tertullian thoroughly refutes this error and then proves on the basis of Holy Scripture that Christ actually had a human body and was born of the Virgin Mary without the participation of a husband. To refute heretics, Tertullian uses his favorite method of proof - recusal: Marcion is neither a prophet and an apostle, nor an apostolic disciple and a Christian, otherwise he would have to accept the Church Tradition of the incarnation of Christ; instead he argues against the truth. Without the perception of the flesh, Christ would not truly save us. In this work, Tertullian defends the doctrine of the incarnation. *The title of the work in Latin is De carne Christi. 1. Those who seek to shake the faith in the resurrection (undoubted before the appearance of these relatives of the Sadducees 1), denying that such a hope also applies to the flesh, - of course, with their assertions they nullify the flesh of Christ, for they believe that it either did not exist at all, or, in any case, it was not human. After all, if it were recognized as human, they would condemn themselves: what is resurrected in Christ undoubtedly rises. Therefore, we need to strengthen the aspirations of the flesh by the same means with which they destroy them. Let us consider the physical essence (corporalis substantia) of the Lord, for there is no doubt about the spiritual (spiritualis). Let us ask the question about its authenticity and its properties - whether He had it, where it came from and what kind. The clarification of all this will give legitimacy to our resurrection. To deny the flesh of Christ, Marcion denied His birth; or, in order to reject birth, he also rejected the flesh - so, of course, that they would not mutually testify in favor of each other: for there is no birth without flesh and there is no flesh without birth. Although he himself could, by his heretical self-will, either reject birth, admitting the flesh (like Apelles, his disciple, who subsequently left him), or, recognizing both flesh and birth, interpret them differently (like Apelles’s fellow student and also an apostate, Valentinus). However, the one who claimed that the flesh of Christ was imaginary could equally pass off His birth as something illusory - and thereby the conception, and the burden, and the birth of the Virgin, and all the events of His childhood would be equated to imaginary 2. By all this the same eyes and the same senses would be deceived by the false opinion of the flesh. 2. The birth of Christ is clearly announced by Gabriel 3 - but what does [Marcion] care about the Creator angel? And conception occurs in the womb of the Virgin - but what does he have to do with Isaiah, the prophet of the Creator 4? Delays are hateful to the one who brought Christ down from heaven at once 5 . “Down,” he says, “the ever-burdensome Caesarian census, cramped inns, dirty diapers and hard mangers. Let not the host of angels, who worship their Master at night, trouble themselves. Let the shepherds take better care of their cattle. And let the Magi not bother themselves with the long journey: I give them their gold 6 . Herod needs to be better so that Jeremiah 7 does not become famous. But the baby does not need to be circumcised so as not to cause pain; there is no need to bring it to the church, so as not to burden the parents with the costs of this. There is no need to give him into the hands of Simeon 8 so as not to grieve the elder, who was then destined to die. Let the mentioned old woman 9 also be silent, so as not to jinx the baby.” With such advice, I think, you, Marcion, dared to destroy so many original testimonies about Christ, so that it would be impossible to affirm the existence of His flesh. However, I ask you, by what authority are you guided? If you are a prophet, then predict something; if you are an apostle, preach publicly; if you are an apostolic man, be of one mind with the apostles; if you are only a Christian, believe in what is conveyed. If you are nothing of this, I would rightfully say: die. After all, you are already dead, you who are not a Christian, for you do not believe in that which, when accepted with faith, makes people Christians. And you are the more dead the more you are not a Christian; although you were one, you fell away, abandoning what you previously believed in: you yourself admit this in some letter, yours do not deny it, but ours confirm 10. So, having rejected what you believed, you rejected without believing; but by refusing to believe, you acted unworthily. For by rejecting what you believed in, you show that your faith was previously different. It was different because it corresponded to tradition; in turn, what was transmitted was true, because it was transmitted by those to whom it was given to instruct. This means that by leaving what was transmitted, you left the true, to which you had no right. However, we have already used such objections against all heresies quite liberally elsewhere 11 . After them, it is now unnecessary for us to repeat ourselves, trying to find out why you thought that Christ was not born. 3. Since you think that it depended only on your decision, it is quite natural that you considered the birth of the Lord either impossible or unbecoming of God. But nothing is impossible for God, except what He does not want. Let's see if He wanted to be born - after all, if He wanted this, then He could have been born and was born. I'll say it briefly. If God did not wish to be born (for whatever reason), He would not have revealed Himself in human form. Who, seeing a person, would deny that this person was born? Therefore: what He did not want to be, that, of course, He would not want to appear. After all, if you don’t like something, every idea about it is rejected; and even if it seems that it exists, even though in reality it does not, it makes no difference whether it exists or not. But it is very important that something that does not really exist does not create a false impression. “But,” you say, “it was enough for Him to know about it Himself. Let people consider Him born if they saw a man.” Therefore, how much more worthy and fitting was it for Him, who was actually born, to take on human form, if, in your opinion, He intended to take on the same form without being born, at the expense of His conscience? She, in your opinion, admitted that He, not being born, endured, in spite of her, that He was considered born. Explain why Christ, realizing who He was, pretended to be someone He was not? You cannot say: “If He had been born and really taken on human form, He would have ceased to be God and, having lost what He was, would have become what He was not.” After all, there is no danger for God in His position. “However,” you say, “I therefore deny that God truly turned into man (so that He was both born and incarnated bodily), for it is necessary that He who has no limit should also be unchangeable; and turning into something is the end of the previous state. Therefore, it is not appropriate to address Him for Whom there is no limit.” Of course, the law of nature of what changes is such that it does not remain in that which changes [in it], and since it does not remain, it perishes, since as a result of the change it loses its former existence. But there is nothing equal to God: His nature is different from the createdness of all things. If, therefore, everything different from God, or that from which He is different, changing, ceases to be what it was, then what will be the difference between the Divine and other things, if not in the opposite [property]: that is, in the ability of God to turn into everything and at the same time remain as He is? Otherwise, He will be equal to that which, having changed, has lost its former state. And if God is certainly not equal with him in everything, then he is not equal in the outcome of the transformation. The Creator's angels took on human form - you once read this and believed that they had a real body, that Abraham washed their feet, that with their hands Lot was carried away from Sodom, and that an angel, who fought with a very strong man physically, wanted to free himself from the one who held him tightly 12. So, what was allowed to the angels who were lower than God - namely, having turned into human corporeality, to remain, nevertheless, angels - is this you taking away from God, the more powerful? As if Christ could not, having truly taken on man, remain God! Did these angels really appear as bodily ghosts? But you dare not say this. After all, if your angels belong to the Creator, like Christ, then He will be the Christ of the same God as the angels, and they will be the same as Christ. If you had not so zealously rejected those books of Scripture that contradict your opinion in one case, and not forged them in another, you would be confused here by the Gospel of John, where it says that the Spirit descended in the body of a dove and dwelt on the Lord (1:32; Matt. 3:16). And although it was a Spirit, the dove was just as real as the Spirit, and He did not destroy His essence (substantia) by accepting the essence of someone else. However, you ask where the body of the dove remained when the Spirit was again caught up into heaven, and likewise the body of the angels. It was raptured in the same manner as it was revealed. If you could see how it was created out of nothing, you would know how it goes into nothing. If its beginning was invisible, then so is its end. However, while it was visible, it had bodily density. It is impossible that what Scripture says does not exist. 4. So, if you are unable to reject the incarnation (corporatio) either because of its impossibility, or because of its danger to God, then all you have to do is reject and accuse it as unworthy. Well, perhaps, start from birth itself and list in detail the impurity of everything that the womb gives birth to - disgusting clots of moisture and blood, flesh that must feed on these impurities for nine months. Describe how the belly swells day by day, becomes heavy, anxious, restless even in sleep, oscillating between aversion to food and gluttony. Let yourself be inspired by the trepidation of a woman in labor, which is worthy of veneration because of the danger of her position or is sacred in nature. You, of course, are horrified at the sight of a baby born into the world wrapped in its own swaddling clothes. You, of course, abhor it - after all, it is washed, it is wrapped in rags, it is smeared with oil, it is tenderly cooed over. And is it this homage, Marcion, that you refuse to pay to nature? How were you born? You have hated the person being born, but do you love anyone at all? You certainly didn’t like yourself, since you fell away from the church and the faith of Christ. However, if you don’t like yourself or were born differently, that’s your business. Christ, at least, loved man in his uncleanness. formed in the womb, appeared through the private parts, fed with jokes. For his sake He came down from heaven, for his sake He preached, for his sake He humbled Himself even to death, even death on the cross (Phil. 2:8). Of course, He loved the one He redeemed at such a price. If Christ is from the Creator, then He loved His own, as it should be. If He is from another God, then He showed even greater love, for He redeemed what was alien. Therefore, with man He loved both his birth and even his flesh. Nothing can be loved without that which makes it what it is. Eliminate birth - and show where man is then; take away the flesh and present the one whom God has redeemed. If all this is a man whom God has redeemed, then you cause Him to be ashamed of what He redeemed, and consider unworthy the one whom He would not redeem if He did not love. Having transformed [our first] birth by heavenly rebirth, He saved the flesh from all torment - He cleansed the one stricken with leprosy, made the blind sighted, filled the paralytic with strength, pacified the demon-possessed, raised the dead - and should we be ashamed of this flesh? If He really wanted to come from a she-wolf, from a pig or from a cow and, clothed in the flesh of a beast or livestock, would preach the Kingdom of Heaven, then, I think, your strict court would object to Him that this is shameful for God, and unworthy of the Son of God, and therefore the one who believes in this is stupid. It would be clearly unwise for us to judge God based on our common sense. But think, Marcion, [about such words], if you have not eliminated them: God has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the wise (1 Cor. 1:27). What kind of “unwise” is this? Conversion of man to the worship of the true God? Renunciation of delusion? The teaching of justice, modesty, patience, mercy and innocence? No, all this, of course, is not “unwise.” Try, therefore, to understand what [the apostle] said; and if it seems to you that you have understood this, then what would be as “stupid” as to believe in God born, and moreover from a Virgin, and moreover in the flesh, Who is “mired” in all these dishonories of nature? Some may say that this is not stupid at all, and there is something else chosen by God to conquer the wisdom of this world. And yet this “wisdom” more easily believes that Jupiter became a bull or a swan than Marcion believes that Christ truly became a man. 5. There are, of course, other “unwise” things that relate to the reproaches and passions of the Lord. Or perhaps they will say that a crucified God is reasonable? Eliminate this, Marcion, and above all this. For what is more unworthy for God, what is more shameful for Him - to be born or to die? Wear flesh or cross? To be cut or nailed? Nurtured or buried? Laid in a manger or hidden in a tomb? You will become even wiser if you don’t believe this either. And yet you will not be wise unless you become foolish to the world and believe in the foolishness of God. Is it not because you left Christ his torment because He, like a ghost (ut phantasma), did not experience human sensations from them? We have already said before that He could just as easily have been subjected to the imaginary shame of birth and childhood. But now, destroyer of truth, answer me the following. Isn't God truly crucified? Didn't He truly die because He was crucified? And wasn’t he truly resurrected - because he really died? Does this mean that Paul falsely established that among us only Jesus crucified would be known (1 Cor. 2:2)? Falsely broadcast about the burial? Falsely inspired about the Resurrection? Then, it means that all our faith is false and our hope in Christ is illusory? You are more criminal than all people, for you justify the murderers of God. If Christ really did not suffer anything, He did not suffer anything from them. Spare the only hope of the whole world. Why do you remove the shame necessary for faith? Everything that is unworthy of God is useful to me. I am saved if I am not ashamed of my Lord. “Whoever,” He said, “is ashamed of Me, of him I will also be ashamed (Matthew 10:33). Apart from these, I find no reasons for shame that would show that, having despised shame, I am happily shameless and savingly stupid. The Son of God crucified is not shameful, for it is worthy of shame; and the Son of God died - this is absolutely certain, because it is absurd; and, buried, rose again - this is certain, for it is impossible. But how was all this true in Him, if He Himself was not real, if He really did not have in Himself something that was crucified, died, buried and resurrected - that is, flesh soaked in blood, strengthened by bones, pierced with nerves, entwined with veins, which was capable of being born and dying? Flesh, without a doubt, human, for born of man? Therefore she must be mortal in Christ, for Christ is man and the Son of man. For how is Christ man and the Son of man, if there is no humanity in Him and He is not of man? Unless man is something other than flesh, or human flesh comes from somewhere else, and not from man; either Mary is something other than man, or man is Marcion’s God 13. Otherwise, Christ would not have been called a man - without flesh - and would not have been called the Son of man - without a human parent. Likewise, He would not be called God without the Spirit of God, and the Son of God without God the Father. So, the property of one and the other nature (substantia) showed us man and God: here the born, there the Unborn, here the bodily, there the Spiritual, here the weak, there the Strong, here the dying, there the Living. These properties of both states, Divine and human, are undoubtedly attested with equal certainty for both natures - both for spirit and for flesh. Miracles were witnessed by the Spirit of God, passions by human flesh. If miracles are not without the Spirit, then passions are not without the flesh; if the flesh with its passions was imaginary, then the Spirit with its miracles was not real. Why are you dividing Christ in two with your lies? He was true in His entirety. Believe me, He preferred to be born rather than to be deceived in something, and above all in Himself: to wear flesh, strong without bones, strong without veins, bleeding without blood, covered without skin, hungry without hunger, eating without teeth, speaking without a tongue, so that its speech appeared to the ear like a ghost from an imaginary sound. Then, it means, He was a ghost even after the Resurrection, when He invited the disciples to examine His hands and feet, saying: Look, here I am; for the spirit has no bones, but you see that I have (Luke 24:39). These are, without a doubt, hands, feet and bones, which the spirit has not, but the flesh. How do you explain these words, Marcion, you who lead Jesus away from God who is best, simple and only good? Look: He deceives, deceives and clouds the eyes of all, the feelings of all who approach and touch. For this reason, you should have brought Christ out not from heaven, but from some gang of charlatans, to represent Him not as God apart from man, but simply as a man, a magician, not as a priest of salvation, but as a stage actor, not as a resurrector of the dead, but as a destroyer of the living. But He was still born - even if He was just a magician. 6. However, some disciples of this Pontius, imagining themselves smarter than their mentor, admit the reality of the flesh in Christ, without ceasing, however, to deny His birth. “He,” they say, “could have had flesh, but was by no means born.” This means, as they usually say, we fell from the frying pan into the fire, from Marcion to Apelles, who, having left Marcion’s teaching, fell in flesh to a woman, and then was lifted up in spirit to the maiden Philumena, and by her was prompted to preach the reality of the flesh of Christ, but without birth. And the apostle would have responded to this angel Philumena with the same words with which he had already foreshadowed it, saying: If an angel from heaven preached the gospel to you differently than we preached the gospel, let him be accursed (Galatians 1:8). We will also object to what they invent beyond this. They admit that Christ did have a body. What is its matter, if not of the property in which it appeared? Where does the body come from if the body is not flesh? Where does flesh come from if it is not born - after all, it must be born in order to become what is born. “From the stars,” they answer, “and from the substances of the upper world He received flesh”; and at the same time they add that there is no need to be surprised at a body without birth, for with us, too, angels could appear in the flesh without the participation of the womb. We admit that they also say this; But what about the fact that at the same time a faith of one kind borrows its evidence from another faith, which it attacks? What does he who rejects the God of Moses have in common with Moses? If God is different, then His works will be different. But let all heretics use the Scripture of Him, whose peace they also use. The evidence of the judgment will also be against them that they base their reproaches on His own examples. It is easy for truth to prevail without even raising such objections against them. So, those who talk about the flesh of Christ according to the example of the flesh of the angels, saying that He was not born, although He has flesh, let them compare the reasons why Christ and the angels appeared in the flesh. Not one of the angels ever came down to be crucified, to suffer death and to rise from death. If there was never such a reason for the incarnation of angels, then here is an explanation for why they received flesh without being born. They did not come to die, which means they did not come to be born. And Christ, Who was really sent to die, therefore had to be born so that He could die. Usually only what is born dies. Birth and death have a mutual debt. Destiny for death is the cause of birth. If Christ died according to the law of that which dies, and that which is born dies, then it followed, or rather, preceded it, that He was born according to the law of that which is born; for He had to die according to the same law that dies precisely because he is born. It would be unsuitable not to be born according to the very law by which it was fitting to die. “But then, between two angels, the Lord Himself appeared to Abraham in the flesh, but without birth” 14 - but there was just another reason for this. However, you do not recognize this, for you do not recognize that Christ, who even then addressed the human race, and liberated, and judged it in the form of flesh, which was not yet born, for it was not appointed to death before His birth and death were announced. So, let them [the Marcionites] prove that these angels received their fleshly essence (substantia) from the stars. But if they cannot prove it - there is nothing about this in Scripture - then the flesh of Christ is not from there, to which they adapt the example of the angels. It is clear that the angels did not wear their own flesh, since these are spiritual substances and, if they have a body, then they are of a special kind; for a while, however, they are able to transform into a human body so that they can appear to people and communicate with them. Therefore, since it is not said where they received their flesh, then our reason (intellectus) should not doubt that this is the property of angelic power - to take on a bodily form, but not from matter. “But,” you say, “how much more suitable is it for them to take it from matter!” However, nothing is known about this, because Scripture does not indicate this. However, if they are capable of making themselves something that they are not by nature, then why cannot they create themselves not from matter (ex nulla substantia)? If they become something they are not, why not something that does not exist? However, that which does not exist, if it arises, then comes from nothing (ex nihilo). Therefore, it is not asked or shown what happened to their bodies afterwards. What arose from nothing turned into nothing. Those who can turn themselves into flesh are capable of turning nothing itself into it. Changing nature is a greater matter than creating matter. But even if the angels had to borrow flesh from matter, then, of course, it is more likely that from earthly matter than from some kind of heavenly substance: after all, this flesh turned out to have that earthly property that it fed on earthly food. It could, of course, happen that the stellar flesh, although it was not earthly, fed on earthly food in the same way that earthly flesh fed on heavenly food, although it was not heavenly. After all, we read that manna was food for the people: “The bread of angels,” says [Scripture], “man ate (Ps. 77:25). This, however, does not at all diminish the very special property of the Lord’s flesh, which had a different purpose. It was fitting for Him who intended to be a real man until death to put on that flesh which is characteristic of death; but the flesh, which is characterized by death, is preceded by birth. 7. However, whenever a dispute arises about birth, everyone who rejects it on the grounds that it predetermines the reality of the flesh in Christ insists that the Lord Himself denies His birth, for He said: Who is My mother, and who are My brothers? (Matthew 12:48). Therefore, let Apelles listen to what we have already answered to this in the book where we refuted his gospel 15, namely, we should consider the basis of this saying. First of all, no one would have ever told Him that His mother and brothers were standing outside the house (cf. 46-47), if they had not known for sure that He had a mother and brothers, precisely the same ones who were reported and whom they either knew before or recognized then in that place (let us assume that heresies removed this from the Gospel); for the people, amazed at His teaching, said that they knew very well His imaginary father, Joseph the carpenter, and His mother Mary, and His brothers and sisters. “But for the sake of temptation they told Him about the mother and brothers He did not have.” “The Scripture does not speak about this, although in all other cases it is not silent about what was done against Him for the sake of temptation: Behold,” it says, “the teacher of the law stood up to tempt Him (Luke 10:25), and in another place: And the Pharisees came to Him, tempting Him (Matthew 19:3). And here no one bothered to point out that this was done for the sake of temptation. And what you bring from yourself besides Scripture, I do not accept. Then, there must be a basis for temptation. What did they think to tempt Him with? Of course, whether He was born or not, If He had denied this by His answer, the tempter would certainly have reported it. But no temptation, striving to find out what it is in doubt about, arises so suddenly that it is not preceded by a question, which, introducing doubt, arouses temptation. And if the birth of Christ was never a question, why are you trying to prove that through temptation they wanted to know what they never doubted? Let us also add the following here: even if it were necessary to tempt Him regarding His birth, they would have tempted Him, of course, not in this way - not with a message about those persons who might not have existed, even if Christ was born. We are all born, but not all of us have brothers or a mother. Besides, one is more likely to have a father than a mother, and uncles than brothers. The temptation about birth was not reasonable precisely because the birth could be known without mentioning the mother and brothers. It is more likely that they, knowing well that He has a mother and brothers, would rather tempt Him regarding divinity: does He, being inside [the house], know what is happening outside, whether He will not be exposed in a false indication of the presence of those persons who actually were not there. But in this case, not to mention the fact that the temptation itself is not cunning, it could turn out that about those who, as He was told, were standing outside, He probably already knew that they were absent, either due to health, or on business, or were delayed on the way. No one tempts, knowing that he can bring shame upon himself by this temptation. Since, therefore, there is no basis for temptation, the truth of the message is confirmed that in fact His mother and His brothers came earlier. But let Apelles now also know the reason why the Lord in His answer abandoned the mother and brothers who were present. The Lord's brothers did not believe in Him (John 7:5), as stated in the Gospel published before Marcion. It is also not shown that His mother was in constant communication with Him; on the contrary, Martha and Mary did this often 16. It is precisely here that their unbelief manifests itself: when He taught the way of life, when he preached the Kingdom of God, when he tried to heal illnesses and vices, then his relatives left Him, while strangers were with Him. Finally, they come and stop outside, and do not enter, and, apparently, do not think about what is happening inside - in any case, they do not wait for Him, as if they came with something more necessary than what He was especially busy with at that time. But more than that, they interrupt Him and want to tear Him away from such a great matter. I ask you, Apelles, or you, Marcion, if one day you, sitting at the playing board 17 betting on a game of actors or a chariot race, were distracted by such a message, would you not exclaim: “Who is my mother?” or “Who are my brothers?” And for Christ, preaching and proving God, fulfilling the Law and the Prophets, dispelling the darkness of the previous age, was it unworthy for Him to use such words to censure the unbelief of those standing outside or to condemn those who untimely separate Him from His work? In addition, another place, and another time, and another way of expression would be more suitable for denying birth - not the one that anyone who has a mother or brothers could use - for indignation does not deny parents, but condemns them. That is why He placed others higher and indicated the basis for such exaltation - attention to His words - and thereby made it clear in what sense He rejected his mother and brothers. For for whatever reason He adopted those who clung to Him, for the same reason He rejected those who separated from Him. Christ usually Himself fulfills what He teaches others. Therefore, what would it be like if He, teaching not to value mother and brothers as highly as the Word of God, Himself left the Word of God after the message about mother and brothers? Consequently, He rejected His relatives, just as He taught to reject them for the sake of the cause of God. On the other hand, in His distant mother one can see the figurative expression of the synagogue, and in the unbelieving brothers - the Jews. In their face Israel stood outside; and the new disciples who listened to Him within, believed in Christ and were close to Him, denoted the Church, which He called a better mother and a more worthy brotherhood, having renounced His carnal race. It was in this sense that He responded to [the woman’s] cry—not renouncing his mother’s breasts and womb, but presenting those happier who heed the word of God (Luke 11:27–28). 8. These passages alone (from which Marcion and Apelles seem to have been most inspired), interpreted according to the truth of the authentic and intact Gospel, should have been quite sufficient to prove the human flesh in Christ through the justification of His birth. But if the followers of Apelles especially insist on the shamefulness of the flesh, being convinced that it was given to seduced souls from the famous fiery ruler of evil 18 and therefore unworthy of Christ, and the substance from the stars was due to Him, then I must beat them with their own weapons. They recognize a certain famous angel who created this world and after creating it fell into repentance. We also talked about this in our place - we have a small book against them 19 about whether someone who had the spirit, will and power of Christ for such a thing did something worthy of repentance - for they imagine an angel in the form of a lost sheep. Therefore, the [created] world is a crime, as evidenced by the repentance of its Creator, if we recognize that all repentance is a recognition of a crime (confessio delicti), for it takes place only in a crime. If the world is sin, since it itself and its members are the body, then heaven and with it everything heavenly will be sin. But if the heavenly things are sinful, then everything that is borrowed from there and came from there is sinful: for a bad tree inevitably bears bad fruit (Matthew 7:17). Therefore, the flesh of Christ, if it is formed from heavenly [substances], consists of elements (elementa) of sin, a sinner by its sinful origin, and will be equal to that, that is, our substance, which, due to its sinfulness, they do not consider worthy of Christ. So, there is no difference in dishonor - whether those who are not kind to our matter invent another, purer form, or recognize the same one, that is, ours - because heavenly could not be better. Of course, we read: The first man is from the dust of the earth, the second man is from heaven (1 Cor. 15:47). This, however, does not apply to the difference in matter, but simply to the former earthly substance (the flesh of the first man, that is, Adam), the apostle contrasts the heavenly substance from the Spirit of the second man, that is, Christ. That is why he classifies the heavenly man as a Spirit, and not as a flesh: whence it is clear that those whom he compares with Him, in this earthly flesh, become heavenly through the Spirit. After all, if Christ were heavenly in the flesh, then those who are not heavenly in the flesh would not be equated with Him. This means that if they, becoming heavenly, like Christ, bear the earthly substance of flesh, then this once again confirms that Christ Himself was heavenly in earthly flesh, as are those who are equated with Him. 9. Let us add to this the following: that which arises from another and is therefore different in comparison with that from which it arose, cannot be different to such an extent that it retains nothing from the source of its origin. No matter is deprived of evidence of its origin, even if it changes into a new quality. In any case, our body - and that it is formed from clay is a truth that has penetrated even into the traditions of the pagans 20 - reveals its origin from two elements: flesh - from earth, and blood - from water. For, although in terms of properties it will have a different appearance, namely because from one thing it has become another, what, after all, is blood if not a red liquid? What is flesh if not earth taken on certain forms? Consider the individual properties: the muscles are like blocks of earth, the bones are like rocks, even around the nipples there are some small seals; look at the strong plexus of veins - it resembles the shoots of roots, look at the dense branchings of the vessels - they are like the meanders of streams, at the growths of fluff - they are like mosses, hair - like stems: finally, the innermost repository of the bone marrow itself is like ore-bearing veins of flesh. Christ had all these signs of earthly origin, and it was they that hid Him as the Son of God: for He was considered simply a man with a human body. Or you indicate in Him something heavenly, asked from the stars of the Ursa, from the Pleiades or Hyades. For everything that we have listed testifies in Him to earthly flesh similar to ours. But I don’t notice anything new, anything alien in Him. In general, people were surprised only by the words and deeds, the teaching and virtue of Christ as a man. If any physical unusualness had been noticed in Him, this would also have caused surprise. But there was nothing remarkable about His earthly flesh; it only showed how amazing His other properties were, for they said: Where did He get this teaching and these miracles? (Matthew 13:54). This was said even by those who looked at His appearance with contempt, His body was so devoid of human greatness, not to mention heavenly splendor. Although our prophets are silent about His homely appearance, the passions themselves and the reproaches themselves speak of this: the passions, in particular, testify to human flesh, and the reproaches testify to its homeliness 21 . Would anyone even dare to scratch the body of heavenly beauty with the tip of a nail or insult the brow with spitting if it did not deserve it? Why do you call the flesh heavenly, without knowing a single evidence of its heavenly origin? Why do you deny its earthly nature, the proof of which is obvious? He starved under the devil, thirsted under the Samaritan woman, shed tears over Lazarus, trembled before death; for, He says, the flesh is weak (Matt. 26:41; Mark 14:38). Finally, He shed His blood. All these, I believe, are signs from heaven. But how, I ask again, could He have been subjected to reproach and suffering if even a small part of heavenly majesty had sparkled in His flesh? From this we conclude that His flesh had nothing heavenly, for He was subject to reproach and suffering. 10. Now I turn to others who are also in their own minds and claim that the flesh of Christ is soulful (animalis), because since the soul became flesh, then the flesh became soul, and as the flesh is soulful, so the soul is carnal. And here too I am looking for reasons. If Christ, in order to save the soul, took this soul into Himself - for it could not be saved except through Him - then I see no reason why, having put on flesh, He should have made this flesh spiritual: as if He could not save the soul otherwise than by making it fleshly. But if He saves our souls - not only not carnal, but also separated from the flesh, then how much easier it was for Him to save that soul that He Himself accepted, even though it was not carnal! Further, since they believe that Christ came not to deliver the body, but only the soul, it is extremely strange, first of all, that, intending to deliver only the soul, He made it a body of a kind that He did not intend to save. Then, if He intended to free our souls with the help of the one He accepted, then this latter had to become like ours, that is, take our form; and no matter how mysterious our soul may be in appearance, it in any case does not have a carnal appearance. Moreover, if He had a carnal soul, He did not save our soul, for our soul is not carnal. Further, if He did not save our soul, because He saved the soul of the flesh, then He did not deliver anything to us, because He did not save our soul. But that soul, which is not ours, should not have been prepared for salvation precisely as a carnal soul. After all, she would not have been in danger if she had not been ours, that is, not carnal. However, it is well known that she was saved. This means that she was not carnal; and she was ours, the one who had to be saved, because she was in danger. So, if in Christ the soul was not carnal, then the flesh could not be spiritual. 11. We will now proceed to another of their arguments and consider why it appears that Christ had a carnal soul, if He took on the flesh of the soul. The fact is, they say, that God wanted to make the soul visible to people and made it a body; but before she was invisible and by her nature did not see anything, not even herself, since her flesh interfered with her. Therefore, there is still a question - is the soul born or not, [is it mortal or not] 22. This means that the soul in Christ became a body, so that we could see it at birth and at death, and also (which is much more important) at its resurrection. But how could it be that through the flesh the soul, which could not be recognized because of the flesh, would appear to itself or to us, and in order to appear to everyone in this way, it becomes that from which it was hidden, that is, flesh? So she embraced the darkness so she could shine? So, first we need to consider whether the soul had to appear in this way, and whether they represent it as completely invisible before; further, whether they represent her as incorporeal or as having some kind of body of her own. Although they call it invisible, they imagine it to be corporeal, but possessing the property of invisibility. For how can something be called invisible that has nothing invisible in it? But it cannot exist without having something due to which it exists. But since it exists, it necessarily possesses that by which it exists. And if she has something due to which she exists, then this will be her body. Everything that exists is a kind of body; only that which does not exist is incorporeal. Therefore, since the soul has an invisible body, He who decided to make it visible would have acted, undoubtedly, more worthy, making visible in it what was considered invisible, for here too neither deception nor weakness befits God; however, there was deception - if He presented the soul not by what it is, and there was weakness - if He could not show the soul by what it is. No one, wanting to show a person, puts a helmet or mask on him. And this is precisely what happened to the soul if, having turned into flesh, it took on someone else’s appearance. But even if the soul were considered incorporeal, so that it would be a kind of mysterious power of the mind, and everything that the soul is would not be a body, this would also not be impossible for God and would be more consistent with His intention to present the soul in a new, corporeal form, different from the generally known and requiring a different representation; He would have some reason for making the soul visible from the invisible, such that it would give a basis for such questions, for human flesh would be preserved in it. But Christ could not be visible among people if He was not a man. Therefore, return to Christ His honesty: if He wanted to appear as a man, then He also revealed the soul of human nature - not making it carnal, but clothing it with flesh. 12. Let us now admit that the soul is revealed through the flesh, if the assertion is maintained that it must somehow have been revealed in general, without being known either to itself or to us. In the latter case, however, the distinction is in vain - one might think that we exist separately from the soul, while all that we are is the soul 24. In a word, without a soul we are nothing, not even people by name, but simply corpses. Therefore, if we do not know the soul, then it does not know itself. This means that all that remains to be investigated is whether the soul really did not know itself to such an extent that it wanted to become known in any way. The nature of the soul, I believe, is endowed with sensation (sensualis). Therefore there is nothing soulful without sensory sensation (sine sensu) and nothing sensible without a soul. And, to put it briefly, sensation is the soul of the soul. Therefore, since the soul communicates sensation to everything and itself feels not only the qualities (qualitates), but also the sensations of everything, who will consider it probable that from the very beginning it is not endowed with a sense of itself (sensus sui) 25? Where does she get the knowledge of what she needs due to natural necessity, if she does not know her own ability to judge what is necessary? This - I mean self-knowledge (notitia sui), without which no soul could govern itself - can be recognized in every soul. First of all, this applies to man, the only rational being, most capable and destined for possessing a soul, which makes him a rational being, for it itself is primarily rational. Then, how could the soul be rational if it itself, making a person a rational being, does not know its own reason (ratio) and does not know about itself? But she knows precisely because she knows her Creator, the Judge and her own position. Not yet learning about God, she pronounces the name of God; Having not yet learned anything about His Judgment, she declares that she entrusts herself to God. Hearing only that with death all hope disappears, she remembers the deceased with a good or evil word. This is discussed more fully in the small book “On the Witness of the Soul,” written by us. However, if the soul had been ignorant of itself from the beginning, it would only have to learn from Christ what it is like. Now she learned from Christ not her appearance, but her salvation. The Son of God came down and received a soul, not so that the soul would know itself in Christ, but so that it might know Christ in itself. For the danger threatens her not from ignorance of herself, but from ignorance of the Word of God: In Him, says [the apostle], life was revealed to you (1 John 1:2), and not the soul, and so on. I came, He says, to save a soul (Luke 9:56), but He did not say “show.” Of course, if we assume that the soul is invisible, we could not know how it is born and dies if it did not appear to us bodily (corporaliter). This will be what Christ revealed to us. But He discovered this in Himself no differently than in a certain Lazarus, whose flesh was not spiritual, but whose soul was not carnal. So, what do we know better about the state of the previously unknown soul? What was so invisible about her that it required manifestation through the flesh? 13. The soul became flesh in order to be revealed. But did not the flesh also become soul, so that the flesh might be revealed? If the soul has become flesh, it is no longer soul, but flesh; if the flesh has become the soul, it is no longer flesh, but the soul. Therefore, where the flesh is and where the soul is, there they mutually turned into each other. But if they are neither one nor the other, for each of them turns into something else, then a terrible absurdity results: when speaking about the flesh, we must mean the soul, and when pointing to the soul, we must consider it flesh. Then everything is in danger of being taken for something other than what it is, and of losing what it is if it is perceived differently and if it is called something other than what it is. The correctness of names is identical to the preservation of one's own properties (proprietates). And when qualities change, [objects] acquire new names. For example, baked clay receives the name of a shard (testae) and is no longer included in the name of the previous genus, because it no longer belongs to this genus. Therefore, the soul of Christ, having become flesh, cannot help but be what it has become, and cannot remain what it was, precisely because it has become something else. And since we gave a very clear example, we will use it further. Of course, a clay shard represents only one object (corpus) and one name, that is, the name of this one object. It cannot be called both a shard and clay, for it is not what it was; and what he is not no longer applies to him. The same goes for the soul. Consequently, the soul, having become flesh, is a uniform and dense substance, that is, completely whole and indivisible. In Christ we find soul and flesh, which are designated by simple and undisguised names, the soul is called soul, and the flesh is called flesh. The soul is never called flesh, and the flesh - soul, for that is what they should be called if such a [perverse] situation existed; on the contrary, He Himself named each substance separately, and everywhere, of course, in accordance with the difference between two properties - separately the soul and separately the flesh. In particular, He says: My soul is grieved unto death (Matthew 26:38) and also: The bread that I will give for the salvation of the world is My flesh (John 6:51). Further, if the soul were flesh, then in Christ there would be only one thing: a carnal soul, and it is also spiritual flesh. But since He separates them, He clearly shows that they are two types - flesh and soul. But if there are two, then it is not one; and if not one, then there can be neither a carnal soul nor spiritual flesh. After all, the carnal soul and the spiritual flesh are one and the same. Then He would have to have another, special soul besides the one that was flesh, and declare another flesh besides the one that was the soul. But if He had one flesh and one soul, and this one grieved mortally, and the other was bread for the salvation of the world, then the number of two substances is preserved, different in their kind and excluding the only type of carnal soul. 14. But Christ, they say, was also an angel. On what basis? On the same basis as a person. Therefore, the reason why Christ represented man is the same, and this reason is the salvation of man. Namely, He did this to restore what was lost. A man died, and it was necessary to restore the man. But there was no such reason for Christ to take on the appearance of an angel. For even if the angels were condemned to destruction, into the fire prepared for the devil and his angels (Matthew 25:41), then restoration was never promised to them. Christ did not receive any command to free the angels from the Father. And what the Father did not promise or command, Christ could not fulfill. Why then did He take on the nature of an angel, if not in order, with the help of this strong ally, to contribute to the liberation of man? But couldn’t the Son of God alone free a man seduced by a single serpent? This means that we no longer have one God and more than one Savior, if salvation is accomplished by two and, moreover, one needs the other. However, is it the case that He freed a person with the assistance of an angel? Why then did He condescend to do what He intended to accomplish through the angel? If through an angel, what did He Himself do? And if Himself, then what remains for the angel? He is called the angel of the great plan, that is, the messenger: but this is the name of His duty, not of His nature. For He had to announce to the world the great plan of the Father, namely, the restoration of man. That is why one should not consider Him the same angel as Gabriel and Michael. For the owner of the vineyard sends his son to the cultivators, as well as his servants, to claim the fruit; however, the son should not be considered one of the servants for the reason that he assumes the duty of servants. Therefore, I would probably prefer to say that the Son Himself is an angel, that is, the messenger of the Father, rather than that the angel abides in the Son. But since it is also declared about the Son Himself: You have made Him little less than the angels (Ps. 8:6), then how can one imagine Him as an angel, so humbled before the angels that He becomes a man, like the Son of man, both flesh and soul? He is the Spirit of God and the power of the Most High (Luke 1:35), and therefore He cannot be considered lower than the angels, for He is God and the Son of God. Therefore, just as He became lower than the angels, having assumed human nature, He was no less inferior to them, being an angel. This might be consistent with the opinion of Ebion, who believes that Jesus is just a man, from one seed of David, that is, not the Son of God; Of course, in some ways He is more glorious than the prophets, for, Ebion believes, an angel dwelt in Him, just as in Zechariah. But Christ never said: And the angel speaking within me says to me (cf. Zech. 1:14), and did not even repeat the usual words of the prophets: Thus says the Lord. He Himself was the Lord, personally, speaking from His authority: I say to you. Why more words? Listen to Isaiah exclaiming: Not an angel, nor a messenger, but the Lord Himself saved them (cf. Is. 63:8-9). 15. And Valentine, thanks to his superiority as a heretic, was able to invent the spiritual (spiritualis) flesh of Christ. Anyone who did not want to believe that she was human could imagine her as anything. For (this should be declared against all such opinions): if the flesh of Christ is not human and did not come from man, then I do not see in what substance, being, Christ Himself declared Himself to be man and the Son of man: And now you want to kill the man who told you the truth (John 8:40) - and: The Son of man is Lord of the Sabbath (Luke 6:5; Matt. 12:8). This is what Isaiah says about Him: A man of sorrows and able to endure illnesses (53:3); and Jeremiah: He is a man, and who knew Him? (17, 9); and Daniel: And He is above the clouds, like the Son of man (7:13). Likewise, the Apostle Paul says: The Mediator of God and men, the man Christ Jesus (1 Tim. 2:5). And also Peter in the Acts of the Apostles: Jesus of Nazareth, the man confirmed to you by God (2:22) - and, of course, a man. This alone, by way of judicial objection (vice praescriptionis), - if heresies could abandon their love of disputes and cunning tricks - should have been quite enough to admit that His flesh was human and originated from man, and not spiritual, just as not spiritual, not stellar, not imaginary. For, as I read from someone from Valentine’s gang, they do not recognize that Christ was endowed with earthly and human substance, so as not to appear to the Lord lower than the angels, who did not have earthly flesh. Then, [they argue] that flesh like ours had to be born in a similar way - not from the Spirit, not from God, but from the desire of a husband (cf. John 1:13). And why not from the corruptible, but from the incorruptible? And why is our flesh, equal to His flesh, which was resurrected and taken into heaven, not immediately taken there? Or why is His flesh, equal to ours, not equally scattered into the earth? Pagans also asked similar questions. Is the Son of God really humiliated to such an extent? And if He rose again as the image of our hope, why doesn’t anything like this happen to us? These questions among the pagans are understandable; but they are also understandable among heretics. For what is the difference between them, if not that pagans believe and do not believe, and heretics do not believe and believe? For example, they read: You have made Him little less than the angels - and they deny the less high substance of Christ, although He calls Himself a worm, and not a man (Ps. 21:7), having neither form nor beauty (Is. 53:2); his appearance is inconspicuous, more despicable than that of all people, a man of sorrows and able to endure illnesses. They recognize man united with God and reject man. They believe in mortal things, and claim that mortal things were born from incorruptible things, as if corruption were something other than death. - “But our flesh also had to be resurrected immediately.” - Wait: Christ has not yet suppressed His enemies in order to triumph over his enemies together with his friends. 16. In addition, the famous Alexander 27, out of a passion for philosophizing, according to the cast of a heretical mind, appears as if we affirm that Christ put on the flesh of earthly dignity in order to abolish the flesh of sin in His own Person. Even if we said something similar, we could support our judgment with any argument, but not such madness as he believes: as if we consider the very flesh of Christ sinful, [allegedly] abolished in Him [for this]. We remember that she sits in Heaven at the right hand of the Father, and we preach that she will descend from there in all the majesty of the Father’s Glory. Therefore, we can no more call it abolished than we can call it sinful; that which was not deceived was not abolished. We insist that in Christ it was not the flesh of sin that was abolished, but the sin of the flesh; not matter was abolished, but [the property of its] nature, and not substance, but guilt, - according to the authority of the Apostle, who says: He abolished sin in the flesh (Rom. 8:3; cf. 6:6) 28. For in another place he says that Christ had the likeness of the flesh of sin (ibid.), and not at all that He took on the likeness of flesh, like a ghost of a body, but not a real body. By the similarity of sinful flesh, he proposes to mean not that the flesh of Christ itself is sinful, but that it was identical to sinful flesh by its origin, and not by Adam’s sin. On this basis we affirm that in Christ there was that flesh whose nature in man is sinful, and sin in it was abolished so that in Christ that which is not sinless in man was sinless. For if Christ, having abolished the sin of the flesh, would have wished to abolish it in a flesh other than that which was sinful by nature, this would have corresponded neither to His intention nor to His glory. For what great thing is to remove a birthmark from the flesh of a better and different, that is, non-sinful nature? So you say: if Christ took on our flesh, His flesh was sinful. Do not distort the meaning, which is quite clear. By taking on our flesh, Christ made it His own; and by making it His own, He made her sinless. In addition (this must be said against all who do not believe that our flesh was in Christ, because it did not come from the seed of a man), we must keep in mind that Adam himself was clothed in this flesh, which did not arise from the seed of a man. Just as the earth was converted into this flesh without the seed of a man, so the Word of God could pass into the matter of the same flesh without a connecting principle (sine coagulo). 17. But now, leaving Alexander with his syllogisms, which he twists in his proofs, even with the psalms of Valentine, which he quotes with such shamelessness, as if they belonged to a great author, let us turn our attention to one question: did Christ receive His flesh from the Virgin, so that - if He received the substance from a human source - thereby its human nature became especially clear. However, already by His human name, by the nature of His properties (de statu qualitatis), by the meaning of His actions and the outcome of suffering, there was no doubt about His human flesh. But first of all, it is necessary to set out the reason by virtue of which the Son of God was born of the Virgin. The Author of the New Birth was to be born again, by which, as Isaiah preached, the Lord wanted to give a sign. What is this sign? Behold, the Virgin will conceive and give birth to a Son (Isa. 7:14). And so the Virgin conceived and gave birth to Emmanuel, God with us (Matthew 1:23). A person is born in God - this is a new birth; God was born in this man, taking on the flesh of the ancient seed, but without the participation of this seed itself - in order to transform it with a new seed, that is, spiritually (spiritualiter), and redeem it, cleansing it of ancient impurity. But this new, as in all cases, is endowed with an ancient appearance, for by virtue of a special plan the Lord was born a man from a Virgin. The land was still virgin, not yet plowed or sown; from it, as we learned, man was made by the Lord a living soul (Gen. 2:7). And if it is said that the first Adam was from the earth, then the second, or last Adam, as the apostle said (cf. 1 Cor. 15:45), therefore, it was also fitting to be born of God from the earth, that is, from the flesh, not yet opened for birth, into the life-giving spirit. And yet, in order to fully use the example of the name of Adam, why does the Apostle call Christ Adam, if His Humanity was not of earthly dignity? But here, too, reason confirms that God freed His image and likeness from captivity, captive by the devil, by performing a reciprocal action. For the word that caused death crept into Eve, until then a virgin; Likewise, the Word of God, which creates life, had to enter into the virgin, so that what through this sex was subject to destruction would be directed to salvation through the same sex. Eve believed the serpent; Mary believed Gabriel. The sin that one committed by believing, the other, by believing, made amends for. - “But Eve did not conceive in her womb then from the word of the devil.” - No, she conceived. For from then on the word of the devil was a seed for her, so that she would give birth to what was rejected and give birth in sorrow (cf. Gen. 3:16). She even gave birth to the brother-killer devil 29. On the contrary, Mary gave birth to the One who once had to save His bodily brother and destroyer, Israel. Therefore, God sent down His Word, a good brother, into the womb in order to erase the memory of the bad brother. And Christ, in order to save man, had to come out from there [from the sinful state of the flesh], where man entered upon his condemnation. 18. Now, in order for us to answer more simply, let us say that it was not fitting for the Son of God to be born from the seed of man. After all, if He were entirely the Son of man, then He would not be the Son of God and would in no way surpass either Solomon or Jonah (cf. Matt. 12:40-42), and He would have to be judged according to the opinion of Ebion. This means that since He was already the Son of God from the seed of God the Father, that is, the Spirit, then in order to become the Son of man, He only needed to take flesh from human flesh, without the seed of a man. The seed of a man was unnecessary for Him who had the seed of God. Therefore, just as He could have God as a Father without a human mother - while He was not yet born of a Virgin - in the same way, when He was born of a Virgin, He could have a human mother without a human father. Namely, He is man united with God, as human flesh is with the Spirit of God - flesh from man, but without seed; The Spirit is from God, and with the seed. Therefore, if there was such a plan and intention regarding the Son of God that He should come from the Virgin, then why did He not take from the Virgin the body that He took from her? Because the body that he received from God is different, for the Word, they say, became flesh (John 1:14). But this word [of Scripture] testifies only to that which has been made flesh; and on the other hand, there is no danger that the Word, having become flesh, would immediately turn out to be something other than the Word. Whether the Word was made flesh from flesh or from the seed itself 30 - let Scripture tell us this. But since Scripture only indicates what it became, without indicating from what, it inclines us to the assumption that it was made from something else, and not directly from the seed. And if not directly from the seed, but from another, then from there draw a conclusion whether there is another, more trustworthy, source of the fact that the Word became flesh than [the] flesh itself, into which It was incarnated. For the Lord Himself decisively (sententialiter) and definitely declared: What is born in the flesh is flesh (John 3:6), precisely because it was born of the flesh. But if He said this only about man, and not about Himself, then, of course, deny the humanity of Christ and declare that it does not concern Him. But He immediately added: And that which is born of the Spirit, that is the Spirit (ibid.), - for the Spirit is God and is born of God. If this applies to those who believe in Him, then even more so it applies to Himself. But if this applies to Him, then why does not the above also apply? If you recognize in Christ one and the other substance, both carnal and spiritual, then you cannot separate these words and attribute the second part to Himself, and the first to all other people. Moreover, if He had flesh as well as the Spirit, then, while declaring the properties of these two substances that He Himself possessed, He could not attribute the spiritual substance to His Spirit and at the same time not attribute the corporeal substance to His flesh. This means that since He Himself comes from the Spirit of God, and the Spirit is God, then He Himself is God, born of God, and Man, begotten in the flesh from human flesh. 19. What does it mean: Not of blood, not of the desire of the flesh, and not of the desire of man, but of God He was born (John 1:13) 31? This is the chapter I will use when I expose its distorters. They insist that it is written like this: Not of blood, not of the desire of the flesh, and not of man, but of God they were born, - as if [the apostle] here means the above-mentioned believers in His Name, in order to show that secret seed of the elect and spiritual, which they receive into themselves 32. But how can this be if everyone who believes in the Name of the Lord is born according to the general law of human birth - from blood, from flesh and from the desire of a husband - and even Valentine himself? To this extent, there must be a singular number, for it is written about One Lord: And born of God, - and it is written rightly, for Christ is the Word of God, and with the Word is the Spirit of God, and in the Spirit is the Power of God and everything that belongs to God. Although He is flesh, He is not of blood, nor of the flesh and desire of a man: for the Word became flesh at the will of God. The denial of our ordinary birth applies to the flesh, of course, and not to the Word, for this is how the flesh was born, but not the Word. However, why did [the apostle], while denying birth from the desire of the flesh, not deny birth from the substance of the flesh? Because he, denying birth from the desire of the flesh, rejected not the substance of the flesh, but only the participation of the seed, which, as is known, is the heat of the blood; cooling down, it turns into a clot of female blood. For from the leaven and in the cheese the [true] nature of the substance, that is, milk, is manifested: it thickens when the leaven is added. Therefore, it is clear to us that [with these words] it is only denied that the birth of the Lord occurred as a result of intercourse (by which we mean the desire of the husband and the flesh), but the participation of the false is not denied. And why does [the apostle] so strenuously insist that He was not born of blood, not from the desire of the flesh, or a husband, if not because He had such flesh, the birth of which from intercourse no one thought to doubt? But, further denying birth from intercourse, he did not deny birth from the flesh; on the contrary, he affirmed it, for he did not deny birth from the flesh in the same way as he denied birth from intercourse. I ask you: if the Spirit of God descended into the falsehood not in order to participate in the flesh, then why did He descend there? After all, spiritual flesh could be formed much more easily outside falsehoods and without their participation than in them. In this case, He descended for no reason to a place from which He brought nothing back. But He descended into falsehood not without a reason and, therefore, accepted something from them. For if He did not accept any of them, then He descended into them aimlessly, especially if He intended to accept flesh of a nature that is alien to falsehood, that is, spiritual. 20. But what is your cunning if you try to remove even the syllable “from” (ex), written as a preposition, and use another, which is not found in this form in the Holy Scriptures? “Through” (per) the Virgin, you say, He was born, and not “from” the Virgin, and: “in” lies, and not “from” lies, - for the angel said to Joseph in a dream: What is born in Her is of the Holy Spirit (Matthew 1:20); and did not say: from Her. But it is clear that even if he had used the words: from Her, he would have meant all the same: in Her, for what was from Her was in Her. Accordingly, therefore, his words “in Her” and “from Her” coincide: for what was in Her was from Her. It is good, however, that the same Matthew, outlining the genealogy of the Lord from Abraham to Mary, says: Jacob begat Joseph, the husband of Mary, from whom Christ is born (1:16). Yes, and Paul orders these “grammarists” to be silent: God, he says, sent His Son, made of a woman (Galatians 4:4). Does he say “through his wife” or “in his wife”? And if he chose to say “become” (factus), then this word is more expressive than “born” (natus), because it would be much easier for him to say “born”. And by saying “who became,” he pointed to the words: The Word became flesh (John 1:14) and confirmed the reality (veritas) of the flesh made of the Virgin. In this case, the psalms also protect us, but, of course, not the psalms of the apostate, heretic and Platonist Valentine, but the most holy and universally recognized prophet David. He glorifies Christ for us, and through him Christ glorified Himself. Listen to Christ and hear the Lord speaking to God the Father: For You are the One who brought Me out of My Mother’s womb (Ps. 21:10) - that’s one thing. You are My hope from My Mother’s breast; I was left for You from Her womb (10-11) - that’s another thing. And from the womb of My Mother You are My God (11) - this is the third. Now let's look at the meaning of these words. You brought Me out, He says, from the womb. But what is being torn out, if not what is adjacent to it, what is connected and attached to that from which, for the sake of separation, it is being torn out? And if He was not present in the womb, then how could He be torn out? If the One who was torn out lay close to the womb, then how could He lie close to the womb otherwise than by lying close to the womb through the umbilical cord, that is, as if through an extension of that membrane [of the fetus] by which it is connected to the generating womb? After all, even when one external thing connects with another external thing, it so unites and grows together with that to which it is attached that when it is rejected, it takes with it a part of the body from which it is rejected - as if a trace of the dissolved unity and interaction. But which breasts of His Mother is He talking about? About those, no doubt, who sucked. Let midwives, doctors and experts of nature talk about the properties of the nipples - whether there is discharge from them without the woman experiencing the pangs of birth - for only after this the blood rises through the veins from the lower reservoir to the breast and, as a result of this very movement, is transformed into a more nutritious matter - milk. It is for this reason that there is no monthly bleeding during pregnancy. But if the Word became flesh from Himself, and not through communication with false creatures, then they did not create anything, did not produce anything, did not suffer in anything. How then did they pour their source into nipples that can only change it by receiving it? But they could not have blood to prepare milk if there was no reason for the flow of this blood, namely, the rejection of their flesh. What was extraordinary in the birth of Christ from the Virgin is clear: namely, only that He was born from the Virgin for the reason that we learned, and that the Virgin is our rebirth, for She is spiritually sanctified from all uncleanness through Christ, Who Himself is a Virgin in the flesh, for he was born from the flesh of a Virgin. 21. If, therefore, they insist that it was fitting for the newness of this birth that the Word of God should not become flesh from the seed of a man, just as it did not become flesh from the flesh of the Virgin, then why should not all this newness consist in this, that the flesh should come from the flesh, and not be born of the seed? I think I'll get into a hotter fight. “Behold,” says [the prophet], “the Virgin will conceive.” What will She accept? Of course, the Word of God, and not the seed of a man - and definitely in order to give birth to the Son. For,” he continues, “she will give birth to a Son.” This means that just as it was Her nature to accept, so what She gave birth also belonged to Her, although what She accepted did not belong to Her. On the contrary, if the Word from Itself became flesh, then It accepted and gave birth to Itself, and the prophecy is empty. For the Virgin did not receive and did not give birth, if it was not her flesh that which She gave birth to from the received Word. But is it only the prophetic voice that is diminished here, or also the speech of the angel announcing the acceptance and birth to the Virgin? Isn’t Scripture also diminished where it proclaims the Mother of Christ? For how could She be a Mother if He was not in Her womb? - “However, from Her womb He did not accept anything that made the One in Whose Womb He was His Mother.” – But the flesh, alien to the [mother’s] womb, does not need to be mentioned. Only that flesh can mention the mother's womb, which came out of this womb. Further, what is born of itself is not the fruit of the womb. So, let Elizabeth be silent, carrying in her womb a child - a prophet who already knew her Lord, and, moreover, herself filled with the Holy Spirit 33. This means that she says without reason: And where does it come from for me that the Mother of My Lord came to me? (Luke 1:43). If Mary carried Jesus in her womb not as a Son, but as a stranger, then why does she [Elizabeth] say: Blessed is the fruit of your womb (42)? What kind of fruit of the womb is this, which did not come from the womb, which has no root in it and does not belong to Her whose womb it is? And in general, who is the fruit of this womb? Christ. Is it not precisely because He Himself is the flower of the branch that grew from the root of Jesse? But the root of Jesse is the line of David; the branch from the root is Mary, who came from David, the flower from the branch is the Son of Mary, called Jesus Christ. It will also be fruit, for color is fruit: for through color and from color, every fruit becomes fruit. So what? They deny the fruit its color, the flower its branch, the branch its root, so that the root cannot, through the branch, claim its property, which comes from the branch: color and fruit. For all generations of the race are counted from the last to the first, so now they would need to know that the flesh of Christ belongs not only to the flesh of Mary, but also to the flesh of David through Mary, and to the flesh of Jesse through David. Therefore, God swears to David to place this fruit of David’s loins, that is, the offspring of his flesh, on the throne of David (Ps. 131:11; Acts 2:30). But if He is from the loins of David, then much more from the womb of Mary, thanks to which He was also attached to the loins of David. 22. Then let [our opponents] try to blot out the testimony of the demons who cried out to Jesus as the Son of David 34 ; but they will not be able to eliminate the testimony of the apostles if the testimony of demons is unworthy of trust. First of all, Matthew himself, the most reliable narrator of the Gospel (for he was the companion of the Lord), does not for any other reason begin his narrative with the words: The Book of the Genealogy of Jesus Christ, the Son of David, the Son of Abraham, as in order to instruct us about the carnal origin of Christ. Since His race flows from these initial sources, and generations gradually ascend to the birth of Christ, what else but the flesh of both Abraham and David, giving rise to a shoot in their offspring, extends to the Virgin Herself and brings Christ, or, better to say, Christ Himself comes from the Virgin? Yes, and Paul, being a disciple, mentor and witness of the same Gospel - for he is also an apostle of Christ Himself 35 - claims that Christ in the flesh (in His own way, of course) comes from the seed of David (Rom. 1:3; 2 Tim. 2:8). This means that the flesh of Christ is from the seed of David. But if through the flesh of Mary He comes from the seed of David, it follows that He comes from the flesh of Mary, since He is from the seed of David. Turn these words around as you like: either from the flesh of Mary is that which is from the seed of David, or from the seed of David that is from the flesh of Mary. The aforementioned apostle puts an end to all this contradiction, defining that Christ is the seed of Abraham. But if it is Abraham’s, then much more is it David’s, for David is younger. In the same way, he explains the promise of blessing the nations in the name of Abraham: And in your seed all nations will be blessed (Gen. 12:3). [The Lord], he says, did not say “in seeds,” as if about many “descendants,” but about “seed,” as about one, which is Christ (Galat. 3:8; 16). But if we read this and believe it, then what property of the flesh should and can we recognize in Christ? Of course, nothing other than the property of Abraham’s flesh, for Christ is Abraham’s seed; none other than Jesse, for Christ is the flower from the root of Jesse; none other than David’s, for Christ is the fruit of David’s loins; none other than Mary: for Christ is from the womb of Mary. And, above all and more than all, nothing other than the property of Adam’s flesh, for Christ is the Second Adam. The conclusion, therefore, is this: either let them recognize in Christ the spiritual flesh, which in this situation is deprived of substance in Christ; or let them believe that His flesh was not spiritual, for it did not come from a spiritual trunk. 23. And we recognize the fulfillment of the prophetic words of Simeon, which he spoke over the Lord, then still a newborn baby: Behold, this one is destined for the fall and rising of many in Israel, and for a sign of contradictions (Luke 2:34). And here is the sign of the birth of Christ, according to Isaiah: Behold, the Virgin will be with child and give birth to a Son. Therefore, we recognize a contradictory sign, the conception and birth of the Virgin Mary, about which these “academics” 36 say: “She gave birth and did not give birth, a Virgin and not a Virgin”; perhaps it would be appropriate for us to say exactly that, if we needed to talk about it at all. For if She gave birth from Her flesh, then She really gave birth; but since she was not from her husband’s seed, she did not give birth at all. She is a Virgo, for she did not know her husband; but not a Virgin either, for she gave birth to 37. However, the situation is still not such that She gave birth and did not give birth, and that the Virgin Who is not a Virgin is precisely because She is the Mother in Her womb. We have nothing dubious, nothing that invites double interpretation. Light is light and darkness is darkness; “yes” is “yes,” and “no” is “no,” and anything beyond that is from the evil one (Matthew 5:37). She gave birth, who gave birth. And if the Virgin conceived, then through her birth she became married, precisely according to the law of the open body. At the same time, there was no difference whether this was accomplished by admitted or released male power - all the same, the false one opened the same sex. And the false ones are the very ones for whose sake it was written about others: Everything male that opens the false one will be called sanctified to the Lord (Ex. 13:2). Who is truly holy if not the Son of God? Who in the real sense opened the false doors, if not the One who opened them, locked? However, in marriage they all come apart. And those false openings were even more so because they were locked tighter. And therefore, one should rather call Her not the Virgin than the Virgin, for She became a Mother, as if suddenly, before she entered into marriage. And is it even worth talking about this when the Apostle, on the same basis, declared that the Son of God was not produced from the Virgin, but from a woman, recognizing the marital suffering of Her open wombs? We read, of course, in Ezekiel about the heifer that gave birth and did not give birth, 38 but look: was it not you who were already indicated by the Holy Spirit in His providence, arguing about the womb of Mary. Moreover, otherwise He, contrary to His usual simplicity, would not have proclaimed polysemantically through the lips of Isaiah: He will receive and give birth. 24. As for the words that Isaiah brings down to ridicule heretics, and first of all: Woe to those who call bitter sweet, and darkness light (5:20), then with them he points to those who do not preserve such words in their proper meaning; [he cares] that the soul is only what is called it, the body is only what is considered to be, and God is only the one who is preached. Therefore, the Lord, foreseeing [the appearance of] Marcion, says this: I am God, and there is no other God besides Me (45:5). And when in another place He says the same thing in the same way: Before Me there was no God (46:9), then, I think, with this He strikes some genealogy of the Valentinian Aeons. And with the words: Not from the blood, not from the flesh and desire of the man, but from God (John 1:13) He answers Ebion. Likewise, the words: Even if an angel from heaven preached the gospel to you differently than we preach, let him be accursed (Galatians 1:8) - are directed against the intricacies of the Apelles maiden Philumena. It is certain that anyone who denies the coming of Christ in the flesh is Antichrist (cf. 1 John 4:3). The one who calls His flesh by the undisguised, direct and simple name of its nature amazes all those who argue about it. Likewise, the one who defines Christ Himself as one shocks those who teach about the diversity of Christ. For they represent one as Christ, and the other as [the man] Jesus; one - escaping from the middle of the crowd, another - captured by it, one - in solitude on a mountain, among the clouds, glorious before three judges, another - pliable and inconspicuous, one - showing greatness of spirit, another - trembling, and, finally, this one - suffering, and this one - resurrected. Therefore, they say that their own resurrection will be in another body 39. But it is good that the same one who suffered will come from heaven (Acts 1:11), and the same one who has risen will appear to everyone. And those who crucified Him will see and recognize Him 40 - they will undoubtedly recognize the very flesh against which they raged and without which He could neither appear nor be recognized. Therefore, let those who claim that in the heavens sits insensible flesh, similar to the container that Christ left, or that there are uniform flesh and soul, or only the soul, but without flesh at all, should blush. 25. However, enough has been said about the present subject. For, I believe, the proof has already been built that the flesh in Christ is human and born of a Virgin. One could confine oneself to a simple explanation of this, without entering into competition with various opposing opinions. But nevertheless, we aroused this competition, citing in abundance the arguments of our opponents and those passages from Scripture that they use, so that by what we have proven, we can establish, in spite of all heretics, what the flesh of Christ was, and where it came from, and what it was not. But since the conclusion, as well as the general introduction, deals with the resurrection of our flesh (which we intend to defend in another book), let it find its preparation here - for it is already clear what that was that was resurrected in Christ. This refers to Marcion, Apelles and Valentinus. See also note. 44 to the treatise “On Prescription...”. Hence - “Docetism”; this, in fact, is not a specific teaching or sect, but a collective designation of opinions according to which the flesh, and therefore the passions of Christ, were not real, but “apparent,” “imaginary.” Similar views appeared already in apostolic times (see 1 John 4.2; 5.6; 2 John 7). The first Docetists can be considered Simon Magus and Cerinthus (see Irenaeus. Against heresies 1 23–26; III 3; 28). To one degree or another, all the major Gnostics, Ebionites, etc., leaned towards docetism. That is no prophecies. Annunciation, etc. See Luke. 2.1 units; Matt. 2.1–12. See Matt. 2.17–18; Jer. 31.15. See Mark. 1 1; IV 4; Prescr. 30. In the treatise “On Prescription...”. See Life 18.4; 19.15 units; 32.22 words I.e. something ghostly and unreal. Wrong. See Luke. 2.19, 51; John 19.25. Apparently a dice board. Lost. See note. 13 to the treatise “On Prescription...”. The story of the creation of man from clay appears for the first time in Sumerian mythology. But it is doubtful that Tertullian was familiar with her. Most likely, he means the myth of Prometheus, who fashioned the first people from earth and water (see Apollodorus. Library 1 7.1; Ovid. Metamorphoses 1 81 ff.). Wed. Idol. 18. These judgments about the ugly appearance of Christ probably imply His martyrdom during the Passion. Meanwhile, many church fathers considered His appearance beautiful, believing that otherwise He could not have such a personal attractive power for ordinary people. Thus, Jerome (Letters, 65.8; PL 22.627) notes: “If there had not been something heavenly in His appearance and gaze, the apostles would never have immediately followed Him, and those who came to seize Him would not have been amazed.” These last words are missing from a number of manuscripts and Ed. princ., does not include Oehi. Wed. Germ. 35. Authentic Stoic position: the incorporeal (space, time, emptiness and semantic objects) exists in an improper sense, “as if” it exists (see SVF II 329; Sextus Empiricus. Against scientists VIII 263; X 218; Seneca. Letters 58,15, etc.). See note. 3 to the treatise “On the Testimony of the Soul.” See note. 9 to the treatise “On the Testimony of the Soul.” Wed. Origen. Against Celsus V 14; Lactantium. Divine Ordinances IV 22. Alexander is apparently a Gnostic of the Valentinian school; known only from this mention. Tertullian mistranslates Rom. 8.3; the Greek text and Jerome's translation give: "condemned sin in the flesh." Those. Cain. A comparison of Eve and Mary in almost the same words is found in Justin (Dialogue with Tryphon the Jew 100) and Irenaeus (Against Heresies III 22.4; V 19.1). Here and below we follow the reading of a number of manuscripts: ex semine ipso instead of reading Rig. – Oehi.: ex semetipso (“from oneself”). In critical editions N.Z. noted as a version by Tertullian himself. It is curious that Augustine also gives the same version (Confessions VII 9.14); it is possible and even very likely that they used the same text (or translation). The generally accepted reading is just the opposite: “they are born” – i.e. believers in Christ. Perhaps they mean Luke. 8.28 syllables and similar places. But the demons never called Christ “Son of David”; it is possible (albeit surprising!) that Tertullian confuses Luke. 8.28 with Matt. 15.22. Paul was not one of the 12 apostles called by Christ Himself. In the sense of “skeptics”. Perhaps a hint of the skepticism of the Middle and New Academy (III - II centuries AD). Non Virgo quantum a partu. Here and below, Tertullian makes a mistake from the point of view of later Catholic dogma. And in the first centuries of patristics, only he defended this opinion. The largest authorities - Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Gregory of Nyssa, John Chrysostom, Jerome and others - were inclined to recognize the purity of both the conception and birth of Christ. True, this position did not immediately acquire the status of dogma. The first steps were taken at the Ephesian Council of 431. According to the decision of the Lateran Council in 649, the Virgin Mary was considered immaculate even after the birth of Christ. These words are missing from the book. Ezekiel. Perhaps they were present in its other variants, but then were excluded. Epiphanius (Against Heresies 30.30) cites them in connection with the teachings of the Ebionites. It is possible that Tertullian was mistaken and had in mind a place from the book. Job (21.10). See above, note. 2, as well as approx. 24 to the treatise “On Prescription...”. See Zech. 12.10; John 19.37.