On the Incarnation of Our Lord Jesus Christ, against Apollinaris (two books) 2.7–2.18

But again you say: “If Christ is man, he will be a part of the world; and a part of the world cannot save the world.” What a device of deceit, what madness of blasphemy! Let them say of which Scripture this is the rule, or whether it is a sophism of the devil; although the prophet [says, “… a man was born] in her, and the Most High himself founded her.” How then does Christ not save the world by becoming man? For it is plain that in the very nature in which sin was committed, the abundance of grace came about. And what is the abundance of grace? That the Word, having become man, is believed to be God; that Christ, while being man, is God, because being God he became man and saves those who believe in the form of a man. For “if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.” But God does not admit of deadening, nor does he need resurrection; rather he raises from the dead. Hence it became necessary for God to have something to offer for us, whether in death or in life; so that the Word saves all the more because he became man.

But again you say: “And how can the nature that has become accustomed to sin and has received sin by inheritance be without sin? That is impossible; and Christ too will be, as …” Mani also introduced this opinion, placing the flesh of man and birth itself under the ruler of wickedness and calling him the “Authority”; since “whatever overcomes a person, to that he is enslaved.” You renew their opinion in another way, handing over besides the intellectual nature of man, which is understood to be the soul, and defining it as unable to escape sin; although you have even written of a “fleshly soul,” and from where you learned it I do not know. For this is not to be found in the holy Scriptures nor in the common reasoning of men, since the Lord says, “Do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul.” And how, if the soul is fleshly by your account, does it not die with the body and perish with it? And how did Peter … say, “He went to preach the resurrection to the spirits shut up in prison”? But you say and name everything against nature, so that you may never, by recounting the dispensation according to nature, confirm the truth of the Word, that the Word truly became man. For you have said that it is the voice of God which says, “The mind of man is intently set on evil from his youth,” not understanding that by saying “from his youth” he showed what comes from sowing and is perishable. That is why the Lord swore truth to David, to raise up the Christ according to the flesh from the fruit of his body—not a man to be seen by a transformation of the Godhead (for then what need was there for the Lord to swear to David?), but one who took the form of the servant in enduring birth from a woman and growth in stature like ours, as the Apostle says, “Since therefore the children share in blood and flesh, he himself likewise partook of the same things”: “likewise,” because not from seed but from the Spirit; “the same things,” because not from elsewhere but from the seed of David and of Abraham and of Adam, as it is written.

How then, passing over the holy Scriptures and the manifestation of the truth, do you say: “If he did not appear as a man from himself but became man by taking a human existence, then he was joined to a man; and the crucified Lord of glory will be a man”? If, then, you hear Peter saying, “God made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified,” to what do you refer the “making”? If to the Godhead of the Word, why do you still blame the Arians, when you think the same as they? But if to the form of the servant in the Word, why do you still fight against yourselves? But you have not believed so; for again you say: “If the nature that sinned came to be in God without committing sin, then it is held by necessity; and what is held by necessity is forced.” Tell us, then: if not sinning happens by necessity, sinning will be by nature; you will grant, then, that the creator of nature is the worker of sin. But if such a thing is blasphemy, and sinning has come about by necessity, it is plain that not sinning is by nature. That is why, in … [the nature], subject not to necessity but by nature and power, displays sinlessness, having dissolved the bound of necessity, the law of sin, and the … as the prophet says, “You ascended on high, you led captivity captive.” For the Word, putting forward the form of the servant against the enemy, won the victory through the one who had once been defeated. That is why Jesus completed every temptation, because he took all that had experienced temptation, through which he won the victory on behalf of men, saying, “Take courage, I have conquered the world.” For the devil did not raise war against the Godhead, of which he was ignorant, [but against man, whom] he was able to deceive, and from him extended the working of his wickedness to all men. But since the soul of Adam was held under the condemnation of death and cried out continually to its Master, and those who had pleased God and been justified under the natural law were held with Adam, mourning and crying out with him, God, having mercy on the man whom he had made, [willed] to accomplish salvation for the race of men, to bring down the enemy who had deceived out of envy, and to show forth an incomparable exaltation of man by union with the Most High, and …

That is why the Word came, being God, … for the giving of life to man and the overthrow of the unjust enemy; and he was born of a woman, raising up in himself the form of man from the first formation, in the display of flesh without fleshly wills and human thoughts, in the image of newness. For the will is of the Godhead alone, since the whole nature is the Word’s, in the display of the human form and the visible flesh of the second Adam—not in a division of persons, but in an existence of Godhead and humanity. For this is why the devil approached Jesus as a man; but finding in him no advance for his present attempt …, he was defeated. [Who is] this one coming from Edom—that is, from the earth of men—passing over by force with strength? That is why the Lord said, “The ruler of this world is coming, and finds nothing in me.” And yet we have learned that the second Adam has soul and body and the whole of the first. For if the “nothing” were about the existence of a man, how did he find the body that was seen, when he had said “nothing”? But he did not find in him the things which he himself had worked in the first Adam; and so sin was destroyed in Christ. That is why Scripture also testifies, “Who committed no sin, nor was deceit found in his mouth.”

How then do you say that it is impossible for man, once taken captive, to become free of captivity? So that you attribute impossibility to God and possibility to the devil, saying that his sin in the nature of men cannot be undone, as the other heretics also do; and that this is why the Godhead, which cannot be taken captive, came in the likeness of flesh and soul, so that it might itself remain uncaptured and so be seen as pure righteousness. When, then, was the righteousness of the Godhead not pure? And what benefit to men is there in this, unless the Lord appeared in identity of existence and newness of nature, as the Apostle says, “the way which he opened for us,” and “the life and the truth”? But you say that those who believe are saved by likeness and imitation, and not by renewal and the firstfruits. And how then did Christ become “firstborn among many brothers,” and “the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep,” he who is “the head of the body, the Church”? For faith that rests on what is plainly visible would not be called faith; but faith is that which believes the impossible in power, the weak in strength, the passible in impassibility, the corruptible in incorruption, and the mortal in immortality. “This mystery is great,” as the Apostle says, “but I speak with reference to Christ and the Church.” For the Godhead did not come to justify itself, for it had not sinned; but “he became poor for our sake, though he was rich, so that we by his poverty might become rich.” How did God become poor? In that he took up into himself the nature that had become poor, suffering among men, being for men, made manifest from men, and become wholly God’s. For if he had not become firstborn among many brothers, how would he have appeared as firstborn from the dead? How then do you say, “God who suffered and rose through flesh”? Alas for the absurdity and the blasphemy! Such daring belongs to the Arians. For they put forward such blasphemy fearlessly, having learned to name the Son of God “God” in pretence; and yet Scripture teaches that it is through God that the suffering took place in his flesh, and not that God suffered through flesh.

You, then, who profess beforehand to confess consubstantiality—how do you drag the indivisible name down into suffering? Dragging into suffering the undivided nature, the inexpressible Godhead, the unchangeable and unalterable consubstantiality, and confessing it [raised] by resurrection? For if the Word, transforming flesh out of himself, went as far as suffering, taking to himself nothing capable of suffering or resurrection, he himself would be the one who suffered and rose from the dead; and the suffering will be common to the Trinity, as Valentinus holds, since the Word is undivided from the Father in the divine nature. But if you wish to understand these things so, what is the promise through the prophets, or the genealogy of the evangelists, or the testimony of the apostles, or the presence of his mother Mary, or the growth in stature, or the proof given by eating, or the showing of fellow-feeling in all things, or the application of the name, or that the Son of God became son of man, or that “the man Jesus Christ gave himself as a ransom for us,” or that “the Son of Man must suffer many things and be killed, and on the third day rise from the dead”? But if you do not believe that Christ is passible because he is man and impassible because he is God, but in your perplexity reckon that if you confess Christ as God and man you no longer speak of one but of two, then you must either call the dispensation of the suffering, death, and resurrection an appearance, like Marcion and the other heretics, or call the Godhead of the Word passible, like Arius and his followers …

For if, in reading the divine Scriptures, you had observed how in the law and the prophets, the Gospels and the apostles, they everywhere first call the Lord man and then attach the suffering, so as never to let fall a blasphemous word against the Godhead—that is why they have not spoken of a birth of the Godhead of the Word [in time], but confess the Father and proclaim the Son; while from Mary they trace the genealogy of Christ according to the flesh as son of David and of Joseph, by the taking of the form of the servant, so that his humanity may be believed to be from men, and he may be confessed as God the Word from God the Father, bearing the sufferings on behalf of men in the passible form taken from men, displaying impassibility in the suffering body, immortality in the dying one, incorruption in the buried one, victory in the tempted one, and newness in the one grown old; for “our old man was crucified with him”; this is the grace. Nowhere does the Godhead admit suffering apart from a suffering body; nor does it show trouble and grief apart from a soul that grieves and is troubled; nor is it distressed and does it pray apart from an understanding that is distressed and prays. For even if what is said did not come about through a defeat of nature, what took place was done as a display of real existence. How then have you written, “God who suffered and rose through flesh”? For if it is God who suffered and rose through flesh, you will call the Father too passible, and the Paraclete, since the name is one and the divine nature is one.

From this saying one can see what your mind is, as of men who do not fear God and do not obey the divine Scriptures. For Moses writes of God, “Our God is a consuming fire”; but of his coming in the flesh he says that the Lord will raise up a prophet “from your brothers,” and that “the life” will be “hanging on a tree,” referring to the body of the Lord, which became life for us. And Isaiah cries out, saying of God, “God the great, the eternal, who made the ends of the earth, will not hunger nor grow weary”; [but of the man]: “being in affliction and knowing how to bear sickness.” What does “knowing how to bear sickness” mean? That the capacity for suffering was shown from the one who suffered. That is why it says, “Write with a man’s pen in the new volume,” and not “of formless flesh.” And the Apostle says, “The man Christ Jesus, who gave himself for us”; that is why he attaches the resurrection to the one from the seed of David, speaking according to the flesh; but of his Godhead: “For the Word of God is living and active, and sharper than any two-edged sword.” And the Lord places the suffering upon the Son of Man, showing what is according to the flesh; but of his Godhead: “I and the Father are one,” and, “No one knows the Son …” … [Nowhere] have the Scriptures handed down [a suffering of the Godhead] apart from flesh, or God suffering and rising through flesh. Such daring belongs to the Arians, since they do not confess the Son of God to be true God. But the holy Scriptures, God having become man in flesh and the flesh being God’s, proclaim the blood, the suffering, and the resurrection of the body of God, a resurrection from the dead. You say the opposite, as though wiser than the apostles, more versed in mysteries than the prophets, more authoritative than the evangelists, or even more authoritative than the Lord …, uttering things against the truth and against the Godhead, though the dispensation was plainly shown even on the cross: the flesh confirmed by the outpouring of blood, and the cry uttered, signifying the soul, showing not a separation of the Godhead but signifying the deadening of the body; the Godhead neither leaving the body in the tomb nor being separated from the soul in Hades. For this is what was spoken through the prophets: “You will not abandon my soul to Hades, nor let your holy one see corruption.” That is why the Lord said, “No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of myself,” that is, “being present, I display it.”

That is why in the soul of God the hold of death was loosed and the resurrection from Hades took place, and the resurrection from the dead was proclaimed to the souls; while in the body of Christ corruption was abolished and incorruption was shown from the tomb. So the man was not separated from God, nor did God describe an abandonment of the man, nor were the deadening and the departure of the spirit a removal of God from the body, but a separation of the soul from the body; for there our death was portrayed. But if God was separated from the body, and so the deadening was shown, how did the body, separated from the incorruptible God, display incorruption? How did the Word make his entry into Hades? Or how did he display the resurrection from Hades? Did he himself rise in place of our soul, so as to fit the image of our resurrection? And how can one think such things of God? Your rule, then, is out of harmony with the holy Scriptures, and your opinion does not fit the dispensation that has been fulfilled. And “Sit at my right hand” is not the rank of a man but of God. But since the rank of God became the rank of a man, so that the rank of the man might be believed to be the rank of God, it is said, “Sit at my right hand,” and, “Glorify me, Father, with the eternal glory.” He does not say this as one separated from the glory, but as one who had come to be in an inglorious body, to show that the form of the servant is not separated from the divine glory but displays it. That is why he says, “I have glorified it, and I will glorify it again,” showing one glory before the body and in the body, as the Apostle says: “Having become as much better than the angels as the name he has inherited is more excellent than theirs. For to which of the angels did he ever say, ‘Sit at my right hand’?” It is not at all that the Word, the maker of the angels, became better, as though he were less; but he displayed the form of the servant that rose up in him as better than the angels and indeed than all creation; since, being “the image of the invisible God,” he also became “the firstborn of all creation,” as it is written also in the Gospels, “until she bore her firstborn son.” Therefore “in him all things were created,” and in him the suffering took place, and he is the deliverer from suffering and death, and “through him all things came to be,” and he is “the head of the body, the Church,” who is “the firstborn from the dead,” so that, it says, “he himself might be pre-eminent in all things.”

How then do you say that the Word, the creator of rational natures, by blending flesh with himself became a rational man? And how did he become man unchangeable and unalterable, and not by forming for himself a rational form of the servant, so that the Word might be unchangeable, remaining what he was, and the rational man be seen on earth, being God? For the Lord is a heavenly man, not by displaying flesh from heaven, but by making the flesh from the earth heavenly. Therefore “as is the heavenly one, so also are those who are heavenly,” by their share in his holiness. Therefore he has made his own [the things of the body] … they crucified the Lord of glory; but they did not crucify the Word, as you would have it—far from it!—but they rejected the Word by nailing the body of the Word to the cross. For it was God who was rejected; but the suffering, the death, and the resurrection belonged to God’s flesh and soul. That is why the Lord said to the Jews, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” … [it was] his soul [that underwent] death, and not the Word himself. And John says, “He laid down his soul for us.” How then were the Jews able to destroy a temple of God and to separate the indissoluble blending of the flesh with the Word, if the deadening of the body happened in the way you say? For the body would not have been deadened unless it had been separated from something. For if there was no dissolution, there was no death; and if there was no death, there was no resurrection. Grant, then, that the dissolution and the separation from the body took place, as it is written in the Gospels, “He breathed his last,” and, “Bowing his head, he handed over the spirit,” so that we may see what spirit you suppose to have departed from the body, and the deadening to have taken place. For you have said, “The Word, blending with himself flesh that lacked subsistence, displayed the truly rational and perfect man.” If, then, the Word departed from the body and so the deadening took place, the Jews prevailed against God by dissolving the indissoluble blending. Then it was not our death that took place there, if the deadening of the body took place by the separation of God. And how did the body, separated from the incorruptible God, remain in incorruption? The wound will be the body’s, but the suffering the Word’s. That is why you speak of God having suffered, speaking consistently with yourselves, or rather in agreement with the Arians, for this is what they teach. And by your account the Word too will be raised by resurrection. For it is necessary that someone took the beginning of the resurrection from Hades, so that the resurrection might be complete, and the loosing of death, and the release of the spirits there.

But if the Word suffered these things, where is the Word’s unchangeableness and unalterableness? And how was the Word, seen unveiled in Hades, reckoned in death as a man? And how did the Lord say to the Jews, “I will raise it up,” and not, “I rise from Hades”? For if the Word, having come to be in death, needed someone to raise him from death, the victory will not be his but that of the one who raises him. And how was it foretold through the prophets about his soul? How did the Lord, being present, say, fulfilling the promise, “I lay down my soul for my sheep”? The holy Scriptures teach clearly that this soul is spirit; and the Lord said that the body is killed by men, “but they cannot kill the soul,” since it is spirit. In this spirit Jesus was troubled; this spirit departed from the body on the cross. And so the body was deadened, and its dissolution took place, while God the Word held unchangeably to the body, to the soul, and to himself, being in the bosom of the Father, in a display of unchangeableness. But in the form like ours that came to be in him, he portrayed our death there, so that in it he might also fit together the resurrection on our behalf, displaying the soul from Hades and the body from the tomb; so that in death he might destroy death by the display of the soul, and in the tomb abolish corruption by the burial of the body, displaying immortality and incorruption from Hades and from the tomb, having travelled our road in a form like ours and loosed the hold that was upon us. And so, confessing flesh only, you can show neither the condemnation of sin, nor the destruction of death, nor the completion of the resurrection, nor the unchangeableness of the Word; since you have gone outside the holy Scriptures, saying … [as] the Arians play the sophist, although the account of the soul is plain in the holy Scriptures, and the dispensation has been fulfilled in a display of all fulfilment and completion …

But some of the heretics, confessing the one who was seen, disbelieve his Godhead; others, confessing God, deny the birth of his flesh; others, confessing the flesh besides, deny the display of his soul; and they have become like the frenzied children of the Arians, who weave together tangled and crooked propositions so that, raising difficulties with them, they may catch the simple, though they themselves are at a loss for the faith. In the same way these too have learned to say: “What is the one born of Mary? God or man?” Then, if someone says “Man,” he will disbelieve his Godhead and agree with the heretics who disbelieved it; but if he says “God,” he will deny the birth of his flesh and be counted with the heretics who deny it. Then again: “Who suffered? Who was crucified? God or man?” So that, if he says “God,” he lets fall a blasphemous word like the impious Arians; but if he says “Man,” he again speaks with a Jewish supposition. That is why the holy Scriptures proclaim the Word as God, ineffably from the Father, and the same born as man in the last times from the Virgin; so that neither God be disbelieved nor the birth of the flesh denied. And where the name of flesh is used, there is the harmony of the whole constitution, without sin. And they place the suffering upon the name of man and do not go beyond it, as it is written in the holy Scriptures; but concerning the Godhead of the Word they confess his unchangeableness and ineffability. That is why the Word is spoken of as God and his genealogy traced as man, so that in respect of both he may be the same, naturally and truly: God in respect of the eternity of the Godhead and the creation of the world; man in respect of birth from a woman and growth in stature. God in respect of life-giving benefits and mighty in works of wonder; man in respect of fellow-feeling of the same kind as ours and weaknesses like ours. God the Word in the display of immortality, incorruption, and unchangeableness; man in the nailing to the cross, the flowing of blood, the burial of the body, the descent into Hades, and the resurrection from the dead. Thus Christ has been raised from the dead, and, being God, he raises the dead.