To Epictetus

I thought that all the vain talk of all heretics, whoever they may be, had been brought to an end by the council held at Nicaea. For the faith confessed there by the Fathers according to the divine Scriptures is sufficient for the overthrow of all impiety and for the establishment of the pious faith in Christ. For this reason now too, when various councils have been held in Gaul, in Spain, and in great Rome, all who came together, as moved by one Spirit, unanimously anathematized those who were still hiding and holding the views of Arius (I mean Auxentius of Milan, Ursacius, Valens, and Gaius from Pannonia); and they wrote everywhere (because such men devise names of councils for themselves) that no council should be named in the catholic Church except only the council held at Nicaea, which is a trophy over every heresy, and especially over the Arian, on account of which above all the council was assembled at that time. How then, after so much, do some still attempt to dispute or inquire? If they are of the Arians, it is no wonder that they slander what was written against them, just as the Greeks, when they hear, “The idols of the nations are silver and gold, the work of men's hands,” think the teaching of the divine cross foolishness. But if those who wish to overthrow it by their inquiring are among those who seem to believe rightly and to love what the Fathers declared, they do nothing else than, as it is written, give their neighbor a muddy draught to drink, and fight about words to no useful purpose, or to the ruin of the simple.

I write this having read the memoranda brought before your piety, which ought never to have been written, so that not even any memory of them might remain for those who come after. For who ever heard such things? Who taught or learned them? For “out of Zion shall go forth the law of God, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem”; but these things, where did they come from? What hell has belched out the statement that the body born of Mary is of the same essence with the Godhead of the Word? Or that the Word has been changed into flesh and bones and hair and the whole body, and altered from his own nature? Who ever heard in church, or at all from Christians, that the Lord wore a body by adoption and not by nature? Or who was ever so impious as both to say and to hold that the Godhead itself, which is of the same essence with the Father, was circumcised and became imperfect instead of perfect, and that what was nailed to the tree was not the body but the very creative essence of Wisdom? And who, hearing that the Word fashioned for himself a passible body, not from Mary but from his own essence, would call the one who says this a Christian? Who devised this abominable impiety, so as even to conceive it and say that he who says that the Lord's body is from Mary no longer holds a Trinity but a Tetrad in the Godhead? As if, for this reason, those so minded said that the flesh which the Savior put on from Mary is of the essence of the Trinity! And from where again have some belched out an impiety equal to those mentioned, so as to say that the body is not later than the Godhead of the Word, but was always coeternal with it, since it was composed of the essence of Wisdom? And how did men called Christians dare to doubt whether the Lord who came forth from Mary, while Son of God in essence and nature, is according to the flesh from the seed of David and of the flesh of holy Mary? Who were so bold as to say that the Christ who suffered in the flesh and was crucified is not Lord and Savior and God and Son of the Father? Or how do they wish to be called Christians who say that the Word came upon a holy man as upon one of the prophets, and did not himself become man, taking the body from Mary, but that Christ is one and the Word of God, who was Son of the Father before Mary and before the ages, is another? Or how can they be Christians who say that the Son is one and the Word of God another?

These things were in the memoranda, stated in various ways, but having one meaning and the same force, tending toward impiety. Over these, men who boast in the confession of the Fathers made at Nicaea were divided and fought with one another. And I wondered that your piety bore with it, and did not stop them from saying these things and set before them the pious faith, so that either, hearing it, they might be quiet, or, contradicting it, they might be regarded as heretics. For what was said is neither fit to be spoken nor to be heard among Christians, but is in every way alien to the apostolic teaching. That is why I have had their statements, as said above, written bare into the letter, so that one who merely hears may see the shame and impiety in them. And though it would be right to accuse and refute at greater length the folly of those who thought such things, yet it would be good for the letter to stop here and write nothing more; for what is so plainly shown to be bad need not be exercised and labored over further, lest the contentious think it doubtful; or else only to answer such things with this: It is enough that these things are not of the catholic Church, nor did the Fathers hold them. But lest the inventors of these evils make complete silence a pretext for shamelessness, it is good to recall a few things from the divine Scriptures; perhaps even so they may be ashamed and cease from these foul notions.

Where did it come into your heads, sirs, to say that the body is of the same essence with the Godhead of the Word? (For it is good to begin from this, so that, when this is shown to be unsound, all the other such things may be shown so too.) It cannot be found in the divine Scriptures; for they say that God came to be in a human body. And the Fathers who met at Nicaea said that not the body, but the Son himself, is of the same essence with the Father, and confessed that he is from the essence of the Father, but that the body is from Mary, again according to the Scriptures. Either, then, deny the council at Nicaea and bring these things in as heretics, or, if you wish to be children of the Fathers, do not hold anything contrary to what they wrote. For from this too you can see the absurdity: if the Word is of the same essence with the body, which has its nature from the earth, and the Word is of the same essence with the Father according to the Fathers' confession, the Father himself too will be of the same essence with the body made from earth. And why do you still blame the Arians for saying that the Son is a creature, when you yourselves say that the Father is of the same essence with creatures? And why do you pass over to another impiety, saying that the Word has been changed into flesh and bones and hair and sinews and the whole body, and altered from his own nature? It is time for you to say openly that he was made from earth; for the nature of the bones and of the whole body is from earth. What, then, is this great madness, that you fight even against yourselves? For in saying that the Word is of the same essence with the body, you signify one thing in relation to another; but in saying that he was changed into flesh, you imagine a change of the Word himself. And who will still bear with you merely uttering these things? For you have swerved into impiety more than every heresy. For if the Word is of the same essence with the body, the mention of Mary and the need of her are superfluous, since the body could exist eternally even before Mary, just as the Word himself does, if, according to you, he is of the same essence with the body. And what need was there of the Word's coming, either to put on what is of the same essence with himself, or, changed from his own nature, to become a body? For the Godhead does not take hold of itself, so as … to put on what is of the same essence with itself. Nor did the Word, who ransoms the sins of others, sin, so that, changed into a body, he should offer himself as a sacrifice for himself and ransom himself.

But it is not so; God forbid! For “he takes hold of the seed of Abraham,” as the Apostle said; “therefore he had to be made like his brothers in all things,” and to take a body like ours. That is why Mary is truly presupposed, so that he might take the body from her and offer it for us as his own. And Isaiah, prophesying, pointed to her, saying, “Behold, the virgin”; and Gabriel is sent to her, not simply to a virgin, but to a virgin betrothed to a man, so that by the betrothed he might show that Mary was truly a human being. That is why Scripture mentions her giving birth and says, “She wrapped him in swaddling cloths”; and the breasts which he sucked were called blessed; and a sacrifice was offered, as for one who had opened the womb. All these were the marks of a virgin who gave birth. And Gabriel brought her the good news with care, saying not simply “what is born in you,” lest a body brought into her from outside be supposed, but “from you,” so that what was born might be believed to be from her by nature; nature too plainly showing this, since it is impossible for a virgin to give milk unless she has given birth, and impossible for a body to be nourished with milk and wrapped in swaddling cloths unless it has first been born by nature. This is what was circumcised on the eighth day; this Simeon received into his arms; this became a child and grew, reached twelve years of age and came to its thirtieth year. For it was not, as some have supposed, the very essence of the Word that was changed and circumcised, for it is unalterable and unchangeable, as the Savior himself says, “See, see, that I am, and I have not changed,” and Paul writes, “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and for ever”; but in the body that was circumcised and carried, that ate and drank and grew weary, and was nailed to the tree and suffered, was the impassible and incorporeal Word of God. This was what was laid in the tomb, when he himself went, not separated from it, to preach also to the spirits in prison, as Peter said.

This shows above all the folly of those who say that the Word was turned into bones and flesh. For if this were so, there would be no need of a tomb; for the body itself would have gone by itself to preach to the spirits in Hades. But in fact he himself went to preach, while Joseph wrapped the body in a linen cloth and laid it at Golgotha; and it has been shown to all that the body was not the Word, but that the body was the Word's. And this Thomas handled when it had risen from the dead, and he saw in it the prints of the nails, which the Word himself endured, seeing them driven into his own body; and though he was able to prevent it, he did not prevent it; rather, the incorporeal Word made his own the properties of the body, as his own. Indeed, when the body was struck by the servant, he said, as suffering himself, “Why do you strike me?” And though the Word is by nature untouchable, nevertheless he said, “I gave my back to the scourges and my cheeks to blows, and I did not turn away my face from the shame of spitting.” For what the human body of the Word suffered, the Word, being united with it, referred to himself, so that we might be able to partake of the Godhead of the Word. And it was a paradox that he was the same who suffered and did not suffer: he suffered, because his own body suffered and he was in that which suffered; he did not suffer, because the Word, being God by nature, is impassible. And he, the incorporeal, was in the passible body; and the body had in itself the impassible Word, who did away with the weaknesses of the body. And this he did, and so it was, in order that, receiving what is ours himself and offering it as a sacrifice, he might do away with it, and then, clothing us with what is his, he might make the Apostle say, “This corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal put on immortality.”

These things did not happen by adoption, God forbid, as some again have supposed; but, the Savior having become man in very truth, the salvation of the whole man came about. For if the Word was in the body by adoption, as they say, and what is said to be by adoption is an appearance, then the salvation and resurrection of men that is spoken of is found to be in seeming only, according to the most impious Manichaeus. But in fact our salvation is no appearance, nor of the body only, but the salvation of the whole man, soul and body, has truly come about in the Word himself. Human by nature, then, according to the divine Scriptures, was what was from Mary, and the Lord's body was real; and it was real because it was the same as ours; for Mary is our sister, since we are all from Adam. And no one could doubt this who remembers what Luke wrote. For after he rose from the dead, when some thought that they were not seeing the Lord in the body from Mary, but were looking at a spirit instead, he said, “See my hands and my feet,” and the prints of the nails, “that it is I myself. Touch me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones, as you see that I have.” And having said this, he showed them his hands and his feet. From this those can be refuted again who dared to say that the Lord was changed into flesh and bones. For he did not say, “as you see that I am flesh and bones,” but “that I have,” so that the Word himself might not be thought to have been changed into them, but might be believed, having them, to be himself both before his death and after the resurrection.

These things having such a proof, it is superfluous to touch on the others further and to exercise ourselves about them, since the body in which the Word was is not of the same essence with the Godhead, but was truly born of Mary; and the Word himself was not changed into bones and flesh, but came to be in flesh. For what is said in John, “The Word became flesh,” has this meaning, as one can find from a similar expression; for it is written in Paul, “Christ became a curse for us.” And as he did not himself become a curse, but is said to have become a curse because he took on himself the curse for us, so too he became flesh, not by being changed into flesh, but because he took on living flesh for us and became man. For to say, “The Word became flesh,” is the same again as saying, “The Word became man,” according to what is said in Joel, “I will pour out of my Spirit on all flesh”; for the promise did not extend to the irrational animals, but is for men, for whose sake the Lord too became man. This saying having this meaning, all those will rightly condemn themselves who thought that the flesh from Mary existed before her, and that before her the Word had a human soul and was always in it before his coming. And those too will stop who said that the flesh is not capable of death but is of the immortal nature. For if it did not die, how did Paul deliver to the Corinthians what he also received, “that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures”? And how did he rise at all, if he did not also die? And those will blush deeply who even thought it possible that a Tetrad should come about instead of the Trinity if the body were said to be from Mary. “For if we say,” they say, “that the body is of the same essence with the Word, the Trinity remains a Trinity, since the Word brings nothing foreign into it; but if we say that the body from Mary is human, then necessarily, since the body is foreign in essence and the Word is in it, a Tetrad instead of a Trinity results because of the addition of the body.”

In saying this, they do not see how they fall foul of themselves. For even if they say that the body is not from Mary but of the same essence with the Word, nonetheless (the very thing they pretend to avoid, lest they be thought to hold it) they will be shown, on their own notion, to be speaking of a Tetrad. For as the Son, according to the Fathers, though of the same essence with the Father, is not himself the Father, but is called of the same essence as Son in relation to Father, so the body that is of the same essence with the Word is not the Word himself, but something other in relation to the Word; and since it is other, their Trinity will on their own showing be a Tetrad. For the true, really perfect and indivisible Trinity does not admit addition, but the one invented by these men does. And how are they still Christians, who invent another beside the God who is? Again, in their other sophism too one can see great folly: if, because the Savior's body is, and is said in the Scriptures to be, from Mary and human, they think that a Tetrad instead of a Trinity is spoken of, as though an addition were made because of the body, they err greatly, making the thing made equal to the maker, and supposing that the Godhead can receive an addition. And they did not know that the Word became flesh not for an addition to the Godhead, but that the flesh might rise; nor did the Word come forth from Mary that he might be improved, but that he might ransom the human race. How then do they think that the body ransomed and made alive by the Word makes an addition in Godhead to the Word who made it alive? Rather, a great addition came to the human body itself from the fellowship and union of the Word with it; for from mortal it became immortal, and being natural it became spiritual, and being made from earth it passed through the heavenly gates. The Trinity, however, even when the Word took a body from Mary, is a Trinity, admitting neither addition nor subtraction; but it is always perfect, and in the Trinity one Godhead is known, and so in the Church one God is preached, the Father of the Word.

From this, then, those too will henceforth be silent who once said that he who … is not himself the Christ, and Lord, and God. For if God was not in the body, how was he, on coming forth from Mary, at once called Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us? And how did Paul, if the Word was not in flesh, write to the Romans, “Of whom is Christ according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen”? Let those, then, who formerly denied that the crucified is God confess that they were mistaken, obeying the divine Scriptures, and especially Thomas, who, after seeing in him the prints of the nails, cried out, “My Lord and my God!” For the Son, being God and Lord of glory, was in the body that was ingloriously nailed and dishonored; and the body suffered, being pierced on the tree, and from its side flowed blood and water; but being the temple of the Word, it was filled with the Godhead. That is why the sun, seeing its creator enduring in the outraged body, drew in its rays and darkened the earth; and the body itself, having a mortal nature, rose beyond its own nature because of the Word in it; and it ceased from natural corruption, and, having put on the Word who is above man, became incorruptible.

As for some imagining and saying that, as the Word came to each of the prophets, so he came upon some one man from Mary, it is superfluous to discuss it, since their madness plainly carries its own condemnation. For if he came so, why was this man born of a virgin, and not he too of a man and a woman? For so each of the saints was born. Or why, if the Word came so, is not the death of each of them said to have taken place for us, but this man's alone? And why, if the Word sojourned with each of the prophets, do you say of the one from Mary alone that he sojourned once for all at the consummation of the ages? Or why, if he came as he came in the saints before, have all the others died and not yet risen, but the one from Mary alone rose on the third day? Or why, if the Word came as he did to the others, is only the one from Mary called Emmanuel, as a body filled with Godhead having been born from her? For Emmanuel is interpreted, God with us. Or why, if he came so, when each of the saints ate and drank and toiled and died, is it not said of him that he himself ate and drank and toiled and died, but only of the one from Mary? For what this body suffered is said as though he himself suffered. And whereas of all the others it is said only that they were born and begotten, of the one from Mary alone it is said, “And the Word became flesh.”

From this it is shown that to all the others the Word came for the sake of prophesying; but from Mary the Word himself, taking flesh, came forth as man, being by nature and essence the Word of God, but according to the flesh having become man from the seed of David and from the flesh of Mary, as Paul said. Him the Father pointed out both at the Jordan and on the mountain, saying, “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” Him the Arians denied; but we, acknowledging him, worship him, not dividing the Son and the Word, but knowing that the Word himself is the Son, through whom all things came into being and we were redeemed. That is why we wondered how any contention at all arose among you about things so plain. But thanks be to the Lord that, as much as we were grieved on reading the memoranda, so much we rejoiced at their end; for they parted in agreement and were at peace in confessing the pious and orthodox faith. This is what persuaded me too, after much prior consideration, to write these few things, reckoning that my silence might perhaps bring grief instead of joy to those whose agreement gave us cause for joy. I ask, then, your reverence first, and then those who hear, to receive these things with a good conscience; and if anything is lacking in regard to piety, to correct it and let me know; but if it has been written, as by one unskilled in speech, unworthily and imperfectly, that all may pardon our weakness in speaking. Greet all the brothers with you. All who are with us greet you. May you live in health in the Lord, beloved and truly most longed-for.