Letters (first part: Migne letters 1-55) 50

By the same, to bishop Valerian, against those who hold the views of Nestorius.

The sobriety of your Holiness is enough, as I believe, or rather as the truth is by its nature, to set exactness very vigorously against the idle tales of some. For they talk frigid nonsense like old women, stirring everything up and down, and pretending to inquire subtly into the mystery of the incarnation of the Only-begotten and Lord, yet without understanding it; they turn aside, and that easily, to what is not lawful, and think perversely. The most grievous thing in all this is this: they pretend to wish to think rightly, and, fitting on the appearance of leaning that way like a mask, they pour the poison of Nestorius's impiety into the souls of the simpler. They are somewhat like those who heal human bodies, that is, physicians, who mix sweet honey with unpleasant remedies, stealing away by the quality of what is pleasant the effect of what naturally grieves the senses. But we are not ignorant of their designs, having the mind of Christ, according to the all-wise Paul, who spoke most wisely.

If someone were saying that the only-begotten God the Word, ineffably begotten of God the Father, the maker of the ages themselves, had the beginning of his existence from the holy Virgin, it would have seemed to them not beside the point to say: “If the Word of God is spirit by nature, how could he have been born of flesh, when the Lord says, ‘What is born of the flesh is flesh’?” But since the account of the mystery of Christ goes along another path, that is, a way that is straight and without error and has nothing twisted in it, why do they babble in vain, “understanding neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertions”? For we say that the only-begotten Word of God, being spirit as God, according to the Scriptures, was made flesh and became man for the salvation of men: not changing himself into a body out of his own nature, nor departing from being what he was, nor undergoing change or alteration, but taking from the holy Virgin the undefiled body animated with an intelligent soul, showing it to be his own by a union incomprehensible, unconfused, and wholly inexpressible, so that it is understood to be not someone else's but his own. So the Only-begotten came into the world as firstborn, and he who is not ranked with creation, inasmuch as he is understood to be God, came to be among many brothers. When, then, he is said to have been born, and of a woman, “according to the flesh” is necessarily added, so that he may not be thought to have received the beginning of his existence from the holy Virgin. For God the Word, co-eternal and always subsisting together with his own Father, existed before every age; but when, by the Father's good pleasure, he willed to take the form of a servant, then he is said also to have undergone, with us, the birth from a woman according to the flesh. So, as all agree, what is from flesh is flesh, and what is from God is God; but Christ is both in the same, being one Son and Lord with his own flesh, which is not soulless, as I said, but animated with an intelligent soul.

Let them not, then, cut the one Son apart for us, setting the Word apart and specially making the man from the woman another Son, separately, as they say. But let them consider that God the Word was not rather joined to a man, but is said to have become man himself, taking hold of the seed of Abraham, according to the Scriptures, and made like his brothers in every respect, sin alone excepted. And the complete likeness would rightly include, before all else, birth from a woman; which in our case is understood humanly and as befits us, but in the case of the Only-begotten as something beyond this; for it was God who was being made flesh. For this reason the holy Virgin too is called Mother of God. And if they say that God and man, coming together in the same, made up one Christ, the hypostasis of each being kept unconfused but divided in thought, one can see that they think or say nothing exact on this. For God and man did not, as they say, come together and make up one Christ; but, as I said, the Word, being already God, shared in blood and flesh as we do, so that he might be understood as God made man, having taken our flesh and made it his own; so that, just as the man we know, composed of soul and body, is one, so he too may be confessed to be one, both Son and Lord. For one nature and hypostasis of man is confessed, even though it is understood to be from different and heterogeneous realities. The body, as all agree, is of another nature than the soul, yet it is the soul's own and helps to complete the hypostasis of the one man. In mind and contemplation the difference of the things named is not unclear; but the coming together, or concurrence, being indivisible, makes up one living being, the man. So the only-begotten Word of God did not come forth as man by assuming a man, but, though he has the ineffable birth from God the Father, having fashioned for himself a temple through the holy and consubstantial Spirit, he became man. Therefore he is also understood as one, even though, in the contemplation that goes by reason, his body was of another nature than he. And let it be confessed everywhere that it was not soulless but animated with an intelligent soul.

I have learned that some have come to such madness as not to be ashamed to say that God the Word, dwelling in a son born of the Virgin, deified him. But this, my good friends, I would say to them, is not what it means for the Word of God to be made flesh and become man; that would rather be dwelling in a man, as indeed in one of the holy prophets. But the account of our mystery, as has been shown a little above, means that the very Word begotten of God the Father became flesh according to the Scriptures: not as undergoing a natural transformation, change, or alteration, I mean into flesh, but because he made his own flesh animated with an intelligent soul and himself came forth as man; he was not joined to a man, nor did he dwell in one, as they say. And to say that the one who had the indwelling was deified, as they insist (for this is wholly rejected by us), how is it not proof of utter stupefaction? It fights against the aim of divine Scripture. For the divine Paul says that the Word of God, being in the form and equality of the Father in every respect, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but rather emptied himself, took the form of a servant, came to be in the likeness of men as a man, and humbled himself. But they, turning the nature of things to the very opposite and unholily adulterating the force of the truth, say that a man was made God. Then who is the one who emptied himself, my good friends, and how was he humbled? Taking what kind of form of a servant, tell me? For their account, it seems, brings us a man raised up from our lowliness, going up from our emptiness to the fullness of Godhead, and transferred from the form of a servant to that of a master. How, then, they say the Only-begotten was emptied, or how he underwent our lowliness, I cannot understand; unless they say he was emptied because he honoured the man with his own glory. And if in honouring he is wronged, and in glorifying he is emptied, would not someone say it is better for him to give neither honour nor glory to anyone? For he would have remained in his own supremacy, neither honouring nor glorifying the man who, as they say, was made his own. Will not what they have resolved to think and dare to say appear to everyone worthy of laughter and full of the utmost folly? But the account of the truth would never suspect anything to have been emptied that was not full in its own nature; nor would anything be understood to have been humbled that was not certainly on high and placed supremely, and then came down to what it was not. And the one who took the form of a servant it will certainly know as having, before it, freedom by nature; and the one who became man it does not know as having been this before he became it.

Since, then, the holy and divinely inspired Scripture names emptying, the form of a servant, and humanity, and says that the one who willingly underwent these things is the Word from God the Father, why do they turn the skill of so admirable a dispensation to the opposite, saying that a man was made God, so that Christians would no longer differ from those who have worshipped the creature rather than the creator? Or perhaps they will grant that the holy angels too have gone astray with us, whom the sacred writing says were commanded to worship the firstborn when he was brought into the world. And how could we fit the name “firstborn” to the Only-begotten, if he had not become man? For if the words “among many brothers” are true, he is rightly understood to be firstborn when he came down to brotherhood, clearly brotherhood with us, when he became man like us, made like us in every respect, sin alone excepted. For piety it suffices us to reckon and understand that the flesh, having become the flesh of God who gives life to all things, has his life-giving power and activity, and is rich in ineffable and unapproachable glory.

It is no surprise that those who have resolved to think so should bring other slanders too against the sacred doctrines, taking away from the person of the Only-begotten the drunken insults he endured from the Jews, and, besides these, his death according to the flesh, and assigning them as to another son by himself, the one from the woman. For they think fit, I know not how, to leap down by a road that is not straight toward piety into the pit of Hades, to the bottom of Hades, as it is written. The divine is, as all agree, impassible and wholly untouchable; for it is not bodily, but beyond all creation, visible and intelligible, in an incorporeal, undefiled, intangible, and incomprehensible nature. But since the only-begotten Word of God, having taken a body from the holy Virgin, Mother of God, and having made it his own, as I have already said very often, offered himself for us as a fragrant odour to God the Father, as a spotless victim, for this reason he is also said by us to have undergone what befell his flesh. For to the one whose own the body is, all that belongs to it may rightly be ascribed, sin alone excepted. So since God the Word had become man, he remained impassible divinely, but, necessarily making his own what belongs to his own flesh, he is said to have suffered the things of the flesh, though he had no experience of suffering inasmuch as he is understood to be God. An appearance of piety, then, carries them away from the truth, since they do not understand that impassibility is preserved for him inasmuch as he exists and is God, while suffering for us according to the flesh is also ascribed to him, inasmuch as, being God by nature, he became flesh, that is, a perfect man. For who was it that said to the Father and God in heaven, “Sacrifice and offering you did not desire, but a body you prepared for me; in burnt offerings and sin offerings you took no pleasure; then I said, Behold, I have come to do your will, O God”? For the one who as God was outside a body says that the body was prepared for himself, so that, offering it for us, he might heal us all by his own bruise, in the prophet's words. And how did one die for all, the one worth as much as all, if the suffering is understood to be simply that of some man? But if he suffered humanly, as making his own the sufferings of his own flesh, then indeed we say, and very rightly, that the death of one according to the flesh is understood to be worth the life of all: not as of one who is one of us, even though he became like us, but because, being God by nature, he was made flesh and became man, according to the fathers' confession.

If some take away from the Only-begotten the suffering according to the flesh as unbecoming, unfitting, and unlike him, let them likewise take from him the birth according to the flesh from the holy Virgin. For if it is among things unlike him to be said to have suffered in the flesh, how is not the first thing before this, that is, the birth according to the flesh, or, in a word, the manner of the incarnation? Then the mystery of the Christians is gone, and the hope of salvation has been made vain. “But how,” it says, “could the one who cannot suffer suffer?” The Word from God is, as all agree, impassible in his own nature, as I said; yet he is said to have suffered in his own flesh, according to the Scriptures; for he himself was in the suffering body. And Peter will assure you, writing of him, “who bore our sins in his body on the tree.” So the Word is impassible, inasmuch as he is understood to be God by nature; yet the sufferings of his flesh are understood to be his by the appropriation that belongs to the dispensation. Otherwise in what way did the firstborn of all creation, through whom came to be principalities and powers, thrones and dominions, in whom all things hold together, become the firstborn from the dead and the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep, unless the Word, being God, made his own a body able by nature to suffer? Just as he was born of a woman according to the flesh, making his own humanly our birth, though he has his own birth from the Father, so too he is said to have suffered in the flesh as we do and humanly, though it belongs to him by nature to be impassible, inasmuch as he is understood to be God. For so he is understood as Christ; so too he sits beside the Father, not as a man honoured by the indwelling of God the Word, but as truly Son, even when he became man. For the dignity of the supremacy that is in him essentially has been preserved, even though he appeared by the dispensation in the form of a servant. So, as it is said, even though he shared our nature inasmuch as he is man, yet with this he was also above all creation as God.

I have learned that someone, explaining the reason for the ascent into heaven, said that he went up to a safe and inviolable place and was counted worthy to sit with the Father; “where,” he says, “the enemy of our nature cannot come near and plot against him again.” Tell me, then, did heaven become a fortress for him, and was his departure from us a flight rather than an assumption, the one in which we glory? He was afraid, it seems, that the evil one might fix a second trap for him; and if he had not gone up, he would have been plotted against, so it seems, even after the resurrection. Who will not keep far away from such vomit? Who will not rise and leave such shameful tales of marvels, bidding farewell to those who dare to think or say such things? Away with so foul and grovelling a notion! Nothing, I think, is more like an old wife's tale or more ignorant than this. Their thoughts have come to such vulgarity that nothing could be more shameful. For Christ, having completed the dispensation for us, trampled on Satan, shaken all his power, and undone the might of death itself, renewed for us a new and living way, “going up into heaven and appearing on our behalf before the face of God the Father,” as it is written. He sits beside him with the flesh, not as a man understood specially and another Son besides his Word, nor as having him as an indweller, but as being truly one and only Son, even when he became man. He sits beside him, then, as God with God, Lord with Lord, and Son with the true Father, being this by nature, even if he is understood to be with flesh. It would perhaps not be difficult to show the pit of that man's ignorance in still longer words; but to answer such frigid things at greater length is perhaps to share in the ignorance of those who have talked such nonsense.

I think it necessary to add to what has been said the things by which they think they can dismay the congregation of the Lord, as it is written, and shoot in the dark at the upright in heart, that is, those who have chosen to live in simplicity of mind and, having received the tradition of the faith into their minds as a deposit, keep it holy and uncorrupted; gathering the pretexts for their slander from the sacred writings. For those who are clever at deceit, and lead the more ignorant away from the hunt for the truth by tangled inventions of thought, imitating the wickedness of the other heretics, ignorantly put forward what those men too are accustomed to, not understanding what is written: “Woe to those who give their neighbour a muddy drink to overturn him.” For the defenders of Arius's impiety say that the only-begotten Word of God is of another substance, set him in second place to his begetter, insist that he is created and has come to be, and rank with creation the one through whom are all things and in whom are all things. Then, prying into the mystery of the Only-begotten's dispensation with the flesh, they most maliciously corrupt the force of the truth, and, being sick themselves with the charges brought against the opinion of Apollinarius, they maintain that the Word of God took flesh, but by no means flesh animated with an intelligent soul, and that he himself is in the body in place of mind and soul. They are caught doing this, as I said, most craftily. For in order that we may not think the Lord's human sayings were spoken by the dispensation and in the measure that befits humanity, since he became man, they steal away the intelligent soul that dwells in the flesh. So they lower him and say that he is essentially less than the Father, unholily collecting arguments against him.

But see, now too the zealots of their ignorance fasten bitterly on those who do not accept the empty talk of Nestorius, and besiege the right and blameless faith, gathering heaps of idle notions. For they say that the divine Paul said of Christ, the Saviour of us all, “He emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, coming to be in the likeness of man, and being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, becoming obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. Therefore God also highly exalted him and granted him the name that is above every name.” And elsewhere too he says, “God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself,” and again, “in whom all the fullness of the Godhead dwelt bodily.” They also fit in the words of Peter, who says at one time, “Jesus of Nazareth, how God anointed him with the Holy Spirit and with power; who went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, for God was with him”; and again, “The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent, because he has fixed a day of judgement on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed, giving assurance to all by raising him from the dead.” Setting out these passages, and those spoken in another way in a manner befitting man, they at once ask, kindling bitter words from wicked thoughts: “To whom did God the Father give the name that is above every name? To his own Word? And how is the thing not wholly implausible?” they say. “For he was always God, naturally begotten of him. And this name would rightly be understood to be above every name; for what is beyond God by nature? And whom did he anoint with the Holy Spirit, or with whom was God?” Adding other things to these, they stir things up greatly and fill the minds of the simpler with turmoil. But distinguishing everywhere (for they are unspiritual, not having the Spirit) and separating the one Christ, and Son, and Lord into two sons, they will be caught by their own undertakings. For they pretend to confess one Christ and Son and say that his person is one; but dividing again into two hypostases separated and going apart from each other, they sweep away the whole account of the mystery. For they say that the one from the woman, that is, the form of the servant, by himself and alone received the name above every name, and underwent the anointing of the Holy Spirit, and had God, that is, the Word from God the Father, always with him; and they plainly belch out words reeking of the utmost folly. For being evil they cannot speak good things, in the Saviour's words.

He was, as all agree, and is always God and Lord, he who has the hidden and ineffable birth from God the Father; but since he was born of a woman according to the flesh, marvellously and beyond us, at the coming of the Holy Spirit and the overshadowing of the power of God, and underwent a birth like ours (for so he is said to have emptied himself, humbled himself, and become obedient unto death and the cross), for this reason he is very fittingly said to have received the name that is above every name, and every knee bows to him, of things in heaven, on earth, and under the earth, and every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. For rational nature was not ignorant that the one who became man was God. For even though he came to be in our condition and shared in blood and flesh as we do, yet he did not depart from being God, nor did he cast off being what he was; he remained worthy of worship to the glory of God the Father. For it is his glory to have his own Son reigning with him and worshipped with him, even though he became man by the dispensation in order to save the world under heaven. So when he was believed by the holy angels and by us on earth, even with the flesh, to be God by nature and truly, then he is understood to have received the name above every name: not gaining the thing by way of addition himself (for what he was, is, and always will be, how could he receive as not having it?), but rather because God the Father shone on the minds of all and did not allow them to be ignorant that the Word made flesh is God by nature. “For no one,” he says, “can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him.”

The anointing too took place for him in respect of what is human. For being holy by nature, as indeed the Father is, the only-begotten Son begotten of him is said to have been anointed like us, that is, sanctified by the Father, inasmuch as he appeared as man. The all-wise Paul writes of him and of us, “For he who sanctifies and those who are sanctified are all of one; for which reason he is not ashamed to call them brothers, saying, I will declare your name to my brothers.” So the Only-begotten, being holy by nature and sanctifying creation, when he was called our brother, is then also said to have been anointed humanly with us, not despising, because of the dispensation, the measure that befits and suits humanity. For so he says somewhere to the divine Baptist, “It is fitting for us to fulfil all righteousness.” And if God is said to have been with him, how did these clever sophists not know that the Father is always naturally with the Son, being himself in him and having him in himself? Do they not remember Christ saying, “Have I been with you so long, and you do not know me, Philip? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. I and the Father are one. Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me?” And elsewhere, speaking to his holy disciples: “The hour is coming, and has come, when you will be scattered each to his own and will leave me alone; yet I am not alone, for my Father is with me.” For it is not, as those think who senselessly fill themselves with other men's vomit, that the Word, being God, as one Son, came to be with another Son, the man assumed (for this is a cutting and division that brings in a pair of sons); but God the Father was with the Son, that is, with God the Word made flesh and become man; for the Father is inseparable from the Son.

And if God will judge the world by a man whom he has appointed, no one of sound mind would think that the sacred writing means that the Only-begotten will divide the world under heaven in judgement as in a man understood by himself, a Son from the woman. Rather, we affirm that it is pious to understand what Christ said: “For the Father judges no one, but has given all judgement to the Son, so that all may honour the Son as they honour the Father.” For God the Word, having become man and being ranked among men, that is, being named this with us, will be judge no less as God and Lord and as being one Son, God the Father being in him then too. For, as I said, he has his begetter in himself, and he himself is in him. And as there is one God the Father, from whom are all things, so there is one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things.

They no less twist to an ugly sense what was rightly said by the voice of the blessed Paul. He said, and very rightly, “God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself.” But they, again bringing a coarse cut upon the one Christ and Son, separate God the Word entirely and say that he is by himself in another Christ, so that he may be understood not to have been made flesh but to have dwelt in a man. But the aim of the sacred writings does not allow things to be so, you wise men. You confuse the reading, carrying the force of the thoughts off to what is not fitting, though we ought to take every thought captive to the obedience of Christ, as it is written. For God was in him, reconciling the world in Christ. For when we are reconciled to Christ, we make our reconciliation with God the Father, because the Word who is God from him is not other than he as regards identity of substance; and he is in no way wronged as regards being Son by nature even if he became man; for he was this even with the flesh. Who does not dare to say that we have received reconciliation in Christ and that he is our peace? For he is the door and the way, and in him all the fullness of the Godhead has dwelt bodily.

But the one who is bitter in speculation and clever at slander pricks up my ear again and says: “If the one who dwells is one and the one in whom he is said to dwell is another, how is it not necessary to divide the hypostases and say that each subsists separately?” Then where, tell me, is the one person any longer? For if they pretend to speak of one person of Christ, while two hypostases lie separately and apart, there will surely be two persons as well. But they come in like lawgivers, enforcing in every way what seems right to them as correct. “Dividing the hypostases,” they say, “we unite the person.” And how is this not implausible, ignorant, and impossible? In contemplation, as I said, one might see the flesh as of another substance than the Word united to it. But since the divinely inspired Scriptures say one Son and Christ and Lord, and the tradition of the faith holds so and not otherwise, we, bringing together into an indivisible union the Word from God the Father with the flesh animated with an intelligent soul, confess that there is one Christ and Son. And since the Son is one, we also say that his person is one, following everywhere the divine and sacred proclamation and those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the Word. Those who are accustomed to think anything else besides this, and have been turned aside to what is not fitting by the inventions of senseless syllogisms, we shall send away from communion with us, saying, “Walk in the light of your fire and in the flame you have kindled.”

Since I learn that some senseless people are going about saying that the false doctrine of Nestorius has prevailed among all the most God-fearing bishops of the East and is regarded by them as sound, and that one should therefore follow it, I thought I should make this known too. The most God-fearing bishops of all the East, together with my lord the most God-fearing bishop of the church of Antioch, John, have made it plain to all by a written and clear confession that they condemn and anathematize with us the profane novelties of speech of Nestorius, have never thought them worthy of any account, but follow the evangelical and apostolic doctrines and in no way grieve the confession of the fathers. For they too confessed with us that the holy Virgin is Mother of God, and did not add that she is mother of Christ or mother of a man, as those say who serve the wretched and abominable little opinions of Nestorius. Rather, they said plainly that Christ and Son and Lord is one, God the Word begotten ineffably of God the Father before every age, and in later times the same one also of a woman according to the flesh; so that the same is God and man at once, perfect in Godhead and the same perfect in manhood. And they believe that his person is one, in no way dividing him into two sons or Christs or lords. If, then, some say falsely that they think otherwise than this, let them not be believed, but let them be sent away as deceivers and liars after their father the devil, so that they may not trouble those who wish to walk straight. And if some compose letters for themselves and carry them about as written in the name of more prominent men, they ought not to be trusted. For how could those who have once confessed the faith in writing write otherwise, as though carried away by a change of mind into no longer wishing to think rightly? Greet the brotherhood with you. The brotherhood with us greets you in the Lord. I pray for your health in the Lord.