Letters 183–219

… this is also saved. If half of Adam fell, then half is what was assumed and what is saved; but if the whole fell, he is united to the whole of what was born, and is saved wholly. Let them not, then, begrudge us our complete salvation, nor clothe the Saviour with bones only and sinews and the portrait of a man. For if the man is without a soul, the Arians say this too, so that they may attribute the suffering to the Godhead, on the ground that what moves the body is also what suffers. But if he has a soul, yet not a rational one, how is he a man? For man is not a mindless animal. And then the form and the tent would have to be human, but the soul that of some horse or ox or other irrational creature. This, then, will be what is saved; and I have been cheated by the truth, boasting of an honour that was given to another. But if the man is rational and not without mind, let them stop being truly mindless. “But,” he says, “the Godhead was enough in place of the mind.” What is that to me? For Godhead with flesh alone is not a man, nor with soul alone, nor with both without the mind, which is more truly the man. Keep, then, the whole man, and mingle the Godhead with it, so that you may benefit me perfectly. “But,” he says, “he could not contain two perfect things.” Nor could he, if you look at it bodily. For a vessel of one bushel will not hold two bushels, nor will the place of one body hold two or more bodies. But if you look at them as intelligible and incorporeal, consider that I myself have contained soul and reason and mind and the Holy Spirit; and before me this world, I mean the whole system of things visible and invisible, has contained the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. For such is the nature of intelligible things, to be mingled incorporeally and indivisibly both with one another and with bodies. So too many sounds are taken in by one hearing, and the sight of many by the same visible things, and odours by one sense of smell, without the senses being cramped or crowded out by one another, or the objects of sense being diminished by the number of those who perceive them.

And where is the perfect mind of a man or an angel in comparison with Godhead, that the one should be crowded out by the presence of the greater? For a ray is nothing to the sun, nor a little moisture to a river, that we must first remove the small things, the ray from the house and the moisture from the earth, so that the greater and more perfect may be contained. How a house will contain two perfect things, ray and sun, and the earth moisture and river, let us consider; for the matter is worth much thought. Or do they not know that what is perfect in relation to one thing is imperfect in relation to another, as a hill to a mountain, and a mustard seed to a bean or any other of the larger seeds, even if it is called larger than those of its own kind; or, if you like, an angel in relation to God, and a man in relation to an angel? Our mind, then, is perfect and ruling, but ruling over soul and body, not perfect absolutely; and it is God's servant and subject, not sharing his rule nor equal in honour. So too Moses was a god to …, but the servant of God, as it is written; and the stars light up the night, but are hidden by the sun, so that by day one would not even know they exist; and a small torch brought near a great bonfire is neither destroyed nor seen nor separated, but the whole is bonfire, the greater having prevailed.

… God to flesh, as though he could not be bound otherwise, and for this reason you take away the middle wall. But my doctrine, that of an unphilosophical and uneducated man, is that mind is mingled with mind, as nearer and more akin, and through it with flesh, mind mediating between Godhead and grossness. And let us see what their account is of the becoming man, or the enfleshment, as they themselves say. If it is so that God, otherwise uncontainable, might be contained, and might converse with men through the flesh as behind a veil, then an elegant mask is theirs and a drama of play-acting; not to say that it was possible for him to converse with us in other ways too, as formerly in the bush of fire and in human form. But if it was to undo the condemnation of sin by sanctifying like by like, then just as flesh was needed for the flesh that had been condemned, and soul for the soul, so also mind for the mind, which not only fell in Adam but was the first to be affected, as doctors say of illnesses. For what received the commandment, that also did not keep the commandment; what did not keep it, that also dared the transgression; what transgressed, that most needed salvation; and what needed salvation, that also was assumed. Therefore the mind was assumed. This has now been demonstrated, whether they like it or not, by geometrical and necessary demonstrations, as they themselves say. But you are doing something like this: as if, when a man's eye had erred and his foot had stumbled as a result, you were to heal the foot and leave the eye unhealed; or when a painter had painted something badly, you were to alter the picture and pass over the painter as though he had done well. But if, shut out by these reasonings, they take refuge in the claim that it was possible for God to save man even without a mind, then it was possible, I suppose, without flesh too, by his will alone, just as he works and has worked everything else without a body. Take away, then, the flesh along with the mind, so that your madness may be complete. But they are deceived by the letter, and for this reason they run to the flesh, not knowing the usage of Scripture.

We will teach them this too. That everywhere in Scripture he is called man and Son of Man, what need is there to say to those who know it? But if they insist on “The Word became flesh and dwelt among us,” and for this reason shave off the noblest part of man, as cobblers do the thicker parts of hides, so as to glue God to flesh, it is time for them to say that God is God of flesh only and not of souls too, because it is written, “As you have given him authority over all flesh,” and “To you all flesh shall come,” and “Let all flesh bless his holy name,” that is, every man; or again, that our fathers went down into Egypt bodiless and invisible, and that only the soul of Joseph was bound by Pharaoh, because it is written, “With seventy-five souls they went down into Egypt,” and “The iron passed through his soul,” a thing that cannot be bound. For those who say these things do not know that such things are named by synecdoche, the whole being indicated by the part; as also “The young ravens call upon God,” to indicate the whole nature of birds, and the Pleiades and Hesperus and Arcturus are mentioned in place of all the stars and their ordering. And at the same time God's love for us could not be shown otherwise than by mentioning the flesh, and that for our sake he came down even to what is lower. For that flesh is less honourable than soul every sensible person will confess. So “The Word became flesh” seems to me to mean the same as his being said to have become sin and a curse; not that the Lord was changed into these (how could he be?), but that by accepting them he took up our iniquities and bore our diseases. This is enough for the present, for clearness and so as to be easily grasped by the many. For we write these things not to compose a treatise but to check the deception; and if it seems good, we will give a more complete account of these matters at greater length.

… which it is necessary not to pass over. Would that those who unsettle you would even cut themselves off, bringing in a second Judaism and a second circumcision and second sacrifices! For if so, what prevents Christ from being born again to set aside the same things, and from being betrayed again by Judas, and crucified, and buried, and rising again, so that everything may be fulfilled in the same sequence, according to the Greek doctrine of recurrence, the same motion of the stars bringing the same things round? For what is the principle of choice, that some of the things that happened then should come about and others be passed over? Let the wise men show this, who pride themselves on the number of their books. And since, puffed up by their teaching on the Trinity, they lie about us as not sound in the faith, and entice the many, it is necessary to know this: that Apollinarius, while granting the name of Godhead to the Holy Spirit, did not preserve the power of Godhead. For to make up the Trinity of great, greater and greatest, as of light, ray and sun, the Spirit, the Son and the Father (as is clearly written in his works), is a ladder of Godhead that does not lead up to heaven but leads down from heaven. But we know God the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and these not as bare names, dividing inequalities of rank or power, but, just as there is one and the same title, so one and the same nature, essence and power of Godhead. And if anyone thinks this rightly said, but charges us with communion with heretics, let any of our people show it; and we will either persuade him or withdraw. But before judgment it is not safe to innovate in anything else, let alone in so great a matter and about such great things. These things we have solemnly testified, and do testify, before God and men. And not even now, be well assured, would we have written this, if we had not seen the Church being torn apart and divided, both by their other prodigies and by the present council of vanity. But if anyone, while we say and testify these things, either for certain needs,

or from human fear, or from unseemly pettiness, or because they have so far been without shepherd and pilot, or from a love of novelty and readiness for innovation, spits upon us as worthy of no account and runs to such men, and divides the fair body of the Church, he will bear the judgment, whoever he may be, and will give account to God on the day of judgment. And if long discourses, and new psalters contrary to David, and the charm of metre are thought to be a third testament, we too will compose psalms, and write much, and put it into metre. For we too think that we have the Spirit of God, if indeed this is a grace of the Spirit and not a human innovation. These things I want you to testify to the many, so that we may not bear the blame, as though we overlooked such an evil, and a wicked doctrine gained pasture and strength through our negligence. [Letter 102. Against Apollinarius, to Cledonius: second letter] Since many have come to your Reverence seeking assurance about the faith, and you have therefore lovingly asked us for a brief definition and rule of our mind, we have therefore written to your Reverence (what you knew even before the letter) that we have never preferred anything, nor can prefer anything, to the faith of Nicaea, that of the holy fathers who met there to destroy the Arian heresy; but we are, and with God will be, of that faith, articulating further what they said incompletely about the Holy Spirit (because that question had not then been raised): that one must know the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit to be of one Godhead, knowing the Spirit also as God. Those, then, who think

and teach so, hold in communion, as we too do; but turn away from those otherwise minded, and regard them as strangers to God and to the catholic Church. And since a question is also being raised about the divine becoming man, or enfleshment, make this clear to all on our behalf: that we bring into one the Son of God, begotten of the Father and afterwards of the holy Virgin Mary, and do not name two sons, but worship one and the same in undivided Godhead and honour. If anyone does not assent to this, now or later, he will give account to God on the day of judgment. This, then, in brief, is our objection and opposition to their senseless opinion about the mind; for they are almost the only people who really suffer what they teach, cutting off the mind by mindlessness. But so that they may not accuse us of having first accepted and now rejecting the faith of the beloved Vitalius, which he handed in in writing when asked for it by the blessed Damasus, bishop of Rome, let us say a few words about this too. When these men speak about God to their genuine disciples and the initiates of their secrets, like the Manichees to those they call the elect, they uncover their whole disease and scarcely allow the Saviour even flesh. But when they are refuted and pressed by the common understanding of the incarnation that Scripture presents, they confess the pious words but distort the sense, confessing the man to be not without soul, nor without reason, nor without mind, nor imperfect, but bringing in the Godhead itself as his soul and reason and mind, as though it alone were blended with the flesh, and not also what is ours and human, even though his sinlessness was above our condition and a cleansing of our passions.

So too they misinterpret, badly and very simple-mindedly, “But we have the mind of Christ,” saying that the mind of Christ is the Godhead; not understanding, as we do, that those who have purified their own mind by imitating that mind which the Saviour took from us, and shape it to his as far as is possible, are said to have the mind of Christ; just as those who have disciplined the flesh might be attested to have the flesh of Christ, becoming of one body and partakers with Christ in this respect; and, “As we have borne the image of the earthly,” he says, “so we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.” So too for them the perfect man is not the one who was tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin; but they teach as dogma the blend of God and flesh. “For what,” they say, “is more perfect than this?” The same trick they play on the word for the incarnation: “he became man” they explain not as “he was in the man whom he fixed around himself,” according to the saying “For he himself knew what was in man,” but as “he associated and lived with men,” speaking and teaching; and they take refuge in that saying, “After this he appeared on earth and lived among men.” And why should one contend over … ? They discard the man and the inner image, and cleanse only our outer part by their new mask, the visible one, so much at war with themselves that at one time, because of the flesh, they interpret everything else grossly and carnally (from this their second Judaism started, and their foolish and drivelling thousand-year luxury in paradise, and almost our taking up the same things again on the same terms), and at another time they bring in a seeming rather than a reality of flesh, as though it suffered nothing of ours, not even what is free from sin; and for this they use the apostolic saying, not understood or spoken apostolically, that our Saviour came to be in the likeness of men and was found in fashion as a man, as though the human form were not meant by these words,

but some deceptive appearance and seeming. Since, then, these expressions, rightly understood, are in accord with piety, but wrongly interpreted contain impiety, what is surprising if we took the words of Vitalius in the more pious sense, our wish persuading us so, while others are infuriated at the meaning of what was written? This, it seems to me, is why Damasus himself, when he had been better informed and at the same time had learned that they held to their former interpretations, disowned them and overturned the written statement of faith with an anathema, vexed at the very deception he had suffered through simplicity. Since they have been clearly refuted in this, let them not be angry but ashamed; let them not lie but be humbled; and let them erase from their gateways that great and wonderful proclamation and announcement of their orthodoxy, with which they meet those who come in, at once with a question and a test: that one must worship not a God-bearing man but a flesh-bearing God. What could be more senseless than this, even if these new heralds of the truth pride themselves on the phrase? It has a certain sophistical charm from the quickness of its inversion, and a juggler's trickery that delights the uneducated; but it is more ridiculous than the ridiculous and more foolish than the foolish. For if one changed the words “man” and “flesh” into “God” (the one is our choice, the other theirs), and then used this wonderful and God-taught inversion, what will follow? That one must worship not a God-bearing flesh but a man-bearing God. O the absurdity! They proclaim to us today a wisdom hidden since Christ, which is worth weeping over. For if the faith began thirty years ago, when nearly four hundred years have passed since Christ was made manifest, our gospel has been empty for so long a time, and empty our faith, and in vain have the martyrs borne witness, and in vain have such and so great leaders presided over the people. … and the charm is that of metre, not of faith.

And who would not admire their learning, when they themselves clearly divide the things of Christ, assigning “he was born, and was tempted, and hungered and thirsted, and was weary and slept” to the human element, but reckoning “he was glorified by angels, and conquered the tempter, and fed a people in the desert, and fed them in such a way, and walked upon the sea” to the Godhead; and saying that “Where have you laid Lazarus?” is ours, but to cry “Lazarus, come out!” and raise the man four days dead is above us; and that “he was in agony, and was crucified, and was buried” belongs to the veil, but “he took courage, and rose, and ascended” to the treasure within; and then they accuse us of bringing in two natures, separated or at war, and of dividing the … and wonderful union! They should either not do what they accuse, or not accuse what they do, if they had decided at least to be consistent with themselves, and not to say both their own things and their opponents'. Such is unreason: it fights both against itself and against the truth, so that they neither notice nor are ashamed when they collide with themselves. And if anyone thinks that we write or say these things willingly and not under compulsion, and that we are eager to escape union rather than very eager for it, let him know that he thinks wrongly and has not guessed our desire; for nothing has been more precious to us than peace, as the facts themselves show, even if what they do, and their swaggering against us, shuts out concord altogether. [Letter 103. To Palladius]

… not courting power, but honouring character. We are perhaps not small heralds, but we do not fall short as far as we are able; and not heralds only, but also fellow contenders, contributing what power we have by our prayers. I wanted to end the letter at this point; but since we do not only revere what is divine but also ask it for benefits, accept this too, not as being troubled by us (for our affairs are no trouble to you, as I can guess from what went before), but as being reminded by us: I again present to you your suppliant Euphemius, and again beseech you not only to receive the young man kindly and forgive his slowness, since, having taken charge of the affairs of orphans, he was necessarily busy with his little house; but also be eager to advance him, for our honour and the glory of your goodness. For of the many whom you have benefited and benefit, none will bring you less credit than he, as I explained when I was with you. And now I ask to be believed; for he is pitiable for his orphanhood and dear to us for his character, not to mention the closeness of blood. [Letter 104. To Olympius] All the other favours I have obtained I know I have received from your gentleness; and may God repay you for them with his own good things, one of which is to complete your term of office with good repute and splendour. What I now ask, I come to give rather than to receive, if it is not too bold to say so. I myself bring to you the wretched Philumena, who will fall at the feet of your justice and set before you the tears with which she crushes our soul. In what she has been wronged, and by whom, she herself will make known; for it is not safe for us to accuse anyone. But this much it is necessary to say: that widowhood and orphanhood must be helped by all who have sense, and especially by those who have a wife and children in their midst, those great

pledges of pity, since we who judge men are men ourselves. Forgive us for interceding for these things by letter, since through our sickness we are deprived of so excellent a governor, so admirable in virtue that the beginnings of your office are more honourable than the good repute others win at the end. [Letter 105. To the same] The occasion is urgent, the contest great, and the sickness heavy, having made us almost unable to move. What remains, but to pray to God and beseech your kindness: God, to bring better counsels to your mind; you, not to dismiss our intercession harshly, but to receive gently the wretched Paul, whom justice has brought under your hands, perhaps so as to make you more brilliant by the greatness of your gentleness, and to commend our prayers, if they are worth anything, to your kindness.

[Letter 107. To Cledonius] You ask what our silence means. It means measure in speech and in silence. For he who has mastered the whole will more easily master the part; besides, it tames anger, which, when it is not spoken out, is spent within itself. We keep silence in speech, learning to say what we ought, and we train ourselves to master the passions. If anyone accepts this, well; if not, this too is a gain of silence, to make no answer to the many. [Letter 108. To the same] I do not forbid a meeting; for even if my tongue is silent, we will gladly lend our ears to your words, since hearing is no less honourable than saying what one ought. [Letter 109. To Palladius] The manner of my admonition is new: since by speaking I could not restrain tongues, I have taught silence by silence, training like by like. This is also the law of Christ; for in giving us his law he did not … ; he tames man by what is human, according to the great kindness of his economy toward us.

[Letter 110. To Eulalius] You practise philosophy in solitude and in fasting so beyond measure; I in silence. Let us share the gift with one another; and when we come together, we will sing … in common, bearing the fruit of inspired speech as of reasonable silence. [Letter 112. To Celeusius] I received you even while silent, so that you may learn that silence too has a speech, spoken by the pen. I will speak what befits friendship and such a season. You break the law, judge, by not fasting; and how will you keep human laws while despising the divine? Keep your court pure, lest one of two things happen: either you become bad or you are thought so. To put on shameful spectacles is to make a spectacle of oneself. The sum of what I say: know that you are being judged, judge, and you will sin less. I had nothing better than this to give you.

… Pandion, Athens, Tereus, Thrace, the journey abroad, the marriage, the outrage, the cutting out of the tongue, the letters woven in the cloth, and above all Itys, and how from human beings we became birds. The swans scarcely thought them worth a word, hating their chatter; but when they did, they said: “But we, ladies, for whose sake one would even come into the desert to hear our music, when we give our wings to the West Wind to breathe something sweet and harmonious through them; even if we do not sing much nor before many, this very thing is our finest quality, that we practise our song with measure, like philosophers, and do not mix our music with noise. But you, even when you settle in their houses, men dislike, and turn away from when you sing; and very justly, since even with your tongues cut out you cannot keep silent, but you lament your own speechlessness and your misfortune, and so are more talkative than any of the eloquent and musical.” “Understand what I say,” says Pindar; and if you find my speechlessness better than your eloquence, stop chattering against our silence; or I will tell you a proverb, very true and very short: swans will sing when jackdaws fall silent.

… training ground of philosophy, which I beheld while silent, I desire to see while speaking too, so that I may satisfy the longing of the brothers and pay you back for your pettiness, you bad interpreters of my utterances. For I will be there myself, the one who speaks, no longer in allegory or in likenesses, but understood plainly. … [Another letter] A strange thing has happened to me: having been silent when you were present, I long for you now you are absent, so that I may give and receive speech. For it is good, as with everything else, so with words too, to dedicate the first fruits first to the Word, and then to those who fear the Lord.

… you have sent, and in what you write. I have already passed many Easters, and this is what I have gained from a longer life. But now I long more purely, having come out of this Egypt, the heavy and dark life here, and been freed from the clay and the brickmaking to which we are bound, to move to the land of promise. Pray for this for us, if you care at all to do us the greatest good. And may it often be granted to you to keep the feast with the common body of the Church, in good health. And if you grant me to end my old age well, by giving this Church a bishop whom the Holy Spirit shall make known, you will have done a good work and one, if I may say so, worthy of a father's blessings.

… on the twenty-second of our month Dathusa. And at the same time not a few Church matters need common deliberation. For all these reasons, be so good as to come without hesitation; for even if the labour is great, the reward balances it. … I respected your presence, and I love your company, although I had otherwise admonished myself to stay at home and philosophize in quiet; for I have found this the most profitable course of all for myself. … But since the weather is still stormy and the sickness has not let go, I beg you, be patient a little, and pray with me for health; and when the time comes, we will attend upon your prayers. [Letter 124. To the same]

…, but, as it seems, having made them worse too and harmed the Church by my untimely philosophy. For gentleness does not shame the wicked. And now, if I could have taught you these things in person, I would not have hesitated, be well assured, to set out even beyond my strength and fall at your Honour's feet. But since my sickness has advanced further, and it has become necessary to use the hot springs of Xanxaris on the doctors' advice, I make this letter take my place. The wicked men, who will perish wickedly, have dared, in addition to everything else, having either summoned bishops deposed by every synod of East and West, or made use of them as they passed through (for I cannot say which precisely), and rising up against all the imperial ordinances and your commands, to give the name of bishop to one of their impious and counterfeit men, emboldened by nothing so much, I think, as by my deadness (for so I must call it). If these things are tolerable, let your firmness bear them, and we too will bear them, as we have often borne them. But if they are grievous, and not to be borne by the most pious emperors themselves, be so good as to punish what has been done, even if less than their madness deserves.