On the Unity of Christ

B. They hasten along another path than ours, unskilfully interpreting the mystery of piety. For they say that God the Word hath taken a perfect man from out the seed of Abraham and David according to the declaration of the Scriptures, who is by nature what they were of whose seed he was, a man perfect in nature, consisting of intellectual soul and human flesh: whom, man as we by nature, fashioned by the might of the Holy Ghost in the womb of the Virgin and made of a woman, made under the law, in order that he might buy us all from the bondage of the law, receiving the sonship marked out long before, He in new way connected to Himself, preparing him to make trial of death according to the law of men, raising him from the dead, taking him up into Heaven and setting him on the Right Hand of God. From whence he being now far above all rule and authority and might and lordship and every name named not in this world only but in that to come also, receives worship from all creation as having a connection inseverable with the Divine Nature, the whole creation allotting to him its worship in reference to and in idea of God. And we say neither two sons nor two lords: but since God the Word the Only-Begotten Son of the Father, to Whom this man is connected and partakes, is Son by Essence, he shares the name and honour of Son: and God the Word is Lord by Essence, to Whom connected, this man shares the honour. And therefore we say neither two sons nor two lords: seeing that He Who is by Essence is clearly Lord and Son, he who for our salvation is assumed, having an unseverable connection with Him, is borne up up along with Him to name and honour of son and of lord.

A. Fie! the folly and distraught mind of them who imagine somehow that these things are so: for it is unbelief and nought else, and the novelty of impious inventions and the subversion of the divine and sacred preachings which have proclaimed One Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Word that is out of God the Father made man and incarnate, so that the Same is God alike and man; and to One belongs all, the God-befitting and moreover the human. For He being and existing ever in that He is God underwent the birth after the flesh from out a woman. To One therefore and the Same pertaining both that He Eternally is and existeth and that He in the last times is born after the flesh, Who, by Nature Holy as GOD, was hallowed with us in that He became man to whom it befitteth to be hallowed; Who, both in rank of Lord and, having as His own bondman's form, did call the Father His God; Life and Life-giving as God, is said to be quickened by the Father in that He became Man. All things therefore are His, and He does not dishonour the economy which the Father Himself too praised, if it be true which is said by Paul's voice: for in one place he said, Him who knew not sin He made sin for our sakes in order that WE might be made God's righteousness in Him, in another. Who verily spared not His own Son but delivered Him up for all us in order that with Him also He might bestow on us all things. Does not therefore our discourse go after the scope of the sacred Scriptures?

B. Surely.

A. If now as our opponents say and choose to hold, the Only-Begotten Word of God, taking a man of the seed of Divine David and of Abraham prepared him to be fashioned in the holy Virgin and connected this man with Himself and hath made him to come into experience of death, yea and raising him from the dead took him up into heaven and seated him on the Right Hand of God: superfluously (it seems) is He said both by the holy fathers and by ourselves and the whole God-inspired Scripture to be made man (for this I deem and nought else did the all-wise John signify when he wrote, The Word was made flesh), and the mystery of the Economy with flesh has been (it is like) turned right round to the exact opposite. For one cannot see that the Word being by Nature God and beaming forth from God, abased Himself to emptiness, taking bondman's form, and hath humbled Himself, but on the contrary, man was brought up into the glory of the Godhead and the excellency that is over all, and took God's Form and was rather exalted, co-throned with the Father: is it not true which I say?

B. Full surely.

A. If it be true as they say, and the Only-Begotten disdained the Economy, what shame did He despise? how hath He become obedient to the Father unto death yea the death of the cross? and if taking a man, He led him both to experience of death, and bringing him into Heaven too, shewed him co-throned with the Father; where now at last will His own Throne [11] be seen, if they say not two sons, but one who co-sitteth, him that is who is of the seed of David and Abraham? how will He too be said to be Saviour of the world and not rather patron or bringer-forward of a man through whom we have been also saved, and a man, other than He, has become the completion of law and Prophets? for the Law uttereth the mystery of Christ and of Him hath Moses written, who hath also become the bringer of us to Him. Our faith hath come I ween to nought, for it streamed away; wholly nought is pur august mystery, which the all-excellent Paul too openeth to us saying, Say not in thine heart, who shall ascend into heaven? that is to bring down Christ; or, Who shall go down into the deep? that is to bring up Christ from the dead. But what saith the Scripture [12]? Nigh thee is the word, in thy mouth and in thy heart, that is the word of faith which we are preaching: that if thou say in thy mouth, Lord Jesus, and believe in thy heart that God raised Him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

How then is the mystery of piety any longer great and famous and in supremest admiration, if we are to believe that (as the perverted ones say) a man taken and connected by way of accident to God the Word, died and lived again: and he was borne up into Heaven, yet is it I suppose to some past belief, if not being by Nature and truly God, he delights him in the seat of Godhead, the Son by Nature haply thrust forth therefrom: and there stand in ministering position Angels and Archangels and the Seraphim who are higher yet, before----not Him Who is in truth Son and God but before----a man who is rich in name of sonship by participation and importation and in fashion as we and who has been vouchsafed the so God-befitting honour? for in no wise do our opponents blush at saying this too. Is not their dogma replete with the uttermost impiety and blasphemy? for that which is given and brought in may be lost, and that which is imported from without, has the loss of it not inconceivable. I pass over the farther blasphemy and incongruity.

Why then do they drag down the choiceness of the Economy unto what is uncomely, and make our Divine and most holy worship, a man-worship and nothing else, taking it from Him Who is in truth Son and persuading us to worship one connected with Him by way of accident, whom they say also sped above all rule and authority and lordship, imposing the blame of having been deceived, not only on them on earth but also on the very rational powers above, if with us they worship, not the by Nature and truly Son and the Word which beamed forth of the Essence of God the Father, Incarnate, but as other than He, a man from forth the seed of David, a god modelled by mere will perchance of His and by external embellishments, not so in truth?

B. Yet although he is conceived of as man severally (say they), he hath worship from the whole creation, in reference to and in conception of God.

A. Then how (tell me) will this reference they talk of be meetly conceived and spoken of by us? And come, investigating the Divine and sacred Scripture, let us seek the solution from it. They of Israel [13] therefore, recking little at one time of reverence to God, bitterly attacked Moses and Aaron: then Moses addressed them, And who is Aaron, that ye murmur against him? for not against us but against God is this your murmuring. For they were sinning against Moses and Aaron, but what they did touched the Divine glory, and the covert intent of them who insult has reference to that glory. Yet Moses and Aaron were not gods, nor has the creation worshipped them in reference to God.

God reigned over Israel after the flesh through Prophets. And they came and said to the Divine Samuel, Make us a king like the rest of the nations. At this the Spirit-clad was grieved and with good reason, yet he heard God say, Not thee have they set at nought but Me that I should not reign over them. See again here too the mode of the setting at nought has reference to God.

And indeed the Saviour and Lord of all Himself too says respecting those in need, Inasmuch as ye did it to one of these least, to Me ye did it. Is it then in this way that if any be said to honour him that is of the seed of David, he hath done it to the Son? and if any do not believe, hath he surely offended against the by Nature Son, Who haply wishes him too to be honoured and believed in by us in equal and exact manner? How then hath not the bond been brought into equal honour with the Lord, that which hath been made and a new god (according to the Scriptures) is in the excellencies of Godhead, and to the Holy and Consubstantial Trinity there hath been appended that which is of unequal nature with It and with It is worshipped and partaketh of equal glory with It?

[11] ^o Theodoret in his Letter to the Monks of Constantinople (the same that is quoted ahove p. 252 note k and p. 33 note b) written in the later years of his life after the Eutychian troubles had commenced and so after A. D. 448 uses words very similar: If, as they accuse me, I proclaim two sons, which do I praise, which leave unworshipped? (Ep. 145, p. 1247): see also p. 1310 fin.

[12] ^p The two MSS D and F of S. Paul's Epistles with some few others add this gloss, the Scripture, of which Origen too and Theodoret are quoted as preserving a trace. There seems little doubt that S. Cyril had it in this treatise as the Syriac translation of the treatise also gives it. Dr. Tischendorf cites S. Cyril as reading the word in-his commentary on Isaiah p. 839 init.: S. Cyril quotes this passage twice in his treatise de Recta fide to Arcadia and Marina, pp. 104 c, 118 e, as far as we know, without the gloss.

[13] ^t Each of these three instances is put forward also in the Scholia § 37, above pp. 234, 235: compare also the famous Pasch. hom. 16 for A.D. 429 (the same as is cited by the Eastern Bishops against S. Cyril's Chapters as tome 1) pp. 231, 232.