Against Apollinarius 1 part 3/3

for this reason also the Scripture testifies:

"who committed no sin, neither was deceit found in his mouth."

How then do you say that it is impossible for the man who was once taken captive to become free from captivity?—so that you ascribe the impossible to God, and the possible to the devil, saying that his sin is indestructible in the nature of men, just as the other heretics also say;

and that for this reason the deity, which cannot be taken captive, came in the likeness of flesh and soul, in order that it might itself remain uncaptured, and thus be seen as pure righteousness.

When, then, was the righteousness of the deity ever not pure? And what benefit would there be for mankind in these things, unless the Lord had appeared in identity of existence and in newness of nature, as the Apostle says:

"which he inaugurated for us as a new and living way;"

"I am the way, and the life, and the truth"? But you say that those who believe are saved by likeness and by imitation, and not by renewal and by the firstfruits.

And how then did he become the firstborn among many brothers, and Christ the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep, he who is the head of the body, the Church? For faith, when it plainly appears as manifest, could not even be called faith;

but faith is that which believes the impossible to be in power, the weak to be in strength, the passible to be in impassibility, the corruptible to be in incorruption, and the mortal to be in immortality.

"This mystery is great," as the Apostle says;

"but I speak concerning Christ and the Church."

For the deity did not come to justify itself, for neither did it sin; but he became poor for our sake, though he was rich, that we through his poverty might become rich.

But how did God become poor? Because he took up in himself the nature that had become poor, putting it forward in his own righteousness as suffering on behalf of men, yet being above men, and manifested from among men, and having become wholly God's.

For if he had not become the firstborn among many brothers, how could he have appeared as the firstborn from the dead? How then do you say, "God who suffered and rose through the flesh"? Alas for such absurdity and blasphemy!

Such are the audacious deeds of the Arians.

For they put forward such blasphemy without fear, having learned to call the Son of God "God" only in a pretended sense;

although Scripture teaches that the suffering came about through God, in his flesh, and not that God suffered through the flesh.

You, then, who profess beforehand the confession of consubstantiality—how do you drag the undivided name down into suffering? Dragging the indivisible nature, the ineffable deity, the unchangeable and unalterable consubstantiality down into suffering, and yet confessing it only from the resurrection onward? For if the Logos, having transformed flesh out of himself, proceeded even as far as suffering, without having assumed in himself anything capable of suffering or of resurrection, then he himself would be the one who suffered and rose from the dead;

and then the suffering would be common to the whole Trinity, as with Valentinus, since the Logos is undivided from the Father according to the divine nature.

But if you wish to understand these things in this way, what then is the point of the promise made through the prophets, or the genealogy set forth by the evangelists, or the testimony of the apostles, or the standing forth of his mother Mary, or the increase of his stature, or the display of his eating, or the demonstration of his compassion in all things, or the bestowal of his name, or the fact that the Son of God became the Son of man, or that Jesus Christ, a man, 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 capable of suffering, since he is man—

but, being hard-pressed, you reckon that if you were to confess Christ as God and man, you would no longer be speaking of one, but of two;

you are then of necessity compelled either to say that the economy of the suffering, the death, and the resurrection was mere appearance, as Marcion and the other heretics say, or to call the deity of the Logos passible, as Arius and his followers do.

For if, in reading the divine Scriptures, you had understood how, in the Law and the Prophets, and in the Gospels and the Apostles, they everywhere first call the Lord "man," and only then introduce the suffering, so that they might never utter a blasphemous word against the deity—

for this reason they have not spoken of a begetting of the deity of the Logos, but confess the Father, and proclaim the Son;

"that our old man was crucified with him;"

and nowhere does the deity admit of suffering apart from a suffering body;

nor does it exhibit trouble and grief apart from a soul that grieves and is troubled;

nor is it distressed and does it pray apart from a mind that is distressed and prays;

but indeed, even if the things spoken did not come about through any defect of nature, yet the things that occurred were enacted through a manifestation of real existence;

how then have you written, "God who suffered and rose through the flesh"? For if it is God who suffered and rose through the flesh, you will have to say that the Father too is passible, and the Paraclete as well, since the name is one, and the divine nature is one.

But from this statement one can perceive your understanding, of what sort it is—as of men who neither fear God nor are persuaded by the divine Scriptures;

while Moses indeed writes concerning God that "Our God is a consuming fire;"

but concerning his sojourn in the flesh, he says that the Lord will raise up a prophet from among your brothers, and speaks of life hanging upon a tree, as it were the body of the Lord, becoming life for us;

and Isaiah too cries out, speaking concerning God:

"God, the great, the everlasting, who made the ends of the earth, will not hunger nor grow weary"—and so forth;

"a man stricken, and knowing how to bear infirmity."

And what is the meaning of "knowing how to bear infirmity"? That the capacity for suffering was displayed by the one who had truly suffered.

And the Apostle also says:

"The man Christ Jesus, who gave himself for us;"

but concerning his deity:

"For the Word of God is living and active, and sharper than any two-edged sword."

And the Lord indeed fixes the suffering upon the Son of Man, showing what pertains to the flesh;

but concerning his divinity:

I and the Father are one;

and, No one knows the Son, who he is, except the Father alone.

Nowhere have the Scriptures handed down 'the blood of God' apart from flesh; rather, they speak of God suffering and rising through the flesh.

These are the audacities of the Arians, since they confess neither the Son of God to be true God...

But the holy Scriptures proclaim, in the flesh of God, and of God who became human in the flesh, the blood, and the suffering, and the resurrection of the body of God — a resurrection that took place from the dead.

But you say the opposite, as though wiser than the apostles, and more versed in mysteries than the prophets, and more authoritative than the evangelists, or even more authentic than the Lord;

with your falsified show of piety you deny the truth, while speaking against the divinity — though the economy is clearly displayed even upon the cross, confirmed on the one hand by the shedding of the blood of the flesh;

and confirmed, on the other hand, by the soul that came into being and was signified — this not indicating a separation of the divinity, but signifying the death of the body; the divinity neither being left behind from the body in the tomb, nor the soul being separated from it in Hades.

For this is what was spoken through the prophets:

You will not abandon my soul to Hades, nor will you allow your Holy One to see corruption.

No one takes it from me;

but I lay it down of myself;

that is, being present, I demonstrate this.

and in the body of Christ corruption was abolished, and incorruption was shown forth from the tomb.

So then, the man was not separated from God, nor did God recount an abandonment toward the man; nor was the death and the departure of the spirit a removal of God from the body, but a separation of the soul from the body;

for it was our death that was there being traced out.

But if God was separated from the body, and death was thereby shown, how did the body, having been separated from the incorruptible God, exhibit incorruption? And how did the Logos make his entrance into Hades? Or how did he show forth the resurrection from Hades? Did he perhaps rise instead of our soul, so as to fit himself to the image of our resurrection? And how is it even possible to think such things concerning God? Your definition, therefore, is discordant with the holy Scriptures, and your opinion is ill-suited to the economy that has been fulfilled.

And the saying, 'Sit at my right hand,' expresses a dignity not of man, but of God.

But since the dignity of God became the dignity of man, so that the dignity of man might be believed to be the dignity of God, it was said:

He says this not because he had been separated from glory, but because he had come to be in an inglorious body, so as to show that the form of a servant is not separated from the divine glory, but rather displays it.

'And I have glorified it, and will glorify it again,' showing that the glory before the body and the glory in the body are one and the same, as the Apostle says:

having become as much superior to 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'? By no means did the Logos, the maker of the angels, become superior to them as though he had previously been inferior;

but rather, he showed the form of a servant that arose in him to be superior to the angels, and indeed to 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 brought forth her firstborn Son.'

How then do you say that the Logos, the creator of rational natures, having mingled flesh with himself, became a rational man? And how, being unchangeable and unalterable, could he have become man without constituting the form of the servant as rational — so that the Logos might remain unchangeable, abiding what he was, and the rational man might be seen on earth as being God? For the Lord is a heavenly man, not by displaying flesh from heaven, but by constituting the flesh that is from earth as heavenly.

How did they crucify the Lord of glory, and yet, according to you, did not crucify the Logos? Let it not be!

But they rejected the Logos, having nailed the body of the Logos to the cross;

and the suffering, and the death, and the resurrection belonged to the flesh and soul of God.

'Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up;'

wherefore his soul was delivered unto death, and not the Logos himself.

He laid down his soul for us.

the Jews had the power to destroy the temple of God, and to sever the indissoluble commixture of the flesh with the Logos that had come to be — if indeed, according to you, the death of the body occurred in this manner.

For the body would not have died, unless it had been separated from something.

For if there was no dissolution, neither was there death;

and if there was no death, neither did resurrection occur.

For you have said that the Logos, having mingled with himself flesh that had no independent subsistence, thereby showed the truly rational and complete human being.

If then the Logos departed from the body, and death occurred in this manner, the Jews prevailed against God, having dissolved the indissoluble commixture.

Neither, then, did our death take place there, if the death of the body occurred through the separation of God.

And how, having been separated from the incorruptible God, did the body remain in incorruption? Yet the wound will belong to the body, and the suffering to the Logos —

for this is what they teach as dogma.

And, according to you, it will also be the Logos who is raised up in the resurrection.

For it was necessary that someone should have taken from Hades the beginning of the resurrection, so that the resurrection might be complete, and the dissolution of death complete, and the release of the spirits there complete.

But if the Logos suffered these things, where then is the unchangeableness and unalterableness of the Logos? And how, having appeared unveiled in Hades, was the Logos reckoned to be 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 Logos, having come to be in death, had need of one to raise him from death, the victory will not be his, but that of the one who raises him.

And how was it foretold beforehand through the prophets concerning his soul? How did the Lord, being present, speak in fulfillment of the promise:

'I lay down my soul for my sheep'? — which soul the holy Scriptures clearly teach to be a spirit;

the body indeed being killed by men, but the soul not able to be killed by them, inasmuch as it is a spirit.

By this spirit Jesus was troubled;

the departure of this spirit from the body took place upon the cross.

And thus the body died, and its dissolution took place, while God the Logos remained unshiftingly disposed toward the body, and toward the soul, and toward himself — being in the bosom of the Father — in a demonstration of unchangeableness.

But in the form that came to be in him according to us, he was there depicting our death;

so that in it he might also fit together the resurrection on our behalf, showing forth the soul from Hades, and the body from the tomb;

that in death he might destroy death through the manifestation of the soul, and in the tomb he might abolish corruption through the burial of the body;

showing forth from Hades and from the tomb immortality and incorruption, having journeyed our own road in the form according to us, and having dissolved the hold that had come upon us.

And this was the marvel:

But you, confessing flesh alone, are able to demonstrate neither the condemnation of sin, nor the destruction of death, nor the completeness of the resurrection, nor the unchangeableness of the Logos;

since you have stepped outside the holy Scriptures, speaking what the Arians devise, though the teaching concerning the soul is manifest in the holy Scriptures, and the economy has been fulfilled in the demonstration of every fullness and completeness.

But among the heretics, some, confessing him who was seen, disbelieve his divinity; others, confessing him as God, deny the birth of his flesh;

and others, confessing the flesh, deny the manifestation of his soul;

raising up further perplexities, they seek to catch out the sound in faith, while themselves being destitute of the faith.

Likewise, they too have learned to say:

'What is he who was born of Mary? God, or man?' Then if one says, 'Man,' he will disbelieve his divinity, becoming of one accord with the heretics who disbelieve in this;

but if he says, 'God,' he will deny the birth of his flesh, and will be joined together with the heretics who deny this.

'Who is it that suffered? Who is it that was crucified? God, or man?' — so that if he says, 'God,' he will put forth a blasphemous word, after the manner of the impious Arians;

but if he says, 'Man,' he will again speak according to a Jewish supposition.

so that neither God be disbelieved, nor the birth of the flesh be denied

But where the name 'flesh' is, there is the harmony of the whole constitution, without sin

And they fix the suffering upon the name 'man', and do not go beyond this, as it is written in the holy Scriptures;

but concerning the deity of the Logos they confess the immutability and the ineffability;

For this reason the Logos is spoken of theologically, while the man is traced by genealogy, so that with respect to each he may be the very same one, naturally and truly;

God indeed with respect to the eternity of the deity and the creation of the world;

but man with respect to the birth from a woman, and the growth in age

And God indeed with respect to life-giving benefactions, and mighty in wonder-working;

but man with respect to the like-natured compassions, and the weaknesses like yours

And the Logos is God in the display of immortality, and incorruption, and immutability;

but man in the nailing of the cross, and the shedding of blood, and the burial of the body, and 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

Vain, therefore, are those who ascribe suffering to his deity, or disbelieve his becoming human, or call the one Christ two, or attempt to make a measurement of his flesh, and dare to say how much, or how, contrary to the Scriptures

For by such conjectures the understanding of the heretics has stumbled;

Marcion indeed having turned aside through excess of blasphemy;

and Mani having been led astray through a notion of sin;

and Valentinus having been deceived through a pretext of knowledge;

and Paul of Samosata, and the one called Photinus, and those associated with them, having fallen away through unbelief in the deity;

and Arius having blasphemed through madness

And you also, using similar contentious rivalries, speak the things that are not written, turning aside the unstable

But it is enough to believe the things that are written and that have taken place, as Paul says;

In every respect like us, yet without sin;

Since Christ, then, suffered for us in the flesh, arm yourselves also with the same purpose, and do not, by extending yourselves further, set aside the truth