The Unchangeable, Part 1

Orthodoxos and Eranistes. [a]

It would be better for us to agree and to hold fast to the teaching of the apostles in its purity. But since you have somehow broken the harmony, and are now offering us new doctrines, let us, if you are willing, look into the truth together without any quarrel. We need no inquiry. We hold the truth exactly. That is what every heretic supposes. Even Jews and pagans think they are defending the doctrines of the truth. So do the followers of Plato and Pythagoras, and the Epicureans too, and those who have no god and no faith at all. But it is right for us not to be slaves to opinions formed in advance, but to search for the knowledge of the truth. I grant the force of what you say, and I am ready to do as you suggest. Since you have made no difficulty about yielding to this first appeal of mine, I ask you next not to let our inquiry into the truth depend on human reasoning, but to follow the footprints of the apostles and prophets, and of the saints who came after them. Travelers who have wandered off the highway do just this. They look carefully at the paths to see whether they show any prints of men or horses, donkeys or mules, going this way or that. When they find any, they follow the tracks the way dogs do, and they do not leave them until they are back on the right road. Let us do so. Lead the way yourself, since you began the discussion. First, then, let us make a careful and thorough inquiry into the divine names. I mean substance and essence, persons and their distinguishing properties. Let us learn and define how they differ from one another, and after that take up what follows. You give our discussion an excellent and fitting start. Once these points are clear, our argument will go forward without hindrance.

Since we have agreed that this is how we must proceed, tell me, my friend: do we acknowledge one substance of God, of the Father, of the only Son, and of the Holy Spirit alike, as we have been taught by Holy Scripture, both Old and New, and by the fathers gathered in council at Nicaea? Or do we follow the blasphemy of Arius? [b] We confess one substance of the Holy Trinity. And do we take hypostasis to mean something other than substance, or do we take it as another name for substance? [c] Is there any difference between substance and hypostasis? In philosophy outside the church there is none, for ousia means “that which is,” and hypostasis “that which subsists.” But according to the teaching of the fathers there is the same difference between ousia and hypostasis as between the common and the particular, or between the species and the individual. Tell me more clearly what is meant by a genus, or kind, and by species and individual. We speak of a kind when we speak of the animal, because the word covers many things at once. It takes in both the rational and the irrational. Among the irrational there are again many species: creatures that fly, creatures that live both on land and in water, creatures that walk, and creatures that swim. Each of these species is divided again many times over. Among the creatures that walk there are the lion, the leopard, the bull, and countless others. In the same way there are many species of flying creatures and of the rest. Yet all of them, whatever their species, belong to one and the same kind, the animal. In the same way the name “man” is the common name of humankind. It means the Roman, the Athenian, the Persian, the Sauromatian, the Egyptian, and, in a word, everyone who is human. But the name Paul or Peter does not mean what is common to the kind; it means one particular man. No one who hears of Paul thinks of Adam or Abraham or Jacob. He thinks only of the man whose name he has heard. But if he hears the word “man” by itself, he does not fix his mind on an individual. He thinks of the Indian, the Scythian, and the Massagetan, and of the whole human race together. We learn this not only from nature but also from Holy Scripture. For God said, as we read, “I will destroy man from the face of the earth,” and he said this of countless multitudes. And when more than two thousand two hundred years had passed since Adam, he brought destruction on all people by the flood. So too the blessed David says, “Man, who is in honor and does not understand,” accusing not one man here and another there, but all people in common. A thousand similar examples could be found, but we must not be tedious. [d] The difference between the common and the particular has been clearly shown. Now let us return to our discussion of ousia and hypostasis. As the name “man” is common to human nature, so we understand the divine substance to mean the Holy Trinity. But hypostasis means one particular person, as the Father, the Son, or the Holy Spirit. For, following the definitions of the holy fathers, we say that hypostasis and individuality mean the same thing. We agree that this is so.

Whatever is said of the divine nature, then, is common to the Father, to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit: for instance “God,” “Lord,” “Creator,” “Almighty,” and so on. Without question these words are common to the Trinity. But whatever by its nature points to a hypostasis is not common to the Holy Trinity. It points to the hypostasis to which it belongs. The names “Father” and “Unbegotten,” for instance, belong to the Father alone. The names “Son,” “Only Son,” and “God the Word” do not point to the Father, nor to the Holy Spirit, but to the Son. And the words “Holy Spirit” and “Paraclete” by their nature point to the hypostasis of the Spirit. [e] But does Holy Scripture not call both the Father and the Son “Spirit”? Yes, it calls both the Father and the Son “Spirit,” and by this word it means that the divine nature has no body and no limit. But Holy Scripture calls only the hypostasis of the Spirit “Holy Spirit.” This cannot be disputed. Since we say, then, that some terms are common to the Holy Trinity and some belong to each hypostasis alone, do we say that the word “unchangeable” is common to the substance, or that it belongs to one hypostasis? The word “unchangeable” is common to the Trinity. It is impossible for part of the substance to be changeable and part unchangeable. You have spoken well. As the word “mortal” is common to all people, so “unchangeable” and “unalterable” are common to the Holy Trinity. So the only Son is unchangeable, as are the Father who begot him and the Holy Spirit. Unchangeable.

How then do you put forward the saying in the gospel, “The Word became flesh,” and ascribe change to the unchangeable nature? [f] We say that he became flesh, not by change, but in a way he himself knows. If he is not said to have become flesh by taking flesh, one of two things must be said: either he underwent change into flesh, or he was seen only in appearance and was in reality God without flesh. That is the teaching of the followers of Valentinus and Marcion, and of the Manichaeans. But we have been taught beyond dispute that the divine Word became flesh. [g] But in what sense do you mean “became flesh”? “Took flesh,” or “was changed into flesh”? As we have heard the evangelist say: “The Word became flesh.” How do you understand “became”? He who underwent change into flesh became flesh, and, as I said just now, in a way he knows. But we know that with him all things are possible. He changed the water of the Nile into blood, and day into night. He made the sea dry land, and filled the dry wilderness with water. And we hear the prophet saying, “Whatever the Lord pleased, he did in heaven and on earth, in the seas and in all the deeps.” [h] What is created is transformed by the Creator as he wills, for it is changeable and obeys the nod of the one who made it. But his nature is unchangeable and unalterable. That is why the prophet says of the creation, “He who makes and transforms all things.” But of the divine Word the great David says, “You are the same, and your years will not fail.” And again God says of himself, “For I am the Lord, and I do not change.” [i] What is hidden ought not to be “inquired into.” Nor should what is plain be ignored altogether. I do not know the manner of the incarnation. I have heard that the Word became flesh.

If he became flesh by change, he did not remain what he was before. This is easy to understand from several comparisons. Sand, for instance, when it is heated, first becomes liquid, then is changed and hardens into glass. At the moment of the change it also changes its name: it is no longer called sand, but glass. That is so. And while we call the fruit of the vine a grape, once we have pressed it we no longer speak of it as a grape but as wine. Certainly. And the wine itself, once it has undergone a change, we are accustomed to call no longer wine but vinegar. True. In the same way, stone that has been burned and broken down is no longer called stone but lime. Countless other examples could be found where change brings a change of name. Agreed.

If, then, you say that the divine Word underwent change into flesh, why do you call him God and not flesh? For a change of name goes along with a change of nature. In these cases the things that undergo change still bear some relation to what they were before: there is a certain closeness of vinegar to wine, of wine to the fruit of the vine, and of glass to sand. Yet even these receive another name after their change. How then can the same name hold after the change where the difference is infinite? For the difference between the nature of flesh and the nature of the Godhead is as wide as the gap between a gnat and the whole creation, seen and unseen. Indeed it is far wider. I have said more than once that he became flesh, not by change, but by remaining what he was and becoming what he was not. But unless this word “became” is made quite clear, it suggests change and alteration. For if he did not become flesh by taking flesh, then he became flesh by undergoing change. But the word “take” is your own invention. The evangelist says that the Word became flesh.

You seem either not to know the sacred Scripture, or to be doing it wrong on purpose. If you do not know it, I will teach you; if you are doing it wrong, I will prove it against you. Answer me, then: do you acknowledge that the teaching of the divine Paul comes from the Spirit? Certainly. And do you grant that the same Spirit worked through both the evangelists and the apostles? Yes, for that is what I have learned from the apostle’s writing: “There are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit,” and again, “All these are worked by one and the same Spirit, who gives to each person individually as he wills,” and again, “Having the same Spirit of faith.” [j]

You have brought in the apostle’s testimony at the right moment. If we say that the teaching of the evangelists and of the apostles alike comes from the same Spirit, then listen to how the apostle explains the words of the gospel. In the letter to the Hebrews he says, “For truly he did not take on himself the nature of angels, but he took on himself the seed of Abraham.” Now tell me what you mean by the seed of Abraham. Did not what belonged by nature to Abraham belong also to the seed of Abraham? [k] No, not without exception, for Christ committed no sin. Sin does not belong to nature but to a corrupt will. For this very reason I did not speak loosely of what Abraham had, but of what he had by nature, that is, a body and a rational soul. Now tell me plainly: will you acknowledge that the seed of Abraham was endowed with a body and a rational soul? If not, you agree on this point with the ravings of Apollinarius. But I will force you to confess it by other means. Tell me, now: did the Jews have a body and a rational soul? [l] Of course they did. So when we hear the prophet say, “But you, Israel, are my servant, Jacob, whom I have chosen, the seed of Abraham my friend,” are we to understand the Jews to be bodies only? Are we not to understand them as people made of bodies and souls? [m] True. And the seed of Abraham is not without a soul, nor without a mind, but has everything that marks the seed of Abraham? Whoever says that puts forward two sons. [n] But whoever says that the divine Word was changed into flesh does not acknowledge even one Son, for mere flesh by itself is not a son. We, however, confess one Son, who took on himself the seed of Abraham, as the divine apostle says, and brought about the salvation of mankind. But if you do not accept the preaching of the apostle, say so openly. But we hold that the sayings of the apostles do not agree. There seems to be a certain inconsistency between “The Word became flesh” and “He took on himself the seed of Abraham.”

It is because you lack understanding, or because you argue for the sake of arguing, that what agrees seems to disagree. It does not seem so to people who reason soundly. For the divine apostle teaches that the divine Word became flesh, not by change, but by taking on himself the seed of Abraham. At the same time he also recalls the promise given to Abraham. Or do you not remember the promises the God of the universe gave to the patriarch? What promises? When he brought him out of his father’s house and told him to come into Palestine, did he not say to him, “I will bless those who bless you, and curse him who curses you, and in your seed all the families of the earth will be blessed”? [o] I remember these promises. Remember too the covenants God made with Isaac and Jacob. He gave them the same promises as well, confirming the first by the second and the third. I remember them too. It is with these covenants in view that the divine apostle writes in his letter to the Galatians, “Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his seed. He does not say ‘seeds,’ as of many, but as of one, who is Christ.” He shows very plainly that the humanity of Christ sprang from the seed of Abraham and fulfilled the promise made to Abraham. [p] That is what the apostle says.

Enough has been said to settle the whole dispute on this point. But I will remind you of another prediction as well. The blessing given to the patriarch Jacob, and to his father and his grandfather, he passed on to his son Judah alone. He said, “A ruler will not fail from Judah, nor a leader from his loins, until the one comes for whom it is laid up, and he is the expectation of the nations.” Or do you not accept this prediction as spoken of Christ the Savior? [q] The Jews interpret prophecies of this kind wrongly. But I am a Christian. I trust in the divine word, and I accept the prophecies without doubt. Since you confess, then, that you believe the prophecies and acknowledge that the predictions about our Savior were spoken by God, consider what follows about the intent of the apostle’s words. In pointing out that the promises made to the patriarchs have been fulfilled, he spoke those remarkable words, “He did not take on himself the nature of angels.” It is almost as if he said: the promise is true; the Lord has kept his pledges; the fountain of blessing is open to the Gentiles; God has taken on himself the seed of Abraham; through it he brings about the promised salvation; through it he confirms the promise to the Gentiles. The words of the prophet fit wonderfully with those of the apostle.

So again the divine apostle, reminding us of the blessing of Judah and showing how it was fulfilled, cries out, “For it is evident that our Lord sprang from Judah.” So too the prophet Micah and the evangelist Matthew: the one spoke the prediction, and the other joins the prophecy to his account. What is extraordinary is that the evangelist says the open enemies of the truth plainly told Herod that the Christ is born in Bethlehem. “For it is written,” he says, “And you, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, are not the least among the rulers of Judah, for out of you will come a governor who will rule my people Israel.” Now let us add what the Jews in their malice left out, and so made the testimony incomplete. For the prophet, after saying, “Out of you he will come forth to me who is to be ruler in Israel,” adds, “whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.” [r] You have done well to bring forward the prophet’s whole testimony, for he shows that the one born in Bethlehem was God. Not God only, but man as well: man, as sprung from Judah according to the flesh and born in Bethlehem; and God, as existing before the ages. For the words “Out of you he will come forth to me who is to be ruler” show his birth according to the flesh, which took place in the last days, while the words “whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting” plainly proclaim his existence before the ages. In the same way the divine apostle, in his letter to the Romans, mourns the fall of the Jews from their ancient happiness. He calls to mind their divine promises and the giving of the law, and then goes on to say, “Theirs are the fathers, and from them, according to the flesh, came Christ, who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen.” In this same passage he shows him both as God, the Creator, Lord and Ruler of all things, and as man, sprung from the Jews. [s]

Well, you have explained these passages. But what would you say to the prophecy of Jeremiah? It proclaims him to be God only. Which prophecy do you mean? “This is our God, and no other will be counted beside him. He found out the whole way of knowledge, and gave it to Jacob his servant and to Israel whom he loved. Afterward he showed himself on earth and lived among men.” [t] In these words the prophet speaks neither of flesh, nor of humanity, nor of a man, but of God alone.

What then is the use of reasoning? Do we say that the divine nature is invisible? Or do we disagree with the apostle when he says, “Immortal, invisible, the only God”? Without doubt the divine nature is invisible. How then could the invisible nature be seen without a body? Or do you not remember those words of the apostle in which he plainly teaches that the divine nature is invisible? He says, “whom no one has seen or can see.” If, then, the divine nature is invisible to people, and, I will add, to angels too, tell me how the one who cannot be seen or looked upon was seen on earth. [u] The prophet says he was seen on earth. And the apostle says, “Immortal, invisible, the only God,” and “whom no one has seen or can see.” What then? Is the prophet lying? Far from it! Both sayings are the words of the Holy Spirit.

Let us inquire, then, how the invisible was seen. Please do not bring in human reasoning. I will yield to Scripture alone. You will hear no argument from me that is not backed by Holy Scripture. If you bring me any answer to the question drawn from Holy Scripture, I will accept it, and I will not contradict it at all. You know how a moment ago we made the evangelist’s words clear by the testimony of the apostle, and how the divine apostle showed us how the Word became flesh, saying plainly, “For truly he did not take on himself the nature of angels, but he took on himself the seed of Abraham.” The same teacher will teach us how the divine Word was seen on earth and lived among men. I submit to the words of both apostles and prophets. Show me, then, as you promised, the meaning of the prophecy. The divine apostle, writing to Timothy, says, “Without question, great is the mystery of godliness: God was revealed in the flesh, counted righteous in the Spirit, seen by angels, preached among the Gentiles, believed on in the world, taken up in glory.” [v] It is plain, then, that the divine nature is invisible but the flesh visible, and that through the visible the invisible was seen. By means of the flesh it worked wonders and unveiled its own power. With his hand he formed the sense of sight and healed the man who was blind from birth. He gave hearing to the deaf and freed the bound tongue, using his fingers as a tool and applying his spittle like a healing medicine. And when he walked on the sea he displayed the almighty power of the Godhead. So the apostle rightly said, “God was revealed in the flesh.” For through the flesh the invisible nature appeared, and by its means it was seen by the hosts of angels: “He was seen,” he says, “by angels.” So the nature of the bodiless beings has shared this gift with us.

Then did the angels not see God before the Savior appeared? The apostle says that he “was revealed in the flesh and seen by angels.” But the Lord said, “See that you do not despise one of these little ones, for I tell you that their angels always see the face of my Father who is in heaven.” [w] But the Lord also said, “Not that anyone has seen the Father except the one who is from God; he has seen the Father.” That is why the evangelist cries out plainly, “No one has ever seen God,” and confirms the Lord’s word, for he says, “The only Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has made him known.” And the great Moses, when he longed to see the invisible nature, heard the Lord God say, “No one will see me and live.” [x] How then are we to understand the words, “Their angels always see the face of my Father who is in heaven”? In the same way that we usually understand what is said about men who are thought to have seen God. Please make this plainer, for I do not understand. Can God be seen by men too? Certainly not.

Yet we hear the divine Scripture saying that God appeared to Abraham at the oak of Mamre. And Isaiah says, “I saw the Lord sitting on a throne, high and lifted up,” and the same thing is said by Micah, by Daniel, and by Ezekiel. And of Moses the lawgiver it is told that “the Lord spoke to Moses face to face, as a man speaks to his friend.” And the God of the universe himself said, “With him I will speak mouth to mouth, openly, and not in riddles.” What shall we say, then? Did they see the divine nature? [y] By no means. For God himself said, “No one will see me and live.” Then those who say they have seen God are liars? Far from it! They saw what it was possible for them to see. Then the Lord, in his love for humankind, suits what he shows to the capacity of those who see him? Yes. And he has shown this through the prophet. “For I,” he says, “have multiplied visions, and by the hands of the prophets I was made like.” [z] He does not say “I was seen,” but “I was made like.” And a likeness does not show the very nature of the thing seen. Even the emperor’s image does not show the emperor’s nature, though it keeps his features clearly.

This is obscure and not plain enough. Did those who saw these revelations not see the substance of God? No. Who is mad enough to dare to say so? And yet it is said that they saw. Yes, it is said. But we, using reverent reasoning and relying on the divine sayings, which cry out plainly, “No one has ever seen God,” affirm that they did not see the divine nature, but certain visions suited to their capacity. So we say. Then let us understand the angels in the same way, when we hear that they see the face of your Father every day. For what they see is not the divine substance, which cannot be bounded, comprehended, or grasped, and which embraces the universe. It is a certain glory made to the measure of their nature. That is agreed.

After the incarnation, however, he was seen by angels too, as the divine apostle says. This was not in a likeness of glory; he used the true and living covering of the flesh as a kind of curtain. “God,” he says, “was revealed in the flesh, counted righteous in the Spirit, seen by angels.” I accept this as Scripture, but I am not ready to accept new turns of phrase. What new turns of phrase have we brought in? The “curtain.” What Scripture calls the Lord’s flesh a curtain? You do not seem to be a very careful reader of your Bible. If you were, you would not have found fault with what we said as a figure of speech. First, the very fact that the divine apostle says the invisible nature was revealed through the flesh lets us understand the flesh as a curtain of the Godhead. Second, the divine apostle uses the very phrase in his letter to the Hebrews. He says, “Therefore, brothers and sisters, since we have confidence to enter the holy place by the blood of Jesus, by the new and living way that he opened for us through the curtain, that is, his flesh, and since we have a high priest over the house of God, let us draw near in truth, with a true heart, in fullness of faith.” [aa] Your proof cannot be answered, for it rests on the authority of the apostle.

Then do not accuse us of innovation. We will bring you yet another authority, a prophet, who plainly calls the Lord’s flesh a robe and a cloak. If it does not seem obscure or doubtful, we will say nothing against it, and we will thank you for it. I will make you yourself bear witness that my promise is true. You know how the patriarch Jacob, speaking to Judah, made the birth of the Lord the limit of Judah’s rule: “A ruler will not fail from Judah, nor a leader from his loins, until the one comes for whom it is laid up, and he is the expectation of the nations.” You have already confessed that this prophecy was spoken about the Savior. I have. Then remember what follows. For he says, “And to him will be the gathering of the people. He will wash his robe in wine, and his cloak in the blood of the grape.” [ab] The patriarch spoke of clothes, not of a body. Tell me, then: when or where did he wash his cloak in the blood of the grape? No, you tell me when he reddened his body in it. Please answer more reverently. Perhaps some who are not yet initiated are listening. [ac] I will both listen and answer in the language of the mysteries.

You know that the Lord called himself a vine? Yes, I know that he said, “I am the true vine.” Now what is the fruit of the vine called after it is pressed? It is called wine. When the soldiers pierced the Savior’s side with the spear, what does the evangelist say poured out of it? Blood and water. [ad] Well then, he called the Savior’s blood the blood of the grape. For if the Lord is called a vine, and the fruit of the vine is wine, and from the Lord’s side streams of blood and water flowed down over the rest of his body, then fittingly and aptly the patriarch foretells, “He will wash his robe in wine, and his cloak in the blood of the grape.” For just as we, after the consecration, call the fruit of the vine in the mysteries the Lord’s blood, so he called the blood of the true vine the blood of the grape. The point before us has been set out in the language of the mysteries, and yet clearly.

Although what has been said is enough for your faith, I will give you yet another proof to strengthen it. I will be grateful to you for doing so, for you will add to the kindness you have shown me. You know how God called his own body bread? Yes. And how in another place he called his flesh a grain of wheat? Yes, I know. For I have heard him say, “The hour has come for the Son of Man to be glorified,” and, “Unless a grain of wheat falls into the ground and dies, it remains alone; but if it dies, it bears much fruit.” [ae] Yes. And in giving the mysteries he called the bread body, and what had been mixed he called blood. [af] He did. Yet by nature the body would properly be called body, and the blood blood. Agreed. But our Savior exchanged the names. To his body he gave the name of the symbol, and to the symbol the name of his body. So, after calling himself a vine, he called the symbol blood. True. But I want to know the reason for the exchange of names. To those who are initiated into divine things the purpose is plain. He wanted those who share in the divine mysteries not to fix their attention on the nature of the things they see, but, through the exchange of names, to believe the change brought about by grace. For he who called his natural body grain and bread, and again called himself a vine, honored the visible symbols with the name of the body and blood. He did this not because he had changed their nature, but because he had added grace to their nature. The mysteries have been spoken of in the language of the mysteries, and what is not known to everyone has been plainly declared.

Since it is agreed, then, that the patriarch calls the Lord’s body a “robe” and a “cloak,” and we have come to speak of the divine mysteries, tell me truly: of what do you take the holy food to be a symbol and type? Of the Godhead of the Lord Christ, or of his body and his blood? Plainly of those things whose names they have received. You mean of the body and the blood? I do. You have spoken as a lover of truth should speak. For when the Lord had taken the symbol, he did not say, “This is my Godhead,” but, “This is my body,” and again, “This is my blood.” And in another place he said, “The bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.” [ag] These words are true, for they are the oracles of God.

If they are true, then I suppose the Lord had a body. No. I hold that he is bodiless. But you confess that he had a body? I say that the Word became flesh, for that is what I have been taught. It seems, as the proverb says, that we are drawing water in a bucket with a hole in it. After all our proofs and all our answers to your difficulties, you bring the same arguments around again. [ah] I am not giving you my own arguments, but those of the gospels. And have I not given you the meaning of the words of the gospels from the words of prophets and apostles? They do not clear up the point at issue.

And yet we showed how, though he is invisible, he was revealed through flesh, and the sacred writers have taught us the descent of this very flesh: “He took on himself the seed of Abraham.” And the Lord God said to the patriarch, “In your seed all the nations of the earth will be blessed,” and the apostle says, “It is evident that our Lord sprang from Judah.” We brought forward several other testimonies like these as well. But since you want to hear still more, listen to the apostle when he says, “For every high priest taken from among men is appointed to offer gifts and sacrifices; so it is necessary for this one also to have something to offer.” [ai] Show me, then, how he made an offering after taking a body. The divine apostle himself teaches it clearly in the very same passage. A little further on he says, “Therefore, when he comes into the world, he says, ‘Sacrifice and offering you did not desire, but a body you have prepared for me.’” He does not say, “You have changed me into a body,” but, “You have prepared a body for me.” And he shows plainly that the forming of the body was the work of the Spirit, in keeping with the saying of the gospel, “Do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife, for what is generated in her is from the Holy Spirit.” [aj] Then the Virgin gave birth only to a body? It seems you do not even understand how words are put together, much less what they mean. He is teaching Joseph the manner not of the birth but of the conception. For he does not say that what is generated of her, that is, made or formed, is from the Holy Spirit. Joseph did not know the mystery and suspected adultery, so he was plainly taught that the forming was the Spirit’s work. It is this that God meant through the prophet when he said, “A body you have prepared for me,” for the divine apostle, being full of the Spirit, explained the prediction. If, then, the offering of gifts is the special work of priests, and Christ in his humanity was called a priest and offered no sacrifice except his own body, then the Lord Christ had a body. [ak] I myself have said this again and again. I do not say that the divine Word appeared without a body. What I hold is not that he took a body, but that he became flesh.

As far as I can see, our contest is with the followers of Valentinus, of Marcion, and of Mani. But even they never had the boldness to say that the unchangeable nature underwent change into flesh. Abuse is not Christian. We are not abusing you. We are fighting for the truth, and we are annoyed that you argue over what cannot be disputed as though it could be. However, I will try to put an end to your graceless contention. Answer me now: do you remember the promises God made to David? Which ones? Those which the prophet set down in the eighty-eighth Psalm. [al] I know that many promises were made to David. Which are you asking about now? Those which refer to the Lord Christ. Recite the sayings yourself, for you promised to bring forward your proofs.

Listen, then, to how the prophet praises God at the very beginning of the psalm. With prophetic eyes he saw the future wickedness of his people, and the captivity that was decreed as its result. Yet he praised his own Lord for promises that do not fail. “I will sing of the mercies of the Lord forever,” he says; “with my mouth I will make known your faithfulness to all generations. For you have said, ‘Mercy will be built up forever; you will establish your faithfulness in the very heavens.’” [am] Through all this the prophet teaches that God made the promise out of his loving-kindness, and that the promise is faithful. Then he goes on to say what God promised, and to whom, bringing in God himself as the speaker: “I have made a covenant with my chosen.” It is the patriarchs he calls chosen. Then he goes on, “I have sworn to David my servant,” and he states what he swore about: “Your seed I will establish forever, and build up your throne to all generations.” [an] Now whom do you suppose is called the seed of David? The promise was made about Solomon.