The Unmixed, Part 2

Then hear John saying, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him nothing was made,” and so on. Hear Matthew too: “The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham,” and so on. Luke too traced his genealogy back to Abraham and David. Now make the first quotation and the second fit one nature. You will find it impossible. Existing in the beginning and descending from Abraham, making all things and coming from a forefather who was himself created, do not agree with each other. [a] By arguing this way you divide the only Son into two persons. I know and worship one Son of God, the Lord Jesus Christ. But I have been taught the difference between his Godhead and his manhood. You, though, who say that there is only one nature after the union, make this agree with the openings of the Gospels. You seem to take it for granted that the question is hard, even impossible. Let it be short and easy, I beg you. Only solve our question. Both belong to the Lord Christ: existing from the beginning, and being born according to the flesh from Abraham and David. You laid down the rule that after the union it is not right to speak of one nature. Be careful that in mentioning the flesh you do not break your own rule. Even without mentioning the flesh, the point in question is quite easy to explain, for I am applying both to Christ the Savior. I too say that both of these belong to the Lord Christ. Yes, but you say it while seeing two natures in him and giving each its own properties. If Christ is one nature, how can you assign to it properties that contradict one another? To have come from Abraham and David, and still more to have been born many generations after David, does not agree with existing in the beginning. Again, to have sprung from created beings does not agree with being Creator of all things, and to have had human fathers does not agree with having one’s existence from God. In short, the new does not agree with the eternal.

Let us look at the matter this way too. Do we say that the divine Word is Creator of the universe? That is what we have learned to believe from the divine Scriptures. And how many days after the making of heaven and earth are we told that Adam was formed? On the sixth day. And how many generations went by from Adam to Abraham? Twenty, I think. And how many generations does Matthew the evangelist count from Abraham to Christ our Savior? Forty-two. [b] If, then, the Lord Christ is one nature, how can he be Creator of all things visible and invisible, and at the same time, after so many generations, have been formed by the Holy Spirit in a virgin’s womb? And how could he be at one and the same time the Creator of Adam and the son of Adam’s descendants? I have already said that both of these belong to him as God made flesh, for I acknowledge one nature of the Word made flesh. Nor do we say, my good sir, that two natures of the divine Word were made flesh. We know that the nature of the divine Word is one. But we have been taught that the flesh he took up when he became incarnate is of another nature, and on this, I think, you agree with me too. Now tell me: in what way do you say the becoming flesh took place? I do not know the way, but I believe that he was made flesh. You hide behind your ignorance unfairly, the way the Pharisees did. When they saw the force of the Lord’s question and suspected that they were about to be proved wrong, they answered, “We do not know.” But I declare quite openly that the divine incarnation took place without change. For if he was made flesh by some alteration or change, then after the change everything divine in his names and in his deeds no longer fits him at all. [c] We have agreed again and again that God the Word cannot change. He was made flesh by taking flesh. Yes. The nature of God the Word made flesh is different from the nature of the flesh, by the taking of which the nature of the divine Word was made flesh and became man. Agreed. Was he, then, changed into flesh? Certainly not.

If, then, he was made flesh not by change but by taking flesh, and both the first set of qualities and the second belong to him as to God made flesh, as you said a moment ago, then the natures were not confused but remained whole. As long as we hold to this, we will also see how the evangelists agree. One proclaims the divine qualities of the only Son, the Lord Christ; the other sets out his human qualities. Christ our Lord himself teaches us the same thing. At one time he calls himself Son of God, at another Son of Man. At one time he honors his mother as the one who gave him birth; at another he rebukes her as her Lord. At one time he finds no fault with those who call him Son of David; at another he teaches the ignorant that he is not only David’s son but also David’s Lord. He calls Nazareth and Capernaum his home town, and again he cries out, “Before Abraham was, I am.” You will find the divine Scripture full of passages like these, and they all point not to one nature but to two. [d] Whoever sees two natures in Christ divides the one only Son into two sons. Yes, and whoever says that Paul is made up of soul and body makes two Pauls out of one. The comparison does not hold. I know it does not. In Paul the union is a natural union of parts that came into being together, both created and both fellow slaves. But in the case of the Lord Christ everything comes from good will, from love for humankind, and from grace. And here, even though the union is natural, the proper qualities of the natures remain whole. [e]

If the proper qualities of the natures remain distinct, how does the soul, together with the body, crave food? The soul does not crave food. How could it, when it is immortal? But the body, which gets its life from the soul, feels its need and wants to receive what it lacks. So after toil it longs for rest, after waking for sleep, and so on with the rest of its desires. That is why, as soon as it is dissolved and no longer has its life force, it no longer even craves what it lacks; it stops receiving it and decays. You see that thirst and hunger and appetites like them belong to the soul. If they belonged to the soul, it would suffer hunger and thirst and the other needs even after its release from the body. Then what do you say is proper to the soul? To be rational, simple, immortal, invisible. [f] And what is proper to the body? To be compound, visible, mortal. And we say that a human being is made up of these? Yes. Then we define a human being as a mortal rational living creature. Agreed. And we name him from both of these qualities. Yes. Then just as in this case we make no distinction, but call the same human being both rational and mortal, so too we should do in the case of Christ, and apply to him both the divine and the human. That is our own argument, though you do not put it accurately. Look at it this way. When we are discussing the human soul, do we mention only what belongs to its activity and nature? Only that. And when our discussion is about the body, do we not mention only what belongs to it? Quite so. But when our talk turns to the whole being, then we have no difficulty in bringing in both sets of qualities, for the properties of both the body and the soul apply to a human being. Without question. Well, that is exactly how we should speak of Christ. When we are arguing about his natures, we should give to each its own, and recognize some things as belonging to the Godhead and some to the manhood. But when we are discussing the person, we must make what is proper to the natures common, and apply both sets of qualities to the Savior, and call the same one both God and man, both Son of God and Son of Man, both David’s son and David’s Lord, both seed of Abraham and Creator of Abraham, and so on.

You have said quite rightly that the person of Christ is one and that both the divine and the human can be said of him, and I accept this definition of the faith. But your real position, that in discussing the natures we must give each its own properties, seems to me to dissolve the union. That is why I refuse to accept these arguments and others like them. Yet when we were asking about soul and body you thought this distinction of terms excellent, and gave it your approval at once. Why, then, do you refuse to accept the same rule in the case of the Godhead and manhood of the Lord Christ? Do you go so far as to object to comparing the Godhead and manhood of Christ to soul and body? So while you grant soul and body a union without confusion, do you dare to say that the Godhead and manhood of Christ have undergone mixing and confusion? I hold that the Godhead of Christ, yes, and his flesh too, are infinitely higher in honor than soul and body. But after the union I do say one nature. But is it not impious and shocking to maintain that a soul united to a body undergoes no confusion at all, and then to deny to the Godhead of the Lord of the universe the power to keep its own nature unconfused, and to keep within its proper bounds the humanity he took up? Is it not impious, I say, to mix what is distinct and to blend what is separate? The idea of one nature gives grounds for suspecting this confusion. I am just as eager to avoid the word “confusion.” But I shrink from saying two natures in case I fall into a doubling of sons. I am just as eager to escape both sides of the trap, both the impious confusion and the impious division. To me it is equally unholy to split the one Son in two and to deny that the natures are two. But now, in the name of truth, tell me this. Suppose someone of the party of Arius or Eunomius, arguing with you, tried to belittle the Son and to describe him as less than the Father and inferior to him, using all their familiar arguments and quoting from the divine Scripture the text, “Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from me,” and the other, “Now my soul is troubled,” and other passages like them. How would you deal with his objections? How could you show that the Son loses nothing of his dignity by these words, and is not of another substance, but begotten of the substance of the Father? [g] I would say that the divine Scripture uses some words with reference to his Godhead and some with reference to the plan of salvation, and that it is wrong to apply what belongs to the plan of salvation to what belongs to his Godhead. [h] But your opponent would answer that even in the Old Testament the divine Scripture says many things by way of accommodation, for instance, “Adam heard the voice of the Lord God walking,” and, “I will go down now and see whether they have done altogether according to the outcry against it that has come to me; and if not, I will know,” and again, “Now I know that you fear God,” and the like. [i] I might answer that there is a great difference between the two kinds of accommodation. In the Old Testament there is an accommodation of words; in the New Testament, one of deeds. Then your opponent would ask, “What deeds?” He will hear at once about the deeds of the becoming flesh. When the Son of God became man, both in word and in deed he shows at one time the flesh, at another the Godhead. So, of course, in the passage quoted he shows the weakness of the flesh and of the soul, namely the feeling of fear.

But suppose he went on to say, “But he did not take a soul, only a body. The Godhead, united to the body in place of a soul, performed all the soul’s work.” With what arguments could you meet his objections? I could bring proofs from the divine Scripture showing that God the Word took not only flesh but also a soul. And what proofs of this will we find in Scripture? Have you not heard the Lord saying, “I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it up again. I lay it down of myself, so that I may take it up again”? And again, “Now my soul is troubled.” And again, “My soul is very sorrowful, even to death.” And again David’s words as Peter interprets them: “His soul was not left in Hades, nor did his flesh see decay.” These and similar passages clearly show that God the Word took up not only a body but also a soul. [j] You have quoted this testimony very aptly and properly. But your opponent might reply that even before the incarnation God said to the Jews, “Fasting and holy days and feasts my soul hates.” Then he might go on to argue that as in the Old Testament he spoke of a soul, though he had no soul, so he does in the New. [k] But he will be told in turn that the divine Scripture, when it speaks of God, mentions even parts of the body, as in “Incline your ear and hear,” and, “Open your eyes and see,” and, “The mouth of the Lord has spoken it,” and, “Your hands have made me and fashioned me,” and countless other passages. [l] If, then, after the incarnation we are forbidden to take “soul” to mean a soul, we are equally forbidden to take “body” to mean a body. In that case the great mystery of the plan of salvation will turn out to be mere imagination, and we will be no different from Marcion, Valentinus and Mani, the inventors of all these fictions. [m] But suppose a follower of Apollinarius suddenly broke into our discussion and asked, “Most excellent sir, what kind of soul do you say Christ took up?” What would you answer? [n] I would say first of all that I know of only one human soul. Then I would answer, “But if you count two souls, one rational and the other without reason, I say that the soul he took up was the rational one. Yours, it seems, is the one without reason, since you think our salvation was left incomplete.” But suppose he asked for proof of what you say? I could give it very easily. I would quote the sayings of the evangelists: “The child Jesus grew and became strong in spirit, and the grace of God was upon him,” and again, “Jesus increased in wisdom and in stature, and in favor with God and men.” I would say that these have nothing to do with the Godhead, for the body increased in stature, and the soul in wisdom, and not the soul without reason but the rational one. So God the Word took on himself a rational soul. [o]

My good sir, you have bravely broken through the threefold battle line of your enemies. But that union of yours, and the famous mixing and confusion, you have scattered and undone, not in two ways only but in three. You have not only pointed out the distinction between Godhead and manhood; you have divided the manhood in two as well, by pointing out that the soul is one thing and the body another. So now, on your argument, not two but three natures of our Savior Jesus Christ may be understood. Yes. Did you not say yourself that the soul is a different substance from the nature of the body? Yes. Then how does the argument seem absurd to you? Because while you object to two natures, you have admitted three. The fight with our opponents forces this on us. How else could anyone argue against those who deny that he took up the flesh, or the soul, or the mind, except by bringing proofs on these points from the divine Scripture? And how could anyone refute those who are so eager to belittle the Godhead of the only Son, except by pointing out that the divine Scripture speaks sometimes of his Godhead and sometimes of the plan of salvation? What you say now is true. It is what I say, or rather what everyone says who keeps the apostolic rule whole. You yourself have become a defender of our teaching. How am I defending yours, when I refuse to acknowledge two sons? When did you ever hear us say two sons? Whoever says two natures says two sons. Then you say three sons, for you have spoken of three natures. There was no other way to meet my opponents’ argument. Then hear the same thing from us too, for you and I face the same opponents. But I do not say two natures after the union. And yet a moment ago, speaking of a time many generations after the union, you used these very words. But explain to us in what sense you say one nature after the union. Do you mean one nature made out of both, or that one nature remains after the other is destroyed? [p] I hold that the Godhead remains and that the manhood was swallowed up by it. [q] All this is the fables of the pagans and the follies of the Manichaeans. I am ashamed even to mention such things. The Greeks had their tales of gods swallowed whole, and the Manichaeans wrote about the daughter of light. But we reject such teaching as absurd as well as impious. For how could a nature that is simple and uncompounded, that holds the universe, that cannot be approached and has no limit, have swallowed up the nature it took up? [r] Like the sea taking in a drop of honey. The drop disappears at once as it mingles with the ocean’s water.

The sea and the drop differ in quantity, though they are alike in quality. One is very great, the other very small; one is sweet and the other bitter. But in every other respect you will find a very close kinship. The nature of both is wet, liquid and flowing. Both are created. Both are lifeless, and yet each alike is called a body. So there is nothing absurd in these related natures mixing together, and in one being made to disappear by the other. In the case before us, on the other hand, the difference is infinite, so great that no picture of the reality can be found. Still, I will try to show you several examples of substances that are mixed without being confused, and remain whole. Who in the world ever heard of an unmixed mixture? I will try to make you admit it. If what you are about to put forward proves true, we will not oppose the truth. Then answer, disagreeing or agreeing as the argument seems right to you. I will answer. When the light rises, does it seem to you to fill all the air, except where people shut up in caves might be left without it? Yes. And does all the light seem to you to be spread through all the air? I am with you so far. And is not a mixture spread through everything that receives it? Certainly. Now this air that the light shines through: do we not see it as light, and call it light? Quite so. And yet while the light is present we are sometimes aware of dampness and dryness, and often of heat and cold. Yes. And after the light has gone, the air remains by itself. True. Consider this example too. When iron is put into fire, it becomes fiery. Certainly. And the fire is spread through its whole substance? What of it? Then does not the complete union, the mixture spread all through it, change the iron’s nature? But it changes it altogether. It is no longer counted as iron but as fire, and in fact it has the active powers of fire. But does the smith not call it iron, and put it on the anvil and strike it with his hammer? Without question. Then the nature of the iron was not damaged by contact with the fire. So if among natural bodies we can find examples of a mixture without confusion, it is sheer folly, in the case of the nature that knows neither decay nor change, to entertain the idea that the nature it took up was confused and destroyed, and all the more so when this nature was taken up to bring blessing to our race.

What I say is not that the nature he took up was destroyed, but that it was changed into the substance of the Godhead. Then the human race is no longer limited as it was before? [s] No. When did it undergo this change? After the complete union. And what time do you set for that? I have said again and again: the time of the conception. Yet after the conception he was an unborn baby in the womb. After his birth he was a baby and was called a baby, and was worshiped by shepherds. In the same way he became a young child, and the angel called him so. Do you acknowledge all this, or do you think I am making up fables? [t] This is taught in the account of the divine Gospels, and it cannot be denied. Now let us look into what follows. We acknowledge, do we not, that the Lord was circumcised? Yes. What was circumcised: the flesh or the Godhead? The flesh. And what was it that grew and increased in wisdom and stature? This, of course, does not apply to the Godhead. Nor hunger and thirst? No. Nor walking from place to place, and being weary, and falling asleep? No. If, then, the union took place at the conception, and all these things happened after the conception and the birth, then after the union the manhood did not lose its own nature. I did not state my meaning exactly. It was after the resurrection from the dead that the flesh was changed into Godhead. Then after the resurrection nothing remained in it of all that shows its nature? If anything remained, the divine change did not take place. Then how was it that he showed his hands and his feet to the disciples who did not believe? In the same way that he came in when the doors were shut. But he came in when the doors were shut just as he came out of the womb while the bolts and bars of the virgin were left undrawn, and just as he walked on the sea. Then by your argument the change of nature had not taken place even then? The Lord showed his hands to the apostles in the same way that he wrestled with Jacob. [u]

No. The Lord does not let us understand it in that sense. The disciples thought they were seeing a spirit, but the Lord drove that idea away and showed the nature of the flesh. For he said, “Why are you troubled, and why do doubts arise in your hearts? See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself. Touch me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones, as you see that I have.” And notice how exact the language is. He does not say “is not flesh and bones,” but “does not have flesh and bones,” to show that the nature of the one who has and the nature of what is had are distinct and separate. In just the same way, what took and what was taken are separate and distinct, and Christ is seen as one made from both. So the part that has is entirely different from the part that is had, and yet this does not divide into two persons the one who is known in them. Indeed, while the disciples were still in doubt, the Lord asked for food, and took it and ate it. He did not eat the food in mere appearance, nor to satisfy a need of the body. [v] But one of these alternatives must be accepted. Either he ate because he needed to, or else, needing nothing, he seemed to eat and did not really take food. His body, now made immortal, needed no food. Of those who rise the Lord says, “They neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels.” Yet the apostles bear witness that he took food. The blessed Luke, in the preface to the Acts, says, “Being assembled together with the apostles, the Lord commanded them not to depart from Jerusalem,” and the most divine Peter says it more plainly: “who ate and drank with him after he rose from the dead.” Since eating belongs to those who live this present life, the Lord had to prove the resurrection of the flesh, by eating and drinking, to those who did not believe it was real. He did the same in the case of Lazarus and of Jairus’s daughter. When he had raised the girl, he ordered that she be given something to eat; and he had Lazarus sit at table with him, and so showed that the rising again was real. [w] If we grant that the Lord really ate, let us grant that after the resurrection all people will take food. What the Savior did by a special arrangement is not a rule and law of nature. This is clear from the fact that by the same kind of arrangement he did other things that will in no way be the lot of those who live again. What do you mean? Will not the bodies of those who rise become incorruptible and immortal? That is what the divine Paul has taught us. “It is sown in corruption,” he says, “it is raised in incorruption. It is sown in dishonor; it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness; it is raised in power. It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body.” [x] But the Lord, who raises the bodies of all people whole and unmarred (for lame limbs and blind eyes are unknown among those who have risen), left in his own body the prints of the nails and the wound in his side. The Lord himself and the hand of Thomas are witnesses of this. True. If, then, after the resurrection the Lord both took food and showed his disciples his hands and his feet with the prints of the nails in them, and his side with the mark of the wound, and said to them, “Touch me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones, as you see that I have,” it follows that after his resurrection the nature of his body was kept, and was not changed into another substance. [y]

Then after the resurrection it is mortal and capable of suffering? By no means. It is incorruptible, beyond suffering, and immortal. If it is incorruptible, beyond suffering, and immortal, it has been changed into another nature. Then the bodies of all people will be changed into another substance, for all will be incorruptible and immortal. Or have you not heard the words of the Apostle, “For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality”? [z] I have heard them. So the nature remains, but its corruption is changed into incorruption, and its mortality into immortality. But let us look at the matter this way. A body that is sick and a body that is healthy we call, in the same way, a body. Without question. Why? Because both share the same substance. Yet we see a very great difference between them. One is healthy, complete and unhurt. The other has lost an eye, or has a broken leg, or has suffered some other injury. But health and sickness both belong to the same nature. So the body is called substance, and disease and health are called accident. [aa] Of course. For these things happen to the body and then cease again. In the same way, corruption and death must be called accidents and not substances, for they too happen to the body and cease again. True. So the body of the Lord rose incorruptible, beyond suffering and immortal, and is worshiped by the powers of heaven; and yet it is a body, with the same bounds it had before. On these points you seem to speak the truth. But after it was taken up into heaven, I do not think you will deny that it was changed into the nature of Godhead. I would not say so if I were persuaded only by human arguments, for I am not so rash as to say anything on which the divine Scripture is silent. But I have heard the divine Paul crying out, “God has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by the man whom he has appointed, and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead.” And I have learned from the holy angels that he will come in the same way as the disciples saw him go into heaven. Now they saw his nature as limited, not unlimited. For I have heard the words of the Lord, “You will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven,” and I acknowledge that what people can see is limited, for the unlimited nature is invisible. Besides, to sit on a throne of glory and to set the lambs on the right and the young goats on the left indicates limitation. [ab] Then he was not unlimited even before the incarnation, for the prophet saw him surrounded by the seraphim. [ac] The prophet did not see the substance of God, but an appearance suited to what he was able to receive. After the resurrection, however, the whole world will see the actual visible nature of the Judge. You promised that you would put forward no argument without evidence, but you are bringing in arguments suited to us. [ad] I have learned these things from the divine Scripture. I have heard the words of the prophet Zechariah, “They will look on him whom they pierced.” And how will the event match the prophecy unless those who crucified him recognize the nature they crucified? And I have heard the cry of Stephen, the victorious martyr: “Look, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God.” He saw the visible nature, not the invisible. [ae]

These things are written so. But I do not think you will be able to show that the inspired writers call it a body after the ascension into heaven. What has already been said shows the body perfectly plainly, for what is seen is a body. Still, I will point out to you that even after it was taken up, the body of the Lord is called a body. Hear the teaching of the Apostle: “For our citizenship is in heaven, from which we also wait for the Savior, the Lord Jesus, who will change our lowly body so that it may be shaped like his glorious body.” It was not changed into another nature, but remained a body, full of divine glory, however, and sending out rays of light. The bodies of the saints will be shaped like it. But if it was changed into another nature, their bodies will be changed in the same way, for they will be shaped like it. And if the bodies of the saints keep the character of their nature, then the body of the Lord likewise keeps its own nature unchanged. [af] Then will the bodies of the saints be equal to the body of the Lord? They too will share in its incorruption and its immortality. They will share in its glory as well, as the Apostle says: “If indeed we suffer with him, so that we may also be glorified together.” The vast difference is found in degree, a difference as great as that between the sun and the stars, or rather between a master and his slaves, between what gives light and what receives it. Yet he has given his servants a share of his own name. As he is light, he calls his saints light: “You,” he says, “are the light of the world.” And being himself named “the Sun of Righteousness,” he says of his servants, “Then the righteous will shine like the sun.” So it is in kind, not in degree, that the bodies of the saints will be shaped like the body of the Lord. Now I have shown you plainly what you asked of me. Next, if you like, let us look at the matter in yet another way. [ag] One ought to “turn every stone,” as the proverb says, to get at the truth, above all when the question is about divine teaching. [ah]

Tell me now: the symbols of the mysteries that are offered to God by those who perform the priestly rites, what are they symbols of? Of the body and blood of the Lord. Of the real body, or not? The real one. Good. For there must be an original of which the image is made. So painters imitate nature and paint images of visible things. True. If, then, the divine mysteries are antitypes of the real body, then even now the body of the Lord is a body, not changed into the nature of Godhead, but filled with divine glory. [ai] You have brought up the divine mysteries at just the right moment, for from them I will be able to show you that the Lord’s body was changed into another nature. Now answer my questions. I will answer. What do you call the gift that is offered, before the priest’s invocation? It would be wrong to say it openly. Perhaps some who are not yet initiated are present. [aj] Then put your answer in a riddle. A food made from a certain grain. And what do we call the other symbol? This name too is an ordinary one, meaning a kind of drink. And after the consecration, what do you call them? Christ’s body and Christ’s blood. And do you believe that you partake of Christ’s body and blood? I do. Then just as the symbols of the Lord’s body and blood are one thing before the priest’s invocation, and after the invocation are changed and become another thing, so the Lord’s body, after it was taken up, was changed into the divine substance. You are caught in the net you wove yourself. Even after the consecration the symbols of the mysteries are not stripped of their own nature. They remain in their former substance, shape and form; they can be seen and touched as they could before. But they are understood to be what they have become, and are believed to be so, and are worshiped as being what they are believed to be. So set the image beside the original, and you will see the likeness, for the type must be like the reality. That body keeps its former form, shape and limits, in a word, the substance of a body. But after the resurrection it has become immortal and beyond the reach of corruption. It has become worthy of a seat at the right hand, and it is worshiped by every creature, being called the natural body of the Lord. [ak] Yes, and the symbol of the mysteries changes its former name. It is no longer called by the name it had before, but is called body. So the reality too must be called God, and not body. You seem to me not to know this: he is called not only body but even bread of life. The Lord himself used this name. And that very body we call a divine body, life-giving, the body of the Master and of the Lord, teaching that it is not common to everyone but belongs to our Lord Jesus Christ, who is God and man. For “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever.” [al]

You have said a great deal about this. But I follow the saints who shone in the church in times past. So show me, if you can, these men in their writings dividing the natures after the union. I will read you their works, and I am sure you will be astonished at how many times they draw the distinction in their writings, in their struggle against impious heretics. Hear now the same men whose testimony I have already brought forward, speaking openly and distinctly on these points. The testimony of the holy Ignatius, bishop of Antioch and martyr. [am] From the letter to the Smyrnaeans: “I acknowledge and believe that after his resurrection he is in the flesh. And when he came to Peter and those with him, he said to them, ‘Take hold of me, touch me and see, for I am not a bodiless spirit.’ And at once they took hold of him and believed.” [an] From the same writer, in the same letter: “And after his resurrection he ate with them and drank with them as one of flesh, although in spirit he was united with the Father.”

The testimony of Irenaeus, the ancient bishop of Lyons. [ao] From the third book of his work Against Heresies, chapter 20: “As we have said before, he united man to God. For if a man had not overcome man’s adversary, the enemy would not have been rightly overcome. And again, if God had not given salvation, we would not hold it securely. And if man had not been united to God, he could not have shared in incorruption. For the mediator between God and men had, by his kinship with each, to bring both into friendship and agreement, to bring man close to God, and to make God known to men.” From the same writer, in the third book of the same work, chapter 18: “So again in his letter he says, ‘Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God,’ recognizing one and the same Jesus Christ, for whom the gates of heaven were opened because he was taken up in the flesh, and who will come in the same flesh in which he also suffered, revealing the glory of the Father.” [ap] From the same writer, in the fourth book, chapter 7: “As Isaiah says, ‘Those who come from Jacob he will cause to take root; Israel will blossom and bud, and fill the face of the world with fruit.’ So, as his fruit has been scattered through the whole world, those who once bore good fruit (for from them came Christ in the flesh, and the apostles) were abandoned and removed, and now they are no longer fit to bear fruit.” [aq] From the same writer, in the same book, chapter 59: “He also judges the followers of Ebion. How can they be saved unless it was God who worked their salvation on earth? Or how will man come to God unless God came to man?” [ar] From the same writer, in the same book, chapter 64: “Those who preach that Emmanuel came from the Virgin set forth the union of God the Word with his creature.” From the same writer, in the same work, book 5, chapter 1: “Now these things did not happen in mere appearance but in actual truth. For if he appeared to be a man when he was not a man, then the Spirit of God did not remain what in truth it is, for the Spirit is invisible; nor was there any truth in him, for he was not what he appeared to be. And we have said before that Abraham and the rest of the prophets saw him in a prophetic way, prophesying what was going to happen in actual sight. If, then, now too he appeared to be such, when in reality he was not what he appeared to be, then a kind of prophetic vision would have been given to men, and we must still wait for yet another coming, in which he will really be what he is now seen to be in prophecy. Now we have shown that there is no difference between saying that he only appeared in seeming and saying that he took nothing from Mary. For he did not really have flesh and blood, by which he redeemed us, unless he renewed in himself the ancient creation of Adam. So the followers of Valentinus are foolish to teach this, in order to cast out the life of the flesh.”

The testimony of the holy Hippolytus, bishop and martyr, from his work on the distribution of the talents: [as] “Someone might say that these and those who hold the opposite view are neighbors, since they go wrong in the same way. For they either confess that Christ appeared in this life as a mere man, denying the talent of his Godhead; or else, acknowledging him as God, they deny the man, teaching that he deceived the eyes of those who saw him with unreal appearances, and that he wore manhood not as a man but was rather a mere imaginary likeness, as Marcion and Valentinus and the Gnostics teach. They tear the Word away from the flesh and throw away the one talent, the incarnation.” From the same writer, in his letter to a certain queen: [at] “He calls him ‘the first fruits of those who have fallen asleep,’ as being ‘the firstborn from the dead.’ And after his resurrection, wishing to show that what had risen was the same as what had died, when the disciples were doubting, he called Thomas to him and said, ‘Come here, touch me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and blood, as you see that I have.’” [au] From the same writer, in his discourse on Elkanah and Hannah: “That is why three seasons of the year foreshadowed the Savior himself, so that he might fulfill the mysteries foretold about him. At the Passover, so that he might show himself as the sheep destined to be sacrificed, and show the true Passover, as the Apostle says, ‘Christ, God, our Passover, was sacrificed for us.’ At Pentecost, so that he might proclaim the kingdom of heaven, going up first himself into heaven and offering man to God as a gift.” [av] From the same writer, in his work on the great Psalm: [aw]