To Epictetus

To my lord, my beloved brother and most longed-for fellow minister Epictetus, Athanasius sends greeting in the Lord. I thought that all the empty talk of all the heretics, however many they may be, had been stopped by the synod held at Nicaea. For the faith confessed there by the fathers, in keeping with the divine Scriptures, is enough by itself to overthrow all ungodliness at once, and to establish godly belief in Christ. That is why, at the present time, when various synods have met in Gaul and Spain and great Rome, all who came together, as though moved by one spirit, unanimously anathematized those who were still secretly siding with Arius: namely Auxentius of Milan, Ursacius, Valens, and Gaius of Pannonia. And they wrote everywhere that, since these men were making up names of synods to cite on their side, no synod should be cited in the catholic church except the one held at Nicaea. That synod was a monument of victory over every heresy, but especially over the Arian heresy, which was the main reason it met when it did. How, then, after all this, are some people trying to raise doubts and questions? If they belong to the Arians, it is no wonder that they find fault with what was drawn up against them, just as the pagans, when they hear that “the idols of the nations are silver and gold, the work of human hands,” think the teaching of the divine cross is foolishness. But if those who want to reopen everything by raising questions belong to those who think they believe rightly, and who love what the fathers declared, they are simply doing what the prophet describes: giving their neighbor muddy confusion to drink, and fighting about words to no good purpose, except to overturn the simple. [a]

I write this after reading the memoranda your piety sent, which I could wish had never been written at all, so that not even a record of these things would go down to later generations. For who ever heard anything like it? Who ever taught it, or learned it? “Out of Zion the law of God will go forth, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem”; but where did this come from? What region below has vomited up the statement that the body born of Mary is of one substance with the Godhead of the Word? Or that the Word has been changed into flesh, bones, hair and the whole body, and altered from his own nature? Or who ever heard, in a church or even from Christians, that the Lord wore a body only in appearance and not in nature? Or who ever went so far in ungodliness as to say and hold that this Godhead, which is of one substance with the Father, was circumcised and became imperfect instead of perfect, and that what hung on the tree was not the body, but the very creating substance and Wisdom? Or who, hearing someone say that the Word transformed for himself a body able to suffer, not from Mary but from his own substance, could call the one who said it a Christian? Or who devised this abominable ungodliness, so that it even entered his imagination, and he said that to declare the Lord’s body to be from Mary is to hold a Tetrad instead of a Triad in the Godhead? Those who think this way say that the body of the Savior, which he put on from Mary, is of the substance of the Triad. Or again, from where have certain people vomited up an ungodliness as great as those already mentioned, saying that the body is not newer than the Godhead of the Word, but was always coeternal with it, since it was compounded of the substance of Wisdom? Or how did men called Christians dare even to doubt whether the Lord, who came forth from Mary, while Son of God by substance and nature, is of the seed of David according to the flesh, and of the flesh of the holy Mary? Or who have been so bold as to say that the Christ who suffered in the flesh and was crucified is not Lord, Savior, God, and Son of the Father? Or how can they wish to be called Christians who say that the Word came down on a holy man as on one of the prophets, and did not himself become man by taking the body from Mary, but that Christ is one person, while the Word of God, who before Mary and before the ages was Son of the Father, is another? Or how can they be Christians who say that the Son is one, and the Word of God another? [e]

Such were the contents of the memoranda: various statements, but one in their sense and in their meaning, and all tending to ungodliness. It was over these things that men who pride themselves on the confession of the fathers drawn up at Nicaea were disputing and quarreling with one another. But I am amazed that your piety put up with it, and that you did not stop those who said such things and set the right faith before them, so that on hearing it they might hold their peace, or, if they opposed it, might be counted as heretics. For these statements are not fit for Christians to make or to hear; on the contrary, they are in every way foreign to the apostolic teaching. That is why, as I said above, I have had what they say set down plainly in my letter, so that anyone who merely hears it may see the shame and ungodliness it contains. And although it would be right to denounce and expose in full the folly of those who have had such ideas, it would still be good to close my letter here and write no more. For what is so plainly shown to be evil need not take up more time in being exposed, or contentious people may think the matter doubtful. It is enough simply to answer such things this way: we are content with the fact that this is not the teaching of the catholic church, and the fathers did not hold it. But so that the “inventors of evil things” may not make our complete silence an excuse for shamelessness, it will be well to mention a few points from Holy Scripture, in case even this may put them to shame, and they may give up these foul schemes. [j]

Where did you get the idea, sirs, of saying that the body is of one substance with the Godhead of the Word? It is well to begin at this point, so that by showing this opinion to be unsound, all the others too may be proved to be the same. Now from the divine Scriptures we find nothing of the kind. For they say that God came in a human body. But the fathers who assembled at Nicaea also say that it is not the body but the Son himself who is of one substance with the Father, and that while he is from the substance of the Father, the body, as they acknowledged in keeping with the Scriptures, is from Mary. So either deny the Synod of Nicaea and, as heretics, bring in your teaching from outside; or, if you wish to be children of the fathers, do not hold the opposite of what they wrote. For here again you may see how monstrous it is. If the Word is of one substance with the body, which is of an earthly nature, while the Word is, by your own confession, of one substance with the Father, it will follow that even the Father himself is of one substance with the body produced from the earth. And why go on blaming the Arians for calling the Son a creature, when you go off into another form of ungodliness, saying that the Word was changed into flesh and bones and hair and muscles and the whole body, and was altered from his own nature? It is time for you to say openly that he was born of earth, for the nature of the bones and of the whole body is from earth. What, then, is this great folly of yours, that you fight even with one another? For in saying that the Word is of one substance with the body, you mark them off as two distinct things, while in saying that he has been changed into flesh, you imagine a change in the Word himself. And who will put up with you any longer if you so much as utter these opinions? For you have gone further in ungodliness than any heresy. If the Word is of one substance with the body, then the commemoration of Mary and her work are superfluous, since the body could have existed before Mary, just as the Word also is eternal — if, that is, he is of one substance with the body, as you say. Or what need was there even for the Word to come among us, to put on what was of one substance with himself, or to change his own nature and become a body? For the Deity does not take hold of itself, so as to put on what is of its own substance, any more than the Word sinned, since it is he who ransoms the sins of others, so that by changing into a body he should offer himself as a sacrifice for himself, and ransom himself. [k]

But this is not so; far from it. For he “takes hold of the seed of Abraham,” as the apostle said; that is why he had to be made like his brothers in all things, and to take a body like ours. This is why Mary is truly presupposed: so that he may take the body from her, and offer it for us as his own. Isaiah pointed to this in his prophecy, in the words, “Behold, the virgin,” while Gabriel is sent to her — not simply to a virgin, but “to a virgin betrothed to a man,” so that by means of the man she was betrothed to he might show that Mary was really a human being. And for this reason Scripture also mentions her giving birth, and tells of her wrapping him in swaddling clothes; and that is why the breasts he nursed at were called blessed. And he was offered as a sacrifice, since the one who was born had opened the womb. Now all these things are proofs that the virgin gave birth. And Gabriel brought her the good news without any uncertainty, saying not merely “what is born in you,” so that the body would not be thought to have been brought into her from outside, but “of you,” so that what was born might be believed to be naturally from her. For nature clearly shows that it is impossible for a virgin to produce milk unless she has given birth, and impossible for a body to be nourished with milk and wrapped in swaddling clothes unless it has first been naturally born. This is the meaning of his being circumcised on the eighth day, of Simeon taking him in his arms, of his becoming a young child and growing when he was twelve years old, and of his coming to his thirtieth year. For it was not, as some suppose, the very substance of the Word that was changed and was circumcised, because it is incapable of alteration or change. For the Savior himself says, “Behold, behold, it is I, and I do not change,” while Paul writes, “Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, and today, and forever.” But in the body that was circumcised and carried, that ate and drank, that was weary, and was nailed on the tree and suffered, there was the Word of God, who cannot suffer and has no body. It was this body that was laid in a grave, when the Word had gone out of it, yet without being parted from it, to preach, as Peter says, also to the spirits in prison. [l]

And this above all shows the foolishness of those who say that the Word was changed into bones and flesh. For if this had been so, there would have been no need of a tomb. The body would have gone by itself to preach to the spirits in Hades. But as it was, he himself went to preach, while Joseph wrapped the body in a linen cloth and laid it away at Golgotha. And so it is shown to everyone that the body was not the Word, but the body of the Word. And it was this body that Thomas handled when it had risen from the dead, and he saw in it the marks of the nails, which the Word himself had undergone, seeing them fixed in his own body and, though able to prevent it, not doing so. On the contrary, the Word, who has no body, made the properties of the body his own, since it was his own body. Why, when the body was struck by the attendant, he asked as one who was suffering himself, “Why do you strike me?” And though by nature he cannot be touched, the Word still said, “I gave my back to the whips, and my cheeks to blows, and I did not hide my face from shame and spitting.” For what the human body of the Word suffered, the Word, dwelling in the body, ascribed to himself, so that we might be enabled to share in the Godhead of the Word. And truly it is a wonder that it was he who suffered and yet did not suffer. He suffered, because his own body suffered, and he was in it as it suffered; he did not suffer, because the Word, being God by nature, cannot suffer. And while he, who has no body, was in the body that could suffer, the body had in it the Word who could not suffer, who was destroying the weaknesses that belonged to the body. But he did this, and so it was, in order that by taking what was ours and offering it as a sacrifice, he might do away with it, and in turn might clothe us with what was his, and make the apostle say, “This corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.” [o]

Now this did not happen only in appearance, as some have supposed — far from it. The Savior truly became man, and so the salvation of the whole man was brought about. For if the Word was in the body only in appearance, as they say — and by “in appearance” is meant imaginary — it follows that both the salvation and the resurrection of man are only apparent, as the utterly ungodly Manichaeus held. But truly our salvation is not merely apparent, nor does it extend to the body only; the whole man, body and soul alike, has truly obtained salvation in the Word himself. That which was born of Mary, then, was human by nature, according to the divine Scriptures, and the body of the Lord was a real one. It was real because it was the same as our body, for Mary was our sister, since we are all from Adam. And no one can doubt this when he remembers what Luke wrote. For after he had risen from the dead, when some thought they were not seeing the Lord in the body taken from Mary, but were looking at a spirit instead, he said, “See my hands and my feet, and the marks of the nails, 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 when he had said this, he showed them his hands and his feet.” From this they can be refuted who have dared to say that the Lord was transformed into flesh and bones. For he did not say, “as you see that I am flesh and bone,” but “as you see that I have,” so that it might not be thought that the Word himself was changed into these things, but so that he might be believed to have them after his resurrection as well as before his death. [r]

Since these things have been shown, it is unnecessary to touch on the other points, or to enter into any discussion of them. For the body in which the Word was is not of one substance with the Godhead, but was truly born of Mary, and the Word himself was not changed into bones and flesh, but came in the flesh. For what John said, “The Word became flesh,” has this meaning, as we may see from a similar passage. For it is written in Paul, “Christ has become a curse for us.” And just as he has not himself become a curse, but is said to have done so because he took the curse on himself on our behalf, so also he has become flesh, not by being changed into flesh, but because on our behalf he took on living flesh and has become man. For to say “the Word became flesh” is the same as to say “the Word has become man,” in line with what is said in Joel: “I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh.” For the promise did not extend to the animals without reason, but is for human beings, for whose sake the Lord has become man. Since this, then, is the sense of the text above, all those will rightly condemn themselves who have thought that the flesh taken from Mary existed before her, and that the Word, before her, had a human soul and existed in it always, even before his coming. And those too will stop talking who have said that the flesh was not open to death, but belonged to the immortal nature. For if it did not die, how could Paul hand on to the Corinthians “that Christ died for our sins, according to the Scriptures”? Or how did he rise at all, if he did not also die? Again, those will blush deeply who have even entertained the idea that a Tetrad instead of a Triad would result if it were said that the body was taken from Mary. For if, they argue, we say that the body is of one substance with the Word, the Triad remains a Triad, since then the Word brings no foreign element into it; but if we admit that the body taken from Mary is human, it follows — since the body is foreign in substance, and the Word is in it — that the addition of the body makes a Tetrad instead of a Triad. [t]

When they argue this way, they fail to see the contradiction they get themselves into. For even if they say that the body is not from Mary but is of one substance with the Word, nonetheless — and this is the very point they conceal, to avoid being credited with what they really think — on their own premises this can be shown to involve a Tetrad. For just as the Son, according to the fathers, is of one substance with the Father, yet is not the Father himself, but is called of one substance as Son with Father, so the body which they call of one substance with the Word is not the Word himself, but a distinct thing. And if so, by their own showing, their Triad will be a Tetrad. For the true, truly perfect and indivisible Triad is not open to addition, as the Triad these people imagine is. And how do these people remain Christians, who imagine another God in addition to the true one? For, once again, in their other fallacy one can see how great their folly is. If they think that, because the Scriptures contain and state that the body of the Savior is human and taken from Mary, a Tetrad is substituted for a Triad, as though the body made an addition, they go very far wrong — so far as to make the creature equal to the Creator, and to suppose that the Godhead can receive an addition. And they have failed to see that the Word has become flesh, not to make an addition to the Godhead, but so that the flesh may rise again. Nor did the Word come forth from Mary to be made better, but to ransom the human race. How then can they think that the body, ransomed and given life by the Word, made an addition in Godhead to the Word who had given it life? On the contrary, a great addition has come to the human body itself from the fellowship and union of the Word with it. For instead of mortal it has become immortal; though it was a natural body, it has become spiritual; and though made from earth, it has entered the gates of heaven. The Triad, then, even though the Word took a body from Mary, is a Triad, since it is not open to addition or diminution; it is always perfect. And in the Triad one Godhead is recognized, and so in the church one God is preached, the Father of the Word. [u]

For this reason those too will from now on keep silent who once said that the one who came forth from Mary is not truly Christ, or Lord, or God. For if he was not God in the body, how was it that, as soon as he came forth from Mary, he was called “Emmanuel, which means God with us”? Again, if the Word was not in the flesh, why did Paul write to the Romans, “from whom is Christ according to the flesh, who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen”? So let them confess, even those who earlier denied that the Crucified was God, that they have gone astray. For the divine Scriptures tell them to, and especially Thomas, who, after seeing on him the marks of the nails, cried out, “My Lord and my God!” For the Son, being God and Lord of glory, was in the body that was shamefully nailed and dishonored. But the body, while it suffered, being pierced on the tree, with water and blood flowing from its side, was nevertheless filled full of the Godhead, because it was a temple of the Word. That was why the sun, seeing its Creator suffering in his outraged body, withdrew its rays and darkened the earth. But the body itself, being mortal by nature, rose again beyond its own nature because of the Word that was in it; it has ceased from the corruption natural to it, and, having put on the Word who is above man, it has become incorruptible. [w]

But as for the notion of some, who say that the Word came upon one particular man, the Son of Mary, just as it came upon each of the prophets, it is unnecessary to discuss it, since their madness plainly carries its own condemnation with it. For if he came in that way, why was that man born of a virgin, and not, like others, of a man and a woman? For that is how each of the saints too was begotten. Or why, if the Word came in that way, is the death of each of them not said to have taken place on our behalf, but only this man’s death? Or why, if the Word dwelt among us in the case of each of the prophets, is it said only of the one born of Mary that he came to dwell here “once, at the end of the ages”? Or why, if he came as he had come in the saints of earlier times, did the Son of Mary alone rise again on the third day, while all the rest had died and had not yet risen? Or why, if the Word had come in the same way as in the other cases, is the Son of Mary alone called Emmanuel, as though a body filled full of the Godhead were born of her? For Emmanuel means “God with us.” Or why, if he came in that way, is it not said, when each of the saints ate, drank, labored and died, that he — the Word — ate, drank, labored and died, but this is said only in the case of the Son of Mary? For what that body suffered is said to have been suffered by the Word. And while we are told of the others merely that they were born and begotten, it is said of the Son of Mary alone that “the Word became flesh.” [x]

This proves that, while the Word came to all the others so that they might prophesy, from Mary the Word himself took flesh and came forth as man: by nature and substance the Word of God, but according to the flesh a man of the seed of David, made from the flesh of Mary, as Paul said. Him the Father pointed out both at the Jordan and on the mountain, saying, “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” Him the Arians denied; but we, recognizing him, worship him, not dividing the Son and the Word, but knowing that the Son is the Word himself, by whom all things are made, and by whom we were redeemed. And for this reason we wonder how any dispute at all has arisen among you over things so clear. But thanks be to the Lord, as much as we were grieved in reading your memoranda, we were just as glad at how they ended. For they parted in concord, and peacefully agreed in confessing the godly and orthodox faith. This has led me, after much thought beforehand, to write these few words; for I am anxious that my silence might make this matter a cause of pain rather than of joy to those whose concord gives joy to us. I therefore ask your piety in the first place, and then those who hear it, to take my letter in good part, and if anything in it is lacking in godliness, to set it right and let me know. But if it is written, as by one unpracticed in speaking, below the level of its subject and imperfectly, let everyone make allowance for my weakness in speech. Greet all the brothers with you. All who are with us greet you. May you live in good health in the Lord, beloved and truly longed for. [y]