Bad Advertisement?
Are you a Christian?
Online Store:Visit Our Store
| To Epictetus.
PREVIOUS SECTION - NEXT SECTION - HELP 
Letter
LIX.—To Epictetus.
To my Lord, beloved brother, and most-longed-for
fellow-minister Epictetus4700
| 4700 Of
Epictetus, bishop of Corinth, nothing else is known. This letter
reflects the uncertainty, which attended the victory of the Nicene
Creed, as to the relation of the Historical Christ to the Eternal Son.
The questions raised at Corinth were those which troubled the Eastern
Church generally, and which came to a head in the system of
Apollinarius, whose distinctive tenet, however, is not mentioned in
this letter. Persons anxious to place the Nicene doctrine in
intelligible connection with the matter of the Gospel Narrative had
debated the question before Epictetus, and with deference to his
ruling. Their tentative solutions (§2 infr.) fall into two
classes, both of which, in attempting to solve the problem, proceed
upon the assumption incidentally combated by Athan., that the Manhood
of Christ was a Hypostasis or Person, which if invested with Divine
attributes, would introduce a fourth hypostatic entity into the
Trinity. To avoid this, one class identified the Logos and the
῎Ανθρωπος, either by assuming that the Logos was changed into flesh,
or that the flesh was itself non-natural and of the Divine Essence. The
other class excluded the Man Jesus from the Trinity, explaining His
relation to God on the lines of Photinus or the later Nestorians. Both
alternatives are already glanced at (supr. p. 485) by the
Council of 362. In the present case, both classes of suggestions seem
to have been made tentatively and bona fide (§12). The
letter must have been written before the two books against
Apollinarianism, which (if genuine) fall about 372. Its more exact date
depends on the identification of the Councils referred to in §1
(νῦν
γενομένων), and is therefore very doubtful. At any rate
Apollinarianism proper is not alluded to, and Apollinarius is said to
have expressed to Serapion of Thmuis his high opinion of our Letter
(see Letter 54, note 1). It was much quoted in the
Christological controversies of the next 80 years, e.g. by the Councils
of Ephesus and Chalcedon, by Theodoret, Cyril, and Leo the Great (see
Migne xxvi. 1050; Bright, Later Treatises, pp. 43 sq.,
and D.C.B. s.v. Epictetus and Apollinaris the younger). | , Athanasius
greeting in the Lord. I thought that all vain talk of all heretics,
many as they may be, had been stopped by the Synod which was held at
Nicæa. For the Faith there confessed by the Fathers according to
the divine Scriptures is enough by itself at once to overthrow all
impiety, and to establish the religious belief in Christ. For this
reason at the present time, at the assembling of diverse synods, both
in Gaul and Spain, and great Rome4701
| 4701 Are
these those referred to in the letter to Ruf., and held a.d. 362–3, or are they to be identified with one or
other of those held under Damasus (see Introd. to ad
Afros.)? | , all who came
together, as though moved by one spirit, unanimously anathematised
those who still were secretly holding with Arius, namely Auxentius of
Milan, Ursacius, Valens, and Gaius of Pannonia. And they wrote
everywhere, that, whereas the above-said were devising the names of
synods to cite on their side, no synod should be cited in the Catholic
Church save only that which was held at Nicæa, which was a
monument of victory over all heresy, but especially the Arian, which
was the main reason of the synod assembling when it did. How then,
after all this, are some attempting to raise doubts or questions? If
they belong to the Arians, this is not to be wondered at, that they
find fault with what was drawn up against themselves, just as the
Gentiles when they hear that ‘the idols of the heathen are silver
and gold, the work of men’s hands4702
,’ think the doctrine of the divine
Cross folly. But if those who desire to reopen everything by raising
questions belong to those who think they believe aright, and love what
the fathers have declared, they are simply doing what the prophet
describes, giving their neighbour turbid confusion to drink4703
, and fighting about words to no good
purpose, save to the subversion of the simple.
2. I write this after reading the memoranda
submitted by your piety, which I could wish had not been written at
all, so that not even any record of these things should go down to
posterity. For who ever yet heard the like? Who ever taught or learned
it? For ‘from Sion shall come forth the law of God, and the word
of the Lord from Jerusalem4704
;’ but whence
came forth this? What lower region has vomited the statement that the
Body born of Mary is coessential with the Godhead of the Word? or that
the Word has been changed into flesh, bones, hair, and the whole body,
and altered from its own nature? Or who ever heard in a Church, or even
from Christians, that the Lord wore a body putatively, not in nature;
or who ever went so far in impiety as to say and hold, that this
Godhead, which is coessential with the Father, was circumcised and
became imperfect instead of perfect; and that what hung upon the tree
was not the body, but the very creative Essence and Wisdom? Or who that
hears that the Word transformed for Himself a passible body, not of
Mary, but of His own Essence, could call him who said this a Christian?
Or who devised this abominable impiety, for it to enter even his
imagination, and for him to say
that to pronounce the Lord’s Body to be of Mary is to hold a
Tetrad instead of a Triad in the Godhead? Those who think thus, saying
that the Body of the Saviour which He put on from Mary, is of the
Essence of the Triad. Or whence again have certain vomited an impiety
as great as those already mentioned; saying namely, that the body is
not newer than the Godhead of the Word, but was coeternal with it
always, since it was compounded of the Essence of Wisdom. Or how did
men called Christians venture even to doubt whether the Lord, Who
proceeded from Mary, while Son of God by Essence and Nature, is of the
seed of David according to the flesh4705
, and of the
flesh of the Holy Mary? Or who have been so venturesome as to say that
Christ Who suffered in the flesh and was crucified is not Lord,
Saviour, God, and Son of the Father4706
| 4706 This
opinion seems to belong to that next to be mentioned, the two, however,
are separately dealt with below, cc. 10 and 11. | ? Or how can
they wish to be called Christians who say that the Word has descended
upon a holy man as upon one of the prophets, and has not Himself become
man, 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?
3. Such were the contents of the memoranda;
diverse statements, but one in their sense and in their meaning;
tending to impiety. It was for these things that men who make their
boast in the confession of the fathers drawn up at Nicæa were
disputing and quarrelling with one another. But I marvel that your
piety suffered it, and that you did not stop those who said such
things, and propound to them the right faith, so that upon hearing it
they might hold their peace, or if they opposed it might be counted as
heretics. For the statements are not fit for Christians to make or to
hear, on the contrary they are in every way alien from the Apostolic
teaching. For this reason, as I said above, I have caused what they say
to be baldly inserted in my letter, so that one who merely hears may
perceive the shame and impiety therein contained. And although it would
be right to denounce and expose in full the folly of those who have had
such ideas, yet it would be a good thing to close my letter here and
write no more. For what is so manifestly shewn to be evil, it is not
necessary to waste time in exposing further, lest contentious persons
think the matter doubtful. It is enough merely to answer such things as
follows: we are content with the fact that this is not the teaching of
the Catholic Church, nor did the fathers hold this. But lest the
‘inventors of evil things4707
’ make
entire silence on our part a pretext for shamelessness, it will be well
to mention a few points from Holy Scripture, in case they may even thus
be put to shame, and cease from these foul devices.
4. Whence did it occur to you, sirs, to say that
the Body is of one Essence with the Godhead of the Word? For it is well
to begin at this point, in order that by shewing this opinion to be
unsound, all the others too may be proved to be the same. Now from the
divine Scriptures we discover nothing of the kind. For they say that
God came in a human body. But the fathers who also assembled at
Nicæa say that, not the body, but the Son Himself is coessential
with the Father, and that while He is of the Essence of the Father, the
body, as they admitted according to the Scriptures, is of Mary. Either
then deny the Synod of Nicæa, and as heretics bring in your
doctrine from the side; or, if you wish to be children of the fathers,
do not hold the contrary of what they wrote. For here again you may see
how monstrous it is: If the Word is coessential with the body which is
of earthly nature, while the Word is, by your own confession,
coessential with the Father, it will follow that even the Father
Himself is coessential with the body produced from the earth. And why
any longer blame the Arians for calling the Son a creature, when you go
off to another form of impiety, saying that the Word was changed into
flesh and bones and hair and muscles and all the body, and was altered
from its own nature? For it is time for you to say openly that He was
born of earth; for from earth is the nature of the bones and of all the
body. What then is this great folly of yours, that you fight even with
one another? For in saying that the Word is coessential with the Body,
you distinguish the one from the other4708
| 4708 ἕτερον πρὸς
ἕτερον
σημαίνετε | ,
while in saying that He has been changed into flesh, you imagine a
change of the Word Himself. And who will tolerate you any longer if you
so much as utter these opinions? For you have gone further in impiety
than any heresy. For if the Word is coessential with the Body, the
commemoration and the work of Mary are superfluous4709
, inasmuch as the body could have existed
before Mary, just as the Word also is eternal: if, that is, it is as
you say co-essential with the Body. Or what need was there even of the
Word coming among us, to put on what was coessential with Himself,
or to change His own nature and
become a body? For the Deity does not take hold4710
of
itself, so as to put on what is of its own Essence, any more than the
Word sinned, in that it ransoms the sins of others, in order that
changing into a body it should offer itself a sacrifice for itself, and
ransom itself.
5. But this is not so, far be the thought. For he
‘takes hold of the seed of Abraham4711
,’ as the apostle said; whence it
behoved Him to be made like His brethren in all things, and to take a
Body like us. This is why Mary is truly presupposed, in order that He
may take it from her, and offer it for us as His own. And this Isaiah
pointed to in his prophecy, in the words: ‘Behold the Virgin4712
,’ while Gabriel is sent to
her—not simply to a virgin, but ‘to a virgin betrothed to a
man4713
,’ in order that by means of the
betrothed man he might shew that Mary was really a human being. And for
this reason Scripture also mentions her bringing forth, and tells of
her wrapping Him in swaddling clothes; and therefore, too, the paps
which He sucked were called blessed4714
. And He was
offered as a sacrifice, in that He Who was born had opened the womb4715
. Now all these things are proofs that the
Virgin brought forth. And Gabriel preached the Gospel to her without
uncertainty, saying not merely ‘what is born in thee,’ lest
the body should be thought to be extraneously induced upon her, but
‘of thee,’ that what was born might be believed to be
naturally from her, inasmuch as Nature clearly shews that it is
impossible for a virgin to produce milk unless she has brought forth,
and impossible for a body to be nourished with milk and wrapped in
swaddling clothes unless it has previously been naturally brought
forth. This is the meaning of His being circumcised on the eighth day:
of Symeon 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 Essence of
the Word that was changed, and was circumcised, because it is incapable
of alteration or change. For the Saviour Himself says, ‘Behold,
behold, it is I, and I change not4716
,’ while
Paul writes: ‘Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, and to-day, and
for ever4717
.’ But in the Body which was
circumcised, and carried, and ate and drank, and was weary, and was
nailed on the tree and suffered, there was the impassible and
incorporeal Word of God. This Body it was that was laid in a grave,
when the Word had left it, yet was not parted from it, to preach, as
Peter says, also to the spirits in prison4718
.
6. And this above all shews the foolishness of
those who say that the Word was changed into bones and flesh. For if
this had been so, there were no need of a tomb. For the Body would have
gone by itself to preach to the spirits in Hades. But as it was, He
Himself went to preach, while the Body Joseph wrapped in a linen cloth,
and laid it away at Golgotha4719
. And so it is shewn
to all that the Body was not the Word, but Body of the Word. And it was
this that Thomas handled when it had risen from the dead, and saw in it
the print of the nails, which the Word Himself had undergone, seeing
them fixed in His own Body, and though able to prevent it, did not do
so. On the contrary, the incorporeal Word made His own the properties
of the Body, as being His own Body. Why, when the Body was struck by
the attendant, as suffering Himself He asked, ‘Why smitest thou
Me4720
?’ And being by nature intangible, the
Word yet said, ‘I gave My back to the stripes, and My cheeks to
blows, and hid not My face from shame and spitting4721
.’ For what the human Body of the Word
suffered, this the Word, dwelling in the body, ascribed to Himself, in
order that we might be enabled to be partakers of the Godhead of the
Word4722
. And verily it is strange that He it was Who
suffered and yet suffered not. Suffered, because His own Body suffered,
and He was in it, which thus suffered; suffered not, because the Word,
being by Nature God, is impassible. And while He, the incorporeal, was
in the passible Body, the Body had in it the impassible Word, which was
destroying the infirmities inherent in the Body. But this He did, and
so it was, in order that Himself taking what was ours and offering it
as a sacrifice, He might do away with it, and conversely might invest
us with what was His, and cause the Apostle to say: ‘This
corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal put on
immortality4723
.’
7. Now this did not come to pass putatively, as
some have supposed: far be the thought: but the Saviour having in very
truth become Man, the salvation of the whole man was brought about. For
if the Word were in the Body putatively, as they say, and by putative
is meant imaginary, it follows that both the salvation and the
resurrection of man is apparent only, as the most impious
Manichæus held. But truly our salvation is not merely apparent,
nor does it extend to the body only, but the whole man, body and soul
alike, has truly obtained salvation
in the Word Himself. That then which was born of Mary was according to
the divine Scriptures human by nature, and the Body of the Lord was a
true one; but it was this, because it was the same as our body, for
Mary was our sister inasmuch as we all are from Adam. And no one can
doubt of this when he remembers what Luke wrote. For after He had risen
from the dead, when some thought that they did not see the Lord in the
body derived from Mary, but were beholding a spirit instead, He said,
‘See My hands and My feet, and the prints of the nails, that it
is I Myself: handle Me and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones
as ye see Me to have. And when He had said thus, He shewed them His
hands and His feet4724
.’ Whence they
can be refuted who have ventured to say that the Lord was transformed
into flesh and bones. For He did not say, ‘As ye see Me to be
flesh and bone,’ but ‘as ye see Me to have,’ in order
that it might not be thought that the Word Himself was changed into
these things, but that He might be believed to have them after His
resurrection as well as before His death.
8. These things being thus demonstrated, it is
superfluous to touch upon the other points, or to enter upon any
discussion relating to them, since the body in which the Word was is
not coessential with the Godhead, but was truly born of Mary, while the
Word Himself was not changed into bones and flesh, but came in the
flesh. For what John said, ‘The Word was made flesh4725
,’ has this meaning, as we may see by a
similar passage; for it is written in Paul: ‘Christ has become a
curse for us4726
.’ And just as He has not Himself
become a curse, but is said to have done so because He took upon Him
the curse on our behalf, so also He has become flesh not by being
changed into flesh, but because He assumed on our behalf living flesh,
and has become Man. For to say ‘the Word became flesh,’ is
equivalent to saying ‘the Word has become man;’ according
to what is said in Joel: ‘I will pour forth of My Spirit upon all
flesh4727
;’ for the promise did not extend to
the irrational animals, but is for men, on whose account the Lord is
become Man. As then this is the sense of the above text, they all will
reasonably condemn themselves who have thought that the flesh derived
from Mary existed before her, and that the Word, prior to her, had a
human soul, and existed in it always even before His coming. And they
too will cease who have said that the Flesh was not accessible to
death, but belonged to the immortal Nature. For if it did not die, how
could Paul deliver to the Corinthians ‘that Christ died for our
sins, according to the Scriptures4728
,’ or how
did He rise at all if He did not also die? Again, they will blush
deeply who have even entertained the possibility of a Tetrad instead of
a Triad resulting, if it were said that the Body was derived from Mary.
For if (they argue) we say the Body is of one Essence with the Word,
the Triad remains a Triad; for then the Word imports no foreign element
into it; but if we admit that the Body derived from Mary is human, it
follows, since the Body is foreign in Essence, and the Word is in it,
that the addition of the Body causes a Tetrad instead of a Triad.
9. When they argue thus, they fail to perceive
the contradiction in which they involve themselves. For even though
they say that the Body is not from Mary, but is coessential with the
Word, yet none the less (the very point they dissemble, to avoid being
credited with their real opinion) this on their own premises can be
proved to involve a Tetrad. For as the Son, according to the Fathers,
is coessential with the Father, but is not the Father Himself, but is
called coessential, as Son with Father, so the Body, which they call
coessential with the Word, is not the Word Himself, but a distinct
entity. But if so, on their own shewing, their Triad will be a Tetrad4729
| 4729 The
argument rests on the principle that the Trinity is a trinity of
Persons, not of Essences: the opponents implicitly tax the Nicene
doctrine with the consequence that if truly man, Christ is a distinct
Personality from the Son. | . For the true, really perfect and
indivisible Triad is not accessible to addition as is the Triad
imagined by these persons. And how do these remain Christians who
imagine another God in addition to the true one? For, once again, in
their other fallacy one can see how great is their folly. For if they
think because it is contained and stated in the Scriptures, that the
Body of the Saviour is human and derived from Mary, that a Tetrad is
substituted for a Triad, as though the Body created an addition, they
go very far wrong, so much so as to make the creature equal to the
Creator, and suppose that the Godhead can receive an addition. And they
have failed to perceive that the Word is become Flesh, not by reason of
an addition to the Godhead, but in order that the flesh may rise again.
Nor did the Word proceed from Mary that He might be bettered, but that
He might ransom the human race. How then can they think that the Body,
ransomed and quickened by the Word, made an addition in respect of
Godhead to the Word that had quickened it? For on the contrary, a great
addition has accrued to the human Body itself from the fellowship and
union of the Word with it. For
instead of mortal it is become immortal; and, though an animal4730
body, it is become spiritual, and though
made from earth it entered the heavenly gates. The Triad, then,
although the Word took a body from Mary, is a Triad, being inaccessible
to addition or diminution; but it is always perfect, and in the Triad
one Godhead is recognised, and so in the Church one God is preached,
the Father of the Word.
10. For this reason they also will henceforth
keep silence, who once said that He who proceeded from Mary is not very
Christ, or Lord, or God. For if He were not God in the Body, how came
He, upon proceeding from Mary, straightway to be called
‘Emmanuel, which is being interpreted God with us4731
?’ Why again, if the Word was not in
the flesh, did Paul write to the Romans ‘of whom is Christ after
the flesh, Who is above all God blessed for ever. Amen4732
?’ Let them therefore confess, even
they who previously denied that the Crucified was God, that they have
erred; for the divine Scriptures bid them, and especially Thomas, who,
after seeing upon Him the print of the nails, cried out ‘My Lord
and my God4733
!’ For the Son, being God, and
Lord of glory4734
, was in the Body
which was ingloriously nailed and dishonoured; but the Body, while it
suffered, being pierced on the tree, and water and blood flowed from
its side, yet because it was a temple of the Word was filled full of
the Godhead. For this reason it was that the sun, seeing its creator
suffering in His outraged body, withdrew its rays and darkened the
earth. But the body itself being of mortal nature, beyond its own
nature rose again by reason of the Word which was in it; and it has
ceased from natural corruption, and, having put on the Word which is
above man, has become incorruptible.
11. But with regard to the imagination 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 superfluous to discuss
it, since their madness carries its own condemnation manifestly with
it. For if He came thus, why was that man born of a virgin, and not
like others of a man and woman? For in this way each of the saints also
was begotten. Or why, if the Word came thus, is not the death of each
one said to have taken place on our behalf, but only this man’s
death? Or why, if the Word sojourned among us in the case of each one
of the prophets, is it said only in the case of Him born of Mary that
He sojourned here ‘once at the consummation of the ages4735
?’ Or why, if He came as He had come in
the saints of former times, did the Son of Mary alone, while all the
rest had died without rising as yet, rise again on the third day? Or
why, if the Word had come in like manner as He had done 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 is
interpreted ‘God with us.’ Or why, if He came thus, is it
not said that when each of the saints ate, drank, laboured, and died,
that He (the Word) ate, drank, laboured, and died, but 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 merely told of the others that
they were born, and begotten, it is said in the case of the Son of Mary
alone that ‘The Word was made Flesh.’
12. This proves that while to all the others the
Word came, in order that they might prophesy, from Mary the Word
Himself took flesh, and proceeded forth as man; being by nature and
essence the Word of God, but after the flesh man of the seed of David,
and made of the flesh of Mary, as Paul said4736
.
Him the Father pointed out both in Jordan and on the Mount, saying,
‘This is My beloved Son in whom I am well pleased4737
.’ Him the Arians denied, but we
recognising worship, 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 contention
at all has arisen among you about things so clear. But thanks to the
Lord, much as we were grieved at reading your memoranda, we were
equally glad at their conclusion. For they departed with concord, and
peacefully agreed in the confession of the pious and orthodox faith.
This fact has induced me, after much previous consideration, to write
these few words; for I am anxious lest by my silence this matter should
cause pain rather than joy to those whose concord occasions joy to
ourselves. I therefore ask your piety in the first place, and secondly
those who hear, to take my letter in good part, and if anything is
lacking in it in respect of piety, to set that right, and inform me.
But if it is written, as from one unpractised in speech, below the
subject and imperfectly, let all allow for my feebleness in speaking.
Greet all the brethren with you. All those with us greet you; may you
live in good health in the Lord, beloved and truly longed for.E.C.F. INDEX & SEARCH
|
