Chapter VI.
These heretics, who claim that Christ either suffered in a phantom or embraced two persons in himself, are all refuted, just like those who distinguish the Word of God from the Son of God or do not distinguish divinity from the flesh, or subject divinity to the injuries of the body as if it were imperfect. However, Ambrose shows that the authors of all of these errors are those who pretended that the divinity and the flesh of the Lord are of one nature, falsely selling the authority of the Council of Nicaea, while he reveals that only the humanity of Christ is described in the Scriptures. He took on flesh in order to redeem what he had sinned, since nothing can be common to God and sin. Finally, he reveals how absurd the things that follow from the opinions of his adversaries are.
For neither, as some say, did he suffer in appearance, since he did not walk on the sea in appearance, as the disciples are reported to have thought in the Gospel (Matthew 14:26). But they are excused because: the Spirit had not yet been given (John 7:39); for Jesus had not yet been honored (Romans 5:5). Christ has now been crucified and risen for us: the Spirit has now been given to us, who is the advocate of truth. And indeed, the disciples sometimes made mistakes, so that we would not be able to make mistakes later. Therefore, their error benefits us. As if men have erred, as if disciples have believed.
And therefore we must condemn those who preach that Jesus came in a phantom, and also those who, contrary to the line of error, do not say that he is the same and only Son of God: but that there is one who was born of God the Father, and another who was generated from the Virgin; whereas the Evangelist says that the Word became flesh (John 1:1), so that you would believe in one Lord Jesus, not two.
Some even believed that the Word of God and the Son of God were different: whereas the Evangelist testifies that He Himself, who was the Word in the beginning and was with God the Father, came in His own person. But there are those who, just as they believed that the prophets were only one, also believed that the Word was made Christ, not that He Himself was the Word of God. But it is not said of any of the prophets that the Word was made flesh. None of the prophets took away the sins of the world. No other has it been said: This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased (Matt. III, 17). Nowhere in the prophets do we read that the Lord of majesty, whom the Apostle said the Jews crucified (I Cor. II, 8), refers to anyone else but Christ.
But while we refute these arguments, others arise who claim that the flesh of the Lord and the divinity are of one nature. What sacrilege have these vomited forth from hell? Now the Arians are more tolerable, whose strength of perfidy grows through these people; for they assert with even greater contention that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are not of one substance; because these people have attempted to say that the divinity of the Lord and the flesh are of one substance. Then when these people say that the Word has been transformed into flesh, hair, blood, and bones, and has been changed from its own nature; a place is given to them to twist the weakness of the flesh, through a certain divine change, to the weakness of the divinity.
There are also those who have fallen into such impiety that they think that the divinity of the Lord was circumcised and made imperfect by the incarnation, and that on the cross, it was not flesh that hung there, but the divine substance, which is the agent of all things, coagulated in the likeness of flesh. But who would not shudder? Who would listen to the claim that the Word of God did not assume passible flesh for itself from the Virgin Mary, but made it out of divine substance? By asserting this, they fall into the error of contending that the body of the Lord was not assumed in time but has always coexisted with the Word of God.
Of all these authors are those who said that the divinity and the flesh of the Lord were of one nature. I read that I should not believe, unless I read myself: I read, I say, in the books of a certain person, it is written this way, that the organ and the one who moved the organ were of one nature in Christ. I have put this here so that the name of the author may be discovered from the writings; and let them take note that, although with the most exquisite arguments and adorned speeches, the force of truth cannot be obscured.
And here he frequently mentions that he holds the treatise of the Council of Nicaea. But in that treatise our fathers said that they affirmed not the flesh, but the Word of God to be of one substance with the Father; and that the Word indeed proceeded from the paternal substance, but that the flesh was confessed to be from the virgin. Therefore, how is the name of the Council of Nicaea invoked and new things introduced which our ancestors never experienced; when surely the Scriptures say that Christ suffered according to the flesh (1 Peter 1:2), not according to the divinity: the Scriptures say that a virgin will conceive in her womb and bear a Son (Isaiah 7:14)? For she received virtue, and she gave birth to a Son, whom she herself conceived.
Finally, Gabriel also declares this in his own words, saying: 'And what is born of you will be called the Son of God' (Luke 1:35). He says 'of you' in order to point out that as far as the human aspect is concerned, what is born of Mary is true human nature, while according to the divine aspect, it retains the prerogative of the Lord's body and is in no way separated from it. Indeed, Paul also says that he was predestined in the Gospel of God: 'which he promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy Scriptures, concerning his Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh' (Romans 1:2-3). And to the Galatians: But when the fullness of time came, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman (Gal. IV, 4). And to Timothy He said: Remember Jesus Christ, risen from the dead, descendant of David (II Tim. II, 8).
Therefore, He received from us what was proper to offer for us, so that He might redeem us from ourselves; and He gave us what was not ours, out of His divine generosity. According to His nature, He offered Himself for us, so as to operate beyond our nature. The sacrifice is ours, the reward is His: and in the same act you will find both according to nature and beyond nature. For according to the condition of the body, He was in the womb, He was born, He was nursed, He was placed in a manger; but beyond the condition, the Virgin conceived, the Virgin gave birth: so that you may believe that He was God, who renewed nature; and He was man, who was born according to nature from a man.
For indeed, as some have interpreted, the very nature of the Word has not changed, which is always unchangeable, as He Himself said: 'See, see Me, for I am, and I have not changed' (Malachi 3:6). But even Paul said: 'For Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today, He Himself is unto the ages' (Hebrews 13:8), that is, He who was not changed according to the nature of flesh, but remained unchangeable even in the mutable condition of human quality.
Therefore, you have learned that he offered a sacrifice from our own. For what was the cause of the Incarnation, if not so that the flesh which had sinned might be redeemed by itself? Therefore, what had sinned, that is what was redeemed. Therefore, the divinity of the Word was not immolated, because the divinity of the Word had not sinned; and therefore the nature of the Word was not transformed into the nature of the flesh; because the divinity, which was free from sin, should not offer itself for the sin that it had not committed. For Christ offered in himself what he put on: and put on what he did not have before. Therefore, he did not put on the divinity of his divinity, in which there was the fullness of eternal divinity: but he took on flesh, so that he might strip off the spoils of the flesh, and in himself crucify the possessions of the devil, and raise the trophies of virtue.
Therefore, if the flesh of all was subject to injury in Christ, how can you say that Word is of the same substance with divinity? If the Word and the flesh are of one substance, and the flesh has a nature derived from the earth, how is it asserted that the Word and the soul are of one substance, which soul has assumed a perfect nature of human beings? However, the Word is of the same substance with God according to the profession of the Father, and the assertion of the Lord Himself, who says: 'I and the Father are one' (John 10:30). Therefore, the Father is preached as having one substance with the earthly body. And yet you are indignant at the Arians because they say that the Son of God is a creature, when you yourselves say that the Father is of one substance with creatures.
But what else are you accomplishing by saying these things, except that you either compare the slime of Adam and our earthly substance to the divine nature, or certainly transfer divinity into an injustice of earthly corruption? For by saying that the Word became flesh and bones, you certainly say that it was turned into earth; since flesh and bones are from the earth.
They say that it is written: 'And the Word became flesh' (John 1:14). It is written, I do not deny it; but consider what follows: 'And dwelt among us', that is, that Word which took on flesh, dwelt among us, that is, dwelt in human flesh; and therefore he is called Emmanuel, that is, God with us (Matthew 1:23). Therefore, this Word became flesh, because he became a man. As also in Joel it is said: I will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh (Joel 2:28); for it is not upon irrational flesh, but upon men, that the promise of the outpouring of spiritual grace is future.
But if you hold to the letter, as you think, from what is written, that the Word was made flesh, that the Word of God was made flesh; do you deny that it is written about the Lord, that he did not commit sin, but became sin (II Cor. 5:21)? Therefore, the Lord was not turned into sin (Gal. 3:13)? Not so; but because he took on our sins, he was called sin. For the Lord was also called cursed, not because the Lord was turned into a curse, but because he himself took on our curse: Cursed is he who hangs on a tree (Deut. 21:23). Therefore, you marvel because it is written: The Word was made flesh, when flesh was assumed by the Word of God; for when it is written that he was made sin, it means that he was made sin in the likeness of sinful flesh, not in nature or operation of sin, but in order to crucify our sin in his own flesh, he assumed the reception of the weaknesses of our guilty body, which is carnal.
Therefore, let them stop saying that the nature of the Word has been changed into the nature of the body, so that it does not appear that the nature of the Word has been changed into the contagion of sin. For it is one thing that He assumed, and another thing that was assumed. The power came into the Virgin, just as the Angel said to her: The power of the Most High will overshadow you (Luke 1:35). But the body was born from the Virgin, and therefore there is a descent from heaven indeed, but a human conception. Therefore, the nature of the flesh and the nature of divinity could not be the same.