Again in another work, whose beginning is, "God does not have the pleasure of eating flesh," he says the following:
"It is not the case that both [elements] are from heaven, but [one] is united with the heavenly [element], and there is one person [179] with [it] that became heavenly accordingly to the union, and Ηe is adored with the adoration of the heavenly God, and as heavenly He saves by the power of the heavenly One."
And from the letter to Dionysius, whose beginning is, "To me, piety is [ the ] foundation of friendship," after a few other things he says the following: [180]
"It is clear from what we have always written that no one can accuse [181] us of those things which are said against some [people], since we do not say either that the flesh of our savior is from heaven, or that His [182] flesh is of the same substance as God, inasmuch as it is flesh and not divine, and that it is divine inasmuch as it is united to the divine [183] in one person. [184] "
Again in another work whose beginning is, "We rightly glorify our Lord Jesus Christ," he says the following near the end:
"*When [185] Christ was living, His body was permeated by God's spirit,* and [the] spirit in [the] flesh was divine, [that it, it was] heavenly mind, of which we pray to partake, according to the verse, 'We have the mind of Christ.' [186] [The] holy flesh is of like nature [187] to the divine-nature, establishing divinity [188] in [189] those who partake of it, [the] foundation of eternal life, the originator of immortality for men, [190] Creator of an eternal creation, Father of the age to come."
Again in another syllogistic work, composed for John the Evangelist, [191] whose beginning is, "All things came into being through the Word," according to the Evangelist, he says the following:
"How is He not the true God, who says, 'I am with you for so much time, and have you not recognized me, Philip?' [192] [thereby] making known His time spent as a man with men in so much time, [193] and showing the man [to be] divine. [194] And so we must not be ashamed to say that such a man is of the same substance as God, who is revealed by the paternal form [195] of [his] divinity, just like the material for the body." [196]
Again in the next place he says the following.
"The fact of being in equality with God, an equality that is both efficient [197] and renewing, does not make the divine human [198] with respect to the body, [for] it is impossible that, in the equality with God, there be another nature of Christ, [that is], the human [nature], to be subject to the limitations of humanity, [199] as if [the] body were of a human and not of God."
And again in another syllogistic work, whose beginning is, "That which possesses a different life [ possesses ] a different action," he says the following.
"His flesh gives us life because of the divinity [200] that is united with it, for that which gives life is divine. [ M. 1965 ]Therefore, the flesh is divine because it was united with God. And, on the one hand, this saves, and we, on the other hand, are saved by partaking of it as if it were food. That which causes growth, [201] since it is active in what is being nourished, is of the same substance and is not nourished. Similarly, if that which gives life is not made alive in a manner similar to that which is made alive, it is not of the same substance as it. For otherwise it would be a body susceptible to death [202] like our own, in need of being made alive. But it is not a body susceptible to death, but Christ's body [is a body] of life. The divine, [203] consequently, is not of the same substance as [that which is] human."
And in the work to Flavius, whose beginning is, "And still even now Christ is being struck by vile men," after many other things he says:
"So much more do the specific natures of the elements that were united [204] remain in the mixing of the body with body. [205] For the body is indeed body, and the incorporeal, incorporeal. God is said to have become corporeal in the perfect union, and the body [is said] to have been deified. [206] And to what extent God, on the one hand, who has become corporeal, is human, -- Ηe is both. And to what extent the body, which has been deified, [207] [is divine,] -- again it is both."
And then, a little later, he says the following:
"Already the body has ceased from being formed and from being in the form of a slave. But it is glorified in the natural union with that which is unformed, and in accord with the birth itself from the virgin.And in this regard it has not changed from being formed into that which is uncreated, but it has been united with that which is uncreated. And, being divine [208] according to the union with God, it is uncreated insofar as it is divine. [209] And since [the] body could not arise from the Father [210] (for the Father is not made corporeal), in this regard, it would never be called unbegotten, [211] nor unbegotten in its own nature, [212] as a son or offspring, in the natural union with the begotten son from the beginning."
And in the work against Diodorus, in the first [ book ] after the treatise on the Trinity, in chapter 14 he says the following:
"It was a remarkable and wondrous event and happened once, and not a second time: the union of God with flesh. And this your own soul never accepts, nor [the souls] of those who lead you into this impiety andinfidelity of [the] anti-Christ. And you mock the perfect union, and you say, 'The distinctive properties [213] of God, and the distinctive properties [214] of the flesh no longer remain, if there is a union, but that the perfect union of David is broken,if we confess the perfect union according to the flesh from David.'" [215]
And in the 27 chapter he says:
"You are, at any rate, vexed by the fact that, by the grace of God, we do not admit that that which is of David's seed took on immortality. And if we are asked for the reason, we say, 'Because of the perfect union.'"
Again in the 61 chapter.
"It is not shameful to say, on the one hand, that the nature [216] is the same, but that, on the other hand, the origin [217] is different. For it is vain and superfluous to introduce the virgin birth, if that which was born should not be worthy of the birth, but [be] the same as those who are born from a man and a woman. You are mocking the perfect union as if it were perfect impiety, which the divine Scriptures clearly [ M. 1968 ]introduce, neither making the human part of God destructive [218] [of the divine], nor overthrowing the human part by the divine."
And in the second book against the same Diodorus, in chapter 22, he says:
"And since you exhort us to answer how that which is from the divine substance [219] is the seed of David, listen: in regard to the incarnation, how is that which is created uncreated? By being united with the uncreated. How is the fruit of David's loins the Creator of [the] Creator? By having been united with the Creator. How is that which is from Abraham before Abraham? By having been united with what was before Abraham."
And in the 36 chapter of the same work.