Fragmenta homiliae quod unus est Christus

From the same discourse, that Christ is one. Those who divide the one Christ into two sons forget the words of the blessed Paul; for he writes clearly, at one time that "for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and we from him, and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and we through him," and again "One Lord, one faith, one baptism." If there were two sons according to some, he would have said two Lords, two faiths, two baptisms; but by saying one and one faith and one baptism, he condemns their ignorance. For if there are two according to them, which Lord do we name, to whom do we confess the faith, in whose name are we baptized? From the same discourse. Let us first see what the blessed Daniel says, and let us necessarily examine his most awe-inspiring vision. First, he saw an Ancient of Days seated on a throne, with thousands serving him and myriads standing around his throne. Then he says, "I beheld in a vision of the night, and behold, with the clouds of heaven, one like a son of man coming, and he reached the Ancient of Days, and was brought before him, and honor and the kingdom were given to him, and all tribes and tongues serve him." Behold, clearly, one like a son of man comes with the clouds and reaches the Ancient of Days. And let us examine precisely what this is. For is the God of all, of whom all things are full, contained in a place? Do we not believe him who says, "I fill heaven and earth, says the Lord"? Where then did the son of man reach the Ancient of Days?

all things, and our Lord Jesus Christ is from him." For according to the God-befitting glory and the preeminence over all, he sits with the Father and is enthroned with him, not only when the Word was bare and still without flesh, but also when he became man. See, therefore, that the Son is God even in his humanity; for the honor of divinity and the kingship over all would not have been given to him, nor would tribes and tongues have served him, unless he is truly God and from God by nature, being one and only Son even when he appeared as man. Accept assurance also on this point: for God the Father said through the voice of the prophet, "I will not give my glory to another," and then he says, "For whoever is ashamed of me and my words, that one the son of man will also be ashamed of when he comes in the glory of the Father with the holy angels." Is it not, then, a great and marvelous promise that a son of man is in the glory of divinity, in the highest preeminences, he who was born of a woman according to the flesh, and having his own angels, he who came to be in likeness to us? The whole heaven, principalities, powers, authorities, thrones, dominions attend a man as a bodyguard; they stand by as ministers serving him as the judge of all. And the all-wise Paul is witness, writing about him to the Hebrews: "For when he introduces the firstborn into the world, he says, 'Let all the angels of God worship him.'" When, then, did the Only-begotten become firstborn? When he came to be among many brothers and was named son of man along with us.

But if the higher powers had known that the one from the seed of David according to the flesh was not God, nor a Son by nature and truly, how would they have endured to worship him? Therefore, do not you yourself dishonor the one whom angels worship, by saying that he is another son merely and individually; rather believe that there is one and only one Jesus Christ, the same from the Father divinely according to the ineffable birth, and from a woman according to the flesh for the sake of his likeness to us. From the same homily, "That One Lord Jesus Christ." In response to such things, those who wish to be contentious might perhaps say, "Therefore, the Son by nature and truly of God came under the law?" Then, what is the trouble, tell me, even if this were said to be suffered? For if we believe that he became flesh, that is, man, who deigned to become like us, why should he not be said to have come under the law along with us? For just as, even if he became like us, he did not cease to be above us; and if he has been part of creation because of the human element, he also has in this way the property of being above all creation. And just as, having taken the form of a slave, he is none the less Master, and is acknowledged and exists as Lord of all; so too, even if he were said to have come under the law, perhaps, as a man, he did not cease to be above the law as God. For what, tell me, is more burdensome than that it is written about him that he became "a curse for us," and again, "He who did not know sin made sin for us"? But he is not a curse, who rendered the curse upon us ineffectual, nor indeed is he sin in truth, who wiped away our sins and frees all from the ancient charges.

What then is more burdensome, to be called a curse and a sin, or to have been born among us and under the law in respect of the human? He therefore appropriates all things that befit humanity, precisely because he was born among us in the flesh. When, then, did he come under the law? The blessed Luke the evangelist will explain, saying: "When the days of their purification were completed according to the law of Moses, they brought him up to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord, as it is written in the law of the Lord, that every male that opens the womb shall be called holy to the Lord, and to offer a sacrifice according to what is said in the law of the Lord, a pair of turtledoves or two young pigeons." Do you hear how the God Word, who is assessor with the Father, is brought into the presence of the Father as a man like us, he who is also recorded among the firstborn through the shadow of the law? For firstborn were holy and sacred to God even before the incarnation. They therefore sacrificed on his behalf according to the law; and he also paid the didrachm to those who levied taxes, although he himself ought not to have paid it, because he is truly a Son. And indeed he said to the blessed Peter: "The kings of the earth, from whom do they receive taxes or tribute? From their own sons or from strangers?" And when Peter rightly said, "From strangers," he himself said again, "Then the sons are free.