De centurione et contra Manichaeos et Apolinaristas

Of the blessed Severian, bishop of Gabala, on the centurion and against the Manichaeans and the Apollinarists. Snow has whitened the earth with clouds; but with divine word the snowflakes of the holy scriptures whiten our souls. For these enter into our souls, and like rain upon grass and like snowfall upon pasture, the divine snowflakes both irrigate us and whiten us. They irrigate us for the fruits of piety, and they whiten us by cleansing the filth of sin; for he who is washed by the divine word is shown to be whiter than snow, according to what was said to David: "You will wash me, and I shall be whitened beyond snow." Our soul is whitened both by divine doctrines and by ethical precepts; for faith that illuminates our understanding must come first, and works that brighten the soul must follow. Faith precedes all things, which the Savior also marveled at in the passages read today, saying: "Truly I tell you, not even in Israel have I found such faith.

For the centurion, having grasped the dignity of the miracles, asked a command from the Savior and acknowledged his authority. But the heretics, even reading and reading and reading, have failed to understand the dignity and have insulted the authority of the Only-begotten, saying that he is subject to the authority of the Father, not knowing that the authority of the divine essence is common and the authority undivided: "For I and the Father are one." But let us return to the matter at hand. That marvelous centurion says: "Speak a word, and my child will be healed. There is no need of your physical presence; the divine power is everywhere, not circumscribed by place, but all things are encompassed by the divine spirit. The Jews call you into a house, not knowing your dignity. But I know that you are present everywhere, commanding by word and accomplishing all things by a nod. I have entreated you as a master, and I entreat you also as God. I beseech you as a savior and persuade you as a benefactor. My child lies grievously in the house, tormented.

And observe the steadfast mind of the faithful man. He came not on his own behalf but through the elders, not discharging the request perfunctorily, but deeming himself unworthy of the Savior's presence. For he says: "I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof. Therefore I did not even deem myself worthy to come to you." Good is the faithful man's modesty, which declines a visit out of reverence, yet proclaims worthiness through true reason. The elders of the Jews came, elders of little faith on behalf of a faithful servant. And the rulers of the synagogue said: "Come and heal." But he who sent the embassy, recognizing the worth, says: "Do not trouble yourself, for I am not worthy that you should enter my house." And how have you experience of my word? I know you are God from the miracles. And the word of God works nature, sets it right, and is the foundation of all visible things. Speak with a word; for by your word the heavens were made firm. Speak with a word; for by a word you laid the foundation of the earth, by a word you made the heavens firm, by a word you separated the sea, by a word you ordered all things. You command all your creations: you send forth the light and it proceeds, you call it and it obeys you with trembling, as Jeremiah says. And the stars shine for you with joy. You called them and they said: "We are present." You command the visible creation, and you order the supramundane creation, and with the same command you are unable to drive away diseases? Speak with a word. I need a word from the God who is Word. Speak with a word, and my child will be healed.

It is necessary to know that there is a great difference in the matter concerning faith, and hear how, brother. There are some who reach the extreme of faith, and there are others who have a middle measure of faith, and there are others who are of little faith, and others who are hard to persuade, and again there are others who are unbelieving. Now, the faithful are those at the extreme and admirable, such as this centurion, to whom the Savior bore witness, saying: "Truly I say to you, not even in Israel did I find such faith," and that Canaanite woman who approached, whom the Lord, marvelling, addressed: "O woman, great is your faith; let it be to you as you wish." These, then, are the extremely faithful. Unbelieving are those who are wholly cut off from piety; hard to persuade are those who lie on the borderland of both faith and unbelief, who sometimes assent to the word, and at other times dissent. The Gospel accuses the disciples of the Savior of such a lack of faith at one time, before they were perfected. For when it was announced to them that the Lord had risen from the dead, some, it says, believed, while others doubted. Now, to doubt is to stand in a double heart, to believe and disbelieve at the same time; this the soul of many often suffers when pondering matters concerning Christ. For when we stir against heretics, the hearers sometimes assent to the dignity of the Only-Begotten, but at other times they are shaken in their mind by the words of the heretics and are found in doubt, at one time looking toward the glory of Christ, at another time inclining toward heretical wickedness.

But God rebuked such a lack of faith. For that kind of faith is deficient and incomplete. It is possible to believe and to believe deficiently. Therefore the apostle, knowing that there is a deficient and lacking faith, says to the Romans: "That I may come and fill up the deficiencies of your faith." So it is possible both to believe and to fall short of the extreme of faith. Thus, lack of faith is to think something small about God, as when the Savior rebukes Peter, who entered the sea and walked with faith and then afterward doubted. For he says to him: "O you of little faith, why did you doubt?" He did not say "Unbeliever," but "You of little faith." For he showed a certain small faith. For at first, when he saw the Savior walking on the sea and the sea spreading its waves beneath him and laying flat its back for the master's steps, having considered the saying of David that says: "In the sea is your way, and your paths in many waters, and your footprints will not be known," he says to his own Savior: "Lord, if it is you, permit me to come to you upon the waters.

The master permitted, the servant followed, and a man entered upon the back of the sea. Then the sea roused its waves, or rather a violent wind falling upon the waters stirred up the waves of the sea and troubled its entire surface. The servant was shaken and began to be submerged, not first endangered in body, but baptized in faintness of faith. He saw the sea raging and the winds disturbed, and having departed from his former faith, he was about to be submerged. And he calls upon the savior: "Lord, help me." And he to him: "Faint-hearted one, why did you doubt?" And indeed there was not even the first instance of faithlessness. For to say, "If you are he, command me to come upon the waters," was characteristic of one recognizing the authority of the one commanding, and the one being submerged, looking to no other but seeking help from him and saying, "Lord, help," was not characteristic of one disbelieving, but of one believing. The gospel therefore accuses him, not because he called upon the master, but because he thought he was being submerged while the master was present.

Why," he says, "after my permission, after my nod, were you afraid of the sea? I permitted: 'Come,' and you thought the wind was stronger than my command? Did a wind frighten you as if it were stronger than my nod? Am I not the one who walks on the wings of the winds? But does the sea terrify you? I am the one who threatens the sea and dries it up. Why, then, does the creation fear the creator when he is present? But perhaps Peter will also say: 'Why, then, Lord, did the sea dare to rebel when you were present? Why did it raise waves when you were present?' The sea rebelled, Peter, not because it despised Christ, but because it was testing you. For the sea has always been a teacher of the disciples' faithlessness." Then the Savior entered the sea; he entered not walking but sailing. For when he wishes, he reveals his dignity; when he wishes, he fulfills the economy. He walked on the sea as on dry land; he entered a boat as a man. And he not only boarded the boat but also slept in the boat. Did the sleepless nature sleep in a boat? Did the one who calms waves sleep in a boat, he about whom the prophet said: 'Behold, the guardian of Israel neither slumbers nor sleeps'? He entered and slept; and the sea again raised its waves, not despising the master, but exposing the disciples' lack of faith—lack of faith, I mean, before their perfection. Let no one seize upon my words. For I am not accusing the apostles, but I am exposing the apostles' weakness, so that afterward you may recognize the apostles' strength. For Simon the fisherman is one thing, Peter the apostle another.

Matthew the tax collector is one thing, Matthew the evangelist is another. First, recognize the lowliness of the fishermen, and then marvel at the magnificence of the apostles. The sea raised its waves. They were in danger and were storm-tossed. And the one who rebukes the sea was present and did not rebuke. For he knew it as a good tutor, exercising the disciples in danger. When they had calmed down, they saw him sleeping as a man and they beseeched him as a man, saying, "Master, arise, save us, we are perishing." You call him Master? That is why the sea is angry; that is why it rebels against you, because you do not yet recognize the Lord, but you call him Master, saying, "Master." Either restrain your voice, or I do not restrain the waves. "Master, we are perishing." The one called Master is awakened, having been revealed as Lord. And what does he say to them? "Why are you cowardly, you of little faith?" See how everywhere he rebukes the one who does not recognize his rank. Why do you call him Master? "I saw you sleeping," he says, "and I approached you as a man." Then, because you saw him sleeping, you were ignorant of his sleepless dignity. Could you not say, as David did, "Awake, why do you sleep, Lord?" Why did you not call him Lord, but Master, as a common teacher? If you call him Master, you seek help. What Master can calm waves? What Master can rebuke a storm at sea? If you think he is a Master, let the Master sleep. But if you call him God, recognize his rank and receive the help.

But He rebukes them for their lack of faith, while He commands the sea by His authority. And He says to the sea, "Be silent, be still." The word went forth, and the sea recognized the command. It was ordered to be silent, and it fell silent. It was ordered to be calm, and it did not resist. This, I think, was preluding—or rather, proclaiming beforehand—what the blessed David also said when he depicted the apostolic image and the storm on the sea: "Those who go down to the sea in ships, those who ply their trade in many waters, they themselves saw the works of the Lord and His wonders in the deep." Sometimes, when one has captivated the hearer, an opponent says, "David recounts the wonders at the Red Sea, which the Israelites saw as they walked on foot in the deep, when the waters were frozen into a wall, when Pharaoh was drowned and Israel was saved. Then," he says, "those who went down saw the wonders in the deep." But the preface refutes them, for the sons of Israel entered on foot, but here he does not say "those who walk on foot," but "those who sail." Hence he says, "Those who go down to the sea in ships," and "those who ply their trade" signifies nothing other than the skill of the fishermen. "Those who ply their trade in many waters," that is, "the fishermen, they themselves saw the works of the Lord and His wonders in the deep.

What wonders? He spoke, and the storm wind ceased. Here He shows that the sea was moved by the command of God. For it would not have raged against the disciples of the Lord against His will. Its waves were raised high. And the apostles—what? They were disturbed, they were shaken like a drunkard, and all their wisdom was swallowed up. What wisdom? Their faith. Their wisdom was swallowed up, seized by their faint-heartedness, and they cried out to the Lord in their distress: "Master, master, we are perishing." And He saved them for the sake of His name. And what after this? That gospel command: "Be silent, be still." See how the prophet prefigures it. And He rebuked the storm, and it turned into a breeze, and its waves fell silent. So He rebukes the sea, and it grows calm. It recognized the master's command and is still. He rebuked it to calm it; He did not threaten it, lest it dry up. For if He had threatened, He would have dried it up, as the prophet says: "threatening the sea and drying it up.

Then the disciples begin to speak of the rebuke: "Who is this that even the winds and the sea obey him?" See how they still did not know his worth, attending to the economy. Then what does the Gospel add? "Having approached," it says, "some of the disciples in the boat worshipped him, saying, 'Truly you are the Son of God.'" See what the sea accomplished. Before the disturbance they called him master, after the disturbance they confessed him Son of God. The disturbance revealed his worth. "Truly you are the Son of God." All this has been said by me to show the division of faith and unbelief and little faith and distrust. And the Saviour, extolling the centurion because of "Say the word and my child will be healed," says to those following: "Truly I say to you, not even in Israel have I found such faith." Did you not find faith in Israel? Were you not deemed worthy to lay your hand on Peter's mother-in-law? If they did not believe, how did they entreat? But he did not say, "I did not find," but "I did not find such." I was entreated to lay my hand on Peter's mother-in-law, but no one was as alert as this man: "Say the word and drive out the fever." The ruler of the synagogue, Jairus, also called me and said to me, "My little daughter is dying; come and heal her." And when I said to him, "Take courage, your daughter lives," he said, "Lord, come before she dies." And he did not recognize the power of the word, but demanded the presence of the body. Many believed, but not as this man; they believed, but not like him. "Truly I say to you, not even in Israel have I found such faith.

This faithful man, then, brought forth faith from the good treasure, while the heretic brings forth unfaith from the evil treasure. And observe the understanding of Scripture, or rather observe the source of wisdom, what it utters: "The good man brings forth good things from the good treasure of the heart, and the evil man brings forth evil things from the evil treasure of his heart." Here pay attention to how it showed neither an evil nature nor a good nature, but choice, inclining toward this and looking toward that. This saying refutes the wickedness of the Manichaeans, who define the flesh as evil and the soul as from the good. For the children of the Manichaeans wish the flesh to be of the evil one, that is, of the devil, and the soul to be of God. It refutes them. For if the heart is of the body, how does it bring forth good things from the evil treasure? For that which is evil by nature cannot bring forth good things. They will therefore define whatever they wish. They wish our heart to be evil. Why then does it bring forth good things? But it is good by nature. And you find the rottenness of unfaith. For this reason it set down both, and called the man evil and good, so that you might not attack nature, but so that you might recognize choice. "The good man" first—see how it posits the nature as good, or rather the appellation "the good man" and "the evil man." If he is evil by nature, why is he good? And if he is good by nature, why is he evil? See how it now does not discuss nature, but defines the authority of choice.

But the Manichaeans bring forward the apostolic text and misrepresent the apostolic voice which says that the flesh is evil. "Listen," they say, "to what Paul teaches: 'The works of the flesh are manifest,' which are fornication, adultery, and so forth. But the fruit of the spirit is love, joy, peace, and so forth. Do you see," they say, "how flesh and spirit are set in opposition, and how he calls one the source of good things, the other the source of evil things?" So let us see whether the apostolic word truly agrees with their wickedness, and does not interpret the meaning according to their own choice. If the flesh is an evil creation and a work of the evil one, why is it that through the evil flesh we receive the existence of good things? The tongue, if its nature is evil, ought not to speak about God. The tongue ought not to utter words of praise. The tongue ought to flee from divine matters altogether as alien, and only speak foully and blaspheme and do all things proper to the flesh. How then does teaching of purity come through the tongue, which is a nature of evil?

Why do these ears, which according to them are instruments of the devil, admit the word of God? For if the instrument is alien, how does it receive the activity of the good? Why do eyes, if they are of the evil nature, look upward toward the one who dwells in heaven? The mouth, if it belongs to the evil one, why does the prophet say, "My mouth will speak wisdom"? For wisdom is foreign to wickedness. The hands, if they are an evil instrument, why do they perform almsgiving? Why are they stretched out toward God? For I stretch out my hands toward the most high God, who made the heaven and the earth. This belly, which receives food, if it were a construction of the evil one, why does it receive law within itself? For it says, "I desired to do your will, O God, and your law in the midst of my belly." The feet, if they are a part of the evil one, why do they prostrate themselves? For the kneeling of prostration is accomplished through the feet. And why does David say, "My foot stood in uprightness"? If it is of wickedness, how does it recognize uprightness? Let these things refute the impiety of the heretics.

What then does Paul mean when he says, "The works of the flesh are evident"? For if, as you have shown, the entire body becomes an instrument of truth, of the wisdom and goodness of God, why does Paul slander the flesh? He calls "flesh" the fleshly mindset, that which gratifies only the flesh and does not care for the soul, that which provides for present things and neglects future things. For when someone indulges in luxury and busies himself with the adornment of the body in order to tend to the body while his soul is ulcerated with countless wounds, then he is fleshly, as one devoted to the flesh and not caring for the soul. And to show that he calls the flesh a fleshly mindset, Paul says to the faithful: "But you are not in the flesh, but in the spirit." Were those to whom he wrote then without flesh? The heretics do not know the idioms of the Scriptures; they are ignorant of the sequence of Scripture. If the flesh is alien to God, why did God say, "In the last days I will pour out from my spirit upon all flesh"? Why not "upon all soul"? Why not "upon all mind," but "upon all flesh"? If the flesh is alien to God, why does David say, "To you all flesh will come"?

But Scripture often calls the whole human being "flesh," naming the whole from a part. Often it also calls the same person "soul," addressing the whole from a part. Often it also calls the whole human being "breath." So when it wishes to call the human being "flesh," it names not only the body but also the soul, as we said earlier: "All flesh will come to you," meaning "Every human being." For flesh by itself without soul or mind is not signified. When again it wishes to identify the whole human being from the soul, it says: "Jacob went down into Egypt with seventy-five souls." And clearly those who went down into Egypt were not bodiless souls, but complete human beings. Sometimes again divine Scripture calls the whole human being "breath," as in: "Let every breath praise the Lord." And not only here, but also when King Jehu was destroying his enemies, the book of Kings says: "And King Jehu struck the house of Ahab and left no breath in his house," meaning "He left no human being." Therefore, it mentions flesh in one way when it proclaims nature, and in another way again when it censures fleshly thinking.

But let us return to the matter at hand. The works of the flesh are manifest, not of the visible flesh, but of the fleshly mindset. And so that you may learn that he is not attacking this flesh, but the undisciplined mindset, listen to him enumerating the things: "The works of the flesh are manifest," which are fornication, adultery, idolatry. Let it be granted that fornication is of the body and adultery is of the body. Is idolatry a work of the body or a practice of the soul? "The works of the flesh are manifest," which are fornication, adultery. Are these alone of the flesh, or also idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strifes, jealousies, angers, contentions, dissensions? All these are alien to the body, but proper to the soul. I say proper to the soul, not by nature, but by choice. But indeed, if one attends carefully, one finds the definition of the heretics turned back against them. They say that the soul is of God, but the flesh is of the devil. We find from Scripture that the flesh is deemed worthy of the Holy Spirit, but the soul does not receive the things of the Spirit. I speak according to the letter, not that it is not deemed worthy, but I resist the heretical argument. If the flesh is alien to God, how did God say, "I will pour out from my Spirit upon all flesh"? If the soul is a proper work of God, why does the psychic man not receive the things of the Spirit? It has therefore been clearly shown that the works of the flesh are not of the body, but of the fleshly mindset. For Paul also interprets this elsewhere, saying, "The mindset of the flesh is enmity toward God." Not the flesh is enmity, but the mindset of the flesh. Have you learned what flesh is?

Hold the definition unshaken. And when Paul says that flesh and blood will not inherit the kingdom of God, understand, he says, that the mindset of the flesh does not inherit the kingdom of God. For the flesh is not alien to the inheritance. For those who deny the resurrection have used this phrase. How, you say, do you claim that the flesh is raised, when Paul says: Flesh and blood will not inherit the kingdom of God? Flesh, the fleshly mindset, does not inherit the kingdom, meaning: one who thinks base thoughts is alien to the kingdom. For this reason the apostle, in another place, wishing to explain what he means by "Flesh and blood will not inherit the kingdom of God," says in the letter to the Corinthians: Do not be deceived; neither fornicators nor adulterers nor effeminate men nor homosexuals nor drunkards nor slanderers will inherit the kingdom of God. Thus, when Paul often says "flesh," he does not denounce the visible form, but the fleshly mindset. For how is the flesh evil, which has been deemed worthy to become a temple of the Word of God? And why did the Good One take on an alien work, if the creation was not his own? Why does he take on what is alien? Why does he correct what is alien? Why does he heal the blind and not allow evil to go lame? Evil, being blind, is powerless and is proven weak. Let it be weak. Why do you strengthen its instruments? But the creation is not alien. Listen to him saying to the Pharisees: Have you not read that the one who made made male and female? And male and female is not of souls, but of the formation of bodies.

These things also refute the heretics who introduce a novel drama to us, I mean the followers of Apollinarius, who say that the Savior assumed a body that was ensouled but without a mind. And listen how. For perhaps you are also ignorant of the novel drama of the heresy. I mean something like this. Do the heretics say? For I do not come to the same examination simply. But since a great uproar has been stirred up by some against the faith, as if those heretics hold correct opinions while the church is lame concerning the faith, it is necessary therefore to lay bare both the absurdity of that newly-invented impiety and the steadfastness of the faith that does not shake the apostolic rule. The heretics say that the Word of God assumed an ensouled body without a mind. And if you ask them why he did not assume a mind, they say: Because the first creation was corrupted and the devil deceived man, and man was deceived by surrendering his mind to the devil, so that he might not disturb the economy. I do not know if the hearers have not already condemned the heretics before the examination, but nevertheless let us examine the matter under investigation.

Without the mind, the heretics say, the incarnation of the Savior took place, and they drag that evangelical saying, "The Word became flesh," as a witness to their own opinion. "He did not say," they claim, "the Word became a human being, but flesh." But it was shown from what was said earlier that flesh is generally recognized as a human being. "For all flesh will come to you." But let us ask: why did he not assume a mind? So that it would not hinder the salvation. Therefore, was he afraid of the mind as something stronger and as capable of hindering the economy? If, then, God the Word himself declined the mind, why am I judged? Why did he bind to me such an evil, which he himself declined? And why does he judge me for the sins I have committed? But see also their other folly. "If," they say, "there were the Word of God and a human mind, there would be a conflict." But conflict arises from equals against equals, not from inferiors against superiors. If they were claiming that the nature of the mind is of equal honor to the power of God the Word, they would rightly introduce equality of honor, so that it would not cause a rebellion. But if one is God, and the other is a human thought, why do you cast out the mind? "So that it would not rebel," they say, "against the economy." Is there, then, something stronger than God? Is there something that conquers and circumscribes his will? Paul conquered the mind, admittedly a common human being having an admittedly human mind, and he says, "But we have the mind of Christ," as the human mind having been deadened and transformed into a divine mind.

And in Paul and the apostles, the mind—the one that conceives evil thoughts—was put to death, and another came into being in its place, but in the divine body it was about to rebel against the creator of nature? I remind those who know and speak to those who know, so that no one may secretly receive the poison of heresy, so that no one of the innocent may lend their ear to deception. He did not assume the mind, they say. Why? Because it was about to pervert and cloud the economy. Why then did he assume this flesh? For Paul does not say that the works of the mind are sins, but he attributes all sin to the flesh and not to the mind. For the works of the flesh are manifest, he says, which are fornication, adultery, and so forth. Why then did he assume sinful flesh, if the flesh is opposed to the spirit? For what reason did he assume the opposing element, but he quenched the resistance of the flesh and made it calm? Did he not likewise make the mind calm? O the folly, man! Wine changes the mind; does God not change the mind? But let folly be laughed at, and let divine truths be proclaimed. Therefore, in the Savior's flesh there was the human mind, but it did not think human thoughts, just as the flesh also did not. The flesh was human, but it transcended through supramundane power.

And to give you a clear and distinct image, take, I ask, with patience the proofs of what has been said. There are in the flesh passions that are outside sin; there are passions that are inside sin. Similarly, in the soul there are passions outside sin, and passions inside sin. What I mean is this: Passions of the flesh outside sin are hunger, thirst, sleep. These are passions, but not of sin, but of fleshly weakness: hunger, thirst, sleep, fatigue from walking, and many other things akin to these. But there are other passions of the flesh: licentiousness, a lustful eye that looks wickedly, prying into others' faces, a tongue that speaks deceitfully, hands stretched out for violence. These are works of sin. We will find, then, that the Savior was entirely and completely above the passions that lead to sin, as far as the flesh is concerned, but entered into those that indicate weakness, because of the economy. For he hungered: having fasted forty days, he later became hungry. And being thirsty, he asked for water from the Samaritan woman, and having traveled, he grew weary on the road. The nature that does not tire grew weary; the one who feeds all hungered; the one who waters the world thirsted; the one who calms the waves slept. He displayed all the passions of the flesh without sin. But those within sin he did not do, as it is said: he did not commit sin, nor was deceit found in his mouth.

You saw him sharing in the passions of the flesh that are outside sin. See him sharing in the passions of the soul that are outside sin. There are passions of the soul that are counted as sin: evil thoughts, shameful reflections. These are passions of a soul inclining by its own free choice toward sin. But there are other passions of it that are outside sin: grief, timidity, and fear. No one has been condemned for being timid; no one has been rejected because of fear; no one has been dishonored because of grief. For these are common passions of nature, and the passions of the soul that are outside sin are blameless. Just as he did not share in the passions of the flesh that are outside sin, so also he shared in the passions of the soul that are outside sin. Listen to him saying: "My soul is deeply grieved unto death," and again: "My soul is disturbed." Disturbance is an effect of fear. The flesh feared, the human vessel feared. It feared the experience of death. He himself clarifies and clearly demonstrates that it was not the divine spirit that was timid, but the flesh recognized its own weakness. "The spirit," he says, "is willing, but the flesh is weak." He grieved and was disturbed.

Here then pay close attention: the one who says there is no human mind in the Savior’s flesh—he himself said that he was both grieved and troubled. Either grant the mind that is by nature disturbed and grieved, or, casting this out and introducing a god in place of the rational principle, you attach the passions to God. For what does he say? That the soul is grieved, cowardly, and disturbed without the mind. This is impossible. And I present the proof from experience itself. Infants admittedly have both soul and body. The mind is present in them, but it has not yet been made manifest. It exists, but it has not yet received its own activity. And just as the tongue is born together with the infant, but speech has not yet been received from nature—rather, it is an instrument of speech and does not have speech—so also the mind is implanted in the soul from the beginning, but it does not immediately receive its activity. As time advances, both the mind is roused and the tongue is exercised. If, however, infants have a childish state and have not yet received a discerning mind, but have it lulled by inexperience and at rest in simplicity, then until that time they neither fear what ought to be feared nor grieve over what ought to be grieved over, but even if they grieve or rejoice, they have both their grief and their joy without reason.

What I mean is this: An infant knows how to laugh on a day of mourning while others weep; it knows how to ask for bread when all are grieving. For it does not reason about what lies before it. It sees its father dead and does not comprehend the calamity. It sees its mother lying prostrate and is not struck by the affliction that has befallen her; rather, its simplicity leads it into carelessness, and in mourning it is not disturbed but laughs. On the roads, often when bandits attack and draw their swords and everyone is seized with fear, the infant is not disturbed. For it has no experience of swords and blood and slaughter. Seeing a serpent, it does not become anxious. It sees fire and does not shrink back, but rejoices in the brightness and often thrusts its hand into the fire. Have you not observed an infant putting its hand to a lamp, attending to the brightness, but not examining the burning power? Just as grievous things do not cause it disturbance, so too do cheerful things not rouse it to joy. An infant knows how to weep and lament and complain on a wedding day, and it neither shares in the joy as irrational, nor in the grief. Since, then, you cast out from the human vessel which the Savior assumed the mind, either give me this mind that is grieved, or, by casting it out, you clearly introduce the divinity as both grieved and disturbed.

I was praying that all of you would either hear their words or the interpretations among them. For I did not want you to see either the wound or the plaster for the wound. But since the sore is spreading, and under the guise of orthodoxy it introduces heterodoxy and says that Christ did not assume a mind, and it innovates against the apostolic doctrines, we have necessarily set these things forth, in order both to silence them and to secure you. Take the authority of the faith. Learn that Christ took up every fallen human being and that he stirred up every nature that had been dissolved. For did the flesh alone sin? Did the soul alone sin? Was the mind alone a stranger to sin? If, then, the mind did not partake of sin, it had no need of healing either. For those who are strong have no need of a physician, but those who are ill do. But if the mind also shared in sin, why do you introduce healing partially? The soul sinned and had need of healing. For it is written: "The soul that sins, this one will die." And note the precision. The sin that the word here attributes to the soul, it elsewhere charges to the flesh, accusing both the flesh and the mind together, so that no one might think that the flesh is some evil creation in itself, while the mind is alien to the flesh and free from sins. The inspired apostle clearly declares somewhere, saying: "And we were children by nature of wrath, doing the wills of the flesh and of the minds," in order to show clearly that both soul and body and mind sinned. And that not only the flesh receives corruption, but also the mind, he says again elsewhere:

People whose mind has been corrupted. If, then, the flesh sinned and the soul sinned and the mind was corrupted, the whole vessel being corrupted, why did he not take up the whole? But if you say, he says, "a whole human being," you place your hopes in a human being. I proclaim Christ as a human being and do not deny it, but as a human being and a god, a god because of his dignity, a human being because of the economy. I call him a human being because of his externally visible condition, a god because of the dignity dwelling within as in a temple in his humanity. And I do not refuse to call him a human being, since Paul did not deny it; for he says, "Mediator between God and human beings, the human being Jesus Christ." And do you want to learn precisely the Lord calling himself a son of man? Listen to him saying, "What do people say I am, the son of man?" If he did not truly take up the image of the human being which the devil corrupted, why does he call the one who is half a human being a son of man? And why, brother, if he did not have a mind, but the visible instrument was from soul and body, why does the apostle call the Savior Adam? For if he is not whole, he is not Adam. The apostle calls our Lord Jesus both a god because of his dignity—for he says, "Christ according to the flesh, the God over all, blessed"—and a human being because of the economy. And he names him Adam in order to represent the economy. For he says, "The first human being Adam became a living soul; the second Adam became a life-giving spirit." If he has not put on the whole Adam, why is he called Adam?

But so that you may learn again from another clear demonstration, brother, that the whole human was taken up through the Lord’s flesh, listen to Paul saying: “Knowing this, that our old human was crucified.” If it were not a whole human, why does he call it an old human? But let these things be said sufficiently against the heretics. Let us return to our own nobility. Our nobility is the apostolic faith, the apostolic profession. We all have the mind of Christ. Those who deny the mind are people whose mind has been corrupted, worthless concerning the faith. But let these things suffice. May it be that we, abiding by the apostolic definitions, keep the doxology undefiled, and block our ears to the heretics, and know the mind of the Church, and know the profession of the faith, and know the mystery of baptism, and know the dignity of the faith. May we be deemed worthy of the faith, so that just as we were baptized, so also we believe, so also we glorify, sending up true glory to the Father and to the Holy Spirit, unto the ages of ages. Amen.