18–20. The clothing of the Word with flesh is the great mystery of faith. Christ is born of a virgin, but without sin

18. Now, to give us a simpler answer, let us say that it was not fitting for the Son of God to be born of the seed of man. For if He were wholly the Son of man, He would not be the Son of God and would not be in any way superior to either Solomon or Jonah (cf. Matt. 12:40-42), and He would have to be judged according to Ebion's opinion. This means that since He was already the Son of God from the seed of God the Father, that is, the Spirit, then in order to become the Son of man, He had only to take flesh from human flesh, without the seed of man. The seed of a man was superfluous for Him who had the seed of God. Therefore, just as He could have God as Father without a human mother, until He was born of a Virgin, so when He was born of a Virgin, He could have a human mother without a human father. Namely, He is man, united to God, as human flesh is to the Spirit of God, flesh of man, but without seed; The Spirit is from God, and with the seed. If, then, the Son of God was intended to be descended from the Virgin, why did He not receive from the Virgin the body which He brought out of her? Because the body which he received from God is different, for the Word, they say, became flesh (John 1:14). But this word [of Scripture] bears witness only to that which was made flesh; and on the other hand, there is no danger that the Word, having become flesh, will immediately turn out to be something other than the Word. Whether the Word was made flesh from flesh or from seed itself,[109] let the Scriptures tell us. But since the Scriptures only indicate what it has become, without indicating from what, it thereby inclines to the assumption that it was made of something else, and not directly from the seed. And if not directly from the seed, but from another, then conclude from this whether there is another more trustworthy source of the Word becoming flesh than the flesh into which He was incarnate. For the Lord Himself has decisively (sententialiter) and definitely declared: "That which is born in the flesh, that is, the flesh" (John 3:6), precisely because it is born of the flesh. But if He said this only of man, and not of Himself, then, of course, deny the humanity of Christ and declare that it does not concern Him. But He immediately added: "And what is born of the Spirit, that is, the Spirit" (ibid.), for the Spirit is God and is born of God. If this applies to those who believe in Him, then even more so applies to Him Himself. But if this applies to Him, then why does not what has been said above also apply? If you recognize in Christ both substances, both carnal and spiritual, then you cannot separate these words and refer the second part to Himself, and the first to all other people. Moreover, if He had flesh as well as the Spirit, then, by claiming the property of these two substances, which He Himself possessed, He could not attribute spiritual substance to His Spirit, and at the same time not attribute corporeal substance to His flesh. Hence, since He Himself proceeds from the Spirit of God, and the Spirit is God, then He Himself is God, begotten of God, and Man, begotten in the flesh of man.

19. What does it mean, "Not of blood, nor of the desire of the flesh, nor of the desire of man, but of God he was born" (John 1:13)[110]? It is this chapter that I will use when I expose its distorters. They insist that it is written thus: "Not of blood, nor of the desire of the flesh, nor of man, but of God, are they begotten," as if [the apostle] here meant the above-named believers in His name, in order to show the secret seed of the elect and the spiritual, which they receive into themselves. But how can this be, if all who believe in the Name of the Lord are born according to the general law of human birth – from blood, from flesh and from the desire of a husband – and even Valentine himself? To that extent there must be a singular, for it is written of the Lord alone, "And begotten of God," and rightly written, for Christ is the Word of God, and with the Word the Spirit of God, and in the Spirit is the Power of God and all that belongs to God. Though He is flesh, yet not of blood, nor of flesh, nor of the desire of man: for the Word was made flesh by the will of God. To the flesh, of course, and not to the Word, belongs the negation of our ordinary birth, for thus the flesh was born, but not the Word.

But why did not [the Apostle], denying the birth of the desire of the flesh, deny the birth of the substance of the flesh? Because, denying birth of the desire of the flesh, he did not reject the substance of the flesh, but only the participation of the seed, which, as we know, is the heat of the blood; As it cools, it turns into a clot of female blood. For from the leaven and in the cheese is manifested the [true] nature of the substance, that is, milk: it is condensed by the addition of leaven. Therefore we understand that [by these words] only is denied that the birth of the Lord occurred as a result of coition (by which is meant the desire of the husband and the flesh), but the participation of the beds is not denied. And why does [the Apostle] insist so strenuously that He was not born of blood, nor of the desire of the flesh, nor of man, if not because He had such flesh that no one thought to doubt the birth of it from coitus? But, further denying the birth of coitus, he did not deny the birth of the flesh; on the contrary, he affirmed it, for he did not deny the birth of the flesh, just as he denied the birth of coitus. I ask you: If the Spirit of God did not descend into the couch in order to participate in the flesh, why did He descend there? After all, it was much easier for spiritual flesh to be formed outside the beds and without their participation than in them. In such a case, for no reason, He descended to the place from which He had taken nothing. But He did not descend into the couch without reason, and therefore He received something of them. For if He did not receive any of them, He descended into them aimlessly, especially if He intended to take on flesh of such a quality that is alien to beds, that is, spiritual.

20. But what is your cunning if you try to remove even the syllable "from" (ex) written as a pretext, and use another that does not occur in this form in the Holy Scriptures? "Through" (per) the Virgin, you say, He is begotten, and not "of" the Virgin, and "in" the couches, and not "from" the couches, for the angel also said to Joseph in a dream: "Whatsoever is born in Her, that is of the Holy Spirit" (Matt. 1:20); and he did not say, "From Her." But it is clear that even if he had used the words "from Her," he would have understood all the same: in Her, for what was of Her was in Her. Accordingly, therefore, his words "in Her" and "from Her" coincide: for what was in Her, was from Her. It is good, however, that the same Matthew, setting forth the genealogy of the Lord from Abraham to Mary, says: "Jacob begat Joseph, the husband of Mary, from whom Christ is born" (1:16). And Paul also enjoins these "grammarians" to be silent: God, he says, sent His Son, who became of a woman (Galatians 4:4). Does he say "through the wife" or "in the wife"? And if he preferred to say "begotten" (factus), then this word is more emphatic than "begotten" (natus), for it would have been much easier for him to say "begotten." And by saying "became," he pointed to the words: "The Word was made flesh" (John 1:14) and confirmed the reality (veritas) of the flesh that became from the Virgin. In this case, the Psalms also patronize us, but, of course, not the psalms of the apostate, heretic and Platonist Valentinus, but the most holy and universally recognized prophet David. He glorifies Christ for us, and through him Christ glorified Himself. Listen to Christ and hear the Lord speaking to God the Father: "For Thou art He who brought Me out of My Mother's womb" (Psalm 21:10) — this is one thing. Thou art My hope from the bosom of My Mother; on Thee have I been left from Her womb (10-11) — this is different. And from My Mother's womb Thou art My God (11) — this is the third.

Now let's analyze the meaning of these words. Thou hast brought Me out," He says, "out of the womb. But what is plucked out if not that which is attached to it, that which is bound and attached to that from which, for the sake of separation, it is plucked out? And if He was not diligent in the belly, how could He be plucked out? If He who was plucked out was attached to the womb, how could He be attached otherwise than by applying to the womb through the umbilical cord, that is, as it were through the appendage of the sheath [of the fetus] by which it is connected with the generative womb? For even when one external is united with another external, it is so united and fused with that to which it is attached, that when it is rejected, it takes with it a part of the body from which it is torn away, as if it were a trace of dissolved unity and interaction. But what breasts of His Mother does He speak of? About those, no doubt, which he sucked. Let the midwives, physicians, and naturalists tell us about the quality of the breasts, whether there is an outflow from them without the womb experiencing the pangs of childbirth, for only then does the blood rise through the veins from the lower storehouse to the breast, and as a result of this very movement is transformed into a more nutritious matter, milk. It is for this reason that there is no menstrual bleeding during pregnancy. But if the Word became flesh out of Himself, and not through fellowship with the beds, then they did nothing, produced nothing, suffered nothing. How did they pour their source into the nipples, which can change it only by receiving? But they could not have blood to prepare milk, unless there was the very reason for the supply of this blood, namely, the rejection of their flesh. What was extraordinary about Christ's birth from a Virgin is clear: it is only that He was born of a Virgin for a reason that we have learned, and that the Virgin is our regeneration, for She is spiritually sanctified from all impurity through Christ, Who Himself is a Virgin according to the flesh, for He was born of the flesh of a Virgin.

21–22. The human origin of His flesh is proved by all of Mary's ancestors up to David and Abraham

21. If, therefore, they insist that the newness of this birth befitted that the Word of God should not become flesh of the seed of man, just as it should not be of the flesh of the virgin, why should not all this novelty consist in the fact that the flesh should have come from the flesh and not been born of seed? Perhaps I will enter into a hotter battle. "Behold," says [the prophet], "a virgin shall conceive. What will She receive? Of course, the Word of God, not the seed of a man, and definitely to bring forth a Son. For, he continues, she will also bear a Son. Hence, just as it was proper for Her to receive, so also belonged to Her that which She gave birth to, although what She received did not belong to Her. On the contrary, if the Word became flesh from Himself, then He took Himself and begotten Himself, and the prophecy is empty. For the Virgin did not receive or give birth, unless that which she begotten from the received Word was not her flesh. But is it not only the prophetic voice that is diminished here, or is it also the utterance of the angel announcing to the Virgin about the reception and birth? Is not the Scripture already diminished where the Mother of Christ is proclaimed? For how was She a Mother if He was not in Her womb? "Yet from Her womb He received nothing that made Him His Mother, in whose womb He was." "But even the flesh, which is alien to the [mother's] womb, does not need to mention it. Further, that which is born of oneself is not the fruit of the womb. Therefore let Elizabeth be silent, bearing in her womb a child – a prophet who already knew his Lord, and moreover herself filled with the Holy Spirit [112]. Then, for no reason, she says: "And whence is it that the Mother of my Lord has come to me? (Luke 1:43). If Mary bore Jesus in her womb, not as a Son, but as someone else's, then why does she [Elizabeth] say: Blessed is the fruit of Thy womb (42)? What is this fruit of the womb that did not come from the womb, that had no root in it, and did not belong to the One whose womb it was?

And in general, who is the fruit of this womb? Christ. Is it not precisely because He Himself is the flower of the branch that sprang up from the root of Jesse? But the root of Jesse is the family of David; the branch from the root is Mary, who came from David, the flower from the branch is the Son of Mary, called Jesus Christ. It will also be fruit, for color is fruit: for by color and from color every fruit becomes fruit. And what happened? They deny the fruit its flower, the blossom its branch, the branch its root, so that the root may not claim its possession through the branch, which proceeds from the branch, the flower and the fruit. For all the generations of the generation are numbered from the last to the first, so that now they need to know that the flesh of Christ belongs not only to the flesh of Mary, but also to the flesh of David through Mary, and to the flesh of Jesse through David. Therefore, God swears to David to place on the throne of David this fruit from the loins of David, that is, the offspring of his flesh (Ps. 131:11; Acts 2:30). But if He is from the loins of David, how much more from the womb of Mary, by which He was attached to the loins of David.

22. Then let [our opponents] try to erase the testimony of the demons who cried out to Jesus as the Son of David [113]; but they cannot remove the testimonies of the apostles if the testimonies of the demons are untrustworthy. First of all, Matthew himself, the most reliable narrator of the Gospel (for he was a companion of the Lord), begins his narration for no other reason with the words: The Book of the Genealogy of Jesus Christ, the Son of David, the Son of Abraham, except in order to enlighten us about the carnal origin of Christ. And since His generation proceeds from these initial sources, and the generations gradually ascend to the birth of Christ, what else but the flesh of both Abraham and David, begetting an offshoot in its offspring, extends to the Virgin Herself and brings forth Christ, or, rather, Christ Himself descends from the Virgin? And Paul, being a disciple, teacher, and witness of the same Gospel — for he is also an apostle of Christ Himself [114] — affirms that Christ in the flesh (according to His own, of course) is descended from the seed of David (Rom. 1:3; 2 Tim. 2:8). This means that the flesh of Christ is from the seed of David. But if through the flesh of Mary He comes from the seed of David, then He comes from the flesh of Mary, since He is from the seed of David. Turn these words over as you like: either of the flesh of Mary that which is of the seed of David, or of the seed of David that which is of the flesh of Mary. All this contradiction is put an end to by the above-mentioned apostle, who determines that Christ is the seed of Abraham. But if it is Abraham's, how much more David's, for David is younger. In the same way he explains the promise of blessing the nations in the name of Abraham: "And in thy seed shall all nations be blessed" (Gen. 12:3). [The Lord], he says, did not say "in seeds," as of many "descendants," but of "seed," as of one, which is Christ (Galatians 3:8; 16). But if we read this and believe in it, then what attribute of the flesh should and can we recognize in Christ? Of course, it is not otherwise than the attribute of the flesh of Abraham, for Christ is the seed of Abraham; none other than Jesse's, for Christ is the flower from the root of Jesse; none other than David's, for Christ is the fruit of David's loins; not otherwise than Mary: for Christ is from the womb of Mary. And, above all and above all, it is none other than an attribute of Adam's flesh, for Christ is the Second Adam. The conclusion, then, is this: either let them recognize in Christ spiritual flesh, which in such a situation is deprived of substance in Christ; or let them think that His flesh was not spiritual, for it did not come from a spiritual trunk.

23. Mary's virginity ceases after the birth of Christ

23. And we recognize the fulfillment of the prophetic words of Simeon, which he pronounced over the Lord, then still a newborn child: "Behold, this one lies for the fall and rising of many in Israel, and for a contradictory sign" (Luke 2:34). And here is the sign of the birth of Christ, according to Isaiah: Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son. Thus we recognize the contradictory sign, the conception and birth of the Virgin Mary, of which these "academicians" [115] say: "She gave birth and did not give birth, Virgin and not Virgin"; Perhaps it would be appropriate for us to say so, if it were necessary to talk about it at all. For if she gave birth of her own flesh, she did give birth; but since she did not give birth to the seed of a man, she did not give birth at all. She is a Virgin, for she did not know a man; but not the Virgin, for she gave birth [116]. However, it is not that She gave birth and did not give birth, and that the Virgin Who is not a Virgin is precisely because She is a Mother in Her bosom. We have nothing doubtful, nothing that appeals to a double interpretation. Light is light, and darkness is darkness; "yes" is "yes", and "no" is "no", and what is more than that is from the evil one (Matt. 5:37). She gave birth, Who gave birth. And if the Virgin conceived, then through her birth she became married, namely, according to the law of the open body. At the same time, there was no difference whether it was done by the allowed or released masculine power, — all the same, the bed was opened by the same sex. And the couch is the very one for the sake of which it is written about others: "Everything that is manly that opens the couch will be called sanctified unto the Lord" (Exodus 13:2). Who is truly holy, if not the Son of God? Who in the real sense opened the couches, if not He Who opened them, locked up? However, in marriage, they open up for everyone. And those beds were all the more open, for they were more firmly locked. And therefore it is more necessary to call Her not a Virgin than a Virgin, for She became a Mother as if suddenly, before She entered into marriage. And is it worth saying more about this, when the Apostle, on the same grounds, proclaimed that the Son of God was not made of a virgin, but of a woman, acknowledging the marital suffering of Her open beds? We have read, of course, in Ezekiel about a heifer that gave birth and did not give birth,[117] but see if the Holy Spirit had not already indicated you in His providence, disputing about the womb of Mary. Moreover, otherwise, contrary to His usual simplicity, He would not have proclaimed meaningfully through the mouth of Isaiah: "He shall receive and begin."

24–25. Heretics, by denying human flesh in Christ, thereby deny the resurrection. But both are certain

24. As for the words which Isaiah utters to ridicule heretics, and above all: "Woe to those who call bitter sweet and darkness light" (5:20), by which he refers to those who do not preserve such words in their proper meaning; [he cares] that the soul should be only that which is called it, the body only that which is considered to be it, and God only that which is preached. Therefore the Lord, foreseeing Marcion, says thus: I am God, and there is no other God besides Me (45:5). And when in another place He says the same thing, "There was no God before Me" (46:9), I think He is striking some genealogies of the Valentinian Aeons. And with the words: "Not of blood, not of flesh, and of the desire of man, but of God" (John 1:13), He answers Ebion. In the same way, the words: "Even if an angel from heaven preached good news to you otherwise than we preach the gospel, let him be accursed" (Galatians 1:8) are directed against the intricacies of the Apelles maiden Philoumena. It is certain that anyone who denies the coming of Christ in the flesh is the Antichrist (cf. 1 John 4:3). But he who calls His flesh by the unveiled, straightforward, and simple name of its nature, strikes all those who argue about it. Likewise, he who defines Christ Himself as one, shakes those who teach about the multiplicity of Christ. For they represent the one as Christ, and the other as Jesus; one escaping from the midst of the crowd, another being seized by it, one in solitude on a mountain among the clouds, glorious before the three judges, another pliable and plausible, one showing greatness of spirit, another trembling, and finally this one suffering, and this one resurrecting. Therefore they say that their own resurrection will be in another body [118]. But it is good that the same One will come from heaven (Acts 1:11), Who suffered, and the same One Who has risen will appear to all. And those who crucified Him will see and recognize Him,[119] they will surely recognize the very flesh against which they raged, and without which He could neither appear nor be recognized. Therefore let those who assert that in heaven sits senseless flesh, like the receptacle which Christ left, or that there is flesh and soul of the same kind, or only the soul, but without flesh at all.