Epiphanius Ancoratus 78

The Fathers of the Church Vol 128

(1) Then again, “the soul which sins is the very one which will die”(Ezek. 18.4) declared that it [the soul] is not outside of the body. “For there were,” it says “in the ship seventy souls,” and in no way were there souls without a body, but bodies with souls (Acts 27.37). And again it has been the custom to call [a person] “man” from one name [“soul”], because there is master of eighty bodies, in no without souls.

(2) Therefore, the Logos, who became flesh <did not happen to be> without a soul <as> also he was not without all <human> affairs. For when it says “soul,” it did not declare it without a body; nor when he says bodies, do we think they are without a soul.

(3) So why did he think it a good thing for those who wish to say that the mind has been cast aside? Or for what did this help the church? Or what rather did it not disturb? And how is the one who thinks such things not making our salvation lacking?

(4) For we are not able to think that our mind is another thing, nor are we able to say this [the mind] is a hypostasis in and of itself. But it is a composite and rational and thinking thing in each of those who are <not> mad, that is to say, it is the thought of man: as eyes are in the body, thus is a mind in the soul. And again we do not assert this argumentatively, but simply that it is the mental {aspect] of men.

(5) So what is a man? Soul, body, mind and as much as there is any other thing. Therefore, what did the Lord come to save? Surely a complete man. So, then, he assumed all things in himself completely.

(6) Whence otherwise could these things have been fulfilled in him, which were prophesied and were equivalent in a man, from mind and body and soul and the whole Incarnation, without sin?

(7) For wisely the divine Word instructs us, saying, “Behold my beloved child will understand, whom I chose, in whom my soul was well pleased: I will set <upon him> my Spirit,” and that what follows. Then, at any rate, where has the understanding being fulfilled? If on the one hand in the divinity, then is the divinity lacking in understanding? “By no means!” For this is fulfilled in the Lord’s-man, how will and Incarnation, existing without a mind, understand? This is impossible.

(8) For if “he will understand” actually refers to Christ, and Christ is God-Logos on high, but who became flesh from Mary, and who became incarnate and “lived among us,” according to what has been written, then unambiguously, with the mind, he accepted the economy, since understanding befits it [the economy].

(9) For because of this, concerning him the Gospel says, “he was advancing in wisdom and age.” The divinity was not admitting age nor lacking wisdom. The Incarnation of the Saviour was advancing in wisdom, not without a mind present, since <otherwise> he was not able to grow wise. And he was advancing in age as a maturing child, as is true.