lame may not be turned aside, but rather be healed"? Where now is the word: "Convict, correct, exhort with all patience and teaching"? Judgment without trial, sentence without proof. Audacity is reputed as courage; cruelty is called zeal; deceit is considered wisdom. What tragedy, with any amount of clamor, could be equal to these deeds? The lamentation of Jeremiah is small in the face of the gravity and magnitude of so many evils. But that we may not seem to linger in lamentations for lack of proof, let us simply encounter with truth each of the things they object, although they have been convicted by their deeds before being reached by words, according to that saying of the divine law: "From their fruits ye shall know them." Furthermore, the fruit of such workers has thus far been to scatter, not to gather; to pursue, not to bring back; to cast down, not to raise up; to wound, not to heal; to hate those who err, not to seek those who err. What was written without falsehood, therefore, has been manifestly fulfilled: "All who wish to live piously in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution; but evil men and seducers shall progress to the worse, erring and leading into error." B The parts of our refutation follow, and are distinguished in order.
I. Against those who judge the truth solely by the multitude.
Certamina igitur, Deo auspice, adversus menda- C We are about to engage in struggles, with God as our guide, against falsehood; therefore, we must invoke as leader and teacher the God of truth. For He it is who has redeemed us from the lies of vanity, now crying out: "I am the truth," and now exhorting: "Be of good cheer, I have overcome the world." How then are they not to be pitied, those who attribute the force and authority of doctrine to a mere multitude, and do not understand that the Master Christ endowed twelve disciples—simple, unlettered, poor, and vulnerable—with the confidence to stand against the whole world, having prepared them not to follow the twelve myriads, but for the myriads to join themselves to the twelve? Thus the power of truth always prevails, even if it is found among few for the time being. But he who dares not give an account of the proposed question, nor possesses proof, and for that reason flees to the refuge of the multitude, confesses his defeat by this very fact, as one who has no other ground for his confidence. Why do you brandish the multitude at us, as if threatening God with a second construction of a tower, following the example of that insane crowd? Let them show me the beauty of truth, and persuasion will straightway be brief. But a multitude that lays down the law without proofs is sufficient to frighten, but in no way to convince. Or how many myriads shall D convince me to call day night? Or to recognize copper coin as gold, and so accept it? Or to partake of an obvious poison
A instead of suitable food? And then, because of earthly matters, shall we not be sensitive to a multitude of false names, yet for the sake of heavenly dogmas follow unproven nods, departing from those things handed down from long ago and very long ago with much consensus and the testimony of the Scriptures? Have we not heard the Lord saying: "Many are called, but few are chosen"? And again: "Narrow and strait is the way that leads to life, and few there are who find it"? Who then, being of sound mind, does not prefer to be among the few entering through the narrow way unto salvation, rather than among the many being pushed through the broad way unto destruction? Who, if he had happened to be living at that time during the struggle of the blessed Stephen, would not have wished to be on his side, while he was alone being pelted with stones, set before all as a laughingstock, rather than on the side of the crowds who thought their authority was credible because of the evil of the mob? One approved man is more to be preferred than myriads of defiant people puffed up with pride, as we also find in the Old Testament: in which thousands of the people fell by a divinely sent plague, but Phinehas alone stood B and made atonement, and the slaughter stopped. But if that man [Phinehas] had said: "How shall one dare to stand against so many who are in agreement with one another? How shall I cast an opposing vote against those who thus judge life?" neither would he himself have won the prize, nor would he have stopped the evil; neither would the rest have been saved, nor would God have granted his favor. It is good, therefore—good that even one righteous man should speak boldly, and that the unjust consensus of the many should be broken. But you, if you please, prefer the drowned multitude to the saved Noah; but grant to me to run to the ark that contains the few. And you, if you wish, station yourself with the many in Sodom; but I will walk with Lot, even if he alone sets himself apart from the crowds for his own safety. Furthermore, to me a multitude is also admirable, not the one that flees investigation, but the one that provides proof; not the one that attacks bitterly, but the one that corrects fatherly; not the one that delights in innovation, but the one that preserves the paternal inheritance. But what kind of multitude are you naming to me? It is, of course, that which is hired by flattery and gifts: that which is led astray by ignorance and lack of learning, that which has failed through cowardice and fear, that which has preferred the temporary enjoyment of sin to eternal life—things which many have openly confessed. Do you strengthen a lie by means of a multitude? You are pointing out the intensity of the evil; for by how many more are in the evil, by so much greater is the calamity.
II. Against those who command that one must neither seek nor speak from the Scriptures, being content with their own faith.
The uncritical consensus of the many is of no value, I suppose, and not even D our opponents will deny that...
their own dogma is unstable. A We, however, trusting in the truth of the mystery and in the aid of Him who is Truth itself, having said, "Everyone who seeks finds," both seek as we ought, and find what we ought, and demonstrate what we say, and attend to the true scope of the discourse, so that we may both persuade those of our own household and refute our adversaries, and profit ourselves through the investigation, that we may not at last propose an inconsistent dogma. Am I to neglect the Scriptures? Whence, then, comes knowledge? Shall I abandon knowledge? Whence, then, comes faith? Paul cries out: "How will they believe if they do not hear?" and again: "So faith comes from hearing, and the hearing through the word of God." Therefore, he who hinders the word blocks the hearing and casts out faith. No one can ignore the Roman laws without peril; what snares, then, are those men preparing who forbid [the faithful] to meditate upon and learn the great oracles of the heavenly King? B Scripture is food for the soul. Cease, therefore, O man, from killing the inner man with hunger, and from drawing upon yourself a grievous famine, not of bread and water, but of hearing the word of the Lord. Is there one who inflames your wounds, and you do not wish for medicine to be applied? Cease from proclaiming the varied wisdom of medicinal books under the name of vanity. Reverence that diligent eunuch, who was set over all the treasures of the queen, who did not even on his journey cease from reading; whose purpose the Lord approved, and immediately sent to him a teacher, who would add explanation to his reading, and lead him by the authority of the Scripture to the Savior. Wherefore, He Himself commanded: "Search the Scriptures," by the term "search" calling for the diligent and sober examination of hidden things. From the holy Scriptures comes the declaration of hidden things, the firmament of hope, the arrival of promises, and the discovery of the Savior: "We have found Him, of whom Moses and the prophets wrote." C With these words, even Paul made use [of the Scriptures] for the establishing of the truth. But if Paul, who heard unspeakable words, who was initiated into secret mysteries, who had Christ speaking within him, did not use his own authority apart from the witness of the Scriptures, how then could it be safe now to neglect the care of the divine law and to offer forth opinions [arising] from our own hearts? But there are some things that exceed our comprehension—I myself acknowledge this. And let us learn even this from the Scriptures, so as to know that some things are to be sought [only] as they are attainable. For it is neither pious to presume to search out all things, nor is it holy to neglect all investigation entirely. We must all know what it is that we worship, according to that which is written: "We worship what we know." But to inquire as to the size, or the nature, or how, or where, is the work of madmen. D But those who wish to judge their own [opinions] keep [people] from the Scriptures, by the pretext of...
that we might appear to wish to penetrate rashly into things inaccessible; whereas, in truth, they do it lest their own heretical dogmas of falsehood be refuted by those same Scriptures. But if they see that their folly is hindered by proofs sought from the Scripture, then they invert both the scope of the Scriptures and the usage of speech. If they understand some word to be useful in isolation for their own purpose, they tear it away from the genuine sequence of the discourse and drag it to the demonstrations of their own cause, not attending to the apt sense, but by force distorting the syllables to their own most perverse arts, as they even do in that [saying]: "The Word became flesh." A
III. Against those who maliciously object the saying to us: "The Word became flesh."
Many things have been devised for the purpose of deception by those who have fallen from the truth, whether through contention or through ignorance; but that saying which is above the faith of nature, and is not sufficiently to be praised, "The Word became flesh," was chosen both by the ancient defenders of heresies as a weapon, and is now aimed at us by our opponents today as an impregnable bulwark, as they themselves think. They are endeavoring, forsooth, to charge into the orthodox from that position, to repulse all their attacks, and to ensnare many in the B toils of this question. For they interpret "The Word became flesh" as "the Word, having been converted into flesh, underwent passion." Who would not shudder at this madness of words? They cut away what is written, and they have innovated what is not written. For the same one who said, "The Word became flesh," added also this: "And dwelt among us," so that we might immediately recognize the twofold significations: the Word and the flesh, that which dwells and that in which there is indwelling; and that we might assign neither mutation, nor alteration, nor any such thing to that immutable substance. C For otherwise he would have said, "It became a tabernacle," and not "He dwelt among us," if the very nature of the Word had passed over into the nature of flesh. But it is not possible to think this concerning Him who says: "See, see, that I am He, and I am not changed." How, then, did He become flesh, and yet is not changed? By being united to flesh, not by being transformed into flesh. Therefore it is also said, "He was manifested in the flesh," not "The flesh was manifested." And, "He took hold of the seed of Abraham," He says, not "He became transformed into the seed of Abraham." And, "The body had a temple," not "He was changed into a temple." And, "He who, existing in the form of God, took the form of a servant," not D "He became the form of a servant." If, however, anyone being contentious does not wish to consider what is fitting for God, but to be a slave to the syllables without a pious mind, and to demand all that ought not to be demanded, let him know that he is declaring himself to be wiser than the grace of the Holy Spirit, according to his own judgment, and not receiving the legislation from thence, which, through many sacred voices, as has been said before, has clarified for us the power of the saying, is not without boldness, and [he is] introducing strife into the divine words and voting against the holy doctrines as if they were contrary to one another; if indeed it is contrary, "He became
flesh," and "He took the form of a servant." But away with you, perverse man. For neither is the divinity changed, nor does Holy Scripture fight against itself. For it interprets itself to the hearer who desires the truth; it can easily be understood correctly, and is consistent with itself. This pious frame of mind, therefore, the divine books have handed down to us. The expression "He became" was written, not that we should think of a conversion of the divine Word, but that we should recognize in this way the highest union, seeing as it is said that He was not made to have committed sin, but that He was made [sin]; "For Him who knew no sin," says Scripture, "He made sin for us," not by the Word being converted into an operation of sin, or by His having committed sin, but by His having taken on our sin, and having blotted it out according to that which is written: "He Himself takes away our sins." Just as, therefore, He is said to have been made sin and a curse, yet without conversion; so also He "became flesh," not being turned into it, but being united to it. Hence even a man who is joined to God through faith and grace is said to be one spirit; "He who is joined to the Lord," he says, "is one spirit," not as though the man were changed into the nature of the Godhead, but as though such a conjunction bestowed upon him spiritual dignity. In the same way the Word also is said to have "become flesh," not being converted into the nature of flesh, but being united to flesh; just as man, being joined to God, is said to be spirit, not having lost his own substance, but having received the communion of the Spirit. B But what is the clever argument of the gainsayers? "He remained what He was; He became what He was not." Therefore, either the indivisible nature is divided, and one part of it has remained and the other has been changed; or the whole has been changed; or it happened according to appearance; or these things ought to be said, but should not be understood. But what is the use of a word that signifies nothing? Truly, as it has been handed down from the beginning, that which is said is firm, and that which follows as though it were obscure is likewise firm, and the interpretation is clear, and the opinion is pious, and that which is impossible is unassailable, and that which is becoming exists along with it, and that which is worthy of belief is irrefutable from many witnesses, and the immutability of the Godhead is secure, and the passion belongs to the so-called temple, and not in truth to the God who raises it up. In addition to these things, not even the Virgin is considered a mother according to their argument. For if the Word made Himself flesh, He did not come forth by taking flesh from her. For how is she a mother, to whom that which is born bears no resemblance? And how could a birth be spoken of if it were an unsuitable passage, like a pipe? They make the holy Virgin, therefore, a vessel, not a mother. And they do not even perceive this, that they are casting that saying, "The Word became flesh," C against themselves. For if the Word is one thing, and the flesh another, then they are two, and not one; but if the Word and the flesh are the same thing, then the word "became" is dissolved. For the Word did not become the Word; but that which was in the same thing did not become something else. Thus it is necessary either that "became" be overturned, or that the two natures be confessed. For "became" was spoken according to that which truly appeared, in view of the mental assumption of those who saw Him, being ignorant at that time of the invisible God the Word. Just as if one were to say: "The shepherd"
has been transformed from a man into a sheep; but just as a sheep he has truly put on a man, not by an involuntary necessity of nature, but by the will and good pleasure of choice alone.
IV. Against those who say there is one nature in Christ.
B How then do some dare, after it has been shown that the Word and the flesh are two, to cast out the union of the two natures? They fight against all the holy Scriptures, they bring every insult upon the uninsultable nature, and they begrudge the whole race of men concerning the divine incarnation; they cast out every prophecy of it, those who abolish the duality of the natures. All things that are said more humbly are received by the nature of the flesh, and keep the glory of the Word intact; if this is cast out, everything must necessarily collapse into the Word. All hope and boldness for men is through the union of the Word with our first fruits. But those who claim that the Word has been turned into flesh have emptied out the boast of the race and have rendered our bright hopes uncertain. Abraham no longer boasts, David no longer exults; the promises made to him are false, if Christ has not arisen according to the flesh from the fruit of his belly; but God the Word, making Himself flesh, has deigned to visit us. How then are they not ashamed, warring against the holy Scriptures, begrudging men, blaspheming God as passible, and declaring His promises false, or rather, not only false, but also casting the stain of perjury upon the truthful God? C For "the Lord," it says, "swore truth to David, and He will not set it aside: 'Of the fruit of your belly I will seat upon your throne.'" Therefore, if nothing from the substance of David has been given, but the flesh has been fashioned specifically from the Word, and there is one nature in the Lord Christ, he must necessarily be thought of as either the Lord of David or his son; for the one nature does not admit of the two. If He is God only, He is not, strictly speaking, a Son; for He does not take the beginning of existence from him; nor is He a genuine son, who has nothing of the substance of him who is called father.
V. Against those who say that to confess the flesh as a nature is to proclaim a quaternity instead of the Trinity.
D Again I see the same malice exhibited by the opponents in other arguments. For when they had earlier said simply that those who consider the two forms in the one Christ—the form of God and the form of a servant—introduce two Sons, now again they...
slander those who believe that the flesh was assumed, claiming that they are preaching a quaternity. They say this A relying on their own authority, and not on any logical consequence. Yet our business is not so much with them as with all the saints who preached the same truth through the grace of the Holy Spirit, enlightened by whom we have learned a sincere confession in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, and have come to know the economy of the incarnation from two natures. But those who wish to attribute all lowly things to the very divinity of the Son abolish the nature of the flesh, so that its passions must necessarily be ascribed to God the Word, as if He were first changed into flesh and then suffered the things of the flesh. And for this reason they level a charge against the faithful, constructing what they think B by mere authority. For if we were to say that the flesh is of the same substance as the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, they would rightly call it a quaternity, as if the same substance were being contemplated in four persons. But if we say, as is the truth, that the Son is consubstantial with the Father, and the Holy Spirit is consubstantial [with the Father and the Son], and that the flesh was assumed for the fulfillment of the economy, not for an increase of substance: by what logic do they invent an addition to the number from the nature of the flesh, introducing it as if it were another consubstantial person? And this is not considered in itself, but is known in an inseparable conjunction with God the Word, so that it is no longer seen as separate, nor is it numbered in the same way as a consubstantial person. Therefore, our discourse confesses the incarnation, does not introduce a quaternity, as I said, guards the impassibility of the Word, and agrees with all the holy Scriptures. But the doctrine of our adversaries denies the entire faith in those things that were written from the beginning, rejects the assumption of the flesh, and plainly declares that either God the Word was changed and suffered, or that everything was done in appearance [only]. But if they compel us to take the flesh into the number of the quaternity because we have received and hope to receive many benefits through the mediating, most pure flesh: it remains for them to ascribe that garment, the hem of which the woman who carried the fountain of blood touched with faith—and stole her healing—into the number of those being mentioned, and to introduce a fifth item into the glorious preaching of the C doxology: not, indeed, that it is honored in the same way as the united natures, but that it was taken to perform a stupendous miracle. Therefore, since the garment receives such great grace from the most pure flesh, and imparts it to the woman, and yet does not increase the number of the glorious celebration, so we also, honoring that divine flesh inseparably united to the omnipotent Word, confess indeed that we obtain salvation through it, but we keep the number of the Trinity inviolate, since the flesh is one with the Word, both on account of the inseparable union and on account of the undivided worship. But as for the things which they say occur in accordance D with the divine nature,
as an undivided adoration. But whatever is not A in keeping with the divine nature, this they ascribe to the power of God in order to build up their own absurd opinion, while Paul says that it is impossible for God both to lie and to deny himself. But things which are both fitting for God and saving and godly and philanthropic, these they transfer to the category of the impossible, not granting that it is in the power of the Lord to be able both to take on flesh and not to create a quaternity. Thus, their judgment is contentious, for they seek to confirm the things that are unseemly and innovated by them by saying that God can do all things; but the things that are piously proclaimed by the Holy Scriptures they no longer accept as true, and possible, and beneficial; but they take them instead as a weaving of questions, and do not attribute to the power of the Creator of all things the ability to perform things that transcend human comprehension.
VI. B Adversus eos qui dicunt Christum Dominum ut hominem agnoscere, esse in hominem spem suam habere.
But these men, not content with such absurd and shameless propositions, have added another much more shameless opinion, saying that those who confess Christ as God and man according to either nature have their hope in a mere man. On these points, it would be well to question them. Must one obey the Holy Scriptures, or according to them, must one not? For if one must, then we have heard such things from them, and they should be blaming the Scriptures themselves; but if they say that one must not, let them openly declare their irreconcilable war against the sacred books, and then there will be no argument for us with them, as though they were outsiders. We have heard from the Scriptures: “A man in a stroke of affliction, and knowing how to bear infirmity,” and that he is the Son of man: “But now you seek to kill me, a man who has spoken the truth to you.” “One God, and one mediator of God and man, the man Jesus Christ.” “The first man is of the earth, earthly; the second man is the Lord from heaven.” “The first Adam, and the last C Christ.” “Through man is death, through man is the resurrection of the dead.” Such are the words, and there are many more in deeds. He was born a babe, was wrapped in swaddling clothes, was nourished with milk, was circumcised according to the law, he grew in age, and wisdom, and grace; he experienced hunger, he did not ignore thirst, he received the sensation of labors, he underwent the experience of disturbance and anxiety and grief, and he was made like to his brothers in all things except sin. He was subjected to scourges, he was led to the cross, he was pierced with nails, he tasted death, he was delivered to the tomb, his soul went down to the underworld, and not being able to be held there, it was returned to the body, and the resurrection took place. Then there was the touching and handling by the disbelieving; then the food that gave proof of the resurrection of the body; then the ascension into heaven with many watching. So great are the testimonies of the things written, so great is the certainty of the things that took place, and the dispensation brings about so many and such great goods for us. And yet they command that all these things be disregarded, and that we turn away from so many and such things, while of the humanity through these things [they...]
A we confess that it is not according to nature, but that it is not a bare humanity. To these statements, it is time to oppose the apostolic voice: "We ought to obey God rather than men." Thus, humanity being ineffably and inseparably united to the divinity, in such a way that the same one is seen as an infant and is recognized as God. "A child," says the prophet, "is born to us, and a Son is given to us, and his name is called the Angel of great counsel, wonderful, counselor, God strong." 62 He is circumscribed in swaddling clothes; but he shows his own lordship over all creation to be uncircumscribed. He was laid in a manger, but he was glorified when hymned by angels; he endured hunger and thirst, but out of five loaves he satisfied thousands of men, and showed the abundance of the fragments to be twelve baskets, just as he willed. To speak briefly, he tasted of death, but he destroyed him who held the power of death; and in that very passion, his body indeed hung upon the cross, but the Word of God, which was in him, was everywhere demonstrating his impassible sovereignty. The earth was shaken, rocks were split, the sun was obscured, the veil was rent, graves were opened, the dead leapt forth—strange heralds of the destruction of death; all creation announced the invisible divinity of the crucified one. What excuse shall we B have, if we have neglected such a salvation, and having despised such certain testimonies, we adhere to the new notions of contentious men? But that it is fitting in every way to acknowledge Christ the Savior as God at once and man, according to both natures, even if we were silent, the stones would cry out. But it is worth the effort to demonstrate clearly that those who think so do not have their hope placed simply in man. Although if any question arose, one ought to seek its solution or confess one's own ignorance, not depart from Scripture. Now it is easy to find the fitting reason why we place our hope in the carnal advent of the Word who was made man, in the saving economy of the Lord, while through the visible flesh we recognize the invisible God the Word, and believe that through His passion we receive impassibility; we ascribe all things that occurred to the divinity united to the flesh, and thus we offer one adoration to the Word of God, who was incarnate and made man. For neither was that woman who touched the hem C found to have her hope in the hem, but in the invisible power of Him who was clothed with the garment, whose hem it was. Nor did he who was healed of blindness by spittle have confidence in the spittle, but in the invincible power of Him who commanded him to receive healing in that way. For and even now, those who come to the holy altar, and embrace it, and salute it with fear and joy, do not lean simply upon stone or wood, but upon the grace remembered for the pious through the stone or wood. Or do you also entrust the salvation D of those who were once saved in the time of the blessed Moses, through looking at the raised bronze serpent, to the serpent?
If the image of the mystery exhibited such great efficacy through the serpent, how much greater things will the archetype of grace itself bring to you through man, just as it brought various benefits to the faithful, according to that saying: «As by man came death, by man also came the resurrection of the dead.» [VII]
Against those who say: The Word of God suffered impassibly.
After we have refuted, according to our ability, many and very twisted propositions, we do not know what we should respond to the one now before us. For although we have no mind to jest, we are nevertheless compelled, even against our will, to refute ridiculous and laughable things, the mere mention of which might provoke laughter. B «He suffered impassibly.» O thoughtless wisdom! O laughable doctrine, at once building up and tearing down, such as one might see children playing in the sand! «He suffered impassibly»; before I hear what that saying signifies, I forget the meaning of «He suffered.» For the word «impassibly» added to it, does not permit the acceptance of death, burial, and resurrection, which contain the sum of our salvation. For if He suffered, how impassibly? If impassibly, how did He suffer? Let us speak without speech, and understand without understanding. Who has ever seen someone falling without a fall, being raised without an act of raising, laboring without labor, acting prudently imprudently, speaking without speech, bringing benefit uselessly, C being loosed without a loosening, just so that we might say, «He suffered impassibly»? What is this intensity of madness? What is this perseverance of fury? What is this stupidity of insanity? To bring forth words regarding a most trembling mystery that produce wide laughter; to promise things congruent with reason and yet bring forth things most alien to reason; to answer in such a way that you seem not to have answered; to offer an interpretation more obscure than the matter to be explained, and a mother of greater doubt? How is it that none of the saints were able to soar to such a height of contemplation, or to speak that much-debated saying, «He suffered impassibly»? How is it that such many-lined books did not make known this extravagant revelation to us? D Paul, having ascended to the third heaven and heard unspeakable words in paradise, pronounced nothing of the sort. Or was it that, leaving to them the interpretation of things which surpass all understanding, he did not say, «He suffered impassibly,» but, «He learned,» he says, «from what He suffered,» and, «He was tempted in all things, in like manner»? The word «tempted» has long since removed the trifles of such words. For he who was tempted in all things to the likeness, is either one who suffered not impassibly—so that those words, «in all things, in like manner,» may remain firm—or else he shows that others also suffered impassibly, in order to preserve the likeness to them. So that one must either confess that the Savior suffered truly, or else that others also
suffered impassibly, to whose likeness the Lord is preached to have been tempted. Furthermore, what demonstration of patience is there in the fact that he suffers impassibly? How is the patience of Christ spoken of, if he perceived no sense of pain? By what reason is his ineffable and incomparable love toward men shown, if the passion was without labors? Who would refuse to suffer, not only for friends, but even for adversaries, if it were permitted to suffer impassibly? What was it, therefore, that the Lord said: “The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak,” A if he were about to experience the passion without pain? What reason was there that he should cry out to the Father: “Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from me”? For what cause did he offer suppliant prayers with a vehement cry and tears to him who could save him from death? Therefore, one must either believe all those things to be true and confess that the passion was true, or else, if it is said that the passion occurred impassibly, one must necessarily think that it was all mere form, fiction, and phantasy. If he did not suffer truly, then he certainly did not rise again truly. If he did not truly taste death, then he did not extinguish the stings of death; B we are still in our sins, death still reigns over all, we are still alien to the inheritance. For if death is counterfeit, the testament is also false, and the inheritance is not true. The law declares these things to us: “A testament,” it says, “is confirmed over the dead.” If, therefore, he who initiated the New Testament with us has not truly died, the contents of the Testament are void, and those who are called heirs are cast out. But away with such madness, O man! For he who drew up the Testament has died, and the Testament is ratified, and the inheritance is set before those who believe, and punishment is prepared for the sycophants. For many false witnesses against God are found, saying that he raised Christ from the dead—he C whom he did not raise as truly dead, if indeed he suffered impassibly. And while Paul cries out that Christ is passible, the adversaries of Paul cry out in opposition, putting forward the word “impassibly.”
VIII. Against those who say: God suffered as he willed.
He who wishes to travel his journey according to the law and is zealous to flee every error, will choose to suffer anything rather than to deflect even a little from the public road. In the very same way, those who wish to walk the way of the truths of dogma adhere to the footsteps of those who have never erred on the journey. But when they have accurately learned the signs of the royal road, they carefully guard themselves against every byway: they take their stand entirely upon the parts of truth. Since, therefore, those who hand down dogmas contrary to us have departed from this mark, they have indeed lost the footsteps of the orthodox Fathers, and not only [the signs] of the theologians (who D
A have pointed out the way) have they corrupted, but they have also pursued many digressions, some invented long ago by others, and others now newly devised by themselves; such as that absurd expression: "God suffered as He willed." For since they could not demonstrate that the nature is passible, they did not hesitate to slander the will; and when asked about nature, they answer about the will. If the nature is capable of suffering, let there be room for the will; but if, even were one to grant the "willing" a thousand times over, it is impossible for the law of nature to be overturned—how is it not madness to say, "He suffered as He willed"? Or who among those of sound mind does not know that the will must be in harmony with the nature? Not that one should be inclined toward one thing, and the other hasten toward another; but that the nature should remain within its own boundaries, and the nature should will what is appropriate to the nature and to intelligence—so that if someone were to say that it has one thing but wills another, he introduces fighting and war, with the one attacking things that are not proper, and the other not receiving things that are not natural to it. For that which is B by nature subject to suffering, whether it wills or does not will, is subject to suffering; but that which is outside of suffering by nature, even if one were to concede the willing—which is not possible—who will make (it) receive into its substance that which is not natural to it? Every kind of living creature keeps the law of its own substance unshaken, and just as it was created from the beginning, so it continues throughout, and nowhere does the "willing" overturn the order. Even if a man were to wish a thousand times to become a bird, the things of the will are rendered idle, since the things of nature prevail; even if he wishes to have the soul of one of the irrational creatures, the desire is laughed at, where the act is not fulfilled. Moreover, every nature possesses the quality of being untyrannized, and is superior to every contrary will; but does the immutable and immortal substance of God alone admit of a contrary will, and is it overcome by the necessity of the will? O the wonder! Does it, which preserves every substance within its proper boundaries, so easily depart from the boundaries of impassibility, and does He who created all things not have as much as He has given to the creature? But from where, finally, has it been made known that He willed it? A Prophet has not said it, an Apostle has not proclaimed it; but those who think nothing of despising all things, they alone rashly undertake to bring for a strange law. Neither have we read C the words "He suffered," nor have we found "as He willed." For who among the saints has either seen the impassible and invisible One suffering, or understood the will concerning this? O the boldness of men, leaping beyond the invisible powers! Who has passed beyond the heaven? Who has crossed over the thrones, the principalities, the authorities, the powers, the lordships? Who has flown above the seraphim? Who has seen the things invisible to them? Who has understood the nature of God, both willing thus and suffering things which have not been declared by the Scriptures? Neither has the phrase "He suffered" been spoken, nor is "as He willed" written. We have heard: "He has done whatever He willed," but that He suffered as He willed, we have nowhere learned. Why, therefore, do they bring forward the unknown for the sake of confirmation? This addition is a product of rashness, not a proof of truth. But Christ suffered according to the flesh of mortals, not according to the immortal Word. D As for the fact that He suffered, as it is written "whatever He willed He did,"* that He suffered as He willed, we have nowhere learned. Why, therefore, to
* Psal. CXXXIV, 6
IX.
Against those who say that the voices of Scripture ought to be received without considering what they signify, seeing that they exceed the grasp of all.
A Scarcely could men be found who would struggle to overturn everything that pertains to humanity, and who would work to ensure that men would no longer be rational, nor learn with accuracy those things which are naturally good; and who would say that it is highly useful for everyone to receive the voices of the sacred books simply and without prior examination, with no consideration or correction given, nor according to the pious purpose for which they were spoken. For if, as they command, one does not weigh the meanings of these words, but hears what is said simply and without examination, it remains that the prophets and apostles proclaim to our ears in vain, and every word remains useless and ineffectual, and listeners pass no fruit into the inner chambers of their hearts. For thus they instruct men to hear with their ears, but not to understand with their heart, nor to weigh the consequence of what is said, according to that threat: "You shall hear by hearing, and shall not understand." Therefore, even when it comes to the text "The Word was made flesh," they compel us to hear it, but do not permit us to understand it piously, as if they had the power to drag everyone’s mind according to their own whim, and not toward what is decorous and useful. Shall I hear the word and not seek the decorous meaning of the thought? Where, then, is the consequence of the discourse or the utility of the hearer? Perhaps they even command men to change to the manner of beasts, if indeed they are to perceive the sounds of the words with their ears, but admit no fruit from the meaning into their soul. Paul, the teacher of such things, did not command this, nor does he wish anything to be admitted without reason and judgment. But how does he speak? "Solid food is for the perfect, those who by habit have their senses trained for the discretion of good and evil." He urges perfection, he praises exercise, he urges a vigilant discretion of good and evil. By what reason, therefore, can anyone discern rightly if he has not received an understanding of what is said? For just as one who labors under a bodily illness does not experience the genuine taste of foods, nor accurately perceive the quality of each, D so too a man who, because of laziness or the stupor of his mind, has unexercised senses of the soul, indeed tastes the words, but neither feels their power nor knows the reason of the thoughts; but wanders foolishly and incautiously like a brute, accepting what is harmful and what is useful just as they happen to present themselves, and cannot even be numbered among the clean animals, inasmuch as he does not ruminate, nor transmit the comminuted rational food into the inner man, but consumes it undigested and incongruous, receiving rather detriment from the defect of the food sent down than any good for the confirmation of life. For who does not know that
he who is called to dine at the table of a great man is commanded by the divine law to consider spiritually what is set before him? Likewise, words are not to be snatched at, bared of their meaning; but one must consider accurately what befits God, what is profitable to us, what is the power of the truth, what is in consensus with the Law, A what is congruent to nature, what is genuine faith, what is firm hope, what is the inviolable sincerity of charity, what is glory unsubject to insults, what is superior to envy, what is the dignity of grace—all of which are present in pious thoughts, as was made known in the case of the saying, "The Word became flesh"; but these are absent, as is to be expected, in those absurd innovations that of necessity flee to such vanity of speech. The sum of this discourse is: he who receives the words but does not perceive their significations, how will he understand those things which at first glance seem to clash with one another? How will he find the fitting solution? How will he give a response to those wishing to question him? How will he uphold that which is written: "Knowing how you ought to answer each one"?
X. Against those who say, "God the Word suffered in the flesh."
B It occurs to me to marvel how, while introducing so many innovations, the inventors of new doctrines could not find satiety in such innovation; but if they devise anything strange for the deception of the simpler-minded, they brag of it, such as that which is now proposed for examination: "God the Word suffered in the flesh." Again, in this there is much that is irrational, and much that is absurd. For it is irrational to say that one suffers another's suffering; and it is an absurdity that "the Word suffered." Because they do not dare to say this naked, without a veil, they added "in the flesh," just as if they were covering the unbecomingness of their C thought with a deceitful mask, like a shameful face. If the Word suffered, He suffered for Himself; but if it is another that suffered, it is nothing to the Word, unless it be only the insult, which, by reference to the suffering body, runs back to the joined Word. But to say, "The Word suffered in the flesh," is unwritten, alien, groundless, and inconsistent. But since they chose to blaspheme without cease, and knew that "The Word suffered" was unacceptable to pious ears, they deemed it right to apply the remedy of "in the flesh" to the wounds of their words; whereas they ought neither to have induced the disease nor to have concerned themselves with a deceptive remedy. For none of the irrational D artifices is found to be harmonious with the truth; but rather it is that which often fights against itself, and finds no standing among those who perceive things wisely. Neither is the Word passible in the flesh, nor is the flesh impassible to the Word; but both the flesh admits of passion according to its own nature, and the Word possesses impassibility inseparable from His own substance. If, therefore, He suffers in the flesh, what shall we say concerning the flesh? That it suffers in the Word, or does it not? If it does not suffer, to it was granted impassibility; but if it does suffer,
A they have judged that both suffer, if, as they say, the Word suffers by the flesh, and the flesh suffers by the Word according to its own nature. But perhaps they will say: "How then is it said, 'Of whom is Christ according to the flesh'?" Speak of Christ as having suffered, and you will find the word "flesh" as a natural corollary. For he who says "God the Word" signifies a simple substance; but he who names "Christ" manifests the conjunction of two natures. And thus it is fitting that the formula of speech should be explained: "Christ has suffered," because this word signifies both at once—both the impassible Word and the passible flesh which tasted death. Since even Paul did not say "Of whom is naked God," but "Of whom is Christ according to the flesh," in order to show that He who is mentioned is, according to the flesh, from the Israelites, and according to the divinity, from the eternal Father. He did not say, "Of whom is God by the flesh." You say the same, and you will convince me of your opinion: Christ suffered according to the flesh. But if you say that God suffered by the flesh, teach me clearly whether God and flesh are the same by nature, or one thing and another. If they are the same, then God suffered in Himself. For you are saying that the flesh is the same thing as God. But if they are one thing and another, how does the latter suffer by the former, when every creature suffers by itself and not by another substance? B A man does not suffer by a horse; a soul does not die by the flesh; but the flesh is dissolved, and the soul is separated, and yet the man is called dead, since the term signifies both, soul and flesh; but he is understood to be dead according to that which can die, that is, according to the flesh, and not according to the immortal soul. Naturally, no one says: "So-and-so's soul died by the flesh"; but "So-and-so, the man," who consists of soul and body. And wishing to indicate the immortality of the soul even after death, he says that the righteous live forever, as the holy Scripture testifies. But the divine books all unanimously condemn these men. How many prophets? How many apostles? How many evangelists? Yet nowhere does such a word occur; whereas, on the contrary, that Christ suffered is clearly preached everywhere. "Our Passover has been sacrificed for us, Christ." If Christ is passible, "Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures." The cross of Christ, the body of Christ, the blood of Christ. How then do they pass over such a cloud of witnesses, and place their own authority before the law of the Spirit, doing violence to the command that cries out: "Do not remove the ancient boundaries which your fathers set"? C Nor do they attend to the fact that the holy and great choir of the Fathers at Nicaea, after the confession of God the Father, immediately set the name of the Lord Christ: "And in one Lord Jesus Christ"; and then thereafter, as D being capable of receiving the glory and all the sufferings according to one or the other nature, they brought in both the high things of the divinity and the economic things of His own humanity, as if this name alone appropriately and suitably receives the diverse attributes, according to the voice of the blessed Paul: "No other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ." Let us not, then, abandon the foundation which is capable of all things according to either nature, the glory, and all the[...]
passion. If you say only God, how do you construct upon it the necessity of passion? If you say only man, how do you add to it the riches of incomprehensible glory? But you will most rightly say Christ, enjoying glory indeed according to his divinity, but receiving passion according to his united humanity; and finally, through an inseparable union, working every miracle and communicating every gift to the faithful. In this way, both the impassibility of the Godhead, and the truth of the passion, and the common benefit of mankind are demonstrated. Thus, the discourse of truth is clear, the foundation of doctrine is unshaken, the magnitude of the mystery is illustrious; worthy of faith is the admiration of antiquity, uncorrupted is the beauty of orthodox doctrine, and harmonious is the preaching of all the saints.
But to utter an unheard-of expression, and to anathematize all those who do not say that God the Word suffered in the flesh, this is a boldness that is directed not only against the men of our own time, but extends its audacity even to all the heralds and teachers B from the ages past. Why, moreover, do they flee from the name of the Lord Christ, in whom we have been commanded to believe? "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you shall be saved." It is good to place the hopes of salvation in this name. For there is no other name under heaven given among men, by which we must be saved. "In the name of Jesus Christ every knee shall bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; and every tongue shall confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." He himself is the Judge of the living and the dead; him did Stephen call upon when he was being perfected: "Lord Jesus Christ, receive my spirit." One Lord is Jesus Christ, through whom are all things. He is the Savior, he is the Redeemer: Christ is all. Why do they flee from this much-longed-for name? This drove away diseases: "In the name of Jesus Christ, rise up and walk." This put the demons to flight: "I command you in the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth to come out of her." How, then, having abandoned this as if it were unpleasing to them, have they set in its place that which is found in none of the saints: "The Word suffered in the flesh"?
XI. Against those who ask what punishment the Jews would pay, if they did not kill God.
D There is, it seems, no way to restrain the irrational impulse of men moved by a spirit of contention through any arguments; but even if one were to bring forward a thousand and irrefutable proofs, he will indeed have demonstrated the truth, but he will not have persuaded the workers of falsehood of it. For thus those who have fallen away from the truth, even after many clear arguments, neither desist from their own purpose, nor do they come to the straight path; but having chosen precipitous ways, they wander along cliffs, perverted...
A proposing absurd questions, and they are not ashamed to say: "How will the Jews be punished, if they have not destroyed God?" O the shameless audacity! O the fraudulent intent! To vindicate Christ, they traduce the things of Christ. 505 They say that the Jews should pay a penalty worthy of their crimes, yet everything must be overturned, doctrine vilified, God blasphemed, the impassible called passible, glory insulted, and the ends of the earth led astray. But you, O man, do not vindicate God with the contumely of God. I hate a defense that is joined with dishonor; it is better to win over a Jew than to put Christians to shame; it is better for the authors of the passion to escape than for him who suffered to find such a patron; it is better for them to obtain pardon than for him to be thought of as mutable and passible in his divinity. B Why do you provide the Jews with this magnificent material for boasting, as if they had been able to prevail over the divinity itself? For they could not even have held the temple, had not He who dwells in it permitted them, He who also raised up that which was destroyed, remaining Himself indestructible. Why do you resist the will of Him who suffered with your own calculation? Why do you grieve more—by those means through which you supposedly vindicate the injury—than they themselves who dared to perpetrate the crime? Why do you subvert the most truthful words of Christ? For He Himself said at the time of the passion: "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they do" (Luc. XXIII, 34). And you demand a penalty, as if they had known the presence of God and had perpetrated a murder against God Himself? C Cease to attack with things more grievous than those who crucified Christ. They killed Him thinking Christ was a mere man; you, confessing Him to be the true God, declare Him mutable, passible, and finally dead through your fine vindication! And by as much as it is more audacious to act impiously against God than to think one is mistreating a man, by so much the more wretched is he who slays God the Word in his speech, than those who needlessly pierced the flesh of the Lord with nails. Nevertheless, it is not because you are more cruel that we liberate them from a terrible penalty; rather, we preserve His impassibility for the divinity of the Lord Christ, and we attribute His passion to that humanity united to Him by our testimony, and we confess that the Jews are held liable to pay the penalty D because, in the blindness of their insane mind, they were manifestly impious against the divinity itself. Do we not now see those who lay wicked hands upon temples often consecrated to God, in order to pollute or destroy them, being punished—although they rage only against wood and stone—just as if they had audaciously raised themselves against God Himself? If an inanimate temple is vindicated so severely, will the living, undefiled temple, the temple ineffably and indissolubly united to God, not be vindicated much more severely? For the former suffered unjustly, but in such a way that the injury runs back to the God who is in the temple, He who became united to it and wrought many miracles; nor is it permitted to the Jews to find an excuse, as if they had sinned against a mere man, when the manifold miracles were not...
permitted to remain hidden. For who would not be struck with awe at those things which have been done from the beginning? According to prophecy, the Nativity was: the place known, the manner illustrious, the time not obscure: all the word is fulfilled in reality, the course of the star indicates the concert of angels: the Magi are drawn from afar to offer gifts: King Herod is disturbed; all Judea is shaken; he who takes away the sin of the world clearly appears: Simeon holds the child and interprets the salvation of God: Anna prophesies: John at the Jordan testifies: the voice of the Father from heaven makes this beloved Son known to all: the descent of the Spirit in the form of a dove falls upon his head; water is changed into wine: five loaves are miraculously multiplied for the use of some thousands, and twelve baskets are filled with the fragments; B diseases are put to flight by a word, demons are driven out by a command, or rather, from afar they confess the unbearable nature of his power: the dead are instantly snatched from the tyranny of death: the hem of his garment brings healing to a certain sick woman, while it makes public the power of the hidden divinity. The entire nature of the elements is, at the time of the passion, troubled in many ways at the destruction of the visible temple, and at the insult offered to the inseparable God: the resurrection of him who had suffered is confirmed by those very men who drove him to the cross. For while they were guarding him who suffered, they were conquered by the miraculous dead. Such were, and many more, those things that indicate the Godhead hidden within. And how shall they escape the punishment denounced against the enemies of God, who, in the face of such clear demonstrations, desire to be blinded by excessive wickedness? C
XII. Against those who say: he is a Jew who does not confess that God has been crucified.
Since there have been such, so various, and so clear demonstrations in all the preceding arguments, the adversaries ought at length to feel the multitude of the proofs; but they did not hesitate to weave other impudent objections without cause. A Jew, they say, is he who does not confess that God himself has been driven onto the cross. They do well to remind us of the name by which they themselves ought to be called. For they are those who have shackled themselves with an affinity to the Jews, by rejecting both the saving incarnation and the union and conjunction of the two natures. Who is the Jew, the one who receives grace, or the one who relies upon the Law according to the letter? D Grace has taught us that the invisible God was made manifest in visible flesh: they remain in the ancient tradition, delineating the divinity naked in various species and forms. How then do they call others Jews, when they themselves repel the riches of the New Testament? Have they not heard that many prophets and righteous men desired to see what we see, and did not see? What then did they not see? The Godhead
A and humanity’s ineffable and inseparable union? Whoever therefore confesses this admirable union of the Word and the flesh, it is their lot to behold a new spectacle. But those who reject the assumption of flesh are clearly shown to have their lot with the Jews of old, who themselves were not deemed worthy to see with their own eyes what we have seen. For it is characteristic of the Jews to reject the economy of the Savior in the flesh. Those who discard the two natures join themselves to these; nay, they become liable to even greater indictments. For those men, while they were witnessing such stupendous miracles, were ignorant that He was God; but these men, while they confess it, pronounce things unworthy against the Godhead, contending that all the passions of the assumed flesh must be ascribed to the Godhead.
But perhaps they will say (for they have learned impudently to contradict even the most manifest things): "We do not say that the divinity is subject to passions." And how could you not say this, you who adorn your speech with such artifice? "He suffered," they say, "because He willed it; we do not by any means say that He is passible." While you do not doubt to affirm the thing itself, why do you feign to abhor the name of the thing? If you condemn those who deny that the divinity has suffered, why do you not clearly profess that it is passible? If, according to you, he who denies the passion of the divine nature is a Jew, then he who asserts it is a Christian. And why do you not prefer the Jew, who confesses that the divinity is impassible, over yourselves, who declare it to be passible; B since it is absolutely necessary that either you be called Jews, if you testify that it is impassible, or be called Christians, if you, by your own definition, decree a passion? Reveal clearly what opinion you hold. "For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation." If the Word has not suffered, then the flesh has. If the flesh has not suffered, then the Word has. If neither of these, then it is some third thing. If nothing at all, then the passion itself did not happen. If the passion happened without anyone suffering, it was a delusion; are we saved by a delusion? You have therefore deserted to the Manichaeans. And why do you flee from their name, when they manifestly hold you as heirs of their wicked and intolerable dogmas? Hence it appears that you are worse than the Jews, and not far removed from the Manichaeans. But why do we speak of Jews and Manichaeans? Your audacity has progressed further than that of him who is the author of all evil, who secretly sowed these tares among you, who envies all good things—the devil. For he, when he saw the divine glory of the Savior at the Jordan, stirred by the goads of envy, did not dare to approach Him and tempt Him until he saw Him suffering from hunger, C which is a mark of human infirmity. He recognized this as proper to the Godhead and unreachable; but you declare the hunger and the thirst, and such things as these, to be of the Godhead Itself. D
and manifestly ascribe the suffering of the cross to that same Godhead. He, on account of his supreme wickedness, was called a murderer from the beginning; you, on account of your supreme fury against God, call the Jews slayers of God, nor do you fear to attribute to the disciples of the Jews a greater power than to their own master, the devil: finally, as the accusation of Scripture holds, when you knew God, you glorified Him not as God. For you contend that He is passible. A
XIII. Against those who say that the angels, while eating at Abraham’s, did not assume the nature of flesh.
Being fathers of many and evil devices, those who have struggled to remove the eternal boundaries of the lawful fathers are not satisfied with their own offspring; but furthermore, wickedly stealing away the ignoble, abortive fetus of those who once professed themselves enemies of the apostolic Church, they put them forth as a noble and perfect birth of doctrines, and through them endeavor to stir up against us the dogma of the Manichaeans, inventing that the angels who turned aside to Abraham were by their own nature made partakers of food, and in like manner asserting that the Godhead of the Lord Christ received food and drink without flesh: although holy Scripture clearly testifies that this took place not naturally, but only in appearance. For if these things had happened naturally, it would follow that those three should be named either men or be called angels (for there is much difference between these two kinds). For if they were men, they would show nothing pertaining to the angelic nature; but if they were angels, it behooved them, as spirits, to appear having no bodily member. How then do they give them food according to nature, as if they were men? Therefore they are falsely recorded as angels. But if as angels, what communion have spirits with sensible food? Unless perhaps they invent stories that the angels also became men and enjoyed bodily foods with bodily organs. But if they say that they changed their state B and the feasting was a matter of indication, not of natural requirement, they must either abandon the example as irrelevant, or they will be found to be introducing a phantasm instead of the truth regarding the Savior. With what face, then, do they dare to distort the dissimilar as if it were similar to Christ? What has that history of the angels appearing in visible shape in common with this stupendous economy and dispensation? C Were they seen? When? Or where? Or from whom were they born, as the Lord Christ was? Were they subjected to touch in the same way as He? Were they circumcised? Did they make progress or grow? Did they, when they had fasted, at length hunger? Did they, wearied by a journey, thirst? Did they experience natural sleep? Did they receive the trial of scourges? Did they in like manner taste death? Were they committed to burial? Did they leave garments to be divided among many, teaching by experience that one should conceive of nothing as a phantasm, but everything according to substance D and truth? For if Christ had a body in appearance,
A His garments could not have been seen or subjected to touch, just as is the case with the angels, who lack bodily mass. How then do they shamelessly compare things so dissimilar, and attempt to join together what are separated by such great differences? But come, let us compare our words with theirs. We say that the Lord truly ate according to the flesh, since this is proper to all flesh; they say that the angels ate, since the nature of angels at that time admitted such a thing. We have experience as a witness; they are destitute of the testimony of both reason and facts. We set forth to them hunger and thirst from the sacred Scriptures; they cannot demonstrate either of these in the case of the angels. We cite members, according to the common formation of men; they claim the nature of angels, which no one has ever dared to affirm possesses members. But if members are lacking, what is it that receives nourishment? What is it that breaks it down? What is it that digests it? What is it that retains it? What is it that completes the B process of concoction? What is that which remains, which I pass over for the sake of honor? Just as, therefore, the angels, though they appeared to be men, were nevertheless not men by nature, so too, though they were thought to take food, they did not eat in reality. Rather, they honored the hospitality of Abraham, declaring by the appearance of companionship that his virtue was to be imitated.
XIV.
Against those who diminish every miracle by denying the flesh
But not even the miracles of the Lord have they left free and firm from their snares, those who have thrown themselves from the choir of the orthodox over to the adversaries; but by compressing and constricting these miracles, they have not seen the greatness of them, by which they denied the assumption of the flesh, ascribing these things to the divinity alone. But let us consider the works themselves, C how from the beginning to the end they are rendered more glorious by the assumption of the flesh: whereas, if the same be rejected, they are found to be more common. The birth from the Virgin is the great and celebrated beginning of the economy and dispensation. If what was born of the holy Virgin had nothing from her, who would have greatly marveled at that birth? Since one could not truly call her a mother, if she is understood to have communicated nothing consubstantial from herself to Him who proceeded from her; nor can you consider it something stupendous that she who became a Mother remained a Virgin, if the Word favored us with His presence without a sensible body. Again, it is said in a few words that Jesus progressed in age, wisdom, and grace. If you remove the flesh, who will praise the D increments and improvement of a divinity which is perfect from eternity, which is in need of nothing greater, and which can neither take nor receive anything from elsewhere? It is consequent, therefore, that there is flesh, for the sake of which that progress is celebrated, on account of its union with the Word. And we recognize the greatest testimony, that He never contaminated Himself with any sin, which, since
A it is predicated of the Godhead alone that it is free from sin, one might rather laugh than marvel, as the hearers would, since not only is this nature of the Godhead always free from all blame, but even many thousands of angels are preserved free from sin. But for this reason it is said, since the immaculate flesh, taken from a race subject to sin, remained the only and the first to be sinless by its union with God the Word. Hence also the struggle against the devil, and the victory gained over him, becomes wondrous, because, having the first-fruits of the vanquished flesh, He who accepted the trial made it a victor over him who had once conquered, and bestowed upon the nature the power against him who had formerly overcome by deceit. B For this reason also, in the remembrance of the holy Scriptures, He cast off the charges brought against Him, not repelling the adversary by the authority of His Godhead, but, by the consequence of His humanity, setting forth the light of the Scriptures towards all things. But if God the Word were proclaimed as sinless and invincible in Himself, who would be astonished at what is said? It is not strange that God should not sin, nor be overcome by His own creature. For when has He sinned or been overcome, so that we should now receive what is said as a wonder? But it is strange for the human nature to show forth things beyond nature openly. For even to walk upon the back of the sea C fearlessly and without danger is easy indeed for the Godhead, and rather for the angels too; and no one would be astonished at having seen this; but for mere humanity it is altogether impossible. And he rightly shudders who sees the feet of the flesh making such a journey, and considers the united power of the Word. But if anyone, setting aside the flesh, should say that only the Word was seen upon the waves, he removes the weight of the miracle, contributing nothing great to the testimony of the deed. For it is truly great and surpasses all mind, not when a light and weightless spirit is lifted up upon the waters, but when a thick and heavy body is supported erect from above by the gentle and easily yielding nature. D Which, so that the Lord might make it credible to all, He immediately granted even to Peter to walk upon the sea, until he could not sustain the surge of his little faith. His walking in such a way, therefore, showed the journey of the Lord's flesh to be unquestionable; but that, having doubted, he was no longer supported, it demonstrated the immeasurable difference between the two. Everywhere, therefore, the union of the flesh with the Word is shown to increase the glory of the deeds of Christ. And to speak briefly, not even the trophy itself gained over death would be brilliant if the human nature had not clearly become stronger than the lower tyranny by the power of the inseparably united Godhead; since it is credible and plausible that God, who is invincible, cannot be overcome—but that the flesh should not be overcome, that [...]
A is a singular thing, and this is new; this also renders miraculous the Lord’s entry through closed doors, for which the thickness that was in the body was no impediment, since the Author of the miracle was greater than that which prohibited the entry itself. But whoever says that this was done without a human body makes this event common to angels, to the souls of men, and finally even to the adversary spirits themselves, who, on account of the lightness of their substance, cannot be hindered by such a transit. Moreover, the Lord’s own ascension into heaven suggests this opinion to us, so that we may know that God the Word indeed acted in the heavens perpetually, never separated from it by any time, nor circumscribed by any spatial locations; but the flesh joined to Him was, at that time, in a manner plainly stupendous, uplifted and translated to where it was not before; since it did not possess this by nature, that it should be gifted with such glory.
XV. Against those who inflict damage upon our race by denying that the Savior took the first-fruits from our nature.
All malice is a detestable thing, odious to God and hostile to men. But that malice by which some envy their own salvation and glory transcends every wickedness entirely. This is what those now perform who dare to say that the first-fruits were not taken by the Savior from our nature. And in many ways they commit sin, both by opposing the testimony of the Holy Scriptures, and even more by opposing the oracles of the Holy Spirit; and because they do not hesitate to obscure the love of our Lord toward men; or because they reject the benefits granted to the whole race of men, and most especially, because they declare useless the great economy of the Incarnation. He did not assume flesh from our nature: how, then, C did He dwell within us? How did He take hold of the seed of Abraham? How is it said: "Of whom is Christ according to the flesh"? The prophecies of the prophets are therefore vain: the promises made by God to David are vain: "Of the fruit of thy womb I will set upon thy throne." Falsely Christ calls the faithful His brothers: falsely Paul says: "For we are also His offspring." Who would not be ashamed to shamelessly reject so many and such great witnesses, and to innovate new and absurd dogmas, and to deprive the Lord of the debt of the honor of thanksgiving, and finally to damage our whole race in Him? That flesh was not assumed from us. What hope of salvation, therefore, do we have? The law is not yet fulfilled: we are still accused of sin: we are still pressed by the burden of the curse: death still reigns in us: the condemnation of our race is still in force. If He who fulfilled the law possessed nothing of human substance, nature is still liable to accusations. Perhaps those who are of our race D will summon the Lawgiver to public judgment, as one who appears to have imposed laws upon men that are too arduous and useless, because no one can fulfill them. Thus the rejection of the flesh becomes the foundation of all blasphemies. It is, therefore, necessary—nay, most necessary—to believe the Holy Scriptures, to confess the first-fruits from our race, to celebrate the singular love of the One who assumed it toward the race of men, to be struck with wonder at the miracle of the great economy, and not to fear the curse from the law; Christ
for he redeemed us from the curse of the law A by the fulfillment of the law, which took place through the firstfruits, to be reckoned to the whole lump, one should recognize what is fitting and what follows—that if God had fulfilled the law alone (which it is not even fitting to say), no other nature would have a share in that achievement. But since the flesh taken from us is recognized in the One who fulfilled the law, the glory of our race appears, in that it can fearlessly trample upon the sting of death, inasmuch as it no longer has any place against the nature whose firstfruits long ago went before it, trampled it down, and blunted it, and gave to all who believe the power to say: "O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?" And again: "As by one man came death, so also by one man came the resurrection of the dead." He says "by man," not "from man." For what was impossible to happen from man, the same came to pass easily through the man who was joined to God. Thus we reap the gift of the resurrection; thus we receive adoption; thus we are called brethren of the Lord; thus we become co-heirs; thus we have conquered the enemy in the firstfruits; thus we receive boldness from them; thus we claim the trophy against the devil as our own, brandishing the divine victory of the flesh taken from us; thus we all who truly believe B genuinely expect to become conformed to the body of his glory. Thus we find true that which says: "He raised us up together and made us sit together in the heavenly places." For although we have not yet risen in our individual hypostasis, nor have we arrived in the heavenly places, yet through our kinship with Him who ascended and descended, we securely hold the pledges of such things in our hope. How worthy of hatred, then, are those who do not hesitate to envy us such and so great good things through their own perverse doctrine, and who prevent our race from being glorified, separating the flesh—which the Word paradoxically joined to Himself—and resisting Paul when he shouts: "What God hath joined, let not man separate;" and who hire out their tongue to the devil in order to hide the things that were done against him? For nothing is C more grievous or intolerable to him than to see the nature he had deceived being taken up in the firstfruits by the King of heaven, acting magnificently and beyond praise, having become superior to death, having destroyed his tyranny, and having been taken up into heaven, and deemed worthy of the glorious throne, known by the whole creation in its extreme union with the One who assumed it, in its participation in glory with Him who is indivisible from Himself—a dignity which surpasses all speech.
XVI.
Against those who command us to believe simply in what is said, and not to consider what is fitting or unfitting.
Since there are many terrible dogmas D which that hater of all that is honorable, the devil, has introduced into the life of mankind to their dangerous deception,
A I know not if in times past he has ever brought forth such things as he brings forth now. For each of those heresies that have flourished, and which have been the mothers of this or that error, has indeed existed, but this one that has now been invented after all the rest has renewed them all, surpassed them all in audacity, and finally demonstrated itself to be the source of all evils more than all others. Truly, "he has been in travail with injustice, has conceived toil, and has brought forth iniquity." He has been in travail with an intent of impiety; he has conceived the intent of malice that was used to deceive others; he has brought forth the manifold evil of independent innovation, and he commands all with great authority to follow it. "Receive," he says, "simply the things that are spoken, and let no one examine what is fitting in them or what is unfitting." And he calls "faith" that unexamined consent to unstable and unproven things which is for our destruction. B Am I to believe without reason? And am I not to examine what is possible, or beneficial, or fitting, or pleasing to God, or compatible with nature, or agreeable to the truth, or consistent with the goal, or appropriate to the mystery, or worthy of piety? And what profit shall I have? Or what fruit for my mind, which has considered none of these things, but has merely offered its hearing to the sound of the words, while the soul has received no understanding of what is said? This is the cause of all the evils and errors that are alien to the truth. For who among the enemies of the Catholic Church does not demand that all his own statements be believed without prior examination? Even if you should name a Gentile, or a Manichaean, or a successor of Arius or Apollinarius, or another of this kind, does he not refuse examination, so that he may escape conviction? Does he not belch forth some things of his own, and cut others from the harmony of the divine Scriptures, and by dragging them to his own desired end, C present arguments which he declares should be investigated by no one, as he himself desires? Furthermore, if we simply lend our ears to all, and do not refute the absurdity arising from their words, nor demand a solution to the conflict of dogmas that arises from their perverted interpretation, who in the future will still find the way of truth? Who will not easily fall into the precipice of heretical dogmas, not considering the impropriety of these new dogmas, nor seeking the propriety of the truth? "With the heart I believe unto righteousness; with the mouth I confess unto salvation"—what shall I say when they maliciously cast before me, "The Father who sent me is greater than I"? Shall I accept it simply? Shall I assent headlong? Shall I audaciously declare the Son to be inferior to the Father, D and consider nothing at all—neither that this word belongs to the economy, nor that it is from the same [mouth] as, "I and the Father are one," and, "That they may honor the Son as they honor the Father," and, "He who has seen me has seen the Father," and ten thousand other things which declare in all respects the equality and equal honor of the Father and the Son? If, therefore, I am to see nothing of the things that follow from this, nor provide a reasonable account concerning the things that arise and seem to be at variance, how shall I show that things so far apart are consistent, according to the plain expression of the promise? How shall He appear as both only-begotten and first-born, or how
A can it be, that two things seen in one nature do not agree with each other? For the only-begotten, not having brothers, as he is only-begotten, cannot be called first-born; for Paul called the first-born "among many brothers"; and the first-born, on the other hand, having brothers, as is reasonable, is no longer called only-begotten. Again, the same person is called both recent and eternal: "Jesus Christ the same yesterday and to-day, and for ever" (Heb. XIII, 8). The one stands against the other. If He is recent, how is He eternal? If He is eternal, He is certainly not recent. And that which says, "Without father, without mother, without genealogy" (Hebr. VII, 3), how does it not clearly conflict with other things, from which we learn that He has both a Father in heaven, and a mother on earth, and that His ancestors are clearly named by the illustrious evangelists? If without father, how is He the Son of a heavenly Father? If without mother, how is He from a virgin mother? If without genealogy, what is "The book of the generation of Jesus Christ" (Matt. I, 1)? Since then there are so many and far more things that appear to be inconsistent, what is it that they command us to accept without examination? And what to discard? For it is not possible to follow all of them alike, for those who do not find the appropriate solution to the perceived disagreement. If "only-begotten" is true, "first-born" is not such. If "first-born" is true, "only-begotten" is contrary. If "yesterday and to-day" is admitted, "eternal" vanishes. If "without father" stands, the having of a Father will be dissolved. If "without mother" is fixed, the having of a mother will be overthrown. If "without genealogy" is constant, how shall we heed the genealogy? If that which has neither beginning of days nor end is firm, how shall we understand that which indicates both beginning and end of days: "When Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judæa in the days of Herod the king" (Matt. II, 1), and "crucified under Pontius Pilate"? Behold here both the beginning of days and the end of life. What then shall we do if some infidel, accusing the Holy Scripture of saying contradictory things, demands an account from us? Shall we command him to believe all? And who would not recoil and laugh, since he could in no way accept as worthy of faith those things which clash among themselves and admit no solution? For of two contrary statements, it is necessary that one be proven false. What shall we say to these things? Shall we too, being asked to believe the unprovable and inconsistent dogmas of heretics or D of Greeks, consent to such a proposition? God forbid! For our doctrines are neither inconsistent, nor do they fight against each other, as they are understood by the saints. It was found that some things refer to the economy known to us, others to the incomprehensible essence of the Word, and all are found consistent and consequential, being understood about the same subject according to the two natures; so that the recent pertains to the flesh, and the eternal to God. The not having a beginning of days is proper to the Word; being born in the days of Herold is proper to the first-fruits. The altogether being without genealogy pertains to the existence of the Son from the Father before the ages: "For who shall declare his generation?"
A Genealogies, however, pertain to his birth according to the flesh. Thus he is both Only-Begotten according to the substance of the Word, and First-Born according to the economy of the incarnation. In this way we shall either persuade our adversaries of the truth or carry off the victory, and we shall show the holy Scripture to be in agreement, and we shall preach the glory of the mystery in a godly manner, and we shall store up the fitting certainty of faith in our souls, neither believing without the Word, nor speaking without faith.
XVII. Against those who eliminate the distinction between the two natures after the Passion and the Ascension.
Although the power of the truth B is great and immortal and has often been much assailed by many, the facts and their results have shown at last that it is unconquered. For behold, how many have been armed against it, who, after having discharged not a few weapons of perverse dogmas—and having seen them bounce back upon the solid arms of demonstration and return to them as empty and ineffective—have finally, last of all, discharged a weapon of such a kind that it can be crushed and broken by even clearer arguments. They say: "Even if one were to grant that a union of two natures had occurred in Christ, yet after the Passion and the Assumption we no longer conceive of two, nor do we believe that any distinction according to nature exists between the Word and the flesh." What are you saying? What are you declaring? Does the distinction of the natures vanish, and is no token of them left? By what name, therefore, shall we call that which is set before us? The Word alone? (For you would not name the flesh, supposedly thinking that by this you honor him.) C And how do you not insult him, supposing his substance to be such that another created substance could be changed into it? For that which is capable of the inferior is common to many, and is not peculiar to one. But to him to whom alone that which is inaccessible is proper, how can another inaccessible thing be added? And you do not insult the Word only, but you also remove the hypostasis of the flesh. For if no token of it remains, in what way shall we perceive its glory? If it is recognized by that which exists, it is deservedly glorified; if it does not exist, how shall it enjoy the greatness of glory? You cannot point out the excellence of the glory, unless you first point out that which is honored. Therefore, we must confess the inconfused union of the two natures, so that neither the One assuming is changed, nor that which is assumed is removed, but the communion of glory, being predicated of one person, is preserved. But if you call it Word alone, even if you speak of both together D while nature resists, not even then will you hide the distinction; since the one was from the beginning, while the other came to be subsequently; and the one—the Ineffable—has passed into the infinite from the infinite, while the other has passed from the visible and tangible to the invisible and intangible; and the one is immutable forever, while the other has come by way of change to a better end. Then, if you say Word alone, if the measure
A of the distinction be concealed: for that was from the beginning, but this came to be afterward; and the one is invisible and intangible, infinite from infinite, whereas this passed from the visible and tangible into the invisible and intangible. Furthermore, that one is absolutely immutable, but this one came by change to a better state. Then, if only the Word remains, why is it not said, "The flesh became the Word," but B "The Word became flesh?" For who is so insane and witless as to dare to assert that the divine substance assumed the substance of another deity, produced from a different nature, so as to indicate by such an addition that something has been added to Him who by His own nature is in need of nothing and is perfect?
But why do the divine words, even after the strange ascent, still proclaim the differences of the flesh, namely, that He will come again, and that He will be seen in the same manner? Or will you enact laws contrary to the angels, who clearly said, C «This Jesus, who has been taken up from you to heaven, will come in the same way as you saw him going into heaven?» All things are for the manifestation of the flesh, which is perceived now here, now there; which you saw before, that is, with the eyes of the flesh. Whoever does not accept it in this way not only fights against the angels but also opposes the holy words D of the Holy Spirit. How then does the Lord Christ intercede for us? Is it as Word only? But where then is His equality of honor and dignity with the Father, if, while interceding, He acts as one who is inferior and does not act with authority, having the same omnipotence? It is clearly the firstfruits interceding for its own lump, that He may show how great is the relationship to the nature of the flesh.
And who is not put to shame by the most clear preaching of the all-wise Paul, that «God, having overlooked the times of this ignorance, now commands all men everywhere to repent, for He has fixed a day in which He is about to judge the world in righteousness, in a man whom He has established, having provided faith to all, by raising him from the dead?» Has the difference been abolished? Did He not say God in man? Did He not point out God who raises, and the man who rises? But although He showed the difference, He did not omit the inseparable nature. For He did not say God with man, but God in man. And how shall we understand, «They shall look-upon him whom they pierced,» if the nature of the flesh, which received the nails, does not clearly show the marks? For the invisible and intangible substance of the deity was not about to display to many the marks for proof; but that which was taken from the passible race shall refute the lawlessness of the impious, who are forced to acknowledge in the wounded flesh their own deeds of daring. Thus both the distinct properties of the natures are demonstrated, and the gain of the incarnation is undeniable, and the argument of the gainsayers is shameless, and the power of the truth is invincible.