Refutations of Certain Propositions 7–11

Against those who say: God the Word suffered impassibly. Having answered briefly, as far as we could, many tangles put forward very clumsily, we do not know what to do with the one now before us; we do not want to jest, but we are compelled to give instruction above all in answer to so laughable a game, which even to state simply is to bring in mockery. "He suffered impassibly." O unthinkable wisdom! O playful teaching, building and pulling down at once, like the toys of children in the sand! "He suffered impassibly": before I hear the word, I forget the meaning of "suffered." For "impassibly," added to it, does not allow us to accept death and burial and resurrection, which are the sum of our salvation. For if he suffered, how impassibly? If impassibly, how did he suffer? Let us speak unspeakably and think unthinkingly! Who has seen one falling without falling, rising without rising, toiling without toil, thinking without thought, speaking without speech, helping without help, loosed without loosing, that we should say, "He suffered impassibly"? What a pitch of folly! What an insistence of madness! What a frenzy of senselessness! To bring, about the most awe-inspiring mystery, words that produce broad laughter; to promise reason and put forward unreason; to give an answer equal to giving none; to offer an interpretation more obscure, the mother of greater perplexity! How was none of the saints able to run up to such a height of contemplation, or to say that much-repeated phrase, "He suffered impassibly"? How did the books of many lines not make known to us this enormous revelation? Paul, who went up to the third heaven and heard unspeakable words in paradise, declared nothing of the kind. Surely it was not that he left to these men the explanation of the things that surpass us, and so did not say, "He suffered impassibly"? But he says, "He learned from the things he suffered"; and, "Tempted in all things according to likeness." "Tempted" has long since done away with the nonsense of such talk. For he who was tempted in all things according to likeness either suffered not impassibly, so as to keep "in all things according to likeness"; or he shows that the others too suffered impassibly, so as to save his likeness to them. So either one must confess that the Savior truly suffered, or that the others too suffered impassibly, according to whose likeness the Master is proclaimed to have been tempted. And what proof of endurance is there in suffering impassibly? How is Christ's endurance spoken of, if he did not feel pain? How is his unspeakable and incomparable tender love for human beings shown, if the passion took place without pain? Who would not choose to suffer, not only for friends but even for enemies, if it is possible to suffer impassibly? Why did the Master say, "The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak," if he was going to accept the passion without pain? Why did he cry to the Father, "Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass"? For what reason did he offer up prayers of supplication, with loud crying and tears, to him who was able to save him from death? Either, then, we must believe all of it true and confess the passion as real; or, if the passion is said to have happened impassibly, we must reckon everything a show, a seeming, and an appearance. If he did not truly suffer, neither did he truly rise at all. If he did not really taste death, neither did he quench the stings of death; we are still in our sins, death still reigns over all, we are still strangers to the inheritance. For if the death was deceptive, the testament too is false, and the inheritance not real. The law declares this to us: "A testament," it says, "is valid in the case of the dead." If, then, he who made the New Testament for us did not really die, the terms of the testament are void, and those called heirs are cast out. But away with such frenzy, O man! For the testator has died, and the testament has been ratified, and the inheritance is set before those who believe, and the punishment is prepared for the slanderers. For many are found false witnesses of God, saying that he raised Christ from the dead, whom he did not raise as truly dead, if indeed he suffered impassibly. And while Paul cries that Christ is subject to suffering, Paul's opponents reply, "impassibly."

Against those who say: God suffered as he willed. Those who want to complete a journey according to rule and are eager to avoid all straying will choose to suffer anything rather than leave the highway a little. In the same way those who want to walk the road of the truth of doctrines keep to the footprints of those who travelled without straying; and, learning the signs of the royal road with exactness, they refuse every turning aside and become wholly the truth's. Departing from this aim, those who now want to teach the contrary have abandoned the footprints of the orthodox fathers and misreckoned the signs of the theologians who showed the way, and have pursued many byways, some found long ago by others, some now newly invented by themselves; such is the unreasonable phrase, "God suffered as he willed." For, unable to show that the nature is passible, they did not hesitate to slander the will; and when asked about the nature, they answer about the will. If the nature is capable of suffering, let the will have its place; but if, even if willing were granted ten thousand times, it is impossible for the law of nature to be overturned, how is it not madness to say, "He suffered as he willed"? Or which of those of sound mind does not know that the will must agree with the nature? Not that one inclines to one thing and the other hastens to another; but that the nature remains within its own limits and the nature wills what befits nature and understanding; so that if someone should say that the nature has one thing and the will wills another, he has brought in conflict and war, the one attempting what it ought not, the other not accepting what it is not born to. For what is by nature capable of suffering is subject to suffering whether it wills or does not will; but as for what is by nature outside suffering, even if one granted the willing, which is impossible, who will make the substance accept what it is not born to? Every kind of living thing keeps the law of its own substance unshaken, and as it came to be from the beginning, so it lives always, and nowhere does willing overturn the order. Even if a man wills ten thousand times to become a bird, the will's efforts are idle, since nature prevails; and if he wills to have the soul of one of the irrational animals, he is laughed at for willing what is not fulfilled in deed. Then is it that every nature has freedom from tyranny and is stronger than every contrary will, and only the unchangeable and immortal substance of God accepts a contrary will and is defeated by the compulsion of willing? O wonder! She who keeps every substance within its own limits so easily departs herself from the limits of impassibility, and the one who created all things does not have as much as he has given to a creature? And from where at all has it become known that he willed? A prophet did not say it, an apostle did not proclaim it; but those who think it a small thing to look down on everything alone act with youthful insolence in bringing a strange legislation. We have neither read "suffered" nor found "as he willed." For which of the saints either saw the impassible and invisible one suffering, or understood the will concerning this? O the daring of men, leaping above the invisible powers! Who has passed beyond heaven? Who has gone beyond the thrones, the principalities, the authorities, the powers, the dominions? Who has flown above the seraphim? Who has seen what is unseen by them? Who has understood a nature of God that wills in this way and suffers what has not been revealed by the Scriptures? Neither is "suffered" said, nor is "as he willed" written. "He has done whatever he willed," we have heard; but that he suffered as he willed, we have nowhere learned. Why then do they bring what is unclear for confirmation? This is an addition to madness, not a proof of truth. But Christ suffered according to the flesh of mortals, not according to the immortal Word.

Against those who say that one must accept the words and not consider what they signify, as surpassing everyone. Scarcely have men been found who strive to overturn all human things, and who are eager that men should no longer be rational, nor learn with exactness the things good by nature, but simply agree to everything without testing, by accepting the words of the sacred books without examination and without correction, and not according to the godly purpose for which they were spoken. For if, as they have ordered, one should not consider what they signify, but should hear what is said simply and without testing, it remains that the prophets and the apostles sound in our ears in vain, that every word remains useless and ineffective, and that it sends no benefit to the hearers into the storerooms of their hearts. For so they command people to hear with the ears but not to understand with the heart, nor to consider the sequence of what is said, according to the threat that says, "Hearing you will hear, and you will not understand." For this reason they compel people to hear "The Word became flesh" simply, but no longer allow them to understand it piously, as though they had authority to drag each one's mind to what pleases them, not to what is fitting and profitable. Shall I hear the word and not seek the fittingness of the thought? Where then is either the sequence of the word or the profit of the hearer? Perhaps they command men to change into the habits of irrational animals, if they are to receive the noise of words with the hearing, but take in no gain of thoughts into the soul. Not so did Paul, the teacher of such things, charge us; nor did he declare that one must partake of anything without reason and discernment; but how? "Solid food is for the mature, who because of practice have their faculties trained to distinguish good and evil." He advised maturity, praised training, advised making a sober distinction of good and evil. How then could anyone distinguish well without grasping the meaning of what is said? For just as one sick with a bad habit of body does not find the true quality of each food, so too a man who, through laziness or unreason, has the faculties of the soul untrained, tastes words but does not perceive their power, nor know the quality of the thoughts; he partakes of everything senselessly and unguardedly like irrational animals, taking in the harmful and the useful as it happens, and unable even to be counted among the clean animals, since he does not chew the cud and send on the rational food, made fine, to the inner man, but consumes it unworked and unsuitable, receiving harm rather than any benefit for the sustaining of life from his fault in sending it on. Or who does not know that … the divine law commands even one who is invited to dine at a ruler's table to consider intelligently what is set before him? So one must not snatch at words stripped of thoughts, but consider carefully what befits God, what profits us, what the truth allows, what agrees with the law, what suits nature, what is genuine in faith, firm in hope and unadulterated in love, unsullied in glory, superior to envy, worthy of grace; all of which are present in godly conceptions, as was made known in the case of "The Word became flesh," but are lacking, as is likely, to absurd innovations, which of necessity take refuge in such vain talk. The chief point of what is said: he who accepts the words and does not learn what they signify, how will he understand the things that seem at first sight to fight with one another? How will he find the fitting solution? How will he give an answer to those who wish to ask? How will he keep what is written: "To know how we ought to answer each one"?

Against those who say: God the Word suffered in the flesh. It makes me wonder how the inventors of new doctrines, introducing so many novelties, have not been able to have their fill of such innovation, but act with youthful insolence if they can devise anything strange to deceive the simpler sort, such as what is now put forward for examination: "God the Word suffered in the flesh." Again here there is much unreason and much absurdity. For it is unreason to say that one thing suffers in another, and absurdity to say, "The Word suffered." Not daring to say this bare, without a veil, they added "in the flesh," covering the unfittingness of their thought with a deceitful mask, like an ugly face. If the Word suffered, he suffered in himself; but if what suffered was something else, it has nothing to do with the Word, except only the insult, which by reference from the suffering body runs back to the Word united to it. But to say, "The Word suffered in the flesh," is unscriptural, unfitting, incoherent, inconsistent. But since they have decided to blaspheme without ceasing, and knew that "The Word suffered" is unacceptable to godly ears, they thought it right to add "in the flesh" as a medicine for the wounds of their words; whereas they ought neither to bring on the disease nor to care for a deceiving medicine. For none of these unreasonable devices is found to fit with the truth; rather it often fights with itself and finds no standing among those who listen with understanding. Neither is the Word passible in the flesh, nor is the flesh impassible in the Word; but the flesh admits suffering according to its own nature, and the Word has impassibility inseparable from his own substance. If, then, he suffers in the flesh, what should we say about the flesh? That it suffers in the Word, or that it does not suffer? If it does not suffer, impassibility has been granted to it; but if it suffers, … they have condemned both to suffering, so that the Word suffers in the flesh and the flesh suffers in the Word in its own nature. But perhaps they will say: "How then is it said, 'From whom is Christ according to the flesh'?" Say "Christ suffered," and you will find the name of the flesh running together with it. For he who says "God the Word" signifies a simple substance; but he who names "Christ" makes plain the conjunction of the two natures. And so it can be fitting to say, "Christ suffered," because this title declares both together, the impassible Word and the passible flesh that tasted death. Since Paul too did not say, "From whom is God," bare, but "From whom is Christ according to the flesh," so as to show that the one mentioned is from the Israelites according to the flesh, but according to the Godhead from the eternal Father; he did not say, "From whom is God in the flesh." Say the same yourself, and I am persuaded: "Christ suffered according to the flesh." But if you say that God suffered in the flesh, teach me clearly whether God and flesh are the same by nature, or one thing and another. If the same, God suffered in himself; for you call the flesh the same as God. But if one thing and another, how does this suffer in that, when every nature suffers in itself and not in another substance? A man does not suffer in a horse; the soul does not die in the flesh; but the flesh is dissolved and the soul is separated. And it is said that a man has died, which signifies the two, soul and flesh, and he is understood to have died in the way that is possible, that is, according to the flesh and not according to the immortal soul. So no one has said, "So-and-so's soul has died in the flesh," but "So-and-so the man," who is composed of soul and body, has died; and, declaring the soul immortal even after death, Scripture said that the righteous live for ever, as the holy Scripture bears witness. But every divine book accuses those men. How many prophets, how many apostles, how many evangelists! And nowhere, in any of them, such a phrase. But "Christ suffered" is proclaimed plainly everywhere: "Christ our Passover was sacrificed for us"; "that Christ must suffer"; "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 by so great a cloud of witnesses and put their own authority before the legislation of the Spirit, daring against the commandment that cries, "Do not move the eternal boundaries which your fathers set"? Not heeding that the sacred and great choir of the holy fathers at Nicaea too, immediately after the confession of God the Father, placed the name of the Master Christ: "And in one Lord Jesus Christ"; and then added both the lofty things of the Godhead and the things of the dispensation of his manhood, as though this name alone received the different things fittingly and appropriately, according to the voice of the blessed Paul: "No one can lay another foundation than the one laid, which is Jesus Christ." Let us not then abandon the foundation, which receives everything according to each nature, admitting truly both the glory and the passion. If you say God alone, where will you build on it the need of the passions? If you say man alone, where will you place on it the wealth of the incomprehensible glory? But it is good to say Christ: reaping the glory in the Godhead, receiving the passion in the united manhood, and working every wonder and granting every gift to the faithful by the inseparable union. So it is shown that the divine is impassible, the passion real, the gain of human beings common, the word of truth clear, the foundation of the teaching unshaken, the greatness of the mystery glorious, the wonder of antiquity credible, the beauty of orthodoxy unadulterated, and the proclamation of all the saints in harmony. But to utter a phrase never yet spoken, and to anathematize all who have not said that God the Word suffered in the flesh, carries this rashness not only against the men of the present, but extends the daring against all the heralds and teachers from the beginning. And why do they flee the name of the Master Christ, on which we have been commanded to believe? "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved." It is good to have 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 will bow, of those in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of the Father." He is the judge of the living and the dead; Stephen, as he was being perfected, called on him: "Lord Jesus Christ, receive my spirit." "One Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things." He is Savior, he is Redeemer; "Christ is all." Why do they flee the much-longed-for name? This drove out diseases: "In the name of Jesus Christ rise and walk." This put demons to flight: "I command you in the name of Jesus Christ the Nazarene to come out of her." How then, abandoning this as displeasing to them, have they set down what lies in none of the saints: "The Word suffered in the flesh"?

Against those who say: What penalty will the Jews pay, if they did not kill God? It is not possible, it seems, to check with words the unreasoning impulse of contentious men; but even if someone brings ten thousand irrefutable proofs, he has shown the truth but has not persuaded the workers of falsehood. For so those cut off from the truth, after many plain demonstrations, do not leave their own aim nor come to the straight road; but taking up byways they wander along cliffs, putting forward unreasonable questions, and they are not ashamed to say: "How will the Jews be punished, if they have not killed God?" Alas for the shameless daring! Alas for the deceitful attempt! To avenge Christ they tear apart the things of Christ: "So that the Jews may be made to pay a worthy penalty," they say, "let everything be overturned, let doctrine be tampered with, let God be blasphemed, let the impassible be called passible, let glory be insulted, let the ends of the earth go astray." Man, do not avenge God by insulting God. I hate an advocacy that brings dishonor; better that a Jew should gain than that Christians should be put to shame; better that those who did the deed should escape than that he who suffered should get such an advocate; better that they should find pardon than that he should get the reputation of being changeable and passible in his Godhead. Why do you give the Jews the greatest boast, as though they had been able to overcome the Godhead itself? For they would not even have had the temple had not the one who dwelt in it permitted it, who also raised it when it was destroyed, while he himself remained undestroyed. Why do you cast a vote against the will of him who suffered? Why do you grieve those whom you supposedly avenge more than those who dared the deed grieved them? Why do you overturn the truthful declarations of Christ the Savior? He himself said at the time of the passion: "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing." And do you demand a penalty, as if they had known the presence of God and committed murder against God? Stop daring things worse than the lawlessness of those who crucified him. They killed Christ thinking him a mere man; you, confessing him true God, by your fine vengeance declare him changeable, passible, and dead. And by as much as impiety against God is more daring than thinking to wrong a man, by so much is he more wretched who murders God the Word in vain with his tongue than those who in vain drove the nails into the Lord's flesh. Yet it is not because you are more deserving of the fearful condemnation that we excuse them; but we both keep impassibility for the Godhead of the Master Christ and bear witness to the passion in the united manhood, and confess that the Jews are required to pay the penalty as having acted impiously against the Godhead itself directly, through their madness against him. Or do we not see even now that those who often stretch out lawless hands against a temple dedicated to God, for insult or destruction, though they act against wood or stones, receive punishment as though they had stretched out their daring against God? And if a lifeless temple receives such vengeance, will not a living, spotless temple, a temple joined to God ineffably and inseparably, be avenged much more, since he himself suffered unjustly and the insult runs back to God in the temple, who became one with it and worked many wonders? For the Jews may not find a defense, as though they had sinned against a mere man, since the manifold wonders did not allow the God-befitting and glorious character of the power at work to be hidden. For who would not have shuddered at what happened from the beginning? The birth according to prophecy, the place known, the manner remarkable, the time not uncertain, every word carried into deed; the course of a star declaring it, the hymn of angels, magi drawn from afar to bring gifts, Herod the king troubled, all Judea shaken; the clear manifestation of him who takes away the sin of the world; Simeon holding the child and interpreting the salvation of God; Anna prophesying; John bearing witness at the Jordan; the voice of the Father from heaven making him known to all as the beloved Son; the coming of the Spirit in the form of a dove, falling on his head; water changed into wine; five loaves multiplied wonderfully for the enjoyment of thousands, and twelve baskets of fragments left over; sufferings put to flight by a word; demons driven out by command, or rather confessing from afar the unbearable character of his authority; the dead torn at once from the tyranny of death; the hem of a garment bringing healing to the sick woman and publishing the power of the hidden Godhead. The whole nature of the elements at the time of the passion was troubled in many ways at the destruction of the visible temple and the insult to the inseparable God; the resurrection of him who suffered was attested by those who crucified him; for guarding the one who had suffered, they were defeated by the wonderful dead man. Such and many more were the things that declared the hidden Godhead. And how will those escape the punishment for fighting against God who were eager, out of ingratitude, to be blind to such brilliant proofs?