Book VI.

§1. The sixth book shows that He Who came for man’s salvation was not a mere man, as Eunomius, falsely slandering him, affirmed that the great Basil had said, but the Only-begotten Son of God, putting on human flesh, and becoming a mediator between God and man, on Whom we believe, as subject to suffering in the flesh, but impassible in His Godhead; and demonstrates the calumny of Eunomius.

But I perceive that while the necessities of the subject compelled me to follow this line of thought, I have lingered too long over this passage693    Cf. Col. i. 15Πρωτότοκος may be, as it is in the Authorized Version, translated either by “first born,” or by “first-begotten.” Compare with this passage Book II. §8, where the use of the word in Holy Scripture is discussed.    Acts ii. 36.    The passage in S. Peter’s speech (Acts ii. 36) discussed in the preceding book.. I must now resume the train of his complaints, that we may pass by none of the charges brought against us without an answer. And first I propose that we should examine this point, that he charges us with asserting that an ordinary man has wrought the salvation of the world. For although this point has been to some extent already cleared up by the investigations we have made, we shall yet briefly deal with it once more, that the mind of those who are acting as our judges on this slanderous accusation may be entirely freed from misapprehension. So far are we from referring to an ordinary man the cause of this great and unspeakable grace, that even if any should refer so great a boon to Peter and Paul, or to an angel from heaven, we should say with Paul, “let him be anathema694    Cf. Col. i. 15    Phil. ii. 7.    Cf. Gal. i. 8, 9.” For Paul was not crucified for us, nor were we baptized into a human name695    Rom. viii. 29.    οἰκονομικῶς γενομένην    1 Cor. i. 13.. Surely the doctrine which our adversaries oppose to the truth is not thereby strengthened when we confess that the saving power of Christ is more potent than human nature696    Col. i. 18.    Zech. vii. 9.    The sense of this passage is rather obscure. S. Gregory intends, it would seem, to point out that, although an acknowledgment that the suffering Christ was more than man may seem at first sight to support the Eunomian view of the passibility of the Godhead of the Son, this is not its necessary effect. Apparently either οὐ μὴν must be taken as equivalent to οὐ μὴν ἀλλὰ, or a clause such as that expressed in the translation must be supplied before τοῖς μὲν γὰρ κ.τ.λ.:—yet it may seem to be so, for their aim is to maintain at all points the difference of the essence of the Son from that of the Father, and they strive to show the dissimilarity of essence not only by the contrast of the Generated with the Ungenerate, but also by the opposition of the passible to the impassible. And while this is more openly maintained in the last part of their argument, it is also clearly shown in their present discourse697    Cf. Heb. i. 6    Cf. Phil. ii. 7    Altering Oehler’s punctuation, which here follows that of the earlier editions.. For if he finds fault with those who refer the Passion to the Human Nature, his intention is certainly to subject to the Passion the Godhead Itself. For our conception being twofold, and admitting of two developments, accordingly as the Divinity or the Humanity is held to have been in a condition of suffering, an attack on one of these views is clearly a maintaining of the other. Accordingly, if they find fault with those who look upon the Passion as concerning the Man, they will clearly approve those who say that the Godhead of the Son was subject to passion, and the position which these last maintain becomes an argument in favour of their own absurd doctrine. For if, according to their statement, the Godhead of the Son suffers, while that of the Father is preserved in absolute impassibility, then the impassible Nature is essentially different from that which admits passion. Seeing, therefore, that the dictum before us, though, so far as it is limited by number of words, it is a short one, yet affords principles and hypotheses for every kind of doctrinal pravity, it would seem right that our readers should require in our reply not so much brevity as soundness. We, then, neither attribute our own salvation to a man, nor admit that the incorruptible and Divine Nature is capable of suffering and mortality: but since we must assuredly believe the Divine utterances which declare to us that the Word that was in the beginning was God698    Ps. xcviii. 10.    Cf. 2 Cor. xiii. 4.    Cf. S. John i. 1, and that afterward the Word made flesh was seen upon the earth and conversed with men699    Cf. Phil. ii. 10    The quotations are from S. Basil c. Eunomius II. 3. (pp. 239–40 in the Benedictine edition.)    Cf. Bar. iii. 37, we admit in our creed those conceptions which are consonant with the Divine utterance. For when we hear that He is Light, and Power, and Righteousness, and Life, and Truth, and that by Him all things were made, we account all these and such-like statements as things to be believed, referring them to God the Word: but when we hear of pain, of slumber, of need, of trouble, of bonds, of nails, of the spear, of blood, of wounds, of burial, of the sepulchre, and all else of this kind, even if they are somewhat opposed to what has previously been stated, we none the less admit them to be things to be believed, and true, having regard to the flesh; which we receive by faith as conjoined with the Word. For as it is not possible to contemplate the peculiar attributes of the flesh as existing in the Word that was in the beginning, so also on the other hand we may not conceive those which are proper to the Godhead as existing in the nature of the flesh. As, therefore, the teaching of the Gospel concerning our Lord is mingled, partly of lofty and Divine ideas, partly of those which are lowly and human, we assign every particular phrase accordingly to one or other of these Natures which we conceive in the mystery, that which is human to the Humanity, that which is lofty to the Godhead, and say that, as God, the Son is certainly impassible and incapable of corruption: and whatever suffering is asserted concerning Him in the Gospel, He assuredly wrought by means of His Human Nature which admitted of such suffering. For verily the Godhead works the salvation of the world by means of that body which encompassed It, in such wise that the suffering was of the body, but the operation was of God; and even if some wrest to the support of the opposite doctrine the words of the Apostle, “God spared not His own Son,700    Oehler’s punctuation, which is probably due to a printer’s error, is here a good deal altered.    Cf. Phil. iii. 21.    Rom. viii. 32.” and, “God sent His own Son701    Cf. Rom. viii. 19–23.    The latter part of the quotation from S. Basil does not exactly agree with the Benedictine text, but the variations are not material.    Cf. Rom. viii. 3,” and other similar phrases which seem to refer, in the matter of the Passion, to the Divine Nature, and not to the Humanity, we shall none the less refuse to abandon sound doctrine, seeing that Paul himself declares to us more clearly the mystery of this subject. For he everywhere attributes to the Human element in Christ the dispensation of the Passion, when he says, “for since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead702    This interpretation is of course common to many of the Fathers, though S. Augustine, for instance, explains the “ninety and nine” otherwise, and his explanation has been often followed by modern writers and preachers. The present interpretation is assumed in a prayer, no doubt of great antiquity, which is found in the Liturgy of S. James, both in the Greek and the Syriac version, and also in the Greek form of the Coptic Liturgy of S. Basil, where it is said to be “from the Liturgy of S. James.”    Reading ἑαυτοῦ for the ἑαυτῶν of Oehler’s text, for which no authority is alleged by the editor, and which is probably a mere misprint.    1 Cor. xv. 21.,” and, “God, sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, condemned sin in the flesh703    Acts ii. 24.    The argument here takes the form of a reductio ad absurdum; assuming that S. Peter’s reference is to the “visible man,” and bearing in mind S. Basil’s words that S. Peter refers to Him Who “emptied Himself,” it is said “then it was the ‘visible man’ who ‘emptied himself.’ But the purpose of that ‘emptying’ was the ‘taking the form of a servant,’ which again is the coming into being as man: therefore the ‘visible man’ ‘emptied himself,’ to come into being as man, which is absurd.” The wording of S. Basil’s statement makes the argument in a certain degree plausible;—if he had said that S. Peter referred to the Son, not in regard to his actual essence, but in regard to the fact that He “emptied Himself” to become man, and as so having “emptied Himself” (which is no doubt what he intended his words to mean), then the reductio ad absurdum would not apply; nor would the later arguments, by which Eunomius proceeds to prove that He Who “emptied Himself” was no mere man, but the Word Who was in the beginning, have any force as against S. Basil’s statement.    Cf. Rom. viii. 3” (for he says, “in the flesh,” not “in the Godhead”); and “He was crucified through weakness” (where by “weakness” he means “the flesh”), “yet liveth by power704    See Book II. §§4 and 8, and note on the former passage.    S. John i. 1 sqq.    2 Cor. xiii. 4.” (while he indicates by “power” the Divine Nature); and, “He died unto sin” (that is, with regard to the body), “but liveth unto God705    With this passage may be compared the parallel passage in Bk. II. §8. The interpretation of the “many brethren” of those baptized suggests that Gregory understood the “predestination” spoken of in Rom. viii. 29 to be predestination to baptism.    S. John i. 14    Rom. vi. 10.” (that is, with regard to the Godhead, so that by these words it is established that, while the Man tasted death, the immortal Nature did not admit the suffering of death); and again; “He made Him to be sin for us, Who knew no sin706    Cf. Col. iii. 9, and Eph. iv. 24.    Cf. Phil. ii. 7, 8.    2 Cor. v. 21.,” giving once more the name of “sin” to the flesh.

Ἀλλ' αἰσθάνομαι πέρα τοῦ δέοντος ἐμφιλοχωρήσας τῷ τόπῳ, τῆς ἀνάγκης τῶν νοημάτων πρὸς τὴν θεωρίαν ἡμᾶς ταύτην ἐξαπαγούσης: ἐπαναληπτέον δὲ τὴν ἀκολουθίαν τῶν ἐγκλημάτων, ὡς ἂν μηδὲν τῶν ἐπενεχθέντων ἡμῖν ἀναπολόγητον παραδράμοιμεν. καὶ πρῶτον εἰ δοκεῖ τοῦτο σκεψώμεθα, ὅπως ἡμᾶς αἰτιᾶται κοινὸν ἄνθρωπον τὴν τοῦ παντὸς σωτηρίαν ἐνηργηκέναι λέγειν. τοῦτο γὰρ εἰ καὶ διὰ τῶν ἐξητασμένων μετρίως ἤδη προαποδέδεικται, ἀλλ' ὡς ἂν διὰ πάντων ἐκκαθαρθείη τῶν ἐκ διαβολῆς κρινόντων ἡμᾶς ἡ ὑπόληψις, ἐν ὀλίγῳ πάλιν διαληψόμεθα. ἡμεῖς τοσοῦτον ἀπέχομεν εἰς κοινὸν ἄνθρωπον τῆς μεγάλης καὶ ὑπὲρ λόγον χάριτος τὴν αἰτίαν ἀνάγειν, ὥστε κἂν εἰς Πέτρον καὶ Παῦλον ἢ εἰς οὐράνιον ἄγγελον ἀναφέρῃ τις τὴν τοιαύτην εὐεργεσίαν, ἀνάθεμα λέγειν τοῦτον κατὰ τὸν Παύλου νόμον. οὔτε γὰρ Παῦλος ἐσταυρώθη ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν οὔτε εἰς ἀνθρώπινον ἐβαπτίσθημεν ὄνομα. οὐ μὴν ἐπειδὴ κρείττω τῆς ἀνθρωπίνης φύσεως εἶναι τὴν σωτήριον τοῦ Χριστοῦ δύναμιν ὁμολογοῦμεν, ἤδη τὸ δόγμα τῶν ὑπεναντίων τὸ κατὰ τῆς ἀληθείας κρατύνεται. τοῖς μὲν γὰρ σκοπός ἐστι διὰ πάντων κατασκευάσαι τὴν τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ υἱοῦ πρὸς τὴν τοῦ πατρὸς ἀλλοτρίωσιν, καὶ οὐ μόνον τῇ τοῦ γεννητοῦ πρὸς τὸ ἀγέννητον διαστολῇ, ἀλλὰ καὶ τῇ τοῦ παθητοῦ πρὸς τὸ ἀπαθὲς ἀντιθέσει τὸ κατ' οὐσίαν ἀνόμοιον ἀποδεικνύειν σπουδάζουσι. καὶ τοῦτο γυμνότερον μὲν ἐν τοῖς τελευταίοις τοῦ λόγου κατασκευάζεται, φανερὸν δὲ καὶ διὰ τῶν νῦν λεγομένων οὐχ ἧττόν ἐστιν. εἰ γὰρ αἰτιᾶται τοὺς τὸ πάθος τῇ ἀνθρωπίνῃ φύσει ἀνατιθέντας, βούλεται πάντως αὐτὴν τῷ πάθει ὑπαγαγεῖν τὴν θεότητα. διπλῆς γὰρ οὔσης καὶ ἀμφιβόλου τῆς ὑπολήψεως, εἴτε τὸ θεῖον εἴτε τὸ ἀνθρώπινον ἐν πάθει γέγονεν, ἡ τοῦ ἑνὸς κατηγορία κατασκευὴ πάντως τοῦ λειπομένου γίνεται. εἰ τοίνυν αἰτιῶνται τοὺς τὸ πάθος περὶ τὸν ἄνθρωπον βλέποντας, ἐπαινοῦσι πάντως τοὺς ἐμπαθῆ λέγοντας τοῦ υἱοῦ τὴν θεότητα, τὸ δὲ διὰ τούτων κατασκευαζόμενον συνηγορία τῆς τοῦ δόγματος αὐτῶν ἀτοπίας γίνεται. εἰ γὰρ πάσχει μὲν κατὰ τὸν λόγον αὐτῶν τοῦ υἱοῦ ἡ θεότης, ἡ δὲ τοῦ πατρὸς ἐν ἀπαθείᾳ πάσῃ φυλάσσεται, ἡ ἀπαθὴς ἄρα φύσις πρὸς τὴν παραδεχομένην τὸ πάθος κατὰ τὴν οὐσίαν ἀλλοτρίως ἔχει. ἐπειδὴ τοίνυν βραχὺ μὲν ὅσον ἐν τῇ περιγραφῇ τῶν ῥημάτων ἐστὶ τὸ λεγόμενον, πάσης δὲ τῆς περὶ τὸ δόγμα κακίας τὰς ἀρχὰς καὶ τὰς ὑποθέσεις παρέχεται, δίκαιον ἂν εἴη τοὺς ἐντυγχάνοντας μὴ τὸ σύντομον τῆς ἀποκρίσεως, ἀλλὰ τὸ ἀσφαλὲς ἀπαιτεῖν. ἡμεῖς τοίνυν οὔτε ἀνθρώπῳ τὴν σωτηρίαν ἑαυτῶν ἀνατίθεμεν οὔτε τὴν ἀκήρατον καὶ θείαν φύσιν ἐμπαθῆ καὶ ἐπίκηρον εἶναι καταδεχόμεθα, ἀλλ' ἐπειδὴ χρὴ πάντως πιστεύειν ταῖς θείαις φωναῖς, αἳ θεὸν τὸν ἐν ἀρχῇ ὄντα λόγον κηρύσσουσι, μετὰ ταῦτα δὲ τὸν λόγον σάρκα γενόμενον ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ὀφθῆναι καὶ τοῖς ἀνθρώποις συναναστραφῆναι, τὰ πρόσφορα τῆς θείας φωνῆς νοήματα τῇ πίστει δεχόμεθα. ὅταν μὲν γὰρ ἀκούωμεν ὅτι φῶς ἐστι καὶ δύναμις καὶ δικαιοσύνη καὶ ζωὴ καὶ ἀλήθεια καὶ ὅτι πάντα δι' αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο, πάντα ταῦτα καὶ τὰ τοιαῦτα πιστὰ ποιούμεθα εἰς τὸν λόγον [τὸν θεὸν] ἀναφέροντες, ὅταν δὲ λύπην καὶ ὕπνον καὶ ἔνδειαν καὶ ταραχὴν καὶ δεσμὰ καὶ ἥλους καὶ λόγχην καὶ αἷμα καὶ τραύματα καὶ ταφὴν καὶ μνημεῖον καὶ ὅσα ἄλλα τοιαῦτα, κἂν ὑπεναντίως ἔχῃ τοῖς προαποδεδομένοις, οὐδὲν ἧττον πιστά τε καὶ ἀληθῆ εἶναι δεχόμεθα πρὸς τὴν σάρκα βλέποντες, ἣν τῇ πίστει μετὰ τοῦ λόγου παρεδεξάμεθα. ὡς γὰρ οὐκ ἔστι τὰ τῆς σαρκὸς ἰδιώματα τῷ ἐν ἀρχῇ ὄντι ἐπιθεωρηθῆναι λόγῳ, οὕτως αὖ πάλιν οὐδὲ τὰ τῆς θεότητος ἴδια ἐν τῇ τῆς σαρκὸς φύσει κατανοῆσαι. διὸ μεμιγμένης τῆς εὐαγγελικῆς περὶ τοῦ κυρίου διδασκαλίας διά τε τῶν ὑψηλῶν τε καὶ θεοπρεπῶν καὶ διὰ τῶν ταπεινῶν τε καὶ ἀνθρωπίνων ἑκάτερον τῶν νοημάτων ἑκατέρῳ τῶν ἐν τῷ μυστηρίῳ νοουμένων καταλλήλως ἁρμόζομεν, τὸ μὲν ἀνθρώπινον τῷ ἀνθρωπίνῳ τὸ δὲ ὑψηλὸν τῇ θεότητι, καί φαμεν ὅτι, καθὸ θεὸς ὁ υἱός, ἀπαθὴς πάντως ἐστὶ καὶ ἀκήρατος, εἰ δέ τι πάθος ἐν τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ περὶ αὐτοῦ λέγοιτο, διὰ τοῦ ἀνθρωπίνου πάντως τοῦ δεχομένου τὸ πάθος τὸ τοιοῦτον ἐνήργησεν. ἐνεργεῖ γὰρ ὡς ἀληθῶς ἡ θεότης διὰ τοῦ περὶ αὐτὴν σώματος τὴν τοῦ παντὸς σωτηρίαν, ὡς εἶναι τῆς μὲν σαρκὸς τὸ πάθος, τοῦ δὲ θεοῦ τὴν ἐνέργειαν: κἂν τὸν ἀπόστολον εἰς συνηγορίαν τινὲς τοῦ ἐναντίου καθέλκωσι δόγματος λέγοντα ὅτι τοῦ ἰδίου υἱοῦ οὐκ ἐφείσατο καὶ ὁ θεὸς τὸν ἑαυτοῦ υἱὸν ἔπεμψεν καὶ ὅσα τοιαῦτα πρὸς τὴν θείαν φύσιν ἐν τῇ τοῦ πάθους οἰκονομίᾳ καὶ οὐχὶ πρὸς τὸ ἀνθρώπινον βλέπειν δοκεῖ, οὐδὲν ἧττον τῶν ὑγιῶν δογμάτων οὐκ ἀφεξόμεθα, αὐτοῦ τοῦ Παύλου γυμνότερον τὸ περὶ τούτου σαφηνίσαντος ἡμῖν μυστήριον. πανταχοῦ γὰρ τῷ ἀνθρωπίνῳ μέρει τοῦ Χριστοῦ τὴν τοῦ πάθους οἰκονομίαν προσμαρτυρεῖ λέγων Ἐπειδὴ γὰρ δι' ἀνθρώπου ὁ θάνατος, καὶ δι' ἀνθρώπου ἀνάστασις νεκρῶν, καὶ Ὁ θεὸς τὸν ἑαυτοῦ υἱὸν πέμψας ἐν ὁμοιώματι σαρκὸς ἁμαρτίας κατέκρινε τὴν ἁμαρτίαν ἐν τῇ σαρκί: ἐν τῇ σαρκὶ γάρ φησιν, οὐκ ἐν τῇ θεότητι: καὶ Ἐσταυρώθη ἐξ ἀσθενείας (τὴν σάρκα διὰ τῆς ἀσθενείας σημαίνων), ζῇ δὲ ἐκ δυνάμεως (τὸ θεῖον διὰ τῆς δυνάμεως ἐνδεικνύμενος), καὶ Ἀπέθανε τῇ ἁμαρτίᾳ (τουτέστιν τῷ σώματι), ζῇ δὲ τῷ θεῷ (τουτέστι τῇ θεότητι): ὥστε διὰ τούτων κατασκευάζεσθαι ὅτι ὁ μὲν ἄνθρωπος τοῦ θανάτου ἐγεύσατο, ἡ δὲ ἀθάνατος φύσις τὸ κατὰ θάνατον οὐ παρεδέξατο πάθος, καὶ Τὸν μὴ γνόντα ἁμαρτίαν ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν, φησίν, ἁμαρτίαν ἐποίησε, πάλιν ἁμαρτίαν ὀνομάζων τὴν σάρκα.