In Defence of the Three Chapters 63

But let us also bring forward what holy Gregory says in his third book against Eunomius. 'Neither,' he says, 'does human nature give life to Lazarus, nor does the impassible power weep over him as he lies; but it is proper to the man indeed to weep, and the giving of life belongs to Him who is truly life. Human want does not feed thousands of men; almighty power does not run to the fig tree. Who is it that is wearied from the journey? And who is it that without labor established the whole world by a word? Who is this splendor of glory? And what is it that was fastened with nails? What form is struck with blows in the passion? And what is glorified from eternity? For these things are manifest, even if they are explained by no discourse.

For the blows indeed belong to the servant, in whom the Lord exists; but the honors belong to the Lord, around whom the servant is recognized.' Do you observe how holy Gregory, not thinking there are two Christs or sons, teaches that to weep was indeed proper to the man, but to give life belongs to Him who is truly life; and how the orthodox, questioning the heretic, says: Who is it that was wearied from the journey? And who is it that without labor established the whole world by a word?—and the rest. And then he closes the matter in this conclusion, affirming that the blows indeed belong to the servant, in whom the Lord exists; but the honors belong to the Lord, around whom the servant is recognized.

Do we then believe that he said such things according to the error of Nestorius, as though the Lord who existed in the servant were of one subsistence, and the servant in whom He existed of another? Or that the Lord, to whom honor is to be ascribed, is of one person, and the servant, who is recognized around the Lord and to whom the blows are to be reckoned, of another? He again, in the same work, in the fourth book: 'For just as He who knew no sin is made sin, that He might take away the sin of the world, so likewise the flesh, receiving the Lord, is made Christ and Lord. For it is changed, on account of the union, into that which it was not by nature.' And a little after: 'Let it be known to all the house of Israel, that God made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ.'

By this demonstration they suppose they show that the essence of the only-begotten God is a creature. What then, tell me—was there a cross before the world? Did Pilate exist before all creation? Was Jesus first, and afterward the Word? Was the flesh more ancient than the divinity? Did Gabriel evangelize Mary before the foundation of the world? Was it not that man who is according to Christ that received the beginning of his generation under Caesar Augustus? But the Word in the beginning was God and our King before the ages, according to what the prophecy also testifies. Do you not see what confusion, up and down, as the proverb says, you stir up against the Word of God? It was the fiftieth day after the passion when Peter preached these things to the Jews, saying:

'For this one whom you crucified, God made both Christ and Lord' (Acts 2:36)? Do you not attend to the order of the words, what is placed first and what second in the things that are said? For he did not say, 'whom God made Lord, you crucified,' but 'whom you,' he says, 'crucified, this one God made Christ and Lord.'' Here too, speaking of the mystery of Christ's incarnation, he says that the flesh, receiving the Lord, is made Christ and Lord. Yet it is not to be thought that Gregory believed that only a man, who was not also God, previously existed, who should receive the Lord. But what could the Semi-Eutychians, or their supporters, answer, if it were said to them:

You who think that Theodore ought to have been condemned by the synod of Chalcedon, why do you not condemn Gregory? For since we believe that Christ—that is, the Anointed—was incarnate as none other than God, and since the anointing itself rather befits the human nature, whence he himself also says that the flesh, receiving the Lord, is made Christ; he again says: 'Was it not that man who is according to Christ that received the beginning of his generation under Caesar Augustus? But the Word in the beginning was God.' If, then, the flesh—that is, the man—receiving the Lord, was made Christ, who again is that man who is according to Christ, receiving the beginning of his generation under Caesar Augustus?

Or why do they assert that confusion, up and down, as the proverb says, is stirred up against the Word of God concerning what was said, 'For this one whom you crucified, God made both Christ and Lord'? And he admonishes that Eunomius, against whom he argues, should attend to the order of the words, and understand what is first and what second in the things that are said; and he infers: 'For he did not say, whom God made Lord, you crucified, but whom you,' he says, 'crucified, this one God made Christ and Lord.' What then? Was not He who was afterward crucified, Christ and Lord even before the passion—but after the crucifixion was He made Christ and Lord by the merit of the passion? And how was it said above that the flesh, receiving

the Lord, is made Christ and Lord? Did the flesh receive the Lord after the crucifixion? Accordingly, if these things, as I have said, are objected against the Eutychians, will they condemn Gregory too? Or will they endeavor to understand and expound them better? For holy Athanasius too, in the book which he composed on the Trinity—as we recalled in our third book—likewise said, for the distinction of the natures: 'For the Word and Son of God was always Lord God, and was not made Lord Christ after the crucifixion; but, as I have said before, His divinity made His humanity Lord and God.' But let us return to the matter proposed. So the same holy Gregory again says in the same book:

'Having the divine Scripture in our hands to expound it, the great Apostle forbids us to entertain artful novelties: when I perceive the cross, I understand the cross, and being taught the human name, I behold that nature which is signified by the name itself. This one, then, I am taught by Peter to have been made Lord and Christ; this one, who was made before our eyes, I do not hesitate to be spoken of by him: since the saints are in harmony with one another, both in all other matters and in this respect. For just as this one says that He who was crucified was made Lord, so also Paul says that He was super-exalted after the passion and after the resurrection.' Let the reader observe in this sentence too, that when he says: 'This one, then, I am taught by Peter to have been made Lord and Christ;'

and again he repeats, saying: 'This one, who was made before our eyes, I do not hesitate to be spoken of by him,' it amounts to the same as if he said: This one, not that one who before the ages was Lord; nor yet does he teach that two sons are to be understood in this one and in that one. And confirming his earlier statement, he again asserts that He was made Lord after the crucifixion, when he says: 'Because, just as Peter says that He who was crucified was made Lord, so also Paul says that He was super-exalted after the passion and after the resurrection.' Wherefore, just as he asserts that He was exalted after the passion and resurrection, on the testimony of Paul who says: 'He humbled Himself, becoming obedient unto death, even the death of the cross:'

wherefore also God exalted Him, and gave Him a name which is above every name' (Phil. 2:8-9): so he affirms that He was made Lord after the passion and resurrection as well, which the apostle Peter also says of Him: 'Let it be known to all the house of Israel, that God made both Lord and Christ this Jesus, whom you crucified' (Acts 2:36). Likewise he says in the same book: 'That with regard to each that which pertains to piety may be preserved, he shows that the things which are human are glorified through the assumption, and in no way pollutes the things which are of the divinity through the descent. But assigning the passions to the humanity, and the operation of the resurrection of Him who suffered to the divine power;'

and thus the experience of death is referred to Him who shared in the passible nature, on account of the union of the man which is unto Him; and the loftier and divine names likewise descend to the man in a similar manner.' Would not the wise men, if Theodore had said, 'assigning the passions to the humanity, but the operation of the resurrection of Him who suffered to the divine power,' cast it up to the prejudice of the council of Chalcedon, that for this reason he says 'of Him who suffered,' as though God the Word, who did not suffer, were of another person? Or that, in what followed there, he added:

'And thus the experience of death is referred to Him who shared in the passible nature,' would they not accuse it in Theodore, as they are wont, saying that he did not believe God to be of the same person as the man, so that he says 'of Him who suffered'—that is, of the man—'is referred to Him,' that is, to God the Word; and that the passion of the man is, by relation, ascribed to God the Word Himself, just as the loftier things, which are of the Word of God, and the divine names, descend in a similar manner to the man? Again, speaking of this very point in the same book: 'For if it were fitting,' he says, 'to say that anything had befallen that excellent nature by way of advance;'

for example, that from a private man He became king, from lowly exalted, from servant Lord, then perhaps it would be fitting to fit Peter's word to the divine person of the only-begotten. But since the divinity—whatever that is which is believed by us to be—always holds itself in the same manner, and stands superior to every addition, by no means receiving diminution; it is necessary in every way to refer the discourse to the humanity. For God the Word, who was in the beginning, this He is even now, and always remains: always King, always Lord, always Most High, always God: He took none of these by way of advance, but all whatsoever He is said to be, He stands by the power of His own nature.

But that other one, from man exalted to God by the assumption, being one thing and made another, is said to have been made properly and truly Christ and Lord. For out of a servant and out of one subjected He made him king, and Christ out of one obedient, and what was lowly He super-exalted, and to him who had a human name He gave the name which is above every name.' These things too being considered, let those who judged that Theodore with his teachings ought to be condemned see that they themselves are charged—as saying that something accrued to Christ by way of advance according to His humanity;

since, whether Theodore said this or did not say it, Gregory meanwhile says that, by way of advance, from a private man to king, from lowly to exalted, from servant to Lord, He was in the assumed humanity made Christ. For God the Word, who was in the beginning, this He is even now and always, nor did He take any of these by way of advance. But that other one, exalted from man to God by the assumption, while He stood as one thing by nature, was made another, properly and truly made Christ and Lord: whom the assumption of the Word of God made king out of a servant and one subjected to Him, and Christ out of one obedient. Let them therefore accuse Gregory too, as introducing two sons, because he said: God the Word took nothing by way of advance;

but that other one was exalted from man to God by the assumption. And as though he were saying that the Lord Jesus was at some time so a servant and subjected that He was not also king and Lord, or that He was at first only obedient, and afterward by the merit of that obedience was made Christ; or that He was ever so lowly that He was not also exalted; or that He at some time had a human name in such a way that He did not also have the name which is above every name: because Gregory said this too: 'What was lowly He super-exalted, and to him who had a human name He gave the name which is above every name.' Let them accuse also what he says:

But He who was exalted from man to God is said properly and truly to have been made Christ and Lord, as though, having been made man, Christ and Lord had ceased to be, so that He might be called Christ and Lord made out of man. From this the reader may gauge how many such things could be found in the books of this holy Gregory, since we have brought forward, not only from the same work of his but even from the same book, as much as we judged necessary for the cause. And yet for such things it is not fitting that his doctrine be condemned under anathema. First, indeed, because those are not deserving of infamy who ended the present life with glory. Then too the Eastern Fathers used to say:

'But if, holy Emperor, anyone should say that something obscure is found in the writings of Theodore or of others, it is not necessary that this be retracted. For to those whose life had its best end in the priesthood and ministry, we dedicate a glory set above them, and we do not judge them out of those matters concerning which certain persons accuse them savagely. For it is impossible, since it is men who teach in the Church, that they should escape the reproaches of slanderers.' Then too, because much injury and confusion is generated to the Church from this. Whence again the aforesaid Fathers used to say: 'What that is not full of injury or corruption and confusion would not be generated from this, if we open the door to those who wish to overthrow the sayings of the Fathers who have passed away?'

'What harm will not be manifest, not only to refute the sayings, but even to anathematize them?' For it is one thing that one matter should please someone and another not, in the sayings of certain persons, whether of the ancients, or of those who came after, or of those now among us; but that an anathema should be imposed upon them, we judge that this would appear bold and harsh to him, even if the persons be not anathematized together with the sayings.