On the Trinity — Book X

It is obvious that nothing people have ever said is immune to opposition. When the will disagrees, the mind disagrees as well: influenced by opposing judgment, it enters into conflict and denies the claims it rejects. Even if every word we speak is unquestionable when measured by the standard of truth, as long as people think or feel differently, the truth will always be exposed to the criticisms of opponents, because they attack—under the influence of error or prejudice—the truth they misunderstand or dislike. For once judgments are formed, they cling with extreme stubbornness, and the passion of controversy cannot be diverted from its course when the will is not subject to reason. The search for truth gives way to the search for proofs of what we want to believe; desire takes precedence over truth. Then the theories we construct are built on words rather than realities: the logic of truth is replaced by the logic of prejudice—a logic that the will manipulates to defend its preferences, not one that directs the will through reason's understanding of truth. From these defects of partisan spirit arise all controversies between opposing theories. What follows is a stubborn battle between truth asserting itself and prejudice defending itself: truth holds its ground and prejudice resists. But if desire had not preceded reason—if the understanding of truth had moved us to desire what was true—instead of trying to establish our desires as doctrines, we would let our doctrines dictate our desires. There would be no contradiction of the truth, for everyone would begin by desiring what was true, not by defending the truth of what they desired.

1. It is manifest that there is nothing which men have ever said which is not liable to opposition. Where the will dissents the mind also dissents: under the bias of opposing judgment it joins battle, and denies the assertions to which it objects. Though every word we say be incontrovertible if gauged by the standard of truth, yet so long as men think or feel differently, the truth is always exposed to the cavils of opponents, because they attack, under the delusion of error or prejudice, the truth they misunderstand or dislike. For decisions once formed cling with excessive obstinacy: and the passion of controversy cannot be driven from the course it has taken, when the will is not subject to the reason. Enquiry after truth gives way to the search for proofs of what we wish to believe; desire is paramount over truth. Then the theories we concoct build themselves on names rather than things: the logic of truth gives place to the logic of prejudice: a logic which the will adjusts to defend its fancies, not one which stimulates the will through the understanding of truth by the reason. From these defects of partisan spirit arise all controversies between opposing theories. Then follows an obstinate battle between truth asserting itself, and prejudice defending itself: truth maintains its ground and prejudice resists. But if desire had not forestalled reason: if the understanding of the truth had moved us to desire what was true: instead of trying to set up our desires as doctrines, we should let our doctrines dictate our desires; there would be no contradiction of the truth, for every one would begin by desiring what was true, not by defending the truth of that which he desired.

The Apostle, remembering this sin of willfulness, wrote to Timothy after giving many commands to testify to the faith and preach the word. He added, "For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but having itching ears will heap up teachers to themselves after their own lusts, and will turn away their ears from the truth, and turn aside unto fables." When their unholy zeal drives them beyond the point of enduring sound doctrine, they will heap up teachers for their lusts—that is, they will construct schemes of doctrine to suit their own desires. They do not wish to be taught, but instead gather teachers who will tell them what they want to hear, so that the crowd of teachers they have sought out and assembled may satisfy them with doctrines that match their own turbulent desires. If these madmen in their godless foolishness do not understand with what spirit they reject sound doctrine and crave corrupt teaching, let them hear the same Apostle's words to the same Timothy: "But the Spirit says expressly that in the last days some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils through the hypocrisy of lying talk." What progress in doctrine is it to discover what one imagines rather than what one ought to learn? Or what piety in doctrine is it not to desire what one ought to learn, but to heap up doctrine according to our desires? But this is what the promptings of seducing spirits provide. They confirm the falsehoods of pretended godliness, for a false show of piety always follows defection from the faith, so that at least in words the reverence is retained which the conscience has lost. They make even that pretended piety impious by all manner of lies, violating the sacredness of the faith through schemes of false doctrine. For they pile up doctrines to suit their desires, not according to the faith of the Gospel. They delight, with uncontrollable pleasure, to have their itching ears tickled by the novelty of their favorite preaching. They estrange themselves utterly from hearing the truth and surrender themselves entirely to fables, so that their incapacity for either speaking or understanding the truth gives their discourse what is, to them, a semblance of truth.

2. Not unmindful of this sin of wilfulness, the Apostle, writing to Timothy, after many injunctions to bear witness to the faith and to preach the word, adds, For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but having itching ears will heap up teachers to themselves after their own lusts, and will turn away their ears from the truth, and turn aside unto fables. 2 Timothy 4:3-4 For when their unhallowed zeal shall drive them beyond the endurance of sound doctrine, they will heap up teachers for their lusts, that is, construct schemes of doctrine to suit their own desires, not wishing to be taught, but getting together teachers who will tell them what they wish: that the crowd of teachers whom they have ferreted out and gathered together, may satisfy them with the doctrines of their own tumultuous desires. And if these madmen in their godless folly do not know with what spirit they reject the sound, and yearn after the corrupt doctrine, let them hear the words of the same Apostle to the same Timothy, But the Spirit says expressly that in the last days some shall away from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils through the hypocrisy of lying talk. 1 Timothy 4:1-2 What advancement of doctrine is it to discover what one fancies, and not what one ought to learn? Or what piety in doctrine is it not to desire what one ought to learn, but to heap up doctrine after our desires? But this is what the promptings of seducing spirits supply. They confirm the falsehoods of pretended godliness, for a canting hypocrisy always succeeds to defection from the faith: so that at least in word the reverence is retained, which the conscience has lost. Even that pretended piety they make impious by all manner of lies, violating by schemes of false doctrine the sacredness of the faith: for they pile up doctrines to suit their desires, and not according to the faith of the Gospel. They delight, with an uncontrollable pleasure, to have their itching ears tickled by the novelty of their favourite preaching; they estrange themselves utterly from the hearing of the truth, and surrender themselves entirely to fables: so that their incapacity for either speaking or understanding the truth invests their discourse with what is, to them, a semblance of truth.

We have clearly fallen into the evil times the Apostle prophesied. Today, people seek out teachers who preach not God but a creature. People are more passionate about what they themselves want than about what sound faith teaches. Their itching ears have driven them so strongly to hear what they desire that, for now, only one kind of preaching dominates among their crowd of teachers—preaching that separates the Only-begotten God from the power and physis of God the Father, and makes Him in our faith either a second-rank God or not God at all. Either way, this is a damning profession of impiety: whether one confesses two Gods by creating different grades of divinity, or denies divinity altogether to Him who drew His physis by birth from God. Such doctrines please those whose ears have turned away from hearing the truth and turned toward fables, while the hearing of our sound faith is not tolerated and is forcibly driven into exile along with its preachers.

3. We have clearly fallen on the evil times prophesied by the Apostle; for nowadays teachers are sought after who preach not God but a creature. And men are more zealous for what they themselves desire, than for what the sound faith teaches. So far have their itching ears stirred them to listen to what they desire, that for the moment that preaching alone rules among their crowd of doctors which estranges the Only-begotten God from the power and nature of God the Father, and makes Him in our faith either a God of the second order, or not a God at all; in either case a damning profession of impiety, whether one profess two Gods by making different grades of divinity; or else deny divinity altogether to Him Who drew His nature by birth from God. Such doctrines please those whose ears are estranged from the hearing of the truth and turned to fables, while the hearing of this our sound faith is not endured, and is driven bodily into exile with its preachers.

Even though many people may gather teachers who tell them what they want to hear and reject sound doctrine, the preaching of truth can never be driven out from the company of the saints. From our exile we will speak through these writings, and the Word of God, which cannot be bound, will spread freely, warning us about this time that the Apostle prophesied. For when people show they cannot tolerate the true message and gather teachers according to their own human desires, we can no longer doubt what time we are in. We know that when preachers of sound doctrine are banished, truth is banished with them. We are not complaining about the times. Rather, we rejoice that wickedness has revealed itself through our exile, because it cannot endure the truth and so banishes the preachers of sound doctrine in order to gather teachers for itself who match its own desires. We take pride in our exile and rejoice in the Lord that the Apostle's prophecy is being fulfilled in us.

4. But though many may heap up teachers according to their desires, and banish sound doctrine, yet from the company of the Saints the preaching of truth can never be exiled. From our exile we shall speak by these our writings, and the Word of God which cannot be bound will run unhindered, warning us of this time which the Apostle prophesied. For when men show themselves impatient of the true message, and heap up teachers according to their own human desires, we can no longer doubt about the times, but know that while the preachers of sound doctrine are banished truth is banished too. We do not complain of the times: we rejoice rather, that iniquity has revealed itself in this our exile, when, unable to endure the truth, it banishes the preachers of sound doctrine, that it may heap up for itself teachers after its own desires. We glory in our exile, and rejoice in the Lord that in our person the Apostle's prophecy should be fulfilled.

In the earlier books, then, while maintaining what I trust is a sincere profession of faith and uncorrupted truth, we organized our method of response so that—despite our human limitations and the fact that human language can never be entirely free from objection—no one could contradict us without openly professing godlessness. We have so thoroughly demonstrated the true meaning of those passages they cleverly steal from the Gospels and twist to support their own teaching that if anyone denies our interpretation, he cannot excuse himself by claiming ignorance but stands condemned by his own words as godless. Furthermore, according to the gift of the Holy Spirit, we have proceeded so carefully throughout our proof of the faith that no accusation could possibly be invented against us. For it is their habit to tell the unsuspecting that we deny the birth of Christ when we preach the unity of the Godhead. They claim that by the text "I and the Father are one" we confess that God is solitary. Thus, according to them, we say that the Unbegotten God descended into the Virgin and was born as man, and that He applies the opening word "I" to the dispensation of His flesh but adds to it the proof of His divinity, "and the Father," as being the Father of Himself as man. They further claim that, consisting of two prosopa, human and divine, He said of Himself, "We are one."

5. In the earlier books, then, while maintaining the profession of a faith, I trust, sincere, and a truth uncorrupted, we arranged the method of our answer throughout, so that (though such are our limitations, that human language can never be safe from exception) no one could contradict us without an open profession of godlessness. For so completely have we demonstrated the true meaning of those texts which they cunningly filch from the Gospels and appropriate for their own teaching, that if any one denies it, he cannot escape on the plea of ignorance, but is condemned out of his own mouth of godlessness. Further, we have, according to the gift of the Holy Ghost, so cautiously proceeded throughout in our proof of the faith, that no charge could possibly be trumped up against us. For it is their way to fill the ears of the unwary with declarations that we deny the birth of Christ, when we preach the unity of the Godhead; and they say that by the text, I and the Father are one John 10:30, we confess that God is solitary: thus, according to them, we say that the Unbegotten God descended into the Virgin, and was born man, and that He refers the opening word 'I' to the dispensation of His flesh, but adds to it the proof of His divinity, And the Father, as being the Father of Himself as man; and further, that, consisting of two Persons, human and divine, He said of Himself, We are one.

We have always maintained that the birth exists outside of time. We have taught that God the Son is God of the same nature with God the Father, though not co-equal with the Unbegotten, since He was not Himself Unbegotten. Rather, as the Only-begotten, He is not unequal because He is begotten. The Two are One, not by giving a double name to one Person, but through true begetting and being begotten. Neither are there two Gods of different kinds in our faith, nor is God solitary because He is one, in the sense that we confess the mystery of the Only-begotten God. Instead, the Son is both indicated in the name of the Father and exists in Him, having the Father's name and nature in Himself, while the Father is implied by His name and dwells in the Son, since a son cannot be spoken of or exist except as born of a father. Furthermore, we say that He is the living copy of the living nature, the impression of the divine seal upon the divine nature. He is so undistinguished from God in power and kind that neither His works nor His words nor His form are different from the Father's. Since the image by nature possesses the nature of its author, the Author also has worked and spoken and appeared through His natural image.

6. But we have always maintained the birth existing out of time: we have taught that God the Son is God of the same nature with God the Father, not co-equal with the Unbegotten, for He was not Himself Unbegotten, but, as the Only-begotten, not unequal because begotten; that the Two are One, not by the giving of a double name to one Person, but by a true begetting and being begotten; that neither are there two Gods, different in kind, in our faith, nor is God solitary because He is one, in the sense in which we confess the mystery of the Only-begotten God: but that the Son is both indicated in the name of, and exists in, the Father, Whose name and Whose nature are in Him, while the Father by His name implies, and abides in, the Son, since a son cannot be spoken of, or exist, except as born of a father. Further, we say that He is the living copy of the living nature, the impression of the divine seal upon the divine nature, so undistinguished from God in power and kind, that neither His works nor His words nor His form are other than the Father's: but that, since the image by nature possesses the nature of its author, the Author also has worked and spoken and appeared through His natural image.

We taught not only about the timeless and ineffable generation of the Only-begotten, which surpasses human understanding, but also about the mystery of God being born as man from the Virgin's womb. We showed how, according to the plan of the Incarnation, when He emptied Himself of the form of God and took the form of a servant, the weakness of the assumed humanity did not weaken the divine nature. Instead, divine power was given to humanity without the virtue of divinity being lost in the human form. For when God was born to be man, the purpose was not that the Godhead should be lost, but that, while the Godhead remained, man should be born to be God. This is why His name is Emmanuel, which means God with us, so that God would not be lowered to the level of man, but man raised to that of God. When He asks to be glorified, this does not refer to the glorifying of His divine nature, but of the lower nature He assumed. He asks for the glory which He had with God before the world was made.

7. But by the side of this timeless and ineffable generation of the Only-begotten, which transcends the perception of human understanding, we taught as well the mystery of God born to be man from the womb of the Virgin, showing how according to the plan of the Incarnation, when He emptied Himself of the form of God and took the form of a servant, the weakness of the assumed humanity did not weaken the divine nature, but that Divine power was imparted to humanity without the virtue of divinity being lost in the human form. For when God was born to be man the purpose was not that the Godhead should be lost, but that, the Godhead remaining, man should be born to be God. Thus Emmanuel is His name, which is God with us Matthew 1:23, that God might not be lowered to the level of man, but man raised to that of God. Nor, when He asks that He may be glorified John 17:5, is it in any way a glorifying of His divine nature, but of the lower nature He assumed: for He asks for that glory which He had with God before the world was made.

Since we are responding to all their objections, even the most foolish ones, we now turn to the question of the unknown hour. Even if, as they claim, the Son did not know it, this would provide no basis for attacking His divinity as the Only-begotten. It was not in the nature of things that His birth should push His origin backward until it equaled the existence that is unbegotten and without beginning. The Father reserves as His own prerogative—to demonstrate His authority as the Unbegotten—the determination of this day that is still not fixed. We must not conclude that in His Person there is any defect in that nature which contained by right of birth all the fullness that a perfect birth could convey. Nor could ignorance of the day and hour be attributed in the Only-begotten God to a lesser degree of divinity. It is to demonstrate against the Sabellian heretics that the Father's authority is without birth or beginning that this prerogative of unbegotten authority is not given to the Son. But if, as we have argued, when He said that He did not know the day, He remained silent not out of ignorance but in accordance with the divine plan, then all basis for irreverent statements must be eliminated and the blasphemous teachings of heresy defeated, so that the truth of the Gospel may be made clear by the very words that seem to obscure it.

8. As we are answering all, even their most insensate statements, we come now to the discussion of the unknown hour. Now, even if, as they say, the Son had not known it, this could give no ground for an attack upon His Godhead as the Only-begotten. It was not in the nature of things that His birth should avail to put His beginning back, until it was equivalent to the existence which is unbegotten, and had no beginning; and the Father reserves as His prerogative, to demonstrate His authority as the Unbegotten, the fixing of this still undetermined day. Nor may we conclude that in His Person there is any defect in that nature which contained by right of birth all the fullness of that nature which a perfect birth could impart. Nor again could the ignorance of day and hour be imputed in the Only-begotten God to a lower degree of Divinity. It is to demonstrate against the Sabellian heretics that the Father's authority is without birth or beginning, that this prerogative of unbegotten authority is not granted to the Son. But if, as we have maintained, when He said that He knew not the day, He kept silence not from ignorance, but in accordance with the Divine Plan, all occasion for irreverent declarations must be removed, and the blasphemous teachings of heresy thwarted, that the truth of the Gospel may be illustrated by the very words which seem to obscure it.

Thus the majority of them will not allow Him to have the impassible nature of God because He feared His Passion and showed Himself weak by submitting to suffering. They claim that He who feared and felt pain could not possess that confidence of power which is above fear, or that incorruption of spirit which is not conscious of suffering. Rather, being of a nature lower than God the Father, He trembled with fear at human suffering and groaned before the violence of bodily pain. These impious claims are based on the words, "My soul is sorrowful even unto death," and "Father if it be possible let this cup pass away from Me," and also, "My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?" To these they also add, "Father into Your hands I commend My Spirit." All these words of our holy faith they twist to serve their unholy blasphemy: that He feared, because He was sorrowful and even prayed that the cup might be taken away from Him; that He felt pain, because He complained that God had deserted Him in His suffering; that He was weak, because He commended His Spirit to the Father. His doubts and anxieties prevent us, they say, from assigning to Him that likeness to God which would belong to a nature equal to God as being born His Only-begotten. He proclaims His own weakness and inferiority by the prayer to remove the cup, by the complaint of desertion, and the commending of His Spirit.

9. Thus the greater number of them will not allow Him to have the impossible nature of God because He feared His Passion and showed Himself weak by submitting to suffering. They assert that He Who feared and felt pain could not enjoy that confidence of power which is above fear, or that incorruption of spirit which is not conscious of suffering: but, being of a nature lower than God the Father, He trembled with fear at human suffering, and groaned before the violence of bodily pain. These impious assertions are based on the words, My soul is sorrowful even unto death Matthew 26:38, and Father if it be possible let this cup pass away from Me, and also, My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me? to which they also add, Father into Your hands I commend My Spirit. Luke 23:46 All these words of our holy faith they appropriate to the use of their unholy blasphemy: that He feared, Who was sorrowful, and even prayed that the cup might be taken away from Him; that He felt pain, because He complained that God had deserted Him in His suffering; that He was infirm, because He commended His Spirit to the Father. His doubts and anxieties preclude us, they say, from assigning to Him that likeness to God which would belong to a nature equal to God as being born His Only-begotten. He proclaims His own weakness and inferiority by the prayer to remove the cup, by the complaint of desertion and the commending of His Spirit.

10. Now first of all, before we show from these very texts that He was subject to no weakness of fear or sorrow on His own account, let us ask: What can we find for Him to fear that would make the dread of unbearable pain seize Him? The objects of His fear that they claim are, I suppose, suffering and death. Now I ask those who hold this opinion: Can we reasonably suppose that He feared death when He drove away the terrors of death from His Apostles, exhorting them to the glory of martyrdom with these words: "He that does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me," and "He that finds his life shall lose it, and he that has lost his life for My sake shall find it" (Matthew 10:38-39)? If dying for Him is life, what pain can we think He had to suffer in the mystery of death when He rewards with life those who die for Him? Could death make Him fear what could be done to the body, when He exhorted the disciples, "Fear not those which kill the body" (Matthew 10:28)?

10. Now first of all, before we show from these very texts, that He was subject to no infirmity of fear or sorrow on His own account, let us ask, What can we find for Him to fear, that the dread of an unendurable pain should have seized Him? The objects of His fear, which they allege, are, I suppose, suffering and death. Now I ask those who are of this opinion, Can we reasonably suppose that He feared death, Who drove away the terrors of death from His Apostles, exhorting them to the glory of martyrdom with the words, He that does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worth of Me; and, He that finds his life shall lose it, and he that has lost his life for My sake shall find it Matthew 10:38-39? If to die for Him is life, what pain can we think He had to suffer in the mystery of death, Who rewards with life those who die for Him? Could death make Him fear what could be done to the body, when He exhorted the disciples, Fear not those which kill the body Matthew 10:28?

Further, what terror could the pain of death hold for him, when death was an act of his own free will? In the human race, death is brought about either by an attack on the body from an external enemy—such as fever, wound, accident, or fall—or our bodily nature is overcome by age and yields to death. But the Only-begotten God, who had the power of laying down his life and taking it up again, after the drink of vinegar, having testified that his work of human suffering was finished, bowed his head and gave up his Spirit in order to accomplish in himself the mystery of death. If it had been granted to our mortal nature to breathe its last breath of its own will and seek rest in death—if the battered soul could depart without the breaking up of the body, and the spirit could burst forth and flee away without being violated in its own home by the breaking, piercing, and crushing of limbs—then fear of death might seize the Lord of life. That is, if his death when he gave up the ghost and died were not an exercise of his own free will. But if he died of his own will, and through his own will gave back his Spirit, death had no terror, because it was in his own power.

11. Further, what terror had the pain of death for Him, to Whom death was an act of His own free will? In the human race death is brought on either by an attack upon the body of an external enemy, such as fever wound, accident or fall: or our bodily nature is overcome by age, and yields to death. But the Only-begotten God, Who had the power of laying down His life, and of taking it up again John 10:18, after the drought of vinegar, having borne witness that His work of human suffering was finished, in order to accomplish in Himself the mystery of death, bowed His head and gave up His Spirit. If it has been granted to our mortal nature of its own will to breathe its last breath, and seek rest in death; if the buffeted soul may depart, without the breaking up of the body, and the spirit burst forth and flee away, without being as it were violated in its own home by the breaking and piercing and crushing of limbs; then fear of death might seize the Lord of life; if, that is, when He gave up the ghost and died, His death were not an exercise of His own free will. But if He died of His own will, and through His own will gave back His Spirit, death had no terror; because it was in His own power.

But perhaps, with the fearfulness that comes from human ignorance, He feared the very power of death which He possessed. So even though He died of His own accord, He feared because He was going to die. If anyone thinks this way, let them ask: To which was death terrible—to His Spirit or to His body? If to His body, are they unaware that the Holy One would not see corruption, that within three days He was going to raise up the temple of His body? But if death was terrible to His Spirit, should Christ fear the abyss of hell while Lazarus was rejoicing in Abraham's bosom? It is foolish and absurd that He should fear death when He could lay down His soul and take it up again, when He was about to die of His own free will to fulfill the mystery of human life. He cannot fear death when His power and purpose in dying is to die only for a moment. Fear is incompatible with willingness to die and with the power to live again, for both of these strip death of its terrors.

12. But perchance with the fearfulness of human ignorance, He feared the very power of death, which He possessed; so, though He died of His own accord, He feared because He was to die. If any think so, let them ask To which was death terrible, to His Spirit or to His body? If to His body, are they ignorant that the Holy One should not see corruption, that within three days He was to revive the temple of His body? But if death was terrible to His Spirit, should Christ fear the abyss of hell, while Lazarus was rejoicing in Abraham's bosom? It is foolish and absurd, that He should fear death, Who could lay down His soul, and take it up again, Who, to fulfil the mystery of human life, was about to die of His own free will. He cannot fear death Whose power and purpose in dying is to die but for a moment: fear is incompatible with willingness to die, and the power to live again, for both of these rob death of his terrors.

But was it perhaps the physical pain of hanging on the cross, or the rough ropes that bound Him, or the cruel wounds where the nails were driven in that dismayed Him? Let us consider what kind of body the Man Jesus had, that pain should exist in His crucified, bound, and pierced body.

13. But was it perhaps the physical pain of hanging on the cross, or the rough cords with which He was bound, or the cruel wounds, where the nails were driven in, that dismayed Him? Let us see of what body the Man Jesus was, that pain should dwell in His crucified, bound, and pierced body.

The nature of our bodies is such that when they are given life and feeling through union with a sentient soul, they become something more than lifeless, unfeeling matter. They feel when touched, suffer when pricked, shiver with cold, find pleasure in warmth, waste away with hunger, and grow fat with food. Through a kind of infusion of the soul, which sustains and penetrates them, they experience pleasure or pain depending on their circumstances. When the body is pricked or pierced, it is the soul pervading it that is aware and feels pain. For example, a wound in the flesh is felt even to the bone, while the fingers feel nothing when we cut the nails that extend beyond the flesh. And if a limb becomes withered through disease, it loses the sensation of living flesh: it can be cut or burned and feels no pain at all, because the soul is no longer mixed with it. Also, when part of the body must be cut away due to some serious medical need, the soul can be put to sleep by drugs that overcome pain and create in the mind a death-like loss of its sensory power. Then limbs can be removed without pain: the flesh is dead to all feeling and does not notice the deep cut of the knife, because the soul within it is asleep. Therefore, because the body lives through mixture with a weak soul, it is subject to the weakness of pain.

14. The nature of our bodies is such, that when endued with life and feeling by conjunction with a sentient soul, they become something more than inert, insensate matter. They feel when touched, suffer when pricked, shiver with cold, feel pleasure in warmth, waste with hunger, and grow fat with food. By a certain transfusion of the soul, which supports and penetrates them, they feel pleasure or pain according to the surrounding circumstances. When the body is pricked or pierced, it is the soul which pervades it that is conscious, and suffers pain. For instance a flesh-wound is felt even to the bone, while the fingers feel nothing when we cut the nails which protrude from the flesh. And if through some disease a limb becomes withered, it loses the feeling of living flesh: it can be cut or burnt, it feels no pain whatever, because the soul is no longer mingled with it. Also when through some grave necessity part of the body must be cut away, the soul can be lulled to sleep by drugs, which overcome the pain, and produce in the mind a death-like forgetfulness of its power of sense. Then limbs can be cut off without pain: the flesh is dead to all feeling, and does not heed the deep thrust of the knife, because the soul within it is asleep. It is, therefore, because the body lives by admixture with a weak soul, that it is subject to the weakness of pain.

If the Man Jesus Christ began His bodily life with the same beginning as our body and soul, if He were not, as God, the immediate Author of His own body and soul alike when He was fashioned in the likeness and form of man and born as man, then we might suppose that He felt the pain of our body, since by His beginning through a conception like ours, He had a body animated with a soul like our own. But if through His own act He took to Himself flesh from the Virgin, and likewise by His own act joined a soul to the body thus conceived, then the nature of His suffering must have corresponded with the nature of His body and soul. For when He emptied Himself of the form of God and received the form of a servant, when the Son of God was born also Son of Man without losing His own self and power, God the Word formed the perfect living Man. For how was the Son of God born Son of Man, how did He receive the form of a servant while still remaining in the form of God, unless God the Word was able of Himself to take flesh from the Virgin and to give that flesh a soul for the redemption of our soul and body? The Man Christ Jesus was born perfect and made in the form of a servant by assuming the body which the Virgin conceived. For the Virgin conceived what she conceived from the Holy Spirit alone, and though for His birth in the flesh she supplied from herself that element which women always contribute to the seed planted in them, still Jesus Christ was not formed by an ordinary human conception. In His birth, the cause of which was transmitted solely by the Holy Spirit, His mother performed the same part as in all human conceptions, but by virtue of His origin He never ceased to be God.

15. If the Man Jesus Christ began His bodily life with the same beginning as our body and soul, if He were not, as God, the immediate Author of His own body and soul alike, when He was fashioned in the likeness and form of man, and born as man, then we may suppose that He felt the pain of our body; since by His beginning, a conception like ours, He had a body animated with a soul like our own. But if through His own act He took to Himself flesh from the Virgin, and likewise by His own act joined a soul to the body thus conceived, then the nature of His suffering must have corresponded with the nature of His body and soul. For when He emptied Himself of the form of God and received the form of a servant when the Son of God was born also Son of Man, without losing His own self and power, God the Word formed the perfect living Man. For how was the Son of God born Son of Man, how did He receive the form of a servant, still remaining in the form of God, unless ( God the Word being able of Himself to take flesh from the Virgin and to give that flesh a soul, for the redemption of our soul and body), the Man Christ Jesus was born perfect, and made in the form of a servant by the assumption of the body, which the Virgin conceived? For the Virgin conceived, what she conceived, from the Holy Ghost alone, and though for His birth in the flesh she supplied from herself that element, which women always contribute to the seed planted in them, still Jesus Christ was not formed by an ordinary human conception. In His birth, the cause of which was transmitted solely by the Holy Ghost, His mother performed the same part as in all human conceptions: but by virtue of His origin He never ceased to be God.

This profound and beautiful mystery of His taking on human nature is revealed by the Lord Himself in these words: "No man has ascended into heaven, but He that descended from heaven, even the Son of Man which is in heaven." (John 3:13) "Descended from heaven" refers to His origin from the Spirit—for though Mary contributed to His growth in the womb and birth everything that is natural to her sex, His body did not derive its origin from her. "The Son of Man" refers to the birth of the flesh conceived in the Virgin. "Who is in heaven" points to the power of His eternal nature—an infinite nature that could not limit itself to the boundaries of the body, of which it was itself the source and foundation. Through the virtue of the Spirit and the power of God the Word, though He dwelt in the form of a servant, He was always present as Lord of all, within and beyond the sphere of heaven and earth. So He descended from heaven and is the Son of Man, yet is in heaven—for the Word made flesh did not stop being the Word. As the Word, He is in heaven; as flesh, He is the Son of Man. As Word made flesh, He is at once from heaven, and Son of Man, and in heaven, because the power of the Word, remaining eternally without body, was still present in the heaven He had left. To Him and to no one else did the flesh owe its origin. So the Word made flesh, though He was flesh, never stopped being the Word.

16. This deep and beautiful mystery of His assumption of manhood the Lord Himself reveals in the words, No man has ascended into heaven, but He that descended from heaven, even the Son of Man which is in heaven. John 3:13 'Descended from heaven' refers to His origin from the Spirit: for though Mary contributed to His growth in the womb and birth all that is natural to her sex, His body did not owe to her its origin. The ' Son of Man ' refers to the birth of the flesh conceived in the Virgin; 'Who is in heaven' implies the power of His eternal nature: an infinite nature, which could not restrict itself to the limits of the body, of which it was itself the source and base. By the virtue of the Spirit and the power of God the Word, though He abode in the form of a servant, He was ever present as Lord of all, within and beyond the circle of heaven and earth. So He descended from heaven and is the Son of Man, yet is in heaven: for the Word made flesh did not cease to be the Word. As the Word, He is in heaven, as flesh He is the Son of Man. As Word made flesh, He is at once from heaven, and Son of Man, and in heaven, for the power of the Word, abiding eternally without body, was present still in the heaven He had left: to Him and to none other the flesh owed its origin. So the Word made flesh, though He was flesh, yet never ceased to be the Word.

The blessed Apostle also perfectly describes this mystery of the ineffable birth of Christ's body in these words: The first man was from the soil of the ground, the second man from heaven. By calling Him 'Man' he expresses His birth from the Virgin, who in carrying out her role as mother performed the duties of her sex in the conception and birth of man. And when he says, The second man from heaven, he testifies to His origin from the Holy Spirit, who came upon the Virgin. Since He is man, and from heaven, this Man was born of the Virgin and conceived of the Holy Spirit. This is what the Apostle says.

17. The blessed Apostle also perfectly describes this mystery of the ineffable birth of Christ's body in the words, The first man was from the soil of the ground, the second man from heaven. Calling Him 'Man' he expresses His birth from the Virgin, who in the exercise of her office as mother, performed the duties of her sex in the conception and birth of man. And when he says, The second man from heaven he testifies His origin from the Holy Ghost, Who came upon the Virgin. As He is then man, and from heaven, this Man was born of the Virgin, and conceived of the Holy Ghost. So speaks the Apostle.

Again, the Lord Himself reveals this mystery of His birth when He speaks these words: I am the living bread Who have descended from Heaven: if any one shall eat of My bread he shall live for ever. He calls Himself the Bread because He is the origin of His own body. Furthermore, so that we do not think the Word abandoned His own power and nature for the sake of the flesh, He says again that it is His bread. Since He is the bread that descends from heaven, His body cannot be understood as originating from human conception, because it is shown to be from heaven. And His words about His bread are a statement that the Word took a body, for He adds, Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have not life in you. Therefore, since the Being Who is Son of Man also descended as bread from heaven, by the 'Bread descending from heaven' and by the 'Flesh and Blood of the Son of Man' we must understand His assumption of the flesh, conceived by the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin.

18. Again the Lord Himself revealing this mystery of His birth, speaks thus: I am the living bread Who have descended from Heaven: if any one shall eat of My bread he shall live for ever John 6:51: calling Himself the Bread since He is the origin of His own body. Further, that it may not be thought the Word left His own virtue and nature for the flesh, He says again that it is His bread; since He is the bread which descends from heaven, His body cannot be regarded as sprung from human conception, because it is shown to be from heaven. And His language concerning His bread is an assertion that the Word took a body, for He adds, Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have not life in you. Hence, inasmuch as the Being Who is Son of Man descended also as bread from heaven, by the 'Bread descending from heaven' and by the 'Flesh and Blood of the Son of Man ' must be understood His assumption of the flesh, conceived by the Holy Ghost, and born of the Virgin.

Being Man with this body, Jesus Christ is both the Son of God and Son of Man, who emptied Himself of the form of God and received the form of a servant. There is not one Son of Man and another Son of God, nor one in the form of God and another born as perfect man in the form of a servant. Just as man is born with body and soul according to the nature determined for us by God, the Author of our being, so likewise Jesus Christ, by His own power, is God and Man with flesh and soul, possessing in Himself complete and perfect manhood and complete and perfect Godhead.

19. Being, then, Man with this body, Jesus Christ is both the Son of God and Son of Man, Who emptied Himself of the form of God, and received the form of a servant. There is not one Son of Man and another Son of God; nor one in the form of God, and another born perfect man in the form of a servant: so that, as by the nature determined for us by God, the Author of our being, man is born with body and soul, so likewise Jesus Christ, by His own power, is God and Man with flesh and soul, possessing in Himself whole and perfect manhood, and whole and perfect Godhead.

Yet many people, using clever arguments to prove their heresy, typically deceive the ears of the unlearned with the error that since both the body and soul of Adam sinned, the Lord must have taken Adam's soul and body from the Virgin, and that she did not conceive the whole Man from the Holy Spirit. If these people had understood the mystery of the Incarnation, they would have understood at the same time the mystery that the Son of Man is also Son of God. They argue as if in receiving so much from the Virgin, He received His soul from her as well; yet although flesh is always born of flesh, every soul is the direct work of God.

20. Yet many, with the art by which they seek to prove their heresy, are wont to delude the ears of the unlearned with the error, that as the body and soul of Adam both sinned, so the Lord must have taken the soul and body of Adam from the Virgin, and that it was not the whole Man that she conceived from the Holy Ghost. If they had understood the mystery of the Incarnation, these men would have understood at the same time the mystery that the Son of Man is also Son of God. As if in receiving so much from the Virgin, He received from her His soul also; whereas though flesh is always born of flesh, every soul is the direct work of God.

21. In order to strip the Only-begotten God—who was God the Word with God in the beginning—of his substantial divinity, they reduce him to nothing more than the sound of God's voice. They claim the Son is related to God his Father in the same way that words are related to the person speaking them. What they are attempting to establish is that it was not God the eternal Word, remaining in the form of God, who was born as Christ the Man—whose life would then spring from human origin rather than from the mystery of a spiritual conception. Instead, they claim he was not God the Word making himself man through birth from the Virgin, but rather the Word of God dwelling in Jesus in the same way the spirit of prophecy dwelt in the prophets. They accuse us of teaching that Christ was born as a man with a body and soul different from ours. But we proclaim the Word made flesh—Christ emptying himself of the form of God and taking the form of a servant, perfect according to the pattern of human form, born a man in the likeness of ourselves. Being the true Son of God, he is also the true Son of Man, neither less man because born of God, nor less God because he is man born of God.

21. With a view to deprive of substantive divinity the Only-begotten God, Who was God the Word with God in the beginning, they make Him merely the utterance of the voice of God. The Son is related to God His Father, they say, as the words to the speaker. They are trying to creep into the position, that it was not God the eternal Word, abiding in the form of God, Who was born as Christ the Man, Whose life therefore springs from a human origin, not from the mystery of a spiritual conception; that He was not God the Word, making Himself man by birth from the Virgin, but the Word of God dwelling in Jesus as the spirit of prophecy dwelt in the prophets. They accuse us of saying that Christ was born man with body and soul different from ours. But we preach the Word made flesh, Christ emptying Himself of the form of God and taking the form of a servant, perfect according to the fashion of human form, born a man after the likeness of ourselves: that being true Son of God, He is indeed true Son of Man, neither the less Man because born of God, nor the less God because Man born of God.

Just as He chose to take a body from the Virgin, so He took His soul from Himself—though even in normal human birth the soul never comes from the parents. If the Virgin received the flesh she conceived from God alone, it is even more certain that the soul of that body could only have come from God alone. Also, if the same Christ is both the Son of Man and the Son of God (for the whole Son of Man is the whole Son of God), how absurd is it to preach, alongside the Son of God, the Word made flesh, some other person, inspired by God the Word like a prophet? Our Lord Jesus Christ is both Son of Man and Son of God. Yet because His soul was sorrowful unto death, and because He had the power to lay down His soul and the power to take it up again, they want to claim it came from some foreign source, not from the Holy Ghost, the source of His body's conception. For God the Word became man without abandoning the mystery of His own nature. He was not born to be two separate beings at different times, but to make clear that He Who was God before He was Man is now, having taken humanity, God and Man. How could Jesus Christ, the Son of God, have been born of Mary, except by the Word becoming flesh—that is, by the Son of God, though in the form of God, taking the form of a slave? When He Who was in the form of God took the form of a slave, two opposites were brought together. Thus it was just as true that He received the form of a slave as that He remained in the form of God. The use of the one word "form" to describe both natures forces us to recognize that He truly possessed both. He is in the form of a servant, Who is also in the form of God. And though He is the latter by His eternal nature, and the former according to the divine Plan of Grace, the word has its true meaning equally in both cases, because He is both: as truly in the form of God as in the form of Man. Just as taking the form of a servant is nothing other than being born a man, so being in the form of God is nothing other than being God. And we confess Him as one and the same Person, not by losing the Godhead, but by assuming the manhood—in the form of God through His divine nature, in the form of man from His conception by the Holy Ghost, being found in fashion as a man. That is why after His birth as Jesus Christ, His suffering, death, and burial, He also rose again. We cannot separate Him from Himself in all these different mysteries, so that He would no longer be Christ. For Christ, Who took the form of a servant, was none other than He Who was in the form of God. He Who died was the same as He Who was born. He Who rose again as He Who died. He Who is in heaven as He Who rose again. Finally, He Who is in heaven as He Who before descended from heaven.

22. But as He by His own act assumed a body from the Virgin, so He assumed from Himself a soul; though even in ordinary human birth the soul is never derived from the parents. If, then, the Virgin received from God alone the flesh which she conceived, far more certain is it that the soul of that body can have come from God alone. If, too, the same Christ be the Son of Man, Who is also the Son of God (for the whole Son of Man is the whole Son of God), how ridiculous is it to preach besides the Son of God, the Word made flesh, another I know not whom, inspired, like a prophet, by God the Word; whereas our Lord Jesus Christ is both Son of Man and Son of God. Yet because His soul was sorrowful unto death, and because He had the power to lay down His soul and the power to take it up again, they want to derive it from some alien source, and not from the Holy Ghost, the Author of His body's conception: for God the Word became man without departing from the mystery of His own nature. He was born also not to be at one time two separate beings, but that it might be made plain, that He Who was God before He was Man, now that He has taken humanity, is God and Man. How could Jesus Christ, the Son of God, have been born of Mary, except by the Word becoming flesh: that is by the Son of God, though in the form of God, taking the form of a slave? When He Who was in the form of God took the form of a slave, two contraries were brought together. Thus it was just as true, that He received the form of a slave, as that He remained in the form of God. The use of the one word 'form' to describe both natures compels us to recognise that He truly possessed both. He is in the form of a servant, Who is also in the form of God. And though He is the latter by His eternal nature, and the former in accordance with the divine Plan of Grace, the word has its true significance equally in both cases, because He is both: as truly in the form of God as in the form of Man. Just as to take the form of a servant is none other than to be born a man, so to be in the form of God is none other than to be God: and we confess Him as one and the same Person, not by loss of the Godhead, but by assumption of the manhood: in the form of God through His divine nature, in the form of man from His conception by the Holy Ghost, being found in fashion as a man. That is why after His birth as Jesus Christ, His suffering, death, and burial, He also rose again. We cannot separate Him from Himself in all these diverse mysteries, so that He should be no longer Christ; for Christ, Who took the form of a servant, was none other than He Who was in the form of God: He Who died was the same as He Who was born: He Who rose again as He Who died; He Who is in heaven as He Who rose again; lastly, He Who is in heaven as He Who before descended from heaven.

Jesus Christ, the only-begotten God, as both flesh and Word, was at the same time Son of Man and Son of God. Without ceasing to be Himself—that is, God—He took true humanity after the pattern of our humanity. But when, in this humanity, He was struck with blows, wounded, bound with ropes, or lifted high, He felt the force of suffering but without its pain. It is like a dart passing through water, piercing a flame, or wounding the air: it does everything it is naturally designed to do—it passes through, pierces, and wounds—but all this has no effect on what it strikes. This is because it goes against the order of nature to make a hole in water, pierce flame, or wound air, even though it is the nature of a dart to make holes, pierce, and wound. In the same way, our Lord Jesus Christ suffered blows, hanging, crucifixion, and death. But the suffering that attacked the Lord's body, while remaining truly suffering, did not have the natural effect of suffering. It carried out its function of punishment with all its violence, but the body of Christ, by its own power, endured the violence of the punishment without experiencing its pain. To be sure, the Lord's body would have been capable of feeling pain like our natures do—if our bodies also possessed the power to walk on water and over waves without weighing them down by our steps or forcing them apart by the pressure of our feet, if we could pass through solid objects, and if barred doors were no obstacle to us. But since only the body of our Lord could be held up by the power of His soul on the water, could walk on the waves, and could pass through walls, how can we judge the flesh conceived of the Holy Spirit by comparing it to a human body? That flesh—that is, that Bread—is from heaven; that humanity is from God. He had a body that could suffer, and He did suffer, but He did not have a nature that could feel pain. For His body possessed a unique nature of its own: it was transformed into heavenly glory on the Mount, it drove away fevers by its touch, it gave new eyesight by its spittle.

23. So the Man Jesus Christ, Only-begotten God, as flesh and as Word at the same time Son of Man and Son of God, without ceasing to be Himself, that is, God, took true humanity after the likeness of our humanity. But when, in this humanity, He was struck with blows, or smitten with wounds, or bound with ropes, or lifted on high, He felt the force of suffering, but without its pain. Thus a dart passing through water, or piercing a flame, or wounding the air, inflicts all that it is its nature to do: it passes through, it pierces, it wounds; but all this is without effect on the thing it strikes; since it is against the order of nature to make a hole in water, or pierce flame, or wound the air, though it is the nature of a dart to make holes, to pierce and to wound. So our Lord Jesus Christ suffered blows, hanging, crucifixion and death: but the suffering which attacked the body of the Lord, without ceasing to be suffering, had not the natural effect of suffering. It exercised its function of punishment with all its violence; but the body of Christ by its virtue suffered the violence of the punishment, without its consciousness. True, the body of the Lord would have been capable of feeling pain like our natures, if our bodies possessed the power of treading on the waters, and walking over the waves without weighing them down by our tread or forcing them apart by the pressure of our steps, if we could pass through solid substances, and the barred doors were no obstacle to us. But, as only the body of our Lord could be borne up by the power of His soul in the waters, could walk upon the waves, and pass through walls, how can we judge of the flesh conceived of the Holy Ghost on the analogy of a human body? That flesh, that is, that Bread, is from Heaven; that humanity is from God. He had a body to suffer, and He suffered: but He had not a nature which could feel pain. For His body possessed a unique nature of its own; it was transformed into heavenly glory on the Mount, it put fevers to flight by its touch, it gave new eyesight by its spittle.

Some may object, "We see Him weeping, hungry, and thirsty—doesn't this mean He was subject to all the other conditions of human nature?" But if we fail to grasp the mystery behind His tears, hunger, and thirst, we should remember that the same One who wept also raised the dead to life. He did not weep over Lazarus's death but rejoiced. The One who thirsted gave rivers of living water from Himself. He could not be dried up by thirst if He was able to give drink to the thirsty. Likewise, the One who hungered could condemn the tree that bore no fruit for His hunger—but how could His nature be overcome by hunger if He could strike a green tree barren with His word? Even if, beyond the mystery of weeping, hunger, and thirst, the flesh He assumed—that is, His complete manhood—was exposed to our weaknesses, it still was not left to suffer their degrading effects. His weeping was not for Himself. His thirst required no water to satisfy it. His hunger needed no food to relieve it. Scripture never records that the Lord ate, drank, or wept when He was hungry, thirsty, or sorrowful. He conformed to bodily habits to prove the reality of His own body, to fulfill the normal pattern of human bodies by doing what our nature does. When He ate and drank, it was a concession not to His own needs but to our customs.

24. It may perhaps be said, 'We find Him giving way to weeping, to hunger and thirst: must we not suppose Him liable to all the other affections of human nature?' But if we do not understand the mystery of His tears, hunger, and thirst, let us remember that He Who wept also raised the dead to life: that He did not weep for the death of Lazarus, but rejoiced; that He Who thirsted, gave from Himself rivers of living water. John 7:38 He could not be parched with thirst, if He was able to give the thirsty drink. Again, He Who hungered could condemn the tree which offered no fruit for His hunger: but how could His nature be overcome by hunger if He could strike the green tree barren by His word? And if, beside the mystery of weeping, hunger and thirst, the flesh He assumed, that is His entire manhood, was exposed to our weaknesses: even then it was not left to suffer from their indignities. His weeping was not for Himself; His thirst needed no water to quench it; His hunger no food to stay it. It is never said that the Lord ate or drank or wept when He was hungry, or thirsty, or sorrowful. He conformed to the habits of the body to prove the reality of His own body, to satisfy the custom of human bodies by doing as our nature does. When He ate and drank, it was a concession, not to His own necessities, but to our habits.

Christ did have a body, but it was unique, fitting the manner of his origin. He did not come into existence through the passions involved in human conception. He took on the form of our body by an act of his own power. He bore our collective humanity in the form of a servant, but he was free from the sins and imperfections of the human body. This was so that we might be in him, because he was born of the Virgin, yet our faults might not be in him, because he is the source of his own humanity—born as a man but not born under the defects of human conception. The Apostle upholds and demonstrates this mystery of his birth when he says, "He humbled himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of a man and being formed in fashion as a man" (Philippians 2:7). That is, in taking the form of a servant, he was born in the form of a man. In being made in the likeness of a man and formed in fashion as a man, the appearance and reality of his body testified to his humanity. Yet, though he was formed in fashion as a man, he did not know sin. His conception was in the likeness of our nature, not in the possession of our faults. The Apostle adds "made in the likeness of a man, and formed in fashion as a man" to prevent the words "He took the form of a servant" from being understood as referring to a natural birth. The truth of his birth is thus kept from suggesting the defects that come with our weak natures, since the form of a servant implies the reality of his birth, and "found in fashion as a man" implies the likeness of our nature. He was born man from himself through the Virgin, and found in the likeness of our degenerate body of sin, as the Apostle testifies in his letter to the Romans: "For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his Son in the likeness of flesh of sin, condemned sin of sin" (Romans 8:3). He was not found in the fashion of a man, but found in fashion as a man. His flesh was not the flesh of sin, but the likeness of the flesh of sin. Thus the fashion of flesh implies the truth of his birth, and the likeness of the flesh of sin removes him from the imperfections of human weakness. So the Man Jesus Christ as man was truly born, yet as Christ had no sin in his nature. On his human side, he was born and could not but be a man. On his divine side, he could never cease to be Christ. Since Jesus Christ was man, he submitted as man to a human birth. Yet as Christ he was free from the infirmity of our degenerate race.

25. For Christ had indeed a body, but unique, as befitted His origin. He did not come into existence through the passions incident to human conception: He came into the form of our body by an act of His own power. He bore our collective humanity in the form of a servant, but He was free from the sins and imperfections of the human body: that we might be in Him, because He was born of the Virgin, and yet our faults might not be in Him, because He is the source of His own humanity, born as man but not born under the defects of human conception. It is this mystery of His birth which the Apostle upholds and demonstrates, when he says, He humbled Himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of a man and being formed in fashion as a man Philippians 2:7: that is, in that He took the form of a servant, He was born in the form of a man: in that He was made in the likeness of a man, and formed in fashion as a man, the appearance and reality of His body testified His humanity, yet, though He was formed in fashion as a man, He knew not what sin was. For His conception was in the likeness of our nature, not in the possession of our faults. For lest the words, He took the form of a servant, might be understood of a natural birth, the Apostle adds, made in the likeness of a man, and formed in fashion as a man. The truth of His birth is thus prevented from suggesting the defects incident to our weak natures, since the form of a servant implies the reality of His birth, and found in fashion as a man, the likeness of our nature. He was of Himself born man through the Virgin, and found in the likeness of our degenerate body of sin: as the Apostle testifies in his letter to the Romans, For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending His Son in the likeness of flesh of sin, condemned sin of sin. Romans 8:3 He was not found in the fashion of a man: but found in fashion as a man: nor was His flesh the flesh of sin, but the likeness of the flesh of sin. Thus the fashion of flesh implies the truth of His birth, and the likeness of the flesh of sin removes Him from the imperfections of human weakness. So the Man Jesus Christ as man was truly born, as Christ had no sin in His nature: for, on His human side, He was born, and could not but be a man; on His divine side, He could never cease to be Christ. Since then Jesus Christ was man, He submitted as man to a human birth: yet as Christ He was free from the infirmity of our degenerate race.

The apostles' belief prepares us to understand this mystery when it testifies that Jesus Christ was found in fashion as a man and was sent in the likeness of the flesh of sin. Being fashioned as a man, He exists in the form of a servant, but not with the imperfections of a servant's nature. Being in the likeness of the flesh of sin, the Word is indeed flesh, but exists in the likeness of the flesh of sin and not as the flesh of sin itself. Similarly, Jesus Christ being man is truly human, but even so cannot be anything other than Christ—born as man through the birth of His body, but not human in defects, just as He was not human in origin. The Word made flesh could not fail to be the flesh that He became; yet He remained always the Word, even though He was made flesh. Just as the Word made flesh could not abandon the nature of His source, so by virtue of His nature's origin He could not fail to remain the Word. At the same time, we must believe that the Word is that flesh which He became, always with this qualification: when He dwelt among us, the flesh was not the Word, but was the flesh of the Word dwelling in the flesh.

26. The Apostles' belief prepares us for the understanding of this mystery; when it testifies that Jesus Christ was found in fashion as a man and was sent in the likeness of the flesh of sin. For being fashioned as a man, He is in the form of a servant, but not in the imperfections of a servant's nature; and being in the likeness of the flesh of sin, the Word is indeed flesh, but is in the likeness of the flesh of sin and not the flesh of sin itself. In like manner Jesus Christ being man is indeed human, but even thus cannot be anything else but Christ, born as man by the birth of His body, but not human in defects, as He was not human in origin. The Word made flesh could not but be the flesh that He was made; yet He remained always the Word, though He was made flesh. As the Word made flesh could not vacate the nature of His Source, so by virtue of the origin of His nature He could not but remain the Word: but at the same time we must believe that the Word is that flesh which He was made; always, however, with the reserve, that when He dwelt among us, the flesh was not the Word, but was the flesh of the Word dwelling in the flesh.

We have already demonstrated this point, but we will still examine whether anywhere in the entire scope of suffering that He endured we can find in our Lord any sign of weakness from bodily pain. We will postpone for now the discussion of the passages that heretics have used to attribute fear to our Lord. For the moment, let us turn to the actual events themselves, since His words cannot indicate fear if His actions show confidence.

Though we have proved this, still we will see whether in the whole range of suffering, which He endured, we can anywhere detect in our Lord the weakness of bodily pain. We will put off for a time the discussion of the passages on the strength of which heresy has attributed fear to our Lord; now let us turn to the facts themselves: for His words cannot signify fear if His actions display confidence.

Do you think, heretic, that the Lord of glory was afraid to suffer? If that were so, why did He call Peter "Satan" and a "stumbling-block" when Peter made this very mistake out of ignorance? Peter, who tried to prevent the mystery of the Passion, was established in the faith by this sharp rebuke from the gentle Christ—the same Christ whom the Father in Heaven, not flesh and blood, had revealed to him.

27. Do you suppose, heretic, that the Lord of glory feared to suffer? Why, when Peter made this error through ignorance, did He not call him ' Satan ' and a 'stumbling-block Matthew 16:22-23?' Thus was Peter, who deprecated the mystery of the Passion, established in the faith by so sharp a rebuke from the lips of the gentle Christ, Whom not flesh and blood, but the Father in Heaven had revealed to him.

What empty hope are you pursuing when you deny that Christ is God and claim that He feared suffering? Was He afraid—He who went out to meet the armed groups who came to arrest Him? Was there weakness in His body when those who pursued Him staggered, broke ranks, and fell to the ground as He approached, unable to bear His Majesty even as He offered Himself to be bound? What weakness could control His body when His nature possessed such power?

What phantom hope are you chasing when you deny that Christ is God, and attribute to Him fear of suffering? He afraid, Who went forth to meet the armed bands of His captors? Weakness in His body, at Whose approach the pursuers reeled and broke their ranks and fell prone, unable to endure His Majesty as He offered Himself to their chains? What weakness could enthral His body, Whose nature had such power?

But perhaps He feared the pain of wounds. Then tell me, what terror could the thrust of a nail hold for Him who merely by His touch restored the ear that was cut off? You who claim the Lord was weak—explain this work of power at the very moment when His flesh was weak and suffering. Peter drew his sword and struck. The High Priest's servant stood there, his ear cut off. How was the flesh of the ear restored from the bare wound by Christ's touch? In the midst of flowing blood and the wound left by the slicing sword, when the body was so mutilated, where did an ear that was not there suddenly come from? Where did something that did not exist before come from? Where was what was missing restored from? Did the hand that created an ear feel the pain of nails? He prevented another from feeling the pain of a wound—did He feel it Himself? His touch could restore flesh that was cut off—was He sorrowful because He feared the piercing of His own flesh? And if Christ's body had this power, dare we claim infirmity in that physis whose natural force could counteract all the natural infirmities of man?

28. But perhaps He feared the pain of wounds. Say then, What terror had the thrust of the nail for Him Who merely by His touch restored the ear that was cut off? You who assert the weakness of the Lord, explain this work of power at the moment when His flesh was weak and suffering. Peter drew his sword and smote: the High Priest's servant stood there, lopped of his ear. How was the flesh of the ear restored from the bare wound by the touch of Christ? Amidst the flowing blood, and the wound left by the cleaving sword, when the body was so maimed, whence sprang forth an ear which was not there? Whence came that which did not exist before? Whence was restored that which was wanting? Did the hand, which created an ear, feel the pain of the nails? He prevented another from feeling the pain of a wound: did He feel it Himself? His touch could restore the flesh that was cut off; was He sorrowful because He feared the piercing of His own flesh? And if the body of Christ had this virtue, dare we allege infirmity in that nature, whose natural force could counteract all the natural infirmities of man?

But perhaps, in their misguided and impious perversity, they infer His weakness from the fact that His soul was sorrowful unto death. It is not yet the time to blame you, heretic, for misunderstanding the passage. For now I will only ask you: Why do you forget that when Judas went out to betray Him, He said, "Now is the Son of Man glorified"? If suffering was going to glorify Him, how could the fear of it have made Him sorrowful? How could this be, unless He was so lacking in reason that He feared to suffer when suffering was going to glorify Him?

29. But, perhaps, in their misguided and impious perversity, they infer His weakness from the fact that His soul was sorrowful unto death. Matthew 26:38 It is not yet the time to blame you, heretic, for misunderstanding the passage. For the present I will only ask you, Why do you forget that when Judas went forth to betray Him, He said, Now is the Son of Man glorified John 13:31? If suffering was to glorify Him, how could the fear of it have made Him sorrowful? How, unless He was so void of reason, that He feared to suffer when suffering was to glorify Him?

To take the narrowest line of argument, couldn't you have refuted this dull impiety for yourself by reading the words, "Put up your sword into its sheath: the cup which My Father has given Me, shall I not drink it" (John 18:11)? Could fear cause Him to pray for the removal of that which, in His zeal for the Divine Plan, He was hastening to fulfill? To say He shrank from the suffering He desired is inconsistent. You admit that He suffered willingly: wouldn't it be more reverent to confess that you had misunderstood this passage, rather than to rush with blasphemous and reckless foolishness to claim that He prayed to escape suffering, even though you admit that He suffered willingly?

30. But perhaps He may be thought to have feared to the extent that He prayed that the cup might be removed from Him: Abba, Father, all things are possible unto You: remove this cup from Me. Mark 14:36 To take the narrowest ground of argument, might you not have refuted for yourself this dull impiety by your own reading of the words, Put up your sword into its sheath: the cup which My Father has given Me, shall I not drink it John 18:11? Could fear induce Him to pray for the removal from Him of that which, in His zeal for the Divine Plan, He was hastening to fulfil? To say He shrank from the suffering He desired is not consistent. You allow that He suffered willingly: would it not be more reverent to confess that you had misunderstood this passage, than to rush with blasphemous and headlong folly to the assertion that He prayed to escape suffering, though you allow that He suffered willingly?

You will probably also use these words of the Lord to support your impious argument: "My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?" Perhaps you think that after the disgrace of the cross, His Father's help and favor left Him, and that is why He cried out that He was abandoned in His weakness. But if you consider Christ's contempt, weakness, and cross to be disgraceful, you should remember His words: "Truly I say to you, from now on you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of power, and coming with the clouds of heaven."

31. Yet, I suppose, you will arm yourself also for your godless contention with these words of the Lord, My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me? Perhaps you think that after the disgrace of the cross, the favour of His Father's help departed from Him, and hence His cry that He was left alone in His weakness. But if you regard the contempt, the weakness, the cross of Christ as a disgrace, you should remember His words, Verily I say unto you, From henceforth you shall see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of power, and coming with the clouds of Heaven.

Where, I ask, can you see fear in His Passion? Where is weakness? Or pain? Or dishonor? Do the godless claim He was afraid? But He declared with His own words His willingness to suffer. Do they insist that He was weak? He displayed His power when His pursuers were struck with panic and did not dare to face Him. Do they argue that He felt the pain of wounds in His flesh? But He showed, when He restored the wounded flesh of the ear, that although He was flesh, He did not experience the pain of fleshly wounds. The hand that touched the wounded ear belonged to His body, yet that hand created an ear out of a wound. How then can that be the hand of a body that was subject to weakness?

32. Where, pray, can you see fear in His Passion? Where weakness? Or pain? Or dishonour? Do the godless say He feared? But He proclaimed with His own lips His willingness to suffer. Do they maintain that He was weak? He revealed His power, when His pursuers were stricken with panic and dared not face Him. Do they contend that He felt the pain of the wounds in His flesh? But He showed, when He restored the wounded flesh of the ear, that, though He was flesh, He did not feel the pain of fleshly wounds. The hand which touched the wounded ear belonged to His body: yet that hand created an ear out of a wound: how then can that be the hand of a body which was subject to weakness?

They claim the cross was a dishonor to Him. Yet because of the cross, we can now see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of power, and He who was born as a man from the Virgin's womb has returned in His majesty with the clouds of heaven. Your irreverence blinds you to the natural connection between cause and effect. Not only does the spirit of godlessness and error that fills you hide the mystery of faith from your understanding, but the dullness of heresy drags you below the level of ordinary human intelligence. Common sense tells us that whatever we fear, we avoid. A weak nature is vulnerable to terror precisely because of its weakness. Whatever feels pain has a nature that is always subject to pain. Whatever dishonors is always degrading. On what reasonable basis, then, do you claim that our Lord Jesus Christ feared what He actively pursued? Or that He filled the brave with awe yet trembled Himself with weakness? Or that He stopped the pain of others' wounds yet felt the pain of His own? Or that He was dishonored by the degradation of the cross, yet through the cross sat down beside God on high and returned to His Kingdom?

33. But, they say, the cross was a dishonour to Him; yet it is because of the cross that we can now see the Son of Man sitting on the right hand of power, that He Who was born man of the womb of the Virgin has returned in His Majesty with the clouds of heaven. Your irreverence blinds you to the natural relations of cause and event: not only does the spirit of godlessness and error, with which you are filled, hide from your understanding the mystery of faith, but the obtuseness of heresy drags you below the level of ordinary human intelligence. For it stands to reason that whatever we fear, we avoid: that a weak nature is a prey to terror by its very feebleness: that whatever feels pain possesses a nature always liable to pain: that whatever dishonours is always a degradation. On what reasonable principle, then, do you hold that our Lord Jesus Christ feared that towards which He pressed: or awed the brave, yet trembled Himself with weakness: or stopped the pain of wounds, yet felt the pain of His own: or was dishonoured by the degradation of the cross, yet through the cross sat down by God on high, and returned to His Kingdom?

But perhaps you think your impiety has still found an opportunity to see in the words, "Father, into Your hands I commend My Spirit," a proof that He feared the descent into the lower world, and even death itself. But when you read these words and could not understand them, would it not have been better to say nothing, or to pray devoutly to be shown their meaning, than to go astray with such barefaced assertions, too mad with your own folly to perceive the truth? Could you believe that He feared the depths of the abyss, the scorching flames, or the pit of avenging punishment, when you listen to His words to the thief on the cross, "Verily, I say unto you, Today shall you be with Me in Paradise"? Such a nature with such power could not be shut up within the confines of the underworld, nor even subjected to fear of it. When He descended to Hades, He was never absent from Paradise (just as He was always in Heaven when He was preaching on earth as the Son of Man), but promised His martyr a home there, and held out to him the transports of perfect happiness. Bodily fear cannot touch Him Who reaches indeed down as far as Hades, but by the power of His nature is present in all things everywhere. As little can the abyss of Hell and the terrors of death lay hold upon the nature which rules the world, boundless in the freedom of its spiritual power, confident of the raptures of Paradise; for the Lord Who was to descend to Hades, was also to dwell in Paradise. Separate, if you can, from His indivisible nature a part which could fear punishment: send the one part of Christ to Hades to suffer pain, the other, you must leave in Paradise to reign: for the thief says, "Remember me when You come in Your Kingdom." It was the groan he heard, I suppose, when the nails pierced the hands of our Lord, which provoked in him this blessed confession of faith: he learned the Kingdom of Christ from His weakened and stricken body! He begs that Christ will remember him when He comes in His Kingdom: you say that Christ feared as He hung dying upon the cross. The Lord promises him, "Today shall you be with Me in Paradise"; you would subject Christ to Hades and fear of punishment. Your faith has the opposite expectation. The thief confessed Christ in His Kingdom as He hung on the cross, and was rewarded with Paradise from the cross: you who impute to Christ the pain of punishment and the fear of death, will fail of Paradise and His Kingdom.

34. But perhaps you think your impiety has still an opportunity left to see in the words, Father, into Your hands I commend My Spirit Luke 23:46, a proof that He feared the descent into the lower world, and even the necessity of death. But when you read these words and could not understand them, would it not have been better to say nothing, or to pray devoutly to be shown their meaning, than to go astray with such barefaced assertions, too mad with your own folly to perceive the truth? Could you believe that He feared the depths of the abyss, the scorching flames, or the pit of avenging punishment, when you listen to His words to the thief on the cross, Verily, I say unto you, Today shall you be with Me in Paradise? Such a nature with such power could not be shut up within the confines of the nether world, nor even subjected to fear of it. When He descended to Hades, He was never absent from Paradise (just as He was always in Heaven when He was preaching on earth as the Son of Man), but promised His martyr a home there, and held out to him the transports of perfect happiness. Bodily fear cannot touch Him Who reaches indeed down as far as Hades, but by the power of His nature is present in all things everywhere. As little can the abyss of Hell and the terrors of death lay hold upon the nature which rules the world, boundless in the freedom of its spiritual power, confident of the raptures of Paradise; for the Lord Who was to descend to Hades, was also to dwell in Paradise. Separate, if you can, from His indivisible nature a part which could fear punishment: send the one part of Christ to Hades to suffer pain, the other, you must leave in Paradise to reign: for the thief says, Remember me when You come in Your Kingdom. It was the groan he heard, I suppose, when the nails pierced the hands of our Lord, which provoked in him this blessed confession of faith: he learned the Kingdom of Christ from His weakened and stricken body! He begs that Christ will remember him when He comes in His Kingdom: you say that Christ feared as He hung dying upon the cross. The Lord promises him, Today shall you be with Me in Paradise; you would subject Christ to Hades and fear of punishment. Your faith has the opposite expectation. The thief confessed Christ in His Kingdom as He hung on the cross, and was rewarded with Paradise from the cross: you who impute to Christ the pain of punishment and the fear of death, will fail of Paradise and His Kingdom.

We have now seen the power that was present in Christ's actions and words. We have proven beyond dispute that His body did not share the weakness of a natural body, because its power could drive out bodily illnesses. When He suffered, suffering took hold of His body but did not impose on it the nature of pain. This was because, although the form of our body was in the Lord, He by virtue of His origin was not in the body of our weakness and imperfection. He was conceived of the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin, who fulfilled the function of her sex but did not receive the seed of His conception from a man. She gave birth to a body, but one conceived of the Holy Spirit—a body possessing real existence, but with no weakness in its nature. That body was truly and actually body, because it was born of the Virgin, but it was above the weakness of our body because it had its beginning in a spiritual conception.

35. We have now seen the power that lay in the acts and words of Christ. We have incontestably proved that His body did not share the infirmity of a natural body, because its power could expel the infirmities of the body that when He suffered, suffering laid hold of His body, but did not inflict upon it the nature of pain: and this because, though the form of our body was in the Lord, yet He by virtue of His origin was not in the body of our weakness and imperfection. He was conceived of the Holy Ghost and born of the Virgin, who performed the office of her sex, but did not receive the seed of His conception from man. She brought forth a body, but one conceived of the Holy Ghost; a body possessing inherent reality, but with no infirmity in its nature. That body was truly and indeed body, because it was born of the Virgin: but it was above the weakness of our body, because it had its beginning in a spiritual conception.

We have now demonstrated what the Apostle's faith was, but heretics still try to challenge it by quoting the text, "My soul is sorrowful even unto death." These words, they claim, prove the awareness of natural weakness that made Christ begin to feel sorrow. But first, I appeal to common sense: what do we mean by "sorrowful unto death"? This cannot mean the same thing as "to be sorrowful because of death," because when someone is sorrowful because of death, the death itself is what causes the sadness. However, a sadness "even to death" means that death is the end point, not the cause, of the sadness. If He was sorrowful even to death—not because of death—then we must ask: where did His sadness come from? He was sorrowful not for a specific period of time, or for a duration that human ignorance could not measure, but even unto death. Far from His sadness being caused by His death, it was actually removed by it.

36. But even now that we have proved what was the faith of the Apostle, the heretics think to meet it by the text, My soul is sorrowful even unto death. These words, they say, prove the consciousness of natural infirmity which made Christ begin to be sorrowful. Now, first, I appeal to common intelligence: what do we mean by sorrowful unto death? It cannot signify the same as 'to be sorrowful because of death:' for where there is sorrow because of death, it is the death that is the cause of the sadness. But a sadness even to death implies that death is the finish, not the cause, of the sadness. If then He was sorrowful even to death, not because of death, we must enquire, whence came His sadness? He was sorrowful, not for a certain time, or for a period which human ignorance could not determine, but even unto death. So far from His sadness being caused by His death, it was removed by it.

To understand what caused His sadness, let's examine what comes before and after this statement of sadness. During the Passover supper, our Lord fully expressed the entire mystery of His Passion and our faith. After He said that all of them would fall away because of Him, but promised He would go ahead of them to Galilee, Peter insisted that even if everyone else fell away, he would remain faithful and not fall away. But the Lord, knowing through His divine nature what would happen, answered that Peter would deny Him three times. This would show us through Peter how the others fell away, since even he fell into such great danger to his faith through his triple denial. After this, He took Peter, James, and John—chosen because the first two were to be His martyrs and John was to be strengthened for proclaiming the Gospel—and declared that He was sorrowful unto death. Then He went ahead and prayed, saying, "My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me; yet not as I will, but as You will." He prays that the cup may pass from Him when it was already certainly before Him, for even then the pouring out of His blood of the New Testament for the sins of many was being fulfilled. He doesn't pray that the cup won't come to Him, but that it may pass away from Him. Then He prays that His will not be done, and desires that what He wishes to happen may not be granted to Him. For He says, "Yet not as I will, but as You will," indicating through His voluntary prayer for the cup's removal His sharing in human anxiety, while associating Himself with the decision of the will that He shares inseparably with the Father. To show that He doesn't pray for Himself, and that He seeks only a conditional fulfillment of what He desires and prays for, He begins this entire request with the words "My Father, if it is possible." Is there anything whose possibility is uncertain for the Father? But if nothing is impossible to the Father, we can see what this condition "if it is possible" depends on. For this prayer is immediately followed by: "And He came to His disciples and found them sleeping, and said to Peter, 'Could you not watch one hour with Me? Watch and pray that you do not enter into temptation, for the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.'" Is the cause of this sadness and this prayer still uncertain? He commands them to watch and pray with Him so that they won't enter into temptation, because the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak. They had made a promise in the steadfastness of faithful souls not to fall away, yet through weakness of the flesh they were going to fall away. Therefore, He is not sorrowful and praying for Himself. He is sorrowful and praying for those whom He urges to watchfulness and prayer, so that the cup of suffering won't be their lot—so that the cup He prays may pass away from Him won't remain with them.

37. That we may understand what was the cause of His sadness, let us see what precedes and follows this confession of sadness: for in the Passover supper our Lord completely signified the whole mystery of His Passion and our faith. After He had said that they should all be offended in Him, but promised that He would go before them into Galilee, Peter protested that though all the rest should be offended, he would remain faithful and not be offended. Matthew 26:33 But the Lord knowing by His Divine Nature what should come to pass, answered that Peter would deny Him thrice: that we might know from Peter how the others were offended, since even he lapsed into so great peril to his faith by the triple denial. After that, He took Peter, James and John, chosen, the first two to be His martyrs, John to be strengthened for the proclamation of the Gospel, and declared that He was sorrowful unto death. Then He went before, and prayed, saying, My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me; yet, not as I will, but as You will. He prays that the cup may pass from Him, when it was certainly already before Him: for even then was being fulfilled that pouring forth of His blood of the New Testament for the sins of many. He does not pray that it may not be with Him; but that it may pass away from Him. Then He prays that His will may not be done, and wills that what He wishes to be effected, may not be granted Him. For He says, Yet not as I will, but as You will: signifying by His spontaneous prayer for the cup's removal His fellowship with human anxiety, yet associating Himself with the decree of the Will which He shares inseparably with the Father. To show, moreover, that He does not pray for Himself, and that He seeks only a conditional fulfilment of what He desires and prays for, He prefaces the whole of this request with the words, My Father, if it is possible. Is there anything for the Father the possibility of which is uncertain? But if nothing is impossible to the Father, we can see on what depends this condition, if it is possible: for this prayer is immediately followed by the words, And He came to His disciples and finds them sleeping, and says to Peter, Could ye not watch one hour with Me? Watch and pray that you enter not into temptation: for the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak. Is the cause of this sadness and this prayer any longer doubtful? He bids them watch and pray with Him for this purpose, that they may not enter into temptation; for the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak. They were under the promise made in the constancy of faithful souls not to be offended, yet, through weakness of the flesh, they were to be offended. It is not, therefore, for Himself that He is sorrowful and prays: it is for those whom He exhorts to watchfulness and prayer, lest the cup of suffering should be their lot: lest that cup which He prays may pass away from Him, should abide with them.

Christ prayed that the cup might be removed from Him if possible because, although nothing is impossible with God—as Christ Himself says, "Father, all things are possible to You" (Mark 14:36)—it is impossible for man to overcome the fear of suffering, and faith can only be proven through testing. Therefore, as Man He prays on behalf of humanity that the cup might pass away, but as God from God, His will is united with the Father's effective will. He explains what He meant by "if it is possible" in His words to Peter: "Lo, Satan has sought you that he might sift you as wheat, but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail" (Luke 22:31-32). The cup of the Lord's Passion was to be a trial for all of them, and He prays to the Father for Peter that his faith may not fail—so that when Peter denied Him through weakness, he would at least not fail to experience penitent sorrow, for repentance would mean that faith survived.

38. And the reason He prayed that the cup might be removed from Him, if that were possible, was that, though with God nothing is impossible, as Christ Himself says, Father, all things are possible to You Mark 14:36, yet for man it is impossible to withstand the fear of suffering, and only by trial can faith be proved. Wherefore, as Man He prays for men that the cup may pass away, but as God from God, His will is in unison with the Father's effectual will. He teaches what He meant by If it is possible, in His words to Peter, Lo, Satan has sought you that He might sift you as wheat: but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail. Luke 22:31-32 The cup of the Lord's Passion was to be a trial for them all, and He prays the Father for Peter that his faith may not fail: that when he denied through weakness, at least he might not fail of penitential sorrow, for repentance would mean that faith survived.

The Lord was sorrowful unto death because in the presence of the death, the earthquake, the darkened day, the torn veil, the opened graves, and the resurrection of the dead, the faith of the disciples would need to be established, which had been so shaken by the terror of the nighttime arrest, the scourging, the striking, the spitting, the crown of thorns, the carrying of the cross, and all the insults of the Passion, but most of all by the condemnation to the accursed cross. Knowing that all this would come to an end after His Passion, He was sad unto death. He also knew that the cup could not pass away unless He drank it, for He said, "My Father, this cup cannot pass from Me unless I drink it: Your will be done"—that is, with the completion of His Passion, the fear of the cup would pass away, which could not pass away unless He drank it. The end of that fear would follow only when His Passion was completed and terror destroyed, because after His death, the stumbling-block of the disciples' weakness would be removed by the glory of His power.

39. The Lord was sorrowful then unto death because in presence of the death, the earthquake, the darkened day, the rent veil, the opened graves, and the resurrection of the dead, the faith of the disciples would need to be established which had been so shaken by the terror of the night arrest, the scourging, the striking, the spitting upon, the crown of thorns, the bearing of the cross, and all the insults of the Passion, but most of all by the condemnation to the accursed cross. Knowing that all this would be at an end after His Passion, He was sad unto death. He knew, too, that the cup could not pass away unless He drank it, for He said, My Father, this cup cannot pass from Me unless I drink it: Your will be done: that is, with the completion of His Passion, the fear of the cup would pass away which could not pass away unless He drank it: the end of that fear would follow only when His Passion was completed and terror destroyed, because after His death, the stumbling-block of the disciples' weakness would be removed by the glory of His power.

Although by His words, "Your will be done," He surrendered the Apostles to the decision of His Father's will regarding the offense of the cup—that is, of His Passion—still He repeated His prayer a second and a third time. After that He said, "Sleep on now, and take your rest." It is not without awareness of some hidden reason that He who had reproached them for their sleep now commanded them to sleep on and take their rest. Luke is thought to have given us the meaning of this command. After he had told us how Satan had sought to sift the Apostles like wheat, and how the Lord had been entreated that the faith of Peter might not fail, he adds that the Lord prayed earnestly, and then that an angel stood by Him comforting Him, and as the angel stood by Him, He prayed the more earnestly, so that the sweat poured from His body in drops of blood. The Angel was sent, then, to watch over the Apostles, and when the Lord was comforted by him, so that He no longer sorrowed for them, He said without fear of sadness, "Sleep on now, and take your rest." Matthew and Mark are silent about the angel and the request of the devil, but after the sorrowfulness of His soul, the reproach of the sleepers, and the prayer that the cup may be taken away, there must be some good reason for the command to the sleepers which follows—unless we assume that He who was about to leave them, and Himself had received comfort from the Angel sent to Him, meant to abandon them to their sleep, soon to be arrested and kept in custody.

40. Although by His words, Your will be done, He surrendered the Apostles to the decision of His Father's will, in regard to the offense of the cup, that is, of His Passion, still He repeated His prayer a second and a third time. After that He said, Sleep on now, and take your rest. Matthew 26:45 It is not without the consciousness of some secret reason that He Who had reproached them for their sleep, now bade them sleep on, and take their rest. Luke is thought to have given us the meaning of this command. After He had told us how Satan had sought to sift the Apostles as it were wheat, and how the Lord had been entreated that the faith of Peter might not fail, he adds that the Lord prayed earnestly, and then that an angel stood by Him comforting Him, and as the angel stood by Him, He prayed the more earnestly, so that the sweat poured from His body in drops of blood. The Angel was sent, then, to watch over the Apostles, and when the Lord was comforted by him, so that He no longer sorrowed for them, He said, without fear of sadness, Sleep on now, and take your rest. Matthew and Mark are silent about the angel, and the request of the devil: but after the sorrowfulness of His soul, the reproach of the sleepers, and the prayer that the cup may be taken away, there must be some good reason for the command to the sleepers which follows; unless we assume that He Who was about to leave them, and Himself had received comfort from the Angel sent to Him, meant to abandon them to their sleep, soon to be arrested and kept in durance.

We should not overlook the fact that in many manuscripts, both Latin and Greek, nothing is mentioned about the angel's coming or the Bloody Sweat. While we hold back judgment on whether this is an omission where it is missing or an addition where it appears (since the disagreement among copies leaves the question uncertain), the heretics should not take comfort in thinking this confirms His weakness—that He needed an angel's help and comfort. They should remember that the Creator of the angels does not need support from His creatures. Furthermore, His being comforted must be understood in the same way as His sorrow. He was sorrowful for us, that is, on our account; He must also have been comforted for us, that is, on our account. If He sorrowed concerning us, He was comforted concerning us. The reason for His comfort is the same as the reason for His sadness. No one should dare to attribute the Sweat to weakness, for it is contrary to nature to sweat blood. It was not a sign of weakness, for His power reversed the law of nature. The bloody sweat does not support the heresy of weakness for even a moment, while it does establish the reality of His body against the heresy that invents an apparent body. Therefore, since His fear concerned us and His prayer was on our behalf, we are forced to conclude that all this happened on our account—for us, for whom He feared and for whom He prayed.

41. We must not indeed pass over the fact that in many manuscripts, both Latin and Greek, nothing is said of the angel's coming or the Bloody Sweat. But while we suspend judgment, whether this is an omission, where it is wanting, or an interpolation, where it is found (for the discordance of the copies leaves the question uncertain), let not the heretics encourage themselves that herein lies a confirmation of His weakness, that He needed the help and comfort of an angel. Let them remember the Creator of the angels needs not the support of His creatures. Moreover His comforting must be explained in the same way as His sorrow. He was sorrowful for us, that is, on our account; He must also have been comforted for us, that is, on our account. If He sorrowed concerning us, He was comforted concerning us. The object of His comfort is the same as that of His sadness. Nor let any one dare to impute the Sweat to a weakness, for it is contrary to nature to sweat blood. It was no infirmity, for His power reversed the law of nature. The bloody sweat does not for one moment support the heresy of weakness, while it establishes against the heresy which invents an apparent body, the reality all His body. Since, then, His fear was concerning us, and His prayer on our behalf, we are forced to the conclusion that all this happened on our account, for whom He feared, and for whom He prayed.

The Gospels complement each other: we learn some things from one, some from another, and so on, because all are the proclamation of the same spirit. Thus John, who especially brings out the working of spiritual causes in the Gospel, preserves this prayer of the Lord for the Apostles that all the others passed over: how He prayed, namely, "Holy Father, keep them in Your Name…while I was with them I kept them in Your Name: those whom You gave Me I have kept." That prayer was not for Himself but for His Apostles. Nor was He sorrowful for Himself, since He tells them to pray that they not be tempted. Nor is the angel sent to Him, for He could summon down from Heaven, if He wished, twelve thousand angels. Nor did He fear because of death when He was troubled unto death. Again, He does not pray that the cup may pass over Himself, but that it may pass away from Himself, though before it could pass away He must have drunk it. But further, "to pass away" does not mean merely "to leave the place," but "not to exist any more at all," which is shown in the language of the Gospels and Epistles: for example, "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but My word shall not perish." Also the Apostle says, "Behold the old things are passed away; they have become new." And again, "The fashion of this world shall pass away." The cup, therefore, of which He prays to the Father, cannot pass away unless it is drunk. And when He prays, He prays for those whom He preserved, so long as He was with them, whom He now hands over to the Father to preserve. Now that He is about to accomplish the mystery of death He begs the Father to guard them. The presence of the angel who was sent to Him (if this explanation is true) is not of doubtful significance. Jesus showed His certainty that the prayer was answered when, at its close, He told the disciples to sleep on. The effect of this prayer and the security that prompted the command, "sleep on," is noticed by the Evangelist in the course of the Passion, when he says of the Apostles just before they escaped from the hands of the pursuers, "That the word might be fulfilled which He had spoken, Of those whom You have given Me I lost not one of them." He fulfills Himself the petition of His prayer, and they are all safe. But He asks that those whom He has preserved the Father will now preserve in His own Name. And they are preserved: the faith of Peter does not fail. It cowered, but repentance followed immediately.

42. Again the Gospels fill up what is lacking in one another: we learn some things from one, some from another, and so on, because all are the proclamation of the same spirit. Thus John, who especially brings out the working of spiritual causes in the Gospel, preserves this prayer of the Lord for the Apostles, which all the others passed over: how He prayed, namely, Holy Father, keep them in Your Name….while I was them I kept them in Your Name: those whom You gave Me I have kept. That prayer was not for Himself but for His Apostles; nor was He sorrowful for Himself, since He bids them pray that they be not tempted; nor is the angel sent to Him, for He could summon down from Heaven, if He would, twelve thousand angels Matthew 26:53; nor did He fear because of death when He was troubled unto death. Again, He does not pray that the cup may pass over Himself, but that it may pass away from Himself, though before it could pass away He must have drunk it. But, further, 'to pass away' does not mean merely 'to leave the place,' but 'not to exist any more at all:' which is shown in the language of the Gospels and Epistles: for example, Heaven and earth shall pass away, but My word shall not perish: also the Apostle says, Behold the old things are passed away; they have become new. 2 Corinthians 5:17 And again, The fashion of this world shall pass away. 1 Corinthians 7:31 The cup, therefore, of which He prays to the Father, cannot pass away unless it be drunk; and when He prays, He prays for those whom He preserved, so long as He was with them, whom He now hands over to the Father to preserve. Now that He is about to accomplish the mystery of death He begs the Father to guard them. The presence of the angel who was sent to Him (if this explanation be true) is not of doubtful significance. Jesus showed His certainty that the prayer was answered when, at its close, He bade the disciples sleep on. The effect of this prayer and the security which prompted the command, 'sleep on,' is noticed by the Evangelist in the course of the Passion, when he says of the Apostles just before they escaped from the hands of the pursuers, That the word might be fulfilled which He had spoken, Of those whom You have given Me I lost not one of them. John 18:9 He fulfils Himself the petition of His prayer, and they are all safe; but He asks that those whom He has preserved the Father will now preserve in His own Name. And they are preserved: the faith of Peter does not fail: it cowered, but repentance followed immediately.

When you put together the Lord's prayer in John, the devil's request in Luke, the sorrow unto death, and the protest against sleep followed by the command "Sleep on" in Matthew and Mark, all the difficulties disappear. The prayer in John, where he commends the apostles to his Father, explains the reason for his sorrow and the prayer that the cup may pass away. The Lord is not praying that the suffering be taken away from himself. He is asking the Father to preserve the disciples during his coming passion. In the same way, the prayer against Satan in Luke explains the confidence with which he allowed the sleep he had just forbidden.

43. Combine the Lord's prayer in John, the request of the devil in Luke, the sorrowfulness unto death, and the protest against sleep, followed by the command, Sleep on, in Matthew and Mark, and all difficulty disappears. The prayer in John, in which He commends the Apostles to His Father, explains the cause of His sorrowfulness, and the prayer that the cup may pass away. It is not from Himself that the Lord prays the suffering may be taken away. He beseeches the Father to preserve the disciples during His coming passion. In the same way, the prayer against Satan in St. Luke explains the confidence with which He permitted the sleep He had just forbidden.

There was, then, no place for human anxiety and fear in that nature, which was more than human. It was superior to the afflictions of earthly flesh—a body not originating from earthly elements, even though His origin as Son of Man came through the mystery of conception by the Holy Spirit. The power of the Most High gave its power to the body which the Virgin bore from the conception of the Holy Spirit. The living body receives its conscious existence from union with a soul, which spreads throughout it and enables it to perceive pain inflicted from outside. In this way, the soul, lifted up by the blessed confidence of its own heavenly faith and hope, rises above its own origin in the beginnings of an earthly body. It raises that body into union with itself in thought and spirit, so that the body ceases to feel the suffering of what it is, all the while, actually suffering. Why, then, do we need to say more about the nature of the Lord's body—that of the Son of Man who came down from heaven? Even earthly bodies can sometimes be made unaffected by the natural needs to experience pain and fear.

44. There was, then, no place for human anxiety and trepidation in that nature, which was more than human. It was superior to the ills of earthly flesh; a body not sprung from earthly elements, although His origin as Son of Man was due to the mystery of the conception by the Holy Ghost. The power of the Most High imparted its power to the body which the Virgin bare from the conception of the Holy Ghost. The animated body derives its conscious existence from association with a soul, which is diffused throughout it, and quickens it to perceive pains inflicted from without. Thus the soul, warned by the happy glow of its own heavenly faith and hope, soars above its own origin in the beginnings of an earthly body, and raises that body to union with itself in thought and spirit, so that it ceases to feel the suffering of that which, all the while, it suffers. Why need we then say more about the nature of the Lord's body, that of the Son of Man Who came down from heaven? Even earthly bodies can sometimes be made indifferent to the natural necessities of pain and fear.

Did the Jewish children fear the flames blazing up with the fuel cast upon them in the fiery furnace at Babylon? Did the terror of that terrible fire overcome their nature, even though it was conceived like ours? Did they feel pain when the flames surrounded them? Perhaps you may say they felt no pain because they were not burnt—the flames were stripped of their burning nature. To be sure, it is natural for the body to fear burning and to be burnt by fire. But through the spirit of faith, their earthly bodies (that is, bodies which had their origin according to the principles of natural birth) could neither be burnt nor made afraid. What in the case of men was a violation of the natural order, produced by faith in God, cannot be judged as natural in God's case, but as an activity of the Spirit beginning with His earthly origin. The children were bound in the midst of the fire; they had no fear as they climbed the blazing pile; they felt no flame as they prayed; though in the midst of the furnace, they could not be burnt. Both the fire and their bodies lost their proper natures: the one did not burn, the others were not burnt. Yet in all other respects, both fire and bodies retained their natures, for the bystanders were consumed and the ministers of punishment were themselves punished. Impious heretic, you insist that Christ suffered pain from the piercing of the nails, that He felt the bitterness of the wound when they were driven through His hands. Why, then, did the children not fear the flames? Why did they suffer no pain? What was the nature in their bodies that overcame the nature of fire? In the zeal of their faith and the glory of a blessed martyrdom, they forgot to fear the terrible. Should Christ be sorrowful from fear of the cross—Christ, who even if He had been conceived with our sinful origin would still have been God upon the cross, who was to judge the world and reign forever and ever? Could He forget such a reward and tremble with the anxiety of dishonorable fear?

45. Did the Jewish children fear the flames blazing up with the fuel cast upon them in the fiery furnace at Babylon? Did the terror of that terrible fire prevail over their nature, conceived though it was like ours Daniel 3:23? Did they feel pain, when the flames surrounded them? Perhaps, however, you may say they felt no pain, because they were not burnt: the flames were deprived of their burning nature. To be sure it is natural to the body to fear burning, and to be burnt by fire. But through the spirit of faith their earthly bodies (that is, bodies which had their origin according to the principles of natural birth) could neither be burnt nor made afraid. What, therefore, in the case of men was a violation of the order of nature, produced by faith in God, cannot be judged in God's case natural, but as an activity of the Spirit commencing with His earthly origin. The children were bound in the midst of the fire; they had no fear as they mounted the blazing pile: they felt not the flame as they prayed: though in the midst of the furnace, they could not be burnt. Both the fire and their bodies lost their proper natures; the one did not burn, the others were not burnt. Yet in all other respects, both fire and bodies retained their natures: for the bystanders were consumed, and the ministers of punishment were themselves punished. Impious heretic, you will have it that Christ suffered pain from the piercing of the nails, that He felt the bitterness of the wound, when they were driven through His hands: why, pray, did not the children fear the flames? Why did they suffer no pain? What was the nature in their bodies, which overcame that of fire? In the zeal of their faith and the glory of a blessed martyrdom they forgot to fear the terrible; should Christ be sorrowful from fear of the cross, Christ, Who even if He had been conceived with our sinful origin, would have been still God upon the cross, Who was to judge the world and reign for ever and ever? Could He forget such a reward, and tremble with the anxiety of dishonourable fear?

Daniel, whose food was only the meager ration of a prophet, did not fear the lions' den. The Apostles rejoiced in suffering and death for the Name of Christ. To Paul his sacrifice was the crown of righteousness. The Martyrs sang hymns as they offered their necks to the executioner, and climbed with psalms the blazing logs piled for them. The consciousness of faith takes away the weakness of nature, transforms the bodily senses so that they feel no pain, and so the body is strengthened by the fixed purpose of the soul, and feels nothing except the impulse of its enthusiasm. The suffering which the mind despises in its desire for glory, the body does not feel, as long as the soul invigorates it. It is, then, a natural effect in man, that the zeal of the soul glowing for glory should make him unconscious of suffering, heedless of wounds, and regardless of death. But Jesus Christ the Lord of glory, the hem of whose garment can heal, whose spittle and word can create—for the man with the withered hand at His command stretched it forth whole, he who was born blind felt no more the defect of his birth, and the smitten ear was made sound as the other—dare we think of His pierced body in that pain and weakness, from which the spirit of faith in Him rescued the glorious and blessed Martyrs?

46. Daniel, whose meat was the scanty portion of a prophet Daniel 1:8-16, did not fear the lions' den. The Apostles rejoiced in suffering and death for the Name of Christ. To Paul his sacrifice was the crown of righteousness. 2 Timothy 4:6, 8 The Martyrs sang hymns as they offered their necks to the executioner, and climbed with psalms the blazing logs piled for them. The consciousness of faith takes away the weakness of nature, transforms the bodily senses that they feel no pain, and so the body is strengthened by the fixed purpose of the soul, and feels nothing except the impulse of its enthusiasm. The suffering which the mind despises in its desire of glory, the body does not feel, so long as the soul invigorates it. It is, then, a natural effect in man, that the zeal of the soul glowing for glory should make him unconscious of suffering, heedless of wounds, and regardless of death. But Jesus Christ the Lord of glory, the hem of Whose garment can heal, Whose spittle and word can create; for the man with the withered hand at His command stretched it forth whole, he who was born blind felt no more the defect of his birth, and the smitten ear was made sound as the other; dare we think of His pierced body in that pain and weakness, from which the spirit of faith in Him rescued the glorious and blessed Martyrs?

The Only-begotten God, then, experienced in His person all the weaknesses we face. But He experienced them through the power of His own nature, just as He was born through the power of His own nature—for at His birth He did not lose His omnipotent nature by being born. Though born under human conditions, He was not conceived that way: His birth was surrounded by human circumstances, but His origin went beyond them. He suffered in His body in the manner of our weak body, yet He bore the sufferings of our body through the power of His own body. The prophet testifies to this article of our faith when he says, "He bears our sins and grieves for us, and we thought Him stricken, smitten, and afflicted. He was wounded for our transgressions and made weak for our sins." It is therefore a mistaken human judgment that thinks He felt pain simply because He suffered. He bore our sins—that is, He took on our body of sin, but was Himself without sin. He was sent in the likeness of sinful flesh, truly bearing sin in His flesh but it was our sin. Likewise, He felt pain for us, but not with our senses. He was found in appearance as a man, with a body that could feel pain, but His nature could not feel pain. For though His appearance was that of a man, His origin was not human—rather, He was born by conception of the Holy Spirit.

47. The Only-begotten God, then, suffered in His person the attacks of all the infirmities to which we are subject; but He suffered them in the power of His own nature, just as He was born in the power of His own nature, for at His birth He did not lose His omnipotent nature by being born. Though born under human conditions, He was not so conceived: His birth was surrounded by human circumstances, but His origin went beyond them. He suffered then in His body after the manner of our infirm body, yet bore the sufferings of our body in the power of His own body. To this article of our faith the prophet bears witness when he says, He bears our sins and grieves for us: and we esteemed Him stricken, smitten, and afflicted: He was wounded for our transgressions and made weak for our sins. It is then a mistaken opinion of human judgment, which thinks He felt pain because He suffered. He bore our sins, that is, He assumed our body of sin, but was Himself sinless. He was sent in the likeness of the flesh of sin, bearing sin indeed in His flesh but our sin. So too He felt pain for us, but not with our senses; He was found in fashion as a man, with a body which could feel pain, but His nature could not feel pain; for, though His fashion was that of a man, His origin was not human, but He was born by conception of the Holy Ghost.

For these reasons, He was considered "stricken, smitten and afflicted." He took the form of a servant, and "man born of a Virgin" communicates to us the idea of One whose nature felt pain when He suffered. But though He was wounded, it was "for our transgressions." The wound was not caused by His own transgressions, nor was the suffering for Himself. He was not born as a man for His own sake, nor did He commit transgression in His own actions. The Apostle explains the principle of the Divine Plan when he says, "We beseech you through Christ to be reconciled to God. Him, Who knew no sin, He made to be sin on our behalf." To condemn sin through sin in the flesh, He Who knew no sin was Himself made sin—that is, in order to condemn sin in the flesh by means of the flesh, He became flesh on our behalf but did not know flesh, and therefore was wounded because of our transgressions.

For the reasons mentioned, He was esteemed 'stricken, smitten and afflicted.' He took the form of a servant: and 'man born of a Virgin' conveys to us the idea of One Whose nature felt pain when He suffered. But though He was wounded it was 'for our transgressions.' The wound was not the wound of His own transgressions: the suffering not a suffering for Himself. He was not born man for His own sake, nor did He transgress in His own action. The Apostle explains the principle of the Divine Plan when he says, We beseech you through Christ to be reconciled to God. Him, Who knew no sin, He made to be sin on our behalf. To condemn sin through sin in the flesh, He Who knew no sin was Himself made sin; that is, by means of the flesh to condemn sin in the flesh, He became flesh on our behalf but knew not flesh: and therefore was wounded because of our transgressions.

Again, the Apostle knows nothing in Christ about fear of pain. When he wants to speak about the dispensation of the Passion, he includes it in the mystery of Christ's divinity: "Forgiving us all our trespasses, blotting out the bond written in ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, taking it away and nailing it to the cross; stripping off from himself his flesh, he made a show of principalities and powers openly, triumphing over them in himself." Was that the power, do you think, to yield to the wound of the nail, to flinch under the piercing blow, to turn itself into a nature that can feel pain? Yet the Apostle, who speaks as the mouthpiece of Christ, when describing the work of our salvation through the Lord, describes the death of Christ as "stripping off from himself his flesh, boldly putting to shame the powers and triumphing over them in himself." If his passion was a necessity of nature and not the free gift of your salvation, if the cross was merely the suffering of wounds and not the fixing upon himself of the decree of death made out against you, if his dying was violence done by death and not the stripping off of the flesh by the power of God, and finally, if his death itself was anything but a dishonoring of powers, an act of boldness, a triumph—then ascribe to him weakness, because he was in that case subject to necessity and nature, to force, to fear and disgrace. But if the mystery of the Passion is the exact opposite, as it was preached to us, who could possibly be so senseless as to reject the faith taught by the Apostles, to reverse all religious feeling, and to distort into the dishonorable charge of natural weakness what was an act of free will, a mystery, a display of power and boldness, a triumph? And what a triumph it was: when he offered himself to those who sought to crucify him and they could not endure his presence; when he stood under sentence of death, who shortly would sit at the right hand of power; when he prayed for his persecutors while the nails were driven through him; when he completed the mystery as he drained the cup of vinegar; when he was numbered among the transgressors and meanwhile granted Paradise; when he was lifted on the tree and the earth quaked; when he hung on the cross and sun and day were put to flight; when he left his own body yet called life back to the bodies of others; when he was buried a corpse and rose again God—as man he suffered all weaknesses for our sakes, as God he triumphed in them all.

48. Again, the Apostle knows nothing in Christ about fear of pain. When He wishes to speak of the dispensation of the Passion, He includes it in the mystery of Christ's Divinity. Forgiving us all our trespasses, blotting out the bond written in ordinances, that was against us, which was contrary to us: taking it away, and nailing it to the cross; stripping off from Himself His flesh, He made a show of principalities and powers openly triumphing over them in Himself. Colossians 2:13-15 Was that the power, think you, to yield to the wound of the nail, to wince under the piercing blow, to convert itself into a nature that can feel pain? Yet the Apostle, who speaks as the mouthpiece of Christ 2 Corinthians 13:3, relating the work of our salvation through the Lord, describes the death of Christ as 'stripping off from Himself His flesh, boldly putting to shame the powers and triumphing over them in Himself.' If His passion was a necessity of nature and not the free gift of your salvation: if the cross was merely the suffering of wounds, and not the fixing upon Himself of the decree of death made out against you: if His dying was a violence done by death, and not the stripping off of the flesh by the power of God: lastly, if His death itself was anything but a dishonouring of powers, an act of boldness, a triumph: then ascribe to Him infirmity, because He was therein subject to necessity and nature, to force, to fear and disgrace. But if it is the exact opposite in the mystery of the Passion, as it was preached to us, who, pray, can be so senseless as to repudiate the faith taught by the Apostles, to reverse all feelings of religion, to distort into the dishonourable charge of natural weakness, what was an act of free-will, a mystery, a display of power and boldness, a triumph? And what a triumph it was, when He offered Himself to those who sought to crucify Him, and they could not endure His presence: when He stood under sentence of death, Who shortly was to sit on the right hand of power: when He prayed for His persecutors while the nails were driven through Him: when He completed the mystery as He drained the draught of vinegar; when He was numbered among the transgressors and meanwhile granted Paradise: that when He was lifted on the tree, the earth quaked: when He hung on the cross, sun and day were put to flight: that He left His own body, yet called life back to the bodies of others: was buried a corpse and rose again God: as man suffered all weaknesses for our sakes, as God triumphed in them all.

49. The heretics say there is still another serious and far-reaching confession of weakness, made even more significant because it comes from the Lord Himself: "My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?" (Matthew 27:46). They interpret this as the expression of a bitter complaint—that He was deserted and abandoned to weakness. But what a forced interpretation from an irreligious mind! How contrary to the whole pattern of our Lord's words! He hastened toward the death that would glorify Him, after which He would sit at the right hand of power. With all those blessed expectations before Him, could He actually fear death and complain that His God had betrayed Him to its necessity, when death was the entrance to eternal blessedness?

49. There is still, the heretics say, another serious and far reaching confession of weakness, all the more so because it is in the mouth of the Lord Himself, My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me Matthew 27:46? They construe this into the expression of a bitter complaint, that He was deserted and given over to weakness. But what a violent interpretation of an irreligious mind! How repugnant to the whole tenor of our Lord's words! He hastened to the death, which was to glorify Him, and after which He was to sit on the right hand of power; with all those blessed expectations could He fear death, and therefore complain that His God had betrayed Him to its necessity, when it was the entrance to eternal blessedness?

The heretics' twisted thinking pushes forward along the path laid out by their own impiety, even to the point of completely dissolving God the Word into the human soul. The result is their denial that Jesus Christ, the Son of Man, was the same as the Son of God. So either God the Word stopped being Himself while He functioned as a soul giving life to a body, or the man who was born was not Christ at all, but the Word simply dwelt in him the way the Spirit dwelt in the prophets. These absurd and twisted errors have grown so bold and impious that they now claim Jesus Christ was not Christ until He was born of Mary. According to them, the one who was born did not exist beforehand, but began to exist at that moment.

50. Further their heretical ingenuity presses on in the path prepared by their own godlessness, even to the entire absorption of God the Word into the human soul, and consequent denial that Jesus Christ, the Son of Man, was the same as the Son of God. So either God the Word ceased to be Himself while He performed the function of a soul in giving life to a body, or the man who was born was not the Christ at all, but the Word dwelt in him, as the Spirit dwelt in the prophets. These absurd and perverse errors have grown in boldness and godlessness till they assert that Jesus Christ was not Christ until He was born of Mary. He Who was born was not a pre-existent Being, but began at that moment to exist.

Hence follows also the error that God the Word, as though he were some portion of the Divine power stretching himself out in unbroken continuity, dwelt within that man who received from Mary the beginning of his existence, and granted him the power to perform Divine works—even though that man lived and moved by the nature of his own soul.

Hence follows also the error that God the Word, as it were some part of the Divine power extending itself in unbroken continuation, dwelt within that man who received from Mary the beginning of his being, and endowed him with the power of Divine working: though that man lived and moved by the nature of his own soul.

Through this subtle and destructive teaching they fall into the error that God the Word became the soul of the body, with His nature working a change upon itself through self-humiliation, and thus the Word ceased to be God; or else that the man Jesus, in the poverty and distance from God of His nature, was animated only by the life and motion of His own human soul, in which the Word of God—that is, something like the power of His spoken voice—resided. In this way the door is opened to all kinds of irreverent speculation, the sum of which is either that God the Word was absorbed into the soul and ceased to be God, or that Christ had no existence before His birth from Mary, since Jesus Christ, a mere man with an ordinary body and soul, began to exist only at His human birth and was elevated to the level of the Power working within Him by the external force of the Divine Word extending itself into Him. Then when God the Word, after this extension, was withdrawn, He cried, "My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?"—or at least when the divine nature of the Word once more gave way within Him to a human soul, He who had previously relied on His Father's help, now separated from it and abandoned to death, lamented His isolation and rebuked His deserter. Thus in every way a deadly danger of error in belief arises, whether it be thought that the cry of complaint indicates a weakness of nature in God the Word, or that God the Word did not exist beforehand because the birth of Jesus Christ from Mary was the beginning of His existence.

51. Through this subtle and mischievous doctrine they are drawn into the error that God the Word became soul to the body, His nature by self-humiliation working the change upon itself, and thus the Word ceased to be God; or else, that the Man Jesus, in the poverty and remoteness from God of His nature, was animated only by the life and motion of His own human soul, wherein the Word of God, that is, as it were, the might of His uttered voice, resided. Thus the way is opened for all manner of irreverent theorising: the sum of which is, either that God the Word was merged in the soul and ceased to be God: or that Christ had no existence before His birth from Mary, since Jesus Christ, a mere man of ordinary body and soul, began to exist only at His human birth and was raised to the level of the Power, which worked within Him, by the extraneous force of the Divine Word extending itself into Him. Then when God the Word, after this extension, was withdrawn, He cried, My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me? or at least when the divine nature of the Word once more gave place within Him to a human soul, He Who had hitherto relied on His Father's help, now separated from it, and abandoned to death, bemoaned His solitude and chid His deserter. Thus in every way arises a deadly danger of error in belief, whether it be thought that the cry of complaint denotes a weakness of nature in God the Word, or that God the Word was not pre-existent because the birth of Jesus Christ from Mary was the beginning of His being.

52. In the midst of these irreverent and poorly founded theories, the faith of the Church, inspired by the teaching of the Apostles, has recognized a birth of Christ, but no beginning. It acknowledges the dispensation, but no division: it refuses to make a separation in Jesus Christ, whereby Jesus is one and Christ another; nor does it distinguish the Son of Man from the Son of God, lest perhaps the Son of God not be regarded as Son of Man also. It does not absorb the Son of God into the Son of Man; nor does it, by a tripartite belief, tear apart Christ, whose coat woven from the top throughout was not divided, splitting Jesus Christ into the Word, a body, and a soul; nor, on the other hand, does it absorb the Word into body and soul. To the Church He is perfectly God the Word, and perfectly Christ the Man. We hold fast to this alone in the mystery of our confession, namely, the faith that Christ is none other than Jesus, and the teaching that Jesus is none other than Christ.

52. Amid these irreverent and ill-grounded theories the faith of the Church, inspired by the teaching of the Apostles, has recognised a birth of Christ, but no beginning. It knows of the dispensation, but of no division: it refuses to make a separation in Jesus Christ; whereby Jesus is one and Christ another; nor does it distinguish the Son of Man from the Son of God, lest perhaps the Son of God be not regarded as Son of Man also. It does not absorb the Son of God in the Son of Man; nor does it by a tripartite belief tear asunder Christ, Whose coat woven from the top throughout was not parted, dividing Jesus Christ into the Word, a body and a soul; nor, on the other hand, does it absorb the Word in body and soul. To it He is perfectly God the Word, and perfectly Christ the Man. To this alone we hold fast in the mystery of our confession, namely, the faith that Christ is none other than Jesus, and the doctrine that Jesus is none other than Christ.

I'm well aware of how much the greatness of the divine mystery overwhelms our weak understanding, so that language can barely express it, reason can scarcely define it, and thought can hardly even grasp it. The Apostle knew that the most difficult task for earthly nature is to comprehend God's way of working without help—since our judgment would need to be sharper at discerning than God is powerful at accomplishing things. So he writes to his true son in the faith, who had received the Holy Scripture from childhood: "As I urged you to stay at Ephesus when I was going to Macedonia, so that you might command certain people not to teach a different doctrine and not to pay attention to fables and endless genealogies, which promote controversies rather than the edification of God which is in faith." He tells him to avoid handling wordy genealogies and fables that promote endless controversies. The edification of God, he says, is in faith. He restricts human reverence to the faithful worship of the Almighty and does not allow our weakness to strain itself trying to see what only dazzles the eye. If we look at the brightness of the sun, our sight becomes strained and weakened. Sometimes when we examine the source of shining light with too curious a gaze, the eyes lose their natural power and the sense of sight is even destroyed. So it happens that through trying to see too much we end up seeing nothing at all. What should we then expect in the case of God, the Sun of Righteousness? Won't foolishness be the reward for those who try to be too wise? Won't dull and brainless stupor replace the burning light of intelligence? A lower nature cannot understand the principle of a higher one, nor can Heaven's way of thinking be revealed to human conception, because whatever falls within the range of limited consciousness is itself limited. The divine power therefore exceeds the capacity of the human mind. If the limited strains itself to reach that far, it becomes even weaker than before. It loses what certainty it had—instead of seeing heavenly things it is only blinded by them. No mind can fully comprehend the divine. It punishes the stubbornness of the curious by taking away their power. If we want to look at the sun we must reduce its brilliance as much as we need in order to see it. If we don't, by expecting too much, we fall short of what is possible. In the same way we can only hope to understand the purposes of Heaven as far as is permitted. We must expect only what He grants to our understanding. If we try to go beyond the limit of His permission, it is withdrawn altogether. There is something in God that we can perceive—it is visible to everyone if we are content with what is possible. Just as with the sun we can see something if we are content to see what can be seen, but if we strain beyond what is possible we lose everything—so it is with the nature of God. There is something we can understand if we are content with understanding what we can. But aim beyond your powers and you will lose even the ability to attain what was within your reach.

53. I am not ignorant how much the grandeur of the divine mystery baffles our weak understanding, so that language can scarcely express it, or reason define it, or thought even embrace it. The Apostle, knowing that the most difficult task for an earthly nature is to apprehend, unaided, God's mode of action (for then our judgment were keener to discern than God is mighty to effect), writes to his true son according to the faith, who had received the Holy Scripture from his childhood, As I exhorted you to tarry at Ephesus, when I was going into Macedonia, that you might charge certain men not to teach a different doctrine, neither to give heed to fables and endless genealogies, the which minister questionings, rather than the edification of God which is in faith. 1 Timothy 1:3-4 He bids him forbear to handle wordy genealogies and fables, which minister endless questionings. The edification of God, he says, is in faith: he limits human reverence to the faithful worship of the Almighty, and does not suffer our weakness to strain itself in the attempt to see what only dazzles the eye. If we look at the brightness of the sun, the sight is strained and weakened: and sometimes when we scrutinise with too curious gaze the source of the shining light, the eyes lose their natural power, and the sense of sight is even destroyed. Thus it happens that through trying to see too much we see nothing at all. What must we then expect in the case of God, the Sun of Righteousness? Will not foolishness be their reward, who would be over wise? Will not dull and brainless stupor usurp the place of the burning light of intelligence? A lower nature cannot understand the principle of a higher: nor can Heaven's mode of thought be revealed to human conception, for whatever is within the range of a limited consciousness, is itself limited. The divine power exceeds therefore the capacity of the human mind. If the limited strains itself to reach so far, it becomes even feebler than before. It loses what certainty it had: instead of seeing heavenly things it is only blinded by them. No mind can fully comprehend the divine: it punishes the obstinacy of the curious by depriving them of their power. Would we look at the sun we must remove as much of his brilliancy as we need, in order to see him: if not, by expecting too much, we fall short of the possible. In the same way we can only hope to understand the purposes of Heaven, so far as is permitted. We must expect only what He grants to our apprehension: if we attempt to go beyond the limit of His indulgence, it is withdrawn altogether. There is that in God which we can perceive: it is visible to all if we are content with the possible. Just as with the sun we can see something, if we are content to see what can be seen, but if we strain beyond the possible we lose all: so is it with the nature of God. There is that which we can understand if we are content with understanding what we can: but aim beyond your powers and you will lose even the power of attaining what was within your reach.

The mystery of that other timeless birth I will not yet address: its treatment requires more space than this allows. For now I will speak only of the Incarnation. Tell me, I ask you who probe the secrets of Heaven, the mystery of Christ born of a Virgin and His nature—how will you explain that He was conceived and born of a Virgin? What was the physical cause of His origin according to your arguments? How was He formed within His mother's womb? Where did His body and His humanity come from? And finally, what does it mean that the Son of Man descended from heaven Who remained in heaven? According to the laws of bodies, it is impossible for the same thing both to remain and to descend: one involves the change of downward movement; the other involves the stillness of being at rest. The Infant cries but is in Heaven: the Boy grows but remains forever the immeasurable God. By what human understanding can we grasp that He ascended where He was before, and He descended Who remained in heaven? The Lord says, "What if you should behold the Son of Man ascending there where He was before?" The Son of Man ascends where He was before: can the senses grasp this? The Son of Man descends from heaven, Who is in heaven: can reason handle this? The Word was made flesh: can words express this? The Word becomes flesh, that is, God becomes Man: the Man is in heaven: the God is from heaven. He ascends Who descended: but He descends and yet does not descend. He is as He ever was, yet He was not ever what He is. We review the causes, but we cannot explain the manner: we perceive the manner, and we cannot understand the causes. Yet if we understand Christ Jesus even in this way, we shall know Him: if we seek to understand Him further we shall not know Him at all.

54. The mystery of that other timeless birth I will not yet touch upon: its treatment demands an ampler space than this. For the present I will speak of the Incarnation only. Tell me, I pray, you who pry into secrets of Heaven, the mystery of Christ born of a Virgin and His nature; whence will you explain that He was conceived and born of a Virgin? What was the physical cause of His origin according to your disputations? How was He formed within His mother's womb? Whence His body and His humanity? And lastly, what does it mean that the Son of Man descended from heaven Who remained in heaven John 3:13? It is not possible by the laws of bodies for the same object to remain and to descend: the one is the change of downward motion; the other the stillness of being at rest. The Infant wails but is in Heaven: the Boy grows but remains ever the immeasurable God. By what perception of human understanding can we comprehend that He ascended where He was before, and He descended Who remained in heaven? The Lord says, What if you should behold the Son of Man ascending there where He was before? The Son of Man ascends where He was before: can sense apprehend this? The Son of Man descends from heaven, Who is in heaven: can reason cope with this? The Word was made flesh: can words express this? The Word becomes flesh, that is, God becomes Man: the Man is in heaven: the God is from heaven. He ascends Who descended: but He descends and yet does not descend. He is as He ever was, yet He was not ever what He is. We pass in review the causes, but we cannot explain the manner: we perceive the manner, and we cannot understand the causes. Yet if we understand Christ Jesus even thus, we shall know Him: if we seek to understand Him further we shall not know Him at all.

Again, how great a mystery of word and act it is that Christ wept, that His eyes filled with tears from the anguish of His mind. Where did this weakness in His soul come from, that sorrow should force tears from His body? What bitter fate, what unbearable pain, could move the Son of Man who descended from heaven to a flood of tears? Again, what was it in Him that wept? God the Word? Or His human soul? For though weeping is a bodily function, the body is merely a servant; tears are, so to speak, the sweat of an agonized soul. Again, what was the cause of His weeping? Did He owe Jerusalem the debt of His tears—Jerusalem, the godless killer of her own parent, whom no suffering could repay for the slaughter of Apostles and Prophets, and the murder of her Lord Himself? He might weep for the disasters and death that befall humanity, but could He grieve for the fall of that doomed and desperate race? What, I ask, was this mystery of weeping? His soul wept from sorrow; was it not the soul that sent forth the Prophets? That would so often have gathered the chickens together under the shadow of His wings? But God the Word cannot grieve, nor can the Spirit weep, nor could His soul possibly do anything before the body existed. Yet we cannot doubt that Jesus Christ truly wept.

55. Again, how great a mystery of word and act it is that Christ wept, that His eyes filled with tears from the anguish of His mind. Luke 19:41 Whence came this defect in His soul that sorrow should wring tears from His body? What bitter fate, what unendurable pain, could move to a flood of tears the Son of Man Who descended from heaven? Again, what was it in Him which wept? God the Word? Or His human soul? For though weeping is a bodily function, the body is but a servant; tears are, as it were, the sweat of the agonised soul. Again, what was the cause of His weeping? Did He owe to Jerusalem the debt of His tears, Jerusalem, the godless parricide, whom no suffering could requite for the slaughter of Apostles and Prophets, and the murder of her Lord Himself? He might weep for the disasters and death which befall mankind: but could He grieve for the fall of that doomed and desperate race? What, I ask, was this mystery of weeping? His soul wept for sorrow; was not it the soul which sent forth the Prophets? Which would so often have gathered the chickens together under the shadow of His wings? But God the Word cannot grieve, nor can the Spirit weep: nor could His soul possibly do anything before the body existed. Yet we cannot doubt that Jesus Christ truly wept.

The tears Jesus shed for Lazarus were just as real. The first question is: What was there to weep about in Lazarus's case? It wasn't his death, because that death was not unto death but for God's glory. The Lord says, "That sickness is not unto death, but for the glory of God, so that the Son of God may be honored through it." A death that caused God to be glorified could not bring sorrow and tears. Nor was there any reason to weep over His absence from Lazarus when he died. He says clearly, "Lazarus is dead, and I rejoice for your sake that I was not there, so that you may believe." His absence, which helped the Apostles believe, was not the cause of His sorrow, since with divine omniscience He knew about the sick man's death from a distance. We can find no reason for tears, yet He wept. And again I ask: To whom should we attribute the weeping? To God, or the soul, or the body? The body by itself has no tears except those it sheds when the grieving soul commands it. Even less could God have wept, since He was going to be glorified in Lazarus. Nor does it make sense to say His soul called Lazarus from the tomb—can a soul joined to a body, by the power of its command, call another soul back to the dead body it has left? Can He grieve who is about to be glorified? Can He weep who is about to restore the dead to life? Tears do not belong to Him who is about to give life, or grief to Him who is about to receive glory. Yet He who wept and grieved was also the Giver of life.

56. No less real were the tears He shed for Lazarus. John 11:35 The first question here is, What was there to weep for in the case of Lazarus? Not his death, for that was not unto death, but for the glory of God: for the Lord says, That sickness is not unto death, but for the glory of God, that the Son of God may be honoured through him. The death which was the cause of God's being glorified could not bring sorrow and tears. Nor was there any occasion for tears in His absence from Lazarus at the time of his death. He says plainly, Lazarus is dead, and I rejoice for your sakes that I was not there, to the intent that you may believe. His absence then, which aided the Apostles' belief, was not the cause of His sorrow: for with the knowledge of Divine omniscience, He declared the death of the sick man from afar. We can find, then, no necessity for tears, yet He wept. And again I ask, To whom must we ascribe the weeping? To God, or the soul, or the body? The body, of itself, has no tears except those it sheds at the command of the sorrowing soul. Far less can God have wept, for He was to be glorified in Lazarus. Nor is it reason to say His soul recalled Lazarus from the tomb: can a soul linked to a body, by the power of its command, call another soul back to the dead body from which it has departed? Can He grieve Who is about to be glorified? Can He weep Who is about to restore the dead to life? Tears are not for Him Who is about to give life, or grief for Him Who is about to receive glory. Yet He Who wept and grieved was also the Giver of life.

If we treat many points briefly, it is not because we have nothing to say or are unaware of what has already been said. Our purpose is to make the results as attractive as possible to the reader by avoiding an overly laborious process of argument. We know the deeds and words of our Lord, yet we do not fully know them. We are not ignorant of them, yet they cannot be fully understood. The facts are real, but the power behind them is a mystery. We will prove this from His own words: "For this reason the Father loves Me, because I lay down My life that I may take it up again. No one takes it from Me, but I lay it down of Myself. I have power to lay it down and I have power to take it up again. This commandment I received from the Father." He lays down His life of Himself, but I ask: who lays it down? We confess without hesitation that Christ is God the Word. But on the other hand, we know that the Son of Man was composed of a soul and a body. Compare the angel's words to Joseph: "Arise and take the child and His mother, and go into the land of Israel, for they are dead who sought the soul of the child." Whose soul is it? His body's, or God's? If it is His body's, what power does the body have to lay down the soul, when it is only by the working of the soul that it is brought to life? Again, how could the body, which apart from the soul is inert and dead, receive a command from the Father? But if, on the other hand, anyone supposes that God the Word laid aside His soul so that He might take it up again, he must prove that God the Word died—that is, remained without life and feeling like a dead body—and took up His soul again to be brought back to life by it.

57. If there are many points which we treat scantily it is not because we have nothing to say, or do not know what has already been said; our purpose is, by abstaining from too laborious a process of argument, to render the results as attractive as possible to the reader. We know the deeds and words of our Lord, yet we know them not: we are not ignorant of them, yet they cannot be understood. The facts are real, but the power behind them is a mystery. We will prove this from His own words, For this reason does the Father love Me, because I lay down My life that I may take it up again. No one takes it from Me, but I lay it down of Myself. I have power to lay it down and I have power to take it up again. This commandment received I from the Father. He lays down His life of Himself, but I ask who lays it down? We confess without hesitation, that Christ is God the Word: but on the other hand, we know that the Son of Man was composed of a soul and a body: compare the angel's words to Joseph, Arise and take the child and His mother, and go into the land of Israel; for they are dead who sought the soul of the child. Matthew 2:20 Whose soul is it? His body's, or God's? If His body's, what power has the body to lay down the soul, when it is only by the working of the soul that it is quickened into life? Again, how could the body, which apart from the soul is inert and dead, receive a command from the Father? But if, on the other hand, any man suppose that God the Word laid aside His soul, that He might take it up again, he must prove that God the Word died, that is, remained without life and feeling like a dead body, and took up His soul again to be quickened once more into life by it.

58. Furthermore, no reasonable person can attribute a soul to God, even though Scripture says in many places that God's soul hates sabbaths and new moons, and also that it delights in certain things. But this is simply a conventional way of speaking, to be understood in the same way as when God is described as having a body, with hands, eyes, fingers, arms, and heart. As the Lord said, "A Spirit does not have flesh and bones." Therefore, He who exists and does not change cannot have the limbs and parts of a physical body. He is a simple and blessed nature, a single, complete, all-encompassing Whole. God is not given life, as bodies are, by an indwelling soul, but is Himself His own life.

58. But, further, no one who is endued with reason can impute to God a soul; though it is written in many places that the soul of God hates sabbaths and new moons: and also that it delights in certain things. But this is merely a conventional expression to be understood in the same way as when God is spoken of as possessing body, with hands, and eyes, and fingers, and arms, and heart. As the Lord said, A Spirit has not flesh and bones Luke 24:39: He then Who is, and changes not Malachi 3:6, cannot have the limbs and parts of a tangible body. He is a simple and blessed nature, a single, complete, all-embracing Whole. God is therefore not quickened into life, like bodies, by the action of an indwelling soul, but is Himself His own life.

No one with reason can attribute a soul to God, even though Scripture says in many places that God's soul hates sabbaths and new moons, and that it delights in certain things. But this is simply a conventional way of speaking, to be understood the same way as when God is described as having a body, with hands, eyes, fingers, arms, and heart. As the Lord …

How then does He lay down His soul, or take it up again? What does this command He received mean? God could not lay it down—that is, die—or take it up again—that is, come back to life. But the body did not receive the command to take it up again either; it could not do so by itself, for He said of the temple of His body, "Destroy this temple and after three days I will raise it up." Thus it is God who raises up the temple of His body. And who lays down His soul to take it again? The body does not take it up again by itself: it is raised up by God. That which is raised up again must have been dead, and that which is living does not lay down its soul. God then was neither dead nor buried: and yet He said, "In that she has poured this ointment upon My body she did it for My burial." In that it was poured upon His body it was done for His burial: but the "His" is not the same as "Him." It is quite a different use of the pronoun when we say "it was done for the burial of Him" and when we say "His body was anointed," nor is the sense the same in "His body was buried" and "He was buried."

59. How does He then lay down His soul, or take it up again? What is the meaning of this command He received? God could not lay it down, that is, die, or take it up again, that is, come to life. But neither did the body receive the command to take it up again; it could not do so of itself, for He said of the Temple of His body, Destroy this temple and after three days I will raise it up. John 2:19 Thus it is God Who raises up the temple of His body. And Who lays down His soul to take it again? The body does not take it up again of itself: it is raised up by God. That which is raised up again must have been dead, and that which is living does not lay down its soul. God then was neither dead nor buried: and yet He said, In that she has poured this ointment upon My body she did it for My burial. Matthew 26:12 In that it was poured upon His body it was done for His burial: but the His is not the same as Him. It is quite another use of the pronoun when we say, 'it was done for the burial of Him,' and when we say, ' His body was anointed.' nor is the sense the same in ' His body was buried,' and ' He was buried.'

To understand this divine mystery, we must recognize the God in Him without overlooking the Man, and the Man without overlooking the God. We must not divide Jesus Christ, for the Word became flesh; yet we must not call Him buried, even though we know He raised Himself again. We must not doubt His resurrection, though we dare not deny He was buried. Jesus Christ was buried because He died. He died, and even cried out at the moment of death, "My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?" Yet He, who spoke these words, also said, "Truly I say to you, this day you will be with Me in Paradise" (Luke 23:43), and He who promised Paradise to the thief cried out, "Father, into Your hands I commend My Spirit," and having said this He gave up the Spirit.

60. To grasp this divine mystery we must see the God in Him without ignoring the Man; and the Man without ignoring the God. We must not divide Jesus Christ, for the Word was made flesh: yet we must not call Him buried, though we know He raised Himself again: must not doubt His resurrection, though we dare not deny He was buried. Jesus Christ was buried, for He died: He died, and even cried out at the moment of death, My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me? Yet He, Who uttered these words, said also: Verily I say unto you, This day shall you be with Me in Paradise Luke 23:43, and He Who promised Paradise to the thief cried aloud, Father, into Your hands I commend My Spirit; and having said this He gave up the Ghost.

You who either divide Christ into three parts—the Word, the soul, and the body—or reduce the whole Christ, even God the Word, down to nothing more than an ordinary human being, explain to us this mystery of great godliness which was manifested in the flesh. What Spirit did Christ give up? Who commended His Spirit into the hands of His Father? Who was to be in Paradise that same day? Who complained that He was deserted by God? The cry of being deserted shows the weakness of one who is dying; the promise of Paradise shows the sovereign power of the living God. To commend His Spirit showed confidence; to give up His Spirit meant His departure through death. Who then, I ask, was it who died? Surely the one who gave up His Spirit? But who gave up His Spirit? Certainly the one who commended it to His Father. And if the one who commended His Spirit is the same as the one who gave it up and died, was it the body that commended its soul, or God who commended the body's soul? I say "soul" because there is no doubt it is frequently synonymous with "spirit," as can be gathered simply from the language used here: Jesus gave up His "Spirit" when He was on the point of death. If, therefore, you are convinced that the body commended the soul—that the perishable commended the living, the corruptible the eternal, that which was to be raised again commended that which abides unchanged—then, since the one who commended His Spirit to the Father was also to be in Paradise with the thief that same day, I would very much like to know whether, while the tomb received Him, He was abiding in heaven, or whether He was abiding in heaven when He cried out that God had deserted Him.

61. You who trisect Christ into the Word, the soul and the body, or degrade the whole Christ, even God the Word, into a single member of our race, unfold to us this mystery of great godliness which was manifested in the flesh. 1 Timothy 3:16 What Spirit did Christ give up? Who commended His Spirit into the hands of His Father? Who was to be in Paradise that same day? Who complained that He was deserted of God? The cry of the deserted betokens the weakness of the dying: the promise of Paradise the sovereign power of the living God. To commend His Spirit denoted confidence: to give up His Spirit implied His departure by death. Who then, I demand, was it Who died? Surely He Who gave up His Spirit? But Who gave up His Spirit? Certainly He Who commended it to His Father. And if He Who commended His Spirit is the same as He Who gave it up and died, was it the body which commended its soul, or God Who commended the body's soul? I say ' soul,' because there is no doubt it is frequently synonymous with 'spirit,' as might be gathered merely from the language here: Jesus gave up His 'Spirit' when He was on the point of death. If, therefore, you hold the conviction that the body commended the soul, that the perishable commended the living, the corruptible the eternal, that which was to be raised again, that which abides unchanged, then, since He Who commended His Spirit to the Father was also to be in Paradise with the thief that same day, I would fain know if, while the sepulchre received Him, He was abiding in heaven, or if He was abiding in heaven, when He cried out that God had deserted Him.

62. It is one and the same Lord Jesus Christ, the Word made flesh, who expresses himself in all these statements. He is man when he says he is abandoned to death, yet as man he still rules in Paradise as God. Though reigning in Paradise, as Son of God he commends his Spirit to his Father, and as Son of Man he gives up to death the Spirit he commended to the Father. Why then do we treat as a disgrace what is actually a mystery? We see him complaining that he is left to die, because he is man. We see him, as he dies, declaring that he reigned in Paradise, because he is God. Why should we keep repeating, to support our irreverence, what he said to make us understand his death, while holding back what he proclaimed to demonstrate his immortality? The words and the voice are equally his, both when he complains of desertion and when he declares his rule. By what kind of heretical logic do we split up our belief and deny that he who died was at the same time he who rules? Did he not testify both equally of himself, when he commended his Spirit and when he gave it up? But if he is the same one who commended his Spirit and gave it up, if he dies while ruling and rules while dead, then the mystery of the Son of God and Son of Man means that he is one, who dying reigns and reigning dies.

62. It is one and the same Lord Jesus Christ, the Word made flesh, Who expresses Himself in all these utterances, Who is man when He says He is abandoned to death: yet while man still rules in Paradise as God, and though reigning in Paradise, as Son of God commends His Spirit to His Father, as Son of Man gives up to death the Spirit He commended to the Father. Why do we then view as a disgrace that which is a mystery? We see Him complaining that He is left to die, because He is Man: we see Him, as He dies, declaring that He reigned in Paradise, because He is God. Why should we harp, to support our irreverence, on what He said to make us understand His death, and keep back what He proclaimed to demonstrate His immortality? The words and the voice are equally His, when He complains of desertion, and when He declares His rule: by what method of heretical logic do we split up our belief and deny that He Who died was at the same time He Who rules? Did He not testify both equally of Himself, when He commended His Spirit, and when He gave it up? But if He is the same, Who commended His Spirit, and gave it up, if He dies when ruling and rules when dead: then the mystery of the Son of God and Son of Man means that He is One, Who dying reigns, and reigning dies.

Stand aside, then, all godless unbelievers for whom the divine mystery is too great—those who do not understand that Christ wept not for Himself but for us, to prove the reality of His assumed manhood by yielding to the emotion common to humanity. They do not perceive that Christ died not for Himself but for our life, to renew human life by the death of the deathless God. They cannot reconcile the complaint of one who is deserted with the confidence of one who rules. They would teach us that because He reigns as God and complains that He is dying, we have here a dead man and a reigning God who are separate. But He who dies is none other than He who reigns, He who commends His spirit is the same as He who gives it up. He who was buried rose again. Whether ascending or descending, He is altogether one.

63. Stand aside then, all godless unbelievers, for whom the divine mystery is too great, who do not know that Christ wept not for Himself but for us, to prove the reality of His assumed manhood by yielding to the emotion common to humanity: who do not perceive that Christ died not for Himself, but for our life, to renew human life by the death of the deathless God: who cannot reconcile the complaint of the deserted with the confidence of the Ruler: who would teach us that because He reigns as God and complains that He is dying, we have here a dead man and the reigning God. For He Who dies is none other than He Who reigns, He Who commends His spirit than He Who gives it up: He Who was buried, rose again: ascending or descending He is altogether one.

Listen to the Apostle's teaching and see in it a faith instructed not by fleshly understanding but by the gift of the Spirit. He says, "The Greeks seek after wisdom, and the Jews ask for a sign; but we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling block, and unto Gentiles foolishness; but unto them that are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ Jesus, the power of God, God." Is Christ divided here so that Jesus the crucified is one, and Christ, the power and wisdom of God, is another? This is a stumbling-block to the Jews and foolishness to the Gentiles; but to us Christ Jesus is the power of God and the wisdom of God: wisdom, however, not known by the world, nor understood by secular philosophy. Hear the same blessed Apostle when he declares that it has not been understood: "We speak the wisdom of God, which has been hidden in a mystery, which God foreordained before the world for our glory: which none of the rulers of this world has known: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of Glory." Does not the Apostle know that this wisdom of God is hidden in a mystery and cannot be known by the rulers of this world? Does he divide Christ into a Lord of Glory and a crucified Jesus? No, rather, he contradicts this most foolish and impious idea with the words, "For I determined to know nothing among you, save Jesus Christ, and Him crucified."

64. Listen to the teaching of the Apostle and see in it a faith instructed not by the understanding of the flesh but by the gift of the Spirit. The Greeks seek after wisdom, he says, and the Jews ask for a sign; but we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling block, and unto Gentiles foolishness; but unto them that are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ Jesus, the power of God, God. 1 Corinthians 1:23-24 Is Christ divided here so that Jesus the crucified is one, and Christ, the power and wisdom of God, another? This is to the Jews a stumbling-block and unto the Gentiles foolishness; but to us Christ Jesus is the power of God, and the wisdom of God: wisdom, however, not known of the world, nor understood by a secular philosophy. Hear the same blessed Apostle when he declares that it has not been understood, We speak the wisdom of God, which has been hidden in a mystery, which God foreordained before the world for our glory: which none of the rulers of this world has known: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of Glory. 1 Corinthians 2:7-8 Does not the Apostle know that this wisdom of God is hidden in a mystery, and cannot be known of the rulers of this world? Does he divide Christ into a Lord of Glory and a crucified Jesus? Nay, rather, he contradicts this most foolish and impious idea with the words, For I determined to know nothing among you, save Jesus Christ, and Him crucified.

The Apostle knew nothing else, and he was determined to know nothing else. But we, with our weaker minds and weaker faith, split up, divide, and double Jesus Christ. We make ourselves judges of what cannot be known, and we blaspheme the hidden mystery. For us, Christ crucified is one thing, and Christ the wisdom of God is another. The Christ who was buried is different from the Christ who descended from heaven. The Son of Man is not at the same time also the Son of God. We teach what we do not understand. We try to refute what we cannot grasp. We men think we can improve upon God's revelation. We are not content to say with the Apostle, "Who shall lay anything to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifies, who is he that condemns? It is Christ Jesus, that died, yea, rather, that was raised from the dead, Who is at the right hand of God, Who also makes intercession for us." Is the one who intercedes for us different from the one who is at the right hand of God? Is not the one who is at the right hand of God the very same one who rose again? Is the one who rose again different from the one who died? Is the one who died different from the one who condemns us? Finally, is not the one who condemns us also God who justifies us? Distinguish, if you can, Christ our accuser from God our defender, Christ who died from Christ who condemns, Christ sitting at the right hand of God and praying for us from Christ who died. Whether dead or buried, descended into Hades or ascended into heaven, all is one and the same Christ. As the Apostle says, "Now this 'He ascended' what is it, but that He also descended to the lower parts of the earth? He that descended is the same also that ascended far above all heavens, that He may fill all things." How far will we push our babbling ignorance and blasphemy, claiming to explain what is hidden in the mystery of God? He that descended is the same also that ascended. Can we still doubt that the Man Christ Jesus rose from the dead, ascended above the heavens, and is at the right hand of God? We cannot say His body descended into Hades, since it lay in the grave. If then the one who descended is one with the one who ascended, and if His body did not go down into Hades but truly arose from the dead and ascended into heaven, what remains except to believe in the secret mystery, which is hidden from the world and the rulers of this age, and to confess that, ascending or descending, He is but one, one Jesus Christ for us, Son of God and Son of Man, God the Word and Man in the flesh, who suffered, died, was buried, rose again, was received into heaven, and sits at the right hand of God? He possesses in His one single self, according to the divine plan and nature, in the form of God and in the form of a servant, the human and divine without separation or division.

65. The Apostle knew nothing else, and he determined to know nothing else: we men of feebler wit, and feebler faith, split up, divide and double Jesus Christ, constituting ourselves judges of the unknown, and blaspheming the hidden mystery. For us Christ crucified is one, Christ the wisdom of God another: Christ Who was buried different from Christ Who descended from Heaven: the Son of Man not at the same time also Son of God. We teach that which we do not understand: we seek to refute that which we cannot grasp. We men improve upon the revelation of God: we are not content to say with the Apostle, Who shall lay anything to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifies, who is he that condemns? It is Christ Jesus, that died, yea, rather, that was raised from the dead, Who is at the right hand of God, Who also makes intercession for us. Romans 8:33-34 Is He Who intercedes for us other than He Who is at the right hand of God? Is not He Who is at the right hand of God the very same Who rose again? Is He Who rose again other than He Who died? He Who died than He Who condemns us? Lastly, is not He Who condemns us also God Who justifies us? Distinguish, if you can, Christ our accuser from God our defender, Christ Who died from Christ Who condemns, Christ sitting at the right hand of God and praying for us from Christ Who died. Whether, therefore, dead or buried, descended into Hades or ascended into Heaven, all is one and the same Christ: as the Apostle says, Now this 'He ascended' what is it, but that He also descended to the lower parts of the earth? He that descended is the same also that ascended far above all heavens, that He may fill all things. Ephesians 4:9-10 How far then shall we push our babbling ignorance and blasphemy, professing to explain what is hidden in the mystery of God? He that descended is the same also that ascended. Can we longer doubt that the Man Christ Jesus rose from the dead, ascended above the heavens and is at the right hand of God? We cannot say His body descended into Hades, which lay in the grave. If then He Who descended is one with Him, Who ascended; if His body did not go down into Hades, yet really arose from the dead, and ascended into heaven, what remains, except to believe in the secret mystery, which is hidden from the world and the rulers of this age, and to confess that, ascending or descending, He is but One, one Jesus Christ for us, Son of God and Son of Man, God the Word and Man in the flesh, Who suffered, died, was buried, rose again, was received into heaven, and sits at the right hand of God: Who possesses in His one single self, according to the Divine Plan and nature, in the form of God and in the form of a servant, the Human and Divine without separation or division.

The Apostle, shaping our ignorant and confused ideas to conform to the truth, says this about the mystery of the faith: "For He was crucified through weakness but He lives through the power of God." Preaching the Son of Man and Son of God—Man according to the Divine Plan, God according to His eternal nature—he says that the one who was crucified through weakness is the same one who lives through the power of God. His weakness comes from the form of a servant, while His nature remains because of the form of God. He took the form of a servant, though He existed in the form of God. Therefore there can be no doubt about the mystery by which He both suffered and lived. There existed in Him both weakness to suffer and power of God to give life. And so the one who suffered and lived cannot be more than one person, or anyone other than Himself.

66. So the Apostle moulding our ignorant and haphazard ideas into conformity with truth says of this mystery of the faith, For He was crucified through weakness but He lives through the power of God. 2 Corinthians 13:4 Preaching the Son of Man and Son of God, Man through the Divine Plan, God through His eternal nature, he says, that He Who was crucified through weakness is He Who lives through the power of God. His weakness arises from the form of a servant, His nature remains because of the form of God. He took the form of a servant, though He was in form of God: therefore there can be no doubt as to the mystery according to which He both suffered and lived. There existed in Him both weakness to suffer, and power of God to give life: and hence He Who suffered and lived cannot be more than One, or other than Himself.

The Only-begotten God truly suffered everything that humans can suffer, but let us express this using the Apostle's own words and faith. He says, "For I delivered unto you first of all how that Christ died for our sins, according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures." This is not merely his personal opinion that might lead us into error, but rather a warning to confess that Christ genuinely died and rose in reality, not just in name, since the fact is confirmed by the full authority of Scripture. We must understand His death exactly as Scripture declares it. Concerned about the struggles and doubts of weak and uncertain believers, he adds these important concluding words, "according to the Scriptures," to his proclamation of the death and resurrection. He does not want us to become weaker, tossed around by every shifting wind of empty teaching or troubled by meaningless arguments and false doubts. Instead, he calls faith to return, before it is destroyed, to the safe harbor of true devotion, believing and confessing the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, Son of Man and Son of God, according to the Scriptures. This provides protection for reverence against the enemy's attacks—to understand the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ as it was written about Him. There is no danger in faith; the reverent confession of God's hidden mystery is always safe. Christ was born of the Virgin but conceived of the Holy Spirit according to the Scriptures. Christ wept, but according to the Scriptures—what caused Him to weep was also a reason for joy. Christ hungered, but according to the Scriptures, He exercised His divine power against the fruitless tree when He had no food. Christ suffered, but according to the Scriptures, He was going to sit at the right hand of Power. He cried out that He was abandoned to die, but according to the Scriptures, at that same moment He welcomed into His kingdom in Paradise the thief who confessed Him. He died, but according to the Scriptures, He rose again and sits at the right hand of God. In believing this mystery there is life; this confession withstands all attacks.

67. The Only-begotten God suffered indeed all that men can suffer: but let us express ourselves in the words and faith of the Apostle. He says, For I delivered unto you first of all how that Christ died for our sins, according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures. 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 This is no unsupported statement of his own, which might lead to error, but a warning to us to confess that Christ died and rose after a real manner, not a nominal, since the fact is certified by the full weight of Scripture authority; and that we must understand His death in that exact sense in which Scripture declares it. In his regard for the perplexities and scruples of the weak and sensitive believer, he adds these solemn concluding words, according to the Scriptures, to his proclamation of the death and the resurrection. He would not have us grow weaker, driven about by every wind of vain doctrine, or vexed by empty subtleties and false doubts: he would summon faith to return, before it were shipwrecked, to the haven of piety, believing and confessing the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, Son of Man and Son of God, according to the Scriptures, this being the safeguard of reverence against the attack of the adversary, so to understand the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, as it was written of Him. There is no danger in faith: the reverent confession of the hidden mystery of God is always safe. Christ was born of the Virgin, but conceived of the Holy Ghost according to the Scriptures. Christ wept, but according to the Scriptures: that which made Him weep was also a cause of joy. Christ hungered; but according to the Scriptures, He used His power as God against the tree which bore no fruit, when He had no food. Christ suffered: but according to the Scriptures, He was about to sit at the right hand of Power. He complained that He was abandoned to die: but according to the Scriptures, at the same moment He received in His kingdom in Paradise the thief who confessed Him. He died: but according to the Scriptures, He rose again and sits at the right hand of God. In the belief of this mystery there is life: this confession resists all attack.

The Apostle is careful to leave no room for doubt. We cannot ask: Christ was born, suffered, died, was buried, and rose again—but how? By what power? By what division of parts of Himself? Who wept? Who rejoiced? Who complained? Who descended? And who ascended? He places the merit of faith entirely on the confession of unquestioning reverence. He says, "The righteousness that comes from faith speaks this way: Do not say in your heart, 'Who has ascended into heaven?'—that is, to bring Christ down—or 'Who has descended into the abyss?'—that is, to bring Christ up from the dead. But what does the Scripture say? 'The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart'—that is, the word of faith that we preach—because if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord, and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved." Faith perfects the righteous person, as it is written: "Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness." Did Abraham question God's word when he was promised the inheritance of the Gentiles and an enduring posterity as numerous as the sand or the stars? For reverent faith, which trusts completely in God's omnipotence, the limits of human weakness are no barrier. Despising all that is weak and earthly in itself, it believes the divine promise, even when it exceeds the possibilities of human nature. It knows that the laws governing humanity are no obstacle to God's power, Who is as generous in fulfilling His promises as He is gracious in making them. Nothing is more righteous than faith. For just as in human conduct we approve equity and self-restraint, so in the case of God, what is more righteous for humanity than to attribute omnipotence to Him, Whose power we perceive to be without limits?

68. The Apostle is careful to leave no room for doubt: we cannot say, Christ was born, suffered, was dead and buried, and rose again: but how, by what power, by what division of parts of Himself? Who wept? Who rejoiced? Who complained? Who descended? And Who ascended? He rests the merits of faith entirely on the confession of unquestioning reverence. The righteousness, he says, which is of faith says thus, Say not in your heart, Who has ascended into heaven, that is, to bring Christ down: or Who has descended into the abyss: that is, to bring Christ up from the dead? But what says the Scripture? Your word is near, in your mouth, and in your heart; that is, the word of faith which we preach: because if you shall confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and shall believe in your heart, that God has raised Him up from the dead, you shall be saved. Romans 10:6-9 Faith perfects the righteous man: as it is written, Abraham believed God and it was reckoned unto him for righteousness. Did Abraham impugn the word of God, when he was promised the inheritance of the Gentiles, and an abiding posterity as many as the sand or the stars for multitude? To the reverent faith, which trusts implicitly on the omnipotence of God, the limits of human weakness are no barrier. Despising all that is feeble and earthly in itself, it believes the divine promise, even though it exceeds the possibilities of human nature. It knows that the laws which govern man are no hindrance to the power of God, Who is as bountiful in the performance as He is gracious in the promise. Nothing is more righteous than Faith. For as in human conduct it is equity and self-restraint that receive our approval, so in the case of God, what is more righteous for man than to ascribe omnipotence to Him, Whose Power He perceives to be without limits?

The Apostle, seeking in us the righteousness which comes from faith, cuts away at the root of unbelieving doubt and godless unbelief. He forbids us to let worries and anxious thoughts enter our hearts, and he points to the authority of the prophet's words: "Say not in your heart, Who has ascended into heaven?" Then he completes the thought of the prophet's words by adding, "That is to bring Christ down." The human mind's perception cannot reach the knowledge of the divine, but neither can a reverent faith doubt God's works. Christ needed no human help—no one had to ascend into heaven to bring him down from his blessed home to his earthly body. It was not an external force that drove him down to earth. We must believe that he came just as he actually did come. True religion confesses that Jesus Christ was not brought down, but descended of his own accord. The mystery of both the timing and the manner of his coming belongs to him alone. We must not think that because he came only recently, he must therefore have been brought down, nor that his coming in time depended on someone else who brought him down.

69. The Apostle then looking in us for the righteousness which is of Faith, cuts at the root of incredulous doubt and godless unbelief. He forbids us to admit into our hearts the cares of anxious thought, and points to the authority of the Prophet's words, Say not in your heart, Who has ascended into heaven? Then He completes the thought of the Prophet's words with the addition, That is to bring Christ down. The perception of the human mind cannot attain to the knowledge of the divine: but neither can a reverent faith doubt the works of God. Christ needed no human help, that any one should ascend into heaven to bring Him down from His blessed Home to His earthly body. It was no external force which drove Him down to the earth. We must believe that He came, even as He did come: it is true religion to confess Jesus Christ not brought down, but descending. The mystery both of the time and the method of His coming, belongs to Him alone. We may not think because He came but recently, that therefore He must have been brought down, nor that His coming in time depended upon another, who brought Him down.

The Apostle also leaves no room for unbelief in the opposite direction. He immediately quotes the Prophet's words, "Or Who has descended into the abyss," and immediately adds the explanation, "That is to bring Christ back from the dead." He is free to return into heaven, since He was free to descend to the earth. All hesitation and doubt is therefore removed. Faith reveals what omnipotence plans: history records the effect, while God Almighty was the cause.

Nor does the Apostle give room for unbelief in the other direction. He quotes at once the words of the Prophet, Or Who has descended into the abyss, and adds immediately the explanation, That is to bring Christ back from the dead. He is free to return into heaven, Who was free to descend to the earth. All hesitation and doubt is then removed. Faith reveals what omnipotence plans: history relates the effect, God Almighty was the cause.

But we are required to have unwavering certainty. The Apostle, explaining the full meaning of Scripture, continues, "Your word is near, in your mouth and in your heart." The words of our confession must not be hesitant or deliberately unclear. There must be no gap between heart and lips, so that what should be the confession of true reverence does not become an escape route for unbelief. The word must be near us and within us, with no delay between the heart and the lips—a faith of conviction as well as words. Heart and lips must be in harmony and reveal in thought and speech a religion that does not waver. Here too, as before, the Apostle adds the explanation of the Prophet's words: "That is the word of Faith, which we preach; because if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God has raised Him up from the dead, you shall be saved." Piety consists in rejecting doubt, righteousness in believing, salvation in confessing. Do not play around with ambiguities, do not be stirred up to empty chatter, do not debate in any way the powers of God or impose limits upon His might, stop searching again and again for the causes of unsearchable mysteries. Instead, confess that Jesus is the Lord and believe that God raised Him from the dead—in this is salvation. What foolishness it is to diminish the nature and character of Christ, when this alone is salvation: to know that He is the Lord. Again, what an error of human vanity to quarrel about His resurrection, when it is enough for eternal life to believe that God raised Him up. In simplicity, then, is faith; in faith, righteousness; and in confession, true godliness. For God does not call us to the blessed life through difficult investigations. He does not tempt us with the various arts of rhetoric. The way to eternity is plain and easy: believe that Jesus was raised from the dead by God and confess that He is the Lord. Let no one therefore twist into an occasion for impiety what was said because of our ignorance. It had to be proved to us that Jesus Christ died, so that we might live in Him.

70. But there is demanded from us an unwavering certainty. The Apostle expounding the whole secret of the Scripture passes on, Your word is near, in your mouth and in your heart. Deuteronomy 30:14 The words of our confession must not be tardy or deliberately vague: there must be no interval between heart and lips, lest what ought to be the confession of true reverence become a subterfuge of infidelity. The word must be near us, and within us; no delay between the heart and the lips; a faith of conviction as well as of words. Heart and lips must be in harmony, and reveal in thought and utterance a religion which does not waver. Here too, as before, the Apostle adds the explanation of the Prophet's words, That is the word of Faith, which we preach; because if you shall confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and shall believe in your heart that God has raised Him up from the dead, you shall be saved. Piety consists in rejecting doubt, righteousness in believing, salvation in confessing. Trifle not with ambiguities, be not stirred up to vain babblings, do not debate in any way the powers of God, or impose limits upon His might, cease searching again and again for the causes of unsearchable mysteries: confess rather that Jesus is the Lord, and believe that God raised Him from the dead; herein is salvation. What folly is it to depreciate the nature and character of Christ, when this alone is salvation, to know that He is the Lord. Again, what an error of human vanity to quarrel about His resurrection, when it is enough for eternal life to believe that God raised Him up. In simplicity then is faith, in faith righteousness, and in confession true godliness. For God does not call us to the blessed life through arduous investigations. He does not tempt us with the varied arts of rhetoric. The way to eternity is plain and easy; believe that Jesus was raised from the dead by God and confess that He is the Lord. Let no one therefore wrest into an occasion for impiety, what was said because of our ignorance. It had to be proved to us, that Jesus Christ died, that we might live in Him.

If Christ said, "My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me" and "Father, into Your hands I commend My Spirit" so that we might be certain that He truly died, wasn't this—in His care for our faith—more a way of scattering our doubts than a confession of His weakness? When He was about to raise Lazarus, He prayed to the Father, but what need did He have for prayer when He said, "Father, I thank You that You have heard Me; and I know that You hear Me always, but because of the multitude I said it, that they may believe that You sent Me"? He prayed then for our sake, so that we may know Him to be the Son. The words of prayer gained Him nothing, but He spoke them to advance our faith. He was not in need of help, but we were in need of teaching. Again He prayed to be glorified, and immediately the voice of God the Father was heard from heaven glorifying Him. But when people marveled at the voice, He said, "This voice has not come for My sake, but for your sakes." The Father is asked on our behalf; He speaks on our behalf—may all this lead us to believe and confess! The Glorifier's answer is given not to the prayer for glory, but to the ignorance of the bystanders. Must we not then understand the complaint of suffering—when He found His greatest joy in suffering—as intended to build up our faith? Christ prayed for His persecutors because they did not know what they were doing. He promised Paradise from the cross because He is God the King. He rejoiced on the cross that all was finished when He drank the vinegar, because He had fulfilled all prophecy before He died. He was born for us, suffered for us, died for us, rose again for us. This alone is necessary for our salvation: to confess the Son of God risen from the dead. Why then should we die in this state of godless unbelief? If Christ, always secure in His divinity, made His death clear to us—Himself indifferent to death, yet dying to prove that it was true humanity He had assumed—why should we use this very confession of the Son of God, that for us He became Son of Man and died, as the chief weapon to deny His divinity?

71. If then He said, My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me Mark 15:34, and Father, into Your hands I commend My Spirit Luke 23:46, that we might be sure that He did die, was not this, in His care for our faith, rather a scattering of our doubts, than a confession of His weakness? When He was about to restore Lazarus, He prayed to the Father: but what need had He of prayer, Who said, Father, I thank You, that You have heard Me; and I know that You hear Me always, but because of the multitude I said it, that they may believe that You sent Me John 11:41-42? He prayed then for us, that we may know Him to be the Son; the words of prayer availed Him nothing, but He said them for the advancement of our faith. He was not in want of help, but we of teaching. Again He prayed to be glorified; and immediately was heard from heaven the voice of God the Father glorifying Him: but when they wondered at the voice, He said, This voice has not come for My sake, but for your sakes. The Father is besought for us, He speaks for us: may all this lead us to believe and confess! The answer of the Glorifier is granted not to the prayer for glory, but to the ignorance of the bystanders: must we not then regard the complaint of suffering, when He found His greatest joy in suffering, as intended for the building up of our faith? Christ prayed for His persecutors, because they knew not what they did. He promised Paradise from the cross, because He is God the King. He rejoiced upon the cross, that all was finished when He drank the vinegar, because He had fulfilled all prophecy before He died. He was born for us, suffered for us, died for us, rose again for us. This alone is necessary for our salvation, to confess the Son of God risen from the dead: why then should we die in this state of godless unbelief? If Christ, ever secure of His divinity, made clear to us His death, Himself indifferent to death, yet dying to assure that it was true humanity that He had assumed: why should we use this very confession of the Son of God that for us He became Son of Man and died as the chief weapon to deny His divinity?