Chapter XVI.

“But,” it is said, “this change in our body by birth is a weakness, and one born under such condition is born in weakness. Now the Deity is free from weakness. It is, therefore, a strange idea in connection with God,” they say, “when people declare that one who is essentially free from weakness thus comes into fellowship with weakness.” Now in reply to this let us adopt the same argument as before, namely that the word “weakness” is used partly in a proper, partly in an adapted sense. Whatever, that is, affects the will and perverts it from virtue to vice is really and truly a weakness; but whatever in nature is to be seen proceeding by a chain peculiar to itself of successive stages would be more fitly called a work than a weakness. As, for instance, birth, growth, the continuance of the underlying substance through the influx and efflux of the aliments, the meeting together of the component elements of the body, and, on the other hand, the dissolution of its component parts and their passing back into the kindred elements. Which “weakness,” then, does our Mystery assert that the Deity came in contact with? That which is properly called weakness, which is vice, or that which is the result of natural movements? Well, if our Faith affirmed that the Deity was born under forbidden circumstances, then it would be our duty to shun a statement which gave this profane and unsound description of the Divine Being. But if it asserts that God laid hold on this nature of ours, the production of which in the first instance and the subsistence afterwards had its origin in Him, in what way does this our preaching fail in the reverence that befits Him? Amongst our notions of God no disposition tending to weakness goes along with our belief in Him. We do not say that a physician is in weakness when he is employed in healing one who is so48    So Origen (c. Cels. iv. 15) illustrates the κένωσις and συγκατάβασις of Christ: “Nor was this change one from the heights of excellence to the depths of baseness (τὸ πονηρότατον), for how can goodness and love be baseness? If they were, it would be high time to declare that the surgeon who inspects or touches grievous and unsightly cases in order to heal them undergoes such a change from good to bad.”. For though he touches the infirmity he is himself unaffected by it. If birth is not regarded in itself as a weakness, no one can call life such. But the feeling of sensual pleasure does go before the human birth, and as to the impulse to vice in all living men, this is a disease of our nature. But then the Gospel mystery asserts that He Who took our nature was pure from both these feelings. If, then, His birth had no connection with sensual pleasure, and His life none with vice, what “weakness” is there left which the mystery of our religion asserts that God participated in? But should any one call the separation of body and soul a weakness49    There is no one word in English which would represent the full meaning of πάθος. “Sufferance” sometimes comes nearest to it, but not here, where Gregory is attempting to express that which in no way whatever attached to the Saviour, i.e. moral weakness, as opposed to physical infirmity., far more justly might he term the meeting together of these two elements such. For if the severance of things that have been connected is a weakness, then is the union of things that are asunder a weakness also. For there is a feeling of movement in the uniting of things sundered as well as in the separation of what has been welded into one. The same term, then, by which the final movement is called, it is proper to apply to the one that initiated it. If the first movement, which we call birth, is not a weakness, it follows that neither the second, which we call death, and by which the severance of the union of the soul and body is effected, is a weakness. Our position is, that God was born subject to both movements of our nature; first, that by which the soul hastens to join the body, and then again that by which the body is separated from the soul; and that when the concrete humanity was formed by the mixture of these two, I mean the sentient and the intelligent element, through that ineffable and inexpressible conjunction, this result in the Incarnation followed, that after the soul and body had been once united the union continued for ever. For when our nature, following its own proper course, had even in Him been advanced to the separation of soul and body, He knitted together again the disunited elements, cementing them, as it were, together with the cement of His Divine power, and recombining what has been severed in a union never to be broken. And this is the Resurrection, namely the return, after they have been dissolved, of those elements that had been before linked together, into an indissoluble union through a mutual incorporation; in order that thus the primal grace which invested humanity might be recalled, and we restored to the everlasting life, when the vice that has been mixed up with our kind has evaporated through our dissolution, as happens to any liquid when the vessel that contained it is broken, and it is spilt and disappears, there being nothing to contain it. For as the principle of death took its rise in one person and passed on in succession through the whole of human kind, in like manner the principle of the Resurrection-life extends from one person to the whole of humanity. For He Who reunited to His own proper body the soul that had been assumed by Himself, by virtue of that power which had mingled with both of these component elements at their first framing, then, upon a more general scale as it were50    upon a more general scale as it were. The Greek here is somewhat obscure; the best reading is Krabinger’s; γενικωτέρῳ τινι λόγῳ τὴν νοερὰν οὐσίαν τῇ αἰσθητῇ συγκατέμιξεν. Hervetus’ translation is manifestly wrong; “Is generosiorem quandam intelligentem essentiam commiscuit sensili principio.”—Soul and body have been reunited by the Resurrection, on a larger scale and to a wider extent (λόγῳ), than in the former instance of a single Person (in the Incarnation), the new principle of life progressing to the extremities of humanity by natural consequence: γενικωτέρῳ will thus refer by comparison to “the first framing of these component elements.” Or else it contrasts the amount of life with that of death: and is to be explained by Rom. v. 15, “But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.” Krabinger’s translation, “generaliori quâdam ratione,” therefore seems correct. The mode of the union of soul and body is described in Gregory’s Treatise on the Soul as κρείττων λόγος, and in his Making of Man as ἄφραστος λόγος, but in neither is there any comparison but with other less perfect modes of union; i.e. the reference is to quality, not to quantity, as here., conjoined the intellectual to the sentient nature, the new principle freely progressing to the extremities by natural consequence. For when, in that concrete humanity which He had taken to Himself, the soul after the dissolution returned to the body, then this uniting of the several portions passes, as by a new principle, in equal force upon the whole human race. This, then, is the mystery of God’s plan with regard to His death and His resurrection from the dead; namely, instead of preventing the dissolution of His body by death and the necessary results of nature, to bring both back to each other in the resurrection; so that He might become in Himself the meeting-ground both of life and death, having re-established in Himself that nature which death had divided, and being Himself the originating principle of the uniting those separated portions.

[16] Ἀλλ' αὐτή, φησίν, ἡ τροπὴ τοῦ ἡμετέρου σώματος πάθος ἐστίν. ὁ δὲ ἐν τούτῳ γεγονὼς ἐν πάθει γίνεται: ἀπαθὲς δὲ τὸ θεῖον. οὐκοῦν ἀλλοτρία περὶ θεοῦ ἡ ὑπόληψις, εἴπερ τὸν ἀπαθῆ κατὰ τὴν φύσιν πρὸς κοινωνίαν πάθους ἐλθεῖν διορίζονται. ἀλλὰ καὶ πρὸς ταῦτα πάλιν τῷ αὐτῷ λόγῳ χρησόμεθα, ὅτι τὸ πάθος τὸ μὲν κυρίως, τὸ δὲ ἐκ καταχρήσεως λέγεται. τὸ μὲν οὖν προαιρέσεως ἁπτόμενον καὶ πρὸς κακίαν ἀπὸ τῆς ἀρετῆς μεταστρέφον ἀληθῶς πάθος ἐστί, τὸ δ' ὅσον ἐν τῇ φύσει κατὰ τὸν ἴδιον εἱρμὸν πορευομένῃ διεξοδικῶς θεωρεῖται, τοῦτο κυριώτερον ἔργον ἂν μᾶλλον ἢ πάθος προσαγορεύοιτο, οἷον ἡ γέννησις, ἡ αὔξησις, ἡ διὰ τοῦ ἐπιρρύτου τε καὶ ἀπορρύτου τῆς τροφῆς τοῦ ὑποκειμένου διαμονή, ἡ τῶν στοιχείων περὶ τὸ σῶμα συνδρομή, ἡ τοῦ συντεθέντος πάλιν διάλυσίς τε καὶ πρὸς τὰ συγγενῆ μεταχώρησις. τίνος οὖν λέγει τὸ μυστήριον ἡμῶν ἧφθαι τὸ θεῖον; τοῦ κυρίως λεγομένου πάθους, ὅπερ κακία ἐστίν, ἢ τοῦ κατὰ τὴν φύσιν κινήματος; εἰ μὲν γὰρ ἐν τοῖς ἀπηγορευμένοις γεγενῆσθαι τὸ θεῖον ὁ λόγος διισχυρίζετο, φεύγειν ἔδει τὴν ἀτοπίαν τοῦ δόγματος, ὡς οὐδὲν ὑγιὲς περὶ τῆς θείας φύσεως διεξιόντος: εἰ δὲ τῆς φύσεως ἡμῶν αὐτὸν ἐφῆφθαι λέγει, ἧς καὶ ἡ πρώτη γένεσίς τε καὶ ὑπόστασις παρ' αὐτοῦ τὴν ἀρχὴν ἔσχε, ποῦ τῆς θεῷ πρεπούσης ἐννοίας διαμαρτάνει τὸ κήρυγμα, μηδεμιᾶς παθητικῆς διαθέσεως ἐν ταῖς περὶ θεοῦ ὑπολήψεσι τῇ πίστει συνεισιούσης; οὐδὲ γὰρ τὸν ἰατρὸν ἐν πάθει γίνεσθαι λέγομεν, ὅταν θεραπεύῃ τὸν ἐν πάθει γινόμενον: ἀλλὰ κἂν προσάψηται τοῦ ἀρρωστήματος, ἔξω πάθους ὁ θεραπευτὴς διαμένει. εἰ ἡ γένεσις αὐτὴ καθ' ἑαυτὴν πάθος οὐκ ἔστιν, οὐδ' ἂν τὴν ζωήν τις πάθος προσαγορεύσειεν, ἀλλὰ τὸ καθ' ἡδονὴν πάθος τῆς ἀνθρωπίνης καθηγεῖται γενέσεως, καὶ ἡ πρὸς κακίαν τῶν ζώντων ὁρμή, τοῦτο τῆς φύσεως ἡμῶν ἐστὶν ἀρρώστημα: ἀλλὰ μὴν ἀμφοτέρων αὐτὸν καθαρεύειν φησὶ τὸ μυστήριον: εἰ οὖν ἡδονῆς μὲν ἡ γένεσις ἠλλοτρίωται, κακίας δὲ ἡ ζωή, ποῖον ὑπολείπεται πάθος, οὗ τὸν θεὸν κεκοινωνηκέναι φησὶ τὸ τῆς εὐσεβείας μυστήριον; εἰ δὲ τὴν τοῦ σώματος καὶ τῆς ψυχῆς διάζευξιν πάθος προσαγορεύοι, πολὺ πρότερον δικαῖος ἂν εἴη τὴν συνδρομὴν ἀμφοτέρων οὕτω κατονομάσαι. εἰ γὰρ ὁ χωρισμὸς τῶν συνημμένων πάθος ἐστί, καὶ ἡ συνάφεια τῶν διεστώτων πάθος ἂν εἴη: κίνησις γάρ τίς ἐστιν ἔν τε τῇ συγκρίσει τῶν διεστώτων καὶ ἐν τῇ διακρίσει τῶν συμπεπλεγμένων ἢ ἡνωμένων. ὅπερ τοίνυν ἡ τελευταία κίνησις ὀνομάζεται, τοῦτο προσήκει καλεῖσθαι καὶ τὴν προάγουσαν. εἰ δὲ ἡ πρώτη κίνησις, ἣν γένεσιν ὀνομάζομεν, πάθος οὐκ ἔστιν, οὐδ' ἂν ἡ δευτέρα κίνησις, ἣν θάνατον ὀνομάζομεν, πάθος ἂν κατὰ τὸ ἀκόλουθον λέγοιτο, καθ' ἣν ἡ συνδρομὴ τοῦ σώματος καὶ τῆς ψυχῆς διακρίνεται. τὸν δὲ θεόν φαμεν ἐν ἑκατέρᾳ γεγενῆσθαι τῇ τῆς φύσεως ἡμῶν κινήσει, δι' ἧς ἥ τε ψυχὴ πρὸς τὸ σῶμα συντρέχει, τό τε σῶμα τῆς ψυχῆς διακρίνεται: καταμιχθέντα δὲ πρὸς ἑκάτερον τούτων, πρός τε τὸ αἰσθητόν φημι καὶ τὸ νοερὸν τοῦ ἀνθρωπίνου συγκρίματος, διὰ τῆς ἀρρήτου ἐκείνης καὶ ἀνεκφράστου συνανακράσεως τοῦτο οἰκονομήσασθαι, τὸ τῶν ἅπαξ ἑνωθέντων, ψυχῆς λέγω καὶ σώματος, καὶ εἰς ἀεὶ διαμεῖναι τὴν ἕνωσιν. τῆς γὰρ φύσεως ἡμῶν διὰ τῆς ἰδίας ἀκολουθίας καὶ ἐν ἐκείνῳ πρὸς διάκρισιν τοῦ σώματος καὶ τῆς ψυχῆς κινηθείσης, πάλιν συνῆψε τὰ διακριθέντα, καθάπερ τινὶ κόλλῃ, τῇ θείᾳ λέγω δυνάμει, πρὸς τὴν ἄρρηκτον ἕνωσιν τὸ διασχισθὲν συναρμόσας. καὶ τοῦτό ἐστιν ἡ ἀνάστασις, ἡ τῶν συνεζευγμένων μετὰ τὴν διάλυσιν ἐπάνοδος εἰς ἀδιάλυτον ἕνωσιν, ἀλλήλοις συμφυομένων, ὡς ἂν ἡ πρώτη περὶ τὸ ἀνθρώπινον χάρις ἀνακληθείη, καὶ πάλιν ἐπὶ τὴν ἀίδιον ἐπανέλθοιμεν ζωήν, τῆς ἐμμιχθείσης τῇ φύσει κακίας διὰ τῆς διαλύσεως ἡμῶν ἐκρυείσης, οἷον ἐπὶ τοῦ ὑγροῦ συμβαίνει, περιτρυφθέντος αὐτῷ τοῦ ἀγγείου, σκεδαννυμένου τε καὶ ἀφανιζομένου, μηδενὸς ὄντος τοῦ περιστέγοντος. καθάπερ δὲ ἡ ἀρχὴ τοῦ θανάτου ἐν ἑνὶ γενομένη πάσῃ συνδιεξῆλθε τῇ ἀνθρωπίνῃ φύσει, κατὰ τὸν αὐτὸν τρόπον καὶ ἡ ἀρχὴ τῆς ἀναστάσεως δι' ἑνὸς ἐπὶ πᾶσαν διατείνει τὴν ἀνθρωπότητα. ὁ γὰρ τὴν ἀναληφθεῖσαν παρ' ἑαυτοῦ ψυχὴν πάλιν ἑνώσας τῷ οἰκείῳ σώματι διὰ τῆς δυνάμεως ἑαυτοῦ τῆς ἑκατέρῳ τούτων παρὰ τὴν πρώτην σύστασιν ἐμμιχθείσης οὕτω γενικωτέρῳ τινὶ λόγῳ τὴν νοερὰν οὐσίαν τῇ αἰσθητῇ συγκατέμιξεν, τῆς ἀρχῆς κατὰ τὸ ἀκόλουθον ἐπὶ τὸ πέρας εὐοδουμένης. ἐν γὰρ τῷ ἀναληφθέντι παρ' αὐτοῦ ἀνθρώπῳ πάλιν μετὰ τὴν διάλυσιν πρὸς τὸ σῶμα τῆς ψυχῆς ἐπανελθούσης, οἷον ἀπό τινος ἀρχῆς εἰς πᾶσαν τὴν ἀνθρωπίνην φύσιν τῇ δυνάμει κατὰ τὸ ἴσον ἡ τοῦ διακριθέντος ἕνωσις διαβαίνει. καὶ τοῦτό ἐστι τὸ μυστήριον τῆς τοῦ θεοῦ περὶ τὸν θάνατον οἰκονομίας καὶ τῆς ἐκ νεκρῶν ἀναστάσεως, τὸ διαλυθῆναι μὲν τῷ θανάτῳ τοῦ σώματος τὴν ψυχὴν κατὰ τὴν ἀναγκαίαν τῆς φύσεως ἀκολουθίαν μὴ κωλῦσαι, εἰς ἄλληλα δὲ πάλιν ἐπαναγαγεῖν διὰ τῆς ἀναστάσεως, ὡς ἂν αὐτὸς γένοιτο μεθόριον ἀμφοτέρων, θανάτου τε καὶ ζωῆς, ἐν ἑαυτῷ μὲν στήσας διαιρουμένην τῷ θανάτῳ τὴν φύσιν, αὐτὸς δὲ γενόμενος ἀρχὴ τῆς τῶν διῃρημένων ἑνώσεως.