1. Alike by the divine Scripture

and by the holy Fathers assembled at Nicæa we have been taught to

confess that the Son is of one substance with God the Father. The

impassibility of the Father is also taught by the nature and proclaimed

by the divine Scripture. We shall then further confess the Son to be

impassible, for this definition is enforced by the identity of

substance. Whenever then we hear the divine Scripture proclaiming the

cross and the death of the Master Christ we attribute the passion to

the flesh, for in no wise is the Godhead, being by nature impassible, capable of suffering.

2. “All things that the

Father hath are mine” says the Master

Christ, and one out of all is impassibility. If therefore as God He is

impassible, He suffered as man. For the divine nature does not undergo

suffering.

Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume III/Theodoret/Dialogues/Demonstrations by Syllogisms/III

3. The Lord said “the

bread which I will give is my flesh which I will give for the life of

the world,” and again

“I am the good shepherd and know my sheep and am known of

mine…and I lay down my life for the sheep.” So body and soul are both given by the good shepherd for the sheep who have soul and body.

Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume III/Theodoret/Dialogues/Demonstrations by Syllogisms/III

4. The nature of men is

compounded of body and soul. But it sinned and stood in need of a

sacrifice free from every spot. So the Creator took a body and a soul, and keeping them clean from the stains of sin for men’s bodies gave His body and for their souls His soul. If this is true, and true it is, for these are words of truth itself, then wild and blasphemous are they who ascribe passion to the divine nature.

Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume III/Theodoret/Dialogues/Demonstrations by Syllogisms/III

5. The blessed Paul called the

Christ “the first born of the dead;” and I suppose the first born has the same

nature as they of whom He is called first born. As man then He is first

born of the dead, for He first destroyed the pangs of death and gave to

all the sweet hope of another life. As He rose so He suffered. As man

then He suffered but as awful God He remained impassible.

6. The divine Apostle calls our

Saviour Christ “the firstfruits of them that slept,” but the firstfruits are related to the whole whereof they are firstfruits. He is not therefore called firstfruits as God, for what relationship is there between Godhead and manhood? The former is an immortal nature, the latter mortal. Such is the nature of them that sleep, of whom Christ is called firstfruits. To this nature belong death and resurrection, and in its resurrection we have a proof of the general resurrection.

7. When the Master Christ wished

to persuade the doubting Apostles that He had destroyed death and

risen, He shewed them parts of His body, His side, His hands, His feet

and the marks of the passion preserved therein. This body then rose, and this, I ween, was shown to the disbelievers. What rose is what was buried, and what was buried is what had died, and what had died is of course what was nailed to the cross. So the divine nature united to the body remained impassible.

8. They who describe the flesh

of the Lord as giver of life make life itself mortal by their words. They ought to have seen that it was giver of life through the life united to it. But if according to their argument the life is mortal, how could the flesh being itself by nature mortal, and made life-giving through the life, remain life-giving?

9. God the Word is by nature

immortal, and the flesh by nature mortal, but after the passion by

union with the Word the flesh itself became immortal. How then is it

not absurd to say that the giver of such immortality shared

death?

10. They who maintain that God the Word suffered in the flesh

should be asked the meaning of what they say, and should they have the

hardihood to reply that when the body was pierced with nails the divine

nature was sensible of pain, let them learn that the divine nature did

not fill the part of a soul. God the Word had assumed a soul with the

body. Should they reject this argument as blasphemous, and should they

assert that the flesh suffered by nature, and that God the Word made

the passion His own as of His own flesh, let them not propound puzzling

and murky phrases, but let them clearly propound the meaning of the ill

sounding phrase. They will have all those who wish to follow the divine

Scripture as their supporters in this interpretation.