12

example, for those who dare to say one nature in Christ or for those who orthodoxly preach two, unconfused and undivided? And Gregory the Theologian says this: "For there are two natures, God and man, just as there are soul and body, but not two sons nor two gods." 56 But that it is most dissimilar, we shall know from this. From what do you say man is composed? From soul, clearly, and body. Why then do you not confess Christ to be from God and man? Or for what reason not man from soul-ness and body-ness just as Christ from Godhead and manhood? And why would man not be said to be wholly soul and wholly body as Christ is wholly God and wholly man, and wholly perfect in soul-ness and wholly perfect in body-ness as Christ is wholly perfect in Godhead and wholly perfect in manhood, and wholly soul with the body and wholly body with the soul as Christ is wholly God with His flesh and wholly man with His own beginningless Godhead? For man, from soul and body, has become something other than these, that is, man, but Christ, from different things, is those same things: from Godhead and manhood, He is both God and man. But if it has the likeness in all respects, it would be necessary for your composite nature to be called Christ-ness, just as the nature of men is and is called man-ness. 57 In another way, the soul also, being preoccupied by the passions of the body, both often suffers before the body, and suffers with it continuously; for it often dreads the cutting of the body and suffers and is altered before the body suffers, and after the cutting, no less than the body, it passionately receives the things of pain, which no one would ever say of the Lord's Godhead, unless he were crazed in his mind. If, then, man is said to be of one nature, it is as a species, not as a hypostasis. For when a man is compared to a man, they are said to be of one nature, as being consubstantial and ranked under one species; but when man is considered according to his nature, two natures will be observed in him, I mean of soul and of body. For in the comparison of the soul to the body, who is so foolish as to say one nature of both? But there is no species of Christs; for there are not many Christs composed from Godhead and manhood, so that, all being ranked under the same species, they might be preached as of one nature, but Christ is one, known from two and in two natures. 58 "But take note, how the blessed Cyril also describes him in two goats, but he brings the example not with respect to the hypostases, but with respect to the difference between the living and the sacrificed." And we also say this, that from two created things it is perhaps not impossible for one nature to come into being, but from a created and an uncreated thing it is impossible for one nature to come into being, either partaking of the two or being something else other than these, according to Gregory the Theologian. For how could the same thing both have begun to be and not have begun? 59 If it is the same to say "from Godhead and manhood" and "from two natures," then by not saying two natures in Christ after the union, you do not confess Godhead and manhood in Him after the union either. 60 Things of one essence will unfailingly have the same differentiae. For neither, because man is rational and an angel is rational, will the nature of an angel and of a man be called one; for the angel is immortal, but man is mortal, and he does not have the likeness in every way. And man is mortal, and the dog is also mortal, but man is rational, while the dog is irrational, and they are not of one nature. It is necessary, therefore, for things of one essence to have unfailingly the same essential differentiae. If, therefore, there is one essence of the Godhead of God the Word and of His flesh, the same differentiae of both will unfailingly exist.

12

παράδειγμα, τοῖς μίαν ἐπὶ Χριστοῦ φύσιν λέγειν τολμῶσι ἢ τοῖς δύο ὀρθοδόξως ἀσυγχύτους καὶ ἀδιαιρέτους κηρύττουσιν; Καὶ ὁ θεολόγος Γρηγόριος τάδε φησί· «Φύσεις μὲν γὰρ δύο, θεὸς καὶ ἄνθρωπος, ἐπεὶ καὶ ψυχὴ καὶ σῶμα, υἱοὶ δὲ οὐ δύο οὐδὲ θεοί.» 56 Ὅτι δὲ πλεῖστον ἔχει τὸ ἀπεοικός, ἐντεῦθεν εἰσόμεθα. Ἐκ τίνων φατὲ συντεθεῖσθαι τὸν ἄνθρωπον; Ἐκ ψυχῆς δηλαδὴ καὶ σώματος. Τί οὖν μὴ ἐκ θεοῦ καὶ ἀνθρώπου τὸν Χριστὸν ὁμολογεῖτε; Ἢ τίνος ἕνεκα μὴ ἐκ ψυχότητος τὸν ἄνθρωπον καὶ σωματότητος ὥσπερ τὸν Χριστὸν ἐκ θεότητος καὶ ἀνθρωπότητος; ∆ιὰ τί δὲ ὁ ἄνθρωπος μὴ ὅλος ψυχὴ καὶ ὅλος σῶμα λέγοιτο ὡς ὁ Χριστὸς ὅλος θεὸς καὶ ὅλος ἄνθρωπος, καὶ ὅλος ἐν ψυχότητι τέλειος καὶ ὅλος ἐν σωματότητι τέλειος ὡς ὁ Χριστὸς ὅλος ἐν θεότητι τέλειος καὶ ὅλος ἐν ἀνθρωπότητι τέλειος, καὶ ὅλος ψυχὴ μετὰ τοῦ σώματος καὶ ὅλος σῶμα μετὰ τῆς ψυχῆς ὡς ὁ Χριστὸς ὅλος θεὸς μετὰ τῆς σαρκὸς αὐτοῦ καὶ ὅλος ἄνθρωπος μετὰ τῆς αὐτοῦ ἀνάρχου θεότητος; Ὁ μὲν γὰρ ἄνθρωπος ἐκ ψυχῆς καὶ σώματος ἕτερόν τι παρὰ ταῦτα γεγένηται ἤτοι ἄνθρωπος, ὁ δὲ Χριστὸς ἐξ ἑτέρων τὰ αὐτά, ἐκ θεότητος καὶ ἀνθρωπότητος θεός τε καὶ ἄνθρωπος. Εἰ δὲ κατὰ πάντα ἔχει τὴν ὁμοιότητα, ἔδει καὶ χριστότητα τὴν σύνθετον ὑμῶν ὀνομάζεσθαι φύσιν, ὥσπερ ἀνθρωπότης ἡ τῶν ἀνθρώπων φύσις ἔστι τε καὶ λέγεται. 57 Ἄλλως δὲ καὶ ἡ ψυχὴ ὑπὸ τῶν τοῦ σώματος προκατεχομένη παθῶν καὶ προπάσχει πολλάκις τοῦ σώματος, συμπάσχει δὲ διηνεκῶς· ἀγωνιᾷ γὰρ πολλάκις τὴν τοῦ σώματος τομὴν καὶ πρὸ τοῦ πάθους τοῦ σώματος πάσχει καὶ ἀλλοιοῦται καὶ μετὰ τὴν τομὴν οὐδὲν ἧττον τοῦ σώματος τὰ τῆς ὀδύνης ἐμπαθῶς παραδέχεται, ὅπερ ἐπὶ τῆς τοῦ κυρίου θεότητος οὐκ ἄν τις εἰ μὴ παραπλὴξ τὴν διάνοιαν εἴποι ποτέ. Εἰ οὖν καὶ μιᾶς φύσεως ὁ ἄνθρωπος λέγεται, ἀλλ' ὡς εἶδος, οὐχ ὡς ὑπόστασις. Ὅταν μὲν γὰρ ἄνθρωπος πρὸς ἄνθρωπον κρίνηται, μιᾶς φύσεως ὡς ὁμοούσιοι λέγονται καὶ ὡς ὑφ' ἓν εἶδος ταττόμενοι· ὅτε δὲ φυσιολογεῖται ὁ ἄνθρωπος, δύο ἐπ' αὐτοῦ φύσεις θεωρηθήσονται, ψυχῆς λέγω καὶ σώματος. Ἐν γὰρ τῇ τῆς ψυχῆς πρὸς τὸ σῶμα συγκρίσει τίς οὕτως ἀνόητος, ὡς μίαν ἀμφοτέρων φύσιν εἰπεῖν; Χριστῶν δὲ εἶδος οὐκ ἔστιν· οὐ γὰρ πολλοὶ Χριστοὶ ἐκ θεότητος συντεθειμένοι καὶ ἀνθρωπότητος, ἵνα πάντες ὑπὸ τὸ αὐτὸ εἶδος ταττόμενοι μιᾶς κηρυχθῶσι φύσεως, ἀλλ' εἷς ἐστιν ὁ Χριστὸς ἐκ δύο καὶ ἐν δυσὶ γνωριζόμενος φύσεσιν. 58 «Ἐπιστήσατε δέ, ὡς καὶ ἐν δυσὶν αὐτὸν χιμάροις ὁ μακάριος διαγράφει Κύριλλος, ἀλλ' οὐ πρὸς τὰς ὑποστάσεις, ἀλλὰ πρὸς τὸ διάφορον τοῦ ζῶντος καὶ τοῦ τεθυμένου τὸ παράδειγμα φέρει.» Καὶ τοῦτο δέ φαμεν, ὡς ἐκ δύο κτιστῶν τάχα που γενέσθαι μίαν οὐκ ἀδύνατον φύσιν, ἐκ δὲ κτιστοῦ καὶ ἀκτίστου μίαν φύσιν γενέσθαι ἀμήχανον ἢ τῶν δύο μετέχουσαν ἢ ἕτερόν τι παρὰ ταῦτα κατὰ τὸν θεολόγον Γρηγόριον. Πῶς γὰρ ἡ αὐτὴ ἤρξατό τε τοῦ εἶναι καὶ οὐκ ἤρξατο; 59 Εἰ ταὐτόν ἐστιν εἰπεῖν «ἐκ θεότητός τε καὶ ἀνθρωπότητος» καὶ «ἐκ δύο φύσεων», δύο φύσεις ἐν τῷ Χριστῷ μετὰ τὴν ἕνωσιν μὴ λέγοντες, οὐδὲ θεότητα καὶ ἀνθρωπότητα ἐν αὐτῷ μετὰ τὴν ἕνωσιν ὁμολογεῖτε. 60 Τὰ μιᾶς οὐσίας τὰς αὐτὰς ἀπαραλείπτως ἕξει διαφοράς. Οὔτε γάρ, ἐπειδὴ λογικὸς ὁ ἄνθρωπος καὶ λογικὸς ὁ ἄγγελος, μία φύσις ἀγγέλου καὶ ἀνθρώπου λεχθήσεται· ἀθάνατος γὰρ ὁ ἄγγελος, θνητὸς δὲ ὁ ἄνθρωπος, καὶ οὐ πάντῃ τὴν ὁμοίωσιν ἔχει. Καὶ θνητὸς μὲν ὁ ἄνθρωπος, θνητὸς δὲ καὶ ὁ κύων, ἀλλὰ λογικὸς μὲν ὁ ἄνθρωπος, ὁ δὲ κύων ἄλογον καὶ οὐ μιᾶς φύσεως. Ἀνάγκη τοίνυν, τὰ μιᾶς οὐσίας τὰς αὐτὰς ἀπαραλεί πτως ἔχειν οὐσιώδεις διαφοράς. Εἰ τοίνυν μία οὐσία τῆς τοῦ θεοῦ λόγου θεότητος καὶ τῆς σαρκὸς αὐτοῦ, αἱ αὐταὶ διαφοραὶ ἀμφοῖν ἀπαραλείπτως ἔσονται.