23

having clothed himself with it and been united to it by an ineffable principle, with both natures being preserved and not mixed, he came forth, appearing as a man, but understood as God, Jesus Christ. 118 From the same, from the letter to John of Antioch: But we know that theological men treat the evangelical and apostolic sayings concerning the Lord sometimes as common, as of one person, and sometimes as distinct, as of two natures, and those that are God-befitting according to the divinity of Christ, but the humble ones according to his humanity. 119 Scholion. If there is truly one person in Christ after the union, then there are certainly and truly two natures. 120 From the same, from the letter to Acacius, bishop of Melitene: But perhaps those on the opposite side would say that: Behold, clearly those who make the confession of the orthodox faith name two natures, and they insist that the sayings of the theologians are to be divided according to their difference. How, then, are these things not contrary to yours? For you would not be able to distribute the sayings to two persons or hypostases. But, O best of men, I would say, we have written in the chapters: ‘If anyone distributes the sayings to two persons or hypostases and applies some to a man understood as separate from the Word from God, and others, as befitting God, only to the Word from God the Father, let him be condemned.’ But we have in no way abolished the difference of the sayings. 121 Scholion. You see how he does not refuse to say two natures, but to confess them separately and apart. 122 From the same, from the commentary on Leviticus: For it commands that two living and clean birds be taken, so that you may understand through the birds the heavenly man who is at once also God, divided into two natures as far as it goes, into the principle proper to each. For the Word was he who shone forth from God the Father in flesh from a woman, yet not divided; for Christ is one from both. 123 From the same, from the discourse on the Trinity: As if a certain boundary of divinity and humanity, having in both as in one a meeting, and of those things distinct by nature a concurrence into an identity by union and interweaving. 124 From the same, from the letter to Succonsus: Considering, therefore, as I said, the manner of the economy, we see that two natures came together with each other in an inseparable union, unchangeably and immutably; for the flesh is flesh and not divinity, even if it became the flesh of God; and likewise also the Word is God and not flesh, even if he made the flesh his own economically; But when we consider this, we do no injustice to the concurrence into unity; saying that he came to be from two natures, yet after the union we do not divide the natures from one another nor do we cut the one and indivisible into two sons, but we say one son and, as the fathers have said, one incarnate nature of God the Word. Therefore, as far as it comes to thought and to seeing only with the eyes of the soul how the only-begotten was incarnate, we say that there are two natures, but we confess one son and Christ and Lord, the Word of God incarnate and made flesh. 125 Scholion. Let everyone consider, not blinding the mind to the father's meaning. For he did not say, ‘yet after the union’ we do not confess the natures, but ‘we do not divide’; for he says that there are two natures; ‘but one son and Christ and Lord,’ and having said ‘we say one son’ he added ‘and one incarnate nature of the Word,’ here calling the hypostasis ‘nature.’ For the son is not a nature or essence, but a hypostasis. If

23

ἐνδυσάμενος αὐτὸν καὶ ἑνωθεὶς αὐτῷ ἀρρήτῳ λόγῳ σῳζομένων ἀμφοτέρων τῶν φύσεων καὶ οὐ κεκραμένων προῆλθε, φαινόμενος μὲν ἄνθρωπος, νοούμενος δὲ θεὸς Ἰησοῦς Χριστός. 118 Τοῦ αὐτοῦ ἐκ τῆς πρὸς Ἰωάννην τὸν Ἀντιοχείας ἐπιστολῆς· Τὰς δὲ εὐαγγελικὰς καὶ ἀποστολικὰς περὶ τοῦ κυρίου φωνὰς ἴσμεν τοὺς θεολόγους ἄνδρας τὰς μὲν κοινοποιοῦντας ὡς ἐφ' ἑνὸς προσώπου, τὰς δὲ διαιροῦντας ὡς ἐπὶ δύο φύσεων, καὶ τὰς μὲν θεοπρεπεῖς κατὰ τὴν θεότητα τοῦ Χριστοῦ, τὰς δὲ ταπεινὰς κατὰ τὴν ἀνθρωπότητα. 119 Σχόλιον. Εἰ ἀληθῶς ἓν πρόσωπον ἐπὶ Χριστοῦ μετὰ τὴν ἕνωσιν, πάντως ἀληθῶς καὶ δύο φύσεις. 120 Τοῦ αὐτοῦ ἐκ τῆς πρὸς Ἀκάκιον ἐπίσκοπον Μελιτηνῆς ἐπιστολῆς· Ἀλλὰ γὰρ ἴσως ἐκεῖνο φαῖεν ἂν οἱ δι' ἐναντίας· Ἰδοὺ δὴ σαφῶς οἱ τῆς ὀρθῆς πίστεως τὴν ὁμολογίαν ποιούμενοι δύο μὲν ὀνομάζουσι φύσεις, διαιρεῖσθαι δὲ τὰς τῶν θεηγόρων φωνὰς διατείνονται κατά γε τὴν διαφορὰν αὐτῶν. Εἶτα πῶς οὐκ ἐναντία ταῦτα τοῖς σοῖς; Οὐ γὰρ ἂν ἔχοις προσώποις δυσὶν ἤγουν ὑποστάσεσι τὰς φωνὰς διανέμειν. Ἀλλ', ὦ βέλτιστοι, φαίην ἄν, γεγράφαμεν ἐν τοῖς κεφαλαίοις· «Εἴ τις προσώποις δυσὶν ἤγουν ὑποστάσεσι διανέμει τὰς φωνὰς καὶ τὰς μὲν ὡς ἀνθρώπῳ παρὰ τὸν ἐκ θεοῦ λόγον ἰδικῶς νοουμένῳ προσάπτει, τὰς δὲ ὡς θεοπρεπεῖς μόνῳ τῷ ἐκ θεοῦ πατρὸς λόγῳ, οὗτος ἔστω κατάκριτος.» Φωνῶν δὲ διαφορὰν κατ' οὐδένα τρόπον ἀνῃρήκαμεν. 121 Σχόλιον. Ὁρᾷς, ὡς οὐ τὸ δύο φύσεις λέγειν παραιτεῖται, ἀλλὰ τὸ ἰδίᾳ καὶ ἀναμέρος αὐτὰς ὁμολογεῖν. 122 Τοῦ αὐτοῦ ἐκ τοῦ εἰς τὸ Λευϊτικόν· ∆ύο μὲν γὰρ ὀρνίθια ληφθῆναι κελεύει ζῶντα καὶ καθαρά, ἵνα νοήσῃς διὰ τῶν πετεινῶν τὸν οὐράνιον ἄνθρωπον ὁμοῦ καὶ θεόν, εἰς δύο μὲν φύσεις ὅσον ἧκεν, εἰς τὸν ἑκάστῃ πρέποντα λόγον διαιρούμενον. Λόγος γὰρ ἦν ὁ ἐκ θεοῦ πατρὸς ἀναλάμψας ἐν σαρκὶ τῇ ἐκ γυναικὸς πλὴν οὐ μεριζόμενον· εἷς γὰρ ἐξ ἀμφοῖν ὁ Χριστός. 123 Τοῦ αὐτοῦ ἐκ τοῦ περὶ τριάδος λόγου· Μεθόριον δὲ ὥσπερ τι θεότητος καὶ ἀνθρωπότητος τὴν ἐν ἀμφοῖν ἔχων ὡς ἐν ἑνὶ σύνοδον καὶ τῶν τῇ φύσει διεστηκότων τὴν εἰς ταυτότητα συνδρομὴν καθ' ἕνωσιν καὶ ἀναπλοκήν. 124 Τοῦ αὐτοῦ ἐκ τῆς πρὸς Σούκενσον ἐπιστολῆς· Ἐννοοῦντες τοίνυν, ὡς ἔφην, τῆς οἰκονομίας τὸν τρόπον ὁρῶμεν, ὅτι δύο φύσεις συνῆλθον ἀλλήλαις καθ' ἕνωσιν ἀδιάσπαστον ἀτρέπτως τε καὶ ἀμεταβλήτως· ἡ γὰρ σὰρξ σάρξ ἐστι καὶ οὐ θεότης, εἰ καὶ γέγονε θεοῦ σάρξ· ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ ὁ λόγος θεός ἐστι καὶ οὐ σάρξ, εἰ καὶ ἰδίαν ἐποιήσατο τὴν σάρκα οἰκονομικῶς· Ὅταν δὲ ἐννοῶμεν τοῦτο, οὐδὲν ἀδικοῦμεν τὴν εἰς ἑνότητα συνδρομήν· τὸ ἐκ δύο φύσεων γεγενῆσθαι λέγον τες μετὰ μέντοι τὴν ἕνωσιν οὐ διαιροῦμεν τὰς φύσεις ἀπ' ἀλλήλων οὐδὲ εἰς δύο τέμνομεν υἱοὺς τὸν ἕνα καὶ ἀμέριστον, ἀλλ' ἕνα φαμὲν υἱὸν καί, ὡς οἱ πατέρες εἰρήκασι, μίαν φύσιν τοῦ θεοῦ λόγου σεσαρκωμένην. Οὐκοῦν ὅσον μὲν ἧκεν εἰς ἔννοιαν καὶ εἰς μόνον τὸ ὁρᾶν τοῖς τῆς ψυχῆς ὄμμασι, τίνα τρόπον ἐνηνθρώπησεν ὁ μονογενής, δύο τὰς φύσεις εἶναί φαμεν, ἕνα δὲ υἱὸν καὶ Χριστὸν καὶ κύριον ὁμολογοῦμεν τὸν τοῦ θεοῦ λόγον ἐνανθρωπήσαντα καὶ σεσαρκωμένον. 125 Σχόλιον. Σκοπείτω πᾶς τις μὴ τυφλώττων τὸν νοῦν τοῦ πατρὸς τὴν ἔννοιαν. Οὐκ εἶπε γάρ, «μετὰ μέντοι τὴν ἕνωσιν» οὐχ ὁμολογοῦμεν τὰς φύσεις, ἀλλ' «οὐ διαιροῦμεν»· δύο γὰρ τὰς φύσεις εἶναί φησιν· «Ἕνα δὲ υἱὸν καὶ Χριστὸν καὶ κύριον», καὶ εἰπὼν «ἕνα φαμὲν υἱὸν» ἐπήγαγε «καὶ μίαν φύσιν τοῦ λόγου σεσαρκωμένην», φύσιν ἐνταῦθα τὴν ὑπόστασιν ὀνομάσας. Οὐ γὰρ φύσις ἤτοι οὐσία ὁ υἱός, ἀλλ' ὑπόστασις. Εἰ