24

for the son is nature, but the father is not son, nor will he be of the same nature as the son; nevertheless he also indicates the nature of the flesh, writing to the same Succonsus; so that, if even according to you he here calls nature "ousia", he also introduces the nature of the flesh by saying "incarnate". For he writes thus: 126 From the same, from the second letter to Succonsus: For if, having said "one nature of the Word", we had been silent, not adding "incarnate", but as it were setting aside the economy, their argument might perhaps not be implausible for those pretending to ask: If the whole is one nature, where is the perfection in humanity or how has our ousia subsisted? But since both the perfection in humanity and the indication of our ousia have been introduced by saying "incarnate", let them cease propping themselves up with a reed staff. 127 Scholion. Therefore cease, O you, "propping yourselves up with a reed staff," obeying the teacher. For behold, he has clearly said that "by saying incarnate" "the perfection in humanity and the indication of our ousia have been introduced" and that "the whole is not one nature"; and if not one, it is surely clear to everyone that there are two. 128 From Saint John Chrysostom, from the discourse on Lazarus: Tin partakes of lead and silver, silver in appearance, lead in nature; so also Christ, being God and man, preserves the two natures in himself, and just as he preserves the natures in himself, so also he himself is in them, not existing as another apart from them. 129 From the same, from the letter to Caesarius the monk: So here too, when the divine nature was established in him, both together constituted one son, one person, recognized, however, by an indivisible and unconfused principle not in one single nature, but in two perfect ones. For in one, where is the unconfused? Where is the indivisible? Where could the union be spoken of? For it is impossible for it to be united to or divided from itself. What hades has belched forth the saying of one nature in Christ after the union? For either holding to the divine they deny the human, I mean, our salvation, or holding to the human they make a denial of the divine nature; then let them say, which has lost its own property? For if the union is still strong, it is altogether necessary that the properties of the union also be preserved; otherwise this is not union, but a confusion and disappearance of the natures.

24

γὰρ φύσις ὁ υἱός, οὐκ ἔστι δὲ ὁ πατὴρ υἱός, οὐδὲ τῆς αὐτῆς ἔσται τῷ υἱῷ φύσεως· ὅμως καὶ τῆς σαρκὸς ἐνδείκνυται τὴν φύσιν πρὸς τὸν αὐτὸν Σούκενσον γράφων· ὥστε, εἰ καὶ καθ' ὑμᾶς οὐσίαν ἐνταῦθα τὴν φύσιν φησίν, εἰσκομίζει καὶ τὴν τῆς σαρκὸς φύσιν διὰ τοῦ εἰπεῖν «σεσαρκωμένην». Γράφει γοῦν οὕτως· 126 Τοῦ αὐτοῦ ἐκ τῆς πρὸς Σούκενσον δευτέρας ἐπιστολῆς· Εἰ μὲν γὰρ «μίαν» εἰπόντες «τοῦ λόγου φύσιν» σεσιγήκαμεν οὐκ ἐπενεγκόντες τὸ «σεσαρκωμένην», ἀλλ' οἷον ἔξω τιθέντες τὴν οἰκονομίαν, ἦν αὐτοῖς τάχα που καὶ οὐκ ἀπίθανος ὁ λόγος προσποιουμένοις ἐρωτᾶν· Εἰ μία φύσις τὸ ὅλον, ποῦ τὸ τέλειον ἐν ἀνθρωπότητι ἢ πῶς ὑφέστηκεν ἡ καθ' ἡμᾶς οὐσία; Ἐπειδὴ δὲ καὶ ἡ ἐν ἀνθρωπότητι τελειότης καὶ τῆς καθ' ἡμᾶς οὐσίας ἡ δήλωσις εἰσκεκόμισται διὰ τοῦ εἰπεῖν «σεσαρκωμένην», παυσάσθωσαν καλαμίνην ῥάβδον ἑαυτοῖς ὑποστήσαντες. 127 Σχόλιον. Παύσασθε τοιγαροῦν, ὦ οὗτοι, «καλαμίνην ῥάβδον ἑαυτοῖς ὑποστήσαντες» τῷ διδασκάλῳ πειθόμενοι. Ἴδε γάρ, σαφῶς εἴρηκε «διὰ τοῦ σεσαρκωμένην εἰπεῖν» «τὴν ἐν ἀνθρωπότητι τελειότητα καὶ τῆς καθ' ἡμᾶς οὐσίας τὴν δήλωσιν εἰσκεκομίσθαι» καὶ ὡς οὐ «μία φύσις τὸ ὅλον» ἐστίν· εἰ δὲ οὐ μία, παντί που δῆλον ὡς δύο. 128 Τοῦ ἁγίου Ἰωάννου τοῦ Χρυσοστόμου ἐκ τοῦ εἰς τὸν Λάζαρον λόγου· Ὁ κασσίτερος μολίβδου καὶ ἀργύρου μετέχει, ἀργύρου τὴν ὄψιν, μολίβδου τὴν φύσιν· οὕτω καὶ ὁ Χριστὸς θεὸς ὢν καὶ ἄνθρωπος τὰς δύο φύσεις ἐν ἑαυτῷ ἀποσῴζει καὶ ὥσπερ ἐν ἑαυτῷ ἀποσῴζει τὰς φύσεις, οὕτω καὶ αὐτὸς ἐν αὐταῖς ἐστιν οὐχ ὑπάρχων ἕτερος παρ' αὐτάς. 129 Τοῦ αὐτοῦ ἐκ τῆς πρὸς Καισάριον μονάζοντα ἐπιστολῆς· Οὕτω κἀνταῦθα τῆς θείας αὐτῷ φύσεως ἐνιδρυσάσης ἕνα υἱόν, ἓν πρόσωπον τὸ συναμφότερον ἀπετέλεσε, γνωριζόμενον μέντοι ἀδιαιρέτῳ καὶ ἀσυγχύτῳ λόγῳ οὐκ ἐν μιᾷ μόνῃ τῇ φύσει, ἀλλ' ἐν δυσὶ τελείαις. Ἐπὶ γὰρ μιᾶς ποῦ τὸ ἀσύγχυτον; Ποῦ τὸ ἀδιαίρετον; Ποῦ ἡ ἕνωσις λεχθείη; Ἑαυτῇ γὰρ ἑνοῦσθαι ἢ διαιρεῖσθαι ἀδύνατον. Ποῖος ᾅδης ἠρεύξατο μίαν ἐπὶ Χριστοῦ φύσιν λέγειν μετὰ τὴν ἕνωσιν; Ἢ γὰρ τὴν θείαν κρατοῦντες τὴν ἀνθρωπίνην ἀρνοῦνται, φημὶ τὴν ἡμετέραν σωτηρίαν, ἢ τὴν ἀνθρωπίνην κατέχοντες τῆς θείας φύσεως τὴν ἄρνησιν ποιοῦνται· ἐπεὶ λεγέτωσαν, ποῖα ἀπολώλεκε τὸ ἴδιον; Εἰ γὰρ ἔτι ἔρρωται ἡ ἕνωσις, πάντως καὶ τὰ τῆς ἑνώσεως ἰδιώματα ἀποσῴζεσθαι ἀνάγκη· ἐπεὶ οὐχ ἕνωσις τοῦτο, ἀλλὰ σύγχυσις καὶ ἀφανισμὸς τῶν φύσεων.