570

received power to bear a child, not having been impelled to this through the indwelling of the Word? How then could this humanity in Christ, which never came into being in its own separate hypostasis, but received its being and subsistence in the God the Word who assumed it, ever be called a hypostasis, or have a person self-subsistent in itself, and be known as a separate part? It is truly foolish and vain to agree to these things, and to seek two hypostases or persons in such a result. Unless, perhaps, someone honors and embraces these things with his lips, but his heart is far from them. Therefore, if anyone wishes to confess genuinely and ecclesiastically the two natures in Christ, and the phrase, 'one incarnate nature of God the Word,' let him accept it with open hands and a whole heart, as the things previously said indicate. But if he thinks that because of this we confuse the divine economy, as if the incarnate could also be understood otherwise, contrary to the doctrine of piety, let him take the analogy of the flesh animated with an intelligent and rational soul, and then cease from making excuses in sins.

For example, what I mean is this: the word 'incarnate,' I say, can both be added to the one nature, and not introduce another nature to it, but signify a certain turning or change of this one; just as we say that crystal is the nature of water that has been crystallized. For behold, knowing the nature of water to be one, and adding to it the word 'crystallized,' we have not introduced another nature through such a meaning, but we have only understood a certain solidification to have happened to it, through the word 'crystallized.' To this we say, that in such results such words are not reduplicated; for the reduplication here creates the meaning of another nature. For example, we cannot say 'a nature of water crystallized with crystal'; since by this we would have signified that the nature of water is one thing, and the nature of crystal another; as when we say 'wood gilded with gold'; for through this reduplication we have understood the wood to be one thing, and the gold another. So then here, when we say 'one incarnate nature of God the Word,' we have clearly indicated a nature, and that the Godhead itself has not been changed into flesh but, remaining what it was, has been manifested to us through the veil, that is, of the flesh assumed by it. Therefore, this concept has been completely explained by this argument about reduplication.

But if someone is again a dissolver and a confusionist, and accepts such a definition, but as one that supports his own impiety; in the first place, the aforesaid analogies shake off his malice as far as possible; but much more does the other definition, the one that declares Christ is known in two natures, both refute him and expose his secret villainy. For this definition loudly proclaims that the property of either nature has remained firm and inalienable even in the union, so that one can easily discern, (1496) what is proper to each of the components, and that each, while providing its own properties to the other, receives in exchange the things from the one who co-exists and is composite. And this is a mark of a truly articulated and most pure union, to show both the common things of the composite whole, and the properties of each of the conjoined parts. For if a property is not first known, the commonality will not be recognized either. For how will there be communion in something, if each of the communicants does not have something of its own? Consider it thus: It is proper to the assuming nature of God the Word to be the Son of God. It is proper to the assumed human nature to be the Son of man. Therefore, as such natures are mixed and permeate one another by the principle of connaturality and of union, so also their titles are mixed and permeate one another, and he becomes both, one Son, of God and at the same time of

570

ἔλαβε δύναμιν εἰς τό τεκνῶσαι, μή διά τῆς ἐνδημίας τοῦ Λόγου εἰς τοῦτο παρορμηθεῖσα; Πῶς οὖν αὕτη ἡ ἐν Χριστῷ ἀνθρωπότης ἐν ἰδιαζούσῃ ὑποστάσει καθ᾿ ἑαυτήν οὔποτε γενομένη, ἀλλ᾿ ἐν τῷ προσλαμβομένῳ αὐτήν Θεῷ Λόγῳ, τό εἶναί τε καί ὑποστῆναι λαχοῦσα, ὑπόστασις ἄν λεχθείη ποτέ, ἤ πρόσωπον ἰδιοσύστατον καθ᾿ ἑαυτό, καί ἀνά μέρος γνωριζόμενον ἔχοι; Ἠλίθιον ὄντως καί μάταιον τό ταῦτα συνομολογεῖν, καί δύο ὑποστάσεις ἤ πρόσωπα ζητεῖν ἐπί τοῦ τοιούτου ἀποτελέσματος. Εἰ μήτι ἄρα τις τοῖς χείλεσι μέν τιμᾷ καί ἀσπάζεται ταῦτα, ἡ δέ καρδία αὐτοῦ πόῤῥῳ ἀπέχει ἀπ᾿ αὐτῶν. Ὥστε εἴ τις γνησίως καί ἐκκλησιαστικῶς ὁμολογεῖν ἐθέλει τάς ἐν Χριστῷ δύο φύσεις, καί τό, μία φύσις τοῦ Θεοῦ Λόγου σεσαρκωμένη, ὑπτίαις χερσί καί ὁλοκλήρῳ καρδίᾳ καταδεξάσθω, ὡς τά προειρημένα δηλοῖ. Εἰ δέ συγχεῖν ἡμᾶς διά τοῦτο νομίζει τήν θείαν οἰκονομίαν, ὡς τοῦ σεσαρκωμένου καί ἄλλως νοεῖσθαι δυναμένου παρά τόν τῆς εὐσεβείας λόγον, λαβών τήν ἐπαγωγήν τήν σαρκί ψυχωμένη, ψυχῇ νοερᾷ καί λογικῇ, παυσάσθω λοιπόν τοῦ προφασίζεσθαι προφάσεις ἐν ἁμαρτίαις.

Οἷον δέ τι λέγω· τό, σεσαρκωμένη, φημί, δύναται καί τῇ μιᾷ φύσει προσκεῖσθαι, καί ἑτέραν φύσιν ταύτῃ μή ἐπεισάγειν, τροπήν δέ τινα ἤτοι μεταβολήν ταύτης σημαίνειν· ὥσπερ λέγομεν τόν κρύσταλλον, φύσιν ὕδατος εἶναι κεκρυσταλλωμένην. Ἰδού γάρ τήν φύσιν τοῦ ὕδατος μίαν εἰδότες, καί τό, κεκρυσταλλωμένην, ταύτῃ ἐπάγοντες, ἑτέραν φύσιν διά τῆς τοιαύτης σημασίας οὐ προσηγάγομεν, μόνον δέ πῆξίν τινα περί αὐτήν γενομένην νενοήκαμεν, διά τῆς κεκρυσταλλωμένης φωνῆς. Πρός τοῦτό φαμεν, ὅτι ἐπί τῶν τοιούτων ἀποτελεσμάτων οὐκ ἀναδιπλασιάζονται αἱ τοιαῦται φωναί· ὁ γάρ ἀναδιπλασιασμός ἐνταῦθα σημασίαν φύσεως ἑτέρας ποιεῖται. Οἷον, οὐ δυνάμεθα λέγειν ὕδατος φύσιν κεκρυσταλλωμένην κρυστάλλῳ· ἐπεί παρ᾿ αὐτά ἐσημήναμεν ἕτερον εἶναι τήν τοῦ ὕδατος φύσιν, καί ἕτερον τήν τοῦ κρυστάλλου· ὡς ἡνίκα λέγομεν ξύλον κεκρυσωμένον χρυσῷ· διά γάρ τοῦ ἀναδιπλασιασμοῦ τούτου ἐνοήσαμεν ἄλλο τι εἶναι τό ξύλον, καί ἄλλο τόν χρυσόν. Οὕτως οὖν ἐνταῦθα, ὅταν εἴπωμεν μίαν φύσιν τοῦ Θεοῦ Λόγου σεσαρκωμένην, φύσιν ἐναργῶς ὑπεσημηνάμεθα, καί ὅτι μή αὐτή ἡ θεότης εἰς σάρκα μεταπεποίηται ἀλλά μείνασα ὅπερ ἦν, διά τοῦ καταπετάσματος, τοῦτ᾿ ἔστι τῆς προσληφθείσης ὑπ᾿ αὐτῆς σαρκός, ἡμῖν πεφανέρωται. Ἐντελῶς ἄρα και ἡ τοιαύτη ἔννοια, διά τοῦ ἀναδιπλασιασμοῦ ἀποδέδοται τούτου.

Εἰ δέ τις πάλιν ἀναχυτικός καί συμφύρτης, προσίεται μέν τόν τοιοῦτον ὅρον, ὡς συντρέχοντα δέ τῷ αὐτοῦ δυσσεβήματι· μάλιστα μέν καί αἱ προλεχθεῖσαι ἐπαγωγαί ὡς ποῤῥωτάτω τήν αὐτοῦ κακόνοιαν ἀποσείονται· πολλῷ δέ μᾶλλον ὁ ἕτερος ὅρος, ὁ τόν Χριστόν ἐν δύο φύσεσι γνωριζόμενον ἀπαγγέλλων, καί λαθροκακουργοῦντα αὐτόν ἀπελέγχει. Οὗτος γάρ ὁ ὅρος διαῤῥήδην βοᾷ τό ἑδραίαν καί ἀνεκφοίτητον τῆς θατέρας φύσεως ἰδιότητα κἀν τῇ ἑνώσει μεμενηκέναι, ὥστε ῥᾳδίως διαγινώσκειν δύνασθαι, (1496) τί ἴδιον ἑκάστου τῶν συνελθόντων, καί τί τῶν οἰκείων ἕκαστον ἀλλήλοις παρέχον, τά παρά τοῦ συνυφεστῶτος καί συγκειμένου ἀντικομίζεται. Τοῦτο δέ διηρθρωμένης ὄντως καί καθαρωτάτης ἑνώσεως, καί τά κοινά τοῦ συναμφοτέρου, καί τά ἴδια ἑκάστου τῶν συνημμένων ἐμφαίνειν. Εἰ γάρ μή ἰδιότης πρῶτον γνωσθείη, οὐδ᾿ ἄν ἡ κοινότης ἐπιγνωσθήσεται. Πῶς γάρ ἡ ἔν τινι κοινωνία γενήσεται, μή ἔχοντος ἑκάστου τῶν κοινωνούντων ἴδιόν τι; Σκόπει δέ οὔτως· Ἴδιον τῆς προσλαβομένης Θεοῦ Λόγου φύσεως, τό εἶναι Υἱόν Θεοῦ. Ἴδιον τῆς προσληφθείσης ἀνθρώπου φύσεως, τό εἶναι Υἱόν ἀνθρώπου. Κιρναμένων οὖν τῶν τοιούτων φύσεων, καί περιχωρουσῶν εἰς ἀλλλήλας τῷ λόγῳ τῆς συμφυΐας καί τῆς ἑνώσεως, κιρνῶνται καί περιχωροῦσιν εἰς ἀλλήλας ὡσαύτως καί κλήσεις, καί γίνεται ἀμφότερα, εἷς Υἱός Θεοῦ τε ὁμοῦ καί