He did not say that the lowly things belong to the form of a servant, or to the human nature, or to the one born from the seed of David; for those who cut the dispensation say such insane things. But let us see what the Theologian teaches about the high things which are to be attributed to the divinity and nature and to the passionless and more excellent body. These are what the Word had from the beginning in substance, not those things which became fitting to God at the time of the inhumanation. For he plainly recounted before the cited words those things which the Word has without beginning and eternal and according to substance, and thus he added: the high things are to be attributed to the divinity of the Only-Begotten; which it neither lost when He was incarnate. The Doctor said: "What was, remained; but what was not, He assumed." Before he recounted the high things thus: "What was in the beginning, what was with the beginning the principle: In the beginning was the Word," again: "splendor, character, image, seal," and many other similar and related things, about which he also said at the end: "of which there is no addition, nor was any added later to the Son or to the Holy Spirit, as also not to the Father." He said these are to be attributed to the divinity of the Only-Begotten, so that the Arians might understand who He is according to substance, lest they attribute the low things of His emptying, which were accomplished in the last days, to His substance of earlier ages, simple, incorporeal, and without composition, and assign those same things again to the emptied One, indeed to the composite One with flesh and a rational soul, and perfectly inhumanate. For the Theologian also said: "the lowly things indeed to the composite and for your sake emptied and incarnate" (Jh 1:1).
These things found in the second discourse on the Son refer to the comparison established by the distinction of times, which discerns the condition of the Word before He is incarnate and after He is incarnate, but not at all to the division of the divine inhumanation; which Gregory wrote thus: "It remains to be said about Him who received the commandment and kept the commandments, and who always did what pleased the Father; also about the consummation and exaltation, and about Him who learned obedience from what He suffered; likewise about the high priesthood and the offering and the tradition, about the prayer to Him who is able to save Him from death, about the fear, the sweat of blood and the prayer, and if there is anything else of this kind; unless it is clear to anyone that these names must be referred to the passible element of this kind, not to the immutable and passionless nature that is higher." And here again, according to the expression of the Theologian, let us understand τό πάσχον as the composite and for us emptied, incarnate and inhumanate, having suffered in the flesh, and attributing to Himself the passion capable in that which can suffer, for which reason He also took on that connection to the flesh, whereby He destroyed him who held the power of death, that is, Satan, who was conquered by the impassibility of the divinity and by the power worthy of resurrection from God. For at the beginning of this second discourse on the Son Gregory also wrote: "We attribute higher and God-worthy names to the divinity, but humble and human ones for the new Adam for us, passible against sin" (Jh 1:1).
You see how he everywhere preserves immunity from division for the inhumanation, that is, for the Word inhumanate; for he said that humble and human things are to be attributed not to the human nature nor to the form of a servant—for I often notice this to the manifest reproach of those who divide Emmanuel—but to the new Adam for us and to God passible against sin. And this indeed, most excellently and by divine inspiration: first he calls Him the new Adam, and then without danger says that God is passible.
For before, by the name of Adam he introduced Him who is capable of passion, that is, flesh endowed with a rational soul, which the impassible Word of God hypostatically united to Himself; but when he said, "we attribute higher and God-worthy names to God, but humble and human ones again to the new Adam for us and to God passible," he clearly compared the Word to Himself according to time, first incorporeal, subsisting outside time and eternal, and possessing sublime and God-worthy things by nature with actions and names appropriate to Him, for example, "In the beginning was the Word," "and the Word was with God," "and the Word was God," "Lord Sabaoth," and "Almighty," which Gregory also explicitly recited; but afterward incarnate, made the new Adam without change, so that He lost none of what is fitting to God, and even took on human, humble, and dispensational names and actions. For those things that pertain to dispensation remain indivisible and inseparable, because the Word inhumanate did all indivisibly in that which could suffer, suffered, spoke, and acted. For if "humble and passible to God against sin," which were done fittingly to God in the time of inhumanation, certainly those are He who is God by nature and Adam by dispensation. For whoever divides Him by the duplicity of natures after the union divides Him for no other reason than to attribute the humble things separately to the human nature. But if Gregory the Theologian said that these things are to be attributed "to the new Adam for us and to God passible against sin," the commentary of division is already void (Jh 1:1).
CHAPTER—EIGHT
That the assignment of divine words and actions to one nature and human ones to another, separately, is an indication of two remote and separated natures, is shown by Gregory when he criticizes the epileptic contention of Apollinaris and the followers of Diodore; and the reproach is rightly directed at those who claim that Gregory, by rejecting the idea of speaking of two separated natures, thereby granted the opposite—namely, that we must confess two natures united and indivisible. This shows that the Fathers, by mentally distinguishing those things which are united, taught that He who is constituted from the union is one from two, that is, one hypostasis and the incarnate nature of the Word.
For it is one thing to distinguish according to times the Only-Begotten Word of God—first indeed incorporeal and afterward incarnate—and to say that those things which He has essentially and eternally, the sublime and God-befitting, are to be attributed to His divinity without flesh before all ages and times, while the humble and human things are, in turn, to be attributed to "the new Adam for our sake and God who is passible against sin," lest the Arians blasphemously refer those things to the essence of the Son which is prior to the ages; and it is another thing impiously to divide Emmanuel Himself, attributing at once the divine and human things spoken and done at the time of the incarnation, and distributing them separately to natures that communicate and adhere to each other only by a false kind of participation and conjunction. For it is impossible for things that subsist in duality not to cohere in this way. This Leo impudently and boldly did in his Tome, when he said: "For each nature does what is proper to itself with the participation of the other; the Word indeed performs what is of the Word, and the body carries out what is of the body; and the one indeed flashes with miracles, while the other succumbs to injuries." And again: "To hunger, thirst, grow weary, and sleep are certainly of man. But to feed five thousand men with five loaves, to give living water to the Samaritan woman so that whoever drinks of it shall never thirst again (Jh 4:14), to walk on the back of the sea with feet undrenched, to calm the swelling of the waves when the storm is rebuked—these are without doubt of God. And to pass over many things, just as it is not of the same nature to weep with compassion for a dead friend and to raise the same from the tomb after four days at the command of His voice (Jh 11:35, 43–44); or to hang upon a tree and cause all things to tremble when the elements are turned from day into night (Mt 27:45, 51), or to be pierced with nails and open the gates of paradise to the thief by faith (Lk 23:42–43); so it is not of the same nature to say 'I and the Father are one' (Jh 10:30), and to say 'The Father is greater than I' (Jh 14:28)."
Since, according to those who clearly divide the inhumanation, even the words and deeds seen and accomplished during the time of the dispensation—both those befitting God and those human, as well as the saving passions—Leo divides between two forms and natures, contradicting the inspired Scripture and its interpreters, the mystagogues skilled in divine matters, the Theologian again wrote in opposition, as it were directly contrary, in his third letter to Cledonius, attacking the wicked and impious madness of the unspeakable Apollinaris, who not only destroys the understanding of the divine inhumanation and falls into a mythical fantasy, denying the incarnation, but also tries to falsely ascribe to the orthodox the division of two natures and the duality of sons—a mistake with which the followers of Diodore and Theodore were also afflicted, and among themselves they clashed in doctrines far removed and abhorrent from orthodoxy, even though they were considered to be aligned with those confessing sound doctrine and were counted among the brethren. The Theologian Father also mentioned these, removing the stain from both sides, in the third oration on peace, whose beginning is "Peace is a pleasant thing and delightful by name," in the following way, for I must first append the testimony about this and then come to the other part I previously promised: GREGORY: "But moreover we also, so to speak, are opposed to ourselves, who are healthy as to what is most essential, yet contend for the same things and against the same persons. I speak of that fraternal discord which recently arose among us, by which both God is dishonored and man: for He is regarded as not truly born for us, nor crucified, nor manifestly buried or resurrected—this pleased some who love Christ perversely—but only honored where honor is a disgrace, and for that reason divided or composed into two sons; while the other [side] has Him not perfectly assumed or honored, but in what is greatest, cast aside and alienated, if indeed the greatest thing considered in human nature is that which is 'according to the image' and the power of the mind" (cf. Gen 1:27).
But what was written in the third letter to Cledonius and is opposed to those who truly make up the senseless crowd of Apollinaris and deflect the charge of dividing the inhumanation with a duplicity of nature is as follows: GREGORY: "Who would not marvel at the wisdom of those who, while clearly dividing the things of Christ themselves, attribute the words 'He was born, He hungered, He thirsted, He was tempted, He grew weary, He slept' to the humanity, but consider those others—'He was glorified by angels, He overcame the tempter, He fed in this way, He walked on the sea'—to belong to the divinity; and indeed they say 'Where have you laid Lazarus?' (Jh 11:34) is ours, but shouting 'Lazarus, come out!' (Jh 11:43) and raising the one four days dead is above us; and they claim the phrases 'He was troubled, He was crucified, He was buried' belong to the outer covering, while 'He trusted, He rose again, He ascended' belong to the treasure; afterwards, they accuse us as though we introduced two separate and opposing natures, and as though we divided the supernatural and wondrous union. Yet they ought either not to do what they reproach, or not reproach what they do—if only they knew how to be consistent with themselves, rather than speaking not their own words but those of their adversaries. Such is the nature of stupidity and the assault on truth, that they neither understand nor are ashamed of contending against themselves."
Here is a clear and proper sign of two separated and distant natures: to divide between two natures the things of the inhumanation—those worthy of God and those human—and to assign to one what pertains to hunger, and to the other what pertains to feeding five thousand men; likewise, to say that it belongs to one to grow weary from a journey (Jh 4:6), and to the other to walk on the sea (Mt 14:25); for when these are divided, they seem to be in conflict and opposition; but it was fitting to recognize the same as both God and man, that is, God incarnate, doing divine things as God and suffering human things in the flesh, just as Sacred Scripture says. For thus, being by nature God, He does not lose His impassibility, since He neither suffers nor can suffer; yet He is not foreign to the lowly things fitting to the self-emptying, because "being in the form of God, He emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant" (Phil 2:6–7). By these, He is acknowledged as emptied and voluntarily brought low to what is small and contemptible, afflicted with disgrace and not esteemed "because of our sins," as the prophecy says (Is 53:3–5); nevertheless, we say the lowly and human things are His.
This is also clearly taught by the wise Athanasius in his fourth oration against the Arians: ATHANASIUS: "For just as because we are from the earth, all die in Adam, so also being born from above and regenerated by water and the Spirit, all are made alive in Christ, the flesh now no longer being as earthly, but rather transferred into the Word on account of the Word of God, which for our sake was made flesh. And so that one may more accurately understand both the impassibility of the nature of the Word and the weaknesses said of Him on account of the flesh, it is good to listen to blessed Peter, for he is a trustworthy witness concerning our Savior." He therefore writes in the epistle saying: "Christ having suffered in the flesh for us" (1 Pt 4:1).
Therefore also when it is said that He hungered, thirsted, grew weary, was ignorant, slept, wept, prayed, fled, was born, and prayed that the cup might pass, and in a word, whatever belongs to the flesh is spoken concerning Him, it is rightly said of each: Christ hungering and thirsting, in the flesh for us; saying He was ignorant, being struck and wearied, in the flesh for us; again, being exalted, born, growing, fearing, hiding, in the flesh; saying, "If it is possible, let this cup pass" (Mt 26:39), and being struck and receiving, in the flesh for us. For the apostle did not say, "Christ suffered for us in divinity," but "in the flesh for us," so that the sufferings may be acknowledged according to the nature of the flesh, not of the Word by nature. Therefore, let no one be scandalized by these human things, but rather let each recognize that the Word is impassible by nature, and yet these things are predicated of Him because of the flesh He assumed, for these are indeed proper to the flesh, but it is the proper body of our Savior. And He indeed remains impassible according to nature, just as He is, being in no way harmed thereby, but rather destroying and abolishing them; but men, with the sufferings transferred to the impassible and destroyed, will now be impassible and freed from them forever. Therefore, whoever judges and says that the one Christ, the Word of God, is immutably incarnate and inhumanate, says that the weaknesses of the flesh are His—not insofar as He is God, but insofar as He is incarnate according to the dispensation. For thus also says that teacher: ATHANASIUS: "So that one may more accurately understand both the impassibility of the divinity of the Word and the weaknesses said of Him on account of the flesh." AND AGAIN: "But men, with the sufferings transferred to the impassible and destroyed, will now be impassible and freed from them forever" (1 Pt 4:1), "for these are indeed proper to the flesh, but it is the proper body of our Savior."
Therefore, since Christ the Son of God incarnate is one—passible indeed in the flesh, but impassible in divinity—the apostle Peter necessarily declared, saying, "Christ suffered for us in the flesh" (1 Pt 4:1), and not "according to the nature of divinity," showing that the one who suffered in the flesh is God according to a substance without flesh and impassible, and was united for our sake to a passible body having a rational soul; for if, after the union, He were divided by a duality of natures, and the human nature alone suffered the passions, this specification would be superfluous—for no one says of a suffering man that he suffers "in the flesh," since the whole man is passible, though indeed the passions of the flesh and of the soul are quite different. But because preaching was made concerning God the impassible, one in nature and hypostasis, incarnate Word, therefore the herald and apostle Peter, knowing that Christ is the Son of the living God, who was begotten impassibly from the impassible Father and became incarnate for our sake, necessarily declares: "Christ suffered for us in the flesh" (1 Pt 4:1), and teaches that the experience of the passions extended only to that which was capable of suffering—which could not reach the impassible—though He was hypostatically united to the flesh capable of suffering, and with it performed, according to dispensation, the sufferings which are by nature of that flesh. For since the body became His own, certainly the passions of the body must be properly attributed to Him. Therefore, the apostolic teacher Athanasius, following the apostle Peter and in no way dividing the one Christ, said we ought to say concerning each of the weaknesses of the flesh, so that the impassibility of the Word and the indivisibility of the union with the flesh might be preserved: ATHANASIUS: "Christ hungering and thirsting, in the flesh for us; and saying He did not know, and being struck and wearied, in the flesh for us; again, being exalted, born, growing, fearing, hiding, in the flesh; and saying, 'If it is possible, let the cup pass' (Mt 26:39), and being struck and receiving, in the flesh for us," since he said that Christ is the Word of God made flesh for us.
Thus also Saint Cyril, in the Scholia, explaining what Christ is, said: CYRIL: "Therefore Christ is called the Word of God made for us according to us and in the form of a servant" (Phil 2:7); and in the first discourse against Theodore of Mopsuestia, similarly: CYRIL: "But Jesus Christ is not understood as taken separately and by Himself, nor again as the Word of God devoid of flesh and stripped of our form, but rather as inhumanated and incarnate"; likewise also Gregory the Theologian, in what is directed against Julian the atheist and most zealous for idolatry, in an invective oration, says: GREGORY: "O Christ, both Word and the passions of the Impassible One."
Why then does Leo, abandoning the inspired Scripture and the well-trodden royal path of the apostolic doctors, not know how to say, "Christ therefore hungered and thirsted for us in the flesh, and endured the other human things in the flesh," but rather turns to the opposite, namely, to that which properly divides Christ Himself into man and God, and into two natures operating and dividing their own properties separately, saying: LEO: "For to hunger and thirst and grow weary and sleep are certainly of man. But to satisfy five thousand men with five loaves; and to give the Samaritan woman living water, by which whoever is filled shall never thirst again (Jn 4:14); and to walk with unsodden feet on the back of the sea; and to calm the swelling of the waves by rebuking the storm, are undoubtedly of God" (Mk 6:41–51); and "it is not of the same nature to weep for Lazarus and to raise him from the dead," and so forth. These are words of impious division and separation. These are what Gregory the Theologian said are signs of two separated and divided natures, and, so to speak, of natures fighting each other, turning even the reproaches directed at the followers of Apollinaris against their impiety, which they thought should be spread against the orthodox, falsely attributing to them the stain of a duality of sons and natures, which is proper to Diodore and Theodore. How then should they not be ashamed, who become defenders of Leo's Tome, which plainly provides signs of two separated and conflicting natures, dividing and attributing what is divine and human to each nature separately, while they themselves claim to confess two united and not separated natures?
It is not surprising, for even Nestorius, although he in fact and in practice divides the dispensation and preaches two natures after the union—presenting them as acting and speaking individually and separately, asserting that the one possesses the divine and the other the human—not confused but united, as we have already cited from earlier examinations, nevertheless shows such boldness that they even attempt to impute to Gregory what they are reproached for, as if he supported their madness. They claim, therefore, that because the Theologian said: GREGORY: "Then they accuse us of introducing two natures, separated or conflicting with one another" (cf. Or. 30), he thereby indirectly showed that he confesses two united natures. So then, I ask, should we follow you who speculate and divine the intentions of the heart? Or should we present what was written word for word by the Theologian, from which it is demonstrated that he acknowledges the union of two natures—since union is of two or more things—but that the one who is perfected by union is one from the two?
Indeed, in the first epistle to Cledonius Gregory wrote: "If anyone introduces two sons, one indeed from God and the Father, the other from Mary, but not one and the same, let him also fall from that adoption of sons which is rightly promised to believers. Truly, there are two natures, God and man, just as soul and body are so; but there are not two sons nor two gods, for here are not two men, although Paul also called him who is inside and him who is outside a man (2 Cor 12:2). And if I must speak briefly, what the Savior is made from is one thing, for he who cannot be seen is not the same as what is visible, nor what is without time the same as what is subject to time; yet there is not one son and another: for both are one by contemperation" (contemperatio), which the saint called a sublime and indivisible union. For when the incorporeal divinity, which cannot undergo change, is hypostatically united to a human body endowed with a rational soul, no one thinks of these things as of moist bodies, such as wine and honey, or as a mixture or confusion of seeds. By the name contemperation one most certainly understands the individuality, indissolubility, and immunity from change of the union. For if a conversion or change were to happen, those things from which the Savior is constituted would not remain distinct, and if it were necessary to admit two natures not separated but united by union, the Doctor would not say "what the Savior is from" but "what the Savior is in," nor add "for both are one by contemperation" but rather "for both are two united and not separated."
No one who understands rightly accepts duality after considering union; but if anyone wishes to contemplate from which things the union is made, while separating them only by subtle thought, he sees two natures as gathered together; but when he admits the thought of natural union, he finds the thought of the duality, which was conceived in the mind, vanished, and then clearly sees that the things from which the Savior is constituted are indeed two, confused and indivisibly together, yet one through contemperation; by this name the Theologian himself called the highest and indissoluble union when he gave the example of a man like us and said: "Indeed, there are two natures, God and man, just as soul and body are so" (1 Cor 15:44). But just as concerning a man, when considering the difference of substance and separating by subtle contemplation, we understand there are already two natures, this we could not see unless we allowed contemplation to separate, since union excludes division and removes duality, so one nature and hypostasis from both appears; likewise concerning Emmanuel, by that contemplation, the two from which the union is made seem two subtly, but in reality one nature of the Word incarnate and perfectly human is demonstrated, because they do not subsist in their own subsistence but rather in the composition of those things from which he is composed (Phil 2:7).
Let the wise Cyril come forward again, who used this testimony of Gregory the Theologian everywhere, both in what he wrote against Nestorius in the Acts of Ephesus and in his work against Theodorus of Mopsuestia, and teaches us to understand the union of Emmanuel and the example of a man like us, who more deeply than we did understood Gregory's mind and was skilled in the teachings of the eminent Fathers. In his second letter to Succensus, against those who objected saying, "How do we not conceive two natures subsisting indivisibly after the union?" he fought back saying: CYRIL: "Again opposed is the proposition by those who say that there is one nature of the incarnate Son; and wishing to show this foolishly, they strive everywhere to show two natures subsisting. But they escape all those things which are not separated by mere contemplation alone, nor do they utterly and singularly recede from each other into a distinct diversity. Let the example of a man like us be again before us. For we also understand two natures in him, one of the soul, the other of the body. But discerning by mere thoughts and subtle contemplations or imaginations of the intellect the difference, we do not put the natures apart, nor do we allow the course of perfect division into them, but we understand one, so that those two natures are no longer two, but each one is resolved into one animal" (1 Cor 15:44).
Gregory the Theologian, adhering to the union of Emmanuel, from which it follows that the Word incarnate is one nature, added the example of a man like us. Just as no one, driven by madness, would assert that a man like us subsists in two natures and hypostases, since neither soul nor body subsists in its own subsistence but both are resolved into one nature and hypostasis, so likewise no one foolishly says that Christ subsists in two natures and hypostases, who is constituted from two, divinity and humanity, because God and man do not subsist in their own subsistence. This was also plainly stated in the writing "That One Christ," which proceeds as questions and answers, where Cyril said: "That which is said to be one is not only that which is simple and of one species, but also that which is constituted from two or more and from different species, if the matter seems rightly to experts." Again: "Q: And how is Christ one, constituted from two, divinity and humanity? A: I would judge no other way than how things gathered in an indivisible union and surpassing understanding stand. Q: For example? A: Do we not call one man who is conceived like us, and one nature, although it is not of one species but composed of two, soul and body? Q: I confess. A: Would anyone who sets the body apart and separates the soul from the unity divide this one into two men and corrupt reason?"
Hence, if someone separates by thought those two things united, and contemplates the specific diversity and substantial difference of those gathered, one is that which is resolved by union, not simple but composed of two. And whoever says two after the union divides the one Christ into two sons, which is forbidden if we speak according to right understanding. For the example of a man like us, when division is removed, does not allow us to consider two men that one, since one nature is composed of two. This Gregory taught in harmony with Saint Cyril: "Indeed, there are two natures, God and man, as soul and body are; but the sons are not two nor gods, for here there are not two men." Why? Because what is resolved by union is one out of two. "He says, 'What the Savior is made of—since what cannot be perceived is not the same as what is visible, nor what is free from time the same as what is subject to time—yet let it not be said that they are another and another son; rather both by union are one." Gregory the Theologian also showed that he separates natures only by thought, as does Cyril, while knowing the one who is resolved from two, saying in his second oration on the Son: "When natures are separated by thoughts, names are separated with them. Hear Paul saying: 'God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory' (Eph 1:17). Christ is God, but glory is Father; although these two are one together, yet not by nature but by conjunction." You see these two are one by conjunction, not by nature or substance; they are one by conjunction, not nature. Yet two no longer exist after conjunction except as natures are recognized by thought alone, from which one co-natured being is made. For those that subsist in duality, not composition, how ridiculous it would be to say they are separated only by thought.
Therefore, when we hear the Father called God of Christ, we understand that the name is derived from the incarnation. For since the Word of God was made man unchangeably, it is fitting to call him Christ as man, and Christ himself rightly calls God his Father, as Paul said, "God of our Lord Jesus Christ" (2 Cor 1:3).
But when we hear "Father of glory," by contemplation we again decide this name is worthy of God and has its cause in divinity; for he is the brightness of glory and the figure of the Father's hypostasis, by the identity of glory and substance the Father is truly Father, not by grace as is ours. Therefore Paul cautiously adds to the dispensational name a natural one: the Father is not called so merely by dispensation as the God of the Son made man, nor should he be reckoned Father only by grace; for he is Father according to glory. Thus, when we separate in thought the natures from which one Christ is made, we also separate the names and recognize which name has its cause in divinity and which in humanity, not by dividing them and assigning each to a nature, for all are indivisibly one and the same Christ. Hence the Theologian said, "These two together are one" (Gregory), and in his first letter to Cledonius wrote: "Just as natures are mingled, so also the names move mutually among themselves according to kinship." Likewise, in his oration on Epiphany or Nativity: "God was born, one of two opposites, flesh and Spirit, one of which was deified, the other deified. O new mystery! O wondrous union! He who is, becomes; the creator is created; the incomprehensible is comprehended, through the soul which holds the middle between divinity and the grossness of flesh. He who enriches becomes poor; for my flesh labors in poverty so that I may abound in the riches of his divinity. The full is emptied; for he is emptied a little of his glory so that I may receive of his fullness" (Phil 2:6-7).
In agreement word for word with these, the wise Cyril wrote in his letter to the monks beginning, "Some have come as usual from Alexandria among those with you" that "each thing remains what it is, but they come together into a natural unity and as if mingle what was proper to each." Similarly, in his oration "That One Christ," he shows that by union these two are together one, one nature, that is, one hypostasis; for it does not come to identity of nature and consubstantiality by confusion or conversion so that one nature, that is, one substance, may be recognized, which unlearned grammar critics refuted as slandering the reasoning of orthodoxy, as we have considered from the beginning their childish fables and nonsense.
"Q: Are they then confused and made one nature? A: Who is so foolish and inexperienced to think either that the divine nature of the Word was changed into something it was not, or that the flesh was transferred by way of change into the nature of the Word? By no means can this happen: therefore we say one Son and one nature, even though it is recognized that humanity was made in the assumption of flesh having a rational soul. For humanity was made of the Word, as I said; and we conceive it no differently than this way, God and man together" (Jn 1:14). Likewise, in the fourth book of his explanation of the Gospel of John he wrote: "The life-giving body is nevertheless his holy body, joined, so to speak, and ineffably united to the Word who gives life to all; therefore it is also reckoned his and conceived as one with him. For it is indivisible after incarnation, except as it contributes to knowing the Word who came from the Father, and the temple which is from the Virgin is not the same according to nature; for the body is not consubstantial with God the Word but one by an incomprehensible union" (Jn 1:14).
Where then are those who bring us a false separation and interpret Gregory's words against Gregory himself, since in writing to Cledonius a third time he said, "Then they accuse us as if we were introducing two natures separated and fighting against each other," and say that by the comparison of a sign he meant not to say there are two separated natures, but two united and indivisible after union? For he himself is a more trustworthy interpreter of his own words than any distinction by imitation. He is in agreement with Saint Cyril, who understood more and expanded Gregory's doctrines. He said that by thought alone it is allowed to separate and divide and understand the two natures from which Christ is made, because they are different, but both are one by union; and again one from two opposites, divinity and humanity, which were hostile, opposed, and adversarial because of sin that came upon us from Adam's transgression, but the new Adam and God who can suffer has loosened and destroyed this (Rom 5:14).
Therefore, whoever does not say that one from two opposites is made by union, and again that the two natures are other and different from those from which the Savior is made, and that both are one by union, introduces two separated and fighting natures; for fighting is separation and working and speaking apart, though those who divide bring about voluntary and false adhesion. Thus, by blaming the two natures after the inexplicable union as if they were wholly and entirely fighting and removed from each other unless one is absolved from the two, and not by introducing an opposition, the Doctor of Theology spoke. With these things clearly written by him, he repelled the slanderous assimilation of comparison, which they did not hesitate to ineptly impose even on the words of Saint Cyril. For when he wrote in the second volume against the blasphemies of Nestorius, "Cease dividing the natures after the union," these say that by prohibiting the natures from being divided, he allowed that two united natures be called, when the Doctor earlier clearly wrote in the same volume and taught that not dividing the natures after union is the same as confessing one nature of the incarnate Word, as Cyril said: "Thus it is said and rightly so, and as if all are spoken of from one person: one nature is now conceived after the union, namely the nature of the incarnate Word" (Jn 1:14).
But not only in this place, but everywhere after the thought of union, nothing else is to be said than that there is one incarnate and unassumed nature of the Son; nor does he seem anywhere to have said that after the union two natures united must be confessed. Where he sometimes says that those things from which Emmanuel is constituted must be considered in the mind, he no otherwise says that two natures appear, which have come together for union, as if someone in contemplation separates that which subsists as one from two (Jn 1:14).
Therefore, prior to duality is separation; yet, when that duality is perceived in subtle thoughts up to the recognition of the difference of those elements not consubstantial, which having been gathered into one, the inherent power of true union prevents what appeared as two in contemplation and thought from remaining two, since it shows one nature and hypostasis of the incarnate Word to be completed from two. From this, one sees the madness and audacity of this ridiculous comparison and conjecture. For the wise Cyril, constructing an apology against the impious Theodoret in response to the fourth chapter's reproach, wrote: CYRIL: "Indeed, we have not destroyed the difference of terms; for we know from them that some were made in the way that befits God, others in a human way; those indeed are worthy of sublime glory, but these are more suited to the measures of emptiness. However, we say they are not to be divided into two persons totally separate from each other." Again, regarding the reproach of the ninth chapter: "Where then is the union, and what use is it if there are two Christs, each conceived and preached separately and apart?" And again, in the oration 'That One Christ': "Shall they then be divided into two sons and both falsely named? But who would say that the mystery of Christ is a vain imposture if things were as the opposing delirious ones say? Where then is the union?" (Jn 1:14).
Shall we then give place in all these things to the opposition of your folly, O good ones, and because he said "not two persons perfectly separate from each other," argue that he seems to concede by contraries that to two persons perfectly united and not at all separate, we should apply voices worthy of God and human ones? Or again, because the Doctor said, "Where then is the union, if there are two Christs, each separately and apart," should it be considered by contrary reasoning that two Christs are to be proclaimed jointly and indivisibly rather than separately and apart? Again, when he reproved those who separate and wrote "then they will be divided into two sons and both falsely named," should we think it enough by contrary reasoning to cleanse the crime of the duality of sons where two sons are proclaimed not divided but united, not falsely named but true? But these are foolishness, conjectures, opinions, intentions of the heart, and inventions, as Scripture says (2 Cor 11:13). For it is not lawful to say two persons, nor two Christs and sons not separated and united, just as it is not lawful to say two natures not separated and united; for from the duality of sons, Christs, persons, hypostases, and natures cannot be separated what is perfectly and totally and individually cut and removed and divided; and just as the preaching and confession of one hypostasis destroys two persons, and the acknowledgment and praise of one son and Christ destroys two Christs and sons, so also the confession of one nature and hypostasis of the incarnate Word destroys two natures and hypostases (Jn 1:14).
Therefore he wrote in the apology of the fourth chapter, and also added these words in the cited passage: CYRILLUS: "Jesus Christ, and one faith which is in him, and one baptism, surely will be one person, that of one." In the oration "That One Christ," he wrote thus: "For the Word, which naturally and truly proceeded from God and the Father, by assuming flesh and blood as I have just said, remained the same, that is, naturally and truly the Son of the Father, one and alone, not as another with another, so that his person might also be conceived as one." And in the letter to Acacius, bishop of Melitene, he wrote: "Therefore, those things from which the one and only Christ Jesus, the Son and Lord, is made, if we apprehend them in thought, we say there are indeed two natures united; but after the union, as if the division into two has been removed, we believe the nature of the Son to be one, true, unassumed and incarnate" (Jn 1:14).
It must be noted how he shows that, however we say two, there is division. For after saying, "those things from which Christ is, as if in thoughts we consider, we say two natures united," he added, "but after the union, as if the division into two has been removed, we confess the nature of the Son to be one, true, unassumed and incarnate." Indeed, he did not simply say, "as if in thoughts apprehending and considering those things from which Christ is, we say two natures," but "we say two natures united"; therefore, why after saying "two natures united" did he say, "but after the union, as if the division into two has been removed"? But it is understood by all that finally to say two and one that is from two in contemplation is some division. Wherefore, also when writing to Succensus, he said, "separating in subtle thoughts." Therefore, unless one separates, he cannot say two at all (Jn 1:14).
Thus, when the Easterners wrote "For the union is made of two natures," Cyril, like the holy Elisha casting healthy salt into the deadly water of the men of Jericho, put forth the formula ἐκ δύο in his writings, which demonstrates the hypostatic union, whose term is that the incarnate nature of the Word subsists as one. However, in thought only must it be considered that the union is made of two natures. Nestorius took this badly; from exile he wrote to Theodoret, criticizing what was written by wise Cyril: "One Lord Jesus Christ," although the difference of natures from which we say the ineffable union is made is not unknown, but Nestorius said the opposite: "It should be said not 'from which,' but 'of which' we say the ineffable union is made; for it is not from the natures, but of the natures themselves that the ineffable union is." The Chalcedonian synod adhered to Nestorius and removed and rejected the formula "from two," but received and chose that Christ is defined in two natures not separated (Jn 1:14).
How then shall we not rightly call the union and guidance of Saint Cyril toward the Easterners a salutary and instructive condescension? For what they had said, "the union was made of two natures," being an intermediate expression, turned from the madness of Nestorius to a sound understanding, so that we understand the union to have been made from two, and that only in thought are the two considered; but after the thought of union, as the division into two is already removed, we confess one incarnate nature of the Son. For Nestorius, as we have just heard, and his followers speak of a union of two natures, but of a union of affection, joining man to the Son by goodwill and equality of honor, and connecting them by conformity of name and will, so that even after such a union, they still confess two natures.
And this was clearly stated by wise Cyril in his letter to Eulogius as follows: "Some reproach the exposition made by the Easterners and say, Why did the bishop of Alexandria tolerate or praise them when they named two natures? But those who follow the teachings of Nestorius say that he himself felt the same, thus misleading those who know the matter less accurately. To those who reproach us, it must be said that not all things said by heretics are to be avoided or rejected; for many things they profess are those which we also profess. For example, when Arians say that the Father is the Creator and Lord of all, should we therefore reject such a confession? So also with Nestorius; although he says two natures, signifying the difference between the flesh and the Word of God—for the nature of the Word is one, and the nature of the flesh another—yet he does not confess union with us. For we, uniting them, confess one Christ, the same one Son, one Lord, and furthermore one incarnate nature of the Son. Something similar can be said about any human being; for he consists of different natures, namely body and soul; and reason and contemplation recognize the difference, but once we have united them, we then make one nature of man. Therefore, to acknowledge the difference of natures is not to divide the one Christ into two." From the end or result of the union, therefore, is recognized what kind of union Nestorius confesses and what kind we, who think rightly, affirm. For the Doctor says, "he does not yet confess union with us"; for he also confesses a union, which he calls adhesion, but not "with us." For we separate in contemplation only those things from which the union was made, to recognize their difference, and thus uniting them, we confess one incarnate nature of the Son; but he, making the difference the cause of division and separation in reality, still says there are two natures even after the union, drawing an analogy from a common man, who is constituted of different and dissimilar parts, namely soul and body, and shows their difference by rational contemplation, though from the two there is one nature.
Show then, good Grammarian, that the Council of Chalcedon or the Tome of Leo confessed the union with Saint Cyril and said: "For we, uniting those things, confess one Christ, the same one Son, one Lord, and furthermore one incarnate nature of the Son," so that they could say of Nestorius, as Saint Cyril did, "yet he does not confess union with us." But if indeed they said none of these things, not confessing one incarnate nature of God—for whoever does not say this, in vain pretends to say one and the same Lord and Son and Christ—how are you not full of stupidity, for I will not yet say audacity, you who write things that show you are deprived of all understanding?
CHAPTER—NINE
Refutation of the ungodly one who wrote that Saint Cyril said there is no difference at all between saying one nature of God the Word incarnate or confessing Emmanuel in two natures indivisibly united; which we, the orthodox, do not absolutely condemn, because a union is of two or more things, but we charge as a fault that, after the union, one should say that Christ is of two natures, or decree that He subsists in two natures; for true union and a falsely named union are recognized from their own terms, as is clearly taught in what was written to Acacius and Eulogius.
Grammaticus: For in the letter to Acacius and in the memorandum to Eulogius, he prepared for us a defense in advance, as if by divine providence it had come to this; for when some there madly blamed him for having received the Orientals into communion, he did not call the union with the Orientals a condescension on his part, but clearly teaches that there is no difference at all between saying one nature of God the Word incarnate or confessing Emmanuel in two natures inseparably united; are not these things manifest madness and drunkenness of mere slander? For where are these set down in the writings to Acacius and Eulogius? Show that the wise Cyril there said your splendid trifles: Grammaticus: "there is no difference at all between saying one nature of God the Word incarnate or proclaiming Emmanuel in two natures inseparably united"; show that he even mentioned that Christ must be defined in two natures; but you go in vain, treading a trampled and uncertain path, and unknowingly come upon the rocks; or perhaps you think that those who read the writings to Acacius and Eulogius are deprived not only of the eyes of the mind but also of the body; for when the Orientals had written that the union of two natures had been made, writing to them Cyril, as a saving remedy, set forth, as I said, the words, "although the difference of the natures from which we say the ineffable union has been made is not unknown"; so also in the letter to Acacius and in the memorandum to Eulogius everywhere he presents the formula "from two," whence one is generated according to composition, that is, one nature and hypostasis of the Word incarnate; where, separating according to contemplation alone and, as it were, with subtle thought, we recognize the difference and that the things united are two according to essential notion, yet we understand that they do not exist as two in individual properties according to subsistence, because from two is constituted one hypostasis and nature of the Son incarnate; but that Christ subsists in two natures not separated, Cyril allowed Nestorius and those assembled in Chalcedon to say.
Show then, O Grammaticus, show that this bold claim of yours is to be found in the letters: Grammaticus: "there is no difference at all between saying one nature of God the Word incarnate or confessing Emmanuel in two natures inseparably united"; but nowhere did the wise Cyril ever say, "indeed, after the union Christ subsists in two natures not separated," rather he asserted the opposite: "as the division into two has now been removed, we believe there is one nature of the Son, as one, yet made man and incarnate" (Jn 1:14); nor did the Council of Chalcedon endure to say "one nature of God the Word incarnate"; how long, then, will you be found attributing the same things to what is most often incompatible, exalting yourself against written words without writing, and entangling yourself in unworthy words, lingering in them in vain?
It is worth considering how with such weak words you contend so ridiculously and foolishly, and fight in vain, saying: "But the letter to Acacius, which is great and full of praises for our doctrines, and which they are not even able to look at, I leave to those who may wish to approach it; but what they dare to present as theirs from the memorandum, I will recall, so that we may admire their boldness and inward contradiction; for thus says Saint Cyril in the memorandum: 'Some reproach the exposition which the Orientals made, and say: why did the bishop of Alexandria tolerate or praise them for naming two natures?' Because 'those who follow the teachings of Nestorius say that he also thinks thus, thereby dragging away those who know the matter only slightly,' listen, you who have no ears (Mt 13:15): he says that the Orientals declared two natures, and he confesses that he tolerated this and restrained the folly of you and of the Nestorians, who say that Nestorius thinks similarly to the opinions of the Orientals, thus only dragging away those who know the matter only slightly."
Who would not say to you, leaping about so inordinately and girding yourself and exulting, and indeed over nothing, as one of the prophets said (Is 29:20), that you are like those who in the contests of the hippodrome go mad with the pleasure of the spectacle, who, before they know where the race of the horses tends and which side will prevail, use the stamping of feet and clapping of hands and confused tumult, just as if they had already obtained for themselves this foolish and harmful victory? Awake, then, from the madness that holds you, and know what the Doctor wrote; he said, therefore, that the reproachers bring this charge: why did he tolerate the Orientals naming two natures? But this reproach is brought by those who are exceedingly mad and greatly burdened with ignorance; for who, when speaking of union, can avoid naming two natures or making no mention of them at all? For union is of two or more things (Mt 19:6), since to say that something is united to itself is utterly senseless and most foolish; even those who say that from two natures is one Christ make mention of two natures, and this no one of right mind ever reproved; but it is blameworthy after the union to say two natures make one Christ, or to define Him as subsisting in two natures; therefore Saint Cyril does not seem to have said to Nestorius, "Cease naming two natures of Christ," but rather, "Cease dividing the natures after the union" and again, "For after the union there is now conceived one nature, namely, of the Word incarnate."
What then did the Orientals say? "For the union was made of two natures." This is perceived by anyone, both of the orthodox and the followers of Nestorius, from the very expression of the words.
But those who confess the true and hypostatic union, and hold that by this very union the body conceived from the Virgin, the Mother of God, endowed with soul and mind, existed from ancient times united to the Word of God, and that Emmanuel is one from two, namely from divinity and humanity, unconfusedly, immutably, and indivisibly, and that there is one nature and hypostasis of the Word incarnate, just as a man similar to us exists from soul and body and there is one nature and hypostasis from two those, I say, who separate by subtle and refined contemplation, see that a natural conjunction of two natures was made, and as soon as they grasp the inseparability of the union, they no longer say there are two after the consideration of the union, because they see one hypostasis and nature from two, namely the Word incarnate. But those who rage with the polluted and abominable fables of Nestorius, and falsely say that the infant was first formed in the Virgin and then joined to God the Word according to benevolence and the granting of dignity and homonymy, whereby the infant, by homonymy with Him who joined and united Himself to it, is called both Son and Lord—these, I say, call this very adhesion a union of two natures and after such a false union they consequently remain in duality and say that Christ subsists and is recognized in two natures; for adhesion of dignity does not seem sufficient to bring the infant and the Word, which joined it according to relation, into one hypostasis. For this is proper to the hypostatic union, that from two it makes one nature and hypostasis of the Word incarnate. Therefore those who flatter at Nestorius' table, and terrify those who know the doctrine of the orthodox less accurately by saying: "See, you also name two natures when you say 'from two natures'," or when, in contemplation, they separate those from which Emmanuel is made and confess that a union of two natures was made, after the consideration of the union, with the division into two removed, you confess one nature of the incarnate and unassumed Son.
Hear also the wise Cyril writing the same words in his letter to Acacius, bishop of Melitene: "When therefore the mode of the incarnation is diligently inquired into, the human intellect clearly sees two united ineffably and unconfusedly according to the union; yet the united in no way separates, but believes and firmly admits that one of both is God and Son and Christ and Lord. But truly the madness of Nestorius is entirely different from this doctrine. Indeed, he pretends to confess that the Word was incarnate and unassumed, though He was God; but ignoring the power of the incarnate, he names two natures, yet separates them from each other, and sets God apart and likewise the man joined to God according to relation alone, according to honor, equality, or authority. For thus he said: 'God was inseparable from the visible; therefore I do not separate the honor of Him who is inseparable; I separate the natures, but the union is adoration.' But truly the Antiochian brothers, embracing by simple and sole thoughts those things from which Christ is understood to consist, said indeed there is a difference of natures, because divinity and humanity are not the same according to natural quality; but one Son and Christ and Lord, and as one truly existing, they say there is also one person of Him; and in no way do they divide those things which are united. But they do not accept natural separation, as seemed fitting to the author of unhappy inventions." And what "not dividing the united," and again "not accepting natural separation" means, he himself taught before in the same letter, writing thus: "Therefore those things from which the one and only Christ, Son and Lord Jesus, is apprehended as if in thoughts, we say are indeed a unity of two natures; but after the union, as if the division into two has been removed, we believe there is one nature of the Son, as of one, true, unassumed and incarnate."
Note then how he says that even Nestorius names two natures but separates them from each other, because he confesses a union of relation which does not acknowledge God unassumed, but man joined to God; therefore Nestorius says he unites the natures according to adoration and honor, but separates them because he does not confess Christ as one from two, nor the one nature of the Word incarnate, although in many places, like those gathered at Chalcedon, he feigns to say natures are not separated. Thus, in the discourse titled "Exposition of the Faith," whose beginning is "We confess the consubstantial dogma," Nestorius says: "That in all things two perfect, unconfused, and inseparable natures may be seen in our Lord Christ, and each may know its own," and again elsewhere, which we have already considered: "One and the same is seen in the uncreated and in the created nature."
Why then do you leap up, O Grammaticus, citing the beginning of the letter to Eulogius, which says: Cyril—"Some reproach the exposition made by the Orientals and say: why did the Alexandrian bishop tolerate or praise them naming two natures? But those who follow the opinions of Nestorius say: 'He himself feels thus,' and so they snatch away those who know the matter little"? Does anyone reproach those gathered at Chalcedon with such absurd condemnation for naming two natures when speaking of the union of Emmanuel? But no one ever raised that charge; rather, and rightly so: why they did not adhere to Saint Cyril nor say from two natures one Christ, but rejected this legitimate formula from which it is made that the incarnate Word is one nature, and recognized him as defined in two natures, and added ἀδιαιρέτως and ἀσύγχύτως and connected ὁ αὐτός and imitated the similarity of the artful expression of Nestorius saying: Nestorius—"One and the same is seen in the uncreated and the created nature," and "That in all things two perfect, unconfused, and inseparable natures may be seen in our Lord, and each may know its own."
Why then do you rejoice and clap your hands and unknowingly mock yourself and confirm the saying of the author of the Book of Proverbs, who said: "The fool claps his hands and rejoices in himself"? And you write: Grammaticus—"Listen, those who have no ears. Cyril said the Orientals named two natures, and he confessed that he tolerated this"? First of all, O most wretched one, who even in the most well-known things become blind, do you not fear the clear reproach from the very arrangement of the words? For the words set forth are brought as if from the person of those reproaching Cyril and snatching away those who know the matter little. But Saint Cyril himself has not yet spoken anything as from his own person. But, after he completes the empty word of reproach and accusation, then he begins, saying: "But to those who reproach us, it must be said." If therefore these things are written as if from the person of those who reproach and blame Cyril and snatch away those who know little, and say: "Why did he tolerate or praise those naming two natures, the Alexandrian bishop? But those who follow the opinions of Nestorius say he himself feels so," why do you most ignorantly and boldly, as if from the person of wise Cyril himself, prepare yourself and say: "And he says they named two natures and confesses that he received this"?
But let us also take these things as said from the person of the eminent Cyril. What then are they? They named and tolerated two natures. And what, pray, did they say? They said: "For a union has been made of two natures." Therefore, what do you see in this from your opinions, O Grammaticus? Did they say from the union it follows that one Christ is recognized in two natures? Or what you said, "there is no difference, whether one says that the nature of the Word of God is incarnate, or that Emmanuel subsists indivisibly united in two natures"? But nothing of this sort is found in their words at all. Therefore, from the most wise Cyril, who tolerated them, we ask how he tolerated what had been said by them: "For a union has been made of two natures." He himself, when writing to them, as we said before, bringing down the hypostatic union, true and natural, explained the ambiguous statement, as if casting a living spark, with this saying: "For one Lord Jesus Christ, although the difference of the natures from which we say an ineffable union has been made is recognized."
Writing to Acacius, he firmly retained the same formula, as if it were an anchor, the formula "from two," by which, only in thoughts and separation according to contemplation, and the subtle imaginations of the mind, the union is conceived to be made from two natures, but in truth what after the contemplation of the union is clearly seen to subsist as one nature, namely the incarnate nature of the Word, free from all confusion and division. These words, although brought up just now, I will recite again so that those who have no ears to your insensitive ears, but do have ears to hear, as our Lord Jesus said, the Lord of the gospel and of all inspired Scripture: Cyril says, "Therefore, those things from which there is one and only Son and Lord Jesus Christ, as if apprehended in thoughts, we say there is unity of two natures; but after the union, as if the division into two were removed, we believe one nature of the Son, as of one, truly unhuman and incarnate. But if it is said that the God Word is incarnate and unhuman, let suspicion of change be far removed, for what He was has remained; and a truly unconfused union is proclaimed by us." And after a few words: "Therefore, since the mode of the incarnation is diligently sought, two, ineffably and unconfusedly united according to the union, the human intellect clearly sees; yet the united one does not separate in any way, but believes and firmly admits one from both, both God and Son and Christ and Lord. But truly different from this confession is the madness of Nestorius." Note how, after saying "but one from both, both God and Son and Christ and Lord, he believes and firmly admits," he immediately added "but truly different from this confession is the madness of Nestorius." These are the words of the letter to Acacius: to believe that one from two, from divinity and humanity, is both God and Son and Christ and Lord, and to discern by the mind alone that a union is made of two natures, but after the contemplation of the union, as if the division into two were removed, to confess one nature of the incarnate Word.
Show then, O most inconsiderate of grammarians, you who have a mind swifter than your tongue, indeed who from a vehement spirit lose the providence of speech, that the Council of Chalcedon or the Tome of Leo wrote "from two," or that they said "those things from which there is one and only Christ, as if apprehended in thought, we say there is unity of two natures; but after the union, as if the division into two were removed, we believe one nature of the Son, as of one, truly unhuman and incarnate." But since they are as silent as a rock concerning these words, and have not been able to produce any of these orthodox expressions in what they have written, indeed they have rejected confessing one Christ "from two," and instead introduced that He is to be understood "in two natures," it is time to say to you what is written in the book of Judges: "Where then is your mouth, that said?" I leave the great and full of praise letter to Acacius, which those who wish to consult it are unable even to look at. Perhaps you hope that, while you lie and act impiously, it will bring you praises, although it prepares shame and mockery for you? Therefore, since the letter to Acacius crowned you with such glorious honors, proceed swiftly to the letter to Eulogius. And because you were caught failing when you began it, leaping forth in vain, so that the speech itself refutes your inept nonsense, I will add what follows; again from those you will be caught against yourself by adducing the sacred words of the wise Cyril: The words of Cyril that the Grammarian adduces: "But to those who reproach us it must be said that not all things which heretics say must be shunned and rejected; for many things they profess, we also profess. For example, when the Arians say that the Father is the creator and lord of all, does it therefore follow that we should reject such confessions? So also concerning Nestorius; although he says two natures, signifying the difference of flesh and the Word of God — for the nature of the Word of God is one, and that of the flesh another — nevertheless he does not confess the union with us. For we confess one Christ, one Son, the same one Lord, united, and also one nature of the Word incarnate."