And further he shows the same things:
We suppose not in fact, as some of the former heretics have supposed, [that] the Word which [proceeded] from God took a nature, that is, [that] he constructed by means of the divinity a bodily frame for him, but, in following everywhere the Divine Scriptures, we affirm that he took [it] from the holy Virgin. Therefore, as we accept in the understanding those things whereof was [formed] only one Son and Lord and Jesus Christ, we predicate two natures united; but after the union, as though the diversity of two natures was now abolished by him, we confess [that] the nature of the Son is of one, but that he was made man and was made flesh; but if it were said that he who was made flesh or was made man was God the Word, [all] supposition / of change would be far removed; for he remained that which he was; but let the union also without confusion be confessed by us. |303
Nestorius. Thou confessest then those things whereof Christ is [formed], that is, the divinity and the humanity, and thou hast confessed a diversity in the ousias and that they have remained without confusion; but they have remained without confusion, as are the natures; even then in the union they have remained thus. How therefore do the natures remain without confusion, since they remain not after the union such as they are in nature?....'For after the union the distinction between the two is suppressed, and we confess that the nature of the Son is one.' For if the natures have not remained even in the union such as they were, but their own distinctions, whereby they were conceived as two, though remaining even in the union without confusion, are suppressed, there comes about a confusion, a confusion of change and of transformation, a coming to be in one nature. How then seems it unto thee? 'The union which was united in the natures took place without confusion.' Two then [are] they whereof was [formed] only one son and Lord and Jesus Christ, two also in the union; and the natural diversities, wherein they are conceived as two, are not suppressed, since the one is not the other in ousia nor the other the one in ousia. For surely thou conceivest not so, but sayest not as / thou conceivest. How then in thy thoughts acceptest thou two [natures] whereof Christ is [formed], whereas after the union thou predicatest one nature of the Son as though suppressing the distinction between two natures? Above thou sayest that those whereof one son is [formed] are two and later that the nature of the Son is one, as though the union of the natures resulted in the nature and not in the prosôpon. For the natures of both of them which have been united have become one. For this union, being variable and changeable, |304 in that it takes place for the nature and for the completion of the nature, is not of two complete but of two incomplete natures.
For every complete nature has not need of another nature that it may be and live, in that it has in it and has received [its whole] definition that it may be. For in a natural composition it seems that neither of those natures whereof it is [formed] is complete but they need one another that they may be and subsist. Even as the body has need of the soul that it may live, for it lives not of itself, and the soul has need of the body that it may perceive, whereas otherwise it would see, even though it had not eyes and would hear, even though the hearing were injured, so too with the other senses. How then dost thou predicate one nature of two whole natures, when the humanity is complete, needing not the union of the divinity to become man? / For it is its to become man not through the union with the divinity but by the creative power of God, who has brought into being all that which existed not, although the union took place with its very creation. Nor was the divinity in need of the humanity as if for the knowledge or as if for the perceiving of human [perceptions]. How then resulted the union of the Son in one nature? Suppress then entirely the [theories pointing to] two natures and there will be room for that of one nature without soul, as Arius said, and without intelligence, as Apollinarius said; and thou attributest unto man one nature outside all the natures and afterwards [thou sayest] this, that God the Word is not without need, because he is not a complete nature in that he needs the nature of man. But now in the same [place] thou sayest the opposite to all this: both [that there are] two whole natures whereof the Son is [formed] and that the union resulted in one nature of the Son. Nor has it therefore been conceived that there is one Son [formed] of these [two natures], and thou hast spoken of two natures united, and further [thou hast said] that [they resulted] in one nature of the Son and dost abolish that of the flesh. And for this reason after the union thou suppressest the |305 distinction between two [natures] in that the nature of the flesh has thereby been suppressed either because it has been corrupted or because it has been changed, and thou believest, however, in 'one nature of the Son who was made man and was found in body'. Whom and what, whereof one Son is [formed], callest thou the nature? And what is / the one nature of the Son? But the things which are united from two natures into one nature are conceived [to be composed] of both the natures which have been united in like manner as [something] composed of simple [elements]. Therefore the one nature of the Son is composite, and for this reason thou hast said: '[He is] furnished however with a bodily frame.' How further will the distinction between both be suppressed, that he may not be conceived [to be] with the flesh? And thou speakest of two and [sayest] that it is not right that they should be conceived [to be] two after the union, as though indeed suppressing the distinction between both. And thou speakest of one nature of the Son and attributest unto them the necessity of being conceived as two, in that thou sayest that he was furnished with a bodily frame after the union; for he was furnished with flesh in the flesh which was by nature flesh. Thou attributest therefore two natures unto the Lord after the union, one the nature of the Son and one the flesh wherein he was furnished with flesh; or before the union two distinct natures, of the divinity of the Son and of his humanity, are to be conceived, and then they were combined for the suppression of one nature. And thus too, neither before the union nor after the union, is the Son conceived as [formed] of two natures; or thou sayest this, that they continue disunited and undistinguished, and the nature of the Son remains alone [apart] from the nature of the humanity, as though suppressing the distinction between both; and thou castest before Acacius himself, as before a dog that is excited and infuriated against thee, the [view] that after the union the distinction between both is suppressed, and thou sayest that we believe that the ousia of the Son is / one; and again [thou proclaimest] before the Easterns that he however was furnished with flesh, in order |306 that they might not be excited. Thou hast also said this, that the union took place entirely without confusion, and thou concedest unto every man as he requires.
Acacius. Yet verily and often indeed opponents will say: 'Lo! evidently these, in making confession of the correct faith, name two natures and distinguish the sayings of the theologians according to the diversity of the natures. And lo! how is it that these [theories] are not opposed to thine, for thou art not persuaded that [one ought] to divide the sayings unto two prosôpa or hypostases? '
Cyril. But, O wise man, I say that there is written in the Articles that that man who divides the sayings between two prosôpa or hypostases, some of them as if to the man who is known outside God the Word and others of them as though suitable to God the Word alone, who [proceeded] from God the Father, should be condemned. But we have not in any way abolished the diversity of the sayings, although we have ruled out the [phrase] 'we divide them' as [dividing] the Son alone, the Word from the Father, and again as [dividing] the man known [as] the Son of a woman. For truly the nature of the Word is one, for we know that he was found in body and was made man.
Nestorius. By reasoning and the train of examination did he persuade / Acacius of these words and did he not lead him, as one that was bridled, to follow whithersoever he required? For he said that there was a union of two natures whence there was [formed] only one Son and Lord and Jesus Christ and [that] the union took place entirely without confusion. How then is the nature of the Son one, that which thou hast |307 said is two natures----that is, [is] in the natures, [being] that which is of them. For there is not a nature which should be two natures whence there should be one and not two. 'But', [thou wilt say], 'through the union it is his to become one, and yet he became not one through the union, and [it is right] that we should conceive two without confusion with the diversity of the ousias and further that we should not conceive two but one' . . . . Who understands confusion without confusion, and [how] to divide the sayings unto two prosôpa or hypostases? These things need much examination, an exact examination of identity and of difference. 'If one divides the sayings unto two prosôpa or hypostases ,' [he says], and again: 'Nor [is it right] that we should abolish the diversity of the sayings even in any single way.' He who says that it is not right to divide the sayings into the prosôpa or the hypostases further abolishes not even in any way the two diversities of the sayings. For in what way is it by no means right to divide the sayings unto the prosôpa or the hypostases? From / two thou keepest us afar off; how therefore hast thou not even in any single way abolished the diversity of the sayings? 'Although we have ruled out the [phrase] "we divide them", as [dividing] the Son alone, the Word from the Father, and again as [dividing] the man who alone is known as the son of a woman. For even truly the nature of the Word is one, for we know that he was found in body and was made man.' In what way then hast thou not suppressed the diversity of the sayings; whereas thou sayest that the eternal Son is by nature God the Word? Say [that] thou givest [unto him] also the flesh even in union and not in remoteness, what is the diversity of the sayings which thou hast not abolished? For the diversities are [those] of the operations which are set before us and these diversities are based on the sayings; for when there is no diversity [in the operations], the diversity also of the sayings is suppressed. Thou confessest two natures of one Christ and Son, even two diversities, and thou makest the diversities of the sayings in accordance with the diversities of the natures and thou dividest also the sayings of the theologians. How hast thou joined |308 together the very things which are divided, thou that acceptest with a joyful voice him that divides them? How confessest thou two natures of the union of one Christ and one Son and again one nature of God the Word? For thou hast said that we confess / one nature of God the Word and not two united. Thou sayest one Son, because thou predicatest of the Son two natures without distinction, and thou attributest again one nature only nor yet two without distinction unto God the Word and sayest that he is the Son found in flesh and yet that he is not in the flesh. But, lest thou shouldest predicate one Son of God the Word in one nature found in flesh and another Son of two natures united, of one Christ and one Son thou darest not predicate one nature found in flesh, but thou confidently determinest the one nature of God the Word found in flesh. Why then? There is one Son, God the Word, [with] one nature and another Son with two natures whence proceeded the one Son alone! For the nature of God is not said to be two natures but one nature, in such wise that thou callest Christ one Son in two natures. And thou sayest all these things, [to wit,] both two natures of one Son and one nature of God the Word; and thou speakest of the Son [as formed] of two natures unlike one another and further removest [one of them] from him and attributest one nature alone unto him; and thou removest one [from him]----I mean the humanity----so that it becomes not the Son in the union, and thou art constrained by the word 'natures' to distinguish the properties of each one of them, whether thou art willing or whether thou art unwilling. / For for what reason hast thou spoken of one nature of God the Word and not of two united? And further [for what reason] hast thou dared to say that there is only one God the Word [resulting] therefrom, as thou hast said that only one Son [results] therefrom? Let it be, as thou hast said, that two natures, which men would call united, are accepted in imagination; say thus also of God the Word, that thereby only one God the Word is two. I indeed predicate two natures united, following the Divine Scriptures and the divine teachings, and [I say] that God the Word is indicative of the nature but the Son of the prosôpon, but [that] he is one [and] the |309 same God the Word. Thus [it is] that God is indicative of the nature but the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit of the prosôpa. For this reason the divinity indeed [is] one but the prosôpa three; for God is Father and God Son and God Holy Spirit. The prosôpa are not without ousia. But again in the same way----thus also concerning Christ [there are] two natures, one of God the Word and one of the humanity, but one prosôpon of the Son, that whereof the humanity also likewise makes use, and one [of] the man, that whereof the divinity also likewise makes use. It is not of the nature but of the natural prosôpon of the natures [whereof they make use]; for even in the union the natures remain without confusion. Neither [are] the natures without prosôpa nor yet the prosôpa without ousia, nor as in the nature of an animal has the union resulted in the completion of one animal; it has derived from both of them / the [power] to become complete. Yet of two complete natures the one is predicated of the other by appropriation and not in the nature, but in the natural prosôpon of the natures and not in another nature. That which is another is [so] called by nature; for by the nature the Son of God [is] God the Word, in such wise that the humanity also makes use of the same through the appropriation of the union and not through the nature. For Christ the same yesterday and to-day and for ever [is] the same in prosôpon, not in the same nature.
Why congratulatest thou thyself and confessest that the humanity and the divinity are not the very same in ousia or, as thou sayest, in natural quality,----if it is right to call the quality nature? And further thou confessest that the nature of the divinity and [that] of the humanity are united without confusion; thou understandest two which are unconfused and which are combined with one another. Thou confessest also [these qualities] in respect to the natures because they remain without confusion. And by the nature of each one of them they are conceived as one, though thou confessest not by the prosôpon but by the nature. So thou suppressest both that are confessed without confusion by thee; for thou confessest |310 that both were united without confusion, and further two are not to be conceived----as though suppressing the distinction of both----as that which [is] one. If the inconfusion of both the ousias had not been in thy mind, how then sayest thou of that which was combined in one ousia / that one ought to confess this union [to have taken place] without confusion? And again let us suppose that those [natures] which have been united without confusion have not been united without confusion or, like the [view] which thou hast said, that the union took place for [the forming of] one Son from two natures. But after the union thou removest the humanity from the union which [resulted] in one Son, and it has been put far away from the union which [resulted] in one Son and is henceforth conceived apart from the union. But this ousia of the Son is conceived uniquely, nor yet are those [natures] whereof he is [formed] Son, but only one nature, conceived in the Son. Yet thou sayest that there is only one nature.
[ Cyril .] But when the manner of the Incarnation is investigated, the human intelligence sees inevitably two things which [are united] ineffably and inconfusedly in one union; yet it distinguishes not entirely what has been united but believes that of two there is [formed] one, both God and Son and Lord and Christ.
Wherein sayest thou 'one'? That they have been united in the prosôpon of the union of the natures? Thus then the human intelligence sees those things which are united without confusion; but they are without confusion in their own natures and in their own ousia and thus they remain and are conceived. The one is not conceived as the other in ousia nor the other as the one. For in the matter of the ousias there is a distinction in the nature of each one of them: it both is conceived and exists. But in the combination of the natures there exists / in the same one prosôpon without distinction and without division. |311 In the natural prosôpon [there is] one nature, making use likewise of the prosôpon of another nature. Thus therefore the natures which have been united are without confusion and are never to be divided in the same, in that in the matter of the natures they are conceived in the distinction of their own natures.
Cyril. But the wrong opinion of Nestorius is [something] entirely other than this; for he proves that he confesses that the Word which is God was found in body and was made man; but, knowing not the force of 'was found in body' he names two natures and distinguishes them from one another, setting God solely by himself and likewise the man by himself, who has been joined unto God in proximity and in equality of honour only, and in authority. For thus he says: 'God is not distinct from him that is visible. For this reason I distinguish not the honour of him that is not distinguished; I distinguish the natures and I unite the adoration. . . .' But these our brothers in Antioch, accepting simply, as though in imagination only, the things whereof Christ is known [to have been formed], predicate the diversity of the natures----because the divinity and the humanity are not one thing in natural quality, as I have said,----as well as one Son and Christ and Lord; and, as indeed he is truly one, they say that his prosôpon / is one but distinguish not in any way at all the things which have been united.
Nestorius. And verily, if this had been truly [said], thou too wouldest have been more confident in this word, while I should not be able to feel confident of being known thereby, but, as thou sayest, I should be making use [thereof] in schema, and thou oughtest to have confuted me before all the Council; |312 nor, when I had required [aught] of thee by request, oughtest thou to have kept it dark but to have waited for the whole Council; and again, when I was summoned to the Council, thou oughtest not to have declined. For how often hast thou not done this very thing and wast refuting my wrong opinion, whereas I was not able to make use of any defence. For he who is confuted of imagining the contrary of that to which he clings in hypocrisy condemns with all condemnations the wrongness of his opinion. Yet perhaps it is not so, but the opposite. Whence knowest thou that I confess that God the Word was made flesh and was made man and yet say not that he was made flesh and was made man? For he who was made flesh was made flesh in the flesh, while he who says that they are divided and distinct from one another does not even confess the incarnation at all; unless perhaps he confesses / the [view] that he who was not made flesh was made flesh. For how are those things made flesh which are apart from one another without being united? If therefore I confess two natures and that he was made flesh, from what [cause] have I been supposed to say that the natures are distinct and far removed from one another, without conceding the being made flesh and the being made man of God the Word?
For thou hast said that I say: 'God is not distinct from him that is visible. For this reason [as regards] him that is not distinct I distinguish not the honour.' How does he who says that God is not distinct from him that is visible distinguish [the two]? For thou hast said that thou distinguishest not him that is visible from him that is invisible, and also that the honour of God is not to be distinguished; nor, if I distinguish not God himself from him that is visible because he is not to |313 be distinguished, do I distinguish also the honour. 'Who', hast thou said, 'is not to be distinguished? And from whom is he not to be distinguished? And for this reason I distinguish not even the honour of him that is not to be distinguished.' But I say that I distinguish the natures but unite the adoration. Just as thou too hast accepted the union of the natures without confusion either in truth or in schema, thou distinguishest also the natures in the matter of the ousias whereof Christ is conceived [to have been formed], whether thou art willing or whether thou art unwilling. Thou predicatest also the diversity and [admittest] / that the divinity and the humanity are not the same in natural quality, as thou sayest. For he that says that the divinity and the humanity are not the same makes by a natural diversity the distinction that the one is not the other nor the other the one. But the natural diversity is a distinction. The distinction therefore in the diversity and in the ousia of the natures is one thing and the distinction in the distance apart of the ousias, which have been combined and united in the combination, is another thing. Therefore I have predicated the union of the combination of the natures, of the divinity and of the humanity without distinction, [saying] that God is not distinct from him that is visible; yet I have said that according to the union without confusion the natures are distinguished by a natural diversity, but I have called the adoration of those [natures], which are thus not to be distinguished and are to be distinguished, one, seeing indeed that they have been combined in one prosôpon and not in one ousia nor in one nature, because the union of the natures took not place in confusion; nor further [did there take place] a confusion for the completion of one nature, because the union resulted not from incomplete but from two whole natures.
For every union which results by a natural composition in the completion of the nature results from incomplete natures, but that which [results] from complete natures results in one |314 prosôpon and subsists therein. For God the Word made not use of a bodily frame without soul nor / of a soul without will and without mind, nor of a bodily frame and of a soul instead of a soul and an intelligence. But thereby is distinguished the church of the Arians and [that] of the Apollinarians, which accepts not two whole natures which have been united. Neither do I distinguish the natures which have been united by abstraction and by isolation from one another, nor do I speak of an adhesion through love and through proximity, as though it were between those which are far apart [and] those united by love and not in the ousias; nor again do I speak of a union in equality of honour and in authority but of the natures and of whole natures, and in the combination of the ousias I concede a union without confusion; but in respect to one honour and to one authority I predicate the union of the natures and not of the honour and of the authority. Otherwise, prove [it] by what I have said: 'God is not to be distinguished from him that is visible; for this reason I distinguish not the honour of him who is not distinguished.' Where then have I said in these things that I distinguish the natures from one another and speak of God the Word by himself and the man by himself, [saying] that they adhered together by proximity of love and by equality of honour or by authority? For, I have said, I distinguish not God from him that is visible. [I spoke] not of the proximity nor the equality of honour nor of the equality, but I said that I distinguish not God the Word himself in his nature from the visible nature, and by reason of God who is not to be distinguished I distinguish not even the honour; for he is one thing and his honour is another, and his ousia is another / and whatsoever the ousia is is another. But, although I have said that I distinguish the natures and unite the adoration, I have not said that I distinguish the natures from one another by a distinction of distance, as thou accusest me in thy calumniation.
For if there had not been [any] other manner of distinction between natures than that only of distance apart, thou wouldest |315 have well found fault with me for distinguishing them thus. But if there were many others, and especially [if], in the matter of the natures which all our inquiry concerns, the union of which natures, whereof I have spoken, took place without confusion or change, how is this to thy thinking? And [yet] thou examinest up and down, as though I [had] said in this sense that I distinguish the natures?
And thou bringest [word] that the others divide not even in a single way the [natures] which have been united. In the first place thou wast the first to say that they are distinguished. But these our brothers in Antioch accepting simply, as indeed only by reflection, the things whereof Christ is known [to have been formed], predicate the diversity of the natures, because the divinity and the humanity are not any one thing in natural quality, as I have said, but one Son and Christ and Lord; and as indeed he is truly one, so we say that the prosôpon is one. But thou sayest that they divide not even in a single way the natures which have been united, while they have spoken of the diversity, / [saying] that the natural quality of the divinity and the humanity is not the same; and thou sayest that we ought not to divide the diversity, nor is it that there are the same things in nature, and therein thou predicatest the diversity. For in every way thou makest distinction, saying that there is a diversity and that the divinity and the humanity are not the same in natural quality; yet [thou makest the distinction] not in distance apart but in the matter of the natures, nor by means of a distinction consisting in a differentiation of functions, but with an obvious meaning. How then do they not distinguish even in a single way those things whereof Christ is united and predicate the diversities in the ousia?
And further thou sayest:
They accept not even the distinction of the natures, as it seems to have been imagined by the exponent of [these] paltry inventions, but they define and distinguish only the sayings concerning our Lord, saying that [some] of them are |316 suitable not to the Word which [proceeded] from God the Father as to the Son solely and [others] also of them again to another Son who [was born] of a woman, but [some] of them to his divinity and [others] of them again to his humanity; for the same indeed is God and man; but they say that there are also others which [are] common, because they regard both of them----I mean, [the natures of] the divinity and of the humanity. . . .
I indeed suppose that he does not even know what he says: however, what I suppose [is] that he says the opposite / of whatever he says in schema that he confesses with the Easterns. For, if there were not a distinction between the natures, how hast thou said that they have predicated a diversity of natures? And how are not the divinity and the humanity the same in natural quality, since they are divided in nature according to [their] diversity? For therein, if it is supposed of me that I predicate a natural distinction, it belies [me] not; they are not however [derived] from the exponents of [these] paltry inventions, for they are not my own inventions, but the apostolic faith and the teaching of the Fathers and thy own confession also, since thou art constrained and turnest it hither and thither that thou mayest say it without saying it.
And thou hast confessed that those whereof Christ is [formed] are two natures and [that they are] alien to one another in ousia : 'We do not conceive that God the Word has taken [aught] of his own, that is, divine nature and has constructed for him[self] a bodily frame, following everywhere the Divine Scriptures, since we affirm that he has taken [it] from the holy virgin. We accept as by reason those things whereof [there is formed] only one Son and Lord and Jesus Christ, confessing two natures which have been united.' And the natural distinction is not overlooked, for the indication of the natural distinction consists in their |317 being called two; but, in respect to the natures, they are called two, for there is a natural distinction between the natures whereby thou confessest two but [addest] that they are united without confusion; for this reason also [they are] two.
/ Thou sayest again some thing else to the contrary, that after the union [there is] one nature, because the distinction of the two, both of them his own, has already been abolished for him. Therein it is not [possible] for him to come to terms with the Easterns. Thou sayest however that there is even no indication of the distinction between the two, not, [that is], the distinction of the union but [that] for the diversity of the ousias. But thou, O wise man, with all thy wisdom dost even confess two after the union and determinest to confess that after the union there are no more two natures. For thou predicatest two natures united; it is evident that they are united before the union and not after the union. How then confessest thou two natures after the union and forbiddest us to confess two natures after the union? Which should we believe? The first or the second? Or thine? Since thou confessest with the Easterns who confess two natures, but Acacius does not, [saying] that it is not right to confess two natures but one after the union, because the distinction into two has already been suppressed. Thou concedest unto every man as he requires. ... 'But they accept not the natural distinction, but define and distinguish only the sayings concerning our Lord, saying that they are suitable, yet not saying that [they are suitable some] of them solely to the Word which [proceeded] from God the Father as to a Son and [others] of them again as to another Son / who [was born] of a woman, but [some] of them to his divinity and [others] of them again to his humanity, for the same is God and man.' .... And me, lying, he calumniates as though predicating two Sons; and those things also which he has cited against me therefrom as well as from the letters and from these interpretations |318 which have been excerpted by him proclaim [it]. But [as regards] his having said that now they accept not the natural distinction but define and distinguish only the sayings concerning our Lord, let us see what those that [are come] from the East have said, and in what way he makes use of these things: 'As for the sayings of the Gospels concerning our Lord, we know certain theologians who make [some] of them that [are] common relative to one prosôpon .' Hearest thou how they have confessed? 'Relative to one prosopon ' and not to one nature. Why changest thou their confession, when they make those that [are] common, as thou hast said, relative to one common prosôpon? And thou makest naught common. Whose do they make those that [are] common, since there is not [anything] common except [in the eyes of] those who make use of one prosôpon? Predicate then a common prosôpon and predicate of one prosôpon the things that they make common. It [is this that] makes his one prosôpon common; for that which is made of things [that are] opposite in anything is made common, so that it is therefore not sole but / common. As then a serpent receives a wound and coils itself up over the wound and conceals the wound itself and unwinds itself anew out of pain and shows it, though unwilling, thus thou also darest to hide what thou hast confessed and afterwards hast confessed, though unwilling, the things which have been confessed.
For hear thine own confession; for they have required thee to confess with them the things which thou hast written.
But as regards the sayings of the Gospels and of the Apostles spoken concerning one Lord, we know that certain theologians make [some] of the things which are common relative to one prosôpon but divide [others] of them as between two natures; those which are suitable unto God they attribute unto the divinity of Christ and [others] of them, and those them that are contemptible, unto the humanity..... |319
These things thou hast confessed [in such wise as] to imagine and to teach [them]; why art thou now keeping [them] dark? For thou hast said that the things which are distinct [are] relative to two natures and not to one nature, nor are the divinity and the humanity the same, but the [attributes] of the divinity indeed [belong] unto the divinity and [those] of the humanity unto the humanity. They call not by two names one nature, which is distinct only in the saying and not in the ousia, as thou imaginest. For thou sayest that the diversities of the sayings are not suppressed but they have indicated in saying the natures and the distinction / of the natures. And thou confessest [so far as] to say that there is a distinction of the natures; for thou hast said that they divide the sayings as [relative] to two natures, [attributing 'some] of them, those which are suitable unto God, unto the divinity of Christ' and not unto the same ousia in respect to the humanity but to the nature in respect to the divinity. For they call not the divinity two natures but one nature and the humanity one nature; for two natures are not named after one nature nor one nature after two natures. For concerning two natures they have said that a distinction should be made and not concerning two sayings which indicate one nature but which indicate two natures owing to the distinction of the diversity of the ousia of the two natures. 'Those indeed which are made common [they attribute] as unto one prosôpon, but others of them they divide as between two natures, [attributing] those which are suitable unto God unto the divinity of Christ.' The common prosôpon of the two natures [is] Christ, the same prosôpon whereof the natures make use even likewise, that wherein and whereby both of them, the divinity and the humanity, are known in ousia without distinction and with distinction. Neither the divinity nor the humanity exists [by itself] in the common prosôpon, |320 for it appertains to both the natures, so that therein and thereby both the natures are known; for it is one in the ousias. For even the ousia of the humanity similarly makes use of the prosôpon of the ousia of the divinity and not of the ousia, and the ousia of the divinity / makes use of the prosôpon of the humanity similarly, and not of the ousia, as thou pretendest. And they 'predicate not [some] of them solely of the Word who [proceeded] from the Father as of a Son but [others] of them again of another Son who [was born] of a woman; but [they attribute some] of them unto his divinity but [others] of them again unto his humanity; for the same indeed is God and man' . . . .
If thou sayest 'solely' in [the sense of] remoteness apart of the distinction of the natures, thou speakest not unto those who confess that the natures are united and that they have been united in one prosôpon and are two natures and indicate therein and thereby two natures which are known [as such]. But if thou callest him [one and] the same in nature so that the divinity, which was born of God the Father is one nature and likewise again [that which was born] of the woman, thou sayest that God is distinct from man only in the saying and [is] the same in ousia. And thou speakest outside thine own confession and further art hastening to wage war with thyself. For how hast thou confessed with the Easterns the division into two natures, [attributing some] indeed of the sayings which are suitable unto the divinity unto the divinity of Christ, and those which are contemptible unto the humanity of Christ, who is by nature the humanity and by nature the divinity. [They said] not unto the divinity of God the Word nor yet unto the humanity of God the Word, for God the Word is not two natures nor [formed] of two natures / or two names or many-named, [bearing names] which are the names of the one ousia itself. And (supposing that] the divinity is not conceived in the nature but only in the saying, wherefore embroilest thou with thyself Acacius, thy loving and intimate [friend], whom thou oughtest to have let go, whatever |321 happened, who only in the simple term and in the saying agrees with thee, who dividest the natures not in their ousias, but in respect to the sayings which subsisted only in the imagination as saying, which indicate no [real] definition and no [real] nature? In nature on the one hand and in the ousias they [would have] had no distinction because also they are not ousias ; only in the sayings of the natures on the other hand they [would have] had a distinction, because therein it is theirs to subsist.