But if thou predicatest God the Word [to be] in the two natures, God and man, but the man [to be] nought, it is not right to think aught else of thee [than] that either thou speakest only of the name and the schema of man without the nature at all, after which God the Word was named, or [thou speakest] as though the humanity added not anything in nature to the prosôpon of the dispensation on our behalf; or, in order that God the Word might be able to be revealed and suffer human sufferings involuntarily, so that while the humanity was suffering without sensibility, God the Word was suffering the sufferings of the body / and the sufferings of the soul and the sufferings of the intelligence and was acting and being acted upon----so for this reason thou makest all of them God the Word's and dost expel the humanity. If after this thou dost decline to confess two natures with me, by the same argument decline also to say that God the Word was made flesh and [renounce] the flesh in which he was made flesh and was made man. [It is] likewise both in regard to the man and in regard to God. But he who speaks so makes |220 not two Gods the Words nor two fleshes, but makes confession completely, without diminution, of the divinity, and of the humanity in which it was made man, that the humanity might not be conceived [to be] fictitious, nor further that by a change of ousia and by a change of likeness the nature of God the Word might even so become the nature of a man. Neither by mixture and confusion nor by a change of ousia, nor again by a natural change of composition of the humanity, is he conceived; for all these things are rejected and corrupt and such as befit paganism and heretics and corrupt the properties of all natures.
But, O excellent judges, do you wish to cite the witness which [was borne] by the Fathers, which was written by them, that I may make use of it; that in my making use of indubitable witnesses you may learn that I too have said the same things, and [that] you have condemned me as one who says them not and have condemned me in raging anger and in darkness? For whatever / else have I said other than that which Gregory has said? 'One thing indeed and another are the things of which our Saviour is [formed], if the invisible is not the same as the visible and that which is timeless as that which is time; yet he is not one thing and another----far from it!----for they two are one by mixture, God on the one hand who was made man, man on the other hand who was made God.' See then that he calls the clothing visible but him that is clothed invisible. For God is one thing and man another, but Christ is not one thing and another but one in prosôpon by union: [that] of God who was made man and [that of] man who became God. By man indeed is it said that God was made man, and by God is it said that man was made God. It was not that he was changed from the divinity; God indeed remained God and was made man, and man remained man and was made God; for they took the prosôpon of one another, and not the natures. Therefore [they are] one thing and another, and [he is] not one thing and another in prosôpon. For in that same doctrine by which it is said that man was made God men by all means attribute unto him |221 adoration and service. In him, through whom and by whom it befell him to be made God, [he is adored] with one [and] the same adoration although he is conceived as one thing and another in the natures. And he is without distinction in the union, but in view of the natures which are distinct he both is and is conceived one thing and another.
Now Athanasius also has said things which agree with this: 'Now that the Word has become man and has made the properties of the flesh his own, / the same are not therefore imputed to the body because of the Word which has come to be in it.' For he said that God the Word has come to be in the body as one who is clothed in the clothing and the invisible in the visible, not as though they had been confused nor as though they had been changed, but as though remaining in both their natures and making the very properties common to him who acts and to him who is in his own ousia, and he possesses all those things which are made [the common] properties. And it is evident that he says two: 'God the Word and the body in which he was and whose [properties] he made his own in order that those of the one might become the other's and those of the other the one's.' But this God the Word remained impassible even in the body, nor yet was the suffering of the flesh brought nigh unto him, because God the Word who was in him was born of God; because of the heavenly Word which was in him he became heavenly, but because of him wherein he was he also was adored with God the Word who is adorable. Because of him who was clothed I honour the clothing, for he was clothed in the likeness of a servant, as Gregory said: 'The King of Kings and Lord of Lords is clothed in the likeness of a servant.'
Why then have you accepted these things but accused of |222 impiety my words and not those also of them who have confirmed my own words? [Is it] either because you suppose that even these which in letter and in spirit are the same / are not to be rejected in [the rejection of] mine own words? Or [is it] because you make void [both] the former and the latter, that they may not be spoken, and further employ these of mine, having destroyed him who spake them? And you too, though involuntarily, are witnesses unto me and you bear witness unto me by those [words by] which you suppose that you undo these of mine, since you also are in agreement with them and undo yourselves, because you are speaking against yourselves. And if I were able to have judges unlike you, I should have had no labour to convince [them] that it is the same idea, and so on; and I do not suppose that it would be right to toil much.
Likewise, from the same, from the seventeenth roll, concerning the faith.
God the Word indeed was Son and God, and was with his Father even before the Incarnation, but in the latter time he took the likeness of a servant. Yet having been formerly son and having been [so] called even after the taking he could not be called son by distinction, lest we should introduce two sons into our faith; but because he adheres to him who has been son from in the beginning, we cannot make him who adhered unto him distinct in the honour of the sonship----in the honour / of the sonship, I say, and not in the nature. For this reason the Word also is called Christ, because he has continuously adherence in Christ.
But in order that we may not say the same things [and] tire the reader with the same [subjects], let us pass on to |223 their testimony which they have chosen, as they suppose, against me, and which they have set down as seemed good to them; whereby I have proved and shall prove that nothing strange has been said by me [and] that I have been condemned in this judgement without examination. Hear what Gregory, bishop of Nazianzum, says of the things which the former have written. . . .
For we [distinguish] not the man from the divinity; we call him one and the same thing; for | we call him] not originally man but God and Son and only-begotten before the ages, who was not mixed with the bodily frame nor with the things which are in the bodily frame but in the end took also the man.'
How then does it seem to you? That it is against [me]? Compare them both with one another. 'For God the Word, even before the Incarnation, was son and God and was with the Father.' Set down the [words] of Gregory: 'Originally indeed not man but only God and Son.' These [are statements] which are supposed contradictory by you; quote those which have been spoken by me [to see] if they are applicable. 'But in the last times he took the likeness of a servant.' Set over against them [those] of Gregory: 'But at the end he took also the man.' Lest / they should be supposed to be contradictory by you, set down those things which have been said by me: 'But he was before the other and he was called Son, but after his taking he could not be separated nor distinctly distinguished nor be called Son.' Cite [the words] of Gregory: For also we separate not the man from the divinity.' Quote the rest of mine (which thou cuttest short) as having been laid down by me: 'That we may not speak of two sons.' Set down |224 those of Gregory: 'But we say that he is one and the same.' Quote the rest of my [words]: 'But because he adheres unto him who was in the beginning son; he who adhered unto him cannot receive in distinction the honour of sonship, by honour, I mean, and not by nature.' Set down the words of Gregory: There are indeed two natures, God and man, as also [there are] soul and body, but the sons are not two; for those from which our Saviour is [formed] are one and another; yet he is not one and another. Far from it! For both of them are one in the union.' So he has made the distinction in the nature and not in prosôpa, in saying 'One and another, but one son'. And again: 'by nature' is other than 'by union', as he is called 'other' in prosôpon and not in nature. For after the flesh God the Word is flesh, but after the divinity the flesh or the man is called Son, in such wise that also after that flesh which has been taken God the Word is called Christ. Read those [words] of mine even as they have been written. . . . 'For this reason also God / the Word is named Christ, because he has continuously adherence in Christ.' Quote those of Gregory: 'For [there are] two of them in the union, God who was made man and man who was made God.' For by adherence unto man God the Word is said to have been made man, even as also man is said to have been made God by union with God the Word. For he calls the union a 'mixture '.
Quote the [words] of Ambrose: 'Does not also the very Scripture teach you that not the divinity needs sanctification, but the flesh?' After the flesh therefore which has been anointed or after man God the Word is called Christ, as Ambrose has said. But after the flesh he is named flesh or after man man; is not Christ to be named after the flesh which has been anointed? And after the flesh he is named |225 flesh; yet they make not two fleshes nor two men after the man who is named God the Word. Because God is named Christ after Christ, does it make two Christs? Or preserve harmony between you and the Fathers as regards 'in the union' and as regards 'in nature', and as regards 'in ousia ', and as regards 'the property of the prosopon', seeing that he has given us his and taken ours.
And thou dost concede unto him all the properties of the flesh and the sufferings and the cross and death and dost not concede that he should be truly Christ by reason of the man who was in truth anointed, without there being two Christs, since also [there are] neither two fleshes nor two men. / But let us add also the rest: [there are] neither two births nor two sufferings nor two crosses nor two deaths nor two resurrections from the dead nor the rest [of them], nor everything else which thou referrest from the flesh into God the Word. He then changes it from the flesh [only] in name and makes all of them [the property] of God the Word naturally and is grieved with those who speak the truth, as though they were making two sons. But when thou speakest, thou dost shun change and transformation and illusion and supposition, and thou dost pretend to be suspected of saying these things with intent to deceive. But when I say these things, thou leapest from thy place as if I were speaking of two sons; and again thou deniest and pretendest not to deny.
In this indeed lies the distinction between us, as touching what is in the natures and what in the union, in order that we may not deny the things appertaining to the natures on account of that which is predicated in the union, and again that we may not suppose that to be nature which is predicated of the union on account of that which is in the natures. In [regard to] the things which thou dost agree not to be predicated of the union, thou claimest as though they were in the nature and permittest not the mention of the union. But, being unable to speak of it when thou excusest thyself, thou settest therefore about accusing me and regardest me as |226 impious, although in excusing thyself from the things whereof I rebuke thee thou bearest witness unto me that I am pious; / and the same things are taken as impious in me but fair in him. Or perhaps they issue from thine own knowledge, that thou mayest strive and labour on their behalf! Yet, for all that [thou admittest them] of necessity and by constraint, hardly dost thou admit it and confess in him these human qualities. In what other things then more than these art thou confident of a just judgement? Even however in the following you have the same examination that by the same means you may confirm these my [words].
Likewise from the same, from the seventeenth roll: 'Concerning the Faith.'
Let us keep without confusion the adhesion of the natures. Thou therefore confessest God who is in man, but I worship the adhesion of the divinity [where]by man is adored together with God Almighty.
But that we may not make use of the witness of any other, it is fair that we should make use of his own testimony concerning these our [questions, of his] who says: 'We are keeping without confusion the adhesion of the natures, in that the diversity of the natures is not made void by reason of the union.' Thereby he indicates one and the same, and further he indicates God who was in man. God indeed was impassible, in a passible bodily frame. Therein lies the diversity, nor does it indicate / identity. 'I worship the adhesion of the divinity where[by] man is adored together with God Almighty,' and 'the body indeed wherewith he too is seated with the Father is not a stranger unto him';we have not quoted [these] that thou mightest disclaim them, but that thou mightest not blame the things which have been well said by thee. But you, O admirable judges without justice, you have not understood these things when they were |227 read before you; or else they have surely not been read or you have only been careful of this, that you might anticipate those who were about to come to the examination.
Now I pass by the [words] of Ambrose who says that the union of God and of the flesh is without confusion: 'In both of them there spake the Son of God in whom there are two natures, man and God.' But Athanasius also says: 'If God the Word were in the body as it were artificially, as these men say, that indeed which is said artificially would be a phantasy; in regard to him both the salvation and the resurrection of men would be found a phantasy'.
But let us again speak of the divine adhesion, since thou shunnest indeed the term 'adhesion' as impiety, thou who sayest also this, that whoever says [' adhesion' says] that it has adhered to him as in the prophets or by grace and not that it adhered by ousia, that is, that it will be adored with him in virtue of the union. And again from Gregory: 'God indeed who was made man, but man who was made God.' For this was not / his on account of his own nature, but in virtue of the union of the divinity; for in the adoration of the divinity which is united unto him he is adored with it, not in his own adoration. Just as 'He was made God' is not' He was changed into the divinity', so he was not made God of his own nature but by the union of the divinity. For he is adored with the adoration of the divinity which is united unto him and not with his own adoration. As being made God is not to vacate humanity, so he was not made God of his [own] nature but by the union of the divinity. Things indeed which are diverse in ousia but are adored with a single adoration are said to be adored together; but when they are mentioned as though in the union of the prosôpon, since there is no distinction in the prosôpon, how can one be separated and be said to be adored [apart]? But when mention is made of the ousias, on account of the distinction which exists between them, it is said: 'He is adored with it' because [he is adored] as if in both ousias, just as it is said also of the |228 Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, in so far as they are in the union of the divinity, that 'God is adored', and, in so far as they are distinguished in the prosôpon, although they are not distinguished in nature but remain always in their being, we say that the Son is adored with the Father and with the Holy Spirit, in order that we may not, like Sabcllius, make the prosôpa without kypostasis and without ousia. For he who would suppress [the saying] that the Son is adored with the Father / suppresses [the saying] that the Son exists in hypostasis. So also concerning Christ: when we speak of the prosôpon, we say that the Son of God is adored, concerning also the flesh as united with him; but in discussing the natures and speaking of two natures, we say that the humanity is adored with the divinity which is united with it. And he indeed who would hinder the saying of 'two natures' and 'him who is adored with it' would suppress [the saying] that' the humanity and the divinity exist in ousia and in hypostasis', even as has been our argument also concerning the Trinity, as also Gregory says. Our [words are] like those indeed of the Fathers. Therefore look well into the judgement which has been [passed] on these things, as they have been doing everything at haphazard, fleeing from the examination as from fire.
Likewise from the same, from the sixth roll. Ponder the things which follow immediately thereon: That he may be merciful and a faithful chief priest in the things which concern God. In that indeed he has suffered and been tempted he is able to succour them that are tempted. Therefore he who has suffered is the chief priest, but the temple is passible, not God the impassible who has quickened the passible temple.
Who indeed can undertake the advocacy of blasphemies such as / these? I called the temple passible and not God |229 the quickener of the temple which has suffered. For this you have condemned me like the priests for blasphemies, because
I have said that God is incorruptible and immortal and the quickener of all. Or contrariwise [can he be] corruptible and mortal and in need of life? 'For does not also the Scripture teach you that the divinity has not need of sanctification, but the flesh?' All this Ambrose proclaims unto you and you hearken not, or rather, you hearken and hearken not, you see and you see not, and you accept things which are inconsistent. How therefore do you accept these and have not accepted mine? Naught that is strange have I said, nor again have I written aught that differs [even] in small details from his own [words]: In that he has suffered and been tempted he is able to succour them that are tempted.
Now he proclaims the nature which has suffered, and you have no need to learn of me or of others. 'The Scripture proclaims it: "Confess therefore the glory of God and the sufferings of man."' Ambrose tells it unto all of you. Why are you frightened of accepting these [words] of Ambrose? And in that you ban my words [you ban] his also. These things he has said; for these things you have condemned me; then not me but him also, for I have said the same things as he, those which you have quoted. Who among men will / change these things and be able to accept them as the reverse? I should have had no need of much examination to establish my [words], if they had come up for examination and for judgement, and I should have been teaching in no other manner but by means of what they have said and what they used in [their] witness. Who had confidence in the judgement? And who [was it] that fled from him and carried him off by force, and wherefore? And it was by all means evident even to the unintelligent.
Thou hast said that he was impassible in a passible body, and thou accusest me as if I were speaking impiety [in saying] that the temple of God is passible and that the quickener of the temple is not passible. If thou art saying with truth that |230 God is impassible in a passible body, then hast thou not made use of this term 'impassible' merely with intent to deceive, in order that men may let thee by all [means] say and maintain that God is passible and mortal, while thereof accusing me who say that the temple of God is passible and that the quickener of the temple has not suffered? But you have learned how wise is the judgement of the judges, and I have made you know for what cause I have been judged. But the rest of these things also it is fair to read.
/ Likewise from the same; from the twenty-seventh roll. That you may learn how close was his adhesion unto God, [know] that even in the infant the flesh of the Lord appeared; for the child and the Lord of the child were the same. You have praised my argument, but [beware] lest you laud it without examination; for I have said that the child and he that dwelleth in the child are the same.
Suppose, then, that I have spoken thus; I turn not back from 'the child and the Lord of the child are the same'. I have said that he is the child and he that dwells in the child, but I [will] explain in what manner the child and the Lord of the child are the same, in order that thou mayest not suppose of me that I predicate them both of God the Word in ousia, as if he were in the two ousias. But, inasmuch as he appeared a child, he was of our own nature, made and created; inasmuch as he was concealed, he was Lord and Maker of the child which had been revealed; for there was one prosôpon of them both and not one ousia. Therefore have I said that he was one in the prosôpon and one and another in the ousias: the child and the Lord of the child; for 'he who begins and gradually advances and is brought to fullness is not God, although on account of his manifestation which [took place] little by |231 little / he is so called'. Gregory also, explaining that God is predicated in them both, who is in one prosôpon, lest we should suppose that there is one nature, says: 'He who begins and gradually advances and is brought to fullness is not God, although on account of the manifestation which [took place little] by little he is so called.'
Theophilus also says: 'This master-craftsman, the Word of God, living and making everything, who has disposed everything in fitting order, put not on a body of an honourable nature and of heavenly attributes and came unto us, but he showed in the clay the greatness of his craftsmanship in reshaping man who was formed from the clay,' He hid not that he was made and that he was also the Maker. He has not made the Maker the made and the Lord the servant in the same ousia, as thou arguest with us. For the earthly and the heavenly, the visible and the invisible, the limited and the illimitable, are the same, as Gregory has said: 'The child and the Lord of the child are the same, yet the same not in the same [ ousia ], but in the prosôpon; but the child and the Lord of the child are in the natures one thing and another, [even] those of whom is Christ; but [he is not] one and another----far from it!' What then makest thou of the things of the prosôpon of the ousia and of the nature? Thou dost transport the ousia of God / into two ousias and then removest our own nature and the firstfruits which [are] of us in attributing neither to the child nor to the Lord of the child diversity of natures but saying that the ousia of the child and the ousia of the Maker of the child exist in the same ousia of God the Word, as if [it was] he who made his own ousia and God the Word was the two ousias [issuing] from the one ousia of God the Word, or as if the ousia of man was changed into the |232 ousia of God the Word. For if thou shrinkest from speaking thus, why censurest thou one who speaks clearly and accountest him impious and accusest him of impiety?