Opuscula Theologica et Polemica 1 part 5/12

But if we do not thus piously receive and understand, according to the principle of the union, the expressions spoken singularly by the saints—both the 'theandric' and the 'one and kindred'—but instead suppose this operation to be either natural or, again, hypostatic, we shall of necessity teach as dogma that Christ is one nature;

sharing at all in neither of those out of which he consists, since Christ exists according to no nature at all.

For nature could never at all commune with nature according to nature;

but, without participation, it is according to essence wholly different from every nature;

this, then, will be inferred for us, if they call the operation natural;

but if, again, they call it hypostatic, we shall alienate him from the Father and the Spirit as regards operation.

For by no property characteristic of his own hypostasis

would the Son ever commune with the Father and the Spirit.

Let us, therefore, by no means wish to confess a natural or hypostatic operation in the case of the Word himself who was incarnate and became perfectly man.

For none of the holy Fathers, from his divine descent to us until now, has handed down the teaching to confess a natural or hypostatic operation in his case;

nor indeed, as far as I know, has any spoken expressly of one operation, except Cyril alone, the divinely inspired;

which we accept wholeheartedly, even though it belongs to him alone, for the sake of the union;

how is it not fitting also to receive with great joy the dual expressions of nearly all the holy Fathers—and of him too, again—on account of the natural difference?

lest, by clinging to and accepting only his single expression 'one,' we bring about the rejection and nullification of the words both of him and of the other saints;

as though the pious precision of the proclamation had been entrusted to none of them, but to Cyril alone;

and this precision entrusted not in his other statements, which declare the difference, but only in the one phrase, 'one and kindred operation.'

Besides, how do some simply assert one operation in the case of Christ God?

For it is necessary that this belong either to his parts, or altogether to him as a whole.

But if it belongs to the parts, it will evidently be apportioned to both, being divided;

and suffering this, it will altogether be dissolved, and will dissolve together with itself the things united in it.

But if it belongs to the whole, it will be receptive of contraries, being both mortal and immortal, created and uncreated, circumscribed and uncircumscribed.

And if this is so, Christ possessed his own operation as at once existing according to possession, and non-existing according to privation;

on account of which, inasmuch as he operated fittingly according to it, he was receptive of the contraries in the same respect;

but not in one respect and another.

The same may also be said concerning the will.

How then did the Logos assume his own flesh as a fellow-worker, according to Cyril the wise, if it did not have the operation according to nature?

For that which has neither operation nor natural movement is altogether dead and lifeless;

and by what reasoning would he admit the dead thing into cooperation?

For that which is without operation, through its utter immobility, renders cooperation void;

And how did he show this flesh to be capable of giving life, as Cyril himself again taught, through its natural movements—

such as touch, voice, and walking—if these did not belong to it, or were not present in it, according to essence?

For if these belonged to it according to essence, the flesh would certainly have possessed a natural operation;

for both the movement of the hands and feet, and the voice in utterance, belong to its essential operation.

But if these did not belong to it according to nature, then the Savior did not thereby demonstrate it to be capable of giving life.

These few things out of many—having been instructed by the teachings of you and of the God-wise saints among you—on account of your most sacred command, I have made bold to inscribe through this modest letter, and to venture upon matters beyond my power, being small and of little worth;

having neither a mind apt for the undertaking, nor speech pliant for clarity, nor character well-ordered for release unto the better things;

but rather, by grace, being sheltered through your mediation by the all-good God, who also covers the multitude of my sins,

so that from this they might show themselves to be mediators of God rather than mere imitators of themselves,

his illumination upon all, and his mercy—

not only having obtained it by possession, but also dispensing it worthily;

to whom I also earnestly beseech that my weakness—that of one poor and needy—be commended, so that I may be sheltered from the flame, visible and invisible, that consumes all things because of my sins;

and that I may forever rest and be guarded in the dew of his all-holy and orthodox faith, and of sacred virtue.

Behold, the difficulty has been resolved for you.

But God, having come forth together with the assumed nature, the great one called him 'one, and one out of two contraries,' on account of the union according to hypostasis;

but he did not take this 'one' to mean nature.

To the holy Fathers sojourning in this Christ-loving island of the Sicilians, to abbots and monks, and to the orthodox peoples: Maximus, humble and sinful, unworthy servant—

making known hereby to all, and declaring to those who long for salvation, that, cleaving with utmost divine love to the nature of that ultimate object of desire, they might joyfully and indissolubly pursue thereby the good of peace, toward themselves and toward all, if it be possible;

removing every occasion of offense from all, through pious and utmost concord toward one another,

for which reason it was also earnestly my desire, as your servant, to set down eagerly in writing what I had already established by word of mouth, for the security and full assurance of your most holy selves, having through this defense removed every suspicion concerning our humble self that had arisen in you from others;

For I do not tolerate, as Gregory the Theologian says, that any of those who diligently observe all our affairs—whether they stand well or otherwise—should be wounded on my account;

for it is good, as long as it is possible and reason permits, neither to sin nor to be suspected, so as not to place a stumbling block or offense before the many;

since indeed we know how inexorable and most grievous is the punishment from the truthful One upon those who cause even one of the little ones to stumble.

I therefore make known to your most holy selves that I have never at any time held the supposition of counterbalancing and contrary dogmas, according to the allegation of those who slander me,

for I have neither confessed nor written at all, concerning the same one Christ who is God, that there are, in the same subject, one and two—that is, according to them, three—acts of willing and operations;

for the one overturns the other, having no stability of natural reasoning whatever,

so that this dogma is also unattested by those of the truth, that is, by the holy Fathers;

and with whom, according to it, is the incarnate Logos co-operative, that is, consubstantial?

For if they should say he is co-operative with the Father, they thereby introduce a twofold divine operation—

unless, that is, they confess the third operation fashioned by them not for the abolition of the two natural operations of the same Christ—I mean the divine and the human—

For if it is not for the abolition of the two, it is clear that they profess two divine operations of the same Christ;

but if two, then certainly different ones;

and hence their own supposition becomes polytheistic, since the divine operation in the Father and the Son is known by them in otherness, and not in natural sameness.

And it is not only a polytheistic opinion;

for, by contriving that the Son has no divine operation, they also confound nature and hypostasis with one another, together with the properties belonging to each—

and, agreeing with Sabellius in this same error, they describe the Son as communing with the Father according to each—I mean nature and hypostasis—which is foreign to the Catholic Church;

not to mention that, through this common operation with the Son, they also make the Father by nature passible and incarnate, that is, made man, alike in both wonders and sufferings—

if indeed they say that the Son operates nothing other than the wonders and the sufferings, according to the third operation fashioned by them, as has been said;

by which operation also, in addition to the divine operation according to nature, they assert that the Only-begotten Logos communes with the Father—

But if, hard pressed by these consequences, they say he communes not with the unoriginate Father—

but define that the Son communes with his immaculate mother according to this third operation, then here too they furnish him with two created, that is, human, operations—

a natural one, once more, and a hypostatic one;

thereby manifestly alienating him, in respect of each of these, from God the Father;

and being swept along together with the division of Arius, according to the complete estrangement, in their view, of the Only-begotten from the Father in both operations—

they declare him a worker of wonders, yet not merely passible by nature;

since indeed they say that Christ, by the third operation according to them—or, as it pleases them to call it, the operation of the whole, that is, of the hypostasis—preserves his kinship toward us;

according to which, as one who willingly admits not only the experience of the sufferings but also displays the power of the wonders, they suitably recognize him—which is impossible.

For it is not possible that the same and one operation, or act of willing, or nature at all, should be at the same time both divine and human;

or at once composite and uncomposite;

so that by this same and one operation toward each—I mean the Father and the Mother—the Son should preserve his kinship by nature, unaltered;

or should perform both—I mean the divine things by nature, and the human things—according to this same operation.

For not even those who fashion goat-stags would conceive of this.

But if it is impossible that the same operation, or act of willing, or nature, should at once by nature be both divine and human—

or that the Son should commune with each—I mean with the Father and the Mother—according to this same and one operation, or should perform both, the divine things and the human things—

but rather, more fittingly, as has been said,

by the divine operation, the divine things; and by the human operation that belongs to him, the human things—

yet together with the communion and connaturality of the one with the other, but not divisibly—

therefore the third operation, according to them, is also nameless as non-existent, being confirmed by no reasoning at all, whether divine, or belonging wholly to the Father.

'And what,' they say, 'do we furnish to the whole, if we do not give the one operation to the one whole on account of the union?'

But those who put forth these arguments did not even know what they were saying.

For, supposing the whole to be something other than its own proper parts, out of which and in which it is constituted, they somehow insist—not from demonstration, but from mere assertion—that something other than what naturally inheres in the parts must be attached to the whole, as to a whole;

I mean, namely, the one operation.

and then in this way assign to him yet again, as to a whole, another operation, besides the essential operations inherent in the parts—

But if they do not assign another existence according to nature, then evidently they should not assign to the whole another operation according to nature either, besides that of the parts—

For Christ, being each of the two according to nature—

for the same one is by nature God and man—

he has, according to nature, the properties proper to each nature—

I mean, the divine will and operation, and the human will and operation—

but not one only, to the abolition of the two natural operations—

nor another besides the two according to nature—

that is, three operations and wills

Each, therefore, just as an essence, so also each essential will and operation, we ascribe according to nature to the same and only Christ

For if, contemplating the difference of the same one's parts, we fittingly assign the divine things to his divinity, and the human things to his humanity—

yet conversely, on account of the union, we attach the properties proper to each nature to the other by way of exchange—

whence we also call him God passible against sin, and flesh—

assumed, and become that which anointed it—

and — I make bold to say — co-divine, according to Gregory the Theologian—

he performed the divine things not by bare Godhead alone—

but through flesh endowed with a rational soul, and united to him according to hypostasis—

not with bare divinity, as formerly—

nor did he perform the human things merely as man—

but by an authority of unlimited power, and not subject to necessity

For the suffering was not, as with us, a matter of createdness, but the self-emptying, on our behalf, of the Word made flesh

Nevertheless, we attribute all things according to nature belonging to the natures of which he consists to the same one and only whole Christ, sin alone excepted—

wherefore we confess the same one both passible and impassible—

circumscribed and uncircumscribed—

comprehensible and incomprehensible according to nature, we confess

again circumscribing the result of the same one's two natural operations, that is, the divine sign wrought by the Savior God toward others (namely, men)—

such as the resurrection, or the ascension, or the cleansing, or some other such wonder-working—they claim this to be one and the same operation; but not even in this way is their argument well-founded

For we know not one, but many and countless signs of the Savior, concerning which the most theological John says: "If they should be written one by one, I do not suppose that the world itself could contain the books that would be written."

Moreover, by the things that occur externally, we do not at all recognize the essential existence — not in the case of any other being, much less need one say in the case of the Word of God himself, who is above all beings and who was incarnate for our sake—

but by the natural properties by which he himself is characterized in himself—

that is to say, by his natural acts of willing and operations—

otherwise, in this way, one would also define the carpenter as a wood-working animal, but not as rational, nor as mortal—

they would define his nature, perhaps, from the chair or the bed, but would not be recognizing it from the properties that essentially constitute it—

Whence we recognize, properly speaking, that the same one is by nature God and man, on no other basis than from the innate properties that characterize him both divinely and humanly at once—

that is, both the divine will and operation, as I said, and the human will and operation of the same one—

by which, and through which, he sets his seal upon what he was and what he became—

working wonders on our behalf as God, voluntarily—

and the same one suffering on our account, voluntarily, as man—

since he is recognized as nothing other than that of which, in which, and which he is — not as some illegitimate and intermediate thing, that is, a third result, after the manner of mules—

as the myth-fabrication of the empty-talking heretics fantastically prattles, having strayed from the pious preaching of the holy Fathers — but he, in truth and properly, is precisely those things of which, and in which, he truly and properly is

for existing according to nature from divinity and humanity, and in divinity and humanity—

Christ is by nature God and man—

and nothing else whatsoever

And how is it, they say, that the wise Cyril declares that one should hold a certain middle rank of the expressions concerning Christ, writing thus to Acacius?

"For some of the expressions are especially befitting God—

and others, again, are in this way befitting man—

and others hold a certain middle rank"

And how could this ever contribute anything to their own supposition? For it is not by change, or by casting off, of the extremes — I mean the divinity of Christ and his humanity—

or of the same one's divine and human will and operation, that some other middle thing arises, that is, an intermediate result, sharing in neither of the natures of which he consists—

or again, that he has some composite operation, being such according to them, or possessing such — this is not what the teacher hands down to us in these words; but rather that these things properly are the natures of which he consists—

yet these are not named in a divided manner—

but together, and in one and the same subject, each of these — since Christ is one and only

And he himself testifies concerning these things, defending the Eastern bishops, and writing thus to Acacius: "Now the brethren in Antioch in no way divide the things that have been united—

but they maintain that only the expressions concerning the Lord are divided—

and that some are fitting to his divinity, and others again to his humanity"

"For the same one is God and man—

and they say there are also others that have been made common in a certain manner, and, as it were, looking to both—

I mean, divinity and humanity—

What do I mean by this? For some of the expressions are especially befitting God, and others again are in this way befitting man—

and others hold a certain middle rank, manifesting the Son of God to be God and man at once and in the same subject"

signifying that Christ is something else besides the natures of which, in which, and which he is, as some have supposed—

but that the same one exists according to nature as God and man together

And he adduces the divinely inspired Scriptures in proof of these things, saying thus:

"Whenever he says to Philip, 'So long a time am I with you, and you have not known me, Philip—'

'do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father is in me?'

'he who has seen me has seen the Father also—'

and, 'I and the Father are one' — we affirm this expression to be most befitting God

But when he rebukes the crowds of the Jews, saying that, 'If you were children of Abraham, you would do the works of Abraham—'

'but now you seek to kill me, a man who has spoken the truth to you—'

'this Abraham did not do—'"

We say that such things have been spoken in a manner befitting man.

But of the one Son [there are] both the expressions befitting God, and indeed also the human ones.

And we affirm that those are the middle expressions, as for instance when the blessed Paul writes: "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today, and forever."

"One God the Father, from whom are all things, and we from him;"

"and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we through him."

"whose are the fathers, and from whom is Christ according to the flesh, he who is God over all, blessed forever, amen."

For behold, behold, he who named him Christ Jesus says that he is the same yesterday and today, and forever;

and that all things came into being through him;

and he names the one who is according to the flesh from the Jews, God over all;

and indeed blessed forever, amen.

Do not, then, divide in these matters the expressions [predicated] of the Lord;

for they hold together, in the same [subject], both what is befitting God and what is human;

rather, apply them to the one Son, that is, to God the Word incarnate;

whence he enjoins that these must be applied to him without division, as to the same one, who is God, and who by nature is also man;

and, as I have said, nothing else at all besides this.

"And indeed," they say, "concerning Christ he himself too confesses one operation."

For thus, in interpreting the holy evangelist John, he proceeds to say: "And indeed, when he raised up the little daughter of the ruler of the synagogue, saying —

he took hold of her hand, as it is written —

on the one hand giving life as God, by his all-effecting command;

and on the other hand, again, giving life also through the touch of his own flesh;

thereby displaying, through both, one and kindred operation."

But this indeed also holds the teacher's meaning quite unconcealed —

namely, that he does not define one operation belonging to each of the essences from which the one and only Christ consists, as some might suppose;

since indeed he himself declares, in [the treatise] Against Hermias, saying:

"For things that have obtained the same nature would operate alike;

but for those whose principle of how they exist has been altered, for these the principle of their operation towards all things would likewise not be the same.

For things that are of the same operation are also acknowledged to be of the same essence."

But this does not signify that the natures are different, since they converge upon the same as one another through the invariable identity of operation.

"For things that are of the same operation are also acknowledged to be of the same essence," he says.

But if it is improper on both counts — both to be at variance with oneself, and not to profess the natures from which Christ is [composed] as differing — it is clear that he does not hand down one operation belonging to each of the essences, that is, of Christ who is composed of them;

by saying, "showing through both one and kindred operation" —

[meaning] that the Word brings forth his life-giving operation, which by nature is also divine, both incorporeally and through the body.

For in saying "kindred," he signified nothing other than the same life-giving operation — manifested in the miracles through both, namely the all-effecting command and the touch of his holy flesh;

just as fire too, whether burning immaterially or through matter, displays in either case the same power to burn.

Therefore, the teacher does not say these things for the abolition of the Savior's human operation;

for in speaking of the touch of the flesh, he clearly signified the human [operation];

since indeed the [faculty] of touch is a clear proof of the human operation;

but neither has he handed down, on his own part, another [operation] in addition to the two according to nature;

rather, he has made clear that the operation which is life-giving by nature, as has been said, through both —

the operation of the command and of the touch — proceeds from one and the same God the Word.

But if, hemmed in by these pious proclamations of the Fathers, they bring forward the letter of Heraclianus to Achillius, according to which they insinuate that he too speaks, besides the two, of one nature in Christ, as of a whole, and one motion — let them explain this themselves.

One, on the one hand, is the whole nature and motion of the Lord, considered in itself;

one, on the other hand, is the motion and nature of the parts according to appropriation;

by this I wish to signify operation and passion.

It is necessary, then, that those who put forward these things as a fortification of their own doctrines should clarify by argument: what is the one nature and motion of the Lord as a whole, and how it is so termed, and by which of the approved Fathers it has been attested;

and what the two according to reference are;

and likewise what the one nature and motion of the parts according to appropriation is;

and what the two [taken] in themselves are —

that is, these three pairs of the same [Lord's] natures and motions.

And who has handed down that the same and one motion signifies each of the two —

I mean operation and passion —

and how, if indeed both apply according to them, is the Son not marked off from the Father in respect of his every motion, as being by nature passible in every case;

if indeed the motion of God and Savior, in whatever manner it is designated, does not signify each — that is, operation and passion together.

For the Divine is by nature impassible, and without relation, and simple —

or rather, more simple than all simplicity.

And how again do they not introduce twelve operations and passions through the three pairs of motions, if indeed motion signifies both according to them;

and which of the saints has set forth the natures in Christ God according to reference, or according to appropriation?

Let them show these things first from patristic judgment, and then thus, from this, the presumption of their own doctrines will be ratified for them.

But if they are unable, let them henceforth abandon these things, and align themselves, together with us alone, with what has been piously judged, both from the God-bearing Fathers of the Catholic Church, and from the five holy ecumenical councils —

confessing the same one and only Lord and God Jesus Christ [to be] God by nature perfect in every respect, and man by nature perfect in every respect, sin alone excepted;

and knowing that they do not, by abolishing what in both [natures] is by nature perfect in every respect, jointly destroy the divine or the human will and operation of the same [Christ] — [knowing] that neither what he was, without beginning and without cause, nor what he became afterward on account of a cause —

that is, our salvation — did the supra-essential Word in any way at all diminish, or alter, or obliterate.

But rather, wholly and perfectly, apart from sin alone, in himself and through himself, in every respect and in all things, he preserved them — these very things, properly, as I have said, according to an existence that is natural;

whence the same one, only, and one Lord and God of ours, being by nature possessed of will and operative, according to each of his natures — the natures from which and in which he consists — is [the author]

the Author of our salvation: he did not become a mindless man, or one without a share in the natural life that is common to us, that life which by his act of creation obtains its being from him;

but rather, in truth, he who by nature and alone is God became a man endowed with mind, that is, by nature possessed of will and operative;

having assumed the whole of me together with what is mine, that he might grant salvation to the whole of me;

having wholly dissolved the condemnation of sin, since that which is not assumed is unhealed;

but that which has been united to God, this too is saved, as he who bears the name of theology says.

But since, [even] against these very pious teachings of the holy Fathers, by which we cast off the irrational objection of those unequally yoked [with error], they assail us from yet another quarter —

the incursion of our own people against our own side;

or rather, the seizing of the more guileless, by producing a letter — namely, the one said to have been written by us to Marinus the presbyter;

and of the letter to Pyrrhus, it is necessary also to say a few words concerning these matters;

fully informing your holiness in all things, that we have written variously to Marinus the presbyter concerning various chapters of Scripture;

yet certainly not in whatever manner it has been alleged that we spoke concerning these counterpoised and contrary doctrines, in this way;

namely, of the one, I say, and of the two — that is, of the three operations or acts of will which they fabricate as belonging to the same and one Christ;

as though we, by establishing these concerning him, made them equal in rank to those, or related them to some other thing entirely —

"For if I build up again the things which I tore down, I show myself a transgressor," says the Vessel of Election;

Wherefore also the letter to Marinus thus put forward, or rather fabricated, as though coming from us, being wholly foreign and not ours, we ourselves cast away, and we exhort all who piously confess the Lord likewise to cast it away as we do;

so that we may wall off every occasion from our adversaries, who allege pretexts for their sins, and who make the slander raised against us a cover for their own inconsistency;

who, since they cannot establish themselves by their own argument — which is destroyed by the assault of the truth — contrive for themselves, under the mask of our supposed letter, a deceitful infiltration against the more simple-minded;

which, henceforth, those who prefer the truth to falsehood would neither suffer nor perpetrate, giving preference to our own defense concerning these matters;

But again, as regards Pyrrhus, who had earlier written to us a lengthy tome, and who, I know not how, greatly honored us in it;

and who, by way of inquiry and not of assertion, in that very tome made his argument concerning the one and the two operations of the same Christ;

and who was, as it were, seeking our own judgment, and inviting our decision and opinion concerning each argument — we too, fittingly, in the preface of our letter to him, honored him in return, fulfilling the apostolic exhortation;

"For in honor preferring one another," says the divine Apostle;

since indeed the divine word also bids us love and bless even those who hold different views, or who write to us with hostility;

And at the same time it was my earnest concern not to exasperate him;

but rather to conciliate the man, by praises directed toward him, so that he might come to assent to what had been piously set forth as doctrine by me, according to the teaching of the holy Fathers;

wherefore also I acknowledged that, in the treatise I had composed for him, I had understood in this favorable sense the things written to me by him;

urging him on, as it were, as I said, and inviting him to assent to the pious doctrine, which would procure for him the greatest salvation — if indeed, embracing this, he confessed it together with us, as we have written;

that is, confessing two natural operations of the same and one Christ our God, just as also two natures united without confusion and without division, divine and human;