|
Nature is regarded either abstractly as a matter of pure thought (for
it has no independent existence): or commonly in all subsistences of
the same species as their bond of union, and is then spoken of as
nature viewed in species: or universally as the same, but with the
addition of accidents, in one subsistence, and is spoken of as nature
viewed in the individual, this being identical with nature viewed in
species. God the Word Incarnate, therefore, did not assume the
nature that is regarded as an abstraction in pure thought (for tiffs is
not incarnation, but only an imposture and a figment of incarnation),
nor the nature viewed in species (for He did not assume all the
subsistences): but the nature viewed in the individual, which is
identical with that viewed in species. For He took on Himself the
elements of our compound nature, and these not as having an independent
existence or as being originally an individual, and in this way assumed
by Him, but as existing in His own subsistence. For the subsistence
of God the Word in itself became the subsistence of the flesh, and
accordingly "the Word became flesh" clearly without any change, and
likewise the flesh became Word without alteration, and God became
man. For the Word is God, and man is God, through having one and
the same subsistence. And so it is possible to speak of tile same
thing as being the nature of the Word and the nature in the
individual. For it signifies strictly and exclusively neither the
individual, that is, the subsistence, nor the common nature of the
subsistences, but the common nature as viewed and presented in one of
the subsistences.
Union, then, is one thing, and incarnation is something quite
different. For union signifies only the conjunction, but not at all
that with which union is effected. But incarnation (which is just the
same as if one said "the putting on of man's nature") signifies that
tile conjunction is with flesh, that is to say, with man, just as the
heating of iron implies its union with fire. Indeed, the blessed
Cyril himself, when he is interpreting the phrase, "one nature of
God the Word Incarnate," says in the second epistle to Sucensus,
"For if we simply said 'the one nature of the Word' and then were
silent, and did not add the word 'incarnate.' but, so to speak,
quite excluded the dispensation, there would be some plausibility in
the question they feign to ask, 'If one nature is the whole, what
becomes of the perfection in humanity, or how has the essence like us
come to exist?' But inasmuch as the perfection in humanity and the
disclosure of the essence like us are conveyed in the word
'incarnate,' they must cease from relying on a mere straw" Here,
then, he placed the nature of the Word over nature itself. For if
He had received nature instead of subsistence, it would not have been
absurd to have omitted the "incarnate." For when we say simply one
subsistence of God the Word, we do not err. In like manner, also,
Leontius the Byzantine considered this phrase to refer to nature, and
not to subsistence. But in the Defence which he wrote in reply to the
attacks that Theodoret made on the second anathema, the blessed Cyril
says this: "The nature of the Word, that is, the subsistence,
which is the Word itself." So that "the nature of the Word" means
neither the subsistence alone, nor "the common nature of the
subsistence," but "the common nature viewed as a whole in the
subsistence of the Word."
It has been said, then, that the nature of the Word became flesh,
that is, was united to flesh: but that the nature of the Word
suffered in the flesh we have never heard up till now, though we have
been taught that Christ suffered in the flesh. So that "the nature
of the Word" does not mean "the subsistence." It remains,
therefore, to say that to become flesh is to be united with the flesh,
while the Word having become flesh means that the very subsistence of
the Word became without change the subsistence of the flesh. It has
also been said that God became man, and man God. For the Word
which is God became without alteration man. But that the Godhead
became man, or became flesh, or put on the nature of man, this we
have never heard. This, indeed, we have learned, that the Godhead
was united to humanity in one of its subsistences, and it has been
stated that God took on a different form or essence, to wit our own.
For the name God is applicable to each of the subsistences, but we
cannot use the term Godhead in reference to subsistence. For we are
never told that the Godhead is the Father alone, or the Son alone,
or the Holy Spirit alone. For "Godhead" implies "nature,"
while "Father" implies subsistence just as "Humanity" implies
nature, and "Peter" subsistence. But "God" indicates the common
element of the nature, and is applicable derivatively to each of the
subsistences, just as "man" is. For He Who has divine nature is
God, and he who has human nature is man.
Besides all this, notice that the Father and the Holy Spirit take
no part at all in the incarnation of the Word except in connection with
the miracles, and in respect of good will and purpose.
|
|
