Chapter XVII.—Concerning the deification of the nature of our Lord’s flesh and of His will.

It is worthy of note771    Cf. Greg. Naz., Orat. 38, 39, 42, 51; Niceph., C.P. adv. Ep. Euseb., c. 50; Euthym., Panopl., II. 7. that the flesh of the Lord is not said to have been deified and made equal to God and God in respect of any change or alteration, or transformation, or confusion of nature: as Gregory the Theologian772    Greg., Orat. 42. says, “Whereof the one deified, and the other was deified, and, to speak boldly, made equal to God: and that which anointed became man, and that which was anointed became God773    Id., Orat. 39; Max. bk. De duabus voluntatibus..” For these words do not mean any change in nature, but rather the œconomical union (I mean the union in subsistence by virtue of which it was united inseparably with God the Word), and the permeation of the natures through one another, just as we saw that burning permeated the steel. For, just as we confess that God became man without change or alteration, so we consider that the flesh became God without change. For because the Word became flesh, He did not overstep the limits of His own divinity nor abandon the divine glories that belong to Him: nor, on the other hand, was the flesh, when deified, changed in its own nature or in its natural properties. For even after the union, both the natures abode unconfused and their properties unimpaired. But the flesh of the Lord received the riches of the divine energies through the purest union with the Word, that is to say, the union in subsistence, without entailing the loss of any of its natural attributes. For it is not in virtue of any energy of its own but through the Word united to it, that it manifests divine energy: for the flaming steel burns, not because it has been endowed in a physical way with burning energy, but because it has obtained this energy by its union with fire774    Max.,Epist. ad Nicandr..

Wherefore the same flesh was mortal by reason of its own nature and life-giving through its union with the Word in subsistence. And we hold that it is just the same with the deification of the will775    Greg. Naz., Orat. 36.; for its natural activity was not changed but united with His divine and omnipotent will, and became the will of God, made man776    Ibid. 35, p. 595.. And so it was that, though He wished, He could not of Himself escape777    St. Mark vii. 24., because it pleased God the Word that the weakness of the human will, which was in truth in Him, should be made manifest. But He was able to cause at His will the cleansing of the leper778    St. Matt. viii. 3., because of the union with the divine will.

Observe further, that the deification of the nature and the will points most expressly and most directly both to two natures and two wills. For just as the burning does not change into fire the nature of the thing that is burnt, but makes distinct both what is burnt, and what burned it, and is indicative not of one but of two natures, so also the deification does not bring about one compound nature but two, and their union in subsistence. Gregory the Theologian, indeed, says, “Whereof the one deified, the other was deified779    Greg. Naz., Orat. 42.,” and by the words “whereof,” “the one,” “the other,” he assuredly indicates two natures.

Περὶ τοῦ τεθεῶσθαι τὴν φύσιν τῆς τοῦ κυρίου σαρκὸς καὶ τὸ θέλημα

Χρὴ εἰδέναι, ὡς οὐ κατὰ μεταβολὴν φύσεως ἢ τροπὴν ἢ ἀλλοίωσιν ἢ σύγχυσιν ἡ σὰρξ τοῦ κυρίου τεθεῶσθαι λέγεται καὶ ὁμόθεος καὶ θεὸς γενέσθαι, ὥς φησιν ὁ θεολόγος Γρηγόριος: «Ὧν τὸ μὲν ἐθέωσε, τὸ δὲ ἐθεώθη», καὶ «θαρρῶ λέγειν ὁμόθεον», καὶ «ἄνθρωπον γενέσθαι τὸ χρῖσαν καὶ θεὸν τὸ χριόμενον». Ταῦτα γὰρ οὐ κατὰ μεταβολὴν φύσεως, ἀλλὰ κατὰ τὴν οἰκονομικὴν ἕνωσιν, τὴν καθ' ὑπόστασιν λέγω, καθ' ἣν ἀδιασπάστως τῷ θεῷ λόγῳ ἥνωται, καὶ τὴν ἐν ἀλλήλαις τῶν φύσεων περιχώρησιν, ὥς φαμεν καὶ τὴν τοῦ σιδήρου πύρωσιν: ὥσπερ γὰρ τὴν ἐνανθρώπησιν χωρὶς μεταβολῆς καὶ τροπῆς ὁμολογοῦμεν, οὕτω καὶ τὴν θέωσιν γενέσθαι τῆς σαρκὸς δοξάζομεν. Οὔτε γὰρ διότι ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο, τῶν ὅρων ἐξέστη τῆς οἰκείας θεότητος οὔτε τῶν προσόντων αὐτῇ θεοπρεπῶν αὐχημάτων, οὔτε μὴν ἡ σὰρξ θεωθεῖσα τῆς οἰκείας ἐτράπη φύσεως ἢ τῶν αὐτῆς φυσικῶν ἰδιωμάτων. Μεμενήκασι γὰρ καὶ μετὰ τὴν ἕνωσιν αἱ φύσεις ἀσύμφυρτοι καὶ αἱ τούτων ἰδιότητες ἀλώβητοι. Ἡ δὲ τοῦ κυρίου σὰρξ τὰς θείας ἐνεργείας ἐπλούτησε διὰ τὴν πρὸς τὸν λόγον ἀκραιφνεστάτην ἕνωσιν ἤτοι τὴν καθ' ὑπόστασιν οὐδαμῶς τῶν κατὰ φύσιν ἰδίων ὑποστᾶσα ἔκπτωσιν: οὐ γὰρ κατ' οἰκείαν ἐνέργειαν, ἀλλὰ διὰ τὸν ἡνωμένον αὐτῇ λόγον τὰ θεῖα ἐνήργει τοῦ λόγου δι' αὐτῆς τὴν οἰκείαν ἐνδεικνυμένου ἐνέργειαν. Καίει μὲν γὰρ ὁ πεπυρακτωμένος σίδηρος, οὐ φυσικῷ δὲ λόγῳ τὴν καυστικὴν κεκτημένος ἐνέργειαν, ἀλλ' ἐκ τῆς πρὸς τὸ πῦρ ἑνώσεως τοῦτο κτησάμενος.

Ἡ αὐτὴ τοιγαροῦν θνητή τε ἦν δι' ἑαυτὴν καὶ ζωοποιὸς διὰ τὴν πρὸς τὸν λόγον καθ' ὑπόστασιν ἕνωσιν. Ὁμοίως καὶ τὴν τοῦ θελήματος θέωσιν οὐχ ὡς μεταβληθείσης τῆς φυσικῆς κινήσεως λέγομεν, ἀλλ' ὡς ἡνωμένης τῷ θείῳ αὐτοῦ καὶ παντοδυνάμῳ θελήματι, καὶ γεγονότος θεοῦ ἐνανθρωπήσαντος θέλημα: ὅθεν θέλων μὲν λαθεῖν οὐκ ἠδυνήθη δι' ἑαυτοῦ εὐδοκήσαντος τοῦ θεοῦ λόγου δειχθῆναι ἐν αὐτῷ ἀληθῶς ὑπάρχον τὸ ἀσθενὲς τοῦ ἀνθρωπίνου θελήματος, θέλων δὲ τὴν τοῦ λεπροῦ ἐνήργησε κάθαρσιν διὰ τὴν πρὸς τὸ θεῖον θέλημα ἕνωσιν.

Ἰστέον δέ, ὡς ἡ θέωσις τῆς φύσεως καὶ τοῦ θελήματος ἐμφαντικώτατον καὶ δεικτικώτατόν ἐστι τῶν τε δύο φύσεων καὶ τῶν δύο θελημάτων: ὥσπερ γὰρ ἡ πύρωσις οὐ μεταβάλλει τὴν τοῦ πυρωθέντος φύσιν εἰς τὴν τοῦ πυρός, ἀλλὰ δηλοῖ τό τε πυρωθὲν καὶ τὸ πυρῶσαν, καὶ οὐχ ἑνός, ἀλλὰ δύο ἐστὶ δηλωτικόν, οὕτω καὶ ἡ θέωσις οὐ μίαν φύσιν ἀποτελεῖ σύνθετον, ἀλλὰ τὰς δύο καὶ τὴν καθ' ὑπόστασιν ἕνωσιν. Φησὶ γοῦν ὁ θεολόγος Γρηγόριος: «Ὧν τὸ μὲν ἐθέωσε, τὸ δὲ ἐθεώθη:» «ὧν» γὰρ εἰπὼν καὶ «τὸ μὲν» καὶ «τὸ δὲ» δύο ἔδειξεν.