Proofs That the Union Was Without Confusion

Those who believe that after the union there was one nature of both Godhead and manhood destroy, by this reasoning, the distinct properties of the natures; and destroying them means denying both natures. For if the united natures were confused, we could not recognize either that flesh is flesh or that God is God. But if even after the union the difference between the united natures is clear, then there was no confusion, and the union was without confusion. And if this is admitted, then Christ the Master is not one nature, but one Son who shows each nature unimpaired. [a] We too assert the union, and we ourselves confess that it took place at the conception. If, then, the natures were mixed and confused by the union, how was it that after the birth the flesh was not seen to have any new quality? Instead it showed the human character, kept the size of a baby, was wrapped in strips of cloth, and nursed at a mother’s breast. And if all this did not happen in mere fantasy and appearance, then there is no room for fantasy or appearance: what was seen was truly a body. And if this is granted, the natures were not confused by the union, but each remained unimpaired.

The authors of this patchwork, ill-matched heresy sometimes say that God the Word became flesh, and at other times declare that the flesh was changed into the nature of Godhead. Both statements are futile, empty and full of falsehood. For if God the Word became flesh, as they argue, why do they call him God, and God alone? Why do they refuse to call him man as well, and find great fault with us, who besides confessing him as God also call him man? But if the flesh was changed into the nature of Godhead, why do they put the antitypes of the body in its place? The figure is pointless when the reality has been done away with. [c] A bodiless nature is not circumcised in the body. The words “in the body” are added because of the spiritual circumcision of the heart. So circumcision is of a body. But Christ the Master was circumcised after the union. And if this is granted, the argument for confusion is refuted. [d]

We have learned that Christ the Savior was hungry and thirsty, and we have believed that this was so in reality and not in appearance. But such states belong not to a bodiless nature but to a body. So Christ the Master had a body, which before the resurrection was affected according to its nature. The divine apostle bears witness to this when he says, “For we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who was tempted in every way as we are, yet without sin.” For sin belongs not to the nature but to the evil will. [e]

Of the divine nature the prophet David says, “See, he who keeps Israel will neither slumber nor sleep.” But the evangelist’s account describes Christ the Master as sleeping in the boat. Now not sleeping and being asleep are opposites. So, if Christ the Master was God alone, as they argue, the prophet contradicts the Gospels. But there is no contradiction, for both prophecies and Gospels flow from one and the same Spirit. So Christ the Master had a body like all other bodies, subject to the need of sleep. And so the argument for confusion is shown to be a fable. [f] Of the divine nature the prophet Isaiah said, “He will neither hunger nor grow weary,” and so on. But the evangelist says, “Jesus, being weary from his journey, sat thus by the well.” “Will not grow weary” is the opposite of “being weary,” so the prophecy contradicts the account in the Gospels. But they do not contradict each other, for both come from one God. Not growing weary belongs to the nature that has no bounds and fills all things. But moving from place to place belongs to the nature that has bounds, and when what moves has to travel, it is subject to a traveler’s weariness. So what walked and grew weary was a body, for the union did not confuse the natures. [g]

When the divine Paul was shut up in prison, Christ the Master said to him, “Do not be afraid, Paul,” and so on. Yet the same Christ who drove away Paul’s fear was himself so afraid, as the blessed Luke testifies, that he sweated drops of blood from his whole body and sprinkled all the ground around him with them, and was strengthened by an angel’s help. These statements are opposed to one another, for how can being afraid be anything but the opposite of driving fear away? Yet they are not opposed. For the same Christ is by nature God and man. As God he strengthens those who need comfort; as man he receives comfort through an angel. And although the Godhead and the Spirit were present as an anointing, the body and the soul were not then supported either by the Godhead united to them or by the Holy Spirit. This service was entrusted to an angel, to show the weakness of both the soul and the body, so that through the weakness the natures of the weak might be seen. These things plainly happened by the permission of the divine nature, so that among those who would live in later times, those who believe that he took a soul and a body might be vindicated by these proofs, and their opponents convicted by plain evidence. If, then, the union took place at the conception and, as they argue, made both natures one, how could the properties of the natures continue unimpaired, the soul be in agony, and the body sweat drops of blood from excess of fear? But if the one is natural to the body and the other to the soul, then the union did not produce one nature of flesh and Godhead. One Son appeared, showing in himself both the human and the divine. [h]

If they say that after the resurrection the body was changed into Godhead, they may rightly be answered this way. Even after the resurrection the body was seen with its bounds, with hands and feet and all the parts of a body. It could be touched and seen; it had wounds and scars, as it had before the resurrection. So one of two things must be held. Either these parts must be attributed to the divine nature, if the body had them when it was changed into the divine nature; or else it must be confessed that the body remained within the bounds of its own nature. Now the divine nature is simple and not made of parts, but the body is composite and divided into many parts. So it was not changed into the nature of Godhead. Even after the resurrection, though immortal, incorruptible and full of divine glory, it remains a body with its own bounds. After his resurrection the Lord showed his hands, his feet and the marks of the nails to the apostles who did not believe. Then, to teach them further that what they saw was not a vision, he added, “A spirit does not have flesh and bones, as you see that I have.” So the body was not changed into spirit; it was flesh and bones and hands and feet. So even after the resurrection the body remained a body. [i] The divine nature is invisible, but the thrice-blessed Stephen said that he saw the Lord. So even after the resurrection the Lord’s body is a body, and it was seen by the victorious Stephen, since the divine nature cannot be seen. [j]

If all people will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven, as the Lord himself said, and he said to Moses, “No one shall see me and live,” and both are true, then he will come with the body in which he ascended into heaven. For that body is visible, and the angel spoke of it to the apostles: “This same Jesus, who has been taken up from you into heaven, will come in the same way as you saw him go into heaven.” If this is true, and true it is, then there is not one nature of flesh and Godhead, but the union is without confusion. [k]