Part II Chapter I §2: The Inconfusion of the Two Natures in Christ

§2: The Inconfusion of the Two Natures in Christ

SECTION 2 THE INCONFUSION OF THE TWO NATURES IN CHRIST The ” Hypostatic Union ” embraces two essential elements: (i) The union of Christ’s manhood with the Divine Person of the Logos, and (2) the existence of one Divine Person in two perfect natures, united but unmixed. A commingling of the two natures after the manner of natural compounds would be incompatible with the Hypostatic Union. The Nestorians denied the personal unity of Christ by exaggerating the concept of duality, while the Monophysites went to the opposite extreme of confounding the two natures. The Catholic Church pays due regard to both * unity in duality * and * duality in unity,* thus holding the golden mean between these heretical extremes.

Article 1: The Existence of One Divine Person in Two Perfect Natures, as Defined Against Monophysitism

THE EXISTENCE OF ONE DIVINE PERSON IN TWO PERFECT NATURES, AS DEFINED AGAINST MONOPHYSITISM i. The Heresy of Eutyches vs. the Teaching of the Church. — Eutyches, an archimandrite (or abbot) of Constantinople, who had nobly defended the unity of Christ at the Council of Ephesus, in 431, sought to strengthen his position by maintaining that Christ had but 147 one nature ^«), because otherwise He could not strictly be one Hypostasis or Person. Eutyches appealed to St. Cyril’s famous formulas : crttKW \XTiKrj 1 and vaK tov Aoyov a€v$apTo&Tp

current manuals of Church history and the respective articles in the Catholic Encyclopedia. b) Catholic orthodoxy found a valiant defender in Pope St. Leo the Great, who in his classic Epistula Dogmatica ad Flavianum so clearly defined the Catholic doctrine that the Bishops assembled at Chalcedon, in 451, loudly exclaimed: ” Peter hath spoken through the mouth of Leo.” 8 The Council of Chalcedon duly emphasized both the hypostatic unity of Christ 9 and the existence of two unmixed 10 natures in one divine Person, by defining that Christ exists in two indivisible and inseparable, but at the same time unchanged and inconfused natures, the indivisible and inseparable unity of Person in no wise destroying the distinction between or the properties peculiar to the two natures. 2. The Teaching of Revelation. — The Scriptural arguments for Christ’s Divinity and humanity, which we have outlined in the first part of this treatise, sufficiently prove the heretical character of Monophysitism as well as Nestorianism. physitism. (Cfr. Duchesne-Mathew, Church History, Vol. I, p. 160, The Churches Separated From London 19 10.) Rome, pp. 33 sq., London 1907.) 8* Per Leonem Petrus locutus At the present day the Syrian and est.* Armenian Monophysites have patri- 9 Una persona at que subsist entia archs at the Zapharan monastery (£y wp6ffvaeai.v davyx”™, &Tp4” 150 UNITY IN DUALITY a) By constantly referring to our Saviour as true God and true man, the New Testament implicitly refutes the heretical conceit that He is the product of a mixture or confusion of natures, for such a being would be neither God nor man. St. Paul 11 treats the ” forma Dei ” 12 and the ” forma servi ” 13 as separate and distinct, though they are hypostatically united in Christ, * who, being in the form of God, took the form of a servant.* 14 Only on the assumption that Godhead and manhood co-exist in two inseparable but at the same time unchanged and inconfused natures in Christ, was He able to say of Himself:15 Ego et Pater unum sumus — I and the Father are one, i. e., as God, and again: Pater maior me est — The Father is greater than I, i. e., as man.16 ” For,” says St. Augustine, ” He did not so take the form of a servant as that He should lose the form of God, in which He was equal to the Father. If, then, the form of a servant was so taken that the form of God was not lost, since both in the form of a servant and in the form of God He Himself is the same only-begotten Son of God the Father, in the form of God equal to the Father, in the form of a servant the mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; is there any one who cannot perceive that He Himself in the form of God is also greater than Himself, but yet likewise in the form of a servant less than Himself? * 17 The Johannine rwj, ddiaipircas, Axapicrm) . Cfr. 16 John XIV, 28. Ph. Kuhn, Die Christologie Leos I., 17 * Neque enim sic accepit forWurzburg 1894. mam servi, ut amitteret for mam 11 Phil. II, 6. Dei, in qua erat aequalis Patri. Si 12 fJLop

passage : ” And the Word was made flesh/’ 18 not only describes the Hypostatic Union of the Divine Logos with human flesh (= human nature), but it also implies that each of the two natures remained perfect in its kind after the union and in spite of it.19 b) The Fathers who flourished before the Council of Chalcedon (A. D. 451) believed in the inconfused existence of both natures in Christ as an article of faith. a) Thus St. Athanasius exclaims: “What hell hath uttered the statement that the body born of Mary is consubstantial 20 with the Godhead of the Logos? or that the Logos was changed into flesh, bone, hair, and into the whole body, and [thus] lost His nature?” 21 Similarly St. Gregory of Nazianzus : ” God came also as a mortal man, combining two natures into one (not: into one nature), the one hidden, the other manifest to men.” 22 St. Ephraem Syrus gives sublime expression to his faith as follows: ” Perfectam habet duplicem naturam, ne duas perdat. Neque enim in una sola natura Deus super terram est visus, neque in altera sola homo in coelos ascendit; verum perfectus ex perfecto, homo ex homine, Deus ex Deo, ex virgine Christus!’ 28 The last of the Greek Fathers, who is at the same time our chief authority concerning their teaching, St. John of Damascus, writes : “If there is but one nature in in forma Dei aequalis Patri, in 18 John I, 14. forma servi mediator Dei et homi- 19 V . supra, p. 93. num homo Christus Iesus, quis non 20 dfioovciov. intelligat, quod in forma Dei etiam 21 Epist. ad Epictet. ipse se ipso maior est, in forma 22 Carm., sect. 2. autem servi etiam se ipso minor 23 Orat. de Marg. Pret. est?” {De Trinit., I, 7, 14.) 152 UNITY IN DUALITY Christ, how can He be consubstantial with [His] Father and mother? The former is God, but the latter [. e., Mary] is a human being. But God and man have not one nature. 24 In the West St. Hilary testifies as follows: Mediator ipse in se ad salutem ecclesiae constitutes et Ulo ipso inter Deum et homines mediatoris sacramento utrumque unus existens, dum ipse ex unitis in idipsum naturis naturae utriusque res eadem est; ita tamen ut neutro careret in utroque, ne forte Deus esse homo nascendo desineret et homo rursum Deus manendo non esset”2 And St. Ambrose earnestly admonishes his hearers: ” Servemus distinctionem divinitatis et carnis [i. e., humanitatis] ; unus in utroque loquitur Dei Filius, quia in eodem utraque est natura” 26 P) Not all of the Fathers, however, were so happy in their choice of terms in treating of this dogma. A few employed expressions which are open to Monophysitic misconstruction. Such terms are, e. g.: xpoo-w, /u£i5, mixtura, etc. Tertullian27 speaks of Christ as ” homo Deo mixtus,” and St. Cyprian says : * Deus cum homine miscetur.* 28 But these are merely incautiously worded expressions intended to describe the intimate union of the two natures in one Person. We will quote a typical passage from St. Augustine, who undoubtedly held the orthodox faith: * Sicut in unitate personae anima unitur corpori, ut homo sit,* he says, ” ita in unitate personae Deus unitur homini, ut Christus sit. In Ma ergo persona mixtura est animae et corporis, in hac persona mixtura est Dei et hominis” 29 But he adds by way of 24 De Duab. Volunt., 8. Cfr. Pe- 27 De Came Christi, c. 15. tavius, De Incarn., Ill, 6. 28 De Idol. Van.; cfr. Petavius, 26 De Trinit., IX, n. 3. De Incarn., Ill, 2; Thomassin, De 26 De Fide, II, 9, n. 77. Addi- Incarn., Ill, 5. tional Patristic references in Jans- 29 Ep. ad Volusian., Ill, xx. sens, Christologia, pp. 84 sqq. warning: ” Si tamen recedat auditor a consuetudine corporum, qua solent duo liquores ita commisceri, ut neuter servet integritatem suam, quamquam et in ipsis corporibus aeri lux incorrupta misceatur” 80 In this famous text St. Augustine employs no less than three analogues to illustrate the Hypostatic Union : ( 1 ) The union of body and soul in man, (2) the mixture of two liquids, and (3) the mutual interpenetration of air and light. The first two comparisons savor of Monophysitism, for both the union of body and soul and the mixture of liquids are natural compounds. For this reason he supplements them with a third, viz.: the mutual interpenetration of air and light, which enter into a most intimate union without losing their specific natures. The most popular Patristic analogue was the union of body and soul, which Acacius of Constantinople (about 480) chose to bolster his Monophysitic errors. The same fwavs Kara

ship between Godhead and manhood is entirely supernatural. (3) In man a finite spirit is united to finite flesh, in Christ an infinite Hypostasis to a finite but complete nature.83 (4) Christ qua Godman is both God and man, whereas man is neither body alone nor soul alone, but a synthesis of both.84 THE EXISTENCE OF TWO WILLS IN CHRIST, AS DEFINED I. MONOTH ELITISM AND THE CHURCH. — a) In order to restore the unity of faith which had been disturbed by the Monophysitic controversies, Sergius, Patriarch of Constantinople (610638, in the days of Mohammedan ascendancy), with Bishops Theodore of Pharan and Cyrus of Phasis,1 pitched upon the formula: Christ has “one will and one operation/’ 2 This phrase, though not meant to deny the “duality of natures” defined by the Council of Chalcedon, in matter of fact signalized a revival of Monophysitism and was promptly denounced by the Palestinian monk Sophronius, who became Bishop of Jerusalem in 634. The adherents of the new doctrine were called Monothelites or Monergetae.3 88 Cfr. Rusticus Diaconus, Contra surdity of Monophysitisra cfr. St. Acephalos: ” Anima compatitur Thomas, S» TheoL, 3a, qu. 2, art. 1. 84 Cfr. St. Bernard, De Consider., 2 |y d^Xtj/xa ical fila ivipyeia.

Article 2: The Existence of Two Wills in Christ, as Defined Against Monothelitism

AGAINST MONOTHELITISM corpori, Dens ant em Verbum nequuquam” 1 Cyrus became Patriarch of Alexandria in 630. V, 9. On the philosophical ab8 For a good sketch of the rise MONOTHELITISM Owing to the imprudent and dilatory attitude of Pope Honorius, who had been deceived by a cleverly worded letter addressed to him by Sergius, the new heresy soon assumed formidable proportions in the Orient. Honorius overemphasized the moral unity of the two wills (= absence of contradiction) as against their physical duality.4 But he was not at heart a Monothelite heretic ; 5 nor did he issue an ex-cathedra decision on the subject. b) Among the first to condemn Monothelitism as a revival of the Monophysite heresy was, as we have already noted, St. Sophronius, Paand spread of the Monothelite heresy see T. Gilmartin, Manual of Church History, Vol. I, 3rd ed., pp. 395 sqq., Dublin 1909. 4 Cfr. Wilhelm-Scannell, Manual of Catholic Theology, Vol. II, p. 83. B Funk gives the following considerations to show that Honorius was not at heart a Monothelite. (1) Though in his arguments he constantly, like Sergius, starts with the Hypostatic Union as his premise, yet he never goes as far as the latter, never inferring from this premise the oneness of will or energy. (2) The expression una voluntas, which he once uses with approval, is, as the context shows, not to be taken physically, but only morally — it does not mean that Christ has only one will-faculty, but that the will of His untainted human nature agrees (and in this sense is one) with His divine will; it should therefore be taken as a testimony to Honorius’ belief in a twofold will. Neither was he at all inclined to accept the doctrine of a single energy, as we may see from 11 the fragments which remain of his second epistle to Sergius. After having therein condemned as novel, and likely to cause dissent, the doctrines of a single or of a double will, he makes his own the words of the Epistula Dogmatic a of Le« I, and declares that in Christ’s person the two natures work without division and without confusion, each in its proper sphere. (FunkCappadelta, A Manual of Church History, Vol. I, pp. 165 sq., London 191 o). The conduct of Honorius gave rise to many controversies. Cfr. Dom J. Chapman, The Condemnation of Pope Honorius, reprinted from the Dublin Review, London 1907, and the same writer’s article, with bibliography, in Vol. VII of the Catholic Encyclopedia, s. v. ” Honorius I.” Cfr. also Schwane, Dogmengeschichte der patristischen Zeit, 2nd ed., §48, Freiburg 1895; Grisar in the Kirchenlexikon, Vol. VI, 2nd ed., col. 230 sqq.; L. Janssens, De Deo-Homine, Vol. I, pp. 691 sqq. triarch of Jerusalem. Another prominent defender of the orthodox faith against this heresy was St. Maximus Confessor.6 Officially the Catholic truth was first defined by Martin the First in a council held at the Lateran in 649, at which the Ecthesis, a Monothelite profession of faith issued by the Emperor Heraclius (638), together with the Typus, a similar edict promulgated by his grandson Constantius II (648), were solemnly condemned.7 Pope Agatho (A. D. 680) definitively disposed of the matter by his “Epistle to the Emperors” (Constantine Pogonatus and his brothers Heraclius and Tiberius), which was read at the Sixth Ecumenical Council8 of Constantinople (A. D. 680-681) and hailed by the assembled Fathers as the decision of St. Peter. This Council drew up a new profession of faith, in which the Creed of Chalcedon was supplemented by the following phrase: “We confess, according to the teaching of the holy Fathers [that there are in Christ] two natural wills0 and two natural operations, without division, without change, without separation, without confusion.” 10 e Died about 662 ; his name ranks 8 Sometimes called the Trullan high in the Patristic annals of the Council from the domed roof of seventh century. For an account the hall in which it was held. of his life and writings see Bardenhewer-Shahan, Patrology, pp. 576 sqq. !0 Kal ${fo (pvaiKas ivepyclas ddtaipinas, drpivTU)sf d/tep&rrws, dovyx^rwt, The Emperor Philip9$vo (pvaticfa dcXiacis tfroi $e\JjfiaTa. 7 Cfr. Denzinger-Bannwart, Enchiridion, n. 263 sqq. TWO WILLS IN CHRIST 2. The Teaching of Revelation. — The existence of two wills and two operations in Jesus Christ is clearly taught by Sacred Scripture and the Fathers. a) The Scriptural argument was first exhaustively developed by Pope Agatho in his Epistula Dogmatica ad Imperatores. He quotes these texts among others : Matth. XXVI, 39 : Pater miy … non sicut ego volo, sed sicut tu — My Father, … not as I will, but as thou wilt. Luke XXII, 42: Non mea voluntas, sed tua Hat — Not my will, but thine be done. The opposition here expressed between the will of Christ and that of His Heavenly Father can not refer to the divine will of our Saviour, which is numerically one and really identical with the will of the Father. Consequently it must have reference to His human will. The same relation is emphasized in John V, 30: “Non quaero voluntatem meam, sed voluntatem eius qui misit me — I seek not my own will, but the will of picus Bardanes (71 1-7 13) again until, beginning in the twelfth cenbrought Monothelitism to the fore, tury, at the time of the Crusades, but his attempt to reintroduce the they, too, were gradually united to heresy came to an end with his the Western Church. The opinion fall. After this Monothelitism sur- which has found favor among them vived only among the Christians of of recent years, that, as a whole, Mount Lebanon (called Maronites they never professed Monothelitism, from John Maron [+ 701], one of is not historically defensible, accord’ their patriarchs, who was civil as ing to Funk {A Manual of Church well as ecclesiastical chief of his History, tr. by Cappadelta, Vol. I, people and successfully defended p. 165, London 1910). their liberty against the Saracens), 158 UNITY IN DUALITY him that sent me.” Another argument for the existence of two wills in Christ is derived by Pope Agatho from those Scriptural passages which accentuate our Lord’s obedience to His Heavenly Father.11 None but a human will, he argued, can exercise the virtue of obedience towards God. b) Agatho was able to quote abundant Patristic testimony in favor of the doctrine of the two wills and two operations. a) Thus St. Cyril of Jerusalem draws a sharp distinction both between Godhead and manhood, and between divine and human operation. ” Christ was double,” he says; “man according to that which was visible, and God according to that which was nowise seen; as man He truly ate as we eat, and as God He fed five thousand people with five loaves of bread; as man He really died, and as God He raised Lazarus from the dead ; as man He truly slept in the boat, and as God He walked upon the sea.”12 In the West, Pope Leo the Great, in his Epistula Dogmatica ad Flavianum, condemned Monophysitism, and at the same time, as it were in advance, cut the ground from under Monothelitism : ” Sicut enim Deus non mutatur miseratione, ita homo non consumitur dignitate. A git enim utraque forma cum alterius communione, quod proprium est; Verbo scil. operante quod Verbi est, et came exequente quod carnis est* 18 11 Cfr. John XIV, 31: Sicut — Becoming obedient unto death.” mandatum dedit mihi Pater, sic facio 12 Catech., 4. — As the Father hath given me 13 Denzinger-Bannwart, Enchiricommandment, so do I.” Phil. II. 8: rft on, n. 144. “Foetus obediens usque ad mortem TWO WILLS IN CHRIST 159 P) Besides recording their belief in the doctrine of the two wills as part and parcel of the revealed deposit, the Fathers also demonstrated its conformity with right reason and supported it by philosophical arguments. In the first place they appeal to the metaphysical axiom that, since nature is the principle of operation,14 a nature cannot be separated from the operation peculiar to it. ” No nature is without operation/’ says Damascene.15 And Cyril : ” Beings whose operation and power 16 are identical, must be of the same species.” 17 In the second place the Fathers point to the epistemological principle that the intellect apprehends the essence of things through their sensible manifestations. In regard to nature and its operations, we first apprehend the operations and from these conclude to the underlying essence.18 We need only apply this principle to the matter under consideration to see that Monothelitism is purely a revival of Monophysitism. As Pope Agatho puts it, ” It is impossible to conceive a nature which does not exercise the operation proper to itself.” 19 14 Natura est principium operationis. 15 De Fide Orth., Ill, 13. whipyeia kclI 8vva.fj.is. 17 Thesaur. Assert., 32. 18 * As we perceive the nature of a thing in no other way than by its operations/’ says St. Sophronius, a difference of essence always manifests itself by a difference in operation.” (Ep. Syn. ad Sergium). i9Cfr. Mansi, Condi., XI, 271. The Pope demonstrates the truth of this proposition by a dilemma: “Si una est operatio, die ant, si temporalis an aeterna dicenda est, divina an human a, … eadem quae est Patris an alia praeterquam Pairis? Si una est eademque {operatio], una est divinitatis et humanitatis Christi communis, quod absurdum est did… . Sin autem (quod Veritas continet), dum humana quaedam operatus est Christ us, ad solam eius ut Filii personam redigitur, quae non eadem est quae et Patris, secundum aliud profecto et aliud operatus est Christ us, ut secundum divinitatem, quae fadt Pater, eadem et Filius fadat; similiter secundum humanitatem, qua i6a UNITY IN DUALITY Another axiom adduced by the Fathers against Monothelitism is this: Humerus voluntatum non sequitur numerutn personarum, sed naturarum Thus Pope Agatho, quoting the words of St. Maximus: ” Dum tres personae in s. Trinitate dicuntur, necesse est ut et tres voluntates personates et tres personates operationes dicantur, quod absurdum est… . Sin autem, quod fidei christianae Veritas continet, naturalis voluntas, ubi una natura dicitur Trinitatis, consequenter et una naturalis voluntas et una naturalis operatio intelligenda est. Ubi vero in una persona Christi duos naturas, i. e. divinam et humanam confitemur, sicut duos unius et eiusdem naturas, ita et duos naturales voluntates duasque operationes eius regulariter 20 confitemur.” 21 That is to say : Operation follows nature, not person, and hence it is not necessary to assume as many persons as there are operations, and vice versa. c) Two wills would not, as Sergius tried to persuade Pope Honorius, be necessarily opposed to each other. If “duality” 22 were synonymous with “contrariety,” 23 Christ could have but one will. Yet the expressions Sergius uses are ambiguous, and may be taken to imply merely that in Christ the human will always remained subject to, and cooperated with the divine. Therefore the Sixth General Council defined : “Dtias naturales voluntates non contrarias, absit, iuxta quod impii asseruerunt haeretici, sed sequentem eius humanam voluntatem et non resistentem vel resunt hominis propria, idem ipse 21 Man si, Concil., XI, 213. operabatur ut homo’ (/. c). 22 Dualitas. 20 KCkPOPtKm 28 Contrarietas. CHRIST’S THEANDRIC OPERATION 161 luctantem, sed potius et subiectam divinae eius atque omnipotenti voluntatis Duothelitism (i. e., the doctrine that there are two wills in Christ) is not incompatible with the philosophical principle that actions belong to their respective supposita (actiones sunt suppositorum). For, although two wills are operative in Christ, both belong to one and the same person, namely, the Divine Logos, who as principium quod is possessed of a double principium quo, by means of which He exercises two specifically different kinds of operation. Hence the theological axiom : Duae operationes, sed unus operans. 24 3. The So-called Theandric Operation of Christ. — The familiar phrase “theandric operation” (OtavSpucrj cvcpycia, operatio deivirilis) first occurs in the writings of the Pseudo-Dionysius.25 When the Severians, who were moderate Monophysites, at a religious conference held in Constantinople, A. D. 531 or 533, appealed in favor of their doctrine to the writings of Dionysius the Areopagite, the Catholic representative, Hypatius of Ephesus, publicly rejected these writings as spurious.26 In spite of this protest, however, the works of the Pseudo-Areopagite, owing particularly to St. 24 The canon of the Vlth Ecu- 26 Mansi, ConciL, VIII, 8ai. racnical Council cited above can be The renewal of this protest, many found in Mansi, /. c. On the doc- centuries later, is called ” one of trine of Duothelitism see J. H. New- the first manifestations of the newly man, Select Treatises of St. Athana- awakened spirit of criticism ” by Dr. sius. Vol. II, pp. 331 sqq. Bardenhewer. {Patrology, translated 25 Ep. ad Cai., IV. by Shahan, p. 538.) UNITY IN DUALITY Maximus Confessor, who wrote commentaries on them and defended them against the charge of Monophysitism, gradually obtained esteem even among Catholics and exercised a far-reaching influence on theological science.27 The phrase ” theandric operation ” became current chiefly in consequence of a canon adopted by the Lateran Council held under Martin I, in 649.28 a) For a better understanding of the term “theandric operation” it will be useful to consult the commentary on the writings of the PseudoAreopagite by St. Maximus Confessor, who conjointly with St. Sophronius was the chief champion of Catholic orthodoxy against Monothelitism. “Christ acted solely as God,” he explains, “when, though absent, he cured the ruler’s son; He acted solely as man, though He was God, when He ate and was troubled; He acted both as God and as man when He miraculously gave sight to the man born blind by spreading clay upon his eyes, when He cured by mere contact the woman who was troubled with an issue of blood — and these [last-mentioned] operations are properly called theandric.” 20 Accordingly we must distinguish in Christ 27 Cfr. Bardenhewer-Shahan, Patrology, p. 537 »Q» 28 Denzinger-Bannwart, Enchiridion, n. 268: “Si quis secundum scelerosos haereticos deivirilem operationem, quod Craeci dicunt ScaydpiK^Pt unam operationem insipienter suscipit, non autem duplicem esse confitetur secundum sanctos Patres, hoc est divinam et hum ana m, aut ipsam deivirilis … novam vocabuli dictionem unius esse designativam, sed non utriusque mirificae et gloriosae unitionis dent onst rat iv am, condemnatus sit.” 29 Oeartpucal. Maximus Confessor, In Ep. IV Dionys. Areop. CHRIST’S THEANDRIC OPERATION 163 three different and distinct operations: (1) purely divine,30 such as, for instance, the omnipotent fiat which He pronounced on the son of the ruler; (2) purely human,81 such as eating and sorrowing; and (3) mixed,82 partly divine and partly human, such as, e. g., the cure, by physical contact, of the man born blind and the woman troubled with an issue of blood. Christ’s purely divine operations by their very nature are not theandric, since He performs them in His capacity as Second Person of the Divine Trinity conjointly with the Father and the Holy Ghost. Only those acts of our Lord can be called theandric which He performs partly as God and partly as man, or merely as man.88 b) In its strict and proper sense the term “theandric” is applied to those divine operations only which are wrought with the cooperation of our Lord’s human nature, such as, for example, the raising of Lazarus to life by means of the cry : “Lazarus, come forth !” 84 But it would be heretical to conceive this “mixed” or “theandric” operation of the Godman monergetically as a compound neither divine nor human. Christ’s divine energia proceeds solely from His divine nature, His human energia solely from 80 hipyeia $€0irpeiH)s. 33 Cfr. J. H. Newman, Select 31 hipyeia &y$p

His human nature, though both belong to the Person of the Logos hypostatically and precisely in the same manner as the two natures themselves.85 St. John of Damascus says: “Non divisas operat tones dicimus aut divisim operantes, sed unite utramque cum alterius communione, quae propria ipsi sunt, operantem.”** As it is the Person of the Logos alone who operates as principium quod through the Divine Nature, common to all Three Persons of the Blessed Trinity as principium quo, none other than the Son of God or Logos can be regarded as the ” hegemonic principle ” (to rftqnviKov) of this ” mixed ” operation.87 c) It would, however, be a mistake to except such purely human acts and emotions as hunger, thirst, exhaustion, pain, suffering, and death, from the theandric operation of the Godman and to restrict the latter term solely to those “mixed” or composite acts in the performance of which His Godhead and manhood cooperated. In a wider sense our Saviour’s purely human actions and emotions, too, are truly theandric. 85 Cfr. Newman, /. c. StDe Fide Orthod., Ill, 19. 87 St. Augustine aptly exemplifies this truth as follows: ” Quis neget, non Potrem, non Spiritum Sanctum, sed Filium ambulasse super aquas? Solius enim Filii caro est, cuius carnis Mi pedes aquis impositi et per aquas ducti sunt. Absit aut em, ut hoc sine Patre fecisse credatur, quum de suis operationibus universaliter dicat: Pater autern in me manens facit opera sua; ut sine Spiritu S., quum similiter opus sit Filii, quod eiiciebat daemonic Illius quippe carnis ad solum Filium pertinentis lingua erat, qua imperabatur daemonibus ut exirent et tamen dicit: In Spiritu S, eiicio daemonia.” Contr. Serm. Arianor., c. 15. Cfr. Petavius, De Incarn., VIII, 10; Stentrup, Christ ologia, thes. 51. CHRIST’S THEANDRIC OPERATION 165 For it is the Godman who performs them, not a mere man. By virtue of the Hypostatic Union the purely human actions and affections of the Godman are at the same time and in a true sense actions and affections of the Divine Logos, who, as the “hegemonic principle,” dominates and controls the purely human element and through the mediation of His manhood as principium quo performs human deeds and suffers human affections quite as truly as He performs divine deeds through His Godhead. Thus and thus only was it possible for the Son of God to redeem the human race by His passion and death. The limitation implied in the last sentence will explain why we must conceive this special divine co-operation as connected with His human actions and affections only in so far as they bear an intrinsic relation to the atonement. For, as Rusticus Diaconus observes : ” Deus Verbum et in humanitate existens in coelo ubique consuetas operationes implevit, licet quasdam et inaestitnabiles etiam per corpus. Quid enim differebat ad operationes eius db initio, utrum non haberet an haberet humanitatem, dum per humanitatem non plueret, non tonaret, non astra mover et et si, licet simpliciter dicere, non amplius per earn sit operatus nisi sola, quae noviter propter nostram sunt facta salvationem, pro qua et inhumanatus est.* 88 It is in this same sense that the Sixth Ecumenical Council defines:89 * iuxta quant rationem et duas naturales voluntates et operationes confitemur, ad salutem humani generis 40 convenienter in eo concurrentes” 88 Contr. Aceph. (Migne, P. L., 40 irpbs awrnplaw rov &w$pwirlvov LXVII, 1 191). 7601. 89 Denzinger-Bannwart, Enchiridion, n. 291.