هطلب الاذن وهقتبس من كتاب لباحثه اسمها بولين ما كتبه وخلاصه ما قاله البطريرك ساويرس لمن قال الام المسيح هيوليه اى بالخيال والتى قال بها جوليان اسقف الارمن ائنذاك
(p. 279) Refutation of the unlearned and spurious accusation which most boorishly alleges that I divide the one
Christ into two particularities, because I affirm the body as passible and mortal while the Word of God is
impassible and immortal; and that I acknowledge the difference of thesethings inasmuch as it is specific to them
or as in respect of natural signification, which preserves for what is without division those things out of which
the union without confusion arises, and reveals the wicked folly which Julian speaks of as ‘a difference which is
not different’.
But since you are so miserable and defiled with the scab of the Manichaean heresy, and in every respect
deny the truth of the redemptive sufferings and death of the only-begotten Word who was incarnate without
change, you declare that I need your help; and that I agree with the views of Nestorius; and that I divide Christ
into two natures both in their own operations and properties. It will be good, then, for us to laugh at you, and to
add words from the inspired Scripture, and to say: ‘Let not the hunchback boast, as if he were of upright
stature!’ (3 Kgs 21:11). For since you are bent towards the ground, bowed down under heretical burdens and
hunchbacked, how do you bring help to those who stand upright? For since you write these things (p. 280) to
make me turn aside to these many old women’s prattlings of yours, you address the other false accusers like
this: [JULIAN]: ‘For the false accusers, attempting to introduce the abominable and polluted teachings of
Nestorius, and seeking by every means to set up division by making judgement about the duality of the
properties, set corruptibility and passibility and mortality against incorruptibility and impassibility and
immortality; and they lead him who is one into two Christs and two Sons, since they falsify the inexpressible
and incomprehensible union.’126 Page 103
Now (in reply) to these things we shall say, in short, one simple, true word: show us that we have
written somewhere that Christ exists in two natures and in two properties. But you cannot say so. For in every
place each person discovers that Our Lowliness anathematizes those who divide the one Christ in a duplication
of natures and of their operations and their properties; but Our Lowliness, like the wise Cyril, acknowledges
that Christ exists out of two natures, out of divinity and out of humanity, and recognizes their difference and
their character as it were in natural quality. Now natural quality consists in the fact that the essence of those
things which are assembled into the union without confusion and without division is not the same. For the
divinity is of one essence, and the humanity of another, out of which the Word who is before the ages became
indivisible and was called Emmanuel. And the quality inheres in the nature which constitutes the difference of
the essence; and the difference of the quality represents the inequality of the genus of the divinity and the genus
of the humanity. But this does not divide the one who has inexpressibly come into being through the union (of
the two) with one another. For it is certain that Christ is one out of two (natures), consubstantial with the Father
in respect of the divinity, and the same consubstantial with us in respect of the humanity; and for this reason he
is not divided into a duality of natures. For he who is God for everlasting at the end of days became man,
without changing what he was (p. 281) in what he became, and without having altered what he became into the
essence of the divinity.
But because you have lost your senses, you have written: ‘Let us say concerning Christ that the
difference is not different’, since you are drunk in your mind, and you confuse the divinity and the humanity out
which exists the one Christ—one person, one hypostasis, one incarnate nature which is of God the Word
himself. For if you call the difference itself a ‘non-difference’, then Christ would be proclaimed (as your vapid
talk prefers) as consubstantial with us in respect of divinity, and consubstantial with the Father in respect of
humanity; that is to say that these (the divinity and the humanity), according to your opinion, would alter and be
يتبع