A Source Book for Ancient Church History - Mirrors

723this and another and not one and the same, according to the mostwise Cyril, perfect in deity and the same perfect in humanity,and accordingly only to be thought of as in two natures; thesame suffering and not suffering, according to one or the othernature, as the same holy Cyril said, suffering as a man in theflesh, inasmuch as he was a man, remaining as God withoutsuffering in the sufferings of His own flesh; and the one andthe same Christ energizing the divine and the human things withthe one theandric energy, 289 according to the holy Dionysius;distinguishing only in thought those things from which the unionhas taken place, and viewing these in the mind as remaining unchanged,unalterable, and unmixed after their union according tonature and hypostasis; and recognizing in these without divisionor separation the one and the same Christ and Son, inasmuchas he regards in his mind two as brought together to each otherwithout commingling, making the theory of them as a matter offact, but not by a lying imagination and vain combinations ofthe mind; but in nowise separating them, since now the divisioninto two has been destroyed on account of the indescribable andincomprehensible union; saying with the holy Athanasius, forthere is now flesh and again the flesh of God the Word, now fleshanimated and intelligent, and again the flesh of the animated andintelligent God the Word; but should under such expressionsunderstand a distinction into parts, let such an one be anathema.(b) Constans II, Typos, A. D. 648, Mansi, X, 1029. Cf. Kirch,nn. 972 f.The attempt to end the controversy by returning to the conditionof things before the controversy broke out, an entirelyfutile undertaking. The question having been raised had to289 The phrase of Dionysius was not “one theandric energy” but “a newtheandric energy.”