st. john of damascus (676-749 - Cristo Raul

78 ST. JOHN OF DAMASCUS.
same principle is applied by heretics to the twofold
nature of Christ, and they would speak by parity of
reasoning of his one nature, they err. For Christ is
/ not an individual of a species. There is no other
like him. And, therefore, it is not admissible to
speak of one nature in him, in the same way as we
can speak of the one (human) nature shared alike by
two different human beings, each composite in him
self, as Peter and Paul 1 (c. xlvii.).
The flesh, or
human nature, was present by way of enhypostasi& in
the incarnate Word (c. liii.).
The position held by
the Virgin Mother comes in due course after this,
and her right to the title Theotokos, or Mother of
God, is strenuously defended. This had been made
a battle-cry in the Greek Church ever since the days
of Nestorius, when the churches at Constantinople
rang with the applause of heated partisans, cheering
the turgid eloquence of a Proclus in defence of the
honour of Mary. Nestorius is assailed in no
measured terms by John of Damascus for his
endeavour to substitute Mother of Christ for Mother
of God (c. Ivi.).
The nature of the twofold will and
operation in Christ is then brought under review. As
one. illustration of it,
he cites the passage where the
divine and human will in Christ seem to manifest
1
As nature (pkysis] is here distinguished from person or
personality (hypostasis) ; so both are elsewhere distinguished by
Damascenus from ousia, which he explains as the species to
which various individuals belong (c. xlviii.)
2 This may be more intelligible to some by
its Latin equiva
lent in the Athanasian Creed, where Christ is declared to be
"
of a reasonable soul, and human flesh subsisting."