There two natures, God and man [φύσεις μὲν γὰρ δύο, Θεὸς καὶ ἄνθρωπος], as also body and soul are; but there are not two Sons or Gods; there are not two men in one because Paul speaks of an inner and outer man. To put it in a word: in regard to the elements out of which (ἐξ ὧν) the Saviour is [composed], there is one [ἄλλο] and there is another [ἄλλο]__for the invisible is not the same as the visible, nor the timeless as that which is subject to time__but there is not one Person [ἄλλος] and another Person [ἄλλος]. God forbid! For both elements are one by the commingling, God on the one hand who was made for man, and man on the other who was made God__or however one should express it.
Clearly, then, these stand wit h Origen and his followers, with Apollinarius and Cyril, as the upholders of a scheme of doctrine which is inherently anti-Nestorian; They will not countenance teaching which, as the Bishop of Nazianzus puts it, shirks the begetting of the Logos in the flesh.
It has to be observed, too, that the Cappadocians hold that all the acts and sayings of Jesus Christ in the Scriptures are to be attributed to this one Person__the Logos who has assumed flesh. Gregory of Nazianzus especially is emphatic on this point. Thus in the third (de Filio) of his Five Theological Orations we find such expression as these: He who hungered was He who fed thousands and is the Bread that giveth life; He who thirsted is He who promised the fountains would flow from those who believe; He who is called a Samaritan and demon possessed is He who saves him that fell among thieves; He who prays is He who hears prayer; He who weeps is He who causes tears to cease; He who is sold is He who redeems the world; He who as a sheep is led to the slaughter is He who is Shepherd of Israel and of the whole world; He who is nailed to the tree is He who restores us by the Tree of Life; He who died is He who gives life and by His death destroys death. The passage is, of course, highly rhetorical, but Gregory’s meaning is clear: Because in Jesus Christ the divine Logos has assumed flesh, the actions and saying are those of God Himself__indeed, if one is to believe aright, it is essential that they should be regarded as such. But he does not mean that God is passible in His divine nature: he would agree with the other Gregory in saying that “while not attributing our salvation to man, we do not admit that the divine nature is capable of suffering and mortality”. So he makes a distinction between what belongs to Christ in His eternal being, and what belongs to Him as He has become flesh__to Him, that is, who is ‘New Adam, and God made capable of suffering [θεῷ παθητῷ] to battle against sin”. The explanation can be put out in a sentence; he says:
What is lofty you apply to the Godhead and the nature which is superior to passion and a body; but what is lowly you apply to Him who is composite and emptied Himself for our sake and was incarnate__yes, for it is no worse thing to say it__and was made man [τῷ συνθέτῳ καὶ τῷ διὰ σὲ κενθέντι καὶ σαρκωθέντι . . . καὶ ἀνθρωπισθέντι].