Page 92 - THE ARMENIAN CHURCH_Neat

Essentials of Faith 93

and is correct and, in fact, is professed by us, we
say one nature. These [formulations] are similar
and are not due to heretical opinions. This is
evident from the fact that when we formulate this
same [truth], we do not stop on one nature only,
but demonstrate the property of both natures...."
Continuing his argument, St. Nerses affirms:
"… Thus, when we say one nature, we mean
nothing but the indivisible and ineffable union of
the Word with the flesh. On the other hand, we do
not avoid saying two natures, provided that it
does not imply division according to Nestorius,
but only to demonstrate, against the heterodox
[teachings of] Eutyches and Apollinarius, that the
natures are unconfused. For example, the human
body and soul are different natures: one earthly
and the other heavenly, one visible and the other
invisible, one temporal and the other immortal.
Nevertheless, after their union, the human being
is said to be one nature, not two. And when we
say that the human being has one nature, we
mean that there is no confusion [between soul and
body] by considering him only soul or only body.
The same applies to Christ. Although He is said
to be one nature, this is not said in order to
introduce confusion but for the ineffable union of
8
two natures with each other. "
‘Nature’ became a key term in the context
of christological controversies. For the Ar-
menian christology, ‘nature’ was perceived
as a concrete reality and was used in the
context of anti-Chalcedonian christology in