2

they cut into two sons and two persons because they supposed nature and hypostasis to be the same, Dioscorus and Severus and their many-headed and therefore headless hydra, positing one hypostasis, defined one nature as well, not knowing “either what they are saying or about what things they make confident assertions”; for these too understood one and the same opinion concerning nature and hypostasis, and they did not stop their impiety at this point, but also regarding the holy and more than divine Trinity, they held three particular substances and natures, and one common one in theory, I know not how, that seemed to exist and was unsubstantial, not knowing, these noble and supposedly wise men, that those who hold to piety must not entirely follow the doctrines of the pagan philosophers, but must become approved money-changers, recognizing the stamp of truth and distinguishing the genuine from the counterfeit. 3 But not so the nurslings of piety, the heralds of truth, but following the divine law and guided by the light of divine knowledge, they did not devise superfluous sophistries nor become righteous beyond what is fitting, but having traveled the middle and royal road, they did not incline to the left, nor were they carried away to what seemed right, nor did they correct perversion with perversion, but standing on the borderline of evils within the bounds of truth and avoiding the inclination to either side, they were initiated and taught one substance in the Holy Trinity, but three hypostases. “Conversely,” as the God-inspired Gregory says, in the economy of salvation, two substances or natures, but one hypostasis or person, and they defined substance and nature as the same, and again hypostasis and person as the same, but the greatest possible difference between substance and nature on the one hand, and person and hypostasis on the other, as great as that which the common has in relation to the particular. 4 First, then, if you please, having investigated nature and hypostasis and having learned the meaning of each, we will thus know clearly whether we should speak of two natures in Christ or one. But let the purpose also be predefined, not to banish the truth with strife, but to track it with longing; for thus it is known to be found by those who seek it. “Draw near to me,” He says, “and I will draw near to you,” and “where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I in the midst of them,” but also “you ask and will not receive, because you ask wrongly,” and “where there is strife and jealousy and dissensions, are you not carnal and walking according to man?”, and “you cannot believe in me, receiving glory from men.” 5 But from this point we shall begin our discourse. The God-bearing Basil, writing to Amphilochius, says: “Substance and hypostasis have this difference, which the common has to the particular,” and after other things: “The name of substance presents to us a certain indefinite notion, finding no stability from the commonality of the thing signified, but the name of hypostasis presents and circumscribes the common and uncircumscribed in a certain thing through its manifest properties.” Who, holding to the truth, would not recognize how great is the difference of nature from hypostasis? For if substance and hypostasis are the same, and the Son is of one substance with the Father, he will also be of one hypostasis; or being of another hypostasis, he will also be of another nature. And just as he is of the same substance, he will also be of the same hypostasis, or as he is of a different hypostasis, he will, by a logical inversion, also be of a different substance. Likewise also concerning humanity: if what subsists is a hypostasis, and human nature has subsisted as a hypostasis, and just as all humanity is one indivisible nature, so also will it be one indivisible hypostasis. 6 But if you say that there is one account concerning the holy Godhead and another concerning that for our sakes

2

υἱοὺς καὶ δύο κατατέμνουσι πρόσωπα διὰ τὸ ταὐτὸν ὑποτοπάσαι τῇ φύσει καὶ τὴν ὑπόστασιν, ∆ιόσκορός τε καὶ Σεύηρος καὶ ἡ τούτων πολυκέφαλος καὶ διὰ τοῦτο ἀκέφαλος ὕδρα μίαν ὑπόστασιν θέμενοι μίαν καὶ τὴν φύσιν ὡρίσαντο μὴ εἰδότες «μηδὲ ἃ λέγουσι μηδὲ περὶ τίνων διαβεβαιοῦνται»· μίαν γὰρ καὶ οὗτοι περὶ τὴν φύσιν καὶ τὴν ὑπόστασιν τὴν δόξαν ἐνόησαν καὶ οὐ μέχρι τούτου τὴν ἀσέβειαν ἔστησαν, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς ἁγίας καὶ ὑπερθέου τριάδος τρεῖς μὲν μερικὰς οὐσίας καὶ φύσεις ἐδόξασαν, μίαν δὲ κοινὴν θεωρίᾳ, οὐκ οἶδ' ὅπως, εἶναι δοκοῦσαν καὶ ἀνυπόστατον, οὐκ εἰδότες οἱ γεννάδαι καὶ δῆθεν σοφοί, ὡς οὐ παντάπασι χρὴ τοὺς εὐσεβείας ἀντεχομένους τῶν ἔξω σοφῶν τοῖς δόγμασιν ἕπεσθαι, δοκίμους δὲ τραπεζίτας γίνεσθαι ἐπιγινώσκειν τε τῆς ἀληθείας τὸ χάραγμα καὶ διακρίνειν τοῦ κιβδήλου τὸ δόκιμον. 3 Ἀλλ' οὐχ οὕτω τῆς εὐσεβείας οἱ τρόφιμοι, τῆς ἀληθείας οἱ κήρυκες, ἀλλὰ τῷ θείῳ νόμῳ ἑπόμενοι καὶ τῷ τῆς θείας γνώσεως φωτὶ ὁδηγούμενοι οὐκ ἐσοφίσαντο περιττὰ οὐδὲ πέρα τοῦ πρέποντος γεγόνασι δίκαιοι, μέσην δὲ καὶ βασιλικὴν διανύσαντες τρίβον οὐ πρὸς τὸ εὐώνυμον ἐνέκλιναν, οὐ πρὸς τὸ δοκοῦν δεξιὸν ἀπηνέχθησαν, οὐ διαστροφῇ τὴν διαστροφὴν διωρθώσαντο, ἀλλ' ἐν μεταιχμίῳ τῶν κακιῶν ἐν τοῖς ὅροις τῆς ἀληθείας ἱστάμενοι καὶ τὴν ἐφ' ἑκάτερα ῥοπὴν ἀποκλίναντες μίαν μὲν οὐσίαν ἐπὶ τῆς ἁγίας τριάδος, τρεῖς δὲ τὰς ὑποστάσεις πρὸς αὐτῆς μυηθέντες ἐμυσταγώγησαν. «Ἔμπαλιν» δέ, ὥς φησιν ὁ θεορρήμων Γρηγόριος, ἐπὶ τῆς σωτηρίου οἰκονομίας δύο μὲν τὰς οὐσίας εἴτ' οὖν φύσεις, μίαν δὲ τὴν ὑπόστασιν εἴτ' οὖν πρόσωπον, καὶ ταὐτὸν μὲν οὐσίαν καὶ φύσιν ὡρίσαντο, ταὐτὸν δὲ πάλιν ὑπόστασίν τε καὶ πρόσωπον, πλείστην δὲ ὅσην τὴν διαφορὰν οὐσίας καὶ φύσεως πρὸς πρόσωπον καὶ ὑπόστασιν, ὅσην τὸ κοινὸν ἔχει πρὸς τὸ καθ' ἕκαστον. 4 Πρῶτον οὖν, εἰ δοκεῖ, περὶ φύσεώς τε καὶ ὑποστάσεως διερευνήσαντες καὶ ἑκάστου μαθόντες τὸ σημαινόμενον οὕτως, εἰ δύο φύσεις ἐπὶ Χριστοῦ χρὴ λέγειν ἢ μίαν, ἀριδήλως εἰσόμεθα. Ἔστω δὲ προδιωρισμένος καὶ ὁ σκοπός, μὴ ἔριδι τὴν ἀλήθειαν ἐξοστρακίζειν, πόθῳ δὲ ταύτην ἰχνηλατεῖν· οὕτω γὰρ οἶδε τοῖς ζητοῦσιν εὑρίσκεσθαι. «Ἐγγίσατε γάρ μοι», φησί, «καὶ ἐγγιῶ ὑμῖν», καὶ «ὅπου συναχθῶσι δύο ἢ τρεῖς ἐν τῷ ὀνόματί μου, ἐκεῖ εἰμι ἐν μέσῳ αὐτῶν», ἀλλὰ καὶ «αἰτεῖτε καὶ οὐ δοθήσεται ὑμῖν, διότι κακῶς αἰτεῖτε», καὶ «ὅπου ἔρις καὶ ζῆλοι καὶ διχοστασίαι, οὐχὶ σαρκικοί ἐστε καὶ κατὰ ἄνθρωπον περιπατεῖτε;», καὶ «οὐ δύνασθε πιστεύειν εἰς ἐμὲ δόξαν παρὰ ἀνθρώπων λαμβάνοντες.» 5 Ἀλλ' ἐντεῦθεν τοῦ λόγου ἀρξόμεθα. Φησὶν ὁ θεοφόρος Βασίλειος πρὸς Ἀμφιλόχιον γράφων· «Οὐσία δὲ καὶ ὑπόστασις ταύτην ἔχει τὴν διαφοράν, ἣν ἔχει τὸ κοινὸν πρὸς τὸ καθ' ἕκαστον», καὶ μεθ' ἕτερα· «Τὸ μὲν τῆς οὐσίας ὄνομα ἀόριστον ἡμῖν τινα παρίστησιν ἔννοιαν μηδεμίαν ἐκ τῆς κοινότητος τοῦ σημαινομένου στάσιν εὑρίσκουσαν, τὸ δὲ τῆς ὑποστάσεως τὸ κοινόν τε καὶ ἀπερίγραπτον ἐν τῷ τινι πράγματι διὰ τῶν ἐπιφαινομένων ἰδιωμάτων παρίστησί τε καὶ περιγράφει.» Τίς οὐκ ἐπιγνώσεται τῆς ἀληθείας ἐχόμενος, ὅση διαφορὰ φύσεως πρὸς ὑπόστασιν; Εἰ γὰρ ταὐτὸν ἡ οὐσία καὶ ἡ ὑπόστασις, μιᾶς δὲ οὐσίας ὁ υἱὸς τῷ πατρί, μιᾶς ἔσται καὶ ὑποστάσεως, ἢ ἑτέρας τελῶν ὑποστάσεως, ἑτέρας ἔσται καὶ φύσεως· καὶ ὥσπερ ἐστὶν ὁμοούσιος, ἔσται καὶ ὁμοϋπόστατος, ἢ ὡς ἔστιν ἑτεροϋπόστατος, ἔσται κατὰ τὴν εὔλογον ἀντιστροφὴν καὶ ἑτεροούσιος. Ὁμοίως καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς ἀνθρωπότητος· εἰ τὸ ὑφεστὸς ὑπόστασίς ἐστιν, ὑφέστηκε δὲ ἡ ἀνθρωπίνη φύσις ὑπόστασις, καὶ ὥσπερ πᾶσα ἡ ἀνθρωπότης μία φύσις ἐστὶν ἀδιαίρετος, οὕτως ἔσται καὶ μία ὑπόστασις ἀδιαίρετος. 6 Εἰ δέ φατε, ὡς ἕτερος λόγος ἐπὶ τῆς ἁγίας θεότητος καὶ ἄλλος ἐπὶ τῆς δι' ἡμᾶς