2

hypostasis in Christ. Why, when you speak of a difference of natures, do you not also speak of a difference of hypostases in him? And why, when you say Christ is from two natures, do you not also say he is from two hypostases? If Christ is of one composite nature, he is not of the same substance as the Father; for the Father is of a simple nature. But the simple and the composite are not of the same substance. If Christ is of the same substance as the Father and of the same substance as us according to the same essence, the Father and we will be of one substance. If Christ is of the same nature and same substance as the Father, who is of a simple nature, and Christ also has a composite nature, he will have two natures, one simple and one composite. If, according to you, nature and hypostasis are the same, then either for the three hypostases of the holy Godhead there will be three natures, or for the one nature there will be one hypostasis. If you say that the common nature is one thing and the one contemplated in the individual, which you also call particular, is another, you will be forced to confess that not only Christ, but also the Father and the Holy Spirit have two natures, one common and one composite. If the Godhead is uncreated and without beginning, but the manhood is created and has a beginning, how can that which is without beginning and that which has a beginning be of one nature? 3 But since they bring forward to us the usage of Saint Athanasius and the most holy Cyril, which says “one incarnate nature of God the Word,” we say that equal to this is also the saying of Saint Gregory the Theologian, which states: “Of which the one deified, and the other was deified.” For just as being set on fire does not indicate a change of that which is set on fire, but a union with the fire, so also deification indicates a union with the Godhead and incarnation a union with the flesh. We know, therefore, one nature of God the Word, that is, of his Godhead, incarnate, that is, united to flesh, and one nature of the flesh of the Word, deified, that is, united to the Godhead. So that there are two natures united to each other. For if he had said one nature of God the Word and incarnate, he would have irrefutably indicated one nature of the composite whole. But by saying “one nature of the Word” and adding “incarnate,” by saying “incarnate” he indicated the substance of the flesh, just as he himself, interpreting himself in the letter to Sukensos, says: “For if, after saying ‘one nature of God the Word,’ we had been silent, not adding ‘incarnate,’ their argument would then not be implausible, as they pretend to ask: If the whole is one nature, where is the perfection in manhood? But since through ‘incarnate’ the indication of the flesh was introduced, let them stop setting up a reed staff for themselves.” Behold, he clearly did away with saying “one nature” for the whole, that is, the composite whole; and he said that through “incarnate” the indication of the flesh had been introduced. We have, then, “the one nature of God the Word,” and through “incarnate” we have the flesh; and the flesh is not without substance. Therefore, the nature of the Word and the substantial flesh will be two substances. 4 And why, when you confess a nature of Godhead and a nature of flesh in Christ, and say one is different from the other, do you not say two natures, fearing there a fear where there is no fear? And they say that number is a principle of division, and, fleeing division, we do not say two natures of Christ. To whom we say that every number is indicative of the quantity of the things numbered, not of their relation; for in saying three men we do not signify three divided natures, and in saying three hypostases in the Godhead we do not confess these to be divided. So also, in affirming two natures in Christ and signifying the number, we do not admit division; for just as in the Holy Trinity the three hypostases are united undividedly and at the same time unconfusedly—undividedly because of the

2

ὑπόστασις ἐπὶ Χριστοῦ. διὰ τί φύσεων διαφορὰν λέγοντες οὐ λέγετε καὶ ὑποστάσεων διαφορὰν ἐπ' αὐτοῦ; ∆ιὰ τί δὲ ἐκ φύσεων λέγοντες δύο τὸν Χριστὸν οὔ φατε αὐτὸν καὶ ἐκ δύο ὑποστάσεων; Εἰ μιᾶς συνθέτου φύσεώς ἐστιν ὁ Χριστός, οὐκ ἔστιν ὁμοούσιος τῷ πατρί· ἁπλῆς γὰρ φύσεως ὁ πατήρ. Τὸ δὲ ἁπλοῦν καὶ σύνθετον οὐχ ὁμοούσια. Εἰ κατὰ τὴν αὐτὴν οὐσίαν ὁμοούσιός ἐστι τῷ πατρὶ καὶ ὁμοούσιος ἡμῖν ὁ Χριστός, μιᾶς οὐσίας ἔσται ὁ πατὴρ καὶ ἡμεῖς. Εἰ ὁμοφυὴς ὁ Χριστὸς τῷ πατρὶ καὶ ὁμοούσιος ἁπλῆς ὄντι φύσεως, ἔχει δὲ καὶ σύνθετον φύσιν ὁ Χριστός, δύο ἕξει φύσεις, μίαν ἁπλῆν καὶ μίαν σύνθετον. Εἰ ταὐτὸν φύσις καὶ ὑπόστασις καθ' ὑμᾶς, ἢ τριῶν οὐσῶν ὑποστάσεων τῆς ἁγίας θεότητος τρεῖς ἔσονται αὐτῆς καὶ φύσεις ἢ μιᾶς οὔσης φύσεως μία ἔσται καὶ ἡ ὑπόστασις. Εἰ ἑτέραν τὴν κοινὴν φύσιν φατὲ καὶ ἑτέραν τὴν ἐν ἀτόμῳ θεωρουμένην, ἣν καὶ μερικὴν ὀνομάζετε, οὐ μόνον τὸν Χριστόν, ἀλλὰ καὶ τὸν πατέρα καὶ τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον δύο ἔχειν φύσεις ὁμολογεῖν ἀναγκασθήσεσθε, μίαν κοινὴν καὶ μίαν σύνθετον. Εἰ ἄκτιστος καὶ ἄναρχος ἡ θεότης, κτιστὴ δὲ καὶ ἠργμένη ἡ ἀνθρωπότης, πῶς τὸ ἄναρχον καὶ τὸ ἠργμένον μιᾶς ἔσται φύσεως; 3 Ἐπειδὴ δὲ προφέρουσιν ἡμῖν τὴν τοῦ ἁγίου Ἀθανασίου καὶ Κυρίλλου τοῦ ἁγιωτάτου χρῆσιν τὴν λέγουσαν «μίαν φύσιν τοῦ θεοῦ λόγου σεσαρκωμένην», φαμέν, ὅτι ἴσον ἐστὶ τούτῳ καὶ τὸ τοῦ ἁγίου Γρηγορίου τοῦ θεολόγου ῥητὸν τὸ φάσκον· «Ὧν τὸ μὲν ἐθέωσε, τὸ δὲ ἐθεώθη.» Ὥσπερ γὰρ τὸ πυρούμενον οὐ μεταβολὴν δηλοῖ τοῦ πυρουμένου, ἀλλ' ἕνωσιν τὴν πρὸς τὸ πῦρ, οὕτω καὶ ἡ θέωσις ἕνωσιν δηλοῖ πρὸς θεότητα καὶ ἡ σάρκω σις ἕνωσιν πρὸς σάρκα. Μίαν οὖν φύσιν τοῦ θεοῦ λόγου γινώσκομεν, τουτέστι τῆς θεότητος αὐτοῦ σεσαρκωμένην, τουτέστιν ἡνωμένην σαρκί, καὶ μίαν φύσιν τῆς σαρκὸς τοῦ λόγου τεθεωμένην, τουτέστι ἡνωμένην θεότητι. Ὥστε δύο εἰσὶ φύσεις ἡνωμέναι ἀλλήλαις. Εἰ μὲν γὰρ εἶπε μίαν φύσιν τοῦ θεοῦ λόγου καὶ σεσαρκωμένου, ἀναντιρρήτως μίαν ἐδήλου φύσιν τὸ συναμφότερον. Εἰπὼν δὲ «μίαν τοῦ λόγου φύσιν» καὶ προσθεὶς τὸ «σεσαρκωμένην», διὰ τοῦ εἰπεῖν «σεσαρκωμένην» ἐδήλωσε τῆς σαρκὸς τὴν οὐσίαν, καθὼς καὶ αὐτὸς ἑαυτὸν ἑρμηνεύων ἐν τῇ πρὸς Σούκενσον ἐπιστολῇ φησιν· «Εἰ μὲν γὰρ εἰπόντες «μίαν φύσιν τοῦ θεοῦ λόγου» σεσιγήκαμεν μὴ ἐπενεγκόντες τὸ «σεσαρκωμένην», ἦν αὐτοῖς ἄρα καὶ οὐκ ἀπίθανος ὁ λόγος προσποιουμένοις ἐρωτᾶν· Εἰ μία φύσις τὸ ὅλον, ποῦ τὸ τέλειον ἐν ἀνθρωπότητι; Ἐπειδὴ δὲ διὰ τοῦ «σεσαρκωμένην» εἰσηνέχθη τῆς σαρκὸς ἡ δήλωσις, παυσάσθωσαν καλαμίνην ῥάβδον ἑαυτοῖς ὑποστήσαντες.» Ἰδοὺ σαφῶς ἀνεῖλε τὸ «μίαν φύσιν» λέγειν τὸ ὅλον, τουτέστι τὸ συναμφότερον· καὶ διὰ τοῦ «σεσαρκωμένην» ἔφησεν εἰσενηνέχθαι τῆς σαρκὸς τὴν δήλωσιν. Ἔχομεν οὖν «τὴν μίαν φύσιν τοῦ θεοῦ λόγου», καὶ διὰ τοῦ «σεσαρκωμένην» ἔχομεν τὴν σάρκα· ἡ δὲ σὰρξ οὐκ ἀνούσιος. Ἡ φύσις οὖν τοῦ λόγου καὶ ἡ ἐνούσιος σὰρξ δύο οὐσίαι ἔσονται. 4 ∆ιὰ τί δὲ φύσιν θεότητος καὶ φύσιν σαρκὸς ἐπὶ Χριστοῦ ὁμολογοῦντες καὶ ἄλλο καὶ ἄλλο λέγοντες δύο φύσεις οὐ λέγετε, ἐκεῖ φοβούμενοι φόβον, οὗ οὐκ ἔστι φόβος; Καί φασιν, ὅτι ὁ ἀριθμὸς ἀρχή ἐστι διαιρέσεως, καὶ τὴν διαίρεσιν φεύγοντες οὔ φαμεν δύο τοῦ Χριστοῦ τὰς φύσεις. Πρὸς οὓς λέγομεν, ὅτι πᾶς ἀριθμὸς τῆς ποσότητος τῶν ἀριθμουμένων ἐστὶ σημαντικός, οὐ τῆς σχέσεως· τρεῖς γὰρ ἀνθρώπους λέγοντες οὐ τρεῖς φύσεις διῃρημένας σημαίνομεν, καὶ τρεῖς ὑποστάσεις ἐπὶ τῆς θεότητος λέγοντες οὐ διῃρημένας ταύτας ὁμολογοῦμεν. Οὕτω καὶ δύο φύσεις ἐπὶ Χριστοῦ φάσκοντες καὶ τὸν ἀριθμὸν σημαίνοντες οὐ προσιέμεθα τὴν διαίρεσιν· ὥσπερ γὰρ ἐπὶ τῆς ἁγίας τριάδος αἱ τρεῖς ὑποστάσεις ἀδιαιρέτως ἅμα καὶ ἀσυγχύτως ἥνωνται-ἀδιαιρέτως μὲν διά τε τὸ