3

which do not admit of the hypostatic union. And thus, according to their corrupt reasoning, the dogma of the godless division will find a place, and Cyril will be cast out, who long ago cried out such things against Nestorius: "6In no way will it benefit the correct doctrine of the faith to be so, even if some proclaim a union of persons"6. But neither does the truth demand this, nor will we tolerate it, but we will walk the unswerving and middle way, anathematizing those who introduce a dyad of persons, but confessing the reality of the substances in Christ. 2. But perhaps, attempting to distort out of desperation, they have made such a proposition. For when we speak of two natures united hypostatically, they feign deafness and, scraping away "hypostatically united" from our confession, they use a problem against us that is inconsistent with our confession and say: "There is no nature without a person." What, then, is this wise problem of theirs supposed to mean? If it means that it is not possible for natures to be contemplated otherwise than in persons, anyone, even those with little knowledge, would agree with this. For who is unaware that the universal is in the particular persons, which is contemplated in the characteristic hypostases, for example, the nature of the Godhead is in the Father, in the Son, in the Holy Spirit, likewise the angelic nature is in Michael, in Gabriel and the rest, and the nature of humanity is known in the individual persons? But if they wish to establish that a particular person accompanies every nature, in the case of natures, that is substances, that are not united hypostatically, I consider this argument to be correct, but in the case of those united in composition and hypostatically, it stands far from the truth. For there are times when different natures, coming together in an indivisible union, constitute one person and one hypostasis, for example, the four elements are different substances, but nevertheless they constitute one body, of this piece of wood, for instance, or stone, which is contemplated in its particularity, which is a hypostasis. But since this example seems somehow to indicate a mixture and confusion, we must take the example concerning man, who is in one hypostasis. For in each of us the substance of the soul is different from the substance of the body, but nevertheless the two substances, having come together in individuals, constitute one person, say, of John or of Paul or of some other, while remaining two. For neither did the soul become flesh, nor indeed did the flesh become soul. A witness to this is Paul, the herald of truth, who says: "the inner man and the outer," in order to signify the difference of the substances. Following in his footsteps, John, the bishop of Constantinople and teacher of the whole church, writes such things in the discourse entitled "On the Obscurity of the Old Testament": "6For this living being, man, is twofold, composed of two substances, the one perceptible, the other intelligible, I mean of soul and body, and having kinship both in heaven and on earth; for through the intelligible substance he has communion with the powers above, while through the perceptible he is joined to the things on earth, being an exact bond of both creations"6. Thus, then, in Christ the union of the two substances has come to be into one hypostasis and one person, even if it has been demonstrated obscurely through the examples. For the economy in Christ, truly surpassing every union, escapes human comprehension. 3. But again they indulge in the same maladies, like the sow, according to the proverb, wallowing in the mire. For again they propose the same things in different ways. For they say: There is no substance without a hypostasis; how then should one not speak of two hypostases, if you say there are two substances? Do you see the ignorance of these clever men? For they have foolishly introduced the same proposition to us, again having exchanged the names. For what is the difference between substance and nature? And what of person to that which is in character

3

ἅπερ οὐκ ἐπιδέχονται τὴν ἐνυπόστατον ἕνωσιν. Καὶ οὕτω κατὰ τὸν αὐτῶν διεφθαρμένον λόγον τὸ τῆς ἀθέου διαιρέσεως δόγμα χώραν εὑρήσει, καὶ Κύριλλος ἐκβληθήσεται πάλαι κατὰ Νεστορίου τοιαῦτα βοῶν· "6Ὀνήσει δὲ κατ' οὐδένα τρόπον τὸν ὀρθὸν περὶ τῆς πίστεως λόγον εἰς τὸ οὕτως ἔχειν, κἂν εἰ προσώπων ἕνωσιν ἐπιφημίζωσί τινες"6. Ἀλλ' οὐχ οὕτως οὔτε ἡ ἀλήθεια ἀπαιτεῖ, οὔτε ἡμεῖς ἀνεξόμεθα, ἀλλὰ τὴν ἀκλινῆ καὶ μέσην ὁδὸν βαδιούμεθα, τοὺς μὲν δυάδα προσώπων εἰσάγοντας ἀναθεματίζοντες, τὴν δὲ ἀλήθειαν τῶν ἐν Χριστῷ οὐσιῶν ὁμολογοῦντες. 2. Ἀλλ' ἴσως ἐξ ἀπορίας διαστρέφειν πειρώμενοι τὴν τοιαύτην πεποίηνται πρότασιν. Ἡμῶν γὰρ ἐνυποστάτως ἡνωμένας δύο φύσεις λεγόντων ἐθελοκωφοῦσι καὶ περιξύοντες τῆς ὁμολογίας ἡμῶν τὸ ἐνυποστάτως ἡνωμένας, προβλήματι κέχρηνται καθ' ἡμῶν τῆς ἡμετέρας ὁμολογίας ἀπᾴδοντι καί φασιν· οὐκ ἔστι φύσις ἀπρόσωπος. Τί τοίνυν αὐτοῖς τὸ σοφὸν τοῦτο βούλεται πρόβλημα; Εἰ μὲν ὅτι οὐ δυνατὸν τὰς φύσεις ἄλλως ἢ ἐν προσώ- ποις θεωρεῖσθαι, τούτοις πᾶς τις καὶ τῶν μικρὰ εἰδότων συνομο- λογήσειε. Τίς γὰρ ἀγνοεῖ, ὅτι καθόλου ἐν τοῖς κατὰ μέρος προσώποις, ὅπερ ταῖς χαρακτηριστικαῖς ὑποστάσεσι θεωρεῖται, οἷον ἡ τῆς θεότητος φύσις ἐν πατρί, ἐν υἱῷ, ἐν ἁγίῳ πνεύματι, ὁμοίως ἡ ἀγγελικὴ φύσις ἐν Μιχαήλ, ἐν Γαβριὴλ καὶ τοῖς λοιποῖς, καὶ ἡ τῆς ἀνθρωπότητος φύσις ἐν τοῖς καθ' ἕκαστον γνωρίζεται προσώποις; Εἰ δὲ τοῦτο βούλονται κατασκευάζειν ὅτι πάσῃ φύσει ἰδιάζον παρέπεται πρόσωπον, ἐπὶ τῶν μὴ καθ' ὑπόστασιν ἡνωμένων φύσεων, ὅ ἐστιν οὐσιῶν, καὶ τοῦτον ὀρθῶς ἔχειν ἡγοῦμαι τὸν λόγον, ἐπὶ δὲ τῶν ἐν συνθέσει καὶ ἐνυποστάτως ἡνωμένων πόρρω τῆς ἀληθείας καθέστηκεν. Ἔστι γὰρ ὅτε διάφοροι φύσεις συνερχόμεναι κατὰ τὴν ἀδιαίρετον ἕνωσιν ἓν πρόσωπον καὶ μίαν ἀποτελοῦσιν ὑπόστασιν, οἷον τὰ τέσσαρα στοιχεῖα διάφοροι ὑπάρχουσιν οὐσίαι, ἀλλ' ὅμως ἓν ἀποτελοῦσι σῶμα τοῦδε τυχὸν τοῦ ξύλου ἢ λίθου τοῦ ἐν ἰδιότητι θεωρουμένου, ὅπερ ἐστὶν ὑπόστασις. Ἀλλ' ἐπείπερ τὸ παράδειγμα κρᾶσιν δοκεῖ πως ἐμ- φαίνειν καὶ σύγχυσιν, ληπτέον ἡμῖν τὸ κατὰ τὸν ἄνθρωπον παράδειγμα τὸν ἐν μιᾷ ὑποστάσει. Ἐν ἑκάστῳ γὰρ ἡμῶν ἡ οὐσία τῆς ψυχῆς ἑτέρα ἐστὶν ὡς πρὸς τὴν οὐσίαν τοῦ σώματος, ἀλλ' ὅμως αἱ δύο οὐσίαι συνελθοῦσαι ἐν τοῖς καθέκαστον ἓν πρόσωπον ἀποτελοῦσι, φέρε εἰπεῖν Ἰωάννου ἢ Παύλου ἢ ἄλλου τινός, μείνασαι δύο. Οὔτε γὰρ ἡ ψυχὴ σὰρξ ἐγένετο, οὔτε μὴν ἡ σὰρξ ψυχὴ γέγονε. Μάρτυς δὲ τούτου Παῦλος ὁ κῆρυξ τῆς ἀληθείας φάσκων· ὁ ἔσω ἄνθρωπος καὶ ὁ ἔξω, ἵνα τὸ διάφορον σημαίνῃ τῶν οὐσιῶν. Τούτῳ κατ' ἴχνος ἑπόμενος Ἰωάννης ὁ τῆς Κωνσταντινουπόλεως ἐπίσκοπος καὶ πάσης ἐκκλησίας διδά- σκαλος τοιαῦτα γράφει ἐν τῷ ἐπιγεγραμμένῳ λόγῳ εἰς τὴν ἀσά- φειαν τῆς παλαῖας διαθήκης· "6διπλοῦν γὰρ τοῦτο τὸ ζῷον ὁ ἄνθρωπος ἐκ δύο συγκείμενον οὐσιῶν, τῆς μὲν αἰσθητῆς, τῆς δὲ νοητῆς, ψυχῆς λέγω καὶ σώματος, καὶ ἐν οὐρανῷ καὶ ἐν γῇ συγγένειαν ἔχον· διὰ γὰρ τῆς νοητῆς οὐσίας κοινωνεῖ ταῖς ἄνω δυνάμεσι, διὰ δὲ τῆς αἰσθητῆς τοῖς ἐπὶ γῆς συνῆπται πράγμασι, σύνδεσμος ὢν ἀκριβὴς ἑκατέρας τῆς κτίσεως"6. Οὕτως οὖν ἐν Χριστῷ τῶν δύο οὐσιῶν γέγονεν ἕνωσις εἰς μίαν ὑπόστασιν καὶ ἓν πρόσωπον, εἰ καὶ ἀμυδρῶς διὰ τῶν παραδειγμάτων ἀποδέ- δεικται. Πᾶσαι γὰρ ἕνωσιν ἡ ἐν Χριστῷ οἰκονομία ὡς ἀληθῶς ὑπεραίρουσα τὴν ἀνθρωπίνην διαδιδράσκει κατάληψιν. 3. Ἀλλὰ πάλιν τοῖς αὐτοῖς ἐμφιλοχωροῦσι νοσήμασιν, ὗς κατὰ τὸν λόγον τῷ βορβόρῳ ἐγκυλιόμενος. Τὰ αὐτὰ γὰρ πάλιν διαφόρως προβάλλονται. Φασὶ γάρ· Οὐκ ἔστιν οὐσία ἀνυπόστατος· πῶς οὖν οὐκ ἐν δύο ὑποστάσεσι ῥητέον, εἴπερ ἄρα δύο οὐσίας φατέ; Ὁρᾶτε τῶν κομψῶν τούτων τὴν ἄγνοιαν; τὴν γὰρ αὐτὴν ἡμῖν ἀνοήτως εἰσήγαγον πρότασιν, τὰ ὀνόματα πάλιν ὑπαλλά- ξαντες. Τίς γὰρ διαφορὰ οὐσίας καὶ φύσεως; Τίς δὲ προσώπου πρὸς τὴν ἐν χαρακτῆρι