4

hypostasis? Therefore the same argument will suffice for us in the present case as well. For I might say to them: you seem to make me, a man composed of soul and body and observed in characteristic properties, into many hypostases and many men. For surely you are not so foolish by nature as to be ignorant that the soul is different in substance from the body, and that the body holds a different account concerning its substance. But if, according to you, each substance receives its own characteristic hypostasis, then for me the things of the union are empty, and I, who am one, have become two, so that it may seem so to you and your vain quibbles. But if I, being composed of two different substances, am not two men, but have the two substances of soul and body and am observed in one hypostasis, what necessity is there in the case of Christ, when confessing the two substances, to also speak of two individual hypostases? For the divine things are His by nature, and the human things are His through the hypostatic union; for not in another, but in Him did His own flesh subsist, as has been said before. For possessing what is common to the human substance, that is, being flesh animated by a rational soul, it had its particular properties in the God Logos alone, that is, being the flesh of the God Logos and of no other. How then is it another hypostasis, which did not subsist at all in itself? 4. Moreover, let them not be ignorant of this, that hypostasis is often understood by the holy fathers in place of substance, as also seems right to Cyril. For in the third anathema he says: "6If anyone divides the hypostases in the one Christ after the union"6. For here hypostasis signifies that which has subsisted; for the God-bearer, who always fought against the blasphemies of Nestorius, would not have named hypostases in the one Christ, unless he accepted them in place of substances. 5. Likewise also St. Athanasius in his letter to the Africans says: "6Hypostasis is substance and has no other meaning than being itself, which Jeremiah calls existence, saying: And they did not hear the voice of existence. For hypostasis and substance is existence; for it is and it exists"6. 6. If then someone, according to this argument, should call the substances 'enhypostatic', that is, 'existing', we would not deny it. For hypostasis does not differ from substance in that it is something, but in that the one, I mean substance, is common, while hypostasis is individual, when it has something individual along with the universals. Therefore, we do not say that our substance in Christ is enhypostatic in this sense, as being a characteristic hypostasis and person in itself, but insofar as it has both subsisted and exists. For sometimes hypostasis signifies 'to have subsisted', that is, 'substance', as has been shown, when it is deprived of the characteristic properties that are observed concerning a person. [From the defenses of Eulogius] against those who say that if you say there are two substances, that is, natures, united, one nature has certainly come to be; for the things that are united

certainly become one thing. If they wish to establish the 'becoming one thing' according to the characteristic hypostasis, they dogmatize correctly and very piously and in harmony with those at Chalcedon; for they too declare one hypostasis, but two substances. The flesh remained flesh, even if it became the flesh of the God Logos, that is, he took flesh and united it to himself indivisibly. For it did not undergo a change into flesh; for God exists unchangeable, the nature of the Trinity. As I said, therefore, the two substances have remained unconfused in Emmanuel, the one Christ, the Son of God, after the incarnation. But if they say that the two natures have become one substance, they deceive themselves unawares and suppose a confusion or a change, as if one were changed into the other or confused. For that the things

4

ὑπόστασιν; Ὅθεν ὁ αὐτὸς ἡμῖν καὶ ἐπὶ τοῦ παρόντος ἀρκέσει λόγος. Εἴποιμι γὰρ ἂν πρὸς αὐτούς· καὶ ἐμὲ τὸν ἐκ ψυχῆς καὶ σώματος ἐν ἰδιώμασι χαρακτηριστικοῖς θεωρούμε- νον ἄνθρωπον πολλὰς ὑποστάσεις καὶ πολλοὺς ἀνθρώπους δοκεῖτε ποιεῖν. Οὐ γὰρ δὴ τοσοῦτον ἠλίθιοι πεφύκατε, ὥστε ἀγνοεῖν ἑτέραν μὲν εἶναι κατ' οὐσίαν τὴν ψυχὴν πρὸς τὸ σῶμα, ἕτερον δὲ τὸ σῶμα τὸν περὶ τῆς οὐσίας λόγον ἐπέχειν. Εἰ δὲ ἑκάστη οὐσία καθ' ὑμᾶς ἰδικὴν ὑπόστασιν χαρακτηριστικὴν ἀνα- δέχεται, κενά μοι τὰ τῆς ἑνώσεως καὶ ὁ εἷς γέγονα δύο, ἵνα ὑμῖν δόξῃ καὶ τοῖς ματαίοις σκινδαλάμοις. Εἰ δὲ ἐγὼ ἐκ δύο οὐσιῶν διαφόρων συγκείμενος οὔκ εἰμι δύο ἄνθρωποι, ἀλλὰ καὶ τὰς δύο ἔχω οὐσίας τῆς ψυχῆς καὶ τοῦ σώματος καὶ ἐν ὑποστάσει μιᾷ θεωροῦμαι, τίς ἀνάγκη καὶ ἐπὶ Χριστοῦ τὰς δύο οὐσίας ὁμολο- γοῦντα δύο φάναι καὶ ἰδικὰς ὑποστάσεις; Αὐτοῦ μὲν γὰρ τῇ φύσει τὰ θεῖα, αὐτοῦ δὲ διὰ τὴν ἐνυπόστατον ἕνωσιν καὶ τὰ ἀνθρώπινα· οὐ γὰρ ἐν ἑτέρῳ, ἀλλ' ἐν αὐτῷ ἡ ἰδικὴ αὐτοῦ ὑπέστη σάρξ, ὡς προείρηται. Τὸ κοινὸν γὰρ ἔχουσα τῆς ἀνθρωπίνης οὐσίας, τουτέστι τὸ εἶναι σὰρξ ἐψυχωμένη ψυχῇ λογικῇ, ἐν μόνῳ τῷ θεῷ λόγῳ ἔσχε τὰ ἰδικά, τουτέστι τὸ εἶναι τοῦ θεοῦ λόγου καὶ οὐχ ἑτέρου σάρξ. Πῶς οὖν ἑτέρα ὑπόστασις ἡ μηδόλως καθ' ἑαυτὴν ὑποστᾶσα; 4. Ἄλλως τε μηδὲ τοῦτο ἀγνοείτωσαν ὅτι ἀντὶ οὐσίας ἡ ὑπόστασις τοῖς ἁγίοις πατράσι πολλάκις νενόηται, ὡς καὶ Κυρίλλῳ δοκεῖ. Ἐν γὰρ τῷ τρίτῳ ἀναθεματισμῷ φησιν· "6Εἴ τις ἐπὶ τοῦ ἑνὸς Χριστοῦ διαιρεῖ τὰς ὑποστάσεις μετὰ τὴν ἕνωσιν"6. Τὸ γὰρ ὑφεστηκὸς ἐνταῦθα δηλοῖ ἡ ὑπόστασις· οὐ γὰρ ἂν ὁ θεοφό- ρος ἐπὶ τοῦ ἑνὸς Χριστοῦ ὑποστάσεις ὠνόμαζεν ὁ ταῖς Νεστο- ρίου βλασφημίαις ἀεὶ πολεμῶν, εἰ μὴ ἀντὶ οὐσιῶν αὐτὰς ἐδέχετο. 5. Ὁμοίως καὶ ὁ ἅγιος Ἀθανάσιος ἐν τῇ πρὸς Ἄφρους ἐπιστολῇφησιν· "6Ἡ δὲ ὑπόστασις οὐσία ἐστὶ καὶ οὐδὲν ἄλλο σημαινόμε- νον ἔχει ἢ αὐτὸ τὸ ὄν, ὅπερ ὁ Ἱερεμίας ὕπαρξιν ὀνομάζει λέγῳν· Καὶ οὐκ ἤκουσαν φωνὴν ὑπάρξεως. Ἡ γὰρ ὑπόστασις καὶ ἡ οὐσία ὕπαρξίς ἐστιν· ἔστι γὰρ καὶ ὑπάρχει"6. 6. Εἰ οὖν τις ἐνυποστάτους κατὰ τοῦτον τὸν λόγον εἴποι τὰς οὐσίας, ὅ ἐστιν ὑπαρχούσας, οὐδὲ ἡμεῖς ἀρνηθείημεν. Ἡ γὰρ ὑπόστασις πρὸς τὴν οὐσίαν τῷ εἰναι μέν τι οὐ διαφέρει, ἀλλὰ τῷ τὴν μὲν κοινῶς εἶναι, φημὶ δὴ τὴν οὐσίαν, τὴν δὲ ὑπόστασιν ἰδικῶς, ὅταν μετὰ τῶν καθόλου καὶ ἰδικόν τι ἔχοι. Οὐ κατὰ τοῦτο οὖν φαμεν τὴν ἡμετέραν ἐν Χριστῷ οὐσίαν ἐνυπόστατον εἶναι, οἷον ὑπόστασιν καθ' ἑαυτὴν χαρακτηριστικὴν καὶ πρόσωπον οὖσαν, ἀλλὰ καθὸ ὑφέστηκέ τε καὶ ἔστιν. Ἐνίοτε γὰρ τὸ ὑφεστηκέναι δηλοῖ ἡ ὑπόστασις, ὅ ἐστιν οὐσία, ὡς ἀποδέδεικται, ὅταν τῶν χαρακτηριστικῶν ἰδιωμάτων καὶ περὶ πρόσωπον θεωρουμένων ἐστέρηται. [Ἐκ τῶν Εὐλογίου συνηγοριῶν] πρὸς τοὺς λέγοντας ὅτι εἰ δύο φατὲ οὐσίας. ὅ ἐστι φύσεις ἡνωμένας, πάντως μία γέγονε φύσις· τὰ γὰρ ἑνούμενα

πάντως ἕν τι γίνεται. Εἰ μὲν τὸ ἕν τι γενέσθαι κατὰ τὴν χαρακτηριστικὴν ὑπόστασιν βούλονται κατασκευάζειν, ὀρθῶς καὶ λίαν εὐσεβῶς καὶ συνῳδὰ τοῖς ἐν Χαλκηδόνι δογματίζουσιν· κἀκεῖνοι γὰρ μίαν ὑπόστασιν ἀποφαίνονται, δύο δὲ τὰς οὐσίας. Ἡ σὰρξ ἔμεινε σάρξ, εἰ καὶ τοῦ θεοῦ λόγου σὰρξ ἐγένετο, ὅ ἐστι προσείληφε σάρκα καὶ ἥνωσεν ἑαυτῷ ἀδιαιρέτως. Οὐ γὰρ τροπὴν ὑπέστη τὴν εἰς σάρκα· καὶ γὰρ θεὸς ἀναλλοίωτος ὑπάρχει τῆς τριάδος ἡ φύσις. Ὡς ἔφην οὖν, ἀσύγχυτοι μεμενήκασιν ἐν τῷ Ἐμμανουήλ, τῷ ἑνὶ Χριστῷ τῷ υἱῷ τοῦ θεοῦ, μετὰ τὴν ἐνανθρώπησιν αἱ δύο οὐσίαι. Εἰ δὲ μίαν οὐσίαν φασὶ γεγονέναι τὰς δύο φύσεις, λελήθασιν ἑαυτοὺς ἀπατῶντες καὶ σύγχυσιν ἢ τροπὴν ὑποτιθέμενοι, ὡς τῆς μιᾶς τραπείσης εἰς τὴν ἑτέραν ἢ συγχυθείσης. Ὅτι γὰρ τὰ