11

he may be shown to hold the division of Ebion, and of Paul of Samosata and of Nestorius, and decreeing the activity of the Word by grace as in a prophet, he might again have falsehood as a ready 0041 advocate, declaring that he said hypostases instead of natures. But if he is justly accused again, on the grounds of a mere difference, of dogmatizing the non-existence of the things that were united, he would find as a refuge for his defense the difference as in a natural quality; saying a difference of natural qualities, but not of natures, that is of substances, in Christ after the union; through the expression that dissolves the confusion; that is, of the difference, the cunning sophist rather tightens the confusion; of opposites according to the law of nature, not making opposites a dissolution, but a constitution, contrary to the rule and law of nature; and having become such concerning the difference to the deception of his hearers, as Nestorius was shown to be concerning the union. For that one, naming the union only by a mere appellation, in effect introduced the division of the realities; and this one, advocating a mere difference after the union, holds that the existence of the differing things is only in concept; but in effect, he arranges their confusion. For if Nestorius had not thought the union to be merely nominal, he would have spoken of the one composite hypostasis of Christ, brought about from the union of the natures; and this one, if he had not preached a mere difference, would not have refrained from speaking of the uncut and indivisible quality of the differing things in Christ after the union, knowing that with every difference, quantity is certainly co-introduced; and with every quantity, the number that signifies it is yoked together. For it is impossible 15Α_054 for a difference to be without quantity, or for quantity to be known apart from the number that indicates it.

And the one, knowing only the quantity of natures in Christ, but not knowing the monadic character of the hypostasis by composition from the natures, makes the mere appellation of the union an utter covering for the division of the natures; while the other, advocating the monadic character only according to nature instead of according to hypostasis, but not knowing the quantity according to nature, makes the mere difference in natural quality a covering for the confusion of the natures. And the one, advocating a union of natures only in a volitional quality, denies the one hypostasis, not enduring to say that the coming together of the realities truly happened according to substance. For authority and dignity, and such a will, of which Nestorius asserted the union to consist, are clearly movements of the will, but not of nature. 0044 But the other, speaking of a mere difference only in a natural quality after the union, manifestly effects the annihilation of the things that were united, denying the difference of these united things according to substance in a natural otherness. And to speak concisely about these things: the one invented the union of volitional qualities for the division of the things that are by nature; but the other, on the contrary, devised the difference of natural qualities for the confusion of the realities. Truly an evil pair of lawless men, raging to tear apart evilly through opposites the truth of right doctrines. For the one, introducing a union of volitional qualities, effects a division of the natures which, according to him, were not united at all; but the other, saying that there is only a difference of natural qualities after the union, likewise introduces a confused alteration of the natures which, according to him, were not united at all; not knowing what they are even saying. For if they had decided to be consistent with themselves, 15Α_056 Nestorius, saying that the union occurred of volitional qualities, ought not to have divided the natures, of which he did not advocate a union in the first place at all; but to know the difference after the union of those things of which he asserts the union to be; but Severus, a difference of natural qualities

11

τήν Ἐβιῶνος, Παύλου τε τοῦ Σαμωσατέως καί Νεστορίου διαίρεσιν ἀποδειχθῇ φρονῶν, καί τήν ὡς ἐν προφήτῃ τοῦ Λόγου κατά χάριν ἐνέργειαν θεσπίζων, ἕτοιμον 0041 αὖθις σχοίη τό ψεῦδος συνήγορον, ἀντί φύσεων εἰρηκέναι τάς ὑποστάσεις ἀποφαινόμενος. Εἰ δέ πάλιν ἐγκληθῇ δικαίως, ἐπί τῇ ψιλῇ διαφορᾷ, τήν τῶν ἑνωθέντων πραγμάτων δογματίζων ἀνυπαρξίαν, εὕροι πρός ἀπολογίαν καταφυγήν τήν ὡς ἐν ποιότητι φυσικῇ διαφοράν· ποιοτήτων λέγων φυσικῶν, ἀλλ' οὐ φύσεων, ἤγουν οὐσιῶν ἐπί Χριστοῦ διαφοράν μετά τήν ἕνωσιν· διά τῆς λυούσης τήν σύγχυσιν φωνῆς· τουτέστι, τῆς διαφορᾶς, πλέον ὁ πανοῦργος σοφιστής, διασφίγγων τήν σύγχυσιν· τῶν ἐναντίων κατά τόν νόμον τῆς φύσεως, οὐ λύσιν τά ἐναντία ποιούμενος, ἀλλά σύστασιν, παρά τόν ὄρον καί νόμον τῆς φύσεως· καί τοιοῦτος γενόμενος περί τήν διαφοράν εἰς πλάνην τῶν ἀκοούντων, οἷος ὑπάρχων περί τήν ἕνωσιν ἀπεφάνθη Νεστόριος. Ἐκεῖνος τε γάρ κατά μόνην ψιλήν τήν προσηγορίαν, ὀνομάζων τήν ἕνωσιν, κατ᾿ ἐνέργειαν τήν τῶν πραγμάτων εἰσῆγε διαίρεσιν· καί οὗτος ψιλήν τήν διαφοράν πρεσβεύων μετά τήν ἕνωσιν, κατά μέν τήν ἐπίνοιαν εἶναι φρονεῖ τῶν διαφερόντων τήν ὕπαρξιν· κατά δέ τήν ἐνέργειαν, τήν αὐτῶν ἐπιδιατίθεται σύγχυσιν. Εἰ γάρ μή ψιλήν ἐφρόνει Νεστόριος γεγενῆσθαι τήν ἕνωσιν, εἶπεν ἄν τήν ἐκ τῆς ἑνώσεως τῶν φύσεων ἀποτελεσθεῖσαν τοῦ Χριστοῦ μίαν ὑπόστασιν σύνθετον· καί οὗτος, εἰ μή ψιλήν ἐκήρυττε τήν διαφοράν, οὐ παρῃτεῖτο λέγειν ἐν Χριστῷ μετά τήν ἕνωσιν τήν ἄτμητον καί ἀδιαίρετον τῶν διαφερόντων ποιότητα, γινώσκων ὅτι πάσῃ διαφορᾷ, πάντως συνεισάγεται ποσότης· καί πάσῃ ποσότητι, συνέζευκται ὁ δηλωτικός αὐτῆς ἀριθμός. Ἀμήχανον 15Α_054 γάρ, ἤ διαφοράν ποσότητος εἶναι χωρίς, ἤ ποσότητα δίχα τοῦ δηλοῦντος αὐτήν ἀριθμοῦ διαγνωσθῆναι.

Καί ὁ μέν, τήν φύσεων μόνην ἐπί Χριστοῦ γινώσκων ποσότητα, τό δέ κατά σύνθεσιν ἐκ τῶν φύσεων τῆς ὑποστάσεως μοναδικόν οὐκ εἰδώς, ἐπικάλυμμα ποιεῖται διαμπάξ (τῆς) τῶν φύσεων διαιρέσεως, τήν ψιλήν τῆς ἑνώσεως προσηγορίαν· ὁ δέ, τό κατά μόνην τήν φύσιν ἀντί τοῦ καθ᾿ ὑπόστασιν πρεσβεύων μοναδικόν, τό δέ κατά φύσιν ποσόν οὐκ εἰδώς, ἐπικάλυμμα ποιεῖται τῆς τῶν φύσεων συγχύσεως τήν ψιλήν ἐν ποιότητι φυσικῇ διαφοράν. Καί ὁ μέν, τήν ἐν μόνῃ ποιότητι γνωμικῇ τῶν φύσεων ἕνωσιν πρεσβεύων, ἀρνεῖται τήν μίαν ὑπόστασιν, ἀληθῆ τῶν πραγμάτων κατ᾿ οὐσίαν γεγενῆσθαι τήν σύνοδον λέγειν οὐκ ἀνεχόμενος. Αὐθεντία γάρ καί ἀξία, καί τοιάδε θέλησις, ὧν ἔφασκε Νεστόριος εἶναι τήν ἕνωσιν, γνώμης ὑπάρχει κινήματα σαφῶς, ἀλλ᾿ οὐ φύσεως. 0044 Ὁ δέ, τήν ψιλήν ἐν μόνῃ ποιότητι φυσικῇ λέγων διαφοράν μετά τήν ἕνωσιν, τῶν ἑνωθέντων ποιεῖται προδήλως ἀναίρεσιν, τήν κατ᾿ οὐσίαν αὐτῶν τῶν ἑνωθέντων ἐν ἑτερότητι φυσικῇ διαφοράν ἀπαρνούμενος. Καί συντόμως περί τούτων εἰπεῖν· ὁ μέν, τήν τῶν γνωμικῶν ποιοτήτων ἕνωσιν εἰς τήν τῶν φύσει πραγμάτων ἐφεῦρε διαίρεσιν· ὁ δέ, τοὐναντίον, τήν τῶν φυσικῶν ποιοτήτων διαφοράν, εἰς τήν τῶν πραγμάτων ἐπενόησε σύγχυσιν. Ὄντως κακή ξυνωρίς ἀνδρῶν παρανόμων, διασπᾷν μαινομένων κακῶς διά τῶν ἐναντίων τήν τῶν ὀρθῶν δογμάτων ἀλήθειαν. Ὁ μέν γάρ, ποιοτήτων γνωμικῶν εἰσηγούμενος ἕνωσιν τήν τῶν μηδόλως κατ᾿ αὐτόν ἑνωθεισῶν φύσεων ποιεῖται διαίρεσιν· ὁ δέ, ποιοτήτων φυσικῶν λέγων μόνον εἶναι διαφοράν μετά τήν ἕνωσιν, ὡσαύτως τήν τῶν μηδόλως κατ' αὐτόν ἑνωθεισῶν φύσεων εἰσηγεῖται συγκεχυμένην ἀλλοίωσιν· οὐκ εἰδότες ὅ τι καί λέγουσιν. Ἐχρῆν γάρ εἴπερ ἑαυτοῖς στοιχεῖν διεγνώκεισαν, 15Α_056 τόν μέν Νεστόριον, γνωμικῶν ποιοτήτων λέγοντα γεγενῆσθαι τήν ἕνωσιν, μή διαιρεῖν τάς φύσεις, ὧν μηδέ τήν ἀρχήν παντελῶς ἐπρέσβευσεν ἕνωσιν· ἀλλά τήν ὧν εἶναι φάσκει τήν ἕνωσιν, γινώσκειν διαφοράν μετά τήν ἕνωσιν· τόν δέ Σευῆρον, ποιοτήτων φυσικῶν διαφοράν