15

Paul and John, and that he became a man and died, the particular one, that is, while the common definition of human nature remains the same. And it is reasonable to state this beforehand, that the name of 'person' and of 'hypostasis' is often for us indicative of the same meaning, as if someone should call the same thing both a sword and a blade. Thus, in the case of the Holy Trinity, we indifferently call them three persons and three hypostases, signifying the same thing through each in a parallel way. But often they distinguish the person from the hypostasis, calling 'person' the relation of certain things to one another, a meaning of 'person' not unknown even to common usage; for we say that so-and-so has taken on my person, and that so-and-so has brought the lawsuit in the person of this man, and we say that the prefect holds the person of the emperor. Hence the followers of Nestorius's dogmas, unwilling to speak of either one nature or one hypostasis in Christ, since they do not hold to a union of the natures or of the hypostases in themselves, but suppose the one from Mary to be a mere man, who contained in himself the whole divine illumination and by this differed from all other God-bearing men (in each of whom the divine illumination was more partial), nevertheless confidently insist that the person of Christ is one, calling the one relation of God the Word to the man from Mary one person, since he carried out the whole divine economy in the person of the divinity of the Word. Whence it is also right that the insult against the man be referred to God, since both the honor and insult from subjects toward the prefect are referred to the emperor himself. They say, then, that the name 'Christ' is properly indicative of this relation, whence they also think it right to call Christ one, since the relation, as has been said, is one, even if the things partaking of it are many. It is clear, then, I think, to those who are pious concerning the incarnation of the Savior, that when we say that the person of Christ is one, we do not, as it seemed to the friends of Nestorius, apply the name of person to the mere relation of God to the man, but we use the term 'hypostasis' and the term 'person' in parallel, thus saying that the person of Christ is one, just as the hypostasis of a man, Peter for instance or Paul, is one. And let this also be stated by us beforehand among other things, that although the humanity of Christ did not subsist for even the briefest time apart from the union with the Word, but at once received the beginning of its passage into being and its union with the Word, we do not say that that nature is without hypostasis, since it had a self-subsistent and individually-defined existence, being distinguished by certain properties from the common nature of all other men; for we just now showed that the name of hypostasis signifies this. Therefore, just as in the case of Christ's divinity we confess both its nature and its hypostasis, so too in the case of his humanity, it is necessary to confess, just as its nature, so also this its particular hypostasis, so that we may not be compelled to say that that nature is without hypostasis, as I have said; for the Savior's humanity was clearly one of the individuals existing under the common nature. These things having been so clearly distinguished and, I think, agreed upon by all, let those who posit that the natures of Christ are two, but the hypostasis one, tell us—since each of the united things necessarily had both a nature and a hypostasis, as the argument has shown—whether they confess that the union of both the natures and the hypostases occurred with equal honor, or rather that the hypostases were united

15

Παῦλον καὶ Ἰωάννην καὶ γεγονέναι ἄνθρωπον καὶ τεθνάναι, τὸν καθ' ἕκαστα δηλονότι, καὶ τοῦ κοινοῦ λόγου τῆς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου φύσεως ὡσαύτως ἔχοντος. Καὶ τοῦτο δὲ πάλιν εὔλογον προδιαστείλασθαι, ὡς τὸ τοῦ προσώπου καὶ τῆς ὑποστάσεως ὄνομα πολλάκις μὲν τῆς αὐτῆς ἐστι παρ' ἡμῖν σημασίας δηλωτικόν, ὡσεὶ καὶ ξίφος τις τὸ αὐτὸ καλοίη καὶ μάχαιραν. Οὕτω γοῦν ἐπὶ τῆς ἁγίας τριάδος ἀδιαφόρως πρόσωπά τε τρία καὶ ὑποστάσεις τρεῖς προσαγορεύομεν, τῷ ἐκ παραλλήλου τρόπῳ δι' ἑκατέρου ταυτὸν σημαίνοντες. Πολλάκις δὲ τὸ πρόσωπον τῆς ὑποστάσεως διακρίνουσι, πρόσωπον καλοῦντες τήν τινων σχέσιν πρὸς ἄλληλα, οὐκ ἀγνοούσης οὐδὲ τῆς συνήθους χρήσεως τοῦτο τοῦ προσώπου τὸ σημαινόμενον· φαμὲν γὰρ τὸ ἐμὸν ἀνειληφέναι πρόσωπον τὸν δεῖνα, καὶ εἰς πρόσωπον τοῦδε τὴν δίκην εἰσαγαγεῖν τὸν δεῖνα, καὶ τὸν ὕπαρχον δὲ πρόσωπον ἔχειν τοῦ βασιλέως λέγομεν. Ἔνθεν καὶ οἱ τῶν Νεστορίου δογμάτων κατήκοοι οὔτε φύσιν μίαν ἐπὶ Χριστοῦ οὔτε ὑπόστασιν λέγειν ἀνεχόμενοι, ἐπεὶ μήτε τῶν φύσεων μήτε τῶν ὑποστάσεων καθ' αὑτὰς πρεσβεύουσιν ἕνωσιν, ἄνθρωπον δὲ εἶναι τὸν ἐκ Μαρίας ψιλὸν ὑποτίθενται, ὅλην ἐν ἑαυτῷ τὴν θείαν χωρήσαντα ἔλλαμψιν καὶ ταύτῃ τῶν ἄλλων ἁπάντων θεοφόρων ἀνθρώπων διαφέροντα, μερικωτέρας ἐν ἐκείνων ἑκάστῳ τῆς θείας γενομένης ἐλλάμψεως, ὅμως θαρρούντως ἓν εἶναι τοῦ Χριστοῦ τὸ πρόσωπον διισχυρίζονται, τὴν σχέσιν τοῦ θεοῦ λόγου πρὸς τὸν ἐκ Μαρίας ἄνθρωπον μίαν οὖσαν πρόσωπον ἓν λέγοντες, ἐπεὶ πᾶσαν ἐκεῖνος τὴν θείαν οἰκονομίαν εἰς πρόσωπον ἐποιεῖτο τῆς τοῦ λόγου θεότητος. Ὅθεν δικαίως καὶ τὴν εἰς τὸν ἄνθρωπον ὕβριν εἰς θεὸν ἀναφέρεσθαι, ἐπεὶ καὶ ἡ ἐκ τῶν ὑπηκόων εἰς τὸν ὕπαρχον γινομένη τιμή τε καὶ ὕβρις εἰς αὐτὸν ἀναφέρεται τὸν βασιλέα. Ταύτης γοῦν τῆς σχέσεως καὶ τὴν Χριστός προσηγορίαν κυρίως δηλωτικὴν εἶναί φασιν, ὅθεν καὶ Χριστὸν ἕνα καλεῖν ἀξιοῦσιν, ἐπεὶ καὶ ἡ σχέσις, ὡς εἴρηται, μία, κἂν πλείονα εἴη τὰ ταύτης μετέχοντα. ∆ῆλον οὖν οἶμαι τοῖς εὐσεβοῦσι περὶ τὴν τοῦ σωτῆρος ἐνανθρώπησιν, ὡς ἓν εἶναι τοῦ Χριστοῦ τὸ πρόσωπον λέγοντες ἡμεῖς οὐχ, ὡς τοῖς Νεστορίου φίλοις ἔδοξεν, ἐπ' αὐτῆς ψιλῆς τῆς σχέσεως τοῦ θεοῦ πρὸς τὸν ἄνθρωπον τὸ τοῦ προσώπου φέρομεν ὄνομα, ἀλλ' ἐκ παραλλήλου τῇ τῆς ὑποστάσεως καὶ τῇ τοῦ προσώπου προσηγορίᾳ χρώμεθα, οὕτω λέγοντες ἓν εἶναι τὸ Χριστοῦ πρόσωπον, ὡς ἀνθρώπου μίαν ὑπόστασιν, Πέτρου τυχὸν ἢ Παύλου. Προδιηγείσθω δὲ ἡμῖν μετὰ τῶν ἄλλων καὶ τοῦτο, ὡς εἰ καὶ τὰ μάλιστα μηδὲ τὸν τυχόντα χρόνον χωρὶς τῆς πρὸς τὸν λόγον ἑνώσεως τὸ ἀνθρώπινον ὑπέστη τοῦ Χριστοῦ, ἀλλ' ἅμα τε τὴν ἀρχὴν τῆς εἰς τὸ εἶναι παρόδου καὶ τὴν πρὸς τὸν λόγον ἀνείληφεν ἕνωσιν, ἀλλ' οὐκ ἀνυπόστατον εἶναί φαμεν τὴν φύσιν ἐκείνην, εἴπερ ἰδιοσύστατον εἶχε παρὰ τοὺς λοιποὺς ἀνθρώπους καὶ ἰδιοπερίγραφον τὴν ὕπαρξιν ἰδιώμασί τισι παρὰ τὴν κοινὴν φύσιν τῶν λοιπῶν ἀνθρώπων ἁπάντων διακρινομένην· τοῦτο γὰρ σημαίνειν ἀρτίως τὸ τῆς ὑποστάσεως ἐδείξαμεν ὄνομα. Οὐκοῦν ὡς ἐπὶ τῆς θεότητος τοῦ Χριστοῦ καὶ φύσιν αὐτῆς καὶ ὑπόστασιν ὁμολογοῦμεν, οὕτω δήπου καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς ἀνθρωπότητος αὐτοῦ, ὥσπερ φύσιν, οὕτω καὶ τὴν ἰδικὴν ταύτην ὑπόστασιν ὁμολογεῖν ἀνάγκη, ἵνα μὴ ἀνυπόστατον, ὅπερ εἴρηκα, τὴν φύσιν ἐκείνην λέγειν ἀναγκαζώμεθα· ἓν γὰρ δηλονότι τῶν ὑπὸ τὴν κοινὴν φύσιν τελούντων ἀτόμων τὸ τοῦ σωτῆρος ὑπῆρχεν ἀνθρώπινον. Τούτων οὕτω διευκρινημένων σαφῶς καὶ ὑπὸ πάντων, οἶμαι, συμφωνουμένων, λεγέτωσαν ἡμῖν οἱ δύο εἶναι τὰς τοῦ Χριστοῦ φύσεις, μίαν δὲ τὴν ὑπόστασιν ὑποτιθέμενοι, ἐπειδὴ τῶν ἑνωθέντων ἑκάτερον φύσιν τε ἅμα καὶ ὑπόστασιν ἐξ ἀνάγκης εἶχεν, ὡς ὁ λόγος ἔδειξε, πότερον ὁμοτίμως τῶν τε φύσεων καὶ τῶν ὑποστάσεων ὁμολογοῦσι γεγονέναι τὴν ἕνωσιν, ἢ μᾶλλον ἡνῶσθαι τὰς ὑποστάσεις