16

they suppose, since one hypostasis has come from both, but the natures to a lesser degree, whence also two have remained after the union. And again after other things, in which he argues that substance does not admit of more and less, he says again in the same chapter thus: For I think it is clear to all that one nature is productive of several hypostases. Thus indeed, while confessing that the nature of the divinity is one, we hold that its hypostases are three. And the nature of men is one, though the hypostases under it extend almost infinitely in number, and likewise in the case of other things. But for two natures, preserving their duality in number, to constitute one hypostasis is impossible. And this it is possible to confirm not only from the induction of all particulars—for how could there be one hypostasis, that is, one individual, of a stone and of wood, or of an ox and of a horse?—, but also from the very operation of reason. For if in hypostases—which is the same as to say in individuals—each nature receives its existence, it is absolutely necessary, there being two natures, that there be at least two hypostases in which the natures received existence; for it is impossible for a nature to subsist by itself without being contemplated in some individual, and we have just shown that "individual" and "hypostasis" are the same. Therefore, those who say that not only the hypostasis but also the nature has become one on account of the union, appear consistent both with themselves and with the truth, but those who say that the hypostasis is one, but the natures are two, have shown themselves to be inconsistent both with themselves and with the truth. But since the human [nature] of Christ, they say, had its hypostasis in the Word and did not pre-exist the union with the Word, for this reason we say that the hypostasis of Christ is one. Should we therefore say that we also consider nature and hypostasis to signify one and the same thing, as being only different names applying to one significate, like "machaira" and "xiphos," or one thing and another? If, then, they are the same, the hypostasis being one, it is necessary that the nature also be one, just as, if the "xiphos" were one, it is necessary that the "machaira" also be one, or if the natures are two, the hypostases also will of necessity be two. But if the name of nature signifies one thing, and that of hypostasis another, and they consider the reason for the hypostasis of Christ being one to be that the hypostasis or person of the man did not pre-exist the union with the Word, then the reason for the natures of Christ being two would also be that the nature of the man pre-existed the union with the Word. But if the particular nature united to the Word pre-existed, it is absolutely necessary that its hypostasis also pre-existed. For it is not possible for one of these to exist without the other, I mean the particular nature without its own hypostasis or the particular hypostasis without its own nature; for both are one in the subject, even if they often converge to the same meaning among those who use them, as we showed a little before. If therefore, just as the hypostasis, so also the nature united to the Word did not pre-exist the union with him, for which reason they claim the hypostasis of Christ is one, for this reason let them also claim his nature is one; for not differing in respect of being united, they would not differ in this respect either. 84 Aphthartodocetae, those from Julian of Halicarnassus and Gaianus of Alexandria, who are also called Gaianites, agreeing in all other things with those from Severus, but differing in this, that the former say there seems to be a difference in the union of Christ, while these hold that the body of the Lord was incorruptible from its very formation. And they confess that the Lord endured the passions, I mean hunger and thirst and weariness, but they say that he did not endure these things in the same way as we do; for we [endure them] from natural necessity, but they say that Christ endured [them] voluntarily and was not subject to the laws of nature.

16

οἴονται, ἐπεὶ καὶ μία ἐξ ἀμφοῖν ὑπόστασις γέγονεν, ἧττον δὲ τὰς φύσεις, ὅθεν καὶ δύο μετὰ τὴν ἕνωσιν μεμενήκασι. Καὶ μεθ' ἕτερα πάλιν, ἐν οἷς γυμνάζει, ὅτι τὸ μᾶλλον καὶ ἧττον ἡ οὐσία οὐκ ἐπιδέχεται, φησὶ πάλιν ἐν τῷ αὐτῷ κεφαλαίῳ οὕτως· Μίαν μὲν γὰρ φύσιν πλειόνων ὑποστάσεων γεννητικὴν ἐναργὲς οἶμαι τυγχάνειν ἅπασιν. Οὕτω γοῦν μίαν εἶναι φύσιν τῆς θεότητος ὁμολογοῦντες τρεῖς εἶναι τὰς ὑποστάσεις αὐτῆς πρεσβεύομεν. Καὶ ἀνθρώπων δὲ μία ἐστὶν ἡ φύσις τῶν ὑπ' αὐτὴν ὑποστάσεων ἐπ' ἄπειρον σχεδὸν ἐκτεινομένων τῷ πλήθει, καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν ἄλλων ὡσαύτως. ∆ύο δὲ φύσεις σῳζούσας κατ' ἀριθμὸν τὴν δυάδα μίαν ἀποτελέσαι ὑπόστασιν ἀδύνατον. Καὶ τοῦτο οὐ μόνον ἐκ τῆς τῶν κατὰ μέρος ἁπάντων ἐπαγωγῆς ἔστι πιστώσασθαι-πῶς γὰρ ἂν εἴη λίθου καὶ ξύλου μία ὑπόστασις, τουτέστιν ἄτομον ἕν, ἢ βοὸς καὶ ἵππου; -, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐξ αὐτῆς τῆς τοῦ λόγου ἐνεργείας. Εἰ γὰρ ἐν ταῖς ὑποστάσεσι-ταυτὸν δὲ εἰπεῖν ἐν τοῖς ἀτόμοις-ἑκάστη φύσις λαμβάνει τὴν ὕπαρξιν, ἀνάγκη πᾶσα δύο τῶν φύσεων οὐσῶν δύο τοὐλάχιστον καὶ τὰς ὑποστάσεις εἶναι, ἐν αἷς τὴν ὕπαρξιν αἱ φύσεις ἔλαβον· ἀδύνατον γὰρ φύσιν ὑποστῆναι καθ' αὑτὴν μὴ ἐν ἀτόμῳ τινὶ θεωρουμένην, ἄτομον δὲ ταυτὸν εἶναι καὶ ὑπόστασιν ἀρτίως δεδείχαμεν. Ὥστε, ὅσοι μὲν μὴ μόνον τὴν ὑπόστασιν μίαν, ἀλλὰ καὶ τὴν φύσιν διὰ τὴν ἕνωσιν γεγονέναι φασί, σύμφωνοι καὶ ἑαυτοῖς καὶ τῇ ἀληθείᾳ φαίνονται, ὅσοι δὲ τὴν μὲν ὑπόστασιν μίαν, τὰς δὲ φύσεις δύο φασὶν εἶναι, καὶ ἑαυτοῖς ἀσύμφωνοι καὶ τῇ ἀληθείᾳ πεφήνασιν. Ἀλλ' ἐπειδὴ τὸ ἀνθρώπινον τοῦ Χριστοῦ, φασίν, ἐν τῷ λόγῳ τὴν ὑπόστασιν ἔσχε καὶ οὐ προϋπέστη τῆς τοῦ λόγου ἑνώσεως, διὰ τοῦτο μίαν φαμὲν εἶναι τὴν τοῦ Χριστοῦ ὑπόστασιν. Πότερον οὖν φαίημεν ἂν καὶ ἡμεῖς ἓν καὶ ταυτὸν ἡγεῖσθαι σημαίνειν τὴν φύσιν καὶ τὴν ὑπόστασιν, ὡς ὀνόματα μόνον εἶναι διάφορα καθ' ἑνὸς σημαινομένου πίπτοντα, ὡς μάχαιρα καὶ ξίφος, ἢ ἕτερον καὶ ἕτερον; Εἰ μὲν οὖν ταυτόν, μιᾶς τῆς ὑποστάσεως οὔσης μίαν εἶναι καὶ τὴν φύσιν ἀνάγκη, ὡς, εἰ τὸ ξίφος ἓν εἴη, καὶ τὴν μάχαιραν μίαν εἶναι ἀνάγκη, ἢ εἰ αἱ φύσεις δύο, καὶ ὑποστάσεις ἐξ ἀνάγκης δύο ἔσονται. Εἰ δὲ ἄλλο μὲν σημαίνει τὸ τῆς φύσεως ὄνομα, ἄλλο δὲ τὸ τῆς ὑποστάσεως, αἴτιον δὲ τοῦ μίαν εἶναι τοῦ Χριστοῦ τὴν ὑπόστασιν ἡγοῦνται τὸ μὴ προϋπάρξαι τὴν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ὑπόστασιν ἤγουν πρόσωπον τῆς πρὸς τὸν λόγον ἑνώσεως, οὐκοῦν καὶ τοῦ δύο τοῦ Χριστοῦ τὰς φύσεις εἶναι αἴτιον ἂν εἴη τὸ προϋπάρξαι τὴν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου φύσιν τῆς πρὸς τὸν λόγον ἑνώσεως. Ἀλλ' εἰ προϋπέστη ἡ ἑνωθεῖσα τῷ λόγῳ μερικὴ φύσις, ἀνάγκη πᾶσα καὶ τὴν ταύτης προϋποστῆναι ὑπόστασιν. Τούτων γὰρ οὐκ ἐνδέχεται θάτερον εἶναι τοῦ λοιποῦ μὴ ὄντος, τὴν μερικὴν λέγω φύσιν ἄνευ τῆς ἰδίας ὑποστάσεως ἢ τὴν μερικὴν ὑπόστασιν ἄνευ τῆς ἰδίας φύσεως· ἓν γάρ ἐστιν ἄμφω τῷ ὑποκειμένῳ, εἰ καὶ εἰς ταυτὸν πολλάκις συντρέχουσι παρὰ τοῖς χρησαμένοις, ὡς μικρῷ πρόσθεν ἐδείξαμεν. Εἰ τοίνυν ὥσπερ ἡ ὑπόστασις, οὕτω καὶ ἡ φύσις ἡ τῷ λόγῳ ἑνωθεῖσα οὐ προϋπέστη τῆς πρὸς αὐτὸν ἑνώσεως, διόπερ ἄρα μίαν τὴν τοῦ Χριστοῦ ἀξιοῦσιν ὑπόστασιν, διὰ τοῦτο καὶ φύσιν αὐτοῦ μίαν ἀξιούτωσαν εἶναι· μὴ διαφέρουσαι γὰρ κατὰ τὸ ἡνῶσθαι οὐδὲ κατὰ τοῦτο ἂν διαφέροιεν. 84 Ἀφθαρτοδοκῆται, οἱ ἀπὸ Ἰουλιανοῦ τοῦ Ἁλικαρνασέως καὶ Γαϊανοῦ τοῦ Ἀλεξανδρέως, οἱ καὶ Γαϊανῖται λεγόμενοι, ἐν τοῖς ἄλλοις μὲν ἅπασι τοῖς ἐκ Σευήρου συμφερόμενοι, ἐν τούτῳ δὲ διαφερόμενοι, ἐν τῷ τοὺς μὲν διαφορὰν ἐπὶ τῆς ἑνώσεως τοῦ Χριστοῦ τὸ δοκεῖν λέγειν, τούτους δὲ ἄφθαρτον ἐξ αὐτῆς διαπλάσεως τὸ σῶμα τοῦ κυρίου πρεσβεύειν. Καὶ τὰ μὲν πάθη ὑπομεῖναι τὸν κύριον ὁμολογοῦσι, πεῖνάν φημι καὶ δίψαν καὶ κόπον, οὐ τὸν αὐτὸν δὲ τρόπον ἡμῖν ταῦτα αὐτὸν ὑπομεμενηκέναι φασίν· ἡμᾶς γὰρ ἐξ ἀνάγκης φυσικῆς, τὸν δὲ Χριστὸν ἑκουσίως ὑπομεῖναι λέγουσι καὶ τοῖς τῆς φύσεως νόμοις μὴ δουλεῦσαι.