31

saying that in the economy nature is the hypostasis; and the difference in natural quality is the real and natural one; because every quality is also natural, and is called a reality; so that, if, having been caught, he should be detected by the refutations, clearly through the one composite nature professing both the fantasy of Manes, and the confusion of Apollinaris, and the absorption after the union of the united things into one essence of Eutyches, like a chameleon changing its colors, he might change his own statement, saying he had understood nature as hypostasis. But if again, saying the union had come to be from hypostases, that is, persons, he should 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 (41) again have falsehood as a ready advocate, declaring that he had said hypostases instead of natures. But if again he should be justly accused, on the basis of a mere difference, of dogmatizing the non-existence of the things united, he would find as a refuge for his defense the difference as in a natural quality; saying there is a difference of natural qualities, but not of natures, that is, of essences, in Christ after the union; by means of the statement that resolves the confusion, that is, of the difference, the cunning sophist further tightens the confusion; of the opposites according to the law of nature, not making the opposites a dissolution but a constitution, contrary to the rule and law of nature; and becoming such concerning the difference, for the deception of his hearers, as Nestorius was shown to be concerning the union. For that one, naming the union according to a mere appellation alone, introduced a division of the realities in actuality; and this one, professing a mere difference after the union, holds that the existence of the differing things is in concept only; but in actuality, he imposes their confusion. For if Nestorius did not hold that the union had occurred as a mere one, he would have spoken of the one composite hypostasis of Christ, constituted from the union of the natures; and this one, if he did not proclaim a mere difference, would not refuse to speak of the uncut and undivided quality (μ) of the differing things in Christ after the union, knowing that with every difference, a quantity is by all means co-introduced; and with every quantity, the number that indicates it is yoked. For it is impossible either for a difference to be without quantity, or for a 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 a complete covering for the division of the natures; but the other, professing the monadic character according to nature alone 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, professing a union of the natures in a volitional quality alone, denies the one hypostasis, not enduring to say that the coming together of the realities had truly happened according to essence. For authority and dignity and such a will, of which Nestorius asserted the union to consist, are clearly movements of volition, but not of nature.

(44) But the other, speaking of a mere difference in natural quality alone after the union, manifestly effects the annihilation of the things that were united, denying the difference according to essence of the united things themselves in a natural otherness. And to speak concisely about these things: the one invented the union of wills for the division of the realities; the other, on the contrary, devised the difference of the natural qualities for the confusion of the realities. Truly an evil pair of lawless men, raging to tear apart evilly through contraries the truth of the right doctrines. For the one, introducing a union of volitional qualities

31

φάσκων ἐπί τῆς οἰκονομίας τῇ φύσει τή ὑπόστασιν· καί τήν ἐν ποιότητι φυσικῇ διαφοράν, τῇ πραγματικῇ καί κατά φύσιν· διά τό καί φυσικήν εἶναι πᾶσαν ποιότητα, καί πρᾶγμα προσαγορεύεσθαι· ἵνα, εἰ μέν ἁλούς τοῖς ἐλέγχοις φωραθῇ, σαφῶς διά τῆς μιᾶς συνθέτου φύσεως, τήν τε Μάνεντος φαντασίαν, καί τήν Ἀπολιναρίου σύγχυσιν, καί τήν Εὐτυχοῦς μετά τήν ἕνωσιν εἰς μίαν οὐσίαν τῶν ἑνωθέντων πρεσβεύων συμαίρεσιν, χαμαιλέοντος δίκην τάς χρόας ὑπαλλάσοντος, τήν οἰκείαν μεταβάλοι φωνήν, φάσκων, ὑπόστασιν νενοηκέναι τήν φύσιν. Εἰ δέ πάλιν ἐξ ὑποστάσεων ἤγουν προσώπων λέγων γεγενῆσθαι τήν ἕνωσιν, τήν Ἐβιῶνος, Παύλου τε τοῦ Σαμωσατέως καί Νεστορίου διαίρεσιν ἀποδειχθῇ φρονῶν, καί τήν ὡς ἐν προφήτῃ τοῦ Λόγου κατά χάριν ἐνέργειαν θεσπίζων, ἕτοιμον (41) 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 (μ), γινώσκων ὅτι πάσῃ διαφορᾷ, πάντως συνεισάγεται ποσότης· καί πάσῃ ποσότητι, συνέζευκται ὁ δηλωτικός αὐτῆς ἀριθμός. Ἀμήχανον 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.

(44) 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 γνωμικῶν ἕνωσιν εἰς τήν τῶν 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, ποιτήτων γνωμικῶν εἰσηγούμενος ἕνωσιν