43

Nestorius speaks of the natural difference; but he does not confess the union, for he does not say that it occurred according to hypostasis. But Eutyches confesses the union; but denies the difference in essence, and introduces a confusion of the natures. But the Church professes both the union according to hypostasis because of the indivisibility, and the difference in essence because of the lack of confusion.

β´. How does the supreme union have both identity and otherness? Either identity of essences and otherness of persons, and the reverse. For example, in the case of the Holy Trinity, there is identity of essence, but otherness of persons; for we confess one essence, but three hypostases. But in the case of man, there is identity of person, but otherness of essences; for though man is one, the soul is of one essence, and the flesh of another. Likewise also in the case of the Lord Christ; there is identity of person, but otherness of essences; for though the person, that is, the hypostasis, is one, the 0148 divinity is of one 15Α_190 essence, and the humanity of another. For just as it is impossible in the case of the Holy Trinity to confess the union but not to proclaim the difference, so it is entirely necessary in the case of the one of the Holy Trinity to preach both the union and the difference.

γ´. For just as the difference and the union in the case of the Holy Trinity are not signified by the same words, but the difference is signified by saying three hypostases, and the union is confessed by confessing one essence; so also in the case of the one of the Holy Trinity: the difference is signified by acknowledging the two natures, and the union is confessed by preaching one composite hypostasis.

δ´. For just as we anathematize Arius, not as one who preaches the difference according to hypostasis in the Holy Trinity, but as one who does not speak of the natural union; so also we anathematize Nestorius, not as one who acknowledges the natural difference in Christ, but as one who does not speak of the union according to hypostasis.

ε´. Just as we anathematize Sabellius, not as one who preaches the natural union in the Holy Trinity, but as one who does not speak of the difference according to hypostasis; so we anathematize Eutyches, not as one who does not speak of the union according to hypostasis in Christ, but as one who does not acknowledge the natural difference?

στ´. The difference according to hypostasis in the Holy Trinity, and the natural difference in the one of the Holy Trinity, one must not speak of in a sensory way, but understand with the eyes of the mind. And how is it that, in the case of the Holy Trinity, you proclaim the three hypostases because of the difference according to hypostasis; but in the case of the one of the Holy Trinity, you do not proclaim two natures in one hypostasis, because of the natural difference?

ζ´. Just as because of the consubstantiality of the Holy Trinity, you speak of one essence; 15Α_192 and because they are of different hypostases, three hypostases; so because the Logos and the flesh are of different essences, speak of two essences; and because they do not have their own separate hypostases, speak of one hypostasis.

η´. Just as in the case of the Holy Trinity we do not speak of the one essence to the confusion of the three hypostases, nor of the three hypostases to the abolition of the one essence; so in the case of the one of the Holy Trinity, 0149 we do not speak of the one hypostasis to the confusion of his two natures, nor of the two natures to the division of the one hypostasis.

θ´. He who, in the case of Christ, does not speak of the union according to hypostasis because of the difference of natures, is a Nestorian; and he who does not speak of the natural difference in the union according to hypostasis, is a Eutychian; but he who preaches both the union according to hypostasis and the natural difference in the one of the Holy Trinity, holds to the royal and blameless faith.

ι´. Therefore, he who speaks of both difference and union in Christ neither abolishes the difference nor confuses the union. For indeed the divine Cyril anathematizes

43

Νεστόριος τήν φυσικήν διαφοράν λέγει· ἀλλά τήν ἕνωσιν οὐχ ὁμολογεῖ, οὐ γάρ λέγει ταύτην καθ᾿ ὑπόστασιν γεγονέναι. Ὁ δέ Εὐτυχής, τήν μέν ἕνωσιν ὁμολογεῖ· τήν δέ κατ᾿ οὐσίαν διαφοράν ἀρνεῖται, καί σύγχυσιν τῶν φύσεων εἰσάγει. Ἡ δέ Ἐκκλησία, καί τήν καθ᾿ ὑπόστασιν ἕνωσιν διά τό ἀδιαίρετον, καί τήν κατ᾿ οὐσίαν διαφοράν διά τό ἀσύγχυτον πρεσβεύει.

β´. Πῶς ἡ ἄκρα ἕνωσις καί ταυτότητα ἔχει, καί ἑτερότητα; Ἤ ταυτότητα οὐσιῶν καί ἑτερότητα προσώπων, καί τό ἔμπαλιν. Οἷον ἐπί τῆς ἁγίας Τριάδος, ταυτότης μέν ἐστιν οὐσίας· ἑτερότης δέ προσώπων· μίαν γάρ οὐσίαν ὁμολογοῦμεν· τρεῖς δέ ὑποστάσεις. Ἐπί δέ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου, ταυτότης μέν ἐστι προσώπου· ἑτερότης δέ οὐσιῶν· ἑνός γάρ ὄντος ἀνθρώπου, ἄλλης οὐσίας ἐστίν ἡ ψυχή, καί ἄλλης ἡ σάρξ. Ὁμοίως δέ καί ἐπί τοῦ ∆εσπότου Χριστοῦ· ταυτότης μέν ἐστι, προσώπου· ἑτερότης δέ, οὐσιῶν· ἑνός γάρ ὄντος προσώπου, ἤτοι ὑποστάσεως, ἑτέρας 0148 οὐσίας ἐστίν ἡ 15Α_190 θεότης, καί ἑτέρας ἡ ἀνθρωπότης. Ὥσπερ γάρ ἀδύνατον τῆς ἁγίας Τριάδος ὁμολογεῖν μέν τήν ἕνωσιν, μή ἐκφωνεῖν δέ τήν διαφοράν· οὕτως ἀνάγκη πᾶσα ἐπί τοῦ ἑνός τῆς ἁγίας Τριάδος, καί τήν ἕνωσιν καί τήν διαφοράν κηρύττειν.

γ´. Ὥσπερ γάρ οὐ διά τῶν αὐτῶν σημαίνεται λέξεων, ἤ τε διαφορά καί ἡ ἕνωσις ἐπί τῆς ἁγίας Τριάδος· ἀλλά διά τοῦ μέν λέγειν τρεῖς ὑποστάσεις, ἡ διαφορά· διά τοῦ ὁμολογεῖν δε μίαν οὐσίαν, ἡ ἕνωσις ὁμολογεῖται· οὕτω καί ἐπί τοῦ ἑνός τῆς ἁγίας Τριάδος· διά μέν τοῦ γνωρίζειν τάς δύο φύσεις, ἡ διαφορά· διά δέ τοῦ κηρύττειν μίαν ὑπόστασιν σύνθετον, ἡ ἕνωσις ὁμολογεῖται.

δ´. Ὥσπερ γάρ Ἄρειον ἀναθεματίζομεν, οὐχ ὡς κηρύττοντα ἐπί τῆς ἁγίας Τριάδος τήν καθ᾿ ὑπόστασιν διαφοράν· ἀλλ᾿ ὡς μή λέγοντα τήν φυσικήν ἕνωσιν· οὕτω καί Νεστόριον ἀναθεματίζομεν, οὐχ ὡς γνωρίζοντα τήν φυσικήν διαφοράν ἐπί τοῦ Χριστοῦ· ἀλλ᾿ ὡς μή λέγοντα τήν καθ᾿ ὑπόστασιν ἕνωσιν.

ε´. Ὥσπερ Σαβέλλιον ἀναθεματίζομεν, οὐχ ὡς κηρύττοντα ἐπί τῆς ἁγίας Τριάδος τήν φυσικήν ἕνωσιν· ἀλλ᾿ ὡς μή λέγοντα τήν καθ᾿ ὑπόστασιν διαφοράν· οὕτως Εὐτυχέα ἀναθεματίζομεν, οὐχ ὡς μή λέγοντα τήν καθ᾿ ὑπόστασιν ἕνωσιν ἐπί τοῦ Χριστοῦ· ἀλλ᾿ ὡς μή γνωρίζοντα τήν φυσικήν διαφοράν;

στ´. Τήν κάθ᾿ ὑπόστασιν διαφοράν ἐπί τῆς ἁγίας Τριάδος, καί τήν φυσικήν διαφοράν ἐπί τοῦ ἑνός τῆς ἁγίας Τριάδος, οὐκ ἐν αἰσθήσει χρή λέγειν, ἀλλά νοῆσαι τοῖς τῆς διανοίας ὄμμασιν. Καί πῶς, ἐπί μέν τῆς ἁγίας Τριάδος ἐκφωνεῖτε τάς τρεῖς ὑποστάσεις διά τήν καθ' ὑπόστασιν διαφοράν· ἐπί δέ τοῦ ἑνός τῆς ἁγίας Τριάδος, οὐκ ἐκφωνεῖτε δύο φύσεις ἐν μιᾷ ὑποστάσει, διά τήν φυσικήν διαφοράν;

ζ´. Ὥσπερ γιά τό ὁμοούσιον τῆς ἁγίας Τριάδος, μίαν οὐσίαν· 15Α_192 καί διά τό ἑτεροϋπόστατον τρεῖς ὑποστάσεις λέγεις· οὕτω διά τό ἑτερούσιον τοῦ Λόγου καί τῆς σαρκός, δύο οὐσίας· καί διά τό μή ἰδιοϋπόστατον, μίαν ὑπόστασιν λέγε.

η´. Ὥσπερ ἐπί τῆς ἁγίας Τριάδος τήν μίαν οὐσίαν, οὐκ ἐπί συγχύσει τῶν τριῶν ὑποστάσεων λέγομεν· οὔτε τάς τρεῖς ὑποστάσεις ἐπί ἀναιρέσει τῆς μιᾶς οὐσίας· οὕτως ἐπί τοῦ ἑνός τῆς ἁγίας Τριάδος, 0149 τήν μίαν ὑπόστασιν, οὐκ ἐπί συγχύσει τῆν δύο φύσεων αὐτοῦ λέγομεν· οὔτε τάς δύο φύσεις, ἐπί διαιρέσει τῆς μιᾶς ὑποστάσεως.

θ´. Ὁ μή λέγων ἐπί Χριστοῦ διά τήν τῶν φύσεων διαφοράν, τήν καθ᾿ ὑπόστασιν ἕνωσιν, Νεστοριανός ἐστι· καί ὁ μή λέγων ἐν τῇ καθ᾿ ὑπόστασιν ἑνώσει τήν φυσικήν διαφοράν, Εὐτυχιανιστής ἐστι· ὁ δέ καί τήν καθ᾿ ὑπόστασιν ἕνωσιν, καί τήν φυσικήν διαφοράν κηρύττων ἐπί τοῦ ἑνός τῆς ἁγίας Τριάδος, τήν βασιλικήν καί ἀμώμητον πίστιν κρατεῖ.

ι´. Ὁ τοίνυν λέγων καί διαφοράν καί ἕνωσιν ἐπί τοῦ Χριστοῦ, οὔτε τήν διαφοράν ἀναιρεῖ, οὔτε τήν ἕνωσιν συγχέει. Καί γάρ ὁ θεῖος Κύριλλος ἀναθεματίζει