77

a man from men, through a man, for men, has been born by the assumption of a flesh that has a rational soul; even if the inhuman one does not confess the incarnate God to be a man, as having the nature of man in him, just as he also denies the divine. For he posits him not as of two natures, that is, double in nature, as the Fathers do, but some composite and spurious nature, having emulated the abomination of Apollinarius. In this way indeed, the scoundrel, discarding the great mystery of the economy concerning us, has ingeniously made use of the invocation of names, like a clever rhetorician, making the theft of the realities hard to detect, and as it were irritating the perception into the acceptance of impiety. For he calls him, forsooth, both God and man; but he discards the proper sense, the truth, of the other appellation, as not confessing the natures of which these are manifestly the names. And he speaks of a difference, while recognizing no difference, since according to him the differing realities do not naturally subsist, so that he might introduce confusion through the one composite nature, and legislate non-existence by the denial of the natures; and might seem to cover up the abolition with the names, but to cast away the confusion by the difference. So great is the truly malevolent device and contrivance of the malevolent one, covered by the gloom of ignorance, and darkening those who are caught.

To whom it is necessary, as they are arguing on his behalf, to turn the argument, and to say this in addition: that if, according to you, Severus, following Cyril of blessed memory, 0253 confesses the difference, shunning confusion, how does he not also confess the natures (15Α_336> with him, and in these, as he did, recognize the essential difference, discarding only their division, but posits the difference in mere qualities alone, against his law and definition? For that the blessed Cyril confesses the natures, of which he also teaches the difference, is clear from his not deeming it unworthy to agree even with the divisive Nestorius on this very confession of the natures, even if not on the whole concept. "For what," says the teacher, "do I and Nestorius have in common? To speak of the two natures as two so far as to recognize the difference of the flesh and of God the Word; for the one is different according to its natural quality, and not of the same substance as the other." If, then, he [Cyril] both confesses the natures, and recognizes the difference in them, and piously gives the reason for the confession, saying, "Because the flesh is different from the Word according to its natural quality"—which is to say, substance and energy, with respect to its difference from God the Word—how does the mad Severus not deign to agree even with Cyril, whom he feignedly honors, and to speak with him of the natures so far as to recognize the difference according to his teaching, not only according to the natural quality but also that it is not of the same substance, so that he might recognize the difference both of the natures and of the natural qualities, that is, of substances and of energies; but instead, by denying that the flesh is not of the same substance as the Word, which is what is naturally different, would he introduce a difference in non-subsistent qualities (for every quality is entirely non-subsistent without its underlying substance)? But he, acting wickedly and rising up against the true teaching of the wise Cyril—which is to say, of all the God-chosen Fathers—shows himself to be an alien, and a partner and advocate of falsehood.

Now then, when he speaks of a difference of qualities in Christ, does he speak of the difference after the union, or before the union? For if [he speaks of it] before (15Α_338> the union, he certainly thinks of division, and not difference, and he teaches that the union is from divided things, as from things pre-existing in themselves, or he has dissolved this union through the difference and confession of the qualities, or he declares that these were not united at all in the beginning. And if he says they were not united, it is clear that neither the natures, of which they are the qualities, united

77

ἄνθρωπος ἐξ ἀνθρώπων διά ἀνθρώπου ὑπέρ ἀνθρώπους γεγέννηται προσλήψει σαρκός ψυχήν ἐχούσης τήν νοεράν· κἄν οὐδέ ἄνθρωπον ὁμολογεῖ τόν ἐνανθρωπήσαντα Θεόν ὁ ἀπάνθρωπος, ὡς φύσιν ἐπ᾿ αὐτοῦ τήν ἀνθρώπου, καθά καί τήν θείαν ἀρνούμενος. Οὐ γάρ διφυᾶ τοῦτον ἤγουν διπλοῦν τήν φύσιν, ὡς οἱ Πατέρες, ἀλλά σύνθετόν τινα καί νόθον ὑποτίθεται φύσιν, τήν Ἀπολιναρίου βδελυρίαν ζηλώσας. Ταύτῃ γε τό μέγα τῆς περί ἡμᾶς οἰκονομίας ἀποσκευάζων μυστήριον ὁ ἀλητήριος, τῇ κλήσει τῶν ὀνομάτων εὐμηχάνως ὡς δεινός ἀποκέχρηται ῥήτωρ, δυσφώρατον ποιούμενος τή τῶν πραγμάτων ὑποκλοπήν, καί οἷον ὑποκνίζων τήν αἴσθησιν, εἰς τήν τῆς ἀσεβείας παραδοχήν. Θεόν τε γάρ αὐτόν ἀποκαλεῖ δῆθεν καί ἄνθρωπον· ἀποσκευάζει δέ θατέρας προσηγορίας τήν κυριότητα τήν ἀλήθειαν, ὡς οὐχ ὁμολογῶν τάς φύσεις, ὧν προδήλως αἱ κλήσεις τυγχάνουσι. Καί διαφοράν λέγει, μηδεμίαν γνωρίζων διαφοράν, τῶν διαφερούντων οὐχ ὑποκειμένων φύσει κατ᾿ αὐτόν τῶν πραγμάτων, ἵνα καί σύγχυσιν ἐπεισκρίνῃ διά τῆς μιᾶς συνθέτου φύσεως, καί ἀνυπαρξίαν νομοθετήσῃ τῇ ἀπαρνήσει τῶν φύσεων· καί δόξῃ τοῖς μέν ὀνόμασι τήν ἀναίρεσιν ἐπικαλύπτειν, τῇ δέ διαφορᾷ διαῤῥίπτειν τήν σύγχυσιν· τοσαύτη τοῦ κακόφρονος ἡ κακόφρων ὄντως μηχανή καί ἐπίνοια, τῷ τῆς ἀγνοίας ζόφῳ καλυπτομένη, καί σκοτίζουσα τούς ἁλόντας.

Πρός οὕς δέον, ὡς ὑπέρ ἐκείνου διατεινομένους τρέψαι τόν λόγον, καί τοῦτο προσειπεῖν, ὡς εἴπερ καθ᾿ ὑμᾶς Κυρίλλῳ τῷ ἀοιδίμῳ Σεβῆρος κατακολουθῶν 0253 ὁμολογεῖ τήν διαφοράν, ἐκτρεπόμενος τήν συναίρεσιν, πῶς οὐ συνομολογεῖ καί τάς φύσεις (15Α_336> αὐτῷ, κἀν ταύταις, ὡς ἐκεῖνος, τήν οὐσιώδη γνωρίζει διαφοράν, μόνην ἀποσκευαζόμενος τήν τούτων διαίρεσιν, ἀλλά ποιότησι μόνον ψιλαῖς παρά τόν ἐκείνου νόμον καί ὅρον τίθεται τήν διαφοράν; Ὅτι γάρ ὁμολογεῖ τάς φύσεις ὁ μακάριος Κύριλλος, ὧν καί τήν διαφοράν δογματίζει, δῆλον ἐκ τοῦ μη δέ Νεστορίῳ τῷ διῃρημένῳ κατ'αὐτήν γε τήν τῶν φύσεων ὁμολογίαν ἀπαξιοῦν κοινωνεῖν, εἰ καί μή κατά τήν ἐννοίας τό σύνολον. "Τί γάρ, φησίν ὁ διδάσκαλος, κοινόν ἐμοί καί Νεστορίῳ; τό δύο λέγειν τάς δύο φύσεις μέχρι τοῦ γινώσιειν τήν διαφοράν τῆς σαρκός καί τοῦ Θεοῦ Λόγου· ἑτέρα γάρ αὕτη κατά τήν φυσικήν ποιότητα, καί τῆς οὐσίας οὐχ ὁμογενές παρ᾿ ἐκεῖνον». Ἐάν οὖν καί τάς φύσεις ὁμολογῇ, καί ἐπ᾿ αὐταῖς τήν διαφοράν γνωρίζη, καί τήν τῆς ὁμολογίας αἰτίαν εὐσεβῶς ἀποδίδωσι, φάσκων, "∆ιά τό ἑτέραν εἶναι τήν σάρκα παρά τόν Λόγον κατά τήν φυσικήν ποιότητα»· ταυτόν δέ λέγειν, οὐσίαν καί ἐνέργειαν, πρός τήν Θεοῦ Λόγου διαφοράν· πῶς ὁ παράφρων Σεβῆρος οὐδ᾿ αὐτῷ τῷ πεπλασμένως αὐτῷ τετιμημένῳ Κυρίλλῳ κοινωνεῖν ἀξιοῖ, καί τάς φύσεις συμφθέγγεσθαι μέχρι τοῦ γινώσκειν τήν διαφοράν κατά τήν ἐκείνου διδασκαλίαν, οὐ κατά τήν φυσικήν ποιότητα μόνον, ἀλλά καί τό τῆς οὐσίας οὐχ ὁμογενές, ἵν' ὁμοῦ τε τῶν φύσεων καί τῶν φυσικῶν ποιοτήτων, ἤγουν οὐσιῶν τε καί ἐνεργειῶν γνωρίσῃ τήν διαφοράν, ἀλλά καί τό τῆς οὐσίας οὐχ ὁμογενές ἐξαρνούμενος τῆς σαρκός πρός τόν Λόγον, ὅπερ ἐστί τό κατά φύσιν διάφορον, τήν ἐν ποιότησιν ἀνυπάρκτοις ( πᾶσα γάρ πάντως ποιότης ἀνύπαρκτος δίχα τῆς ὑποκειμένοις οὐσίας ) ἀντεισαγάγοι διαφοράν; Ὁ δέ κακούργως διαπραττόμενος, καί τῆς τοῦ σοφοῦ Κυρίλλου, ταυτόν δέ λέγειν πάντων τῶν θεοκρίτων Πατέρων, ἀληθοῦς κατεξανιστάμενος διδασκαλίας, ἀλλότριον ἑαυτόν ἀποφαίνει, καί τοῦ ψεύδους κοινωνόν καί συνήγορον.

Ἆρα δέ ποιοτήτων λέγων ἐπί Χριστοῦ διαφοράν, μετά τήν ἕνωσιν, ἤ πρό τῆς ἑνώσεως λέγει τήν διαφοράν; Εἰ μέν γάρ πρό (15Α_338> τῆς ἑνώσεως, διαίρεσιν φρονεῖ πάντως, ἀλλ᾿ οὐ διαφοράν, καί ἐκ διῃρημένων, οἷον τῶν καθ᾿ αὑτά προϋφεστότων, δογματίζει τήν ἕνωσιν, ἤ ταύτην ἔλυσε διά τῆς τῶν ποιοτήτων διαφορᾶς καί ὁμολογίας, ἤ οὐδέ ταύτας ὅλως ἡνῶσθαι τήν ἀρχήν ἀποφαίνεται. Καί εἰ μέν οὐχ ἡνῶσθαι λέγει, δῆλον ὡς οὔτε τάς φύσεις ὧν αἱ ποιότητες, ἡνωμένας