81

That nature holds the principle only of the species, while hypostasis is also indicative of the particular.

OF THE MOST HOLY CLEMENT, PRESBYTER OF ALEXANDRIA, FROM THE [WORK] ON

PROVIDENCE Essence is in God. God is divine essence, something eternal and (15A_352>

without beginning, something incorporeal and uncircumscribable, and the cause of beings. Essence is that which subsists through all. Nature is the truth of things, or their inherence. But according to others, the genesis of those who have come into being as something; and according to others, the providence of God imparting to things that come to be their being, and their way of being.

OF THE ALL-WISE MAXIMUS, DEFINITION OF HYPOSTASIS

Hypostasis is composite, a certain composite essence, comprehensive of the particulars

of all the properties existing in its own individual. For that which is commonly observed in individuals under the same species characterizes the essence or nature, primarily indeed in the individuals under it, but generally the commonality of all individuals under the composite species.

OF THE MOST BLESSED EULOGIUS, POPE OF ALEXANDRIA ...

Of the most blessed Eulogius, Pope of Alexandria, seven chapters concerning the two natures of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

If our Lord Jesus Christ is of one nature according to the union, tell me,

of which, of the one that took, or of the one that was taken? and what has become of the other? But if both exist, how is there one, unless one composite was formed from both? but if this is so, how is Christ not of a different essence, since the Father is uncompounded?

If our Lord, Jesus Christ, has never been confessed as being of two natures, how is it possible to speak of Christ as of one after the union, or even to speak of 0265 a union at all? But if Christ is confessed to have been of two natures, tell me, when was Christ of two natures, and when did he become from one?

Is God the Word consubstantial with the flesh taken by him, or (15A_354> of a different substance? But if he is consubstantial, how has a quaternity not come to be rather than the Trinity? But if the flesh is of a different substance from God the Word, how is Christ not of two natures?

Some say "one incarnate nature of God the Word"; and I think you say so too. But if this is to be understood as one substance of God and of the flesh, how is it possible for the created to be identical with the uncreated, and the eternal with that which is under time? But if it is as one nature having another, or being had by another, who will endure to say that one and one are not two, but one?

If the nature of God the Word and of the Father is one, how is the nature of God the Word, and of the Father and of the flesh not one?

If God the Word and the flesh are in no respect two, how are God the Word and the flesh not in all respects one? And if God the Word and the flesh are in all respects one, how will the Word not be flesh, and the flesh Word, and co-eternal with the Father and consubstantial as is God the Word? But if God the Word and the flesh are not in all respects one, how are God the Word and the flesh not in some respect two?

If it is impossible for God the Word and the flesh to be more united than God the Word and the Father are united, how are the united God the Word and the flesh in no respect two?

81

Ὅτι ἡ μέν φύσις εἴδους λόγον μόνον ἐπέχει, ἡ δέ ὑπόστασις καί τοῦ τινός ἐστι δηλωτική.

ΤΟΥ ΑΓΙΩΤΑΤΟΥ ΚΛΗΜΕΝΤΟΣ ΠΡΕΣΒΥΤΕΡΟΥ ΑΛΕΞΑΝ∆ΡΕΙΑΣ, ΕΚ ΤΟΥ ΠΕΡΙ

ΠΡΟΝΟΙΑΣ Οὐσία ἐστίν ἐπί Θεοῦ. Θεός οὐσία θεία ἐστίν, ἀΐδιόν τι καί (15Α_352>

ἄναρχον, ἀσώματόν τι καί ἀπερίγραφον, καί τῶν ὄντων αἴτιον. Οὐσία ἐστί, τό δι᾿ ὅλου ὑφεστός. Φύσις ἐστίν, ἡ τῶν πραγμάτων ἀλήθεια, ἤ τούτων τό ἐνούσιον. Κατά δέ τούς ἄλλους ἡ τῶν εἰς τί εἶναι παραγενομένων γένεσις· καθ᾿ ἑτέρους δέ, ἡ τοῦ Θεοῦ πρόνοια ἐμποιοῦσα τοῖς γινομένοις τό εἶναι, καί τό πῶς εἶναι.

ΤΟΥ ΠΑΝΣΟΦΟΥ ΜΑΞΙΜΟΥ ΟΡΟΣ ΥΠΟΣΤΑΣΕΩΣ

Ὑπόστασις σύνθετός ἐστιν, οὐσία τις σύνθετος, τῶν καθ᾿ ἕκαστα περιληπτική

τῶν ὄντων ἐν τῷ οἰκείῳ ἀτόμῳ πάντων ἰδιωμάτων. Τό γάρ κοινῶς ἐν τοῖς ὑπό τό αὐτό εἶδος ἀτόμοις θεωρούμενον, τό τῆς οὐσίας ἤτοι φύσεως χαρακτηρίζει, προηγουμένως μέν ἐν τοῖς ὑπ᾿ αὐτό ἀτόμοις, γεινικῶς δέ πάντων τό κοινόν, τῶν ὑπό τό σύνθετον εἶδος ἀτόμων.

ΤΟΥ ΜΑΚΑΡΙΩΤΑΤΟΥ ΕΥΛΟΓΙΟΥ ΠΑΠΑ ΑΛΕΞΑΝ∆ΡΕΙΑΣ ...

Τοῦ μακαριωτάτου Εὐλογίου πάπα Ἀλεξανδρείας, κεφάλαια ἑπτά περί τῶν δύο φύσεων τοῦ Κυρίου καί Σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ.

Εἰ μιᾶς φύσεως κατά τήν ἕνωσιν ὁ Κύριος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦς Χριστός ἐστιν, εἰπέ,

ποίας, τῆς λαβούσης, ἤ τῆς ληφθείσης; καί τί γέγονεν ἡ ἑτέρα; Εἰ δέ ὑπάρχουσιν ἀμφότεραι, πῶς μία, εἰ μή ἐξ ἀμφοτέρων μία ἀπετελέσθη σύνθετος; εἰ δέ τοῦτο, πῶς οὐχ ἑτεροούσιος ὁ Χριστός, τοῦ Πατρός ἀσυνθέτου ὑπάρχοντος;

Εἰ οὐδέποτε δύω φύσεων ὁ Κύριος ἡμῶν, Ἰησοῦ Χριστός ὡμολόγηται ὤν, πῶς δυνατόν λέγειν μιᾶς μετά τήν ἕνωσιν τόν Χριστόν, ἤ καί ὅλως λέγειν 0265 ἕνωσιν; Εἰ δέ ὡμολόγηται ὁ Χριστός δύο φύσεων γεγονέναι, εἰπέ, πότε δύο φύσεων ἦν ὁ Χριστός, καί πότε γέγονεν ἐκ μιᾶς;

Ὁμοούσιος ὁ Θεός Λόγος τῇ παρ᾿ αὐτοῦ ληφθείσῃ σαρκί, ἤ (15Α_354> ἑτεροούσιος; Ἀλλ᾿ εἰ μέν ὁμοούσιος, πῶς οὐ γέγονε τετράς ἤ Τριάς; Εἰ δέ ἑτεροούσιος ἡ σάρξ τοῦ Θεοῦ Λόγου, πῶς οὐ δύο φύσεων ὁ Χριστός;

Μίαν φύσιν τοῦ Θεοῦ Λόγου σεσαρκωμένην φασί τινες· οἶμαι δέ καί ὑμᾶς οὕτω λέγειν. Ἀλλ᾿ εἰ μέν μιᾶς οὐσίας τοῦ Θεοῦ καί τῆς σαρκός τοῦτο νοητέον, πῶς οἷόν τε τό κτιστόν τῷ ἀκτίστῳ, καί τό ἀΐδιον τῷ ὑπό χρόνον εἶναι ταυτόν; Εἰ δέ ὡς μιᾶς φύσεως ἐχούσης ἑτέραν, ἤ ἐχομένης ὑφ᾿ ἑτέρας, τίς ὑποίσει μίαν καί μίαν, οὐ δύο, ἀλλά μίαν εἰπεῖν;

Εἰ μία φύσις τοῦ Θεοῦ Λόγου καί τοῦ Πατρός, πῶς οὐ μία φύσις τοῦ Θεοῦ Λόγου, καί τοῦ Πατρός καί τῆς σαρκός;

Εἰ κατ᾿ οὐδέν δύο ὁ Θεός Λόγος καί ἡ σάρξ, πῶς οὐ κατά πάντα ἕν ὁ Θεός Λόγος καί ἡ σάρξ; Καί εἰ κατά πάντα ἕν ὁ Θεός Λόγος καί ἡ σάρξ, πῶς οὐκ ἔσται ὁ Λόγος σάρξ, καί ἡ σάρξ Λόγος, καί συναΐδιος τῷ Πατρί καί ὁμοούσιος ὡς ὁ Θεός Λόγος; Εἰ δέ οὐ κατά πάντα ἕν ὁ Θεός Λόγος καί ἡ σάρξ, πῶς οὐ κατά τι δύο ὁ Θεός Λόγος καί ἡ σάρξ;

Εἰ ἀδύνατον πλέον ἡνῶσθαι τόν Θεόν Λόγον καί τήν σάρκα, οὗ ἥνωται ὁ Θεός Λόγος καί ὁ Πατήρ, πῶς ἡνωμένος ὁ Θεός Λόγος καί ἡ σάρξ κατ᾿ οὐδέν εἰσί δύο;