99

then, or that Christ is able to subsist entirely from these things, I mean from qualities, even if the wretched one speaks monstrously of him as composite, and from this makes his denial complete. For God, or the nature of God, is not composite; otherwise every composite nature would be God by nature. But if every composite nature is God by nature, then according to him the Father, who is uncomposite, is not God; for if the composite is God by nature, the uncomposite is not God by nature. But if every composite nature is God by nature, the atheist and anti-theist would have declared a kind of polytheism, being ignorant of the truly existing God who became flesh, but who preserved, even in the composition of his hypostasis, the simple and uncomposite state according to nature which he has toward the Father, as God by nature and from God, even though he was born a man from men, through a human, for humans, by the assumption of flesh possessing an intellectual soul; and yet the inhuman one does not even confess the incarnate God as man, as having a human nature in him, just as he also denies the divine. For he does not posit him as having two natures, that is, a double nature, as the Fathers do, but some composite and spurious nature, emulating the abomination of Apollinaris. In this way, indeed, the scoundrel rejects the great mystery of the economy concerning us, and has ingeniously used the invocation of names, as 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 supposedly calls him both God and man; but he rejects the proper meaning, the truth, of the other appellation, since he does not confess 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 underlie by nature, so that he may also introduce confusion through the one composite nature, and legislate non-existence by the denial of the natures; and he may seem to cover over the destruction with the names, and with the difference to scatter the confusion; so great is the truly evil-minded device and contrivance of the evil-minded one, being covered in the gloom of ignorance, and darkening those who have been caught.

It is necessary to turn the argument toward those who contend on his behalf, and to say this, that if indeed according to you Severus, following Cyril of blessed memory (253), confesses the difference, avoiding their contraction, how does he not also confess the natures with him, and in these, as he did, recognize the essential difference, only rejecting their division, but posits the difference in mere qualities alone, contrary to his law and definition? For that the blessed Cyril confesses the natures, of which he also dogmatizes the difference, is clear from the fact that he did not disdain to have communion even with Nestorius, who divided, at least concerning this confession of the natures, even if not entirely with respect to the meaning. "For what," says the teacher, "do I and Nestorius have in common? To speak of two natures, so far as to know the difference of the flesh and of God the Word; for the one is other than the other according to its natural quality, and not of the same genus of substance as that One." If therefore he both confesses the natures, and recognizes the difference in them, and piously gives the reason for the confession, saying, "Because the flesh is other than the Word according to its natural quality;" which is the same as saying, substance and energy, in its difference from God the Word; how does the mad Severus not deign to have communion even with that same Cyril, fictitiously honored by him, and to confess the natures together so far as to know the difference according to his teaching, not only according to the natural quality, but also the non-consubstantiality of the substance, so that he might recognize the difference of both the natures and the natural qualities together, that is, of the substances and energies, but also denying the non-consubstantiality of the substance of the flesh in relation to the Word, which is that which is different according to nature, the [difference] in non-existent qualities ( for every quality is certainly non-existent without

99

λοιπόν ἤ ὅλως ἐκ τούτων, λέγω δέ τῶν ποιοτήτων, ὑφιστᾷν δύνασθαι τόν Χριστόν, εἰ καί σύνθετον αὐτόν τερατολογεῖ ὁ δείλαιος, κἀντεῦθεν τελείαν αὐτοῦ ποιούμενος τήν ἐξάρνησιν. Οὐ γάρ Θεός ἤ Θεοῦ φύσις, ἡ σύνθετος· ἐπεί καί πᾶσα σύνθετος φύσις φύσει Θεός. Εἰ δέ πᾶσα σύνθετος φύσις φύσει Θεός, οὐ Θεός κατ᾿ αὐτόν ὁ Πατήρ ὁ ἀσύνθετος· εἰ γάρ τό σύνθετον φύσει Θεός, οὐ φύσει Θεός τό ἀσύνθετον. Εἰ δέ πᾶσα σύνθετος φύσις φύσει Θεός, πολύθεός τις ἄν ἀπέφηνεν ὁ ἄθεος καί ἀντίθεος, ἀγνοήσας τόν ὄντως ὄντα Θεόν καί σάρκα γενόμενον, ἀλλά φυλάξαντα κἀν τῇ συνθέσει τῆς ὑποστάσεως τό πρός τόν Πατέρα κατά φύσιν ἁπλοῦν καί ἀσύνθετον, ὡς Θεόν φύσει καί ἐκ Θεοῦ, κἄν 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 (253) ὁμολογεῖ τήν διαφοράν, ἐκτρεπόμενος τήν συναίρεσιν, πῶς οὐ συνομολογεῖ καί τάς φύσεις 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