100

of the underlying substance) would introduce a difference? But the one acting malevolently, 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.

So 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 before the union, he by all means thinks division, but not difference, and he dogmatizes the union as being from divided things, that is, 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 does he hold that the natures whose qualities they are, were united, even if he pretends to say so; for it is not possible that some things be united, while others are divided; but that they together experienced the same thing with each other, whether union or division. If, therefore, rejecting division, he proclaims that the qualities of these natures are united along with the natures, it is entirely necessary for him, being consistent with himself throughout, either to speak of one composite quality, just as also one composite nature, because of the union, and he would be refuted as not even recognizing the difference in quality, but dogmatizing the confusion of both, I mean of substances (256) and of qualities, or, positing different qualities, and not fearing the division, they would also say the natures are different, not being frightened, nor indeed using the complete separation as a pretext for the rejection and refusal of their confession. For if, according to him, the qualities, supposedly confessed by him because of the difference, have not suffered separation, how will the natures be severed for the sake of confession and difference? But if he does not confess these, but supposedly confesses only the qualities, he is clearly doing away with the natures, and dogmatizing that Christ is a collection of qualities, just as we also know the natures of material things to be; constituted, however, by an underlying matter, but not observed in mere and bare qualities, as he indeed describes Christ, and for this reason he calls him a composite nature, that is, meaning that one, and no other, which he fashioned and composed from bare qualities. For of what things he says the difference is, of these clearly also is the union. For the difference is not of some things and the union of others, but of the same things, and not of others.

Therefore, the madman proclaims that Christ is from qualities and is qualities, and according to these again he shows him to be divided, since he dogmatizes not one composite quality because of the union, but different qualities in him, if indeed this is for him the best definition of the union. But if one law prevails for the natures, and again another for the qualities, it is the work of his diligence, or more properly, of his consternation, to show this to us, so that we might learn how, according to the union, he knows the two natures as one nature, but the different qualities not as one quality; or by what reason he speaks of a difference of qualities, but does not speak of a difference of natures. And how have the qualities not remained unconfused without a difference, and the natures also unconfused without this? And how are the qualities not divided according to the difference, but the natures are divided according to it? Or how, not being divided, are they not confessed along with the qualities? And why does he compose the natures, but not compose the qualities, and how, when these have not been united into one composite quality, does he monstrously claim that those have been united into one composite nature? Let whoever is that man's impious lover and advocate clarify these things for us who are perplexed, so that in providing a solution for these things, he may also dispel the blame, or, not being able justly to do this, he may be carried off along with him with

100

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 ποιτήτων λέγων ἐπί Χριστοῦ διαφοράν, μετά τήν ἕνωσιν, ἤ πρό τῆς ἑνώσεως λέγει τήν διαφοράν; Εἰ μέν γάρ πρός 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 δοξάζει, κἄν ὑποκρίνεται λέγειν· οὐ γάρ ἐνδέχεται, τάς μέν ἡνῶσθαι, τάς δέ διῃρεῖσθαι ποτ᾿ ἄν· ἀλλά σύν ἀλλήλαις ταυτόν ἀλλήλαις παθεῖν, εἴτε ἕνωσιν, εἴτε διαίρεσιν. Εἰ οὖν τήν διαίρεσιν ἀποβαλλόμενος ἡνῶσθαι διαγορεύει μετά τῶν φύσεων, καί τάς τούτων ποιότητας, ἀνάγκη πάντως αὐτόν ἑαυτῷ γε στοιχοῦντα διά πάντων, ἤ μίαν σύνθετον λέγειν ποιότητα, καθάπερ καί μίαν σύνθετον φύσιν, διά τήν ἕνωσιν, καί ἠλέγχθη μή δέ τήν ἐν ποιότητι γνωρίζων διαφοράν, ἀλλ᾿ ἀμφοῖν, οὐσιῶν τέ φημι (256) καί ποιοτήτων δογματίζων τήν σύγχυσιν, ἤ διαφόρους διδούς τάς ποιότητας, καί οὐ δεδειώς τήν διαίρεσιν, διαφόρους καί τάς φύσεις εἴποιεν ἄν, οὐ δεδιττόμενος, οὔτε μήν προφασιζόμενος τήν διαμπάξ τομήν εἰς τήν τῆς αὐτῶν ὁμολογίας ἀποστροφήν καί παραίτησιν. Εἰ γάρ κατ᾿ αὐτόν οὐ πεπόνθασι διατομήν αἱ ποιότητες, πρός αὐτοῦ δῆθεν ὁμολογούμεναι, διά τήν διαφοράν, πῶς αἱ φύσεις τμηθήσονται τῆς ὁμολογίας χάριν καί διαφορᾶς; Εἰ δέ ταύτας μέν οὐχ ὁμολογεῖ, μόνας δέ δῆθεν ὁμολογεῖ τάς ποιότητας, δῆλός ἐστι τάς φύσεις ἐξαφανίζων, καί ποιοτήτων ἄθροισμα τόν Χριστόν δογματίζων, ὥσπερ καί τάς τῶν ὑλικῶν φύσεις οὔσας γνωρίζομεν· ὑποκειμένῳ μέντοι τῆς ὕλης συνισταμένας, ἀλλ᾿ οὐκ ἐν μόναις ἐπιθεωρουμένας καί ψιλαῖς ταῖς ποιότησιν, ὡς ἐκεῖνός γε τόν Χριστόν διαγράφει, καί διά τοῦτο σύνθετον αὐτόν ὀνομάζει φύσιν, ἐκείνην δηλαδή, καί οὐκ ἄλλην νοῶν ἥν ἐκ ψιλῶν τῶν ποιοτήτων ἀνεπλάσατο καί συνέθηκεν. Ὧν γάρ εἶναι λέγει τήν διαφοράν, τούτων σαφῶς καί τήν ἕνωσιν. Οὐ γάρ ἄλλων ἡ διαφορά καί ἄλλων ἡ ἕνωσις, ἀλλά τῶν αὐτῶν, καί οὐκ ἄλλων.

Οὐκοῦν ἐκ ποιοτήτων καί ποιότητας εἶναι διαγορεύει τόν Χριστόν ὁ παράφρων, καί κατ᾿ αὐτάς γε πάλιν διῃρημένον αὐτόν ἀποδείκνυσιν, ὡς οὐ μίαν σύνθετον διά τήν ἕνωσιν, ἀλλά διαφόρους ἐπ᾿ αὐτοῦ δογματίζων ποιότητας, εἴπερ ὅρος οὖτος αὐτῷ τῆς ἑνώσεως ἄριστος. Εἰ δέ ἄλλος μέν ἐπί φύσεων, ἄλλος δέ πάλιν ἐπικρατεῖ νόμος ἐπί τῶν ποιοτήτων, τῆς αὐτοῦ δεῖξαι τοῦτον ἡμῖν ἔργον ἐμμελείας, ἤ ἐκπληξίας, εἰπεῖν οἰκειότερον, ὡς ἄν μάθοιμεν πῶς κατά τήν ἕνωσιν μίαν μέν φύσιν τάς δύο γνωρίζει φύσεις, οὐ μίαν δέ ποιότητα διαφόρους ποιότητας· ἤ τίνι λόγῳ ποιοτήτων μέν λέγει, φύσεων δέ διαφοράν οὐ λέγει. Καί πῶς οὐκ ἀσύγχυτοι μέν δίχα διαφορᾶς μεμενήκασιν αἱ ποιότητες, ἀσύγχυτοι δέ καί δίχα ταύτης αἱ φύσεις; Πῶς τε κατά τήν διαφοράν αἱ ποιότητες οὐ διαιροῦνται, διαιροῦνται δέ κατ'αὐτήν αἱ φύσεις; Ἤ πῶς οὐ διαιρούμεναι μή ὁμολογοῦνται μετά τῶν ποιοτήτων; ∆ιατί δέ συντίθησι μέν τάς φύσεις, οὐ συντίθησι δέ τάς ποιότητας, καί πῶς τούτων οὐχ ἑνωθεισῶν εἰς μίαν ποιότητα σύνθετον, ἐκείνας εἰς μίαν σύνθετον ἑνῶσθαι τερατεύεται φύσιν; Ταῦτα διατρανώσαι διαποροῦσιν ἡμῖν, ὅστις ἐκείνου δυσσεβής ἐραστής καί συνήγορος, ἵνα τήν τούτων λύσιν ποιούμενος, συνδιαλύσῃ τήν μέμψιν, ἤ μή δυνάμενος ταύτην ἐνδίκως, ἐκείνῳ συναπενέγκηται μετά