179

seeing, either horses, or oxen, and whatever things are such; we know them to exist in themselves, and that each is individually distinguished in its hypostases, and without number, as I said before, being this; but needing number for the declaration of their quantity, we in no way posit it as the cause of their relation; because we did not need it at all to know it. And again, observing either a stone or a flower or a multi-colored animal, and whatever things are similar to these; to know that they are variously colored, we in no way employ number; but to wish to know the quantity of the colors in them, we do not deny that we need it.

How number is piously employed for the declaration of difference. So it does not declare that there is quantity, it makes or introduces division; but it does declare quantity,

and introduces difference. For just as every difference is indicative of some quantity that admits of number, introducing the principle of how it is; for that which is without quantity is also in every way without difference, as being simple in essence and in quality; so also every number is indicative of the quantity of certain things that differ, according to the principle of how they are, or the principle of how they subsist, and is introductory of the difference of the subjects, and not of their relation. But that these things are so in truth itself, and that all number is indicative of difference and not of division, the most holy Cyril again bears witness to the argument in his letter to Eulogius, writing thus, word for word: " So also in the case of Nestorius, even if he says two natures, signifying the difference of the flesh and of God the Word; but he no longer confesses the union with us. For we, having united these, confess one Christ, one Son, one Lord; and finally, one incarnate nature of the Son." As if he were saying, We, considering the all-wise economy of the mystery; whenever we wish to show that the difference of the things that came together is preserved after the union, we speak of two natures for this reason and this alone; employing number according to contemplation alone, for the declaration of the difference; but whenever we precisely define the ineffable mode of the union of the mystery, we speak of one incarnate nature of God the Word. For this, I think, is what he wishes to declare by the words, " But we, having united them, confess one Christ, one Son, one Lord; and finally, one incarnate nature of the Word." That is, we, confessing the union, and articulating its mode with precision and piety, do not use the term signifying difference for the declaration of the union; but by taking the one appropriately for the difference, and the other for the union, we keep the meaning of the things signified unconfused. So it is therefore clear from this that for him and Nestorius it was common to speak of two natures, insofar as knowing the difference. But it was no longer common to confess the union also, by saying, " One Christ, one Son, one Lord, and one incarnate nature of the Word; "which Nestorius did not deign to say. For the saying, "So also in the case of Nestorius, even if he says two natures, signifying the difference of the flesh and of God the Word; but he no longer confesses the union with us;" wishes to declare nothing other than this, that Nestorius confesses the difference with us, by saying two natures; but he no longer confesses the union with us, by not saying " One Christ, one Son, one Lord, and one incarnate nature of the Word." And this has become clear to the lovers of the good, and to those who have been zealous to love the truth, from the fact that the teacher is nowhere seen either forbidding to speak of two natures after the union, but to divide the natures after (480) the

179

ὁρῶντες, ἤ ἵππων, ἤ βοῶν, καί ὅσα τοιαῦτα· τό μέν καθ᾿ αὑτούς ὑπάρχειν, καί ταῖς ὑποστάσεσιν ἰδικῶς διῃρῆσθαι ἕκαστον, καί τοῦ ἀριθμοῦ χωρίς, ὡς προεῖπον, τοῦτο ὄντας γινώσκομεν· πρός δήλωσιν δέ τῆς τούτων ποσότητος τοῦ ἀριθμοῦ χρῄζοντες, τῆς σχέσεως οὐδαμῶς αὐτόν τιθέμεθα αἴτιον· ὅτι μηδέ πρός τό γνῶναι αὐτήν παντελῶς αὐτοῦ δεδεήμεθα. Καί πάλιν ἤ λίθον ἤ ἄνθος ἤ ζῶον πολυχρώματον θεώμενοι, καί ὅσα τούτοις ὅμοια· πρός μέν τό ποικίλως αὐτά κεχρῶσθαι εἰδέναι, οὐδαμῶς ἀριθμόν παραλαμβάνομεν· πρός δέ τό γνῶναι ἐθέλειν τήν τῶν ἐν αὐτοῖς χρωμάτων ποσότητα, χρῄζειν αὐτοῦ οὐκ ἀρνούμεθα.

Πῶς εὐσεβῶς πρός δήλωσιν τῆς διαφορᾶς ὁ ἀριθμός παραλαμβάνεται. Ὥστε οὐ τό ποσόν εἶναι μέν δηλοῖ, ποιεῖ ἤ εἰσάγει διαίρεσιν· ἀλλά ποσόν μέν δηλοῖ,

διαφοράν δέ εἰσάγει. Ὥσπερ γάρ πᾶσα διαφορά ποσοῦ τινος ἀριθμόν ἐπιδεχομένου ἐστί δηλωτική, τόν τοῦ πῶς εἶναι λόγον εἰσάγουσα· τό γάρ ἄποσον, καί ἀδιάφορον πάντως, ὡς ἁπλοῦν τῇ οὐσίᾳ καί τῇ ποιότητι· οὕτω καί πᾶς ἀριθμός ποσοῦ τινων διαφερόντων, κατά τόν τοῦ πῶς εἶναι, ἤ τόν τοῦ πῶς ὑφεστάναι λόγον ὑπάρχω δηλωτικός, τῆς διαφορᾶς τῶν ὑποκειμένων, καί οὐ τῆς σχέσεώς ἐστιν εἰσαγωγικός. Ὅτι δέ ταῦθ᾿ οὕτως ἐπ᾿ αὐτῆς ἔχει τῆς ἀληθείας, καί ὅτι πᾶς ἀριθμός διαφορᾶς καί οὐ διαιρέσεώς ἐστι δηλωτικός, μαρτυρεῖ τῷ λόγῳ πάλιν ὁ ἁγιώτατος Κύριλλος ἐν τῇ πρός Εὐλόγιον ἐπιστολῇ, γράφων οὕτως ἐπί λέξεως· " Οὕτω καί ἐπί Νεστορίου, κἄν λέγῃ δύο φύσεις, τήν διαφοράν σημαίνων τῆς σαρκός καί τοῦ Θεοῦ Λόγον· ἀλλ᾿ οὐκέτι τήν ἕνωσιν ὁμολογεῖ μεθ᾿ ἡμῶν. Ἡμεῖς γάρ ἑνώσαντες ταῦτα, ἕνα Χριστόν, ἕνα Υἱόν, ἕνα Κύριον ὁμολογοῦμεν· καί λοιπόν, μίαν τήν τοῦ Υἱοῦ φύσιν σεσαρκωμένην." Ὡσανεί ἔλεγεν, Ἡμεῖς τήν τοῦ μυστηρίου διασκοποῦντες πάνσοφον οἰκονομίαν· ὅτ᾿ ἄν μέν σώζεσθαι δεικνύναι βουλώμεθα τῶν συνελθόντων τήν διαφοράν μετά τήν ἕνωσιν, δύο κατά τοῦτο καί μόνον τάς φύσεις λέγομεν· κατά μόνην τήν θεωρίαν, πρός δήλωσιν τῆς διαφορᾶς, τόν ἀριθμόν παραλαμβάνοντες· ὅτ᾿ ἄν δέ τόν ἄῤῥητον τοῦ μυστηρίου διακριβῶμεν τῆς ἑνώσεως τρόπον, μίαν τοῦ θεοῦ Λόγου φύσιν σεσαρκωμένην φαμέν. Τοῦτο γάρ, ὡς οἶμαι, αὐτῷ βούλεται δηλοῦν, τό " Ἡμεῖς δέ ἑνώσαντες αὐτά, ἕνα Χριστόν, ἕνα Υἱόν, ἕνα Κύριον ὁμολογοῦμεν· καί λοιπόν, μίαν τοῦ Λόγου φύσιν σεσαρκωμένην." Τουτέστιν, ἡμεῖς ὁμολογοῦντες τήν ἕνωσιν, καί τόν αὐτῆς ἀκριβῶς μετ᾿ εὐσεβείας διαρθροῦντες τρόπον, οὐ κεχρήμεθα τῇ σημαντικῇ φωνῇ τῆς διαφορᾶς πρός δήλωσιν τῆς ἑνώσεως· ἀλλά τήν μέν ἐπί τῆς διαφορᾶς, τήν δέ ἐπί τῆς ἑνώσεως προσφόρως ἐκλαμβάνοντες, ἀσύγχυτον φυλάττομεν τῶν σημαινομένων τόν νοῦν. Ὡς λοιπόν ἐντεῦθεν εἶναι δῆλον, ὅτι κοινόν αὐτῷ καί Νεστορίῳ τό λέγειν δύο φύσεις, μέχρι τοῦ γινώσκειν τήν διαφοράν. Οὐκέτι δέ κοινόν ἦν, τό καί τήν ἕνωσιν ὁμολογεῖν, τῷ λέγειν, " Ἕνα Χριστόν, ἕνα Υἱόν, ἕνα Κύριον, καί μίαν τοῦ Λόγου φύσιν σεσαρκωμένην· "ὅπερ Νεστόριος εἰπεῖν οὐ κατεδέχετο. Τό γάρ φάσκειν, "Οὕτω καί ἐπί Νεστορίου, κἄν λέγῃ δύο φύσεις, τήν διαφοράν σημαίνων τῆς σαρκός καί τοῦ Θεοῦ Λόγου· ἀλλ᾿ οὐκέτι τήν ἕνωσιν ὁμολογεῖ μεθ᾿ ἡμῶν·" οὐκ ἄλλο ἤ τοῦτο βούλεται δηλοῦν, ὅτι Νεστόριος, τήν μέν διαφοράν μεθ᾿ ἡμῶν ὁμολογεῖ, διά τοῦ λέγειν δύο φύσεις· τήν δέ ἕνωσιν οὐκέτι μεθ᾿ ἡμῶν ὁμολογεῖ, μή λέγων " Ἕνα Χριστόν, ἕνα Υἱόν, ἕνα Κύριον, καί μίαν τοῦ Λόγου φύσιν σεσαρκωμένην." Καί σαφές τοῦτο καθέστηκε τοῖς τοῦ καλοῦ ἐρασταῖς, καί τό ἀληθές ἀγαπᾷν ἐσπουδακόσιν, ἐκ τοῦ μηδαμοῦ φαίνεσθαι τόν διδάσκαλον, ἤ κωλύοντα λέγειν δύο φύσεις μετά τήν ἕνωσιν· ἀλλά διαιρεῖν τάς φύσεις μετά (480) τήν