181

Is it not apparent to anyone who might object that the blessed Cyril is not seen to forbid such a phrase simply, but as it is proffered according to the evil intent of Nestorius, who asserted that the union was relative? As the blessed Cyril himself is shown to bear witness for himself at the end of the same letter, making his own aim clear even to the overly contentious, saying thus: "But the word ‘indivisibly’ added, seems somehow to us to be indicative of right doctrine. But they do not understand it thus. For ‘indivisible’ among them, according to the empty talk of Nestorius, is taken in another way. For they say that the man in whom He dwelt is indivisible from God the Word in equality of honor, in identity of will, in authority. So that they do not simply utter the words, but with a certain deceit and malice." Behold, this wonderful teacher clearly supposed that the manner of 'indivisible' is twofold: the one, signifying the hypostatic union, which he also embraces, saying it is indicative of right doctrine; the other, declarative only of a relative conjunction, which he also rejects; and he exhorts the faithful to do this very thing, since from the identical utterance of the word, the poison of heretical impiety can often be secretly instilled into the more simple. Wherefore, in his own case, he considers saying ‘two indivisibly’ to be orthodox, since he himself said the union was hypostatic; but when proffered by the followers of Nestorius (484), he makes the phrase ‘of the indivisible’ suspect, since they held that the union had occurred only by a relative conjunction.

Therefore, a hypostatic union, according to the Fathers, is the coming together of different substances into one hypostasis, with one of the things composing it having its natural property unconfused, unchanged, and indivisible with respect to the other. But a relative union is the equal movement of will and the immutability of gnomic identity of those subsisting individually in their own personal monads. Therefore, he who confesses the hypostatic union, even if he speaks of two natures in Christ after the union, united indivisibly, that is, by hypostatic union, does not in any way err from the truth. For he confesses, according to the Fathers, that the things of which Christ is composed have remained unconfused because of the preserved difference, being in no way able to know the things that differ from each other by natural reason to be outside of the one hypostasis, or separate in any manner whatsoever. But he who upholds a relative union, even if he says 'the indivisible' ten thousand times, possesses what is blameworthy; for he says that the things signified are united by a certain loving disposition and possess indivisibility; being in no way able to say that God the Word is one hypostasis with his own ensouled and intelligent flesh from us. For it is impossible for one hypostasis to come to be from two individual hypostases which are divided by an individual principle with respect to their con-specific individuals. So our holy Father Cyril does not simply slander and reject the saying ‘two natures united indivisibly after the union,’ but the meaning signified through such a phrase by those who use it badly.

If, then, it has been demonstrated, even if moderately, yet at least in my opinion, sufficiently, as it was possible to signify through a letter, both from the holy Fathers and from the sequence of common notions, that number is able to neither make, nor suffer, nor introduce any division whatsoever, but simply indicates how many things there are, and does not touch upon their relation, however they may happen to be; what suspicion of severance, then, or of division, is left for those who are in sedition against the holy Church of God, and rashly cut themselves off from the common body; not so much acting, as suffering, being pitiably put to death by the separation and

181

οὐκ ἔστι καταφανές τῷ ὁπωσοῦν ἐπισκήπτοντι, ὡς οὐχ ἁπλῶς φαίνεται τήν τοιαύτην ἀπαγορεύων φωνήν ὁ μακάριος Κύριλλος, ἀλλά κατά τήν Νεστορίου κακόνοιαν προσφερομένην, σχετικήν φάσκοντος γεγενῆσθαι τήν ἕνωσιν, ὡς αὐτός ἑαυτῷ Κύριλλος ὁ μακάριος μαρτυρῶν δείκνυται ἐπί τέλει τῆς αὐτῆς ἐπιστολῆς καί τοῖς ἄγαν φιλονείκοις τόν ἑαυτοῦ σκοπόν ποιούμενος φανερόν, οὕτω λέγων· "Τό δέ ἀδιαιρέτως προστεθέν, δοκεῖ πως παρ᾿ ἡμῖν ὀρθῆς δόξης εἶναι σημαντικόν. Αὐτοί δέ οὐχ οὕτω νοοῦσι. Τό γάρ ἀδιαίρετον παρ᾿ αὐτοῖς, κατά τάς Νεστορίου κενοφωνίας, καθ᾿ ἕτερον λαμβάνεται τρόπον. Φασί γάρ, ὅτι τῇ ἰσοτιμίᾳ, τῇ ταυτοβουλίᾳ, τῇ αὐθεντείᾳ ἀδιαίρετός ἐστι τοῦ Θεοῦ Λόγου ὁ ἐν ᾧ κατῴκησεν ἄνθρωπος. Ὥστε οὐχ ἁπλῶς τάς λέξεις προφέρουσιν, ἀλλά μετά τινος δόλου καί κακουργίας." Ἰδού σαφῶς διττόν ὑπάρχειν τόν τοῦ ἀδιαιρέτου τρόπον ὑπέθετο ὁ θαυμαστός οὗτος διδάσκαλος· τόν μέν, τήν καθ᾿ ὑπόστασιν σημαίνοντα ἕνωσιν· ὅν καί ἀσπαζόμενος, ὀρθῆς δόξης εἶναί φησι σημαντικόν· τόν δέ, μόνης τῆς κατά σχέσιν συναφείας δηλωτικόν, ὅν καί ἀποστρέφεται· καί τοῖς πιστοῖς τοῦτο αὐτό ποιεῖν παραινεῖ, ἐκ τῆς κατά τήν λέξιν ὁμοίας προφορᾶς, πολλάκις τόν τῆς αἱρετικῆς δεσσεβείας ἰόν τοῖς ἀκεραιοτέροις λεληθότως ἐμβάλλειν δυνάμενον. Ὅθεν παρ᾿ ἑαυτῷ μέν, τό δύο λέγειν ἀδιαιρέτως, ὀρθόδοξον τίθεται· ἐπειδή αὐτός καθ᾿ ὑπόστασιν εἶναι τήν ἕνωσιν ἔλεγε· παρά δέ τῶν κατά Νεστόριον (484) προσφερομένην, ὕποπτον ποιεῖται τήν φωνήν τοῦ ἀδιαιρέτου, ἐπειδή κατά μόνην τήν σχετικήν συνάφειαν τήν ἕνωσιν γεγενῆσθαι ἐδόξαζον.

Καθ᾿ ὑπόστασιν μέν οὖν ἕνωσίς ἐστι κατά τούς Πατέρας, ἡ τῶν ἑτερουσιῶν εἰς μίαν ὑπόστασιν σύνοδος, θατέρου τῶν κατ᾿ αὐτήν συγκειμένων, πρός τό ἕτερον τήν φυσικήν ἰδιότητα ἀνόθευτόν τε καί ἀμετάβλητον ἔχουσα καί ἀδιαίρετον. Σχετική δέ ἕνωσίς ἐστιν, ἡ τῶν καθ᾿ αὐτούς ἰδικῶς ἐν μονάσι προσωπικαῖς ὑφεστώτων ἴση θελήματος κίνησις καί γνωμικῆς ταυτότητος ἀπαραλλαξία. Ὁ τοίνυν ὁμολογῶν τήν καθ᾿ ὑπόστασιν ἕνωσιν, κἄν λέγῃ δύο φύσεις ἐπί Χριστοῦ μετά τήν ἕνωσιν ἡνωμένας ἀδιαιρέτως, ἑνώσει δηλονότι τῇ καθ᾿ ὑπόστασιν, τῆς ἀληθείας καθοτιοῦν οὐ διαμαρτάνει. Τά γάρ ἐξ ὧν σύγκειται ὁ Χριστός ἀσύγχυτα μεμενηκέναι διά τήν σωζομένην διαφοράν κατά τούς Πατέρας ὁμολογεῖ· τοῦ καθ᾿ ὑπόστασιν ἑνός οὐδαμῶς τά τῷ φυσικῷ λόγῳ ἀλλήλων διαφέροντα ἐκτός εἶναι, καί χωρίς καθ᾿ οἱονδήποτε τρόπον γινώσκειν δυνάμενος. Ὁ δέ τήν κατά σχέσιν πρεσβεύων ἕνωσιν, κἄν εἰ μυριάκις λέγοι τό ἀδιαίρετον, τό ἐπίψογον κέκτηται· κατά τινα ἀγαπητικήν συνδιάθεσιν ἡνῶσθαι, καί τό ἀδιαίρετον ἔχειν λέγειν τά σημαινόμενα· οὐδαμῶς μίαν ὑπόστασιν εἶναι τόν Θεόν Λόγον μετά τῆς ἐξ ἡμῶν ἰδίας αὐτοῦ ἐμψύχου τε καί ἔννου σαρκός εἰπεῖν οἷός τε ὤν. Ἐκ δύο γάρ ὑποστάσεων ἰδικῶν τῶν πρός τά ὁμοειδῆ ἄτομα ἰδικῷ λόγῳ μεμερισμένων, μίαν γενέσθαι ὑπόστασιν, ἀμήχανον. Ὥστε οὐχ ἁπλῶς διαβάλλει καί ἀποπέμπεται ὁ ἅγιος Πατήρ ἡμῶν Κύριλλος, τό λέγειν δύο φύσεις ἡνωμένας ἀδιαιρέτως μετά τήν ἕνωσιν, ἀλλά τήν σημαινομένην διά τῆς τοιαύτης φωνῆς τῶν κακῶς χρησαμένων ἔννοιαν.

Εἰ τοίνυν δέδεικται, κἄν εἰ μετρίως, πλήν ὅτι γε κατ᾿ ἐμέ εἰπεῖν, ἀρκούντως, ὡς δι᾿ ἐπιστολῆς σημᾶναι ἦν δυνατόν, ἔκ τε τῶν ἁγίων Πατέρων, καί τῆς τῶν κοινῶν ἐννοιῶν ἀκολουθίας, ὡς τήν οἱανοῦν διαίρεσιν, οὔτε ποιεῖν, οὔτε πάσχειν, οὔτε εἰσάγειν ὁ ἀριθμός δύναται, ἀλλ᾿ ἁπλῶς μέν δηλοῖ τά πόσα· τῆς δέ σχέσεως, ὡς δ᾿ ἄν ἔχοντα τύχωσιν, οὐ προσάπτεται· ποία λοιπόν ὑπολέλειπται τομῆς ὑπόνοια, ἤ διαιρέσεως, τοῖς πρός τήν ἁγίαν τοῦ Θεοῦ στασιάζουσιν Ἐκκλησίαν, καί εἰκῆ τοῦ κοινοῦ σώματος αὐτούς ἀποτέμνουσιν· οὐ μᾶλλον δρῶντες, ἤ πάσχοντες τῷ χωρισμῷ ἐλεεινῶς νεκρούμενοι καί