185

A brief refutation of Severus's objection against the phrase, "In two." And even if we especially resort to that in the end, the unsound and empty

invention of Severus, which is everywhere brought forward and chanted by him as if something wise, asserting that it is ridiculous to say that from two natures two natures are again demonstrated from the union; as if drawing the likely conclusions from a premise granted by us. For from whom of those instructed in the divine doctrines of the Church have they heard that the union from two natures produced two natures? But they will by no means be able to say they have heard this, if they care for the truth. But we say that the union came to be from two natures; and that the one (493) composite hypostasis of Christ was produced from them, guarding and preserving unchangeably those very natures from which he was composed, as a whole its own parts without deficiency with their natural properties; and in them being guarded and preserved as a whole in its parts. Therefore, we say Christ is one composite hypostasis from two natures, not two natures; containing these natures as its own parts, and embracing them as its own and complementary parts; and both existing and being known in them as in parts. For as long as what came together has remained and is believed to be unconfused—and it always does remain unconfused—it is impossible for them not to be two according to their natural being, which each is by nature according to its substance; just as, therefore, they are one in the mode of hypostasis as long as the union exists—and it always does exist according to the pious confession of the faithful, for it is impossible for it to be otherwise.

Therefore, when we say He is one and two, we do not say both in the same respect concerning the same one thing; but in one respect and another. For instance, according to the principle of nature, of those things from which the union is, "two." For we do not know the God Logos to be the same in nature with his own flesh. But according to the principle of hypostasis, "one." For we know the God Logos to be the same with his own flesh according to the hypostasis. Therefore, we neither foolishly smear the natures into one nature, by saying the natural difference in Christ is abolished, lest we introduce a change of the Logos and of the flesh; nor do we manically divide Him again into two self-subsistent beings, by positing a difference also according to the principle of hypostasis, lest we deny our own salvation; just as those who divided the impiety diametrically against each other, Apollinarius together with Eutyches, and Nestorius have done; the former not knowing a natural difference in Christ; while the latter, adding to this also a personal one, have fallen from the truth. But knowing that even in the hypostatic union the natural particularity is unchangeable, we reject both confusion and division alike; neither making the union a confusion, as if ignorant of the things united; nor the difference a division, as if knowing the differing things to subsist separately on their own.

Therefore, as it seems, the great Theologian Gregory also appears to teach this in his great Apology, saying, "One from both, and through the one, both;" as if he were saying, For just as there is one from both, that is, the one from two natures, as a whole from parts according to the principle of hypostasis; so also through the one according to hypostasis, as through a whole, both the parts according to the principle of nature, that is, the two. Which he explains more clearly in his second Oration on the Son, saying, "For even if the composite of both is one, it is not so by (496) nature, but by conjunction." And the blessed Cyril is also shown to hold this very thing in his letters to Succensus, in which he says on the example of man: "So that the two are no longer two, but through both the one living being is produced;" all but crying aloud in these words, That the things from which the composition is made, both in the case of us, a human being of soul and body, and in the case of the mystery of Christ, of divinity and humanity, their being two according to the essential principle has not been abolished; since, otherwise, they would no longer remain of different substances. The

185

Ἐπίλυσις σύντομος τῆς Σευήρου ἀπορίας κατά τῆς, Ἐν δύο, φωνῆς. Κἄν εἰ τά μάλιστα ἐπ᾿ ἐκεῖνο καταφεύγομεν τελευταῖον, τό σαθρόν καί διάκενον

Σευήρου εὕρημα, τό πάνυ παρ᾿ αὐτοῦ ὥσπερ τι σοφόν πανταχοῦ φερόμενον καί ᾀδόμενον, φάσκοντες γελοῖον εἶναι, ἐκ δύο φύσεων δύο φύσεις ἐκ τῆς ἑνώσεως πάλιν ἀναδειχθῆναι λέγειν· ὥσπερ λήμματι παρ᾿ ἡμῶν δοθέντι τά εἰκότα ἐπισυνάγοντες. Τίνος γάρ ἤκουσαν τῶν τά θεῖα τῆς Ἐκκλησίας πεπαιδευμένων δόγματα, ὡς ἡ ἕνωσις ἐκ δύο φύσεων δύο ἀπετέλεσε φύσεις; Ἀλλ᾿ οὐδαμῶς ἀκηκοέναι εἰπεῖν δυνήσονται ἀληθείας φροντίζοντες. Λέγομεν δέ ἐκ δύο φύσεως τήν ἕνωσιν γεγενῆσθαι· μίαν δέ τήν ἐξ αὐτῶν (493) ὑπόστασιν ἀποτελέσθαι τοῦ Χριστοῦ σύνθετον ἐκεῖνας αὐτάς τάς ἐξ ὧν συνετέθη φύσεις, ὡς ὅλον ἴδια μέρη ἀνελλιπῶς μετά τῶν φυσικῶν ἰδιωμάτων, καί ἀτρέπτως φυλάττουσάν τε καί διασώζουσαν· καί ἐν αὐταῖς φυλαττομένην καί σωζομένην ὡς ὅλον ἐν μέρεσιν. Ἐκ δύο οὖν φύσεων, οὐ δύο φύσεις, ἀλλά μίαν ὑπόστασιν λέγομεν Χριστόν σύνθετον· τούτων ὡς ἰδίων μερῶν περιεκτικήν τῶν φύσεων, καί ταύτας ὡς ἴδια καί συμπληρωτικά μέρη περιέχουσαν· καί ἐν αὐταῖς ὡς ἐν μέρεσι καί οὖσαν καί γνωριζομένην. Ἕως γάρ ἄν σύγχυτα τά συνελθόντα μεμένηκαι πιστεύηται, ἀεί δέ μένει ἀσύγχυτα, τοῦ μή δύο εἶναι κατά τό πεφυκέναι εἶναι, ὅπερ ἑκάτερον κατ᾿ οὐσίαν εἶναι πέφυκεν· ὥσπερ οὖν καί τοῦ ἕν εἶναι ταῦτα τῷ κατά τήν ὑπόστασιν λόγῳ, ἕως ἄν ἡ ἕνωσις ᾖ· ἀεί δέ ἐστι κατά τήν εὐσεβῆ τῶν πιστῶν ὁμολογίαν, ἀδύνατον.

∆ιό ἕν καί δύο αὐτό λέγοντες, οὐ κατά τό αὐτό φαμεν, ἐπί τοῦ αὐτοῦ καί ἑνός ἀμφότερα· κατ᾿ ἄλλο δέ καί ἄλλο. Οἷον κατά μέν τόν τῆς φύσεως λόγον, τῶν ἐξ ὧν ἡ ἕνωσις, τό δύο. Οὐ γάρ ταὐτόν κατά τήν φύσιν τῇ ἰδίᾳ σαρκί τόν Θεόν Λόγον γινώσκομεν· κατά δέ τόν τῆς ὑποστάσεως λόγον τό ἕν· ταὐτόν γάρ τόν Θεόν Λόγον τῇ ἰδίᾳ σαρκί κατά τήν ὑπόστασιν ἐπιστάμεθα. Οὔτε οὖν τάς φύσεις ἀφρόνως εἰς μίαν συναλείφομεν φύσιν, τῷ ἀνῃρῆσθαι λέγειν ἐπί Χριστοῦ τήν φυσικήν διαφοράν, ἵνα μή τροπήν τοῦ Λόγου καί τῆς σαρκός εἰσαγάγωμεν· οὔτε εἰς δύο πάλιν ἰδιοσυστάτους μανικῶς διαιροῦμεν, τῷ καί κατά τόν τῆς ὑποστάσεως λόγον τιθέναι διαφοράν, ἵνα μή τήν ἡμῶν αὐτῶν ἀρνώμεθα σωτηρίαν· ὥσπερ οἱ ἐκ διαμέτρου πρός ἀλλήλους μερισάμενοι τήν ἀσέβειαν, Ἀπολινάριος ἅμα Εὐτυχεῖ, καί Νεστόριος ποιήσαντες· οἱ μέν φυσικήν διαφοράν ἐπί Χριστοῦ οὐκ εἰδότες· ὁ δέ πρός ταύτῃ καί προσωπικήν προσεπάγων, τῆς ἀληθείας ἐξέπεσαν. Ἀλλ᾿ εἰδότες καί ἐν τῇ καθ᾿ ὑπόστασιν ἑνώσει τήν φυσικήν ἰδιότητα ἄτρεπτον, καί τήν σύγχυσιν ὁμοίως καί τήν διαίρεσιν ἀποστρεφόμεθα· μήτε τήν ἕνωσιν σύγχυσιν, ὡς ἀγνοοῦντες τά ἑνωθέντα· μήτε διαίρεσιν τήν διαφοράν, ὡς καθ᾿ αὑτά ὑφεστάναι μεμερισμένως εἰδότες τά διαφέροντα, ἐργαζόμενοι.

Τοῦτο μέν οὖν, ὡς οἶναι, καί ὁ μέγας Θεολόγος Γρηγόριος διδάσκων φαίνεται ἐν τῷ μεγάλῳ ἀπολογητικῷ, " Ἕν ἐξ ἀμφοῖν λέγων, καί δι᾿ ἑνός ἀμφότερα·" ὡσανεί ἔλεγεν, Ὥσπερ γάρ ἕν ἐξ ἀμφοῖν, τουτέστιν ἐκ δύο φύσεων τό ἕν, ὡς ὅλον ἐκ μερῶν κατά τόν τῆς ὑποστάσεως λόγον· οὕτω καί διά τοῦ καθ᾿ ὑπόστασιν ἑνός, ὡς ὅλου, ἀμφότερα τῷ κατά φύσιν λόγῳ τά μέρη, τουτέστι τά δύο. Ὅπερ ἐν τῷ δευτέρῳ περί Υἱοῦ λόγῳ τρανώτερον διεξιών, φησίν, "Εἰ γάρ καί τό συναμφότερον ἕν, ἀλλ᾿ οὐ τῇ (496) φύσει, τῇ δέ συνόδῳ." Τοῦτο δέ αὐτό καί ὁ κακάριος Κύριλλος ἐν τοῖς πρός Σούκενσον γράμμασι δείκνυται φρονῶν, ἐν οἷς ἐπί τοῦ κατά τόν ἄνθρωπον παραδείγματός φησιν· " Ὥστε τά δύο μηκέτι μέν εἶναι δύο, δι' ἀμφοῖν δέ τό ἕν ἀποτελεῖσθαι ζῶον·" μονονουχί ἐν τούτοις διαῤῥήδην βοῶν, Ὅτι τά ἐξ ὧν ἡ σύνθεσις ἐπί τε τοῦ καθ᾿ ἡμᾶς ἀνθρώπου τοῦ ἐκ ψυχῆς καί σώματος· ἐπί τε τοῦ κατά Χριστόν μυστηρίου, τοῦ ἐκ θεότητος καί ἀνθρωπότητος, τό εἶναι μέν δύο κατά τόν οὐσιώδη λόγον οὐκ ἀνῄρηται· ἐπεί, οὐδέ ἑτερούσια ἔτι μένει. Τό