193

it is impossible, it is necessary for them to say after the union; if indeed according to an orderly sequence, they wish to show the argument of their own dogma to be coherent. But if they deny the number of the natures preserved in Christ after the union, let them not dare to speak of the difference of the natures from which Christ is after the union; knowing that whatever has a difference in any way whatsoever, cannot be one in every respect and manner. And that which cannot be one in every respect and manner, is clearly in some respect and manner at least two or more. Therefore, those who say there is a difference in Christ after the union cannot say that Christ is one in every respect and manner after the union. But if Christ is not one in every respect and manner after the union; clearly in some respect and manner Christ is certainly two after the union. And if in some respect and manner Christ is two after the union, on account of the difference in Him of the natures from which and in which He is, as the argument has shown, it is clear (516) that they are impious in vain, who speak of the difference of the natures from which Christ is after the union, but who manifestly abolish by their silence the natures themselves, whose difference it is, after the union; for the denial of things that exist and are preserved is truly an abolition. For either the natures have not been abolished according to them after the union, and they are and are preserved, and it is just for them to be confessed as preserved after the union; or if it is not just for them to be confessed after the union, it is just according to them to say that they neither are nor are preserved in Christ, and they have been abolished. For that which it is in no way just to name, it is much better and more just, as I think, to say that it does not exist at all; or let them persuade us by reason how it is just not to confess in Christ the things from which Christ is, existing and preserved after the union, without any change and alteration, and without mutation into one another according to the essential definition; and we will obediently accept the privation of the confession of the things preserved and existing in Christ.

But just as Christ is not one in every respect and manner after the union, so again Christ is not two in every respect and manner after the union. And if Christ is not two in every respect and manner after the union; certainly in some respect and manner, on account of the hypostatic identity, that is, the one hypostasis, according to which he cannot have a difference, Christ is one. Since, therefore, according to one respect and manner, and another, the same one is one and two, it is necessary to examine according to what respect he is one, and what respect he is two.

That it is blasphemous to say that Christ is simply one nature. If then they should say that He is one according to the principle of nature, one nature simply

without any difference whatsoever, clearly according to them will the whole be. And if we concede to them to say this, Christ will be neither God nor man according to them; neither creature at all, nor creator. For a nature that is spoken of simply does not admit at all the signification of either of these in any way. But if, fleeing the manifest absurdity, they should say that Christ is one nature, but a composite one, they have truly been ignorant of how the darkness of impiety has thrust them toward the ultimate error.

193

ἀδύνατον, λέγειν αὐτούς ἀνάγκη μετά τήν ἕνωσιν· εἴπερ κατά τήν εὔτακτον ἀκολουθίαν, εὐσυνάρτητον τόν τοῦ οἰκείου δόγματος ἀποδεῖξαι βούλονται λόγον. Εἰ δέ τό ποσόν τῶν σωζομένων ἐν Χριστῷ φύσεων ἀρνοῦνται μετά τήν ἕνωσιν, μηδέ τήν διαφοράν λέγειν τολμάτωσαν, τῶν ἐξ ὧν ὁ Χριστός ἔστι φύσεων μετά τήν ἕνωσιν· γινώσκοντες ὅτι πᾶν εἴτι καθ᾿ ὁτιοῦν ἔχει διαφοράν, ἕν κατά πάντα λόγον τε καί τρόπον εἶναι οὐ δύναται. Τό δέ μή δυνάμενον εἶναι κατά πάντα λόγον τε καί τρόπον ἕν, δηλονότι κατά τινα λόγον τε καί τρόπον, δύο τό ἐλάχιστόν ἐστιν ἤ πλείονα. Οὐκοῦν ἐν Χριστῷ μετά τήν ἕνωσιν λέγοντας εἶναι διαφοράν, ἕν κατά πάντα λόγον τε καί τρόπον τόν Χριστόν εἶναι μετά τήν ἕνωσιν λέγειν οὐ δύνανται. Εἰ δέ μή κατά πάντα καί λόγον καί τρόπον ἕν ἐστιν ὁ Χριστός μετά τήν ἕνωσιν· δηλονότι κατά τινα λόγον τε καί τρόπον, δύο πάντως ἐστίν ὁ Χριστός μετά τήν ἕνωσιν. Εἰ δέ κατά τινα λόγον τε καί τρόπον δύο ἐστίν ὁ Χριστός μετά τήν ἕνωσιν, διά τήν ἐν αὐτῷ τῶν ἐξ ὧν καί ἐν αἷς ἐστι φύσεων διαφοράν, ὡς ἔδειξεν ὁ λόγος, δῆλον (516) ὡς ἀσεβοῦσι διακενῆς, οἱ τήν μέν διαφοράν τῶν ἐξ ὧν ἐστι φύσεων ὁ Χριστός μετά τήν ἕνωσιν λέγοντες, αὐτάς δέ τάς φύσεις, ὧν ἡ διαφορά, προφανῶς ἀναιροῦντες τῇ σιωπῇ μετά τήν ἕνωσιν· ἀναίρεσις γάρ ἐστιν ἀληθῶς ἡ τῶν ὄντων καί σωζομένων ἐξάρνησις. Ἤ γάρ οὐ ἀνιῄρηνται κατ᾿ αὐτούς αἱ φύσεις μετά τήν ἕνωσιν, καί εἰσι καί σώζονται, καί δίκαιόν ἐστιν αὐτάς σωζομένας ὁμολογεῖσθαι μετά τήν ἕνωσιν· ἤ εἴπερ μή δίκαιον ἐστιν αὐτάς ὁμολογεῖσθαι μετά τήν ἕνωσιν, μήτε εἶναι, μήτε σώζεσθαι λέγειν αὐτάς ἐν Χριστῷ δίκαιόν ἐστι κατ᾿ αὐτούς, καί ἀνῄρηνται. Ὁ γάρ μή δίκαιόν ἐστι πάντως ὀνομάζεσθαι, μηδέ τό παράπαν ὑπάρχειν, πολλῷ κρεῖττόν ἐστιν ὡς οἶμαι καί δικαιότερον, λέγειν· ἤ πείσωσιν ἡμᾶς λόγῳ, πῶς ἐστι δίκαιον ἐν Χριστῷ μή ὁμολογεῖσθαι, τά ἐξ ὧν ὁ Χριστός, ὄντά τε καί σωζόμενα μετά τήν ἕνωσιν, χωρίς τῆς οἱασοῦν τροπῆς καί ἀλλοιώσεως, καί τῆς εἰς ἄλληλα κατά τόν οὐσιώδη λόγον μεταβολῆς· καί στέργομεν εὐπειθῶς τῆς τῶν σωζομένων ἐν Χριστῷ καί ὄντων ὁμολογίας τήν στέρησιν.

Ὥσπερ δέ κατά πάντα λόγον τε καί τρόπον ἕν οὐκ ἔστιν ὁ Χριστός μετά τήν ἕνωσιν, οὕτω πάλιν κατά πάντα λόγον τε καί τρόπον οὐκ ἔστιν ὀ Χριστός δύο μετά τήν ἕνωσιν. Εἰ δέ μή κατά πάντα λόγον τε καί τρόπον ἐστίν ὁ Χριστός δύο μετά τήν ἕνωσιν· πάντως κατά τινα λόγον τε καί τρόπον διά τήν ὑποστατικήν ταυτότητα, ἤγουν τήν μίαν ὑπόστασιν, καθ᾿ ἥν διαφοράν ἔχειν οὐ δύναται, ἕν ἐστιν ὁ Χριστός. Ἐπεί οὖν κατ᾿ ἄλλον καί ἄλλον λόγον τε καί τρόπον, ἕν καί δύο ἐστίν ὁ αὐτός, ἀναγκαῖον σκοπῆσαι, κατά ποῖον καί ποῖον λόγον ἕν ἐστιν ὁ αὐτός καί δύο.

Ὅτι βλάσφημον τό λέγειν τόν Χριστόν μίαν ἁπλῶς φύσιν. Εἰ μέν οὖν κατά τόν τῆς φύσεως λόγον ἕν αὐτόν εἶναι φήσουσι, μίαν φύσιν ἁπλῶς

χωρίς τῆς οἱασδήποτε διαφορᾶς δηλονότι κατ᾿ αὐτούς ἔσται τό ὅλον. Εἰ δέ τοῦτο λέγειν αὐτοῖς συγχωρήσομεν, οὐκ ἔσται Θεός κατ᾿ αὐτούς, οὔτε μήν ἄνθρωπος ὁ Χριστός· οὔτε κτίσμα παντελῶς, οὔτε κτίστης. Ἡ γάρ ἁπλῶς λεγομένη φύσις, οὐδ᾿ ἑτέρου τούτων καθάπαξ τήν οἱανοῦν ἐπιδέχεται σημασίαν. Εἰ δέ τήν πρόδηλον φεύγοντες ἀτοπίαν εἴποιεν, μίαν μέν, σύνθετον δέ τόν Χριστόν εἶναι φύσιν, ἠγνόησαν ὡς ἀληθῶς, πῶς ὁ τῆς ἀσεβείας ζόφος πρός τήν ἐσχάτην αὐτούς ἀπεώσατο πλάνην.