194

More precisely concerning composite nature, and of the principle according to it; and how those who say Christ is one composite nature are impious.

For every composite nature, first (517) has an involuntary coming together of its parts with one another in the composite union.

And then, it possesses the parts as co-temporal with one another, co-existing in their generation into being, with neither part existing in time before the other.

Furthermore, it is also known to be made for the completion of the totality that magnificently delineates the universe; none of which is in any way observed in Christ by those who wish to be pious; lest we make the union of the Logos with the flesh involuntary and non-volitional; and either make God the Logos co-temporal with the flesh in His generation into being, or the flesh co-eternal with the Logos in His beginningless existence; or we define Christ as having nothing more than the other species considered in their universal nature, as a part brought forth by the power that constituted the universe for the completion of the whole, like the other species. For this is the definition and principle and law of every composite nature, as the power of truth and the course of logical sequence guides those who make an examination of beings with understanding to say. And who will still be able to be of the portion of the pious, thinking thus about God and the Logos, who exists before all ages; or rather, to speak more properly, the maker of the ages, and who, according to His will, made His emptying for us men voluntary and of His own accord; and who became man for correction and renewal, but not for the completion of the universe. For in the manner of an economy, but not by a law of nature, did the Logos of God ineffably sojourn among men through the flesh. Therefore Christ is not a composite nature, according to the innovation of those who empty the Gospel; being altogether unenslaved to the law of composite nature, with respect to the mode of coming into being; but a composite hypostasis, not having predicated of it any composite nature according to species; which is paradoxical, to behold a composite hypostasis, without the composite nature according to species predicated of it.

But if, according to them, Christ is a composite nature—that marvelous acropolis of the words of Severus—it is either entirely general, or unique. For it is impossible to conceive of any other middle way between these. And if Christ is a general nature, He will obviously be predicated of many individuals differing in number; and He will exist only by conception in those in whom He has His being; and not known in Himself in any particular hypostasis; apart from the accidents observed in the individuals under Him. For such is the definition and principle of every general nature; and a multitude of Christs has been introduced to us instead of one, having in no way any identity with God or with men, on account of the excessive and unrestrained madness of Severus against the truth. But if Christ is a unique nature—to omit saying that a nature is in no way a whole circumscribed in a single person; even if they finally put forward the mythical (520) bird, the phoenix, as some great and invincible example constitutive of their own opinion; concerning which I am afraid to say anything, lest I incur the laughter of the intelligent for folly, by trying to show a myth to be a myth. For if the phoenix is a bird, it is certainly an animal. But if an animal, first it is not entirely unique insofar as it is an animal. Then, if it is an animal, it is also an ensouled, sentient body. But if the phoenix is an ensouled, sentient body, it is obviously also subject to generation and corruption. Let us ask these wise spectators of reality, if it is possible for anything subject to generation and corruption, ensouled and

194

Περί συνθέτου φύσεως ἀκριβέστερον, καί τοῦ κατ'αὐτήν λόγου· καί ὡς ἀσεβοῦσιν οἱ λέγοντες τόν Χριστόν μίαν σύνθετον φύσιν.

Πᾶσα γάρ σύνθετος φύσις, πρῶτον μέν (517) ἀπροαίρετον ἔχειν τήν πρός ἄλληλα τῶν μερῶν κατά τήν σύνθετον σύνοδον.

Ἔπειτα δέ καί ἀλλήλοις ὁμόχρονα τά μέρη, καί ἑαυτῇ κέκτηται, κατά τήν εἰς τό εἶναι γένεσιν συνυπάρχοντα, μηδετέρου μέρους θατέρου χρονικῶς προϋπάρχοντος.

Πρός ἔτι γε μήν καί εἰς συμπλήρωσιν τῆς τό πᾶν μεγαλοφυῶς ὑπογραφούσης ὁλότητος γινώσκεται πεποιημένη· ὧν οὐδέν ἐπί Χριστοῦ παντελῶς θεωρεῖται τοῖς εὐσεβεῖν βουλομένοις· ἵνα μή τήν πρός τήν σάρκα τοῦ Λόγου σύνοδον ἀκούσιον ποιώμεθα, καί ἀπροαίρετον· καί ἤ τῇ σαρκί τόν Θεόν Λόγον κατά τήν πρός τό εἶναι γένεσιν ὁμόχρονον, ἤ τήν σάρκα τῷ Λόγῳ κατά τήν ἄναρχον ὕπαρξιν συναΐδιον· ἤ καί μηδέν ἔχειν πλέον τῶν λοιπῶν κατά τήν καθ᾿ ὅλου φύσιν θεωρουμένων εἰδῶν, ὡς μέρος εἰς συμπλήρωσιν τοῦ παντός κατά τά λοιπά εἴδη, παρά τῆς τό πᾶν συστησαμένης δυνάμεως παρηγμένον τόν Χριστόν διοριζόμεθα. Οὗτος γάρ πάσης συνθέτου φύσεως ὅρος τε καί λόγος καί νόμος, καθώς ἡ τῆς ἀληθείας δύναμις, καί ὁ τῆς λογικῆς ἀκολουθίας δρόμος ποδηγεῖ λέγειν τούς μετά συνέσεως τήν τῶν ὄντων ποιουμένους διάσκεψιν. Καί τίς ἔτι τῆς τῶν εὐσεβῶν εἶναι δυνήσεται μοίρας, οὕτω φρονῶν περί τοῦ Θεοῦ καί Λόγου, τοῦ πρό πάντων ὑπάρχοντος τῶν αἰώνων· μᾶλλον δέ κυριώτερον εἰπεῖν, ποιητοῦ τῶν αἰώνων, καί κατά θέλησιν ἑκούσιον ποιησαμένου πρός ἡμᾶς τούς ἀνθρώπους καί αὐθαίρετον τήν κένωσιν· καί εἰς διόρθωσιν καί ἀνακαινισμόν, ἀλλ᾿ οὐκ εἰς συμπλήρωσιν τοῦ παντός, ἐνανθρωπήσαντος. Τρόπῳ γάρ οἰκονομίας, ἀλλ᾿ οὐ νόμῳ φύσεως, ἀῤῥήτως ὁ τοῦ Θεοῦ πρός ἀνθρώπους διά σαρκός ἐπεδήμησε Λόγος. Οὐκοῦν οὐκ ἔστι σύνθετος φύσις ὁ Χριστός, κατά τήν καινοτομίαν τῶν κενούντων τό Εὐαγγέλιον· τῷ νόμῳ τῆς συνθέτου φύσεως, κατά τόν εἰς τό εἶναι τρόπον, παντάπασιν ὑπάρχων ἀδούλωτος· ἀλλ᾿ ὑπόστασινς σύνθετος, τήν οἱανοῦν κατ᾿ εἶδος σύνθετον φύσιν αὐτῆς κατηγορουμένην οὐκ ἔχουσα· ὅ καί παράδοξον, ὑπόστασιν σύνθετον θεᾶσθαι, χωρίς τῆς κατ᾿ εἶδος αὐτῆς κατηγορουμένης συνθέτου φύσεως.

Εἰ δέ κατ᾿ αὐτούς ἐκείνους ὁ Χριστός σύνθετός ἐστι φύσις, ἡ θαυμαστή τῶν Σευήρου λόγων ἀκρόπολις, ἤ γενική πάντως ἐστί, ἤ μοναδική. Τούτων γάρ ἄλλην ἐπινοῆσαι μέσην ἀμήχανον. Καί εἰ μέν γενική φύσις ἐστίν ὁ Χριστός, κατά πολλῶν ἔσται δηλονότι καί διαφερόντων τῷ ἀριθμῷ κατηγορούμενος· καί κατ᾿ ἐπίνοιαν ἔσται μόνην, ἐν οἷς τήν ὕπαρξιν ἔχει· καί οὐ καθ᾿ ἑαυτόν ἐν ἰδίᾳ τινί ὑποστάσει γνωριζόμενος· χωρίς τῶν ἐπιθεωρουμένων τοῖς ὑπ᾿ αὐτόν ἀτόμοις συμβεβηκότων. Τοιοῦτος γάρ ὁ πάσης γενικῆς φύσεως ὅρος τε καί λόγος· καί εἰσήχθη πλῆθος ἡμῖν Χριστῶν ἀνθ᾿ ἑνός, κατά μηδένα τρόπον τήν οἱανοῦν ἐχόντων πρός τόν Θεόν, ἤ τούς ἀνθρώπους ταυτότητα, διά τήν Σευήρου κατά τῆς ἀληθείας περιττήν καί ἀκάθεκτον μανίαν. Εἰ δέ μοναδική φύσις ἐστίν ὁ Χριστός, ἵνα παρῶμεν λέγειν ὡς οὐδαμῶς ἐστι τό σύνολον φύσις ἑνί προσώπῳ περιγεγραμμένη· κἄν εἰ τά μάλιστα τόν μυθευόμενον (520) ὄρνιθα τόν φοίνικα, καθάπερ τι μέγα καί ἄμαχον παράδειγμα τῆς ἑαυτῆς δόξης συστατικόν, τελευταῖον προβάλλωνται· πρός ὅ καί λέγειν τι δέδοικα, μήπως καί ἀνοίας παρά τοῖς συνετοῖς ὀφλήσω γέλωτα, τόν μῦθον δεῖξαι μῦθον πειρώμενος. Εἰ γάρ ὄρνις ἐστίν ὁ φοίνιξ, καί ζῶον πάντως ἐστίν. Εἰ δέ ζῶον, πρῶτον μέν οὐ πάντη μοναδικόν καθό ζῶον. Ἔπειτα δέ, εἴπερ ζῶον, καί σῶμα ἔμψυχον αἰσθητικόν. Εἰ δέ σῶμα ἔμψυχον αἰσθητικόν ἐστιν ὁ φοίνιξ, καί ὑπό γένεσίν ἐστι δηλονότι καί φθοράν. Αὐτούς ἐρωτήσωμεν τούς σοφούς τῶν ὄντων θεάμονας, εἰ δυνατόν ἐστί τι τῶν ὑπό γένεσιν καί φθοράν ἐμψύχων καί