209

being defined with it for the coming into being of a certain whole, co-existing with it; which is proper to a hypostasis. For that which subsists distinctly in itself is a hypostasis; c) since they say a hypostasis is a substance with properties, differing in number from those of the same genus; d) but the enhypostatic is that which in no way (560) subsists in itself, but is observed in others, as a form in the individuals under it; or that which is composed with another which is different in substance for the generation of a certain whole; which, insofar as it differs by the properties that distinguish it from those of the same substance, is to that extent united with the composite in hypostasis, becoming identical with it. For it is not by the properties by which it is distinguished from those of the same genus that it is also distinguished from the composite by union and co-existence; but by the distinguishing properties by which it differs from those of the same substance, it preserves, in relation to the composite, the identity of hypostasis by union, which is maintained in the altogether singular quality of the person; which the true doctrine proclaims in the case of the divine economy, that is, the incarnation. For by the properties by which the flesh, being distinguished, differed from us, by these it had identity with the Word according to hypostasis; and by the properties by which the Word differed from the Father and the Spirit, being distinguished as Son, by these he preserved what is according to hypostasis with respect to the flesh, maintaining it as singular, in no way whatsoever divided by any principle.

Therefore, the flesh of the Word of God has not become a hypostasis. For never, not even for as long as the speed of a mere thought is wont to take, did it subsist at all in itself, distinguished from those of its own genus by its defining properties, or having its own particularity separated from the common, in relation to the Word, the composite in hypostasis; but enhypostatic, as having received its coming into being in him and through him; and having become his flesh by union, and being united to him according to hypostasis, by the principle of the particularity that distinguishes it from other men. And to speak more clearly, making its particularity his own, of the Word himself, according to hypostasis; just as also that which is common according to substance, whose flesh he truly became by union.

That Christ, being perfect God, and the same one perfect man, possessed the common and the particular of what he was, by which he effected toward himself the union and the distinction of the extremes; on the one hand, by the union of the extremes to himself, confirming the two natures from which he was composed as preserved in himself; on the other hand, by the distinction of the extremes from himself, demonstrating the singularity of his own hypostasis.

For if the Word, being God by nature, by the assumption of flesh ensouled with a rational soul, became man without change, it is clear that, being one from both, and through one confirming himself truly as both, the same one possessed both the common and the particular of both; by which he effected the union to and the distinction from the extremes; on the one hand, by the natural difference of his own parts from one another, being united in substance to the extremes; on the other hand, by the identity of the same parts, clearly, according to hypostasis, being distinguished from the extremes. But if the same one had difference and identity, it is clear that the same one was one and two. One, on the one hand, by the principle of his own indivisible (561) monad according to hypostasis; two, on the other hand, by the principle of the otherness of his own parts with respect to each other according to substance, even after the union. For difference is a principle according to which the otherness of the things signified with respect to one another is naturally preserved, and is indicative of their mode of being. Identity, on the other hand, is an unchangeableness according to which the principle of what is signified possesses what is altogether singular, not being known by any mode of difference.

209

αὐτῷ πρός ὅλου τινός γένεσιν συνυφεστῶτος ἀφοριζόμενον· ὅπερ ἴδιόν ἐστιν ὑποστάσεως. Τό γάρ καθ᾿ αὑτό διωρισμένως συνεστώς ἐστιν ὑπόστασις· γ᾿ εἴπερ ὑπόστασιν εἶναί φασιν, οὐσίαν μετά ἰδιωμάτων, ἀριθμῷ τῶν ὁμογενῶν διαφέρουσαν· δ' ἐνυπόστατον δέ, τό καθ᾿ αὑτό μέν (560) οὐδαμῶς ὑφιστάμενον, ἐν ἄλλοις δέ θεωρούμενον, ὡς εἶδος ἐν τοῖς ὑπ' αὐτό ἀτόμοις· ἤ τό σύν ἄλλῳ διαφόρῳ κατά τήν οὐσίαν εἰς ὅλου τινός γένεσιν συντιθέμενον· ὅπερ καθ᾿ ὅσον μέν διαφέρει τοῖς ἀφορίζουσιν αὐτό τῶν κατ᾿ οὐσίαν ὁμογενῶν ἰδιώμασι, τοσοῦτον τῷ συγκειμένῳ καθ᾿ ὑπόστασιν, ἑνίζεται ταυτιζόμενον. Οὐ γάρ οἷς ἀφορίζεται τῶν ὁμογενῶν ἰδιώμασι, τούτοις διακρίνεται καί τοῦ συγκειμένου καθ᾿ ἕνωσιν καί συνυφεστῶτος· ἀλλ᾿ οἷς διενήνοχε τῶν ὁμοουσίων ἀφοριστικοῖς ἰδιώμασι, τούτοις πρός τό συγκείμενον τήν καθ᾿ ἕνωσιν φυλάττει ταυτότητα τῆς ὑποστάσεως, ἐν τῷ πάντη μοναδικῷ τοῦ προσώπου συντηρουμένην· ὅπερ ἐπί τῆς θείας οἰκονομίας ἤγουν σαρκώσεως ὁ ἀληθής πρεσβεύει λόγος. Οἷς γάρ ἡμῶν ἀφοριζομένη διέφερεν ἡ σάρξ ἰδιώμασι, τούτοις τήν πρός τόν Λόγον καθ᾿ ὑπόστασιν εἶχε ταυτότητα· καί οἷς ὁ Λόγος Πατρός τε καί Πνεύματος διέφερεν ἰδιώμασιν, ὡς Υἱός ἀφοριζόμενος, τούτοις τό καθ᾿ ὑπόστασιν πρός τήν σάρκα, μοναδικόν διετήρει σωζόμενον, μηδενί λόγῳ παντελῶς διαιρούμενον.

Οὐκοῦν οὐχ ὑπόστασις ἡ τοῦ Θεοῦ Λόγου καθέστηκε σάρξ. Οὐδέποτε γάρ, οὐδόσον ἐπινοίας ψιλῆς πέφυκε τάχος χωρεῖν, καθ᾿ ἑαυτήν τό παράπαν ὑπέστη τοῖς ἀφορίζουσιν αὐτήν ἰδιώμασι διωρισμένη τῶν ὁμογενῶν, ἤ πρός τόν συγκείμενον καθ᾿ ὑπόστασιν Λόγον, τοῦ κοινοῦ τό ἴδιον ἔχουσα κεχωρισμένον· ἀλλ᾿ ἐνυπόστατος ὡς ἐν αὐτῷ καί δι᾿ αὐτόν λαβοῦσα τοῦ εἶναι τήν γένεσιν· καί αὐτοῦ γενομένη καθ᾿ ἕνωσιν σάρξ, καί πρός αὐτόν καθ᾿ ὑπόστασιν ἐνιζομένη, τῷ λόγῳ τῆς τῶν λοιπῶν ἀνθρώπων ἀφοριζούσης αὐτήν ἰδιότητος. Καί σαφέστερον εἰπεῖν, αὐτοῦ τοῦ Λόγου καθ᾿ ὑπόστασιν ποιουμένη τό ἴδιον· ὥς που καί τό κατ᾿ οὐσίαν κοινόν, οὗ καί σάρξ ἀληθῶς καθ᾿ ἕνωσιν γέγονεν.

Ὅτι Θεός ὑπάρχων τέλειος ὁ Χριστός, καί ἄνθρωπος τέλειος ὁ αὐτός, τῶν ἅπερ ἦν, εἶχε τό κοινόν καί τό ἴδιον, οἷς πρός ἑαυτόν ἐποιεῖτο τήν τῶν ἄκρων ἕνωσιν καί διάκρισιν· τῇ μέν πρός ἑαυτόν ἑνώσει τῶν ἄκρων, ἐν ἑαυτῷ σωζομένας τάς ἐξ ὦν συνετέθη δύο φύσεις πιστούμενος· τῇ δέ πρός ἑαυτόν διακρίσει τῶν ἄκρων, τό μοναδικόν τῆς οἰκείας παριστάς ὑποστάσεως.

Εἰ γάρ φύσει Θεός ὤν ὁ Λόγος προσλήψει σαρκός νοερῶς ἐψυχωμένης δίχα τροπῆς γέγονεν ἄνθρωπος, δῆλον ὡς ἐξ ἀμφοῖν εἷς, καί δι᾿ ἑνός ἑαυτόν κατ᾿ ἀλήθειαν ἄμφω πιστούμενος, ἀμφοτέρων εἶχεν ὁ αὐτός τό τε κοινόν, καί τό ἴδιον· οἷς τήν πρός τά ἄκρα ἐποιεῖτο ἕνωσιν καί διάκρισιν· τῇ μέν πρός ἄλληλα φυσικῇ διαφορᾷ τῶν οἰκείων μερῶν, κατ᾿ οὐσίαν τοῖς ἄκροις ἑνούμενος· τῇ δέ τῶν αὐτῶν, δηλονότι μερῶν, ταυτότητι, καθ᾿ ὑπόστασιν, τῶν ἄκρων διακρινόμενος. Εἰ δέ διαφοράν εἶχεν ὁ αὐτός καί ταυτότητα, δῆλον ὡς ἕν καί δύο ἦν ὁ αὐτός. Ἕν μέν, τῷ λόγῳ τῆς οἰκείας κατά τήν ὑπόστασιν ἀδιαιρέτου (561) μονάδος· δύο δέ, τῷ λόγῳ τῆς κατ᾿ οὐσίαν πρός ἄλληλα τῶν οἰκείων μερῶν καί μετά τήν ἕνωσιν ἑτερότητος. ∆ιαφορά γάρ ἐστιν, λόγος καθ᾿ ὅν ἡ πρός ἄλληλα τῶν σημαινομένων ἑτερότης σώζεσθαι πέφυκεν, καί τοῦ πῶς εἶναι δηλωτικός. Ταυτότης δέ ἐστιν, ἀπαραλλαξία καθ᾿ ἥν ὁ τοῦ σημαινομένου λόγος τό πάντη κέκτηται μοναδικόν, μηδενί τρόπῳ διαφορᾶς γνωριζόμενον.