212

We then, never saying in a proper sense that hypostasis and nature are the same, according to the teaching of the Fathers, as the argument has already demonstrated above, piously profess both the same and the different in Christ. The one, by reason of the one hypostasis, according to which we confess that God the Word is the same with His own flesh; so that the all-praised Trinity may not receive a personal addition, becoming a tetrad. The other, by reason of the essential otherness of the things from which He is, according to which the parts of Christ do not at all change into one another. For divinity and humanity could never be the same in essence, so that nothing created would be of the same nature and consubstantial with the divinity by union. Since we know that to say a nature is by nature consubstantial with a nature belongs to a maddened mind. For (568) a nature is never by nature of the same nature and consubstantial with a nature. For "of the same nature" and "consubstantial" are naturally said only of individuals of the same species that are referred to one essence.

That one who does not say nature and hypostasis are the same, piously speaks of the union and the difference in Christ; believing the one to be according to hypostasis, and the other according to nature.

We, holding this confession, neither deny the difference of the natures after the union, from which the one Christ was composed, believing that the natures have remained unconfused; nor are we ignorant of the union according to hypostasis, confessing one Christ of the holy and consubstantial and adorable Trinity. But we also make manifest by number the difference of the things from which Christ is, which are truly preserved in Him, without division and without confusion after the union, for the refutation of the confusion of Apollinarius and Eutyches; and since we know the union according to hypostasis, with a piercing voice we set forth the one nature of God the Word incarnate, in flesh having an intellectual soul, against the division of Nestorius; likewise fleeing the confusion of Apollinarius; who denies the natural difference of the things united after the union, and who professes the flesh to be the same with the Word according to nature because of the union; and the division of Nestorius, who proclaims a hypostatic difference in Christ, and severs the identity of the flesh with the Word according to hypostasis.

That Severus, by saying that nature and hypostasis are the same, makes the union a confusion, and the difference a division; according to which he is shown both to expand the account of the Trinity into a tetrad of persons; and to cut the mystery of the monad into a dyad of divinities; and to blasphemously cast Christ out of all essential existence.

But Severus, by saying that essence and hypostasis, and nature and person are properly the same in the divine incarnation, knows neither the union as unconfused, even if he pretends to say so; nor the difference as undivided, even if he boastfully asserts this; but he works out the union as a confusion according to Apollinarius; and the difference as an alienation according to Nestorius. For if hypostasis and nature are the same, in no way according to him will the flesh be the same as or other than the Word. For by speaking of the difference as in a natural quality in Christ after the union, he too will be found dividing the union with Nestorius, by introducing the difference of the flesh from the Word according to hypostasis after the union; since the difference as in a natural quality cannot otherwise be understood according to him, than as a difference in hypostatic quality, if indeed nature and hypostasis are the same. A necessity

212

Ἡμεῖς μέν οὖν ταυτόν ὑπόστασίν τε καί φύσιν, κυρίως μηδέποτε λέγοντες, κατά τήν τῶν Πατέρων διδασκαλίαν, ὡς ἀνωτέρω προλαβών ἀπέδειξεν ὁ λόγος, εὐσεβῶς ἐπί Χριστοῦ τό ταυτόν πρεσβεύομεν καί τό διάφορον. Τό μέν, τῷ λόγῳ τῆς μιᾶς ὑποστάσεως, καθ᾿ ὅν ταυτόν τῇ οἰκείᾳ σαρκί τόν Θεόν Λόγον ὁμολογοῦμεν· ἵνα μή προσθήκην προσωπικήν ἡ πανεύφημος λάβῃ Τριάς, γινομένη τετράς. Τό δέ, τῷ λόγῳ τῆς κατ᾿ οὐσίαν τῶν ἐξ ὧν ἐστιν ἑτερότητος, καθ᾿ ἥν εἰς ἄλληλα τά μέρη τοῦ Χριστοῦ παντελῶς οὐ μεταπίπτουσιν. Οὐ γάρ ταυτόν ποτε κατ᾿ οὐσίαν γένοιτ᾿ ἄν θεότης καί ἀνθρωπότης, ἵνα μηδέν ᾗ κτιστόν τῇ θεότητι καθ᾿ ἕνωσιν ὁμοφυές καί ὁμοούσιον. Ἐπειδή φύσει φύσιν ὁμοούσιον εἶναι λέγειν, μαινομένης διανοίας ὑπάρχειν γινώσκομεν. Οὐκ ἔστι (568) γάρ φύσει ποτ᾿ ἄν φύσις ὁμοφυής καί ὁμοούσιος. Τό γάρ ὁμοφυές καί ὀμοούσιον, ἐπί μόνων τῶν κατά τό αὐτό εἶδος πρός μίαν οὐσίαν ἀναγομένων ἀτόμων λέγεσθαι πέφυκεν.

Ὅτι ὁ μή ταυτόν φύσιν λέγων καί ὑπόστασιν, εὐσεβῶς ἐπί Χριστοῦ λέγει τήν ἕνωσιν καί τήν διαφοράν· τήν μέν καθ' ὑπόστασιν εἶναι πιστεύων, τήν δέ κατά φύσιν.

Ταύτην ἔχοντες τήν ὁμολογίαν ἡμεῖς, οὔτε τήν τῶν φύσεων διαφοράν ἀρνούμεθα μετά τήν ἕνωσιν, ἐξ ὧν ὁ εἷς συνετέθη Χριστός, ἀσυγχύτους μεμενηκέναι τάς φύσεις πιστεύοντες· οὔτε τήν καθ᾿ ὑπόστασιν ἀγνοοῦμεν ἕνωσιν, ἕνα τόν Χριστόν τῆς ἁγίας καί ὁμοουσίου καί προσκυνητῆς ὁμολογοῦντες Τριάδος. Ἀλλά καί τήν διαφοράν τῶν ἐξ ὧν ἐστιν ὁ Χριστός ἐν αὐτῷ κατ᾿ ἀλήθειαν σωζομένων, δίχα τομῆς καί συγχύσεως μετά τήν ἕνωσιν διά τοῦ ἀριθμοῦ ποιοῦμεν κατάδηλον, πρός ἀναίρεσιν τῆς Ἀπολιναρίου καί Εὐτυχοῦς συγχύσεως· καί τήν καθ᾿ ὑπόστασιν ἕνωσιν ἐπεί γινώσκομεν, διαπρυσίῳ τῇ φωνῇ τήν μίαν τοῦ Θεοῦ Λόγου φύσιν σεσαρκωμένην, σαρκί ψυχήν ἐχούσῃ τήν νοεράν κατά τῆς Νεστορίου προβαλλόμεθα διαιρέσεως· ἐπίσης καί τήν Ἀπολιναρίου φεύγοντες σύγχυσιν· τήν τῶν ἑνωθέντων φυσικήν ἀρνουμένου διαφοράν μετά τήν ἕνωσιν, καί ταυτόν τῷ Λόγῳ κατά φύσιν τήν σάρκα πρεσβεύοντος διά τήν ἕνωσιν· καί τήν Νεστορίου διαίρεσιν, ὑποστατικήν ἐπί Χριστοῦ διαφοράν καταγγέλλοντος, καί τήν σαρκός καθ᾿ ὑπόστασιν πρός τόν Λόγον ταυτότητα διατέμνοντος.

Ὅτι Σεύηρος, ταυτόν εἶναι λέγων φύσιν καί ὑπόστασιν, σύγχυσιν ποιεῖ τήν ἕνωσιν, καί διαίρεσιν τήν διαφοράν· καθ' ἥν δείκνυται, τόν τε τῆς Τριάδος εἰς τετράδα προσώπων διαστέλλων τόν λόγον· καί τό τῆς μονάδος εἰς θεοτήτων διάδα τέμνων μυστήριον· καί πάσης τόν Χριστόν βλασφήμως ἐκβάλλων οὐσιώδους ὑπάρξεως.

Σευήρος δέ ταυτόν κυρίως οὐσίαν καί ὑπόστασιν, φύσιν τε λέγων καί πρόσωπον ἐπί τῆς θείας σαρκώσεως, οὔτε τήν ἕνωσιν οἶδεν ἀσύγχυτον, κἄν προσποιεῖται λέγειν· οὔτε τήν διαφοράν ἀδιαίρετον, κἄν εἰ καί τοῦτο κομπάζων διέξεισιν· ἀλλά τήν μέν ἕνωσιν σύγχυσιν κατά τόν Ἀπολινάριον ἀπεργάζεται· τήν δέ διαφοράν ἀλλοτρίωσιν κατά τόν Νεστόριον. Εἰ γάρ ταυτόν ἐστιν ὑπόστασις καί φύσις, οὐδενί τρόπῳ κατ᾿ αὐτόν ἡ σάρξ ἔσται τῷ Λόγῳ ταυτόν ἤ ἕτερον. Λέγων γάρ τήν ὡς ἐν ποιότητι φυσικῇ διαφοράν ἐπί Χριστοῦ μετά τήν ἕνωσιν, Νεστορίῳ τήν ἕνωσιν καί αὐτός συνδιαιρῶν εὑρεθήσεται, καθ᾿ ὑπόστασιν τῆς σαρκός πρός τόν Λόγον τήν διαφοράν ἐπάγων μετά τήν ἕνωσιν· ὡς οὐκ ἄν ἄλλως τῆς ὡς ἐν ποιότητι φυσικῇ διαφορᾶς νοεῖσθαι κατ᾿ αὐτόν δυναμένης, ἤ ὡς ἐν ὑποστατικῇ ποιότητι διαφορᾶς, εἴπερ ταυτόν φύσις ἐστίν καί ὑπόστασις. Ἀνάγκην