213

For he has, when speaking of the difference as in a natural quality, to also introduce the difference as in a hypostatic quality; in order that he might show that the (569) hypostasis is the same as the nature. But if he should speak of the difference according to hypostasis after the union, fearing division, let him not speak of the natural difference after the union either, if indeed he has resolved to be consistent with himself, and has been zealous to keep the rules which he himself has defined for himself; since he knows nature and hypostasis to be the same as one another, both in definition and in principle. But if in both respects, I mean nature and hypostasis, the flesh has no difference from the Word, as it seems to Severus, let it be clearly the same, consubstantial and co-hypostatic with the same, according to the foolish talk of Apollinaris. And if the flesh is consubstantial with the Word, it will also be consubstantial with the Father and the Spirit, and the Trinity will appear to have become a tetrad; since consubstantial things do not admit of a union with one another according to hypostasis. But if the flesh is co-hypostatic with the Word, it will be of a different substance. For co-hypostatic things have the principle of their substance in every way and entirely different from one another. But if the flesh, as co-hypostatic with the Word after the union, is of a different substance, Christ will be found cut into two natures according to Severus after the union; if indeed according to him number certainly has the power of division. Thus everything that fights against the truth is easily overturned and overthrown by itself.

But if, speaking of one composite nature of Christ after the union, he seems to attribute to it a difference as in a natural quality; first, insofar as he is a composite nature, Christ will be completely consubstantial with none of the beings; if indeed Christ is one and only according to substance and nature. For one nature with another nature, as has been said, could never be completely consubstantial. And being consubstantial with none of the beings, he will be neither completely God, nor yet man; or if indeed God, the one who professes this will be a polytheist, speaking of God the Father and the Holy Spirit as of an uncompounded, that is simple, nature; but speaking of Christ as God of a composite, that is not simple, nature, and he will be shown to be proclaiming two divinities: one simple, and one composite.

Then, speaking of the difference as in a natural quality, if he should say that the natures to which the qualities belong underlie the different qualities, he himself also will be shown to be making a declaration of two natures after the union; becoming, even unwillingly, an advocate for those things he fought against. But if he should say that the difference is of bare qualities without the things themselves, let him also speak of their union. For of whatever things the difference is after the union, of those things manifestly is the union; and in a few syllables he has introduced the spontaneity of Epicurus, (572) and the deceptive fantasy of Manes, Christ for him not existing in reality in the things themselves, but in empty qualities; and Christ will be God by quality only, and not in reality. For immortality and mortality, of which he says there is a difference after the union, are of natures, but are not natures. For where is mortality, if there is no one who is mortal, or immortality, if the nature which death does not touch does not exist? But truly wickedness is illogical, and the appearance of being wise is naturally constituted to be the creator of great folly. And for the wise it is more profitable to embrace silence toward such men, than by refuting them to be thought to be themselves also trifling with the mystery. Severus, therefore, holding such views about Christ, has died along with his own dogmas.

213

γάρ ἔχει λέγων τήν ὡς ἐν ποιότητι φυσικῇ διαφοράν, καί τήν ὡς ἐν ὑποστατικῇ ποιότητι προσεπάγειν διαφοράν· ἵνα δείξῃ ταυτόν οὖσαν τῇ φύσει τήν (569) ὑπόστασιν. Εἰ δέ τήν καθ᾿ ὑπόστασιν λέγῃ διαφοράν μετά τήν ἕνωσιν, φοβούμενος τήν διαίρεσιν· μηδέ τήν φυσικήν λεγέτω διαφοράν μετά τήν ἕνωσιν, εἴπερ ἑαυτῷ διέγνω στοιχεῖν, καί οὕς αὐτός ἑαυτῷ διωρίσατο κανόνας φυλάττειν ἐσπούδακεν· ἐπειδή ταυτόν οἶδεν ἀλλήλαις, ὅρῳ τε καί λόγῳ τήν φύσιν καί τήν ὑπόστασιν. Εἰ δέ κατ᾿ ἄμφω, λέγω δέ τήν φύσιν καί τήν ὑπόστασιν, οὐκ ἔχει διαφοράν, ὡς Σευήρῳ δοκεῖ, πρός τόν Λόγον ἡ σάρξ, ἔστω σαφῶς ἡ αὐτή τῷ αὐτῷ ὁμοούσιός τε καί ὁμοϋπόστατος κατά τήν Ἀπολιναρίου ληρῳδίαν. Καί εἰ μέν ὁμοούσιός ἐστι τῷ Λόγῳ ἡ σάρξ, ἔσται καί τῷ Πατρί καί τῷ Πνεύματι ὁμοούσιος, καί ἡ Τριάς φανήσεται γενομένη τετράς· ἐπειδή τά ὁμοούσια τήν καθ᾿ ὑπόστασιν οὐκ ἐπιδέχονται πρός ἄλληλα σύμβασιν. Εἰ δέ ὁμοϋπόστατός ἐστι τῷ Λόγῳ ἡ σάρξ, ἔσται πρός τόν ἑτροούσιον. Τά γάρ ὁμοϋπόστατα, τόν πρός ἄλληλα τῆς οὐσίας λόγον πάντη τε καί πάντως διάφορον ἔχουσιν. Εἰ δέ πρός τόν Λόγον ὡς ὁμοϋπόστατος μετά τήν ἕνωσιν, ἑτεροούσιός ἐστιν ἡ σάρξ, εἰς δύο φύσεις ὁ Χριστός τεμνόμενος εὑρεθήσεται κατά Σευήρον μετά τήν ἕνωσιν· εἴπερ πάντως κατ᾿ αὐτόν διαιρέσεως ὁ ἀριθμός κέκτηται δύναμιν. Οὕτω πᾶν τό τῇ ἀληθείᾳ μαχόμενον, εὐπερίτρεπτόν ἐστιν ἑαυτῷ καί εὐπερίπτωτον.

Εἰ δέ μίαν φύσιν λέγων Χριστοῦ μετά τήν ἕνωσιν σύνθετον, τήν ὡς ἐν ποιότητι φυσικῇ δοκεῖ προσρίπτειν αὐτῇ διαφοράν· πρῶτον μέν καθό φύσις σύνθετος, οὐδενί τῶν ὄντων ἔσται παντελῶς ὁ Χριστός ὁμοούσιος· εἴπερ κατ᾿ οὐσίαν καί φύσιν εἷς καί μόνος ἐστίν ὁ Χριστός. Φύσις γάρ φύσει, καθώς εἴρηται, οὐκ ἄν εἴη ποτ᾿ ἄν παντελῶς ὁμοούσιος. Τινί δέ τῶν ὄντων οὐκ ὤν ὁμοούσιος, οὔτε Θεός ἔσται παντελῶς ὁ αὐτός, οὔτε μήν ἄνθρωπος· ἤ εἴπερ Θεός, ἔσται πολύθεος ὁ τοῦτο πρεσβεύων, ὡς ἀσυνθέτου μέν φύσεως ὡς ἁπλῆς λέγων Θεόν τόν Πατέρα καί τό Πνεῦμα τό ἅγιον· συνθέτου δέ φύσεως ὡς οὐχ ἁπλῆς λέγων Θεόν τόν Χριστόν, καί δύο θεότητας καταγγέλλων δειχθήσεται· μίαν ἁπλῆν, καί μίαν σύνθετον.

Ἔπειτα δέ τήν ὡς ἐν ποιότητι φυσικῇ λέγων διαφοράν, εἰ μέν ὑποκεῖσθαι λέγῃ ταῖς διαφόροις ποιότησι τάς φύσεις ὧν εἰσίν αἱ ποιότητες, δύο φύσεων καὐτός δειχθήσεται μετά τήν ἕνωσιν ποιούμενος δήλωσιν· ὧν κατηγωνίσατο, συνήγορος καί μή θέλων γινόμενος. Εἰ δέ ψιλῶν ποιοτήτων χωρίς τῶν πραγμάτων εἶναι λέγῃ τήν διαφοράν, τούτων λεγέτω καί τήν ἕνωσιν. Ὧν γάρ ἡ διαφορά μετά τήν ἕνωσιν, τούτων προδήλως ἡ ἕνωσις· καί δι᾿ ὀλίγων συλλαβῶν Ἐπικούρου τόν αὐτοματισμόν, (572) καί Μάνεντος τήν ἀπατηλήν φαντασίαν εἰσήγαγε, οὐκ ὄντος αὐτῷ τοῦ Χριστοῦ κατ᾿ ἀλήθειαν τοῖς πράγμασιν, ἀλλά ταῖς διακένοις ποιότησι· καί ἔσται ποιότητι μόνῃ Θεός ὁ Χριστός, καί οὐ πράγματι. Ἀθανασία γάρ καί θνητότης, ὧν εἶναι λέγει μετά τήν ἕνωσιν δαφοράν, φύσεων μέν ὑπάρχουσιν, οὐ φύσεις δέ. Ποῦ γάρ θνητότης, οὐκ ὄντος τοῦ θνήσκοντος, ἤ ἀθανασία, οὐκ οὔσης τῆς φύσεως ἧς οὐχ ἅπτεται θάνατος; Ἀλλ᾿ ὄντως ἀσυλλόγιστον ἡ πονηρία, καί τό δοκεῖν εἶναι σοφόν, μεγάλης καθίστασθαι πέφυκεν ἀνοίας δημιουργόν. Καί σιωπήν ἀσπάζεσθαι πρός τούς τοιούτους μᾶλλον λυσιτελέστερον τοῖς συνετοῖς, ἤ τῷ κατ᾿ αὐτῶν ἐλέγχῳ παίζειν νομίζεσθαι καί αὐτούς τό μυστήριον. Ὁ μέν οὖν Σεύηρος οὕτως ἔχων περί Χριστοῦ τοῖς οἰκείοις συντέθνηκε δόγμασι.