486

For this reason also the ineffable and inconceivable existence of the Only-begotten from the Father and at the same time with the Father and in the Father is above this.

From the second oration concerning the Son, on the passage: "But God would be said not of the Word, but of the visible one. For how could he be God of the one who is properly God? Just as also Father not of the visible one, but of the Word. For he was twofold, so that the one is properly on both, and the other is not properly; but it is the opposite in our case. For God is properly our God, but not properly our Father."

The "properly on both" must be applied, that of "Father," and that of "God," as both can be said properly of Christ on account of the one hypostasis. For God is properly the Father of Christ, as he is Son and God the Word and one of the Holy Trinity even after the incarnation, and again he is properly the God of the same Christ, as he is truly a man through the flesh, and is called one of mankind; for the properties of the parts are properly predicated of the whole composed of them, since it properly receives all that naturally belongs to the parts from which it also subsists. "But the not properly likewise on both" must be understood, that of "God," and that of "Father," as both cannot be said properly of Christ, on account of the natural difference of the natures from which and in which he is composed. For the properties belonging to the composite whole will never be properly predicated of either one of its parts. "But oppositely" or "than in our case," that is, the reverse of how it is in our case. For when I contemplate the (1269) difference of the natures, and make a distinction of them in thought, I cannot apply "properly on both," I mean of "Father," and of "God." For the Father is not properly the God of the Word, nor is God properly the Father of the flesh. "But oppositely," that is, conversely, or inversely, both of "properly" obviously and "not properly," being taken in reference to the union and the one hypostasis, and in reference to the difference of the natures and their distinction in thought, inasmuch as the one hypostasis, as of one Christ, admits God being called properly God and Father, for the reason given, but the difference in essence of the natures conversely admits the not properly, as it is in our case. For God is properly our God, just as also of the flesh of the Word, but not properly our Father, just as neither of the flesh of the Word. Therefore, the properties of the whole must be stated interchangeably with the parts, and the properties of its own parts with the whole, and the comprehension of the subject at hand will be easy and clear. And that what is said may become clearer, when Christ is contemplated as a hypostasis, the "properly on both," of "God," I say, and of "Father," must be applied; but when the natures of Christ, in which and from which he is, are contemplated on account of their unconfused existence, the "conversely" must be applied, which is the not properly, as it is in our case. And the teacher clearly shows this by adding, "And this creates the error for the heretics, the conjunction of the names, the names being interchanged on account of the co-mixture." But a sign is that when the natures are distinguished in thought, the names are also co-divided. That is, as long as you consider Christ one hypostasis, the conjunction of names by way of interchange is indivisible, but when you distinguish in thought the natures that have come together into the one hypostasis of Christ, you have co-divided the names with the natures; or again, since Christ is twofold in nature, both are predicated of him, "God" and "Father," properly when the names are pronounced together appropriately with the natures, but not properly when the natural possession of each of the things from which and in which and which he is, is given in exchange to the other on account of the one hypostasis. Which not knowing how to do, or

486

διά το καί ὑπέρ ταύτην εἶναι τήν ἐκ τοῦ Πατρός καί ἅμα τῷ Πατρί καί ἐν τῷ Πατρί ἄφραστον καί ἀπερινόητον ὕπαρξιν τοῦ Μονογενοῦς.

Ἐκ τοῦ β´ περί Υἱοῦ λόγου, εἰς τό· " Θεός δέ λέγοιτο ἄν οὐ τοῦ Λόγου, τοῦ ὁρωμένου δέ. Πῶς γάρ εἴη τοῦ κυρίως Θεοῦ Θεός; ὥσπερ καί Πατήρ οὐ τοῦ ὁρωμένου, τοῦ Λόγου δέ. Καί γάρ ἦν διπλοῦς, ὥστε τό μέν κυρίως ἐπ᾿ ἀμφοῖν, τό δέ οὐ κυρίως· ἐναντίως δέ ἐφ᾿ ἡμῶν ἔχει. Ἡμῶν γάρ κυρίως Θεός ὁ Θεός, οὐ κυρίως δέ Πατήρ."

Τό μέν κυρίως ἐπ᾿ ἀμφοῖν θετέον, τοῦ, Πατήρ, καί τοῦ, Θεός, ὡς ἀμφοῖν ἐπί Χριστοῦ κυρίως λέγεσθαι δυναμένων διά τήν μίαν ὑπόστασιν. Χριστοῦ γάρ Πατήρ κυρίως ἐστίν ὁ Θεός, ὡς Υἱοῦ καί Θεοῦ Λόγου καί ἑνός τῆς ἁγίας Τριάδος ὑπάρχοντος καί μετά τήν σάρκωσιν, καί Θεοῦ τοῦ αὐτοῦ Χριστοῦ πάλιν κυρίως ἐστίν, ὡς ἀνθρώπου κατά ἀλήθειαν ὄντος διά τήν σάρκα, καί ἑνός τῶν ἀνθρώπων χρηματίζοντος· τά γάρ τῶν μερῶν τοῦ ἐξ αὐτῶν ὅλου κυρίως κατηγορεῖται, ὡς ἐπιδεχομένου πάντα κυρίως τά φυσικῶς προσόντα τοῖς μέρεσιν, ἐξ ὧν καί ὑφέστηκε. "Τό δέ οὐ κυρίως ὡσαύτως ἐπ᾿ ἀμφοῖν" ληπτέον, τοῦ, Θεός, καί τοῦ, Πατήρ ὡς ἀμφοῖν ἐπί Χριστοῦ κυρίως λεχθῆναι μή δυναμένων, διά τήν φυσικήν διαφοράν τῶν ἐξ ὧν καί ἐν αἷς συνέστηκε φύσεων. Τά γάρ τῷ κατά σύνθεσιν ὅλῳ προσόντα θατέρου τῶν ἑαυτοῦ μερῶν οὐδέποτε κυρίως κατηγορηθήσεται. " Ἐναντίως" δέ " ἤ ἐφ᾿ ἡμῶν ἔχει," τουτέστιν ἔμπαλιν καθώς ἐφ᾿ ἡμῶν ἔχει. Ἡνίκα γάρ τήν (1269) διαφοράν θεωρῶ τῶν φύσεων, καί τήν αὐτῶν κατ᾿ ἐπίνοιαν ποιοῦμαι διάκρισιν, οὐ δύναμαι τό ἐπ᾿ ἀμφοῖν κυρίως τιθέναι, τοῦ, Πατήρ, φημί καί τοῦ, Θεός. Οὐ γάρ κυρίως τοῦ Λόγου Θεός ἐστιν ὁ Πατήρ, οὐ δέ κυρίως Πατήρ τῆς σαρκός ἐστιν ὁ Θεός. " Ἐναντίως δέ," τουτέστιν ἔμπαλιν δέ, ἤ ἀντιστρόφως δέ, τοῦ τε "κυρίως" δηλονότι καί "οὐ κυρίως," ἐπί τε τῆς ἑνώσεως καί τῆς μίας ὑποστάσεως, ἐπί τε τῆς διαφορᾶς τῶν φύσεων καί τῆς κατ᾿ ἐπίνοιαν αὐτῶν διακρίσεως λαμβανομένων, ὡς τῆς μέν μίαν ὑποστάσεως κυρίως Θεόν καί Πατέρα λεγόμενον, ὡς ἑνός Χριστοῦ, τόν Θεόν ἐπιδεχομένης, κατά τήν ἀποδοθεῖσαν αἰτίαν, τῆς δέ κατ᾿ οὐσίαν διαφορᾶς τῶν φύσεων ἔμπαλιν τό μή κυρίως ἐπιδεχομένης, καθώς ἐφ᾿ ἡμῶν ἔχει. Ἡμῶν γάρ κυρίως μέν Θεός ὁ Θεός, ὥσπερ καί τῆς τοῦ Λόγου σαρκός, οὐ κυρίως δέ Πατήρ, ὥσπερ οὐδέ τῆς τοῦ Λόγου σαρκός. Ἐνηλλαγμένως οὖν τά τοῦ ὅλου τοῖς μέρεσι, καί τῷ ὅλῳ τά τῶν οἰκείων μερῶν ἐκφωτητέον, καί ἔσται ῥᾳδία καί σαφή ἡ τοῦ προκειμένου κατάληψις. Καί ἵνα σαφέστερον γένηται τό λεγόμενον, ἡνίκα μέν ὡς ὑπόσταστις ὁ Χριστός θεωρεῖται, τό " κυρίως ἐπ᾿ ἀμφοῖν," τοῦ, Θεός, λέγω καί τοῦ, Πατήρ, θετέον, ἡνίκα δέ διά τήν ἀσύγχυτον ὕπαρξιν τῶν ἐν οἷς καί ἐξ ὧν ἐστιν αἱ τοῦ Χριστοῦ φύσεις θεωροῦνται, τό " ἔμπαλιν" θετέον, ὅπερ ἐστί τό μή κυρίως, καθώς ἐφ᾿ ἡμῶν ἔχει. Καί δηλοῖ τοῦτο σαφῶς λέγων ὁ διδάσκαλος διά τοῦ ἐπαγαγεῖν, " Καί τοῦτο ποιεῖ τοῖς αἱρετικοῖς τήν πλάνην, ἡ τῶν ὀνομάτων ἐπίζευξις, ἐπαλλατομένων τῶν ὀνομάτων διά τήν σύγκρασιν." Σημεῖον δέ, ἡνίκα αἱ φύσεις διίστανται ταῖς ἐπινοίαις, συνδιῄρηνται καί τά ὀνόματα. Τουτέστιν, ἕως ὑπόστασιν μίαν σκοπεῖς τόν Χριστόν, ἡ κατ᾿ ἐπαλλαγήν τῶν ὀνομάτων ἐπίζευξίς ἐστιν ἀδιαίρετος, ἐπειδάν δέ ταῖς ἐπινοίαις διαστήσης τάς συμπλούσας τήν μίαν ὑπόστασιν τοῦ Χριστοῦ φύσεις, συνδιεῖλε ταῖς φύσεσι καί τά ὀνόματα· ἤ πάλιν, ἐπείπερ τήν φύσιν διπλοῦς ὁ Χριστός, ἄμφω κατηγορεῖται αὐτοῦ, τό Θεός καί Πατήρ, κυρίως μέν ἡνίκα συνεκφωνεῖται καταλλήλως ταῖς φύσεσι τά ὀνόματα, οὐ κυρίως δέ ὅταν ἡ κατά φύσιν ἑκατέρου τῶν ἐξ ὧν ἐν οἷς τε καί ἅπερ ἐστί θατέρῳ διά τήν μίαν ὑπόστασιν ἐπηλλαγμένως ἀντιδίδοται κτῆσις. Ὅπερ ποιεῖν μή γινώσκοντες, ἤ