571

of man, that is of God the Father and of the Virgin mother; for instance: You are the Christ, the Son of the living God; and: God sent forth His Son, born of a woman. Therefore, the ecclesiastical word is blameless: for by being one Lord Jesus Christ, both God and man together, it proclaims the same one Lord Jesus Christ as having two natures; for ‘God’ is a name of nature, and ‘man’ is likewise a name of nature. Since, therefore, the same is God and man; for this reason the same one Lord is confessed as two natures. And again, because he is one Son of both God the Father and the Virgin mother; and the name ‘son’ signifies hypostasis, and not nature. For this reason also Christ is glorified by the pious as one hypostasis, both the divine and the human together.

Therefore, the word of the Church, proclaiming one hypostasis and two natures, has traveled a certain middle way; neither a Manichaean on account of the union, remolding the natures into one nature, nor a Paulianist on account of the division, the mental separation of the united nature, and making the hypostasis into hypostases; because it does not create one of either in part, either the division without the union, or the union without the division, but both at the same time and in relation to each other. For it divides in a united manner, speaking of one hypostasis, but two natures; and it unites in a distinct manner, speaking of two natures, but one hypostasis; the reverse of the theology according to the great Gregory. For there, dividing by the hypostases, he unites by the nature; but here, uniting by the hypostasis, he distinguishes by the natures. For there the hypostases are different, but the nature is the same; but here the natures are different, but the hypostasis is the same. If anyone, therefore, understands 'one incarnate nature of God the Word' according to the mind of the Church, let him gladly accept also to say 'two natures substantially united in Christ.' For if for the presentation and signification of the human nature, after saying 'one nature of God the Word,' he adds 'incarnate'; by what logic (1497) then does he refuse to confess two natures, one of God the Word, and the other the human, which he himself claims to declare through the word 'incarnate'? For what he confesses, let him also number, according to the great Basil. But if he blames the number two, as something divisive and separative, let him know that such a refusal is not reasonable. For if, as has been said above, the definition, having said to know two natures simply in Christ, and adding nothing else, had fallen silent, it would perhaps have given room for such suspicions, as not having clearly presented its own meaning, how it knows such two natures to be related to each other. But if it adds 'united', and in addition to this preaches the one hypostasis, it provides no place for slander, even for one who is willing. It is therefore accepted by all, that the intention of both these definitions is the same, and the one is rather explanatory of the other and not contrary. And let these things now be said as by way of a proem.

What therefore the discourse was eager to narrate, is that with the Church having rejected the turns to either side, and cutting a middle and most true path; a certain Severus, having thrust himself into the presidency of the see in Antioch, attempted to champion the other of these equal shares, that is, the one according to Manes, and Apollinarius and Eutyches, disturbing the peace of the Church with all his might. But having been driven from Antioch as a seditious and troublesome man, he burst upon the frivolity of the Alexandrians like a whirlwind and a storm. There also, when another tempest blew against him, he himself becomes calmer and less stormy than himself; but those tossed about and carried around by him were scattered from one another, and were divided worse than before. For Julian scattered them,

571

ἀνθρώπου, τοῦτ᾿ ἔστι τοῦ Θεοῦ Πατρός καί τῆς Παρθένου μητρός· οἷον· Σύ εἶ ὁ Χριστός ὁ Υἱός τοῦ Θεοῦ τοῦ ζῶντος· καί· ἐξαπέστειλεν ὁ Θεός τόν Υἱόν αὑτοῦ γενόμενον ἐκ γυναικός. Ἄρα οὖν ἀμεμφής ὁ ἐκκλησιαστικός λόγος· διά μέν τοῦ εἶναι ἕνα Κύριον Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν Θεόν τε ὁμοῦ καί ἄνθρωπον, δύο φύσεις τόν αὐτόν ἕνα Κύριον Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν ἀπαγγέλλων· τό γάρ, Θεός, φύσεως ὄνομα, καί τό, ἄνθρωπος, ὡσαύτως φύσεως ὄνομα. Ἐπειδή οὖν ὁ αὐτός Θεός ἐστι καί ἄνθρωπος· διά τοῦτο δύο φύσεις εἷς ὁ αὐτός ὁμολογεῖται Κύριος. Πάλιν δέ διά τό εἶναι αὐτόν ἕνα Υἱόν τοῦ τε Θεοῦ Πατρός, καί τῆς Παρθένου μητρός· τό δέ υἱός ὄνομα ὑποστάσεως ὑπάρχει σημαντικόν, καί οὐ φύσεως. ∆ιά τοῦτο καί μία ὑπόστασις, τό τε θεῖον ὁμοῦ καί ἀνθρώπινον ὁ Χριστός παρά τῶν εὐσεβούντων δοξάζεται.

Μίαν οὖν ὑπόστασιν καί δύο φύσεις πρεσβεύων ὁ λόγος τῆς Ἐκκλησίας, μέσην τινά ὁδόν πεπόρευται· οὔτε διά τήν ἕνωσιν Μανιχαῖος, καί τάς φύσεις φύσιν ἀναπλάττων, οὔτε διά τήν διαίρεσιν, τήν κατ᾿ ἐπίνοιαν τῶν ἡνωμένων φύσεως Παυλιανίζων, καί τήν ὑπόστασιν ὑποστάσεις ποιῶν· ὅτι μή ἀνά μέρος ἕν τῶν ὁποτέρων ποιεῖ, ἤ τήν διαίρεσιν χωρίς τῆς ἑνώσεως, ἤ τήν ἕνωσιν χωρίς τῆς διαιρέσεως, ἀλλ᾿ ἅμα καί κατ᾿ ἀλλήλων. Ἡνωμένως γάρ διαιρεῖ, μίαν μέν ὑπόστασιν λέγων, φύσεις δέ δύο· καί διακεκριμένως συνάπτει, δύο μέν φύσεις λέγων, ὑπόστασιν δέ μίαν· ἔμπαλιν ἐπί τῆς θεολογίας κατά τόν μέγαν Γρηγόριον. Ἐκεῖ μέν γάρ ταῖς ὑποστάσεσι διαιρῶν, ἑνοῖ τῇ φύσει· ἐντεῦθεν δέ τῇ ὑποστάσει ἑνίζων, διακρίνει ταῖς φύσεσιν. Ἐκεῖ μέν γάρ ὑποστάσεις διάφοροι, φύσις δέ ἡ αὐτή· ἐνταῦθα δέ φύσεις μέν διάφοροι, ὑπόστασις δέ ἡ αὐτή. Εἴ τις οὖν κατά τόν νοῦν τῆς Ἐκκλησίας ἐκλαμβάνει τό, μίαν τοῦ Θεοῦ Λόγου φύσιν σεσαρκωμένην, ἀσπασίως καταδεξάσθω καί τό δύο φύσεις οὐσιωδῶς ἡνωμένας λέγειν ἐν τῷ Χριστῷ. Εἰ γάρ ἐπί παραστάσει καί σημασίᾳ τῆς ἀνθρωπίνης φύσεως, μετά τό εἰπεῖν μίαν φύσιν τοῦ Θεοῦ Λόγου, ἐπάγει τό, σεσαρκωμένην· τίνι λόγῳ (1497) λοιπόν ἀναδύεται τό δύο φύσεις ὁμολογεῖν, μίαν μέν τήν τοῦ Θεοῦ Λόγου, ἑτέραν δέ τήν ἀνθρωπίνην, ἥν αὐτός διά τῆς σεσαρκωμένης λέξεως ἀπαγγέλλειν διισχυρίζεται; ἅ γάρ ὁμολογεῖ καί ἀριθμείτω, κατά τόν μέγαν Βασίλειον. Εἰ δέ αἰτιᾶται τόν δύο ἀριθμόν, ὡς διχαστικόν τινα καί διαιρετικόν, γινωσκέτω μή εὔλογον εἶναι τήν τοιαύτην παραίτησιν. Εἰ μέν γάρ, ὡς καί ἀνωτέρω εἴρηται, εἰπών ὁ ὅρος δύο φύσεις ἁπλῶς ἐν τῷ Χριστῷ γινώσκειν, καί μηδέν ἕτερον προσεπιφέρων, ἀπεσιώπα, χώραν ἴσως ἐδίδου ταῖς τοιαύταις ὑποψίαις, ὡς μήπου τήν ἑαυτοῦ ἔννοιαν τρανῶς παραστήσας, ὅπως οἶδε τάς τοιαύτας δύο φύσεις ἔχειν πρός ἑαυτάς. Εἰ δέ ἐπάγει τό, ἡνωμένας, καί πρός τούτοις τήν μίαν κηρύττει ὑπόστασιν, οὐδέ ἐθέλοντί τινι συκοφαντίας τόπον παρέχεται. ∆έδεκται οὖν ἐκ παντός, ὅτι ταυτόν ἀμφοτέροις τοῖς ὁρισμοῖς τούτοις τό βούλημα, καί ὁ ἕτερος τοῦ ἑτέρου ἑρμηνευτικός μᾶλλον καί οὐκ ἐναντίος ὑπάρχει. Καί ταῦτα μέν ὡς ἐν προεισαγωγῆς εἴδει λελέχθωσαν νῦν.

Ὅ δ᾿οὖν ὁ λόγος ὥρμητο διηγήσαθαι, ὅτι τῆς Ἐκκλησίας παρωσαμένης τάς ἐφ᾿ ἑκάτερα τροπάς, μέσην τε καί ἀληθεστάτην τεμνούσης ὁδόν· Σευῆρός τις τῇ τῶν ἐν Ἀντιοχείᾳ προεδρίᾳ ἑαυτόν εἰσωθήσας, τήν ἑτέραν τῶν ὁμομοίρων τούτων, τοῦτ᾿ ἔστι τήν κατά Μάνην, Ἀπολινάριόν τε καί Εὐτυχέα, διεκδικεῖν ἐπειρᾶτο, κυκῶν ὅση δύναμις αὐτῷ τήν τῆς Ἐκκλησίας εἰρήνην. Ἐλαθείς δέ τῆς Ἀντιοχέων ὡς στασιώδης καί ταραξίας, τῇ Ἀλεξανδρέων κουφότητι λαίλαπος καί θυέλλης δίκην ἐνέσκηψεν. Ἔνθα καί ἑτέρας καταιγίδος ἀντιπνευσάσης αὐτῷ, ἡμερώτερος μέν καί ἧττον ζαλώδης αὐτός ἑαυτοῦ γίνεται· οἱ δέ ὑπ᾿ αὐτοῦ κλυδωνιζόμενοι καί περιφερόμενοι, διεσπάρησαν ἀπ᾿ ἀλλήλων, καί διῃρέθησαν χείρονως ἤ πρότερον. ∆ιεσκέδασε γάρ αὐτούς Ἰουλιανός,