572

a delight for his enemies, as it is written. This Julian was bishop of Halicarnassus in Asia, and a most zealous champion of the Eutychian party, and at first an associate and friend of Severus, both of them arrayed against the truth. But later, when a certain question arose between them, whether the body of the Lord should be said to be corruptible by nature at some point, or never, but from the union itself to have denied the property of corruptible nature, as the two became one nature, and the essential difference of both was no longer known, but the superior and divine somehow prevailed at the first conjunction, and in an instant adapted the lesser to its own property, changing its natural property. This was the common problem for both Julian and Severus; for both championed a union of confusion.

The Opinion of Julian. Julian, at any rate, decided he would do well, if he were to proceed completely from a vantage point against

the truth, and not be an enemy to both himself and it, and inconsistent; (1500) thinking it consistent for one who says one nature not to make it ever contrary to and different from itself. And if there is no difference, it is more impious to say, that the worse changed to the better, that is, the corruptible to the incorruptible. Having reasoned these things, and not foreseeing any other contradiction to himself, he authoritatively declared the flesh of the Lord to be always and in all respects incorruptible. But Severus, not being pleased with these things, as they openly proclaimed dissolution and confusion, neither wished to make a truce with the Church, which, consistent with the difference and the properties, also enumerates the natures, in which the difference is observed, and of which the properties are naturally inherent in them. And to agree with Julian's audacious claims, he considered both shameless and rash, and nothing other than to wage war on piety with a bare head and an uncovered mouth.

The Opinion of Severus. From this, Severus becomes opposed to himself and to the truth and to the falsehood which is his neighbor

opposed, and neither wholly true nor wholly false, but, so to speak, falsely-true, like the one composite nature devised by him. For this reason he is also at war with himself and contradictory, truly foolishly and ignorantly seeking some middle ground between falsehood and truth, which does not exist. For it is not possible to find or devise a mean between truth and falsehood; for truth is always in the middle and unswerving, and for this reason is firm and on all sides equal and straight. Therefore it does not admit anything else that makes it oblique, and pushes it from its proper position and stability, but it casts out everything that insidiously approaches it, and tries to shake its middle. Which we also find Severus has suffered from it. For since, as we said, he attempted to find some new middle ground beside the truth, having been turned aside, as he did not recognize a middle ground for himself and the falsehood of his own kind, he made this one. For Severus himself says that Christ is one nature, and accepts the difference in Christ. But Julian, while saying there is one nature according to Severus, denies the difference. The truth, that is, the ecclesiastical doctrine, preserving the middle way for itself everywhere, accepts the difference, but not according to Severus; For it never knows one nature to be contrary to itself. For two

572

ἐπίχαρμα τῶν ἐχθρῶν αὐτοῦ, καθώς γέγραπται. Ἰουλιανός δέ οὗτος Ἀλικαρνασσοῦ μέν τῆς Ἀσίας ἐπίσκοπος ἦν, τῆς δέ Εὐτυχιανῆς συμμορίας προαγωνιστής ἐκθυμότατος, Σευήρου τε τά πρῶτα συνήθης καί φίλος, συγκεκροτημένοι τε ἄμφω κατά τῆς ἀληθείας· ὕστερον δέ ἐμπεσόντος αὐτοῖς τοῦ τοιούτου ζητήματος, πότερον φθαρτόν φύσει λέγειν τό σῶμα τοῦ Κυρίου ποτέ, ἤ οὐδέ ποτε, ἀλλ᾿ ἐξ αὐτῆς τῆς ἑνώσεως ἀπαρνηθῆναι τῆς φθαρτῆς φύσεως τό ἰδίωμα, ὡς μιᾶς φύσεως γινομένων τῶν δύο, καί τῆς οὐσιώδους διαφορᾶς ἀμφοῖν μηκέτι γινωσκομένης, τοῦ δέ κρείττονός τε καί θείου μᾶλλον πως ἐκνικήσαντος ἅμα τῇ πρώτῃ συναφείᾳ, καί πρός τό ἑαυτοῦ ἰδίωμα τό ἧττον ἐν ἀκαρεῖ μεθαρμόσαντος τῆς κατ᾿ αὐτό φυσικῆς ἰδιότητος. Κοινόν δέ ἀμφοτέροις Ἰουλιανῷ καί Σευήρῳ τουτί τό ἀπόρημα· ἄμφω γάρ τῆς συγχυτικῆς προεμάχουν ἑνώσεως.

∆όξα Ἰουλιανοῦ. Ἰουλιανός γοῦν καλῶς ποιήσειν διέγνω, εἰ παντάπασιν ἐξ ἀπόπτου χωρήσῃ κατά

τῆς ἀληθείας, καί μή ἑαυτῷ τε καί ταύτῃ πολέμιος ᾗ καί ἀνάρμοστος· (1500) ἀκόλουθον εἶναι νομίσας τῷ λέγοντι μίαν φύσιν μή πρός ἑαυτήν ἐναντίαν καί διαφερομένην ποτέ ταύτην ποιεῖν. ∆ιαφορᾶς δέ μή οὔσης ἀσεβέστερον φάναι, τό χεῖρον μετελθεῖν πρός τό κρεῖττον, τοῦτ᾿ ἔστι τό φθαρτόν πρός τό ἄφθαρτον. Ταῦτα συλλογισάμενος, καί μηδ᾿ ὡς ἕτερον ἐναντιούμενον ἑαυτῷ προϊδών, ἄφθαρτον ἀεί τε καί κατά πάντα τήν τοῦ Κυρίου σάρκα ἐξουσιαστικῶς ἀπεφήνατο. Σευῆρος δέ τούτοις μή ἀρεσθείς ὡς διαῤῥήδην κηρύττουσι τήν ἀνάχυσίν τε καί σύμφυσιν, οὔτε σπείσασθαι πρός τήν Ἐκκλησίαν ἐβούλετο, ὡς ἀκολούθως τῆ διαφορᾷ καί ταῖς ἰδιότησι καί τάς φύσεις ἀπαριθμοῦσαν, περί ἅς ἡ διαφορά θεωρεῖται, καί ὧν εἰσιν αἱ ἰδιότητες φυσικῶς αὐταῖς ἐνυπάρχουσαι. Καί τό συνθέσθαι ταῖς Ἰουλιανοῦ τολμηρίαις, ἀναιδές ἅμα καί προπετές ὑπελάμβανε, καί οὐδέν ἕτερον ἤ γυμνῇ τῇ κεφαλῇ, καί ἀπερικαλύπτῳ τῷ στόματι πολεμεῖν τήν εὐσέβειαν.

∆όξα Σευήρου. Ἐκ τούτου Σευῆρος γίνεται καί ἑαυτῷ καί τῇ ἀληθείᾳ καί τῷ γείτονι αὐτοῦ ψεύδει

ἀντίθετος, καί οὔτε ὅλως ἀληθής οὔτε ὅλως ψευδής, ἀλλ᾿ οἷον εἰπεῖν ψευδαληθής, ὅμοιος τῇ ὑπ᾿ αὐτοῦ ἐπινενοημένῃ μιᾷ συνθέτῳ φύσει. ∆ιά τοῦτο καί πρός ἑαυτόν μάχιμος καί ἀπαλίμβολος, ἠλιθίως ὄντως καί ἀμαθῶς μέσον τι χρῆμα ψεύδους καί ἀληθείας ζητῶν, ὅπερ οὐκ ἔστι. Μεσότητα γάρ ἀληθείας καί ψεύδους οὔτε εὑρεῖν, οὔτε ἐπινοῆσαι δυνατόν· ἡ μέν γάρ ἀλήθεια μέση ἀεί καί ἀπαρέγκλιτος, καί διά τοῦτο ἑδραία καί πάντοθεν ἴση καί εὐθύτονος· οὐ παραδέχεται οὖν ἕτερόν τι τό ἐγκάρσιον αὐτήν ἀποτελοῦν, καί ἐξωθοῦν τῆς οἰκείας στάσεως καί μονιμότητος, ἐκτοξεύει δέ πᾶν τό ἐπιβούλως αὐτῇ προσπελάζον, καί τό μέσον αὐτῆς διασαλεύειν πειρώμενον. Ὅπερ καί Σευῆρον ὑπ᾿ αὐτῆς πεπονθότα εὑρίσκομεν. Ἐπειδή γάρ, ὡς ἔφαμεν, καινόν τι μέσον παρά τήν ἀλήθειαν εὑρεῖν ἐπεχείρησε, πλαγιασθέν, ὡς οὐκ ἔγνω μέσην ἑαυτοῦ καί τοῦ ὁμοφύλου αὐτῷ ψεύδους, πεποίηκε ταύτην. Αὐτοῦ γάρ Σευήρου μίαν φύσιν λέγοντος εἶναι τόν Χριστόν, καί τήν διαφοράν τήν ἐν τῷ Χριστῷ δεχομένου. Ἰουλιανοῦ δέ μίαν μέν κατά Σευῆρον λέγοντος φύσιν, ἀναιροῦντος δέ τήν διαφοράν· ἡ ἀλήθεια, τοῦτ᾿ ἔστιν ὁ ἐκκλησιαστικός λόγος, τήν μεσότητα ἑαυτῇ πανταχοῦ διασώζουσα, δέχεται μέν τήν διαφοράν, οὐ κατά Σευῆρον δέ· Οὐδέ γάρ οἶδέ ποτε μίαν φύσιν ἑαυτῇ ἐναντίαν. ∆ύο γάρ