And the name of Christ, they say, in the proper sense serves as an expression of such an attitude. That is why they recognize Christ as one, because the relationship, as it is said, is one, even if many participate in it. Thus I believe that it is clear to those who think piously about the incarnation of the Saviour, that when we speak of the one person of Christ, we do not use the expression "face" in the way that it seemed to the friends of Nestorius, in the sense of denoting the simple relation of God to man. But we say that the person of Christ is one, using the word "person" interchangeably with "hypostasis" as the one hypostasis of a person, for example, Peter or Paul.

Let this also be stated beforehand: although, of course, the humanity of Christ did not exist outside of union with the Word, even for the shortest time, yet it received at the same time the beginning of its entry into being, and union with the Word; However, we do not say that this nature is without hypostasis, since it had an independent and delimited existence in comparison with other people, differing from the general nature of other people in certain features. We have recently shown that the word "hypostasis" means just that. Thus, just as in relation to the Divinity of Christ we confess both His nature and hypostasis, so in relation to His humanity it is necessary to confess both His nature and His own hypostasis, so as not to be forced to call this nature hypostatic, as I have said. For the humanity of the Saviour, of course, was one of the individuals belonging to the common nature.

After we have thus clearly and, I think, agreed with all, these who believe that in Christ there are two natures, but one hypostasis, say to us: since each of those who are united, as our reasoning has shown, necessarily had a nature together with a hypostasis, do they admit that the union proceeded equally from natures and hypostases, or do they believe? that the hypostases were united to a greater degree, since one hypostasis came from the two, and the nature to a lesser degree, why did they remain two even after the union?

After other remarks in which the writer discusses what essence does not admit of a greater or lesser degree, he says again in the same chapter:

I think it is obvious to everyone that one nature gives rise to many hypostases. Thus, confessing that the nature of the Godhead is one, we admit that it has three hypostases. And people have one nature, although in number the hypostases of this nature extend almost to infinity, and so it is in other cases. It is impossible that two natures, while preserving two in relation to number, should have one hypostasis. And this can be ascertained not only by giving all particular examples (for how is it possible to have one hypostasis, i.e., an individual, of stone and wood, or of a bull and a horse?), but also from a self-evident reasoning.

For if every nature comes into existence in hypostases [i.e., in individuals], then it is necessary that where there are two natures, there should be at least two hypostases in which natures receive their existence. For it is impossible that nature should exist by itself without being seen in any individual; the individual is the same as the hypostasis, as we have recently established. Thus those who say that not only one hypostasis but also one nature was obtained through union, appear to be in agreement with each other and with the truth. Those who say that there is one hypostasis and two natures, turned out to be in disagreement with themselves and with the truth. But, they say, since the humanity of Christ in the Word had a hypostasis and did not exist before the union with the Word, therefore we affirm that the hypostasis of Christ is one.

And so, let us say to them: Do you think that nature and hypostasis signify one and the same thing, differing from each other, as the names of one and the same thing, for example, a dagger and a sword, or does nature mean one thing and hypostasis another?

If it is one and the same, then, since the hypostasis is one, it is necessary that the nature should also be one, just as it is necessary that if the dagger is one, then the sword should be one. Or: if there are two natures, then two hypostases will be necessary. But if the name of nature denotes one thing, and the name of the hypostasis another, and the reason for the fact that there is one hypostasis in Christ, they consider that the hypostasis of man, i.e. the person, did not exist before union with the Word, then, consequently, the cause of the presence in Christ of the two natures will be the existence of human nature before the union with the Word. But if there was a particular nature united to the Word, then it is absolutely necessary that its hypostasis should also exist before it, for it is impossible that one of them should exist when the other does not exist, that is, a particular nature without its own hypostasis, or a particular hypostasis without its own nature. For according to the subject, both of them [nature and hypostasis] are one, wherefore those who use these words often identify them, as we have shown a little above. Therefore, if both the hypostasis and the nature, united to the Word, did not exist before the union with Him, then for the same reason that they recognize one hypostasis of Christ, let them recognize that His nature is also one. For if they do not differ in conjunction, they will not differ in this either.

84. The Aphthartodocites: descended from Julian of Halicarnassus and Gaian of Alexandria; are also called Gayanites. In all other respects they agree with the Sevirians; they differ from them in that they say that the difference of natures in their union in Christ was illusory; but these teach that the body of Christ was incorruptible from its very formation. And that the Lord endured sufferings, they confess, I mean hunger, and thirst, and fatigue; but they say that He did not endure them in the same way as we do. For we endure sufferings by natural necessity, but Christ, they say, endured them voluntarily and was not a slave to the laws of nature.

85. The Agnoaites, also known as the Themistians: they godlessly assert that Christ did not know the day of judgment, and ascribe fear to Him. They constitute the sect of the Theodosians, for Themistius, who was their heresiarch, recognized in Christ a single complex nature.

86. The Barsanufites, who are also the Semidalites: agree with the Gayanites and Theodosians, but they have something more. They mix wheat flour with the gifts supposedly brought by Dioscorus, and, touching it with the tip of their finger, taste the flour and accept it instead of the mysteries, since they do not celebrate the Eucharist at all. Having taken, as it is said, the communion of Dioscorus, they mix wheat flour with it until it is gradually used up, and this serves them instead of communion.

87. Iketes: these are monks; Orthodox in all other respects, but, gathering in monasteries together with women, they sing hymns to God with certain round dances and dances, as if imitating the chorus that was formed in the time of Moses, at the destruction of the Egyptians, which occurred in the Red Sea.

88. Gnosmachs: they reject the necessity of all knowledge for Christianity. They say that those who seek any knowledge in the divine Scriptures do in vain, for God requires nothing else from the Christian except good works. It is better, therefore, to live more simply, and not to be curious about any dogma pertaining to knowledge.

89. Iliotropites: they say that the so-called heliotropic plants, which turn to the rays of the sun, contain within them a certain divine power which makes such revolutions in them, so they wish to revere them, not realizing that the movement observed in them is natural.