62

utterly identifying the division of extremes in itself, and bringing it to one by the union of its own parts. And if, perchance, for those who, through the Lord's not being inactive according to the flesh, confess his innate and human energy, they deduce that it is also not anhypostatic, this is to insult the hypostasis. For that the nature is not anhypostatic does not make it a hypostasis. Just as that a body is not without shape does not make it every shape, if it is a body; nor generation, nor vision(1), that the begotten or the visible is not unbegotten, or not invisible. And simply, that anything else is not that which it is denied to be, makes it a relation; affirming that concerning which it is naturally considered. Besides, even if this happened to be so, when it is not, it would have nothing to do with the natural energies, which are likewise not cast off with the hypostases by the holy Fathers; nor do they divide the one into two, as the hypostases do. For who would be able to show that it is not good, for the declaration of the essential difference, to maintain the natural energies in the same [person]? and for what reason and how, and what is the reason that defines this, or what esteemed Father, but that they may not merely deny it? For if it is not good to confess the natural energies, neither is it to confess the natures themselves. Or how [is it good to confess] the ones, but not the others? But if both are good, for what reason do they oppose what is good, and construct the hypostasis from the non-anhypostatic character of the nature? For if they knew that the energies were condemned by the (15Α_270> Fathers just as the hypostases were, it would not be unlikely that they would reject them. But if we know that they preach these, and confess a divine and a human energy, just as they do a nature, and exhort us to confess them, but no one at all in any way [confesses] a divine or human hypostasis, except only the divider and man-worshipper Nestorius, why then, if the teaching of the saints is not rejected by them, do they devise such sophistries against it, for the rejection of the natural energies? And whose work is it to draw these conclusions in this way, other than that of Severus the sophist and madman, who eagerly destroys his own positions, and in no way prevails over the pious, because of the manifestness of the truth, even if he contrives with shameless method his sophistical nonsense?

0205 For if that the nature is not anhypostatic(2) makes it a hypostasis, then surely by consequence that the hypostasis is not without essence makes it an essence. And how do those who say this not divide the doctrine of the Trinity by the natures equal in number to the hypostases? if indeed the hypostases that are not without essence are, according to them, altogether essence; and how do they not confuse the doctrine of the economy by the oneness of the nature because of the one hypostasis? At any rate, being consistent with themselves, they will also dogmatize such things against themselves. But for those who confess the natural energies, to draw this conclusion thus is a grace, gathering for themselves through all things the truth according to the tradition of the saints, according to which, that which is not anhypostatic does not make the nature a hypostasis, but enhypostatic; so that it may not be taken as an accident by thought alone, but may be regarded as a species in reality. So also, that which is not without essence does not make the hypostasis an essence, but shows it to be in essence, so that we may not know this as a bare property, but with that in which the property properly is. As, therefore, there the enhypostatic signifies that which has real existence; and that which has real existence is what partakes of essential and natural existence; so also here that which is active, that is, energetic, properly signifies that which is powerful (15Α_272>. And that which is powerful is that which has essential and natural power. Therefore, to confess that the natures in Christ are not anhypostatic or inactive is not to infer hypostases or agents, but to confess orthodoxly their essential and natural existences and energies, for the true faith and confirmation of Him who is of them, and in them, and according to them; I mean the natures, operating according to the indivisible union of the incarnate God the Word.

62

ἄκρων διαίρεσιν ἐν ἑαυτῇ κατ᾿ ἄκρος ταυτίζουσα, καί εἰς ἕν ἄγουσα τῇ τῶν οἰκείων ἑνώσει μερῶν. Εἰ δέ τυχόν, τοῖς διά τοῦ μή ἀνενέργητον εἶναι κατά σάρκα τόν Κύριον τήν ἔμφυτον αὐτοῦ καί ἀνθρωπίνην ὁμολογοῦσιν ἐνέργεια, τό μή καί ἀνυπόστατον εἶναι συνάγουσι, τήν ὑπόστασιν ἐπηρεάζειν ἐστίν. Οὐ γάρ ὑπόστασιν εἶναι ποιεῖ, τό μή ἀνυπόστατον εἶναι τήν φύσιν. Ὥσπερ οὐδέ σχῆμα πᾶν εἴ τι σῶμα, τό μή ἀσχημάτιστον εἶναι τό σῶμα· οὐδέ γέννησιν, οὐδέ ὅρασιν(1), τό μή ἀγέννητον, ἤ οὐκ ἀόρατον εἶναι, τό γεννητόν ἤ ὁρατόν. Καί ἁπλῶς πὰν εἴ τι ἄλλο μή εἶναι τοῦθ᾿ ὅπερ οὐκ ἔστιν ἀποφασκόμενον, σχέσιν εἶναι ποιεῖ· τό, περί ὅ αὐτή φυσικῶς θεωρεῖται, καταφασκόμενον. Ἄλλως τε, καί εἰ τοῦτο τυχόν ἦν, ὁπότε οὐκ ἔστιν, οὐδέν ἦν πρός τάς φυσικάς ἐνεργείας, ἐπίσης οὐκ ἀποβαλλομένας ταῖς ὑποστάσεσι, παρά τῶν ἁγίων Πατέρων· οὔτε διαιρούσας εἰς δύο τόν ἕνα, καθάπερ αἱ ὑποστάσεις ποιοῦσι. Τίς γάρ ὁ δεῖξαι συνάμενος ἄν, ὅτι μή καλόν ἐπί δηλώσει τῆς οὐσιώδους διαφορᾶς τάς φυσικάς ἐνεργείας πρεσβεύειν ἐπί τοῦ αὐτοῦ; καί τίνος χάριν καί πῶς, καί τίς ὁ τοῦτο διοριζόμενος λόγος, ἤ Πατήρ ἔγκριτος, ἀλλά ( ἵνα ) μή ἀποφήνωνται μόνον; Εἰ γάρ τάς φυσικάς ἐνεργείας ὁμολογεῖν οὐ καλόν, οὐδέ τάς φύσεις αὐτάς. Ἤ πῶς ταύτας μέν, οὐκ ἐκείνας δέ; Εἰ δέ ἄμφω καλόν, τίνος χάριν ἐντεξάγονται τῷ καλῷ, καί τήν ὑπόστασιν τῷ μή ἀνυποστάτῳ τῆς φύσεως κατασκευάζουσιν; Εἰ γάρ ὥσπερ τάς ὑποστάσεις, οὕτω καί τάς ἐνεργείας κακιζομένας τοῖς (15Α_270> Πατράσιν ἐγνώριζον, οὐκ ἀπεικός ταύτας διέῤῥιπτον. Εἰ δέ ταύτας κηρύττοντας, καί θείαν καί ἀνθρωπίνην ὁμολογοῦντας ἐνέργειαν, ὥσπερ οὖν καί φύσιν, καί ὁμολογεῖν παρακελευομένους γινώσκομεν, ὑπόστασιν δέ θείαν ἤ ἀνθρωπίνην οὐδένα καθ᾿ ὁτιοῦν οὐδαμῶς, ἤ μόνον τόν διῃρημένον καί ἀνθρωπολάτρην Νεστόριον, διατί ἄρα, εἴπερ οὐκ ἀπόβλητος αὐτοῖς ἡ τῶν ἁγίων διδασκαλία, κατ᾿ αὐτῆς τά τοιαῦτα σοφίζονται, εἰς τήν τῶν φυσικῶν ἐνεργειῶν ἀποσκευήν; Τίνος δέ ἄλλου τό ταῦτα καί οὕτως συνάγειν ἐστί, πλήν Σεβήρου τοῦ σοφιστοῦ καί παράφρονος, τοῦ καί τά οἰκεῖα σπουδῇ καταλύοντος, καί τῶν εὐσεβῶν οὐδαμῶς κατισχύοντος, διά τό τῆς ἀληθείας περιφανές, εἰ καί τῷ ἀναιδεῖ μηχανᾶται τρόπῳ τῶν σοφιστικῶν ληρημάτων;

0205 Εἰ γάρ τό μή ἀνυπόστατον εἶναι τήν φύσιν(2), ὐπόστασιν ταύτην ποιεῖ, πάντως δήπου κατά τό ἀκόλουθον, καί τό μή ἀνούσιον τήν ὑπόστασιν ὑπάρχειν, οὐσίαν ταύτην παρίστησι. Καί οἱ τοῦτο λέγοντες, πῶς τόν τε τῆς θεολογίας οὐ διαιροῦσι λόγον, ταῖς τῶν ἰσαρίθμων ὑποστάσεων φύσεσιν; εἴπερ οὐσία πάντως αἱ μή ἀνούσιοι καατ᾿ αὐτούς ὑποστάσεις· καί τό τῆς οἰκονομίας οὐ συγχέουσι, τῷ τῆς φύσεως μοναδικῷ διά τήν μίαν ὑπόστασιν; Ἑαυτοῖς γοῦν στοιχοῦντες, καί τά τοιαῦτα καθ᾿ ἑαυτῶν δογματίσουσι. Τοῖς δέ τάς φυσικάς ἐνεργείας ὁμολογοῦσι, τό καί οὕτω ταύτας συνάγειν, χάρις ἐστί, διά πάντων ἑαυτοῖς τό ἀληθές συναγείρουσι κατά τήν τῶν ἁγίων παράδοσιν, καθ᾿ ἥν τό μή ἀνυπόστατον, οὐχ ὑπόστασιν εἶναι τήν φύσιν ποιεῖ, ἀλλ' ἐνυπόστατον· ἵνα μή ὡς συμβεβηκός, ἐπινοίᾳ μόνῃ λαμβάνηται, ἀλλ᾿ ὡς εἶδος πραγματικῶς θεωρῆται. Οὕτω δε καί τό μή ἀνούσιον, οὐκ οὐσίαν ποιεῖ τήν ὑπόστασιν, ἀλλ᾿ ἐνούσιον παριστᾷ, ἵνα μή ψιλόν ἰδίωμα ταύτην, ἀλλά μετά τοῦ ἐν ᾧ τό ἰδίωμα κυρίως γνωρίζωμεν. Ὥσπερ οὖν ἐκεῖ τό ἐνυπόστατον δηλοῖ τό ἐνύπαρκτον· ἐνύπαρκτον δέ ἐστι τό οὐσιώδους καί φυσικῆς μετέχον ὑπάρξεως· οὕτω κἄνταῦθα τό ἐνεργόν ἤγουν ἐνεργητικόν, τό ἐνδύναμον (15Α_272> σημαίνει κυρίως. Ἐνδύναμον δέ ἐστι, τό οὐσιώδη καί φυσικήν ἔχον τήν δύναμιν. Οὐκοῦν τό μή ἀνυποστάτους ἤ ἀνενεργήτους ἐπί Χριστοῦ τάς φύσεις ὁμολογεῖν, οὐκ ἔστιν ὑποστάσεις ἤ ἐνεργοῦντας συνάγειν, ἀλλά τάς οὐσιώδεις αὐτῶν καί φυσικάς ὑπάρξεις τε καί ἐνεργείας ὀρθοδόξως ὁμολογεῖν, εἰς τήν τοῦ ἐξ αὐτῶν, καί ἐν αὐταῖς ὄντος καί κατ' αὐτάς· φημί δέ τάς φύσεις, καθ᾿ ἕνωσιν τήν ἀδιάσπαστον ἐνεργοῦντος Θεοῦ Λόγου σεσαρκωμένου, πίστωσιν ἀληθῆ καί βεβαίωσιν.