70

the covering of her mind, and you urge to thrust aside what is apparent, and to achieve the truly blessed virtue, which reveals the blessed ones, which I might be able to accomplish, being supported by your most holy prayers, having left behind the sin that easily besets me.

Since you also commanded me, again arousing my thought to work and wishing to cleanse the capacity of my soul from all ignorance, to investigate the treatise against the Arbitrator by the most divine and great Teacher of the holy Church of the Theopolitans, aptly named from the Resurrection, and, one might say, of the whole world; or rather the Divider, to speak properly, inasmuch as he completely separates from both God and us through extreme alteration and confusion, God who for our sakes became man, and the consubstantial offspring of the Father, our Lord Jesus Christ, how he says there is one energy in him, although he dogmatizes that the energies are natural; I put him forward as a clear interpreter and teacher of his own utterance, defining this to be nothing other than the indivisible union of the innate energies, and the result from them, I mean the work and the action, as being indicative and declarative of these, if one has partaken of a calling according to the energy (15Α_306>, since it is properly something both particular and universal. For inasmuch as it proceeds from the essential energy according to a natural property, it holds the rank of a particular, just as that, in turn, proceeding, holds the rank of a universal. For particular things are of a nature to share in the calling of the general, while universal things are of a nature to be predicated of the 0232 existence of particulars, but not to share in the calling, so that through this it might in some way be particularized and be reckoned in the rank of a particular. Therefore the result, as I said, of the two innate energies, that is, the action, as comprising both according to their union, the teacher, naming it from the name that pertains to them, said was one energy, because nothing divine or human is accomplished separately, but proceeds from one and the same connaturally and unitedly at the same time, according to the single perichoresis in these; he did not, however, on this account say that his essential energy according to a natural property was one; just as he did not say one essence and nature on account of the uniqueness of the one person, partaking of neither of those from which he was composed. For even in the union of the natures the difference according to essence is preserved, properly co-preserving with it also that of the properties essentially belonging to the natures.

And proclaiming this in the very treatise written against the Arbitrator, after having very knowledgeably made a preliminary distinction concerning both the natural property which is suited for energy, and the energy itself which proceeds from this suitability into work and action, he thus expounds: "Therefore, one energy in Christ"—and he adds the reason, because nothing divine or human is accomplished separately—"we too affirm." And as he thus demonstrated the principle of the union, introducing that of the essential difference, he says, "But not one property of his, God forbid; for the property of divinity and humanity is not the same"—that is, the property naturally suited for energy, according to him. And (15Α_308> going down further again, "And otherwise to state the same universally, it is altogether necessary that there is one energy of the things that have come together, from whichever natures, by the communion, clearly, of the union and its result; but to speak of one property of them without confusion is perhaps, even in cases where confusion has a place, completely inconceivable." Most clearly, therefore, through his own words the Father clarified his own meaning, not saying that the energy in Christ is one essentially, lest confusion and commingling be introduced into his parts; not hypostatic at all, lest there be a separation and division of the extremes for him; I mean, of the beginningless Father and the immaculate mother; For by hypostasis, and by their hypostatic properties, he is clearly distinguished. But what does he say? One by the communion of the

70

ἐπικάλυψον αὐτῆς τε διανοίας, καί τοῦ φαινομένου διακρούσασθαι παρακελεύῃ, καί τήν μακαρίαν ὄντως, καί τῶν μακαρίων ἐκφαντορικήν ἀρετήν κατορθοῦν, ἥνα ταῖς σαῖς ἱερωτάταις στηριζόμενος προσευχαῖς δυνηθείην ἐξανύσαι, εὐπερίστατον ἁμαρτίαν ἀπολιπών.

Ἐπεί δέ μοι καί πρός ἐργασίαν αὖθις ἐγείρων τό λογισμόν καί τό χώρημα τῆς ψυχῆς πάσης ἀγνοίας διακαθάραι βουλόμενος, ἐκέλευσάς μοι διερευνῆσαι τοῦ τῆς ἀναστάσεως φερωνύμως θειοτάτου καί μεγάλου Καθηγητοῦ τῆς ἁγίας Θεουπολιτῶν Ἐκκλησίας, ταὐτόν δέ φαναι τῆς οἰκουμένης ἁπάσης, τόν κατά τοῦ ∆ιαιτητοῦ λόγον· μᾶλλον δέ ∆ιαιρέτου, κυρίως εἰπεῖν, ὅσῳ καί Θεοῦ καί ἡμῶν τελείως χωρίζει δι᾿ ἄκρας μεταβολῆς καί συμφύρσεως, τόν δι᾿ ἡμᾶς ἀνθρωπήσαντα Θεόν, καί τοῦ Πατρός ὁμοούσιον γέννημα Κύριον ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν, πῶς ἐπ᾿ αὐτοῦ μίαν φησί τήν ἐνέργειαν, καίτοι φυσικάς δογματίζων τάς ἐνεργείας· αὐτόν γε αὐτῆς ὡς οἰκείας φωνῆς προΐσχομαι σιφόν ἑρμηνευτήν καί διδάσκαλον, οὐκ ἄλλο τε ταύτην εἶναι διοριζόμενον, ἤ τήν τῶν ἐμφύτων ἐνεργειῶν ἀδιάσπαστον ἕνωσιν, καί τό ἐξ αὐτῶν ἀποτέλεσμα, τό ἔργον φημί καί τήν πρᾶξιν, ὡς ἐνδεικτικήν τούτων ὑπάρχουσαν καί δηλωτικήν, εἴ τις κατά τήν ἐνέργειαν (15Α_306> κεκοινώνηκε κλήσεως, ἅ τε δή μερικόν τι κυρίως οὔσα καί καθολικόν. Καθ᾿ ὅσον γάρ ἐκ τῆς κατά ἰδιότητα φυσικήν οὐσιώδους ἐνεργείας προάγεται μερικοῦ τάξιν ἐπέχει, ὥσπερ οὖν πάλιν κἀκείνη προάγουσα καθολικοῦ. Πέφυκε γάρ τά μέν ἰδικά τῆς κλήσεως κοινωνεῖν τῶν γενικῶν, τά δέ καθόλου τῆς 0232 ὑπάρξεως κατηγορεῖσθαι τῶν μερικῶν, οὐ μήν τε τῆς κλήσεως κοινωνεῖν, ἵνα διά ταύτης ἐξιδιάζηταί πως καί εἰς μερικοῦ τάξιν λογίζηται. Τό γοῦν ἀποτέλεσμα, καθώς ἔφην, αὐτῶν δύο τῶν ἐμφύτων ἐνεργειῶν, ἤγουν τήν πρᾶξιν, ὡς ἀμφοτέρας καθ᾿ ἕνωσιν αὐτῶν συλλαβοῦσαν, ἐκ τοῦ κατ᾿ αὐτάς προσαγορεύσας ὀνόματος ὁ διδάσκαλος, μίαν εἶπεν ἐνέργειαν, διά τό μηδέν θεῖον ἤ ἀνθρώπινον κεχωρισμένως ἐπιτελεῖσθαι, ἀλλ᾿ ἐξ ἑνός καί τοῦ αὐτοῦ συμφυῶς ἅμα καί ἡνωμένως προάγεσθαι, κατά τήν ἐν τούτοις ἐνιαίαν περιχώρησιν· οὐ μήν γε διά τοῦτο εἶπε μίαν αὐτοῦ κατ᾿ ἰδιότητα φυσικήν τήν οὐσιώδη ἐνέργειαν· ὥσπερ οὐδ᾿ οὐσίαν μίαν καί φύσιν δι᾿ αὐτό γε τό τοῦ ἑνός προσώπου μοναδικόν, οὐδετέρας τῶν ἐξ ὧν συνετέθη μετέχουσαν. Σώζεται γάρ κἀν τῇ ἑνώσει τῶν φύσεων ἡ κατ᾿ οὐσίαν διαφορά, συναποσώζουσα κυρίως αὐτῇ καί τήν τῶν οὐσιωδῶς προσόντων ταῖς φύσεσι.

Καί τοῦτο διαγορεύων ἐν αὐτῷ τῷ τοῦ κατά ∆ιαιτητοῦ πονηθέντι λόγῳ, μετά τό λίαν ἐπιστημόνως προδιαστείλασθαι περί τε ἰδιότητος φυσικῆς τῆς πρός ἐνέργειαν ἐπιτηδείως ἐχούσης, καί αὐτῆς ἐνεργείας τῆς εἰς ἔργον καί πρᾶξιν ἐκ τῆς ἐπιτηδειότητος προϊούσης, οὕτως διέξεισι· "∆ιό μίαν μέν τήν ἐνέργειαν ἐπί Χριστοῦ», καί τήν αἰτίαν ἐπάγει, διά τό μηδέν θεῖον ἤ ἀνθρώπινον κεχωρισμένως ἐπιτελεῖσθαι, "καί ἡμεῖς φαμέν». Ὡς δέ τόν τῆς ἑνώσεως λόγον ταύτῃ παρέδειξε, τόν τῆς οὐσιώδους διαφορᾶς ἐπάγων, φησίν, "Οὐ μίαν δέ αὐτοῦ τήν ἰδιότητα, μή γένοιτο· οὐ γάρ ἡ αὐτή θεότητος ἰδιότης καί ἀνθρωπότητος»· ἡ πρός ἐνέργειαν δηλαδή φυσικήν ἐπιτηδείως ἔχουσα, κατ᾿ αὐτόν. Καί (15Α_308> παρακατιών αὖθις, "Καί ἄλλως δέ τό αὐτό καθόλου φάναι, μίαν μέν τῶν συνελθουσῶν τήν ἐκ τῶν ὁποίων δή φύσεων ἐνέργειαν εἶναι, τῇ κοινωνίᾳ δηλονότι τῆς ἑνώσεως καί τοῦ συμπεράσματος αὐτοῦ, πᾶσα νάγκη· μίαν δέ αὐτῶν τήν ἰδιότητα λέγειν συγχύσεως ἄνευ, τάχα δέ καί ἐφ᾿ ὧν τῇ συγχύσει χώρα παντελῶς ἀνεπινόητος». Φανέστατα γοῦν διά τῶν οἰκείων τήν ἑαυτοῦ ἔννοιαν ἐσαφήνισεν ὁ Πατήρ, οὐκ οὐσιώδη μίαν τήν ἐπί Χριστοῦ φήσας ἐνέργειαν, ἵνα μή σύγχυσις αὐτοῦ τοῖς μέρεσιν ἐπάγηται καί φυρμός· οὐχ ὑποστατικήν τό σύνολον, ἵνα μή τῶν ἄκρων αὐτῷ χωρισμός γένηται καί διάστασις· Πατρός ἀνάρχου φημί καί ἀχράντου μητρός· Ὑποστάσει γάρ, καί τοῖς ὑποστατικοῖς ἐκείνων σαφῶς διακρίνεται. Ἀλλά τί φησιν; Μία τῇ κοινωνίᾳ τῆς