83

a division of species, (204) and describing in it its own procession. Wherefore for this reason, according to the most wise Cyril, the name Christ has neither the power of a definition; for it is not an individual, predicated of a species of many differing in number, nor indeed does it signify the substance of something. For it is not an individual, referred to a species or genus, or described by these according to substance; but a composite hypostasis, completely identifying in itself the natural division of the extremes, and leading them into one by the union of its own parts. But if, perchance, for those who, on account of the Lord's not being without energy in the flesh, confess his innate and human energy, they deduce that it is also not without hypostasis, this is to insult the hypostasis. For that the nature is not without hypostasis does not make it a hypostasis. Just as the fact that a body is not without shape does not make every body a shape; nor does the fact that what is begotten or visible is not unbegotten or invisible make it generation or vision. And simply, that which is denied to be that which it is not, makes it a relation; while that, concerning which it is naturally contemplated, is affirmed. Besides, even if this were perchance the case, when it is not, it would be nothing with respect to 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 to hold the natural energies in honor for the indication of the essential difference in the same [person]? and for what reason and how, and what argument or approved Father determines this, so that they may not just make denials? For if it is not good to confess the natural energies, neither is it to confess the natures themselves. Or how these, but not those? But if both are good, for what reason do they introduce into what is good, and manufacture a hypostasis from the nature's not being without hypostasis? For if they had known that the energies were condemned by the Fathers just as the hypostases are, it would not have been unlikely for them to have rejected them. But if we know that they preached them, and confessed a divine and a human energy, just as also a nature, and exhorted [others] to confess them, but no one ever in any way [confessed] a divine or human hypostasis, except only the divided and man-worshipping Nestorius, why then, if the teaching of the saints is not to be rejected by them, do they devise such sophistries against it, for the rejection of the natural energies? And whose work is it to draw such 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 conspicuousness of the truth, even if he contrives with shameless method his sophistic nonsense?

(205) For if the nature's not being without hypostasis makes it a hypostasis, surely then, according to what follows, the hypostasis' not being without substance makes it a substance. And those who say this, how do they not divide the doctrine of theology by natures equal in number to the hypostases? if indeed the hypostases that are not without substance are in every way substance according to them; and how do they not confuse the doctrine of the economy by the oneness of the nature on account 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 such conclusions about them is a grace, gathering together for themselves through all things the truth according to the tradition of the saints, according to which, that which is not without hypostasis does not make the nature a hypostasis, but enhypostatic; so that it may not be taken as an accident, by thought alone, but be regarded as a species in reality. Thus also, that which is not without substance does not make the hypostasis a substance, but shows it to be in-substance, so that we may not know it as a bare property, but with that in which the property properly is. Just as, therefore, there the enhypostatic signifies that which has real existence; and that which has real existence is that which partakes of essential and natural existence; so also here the active, that is, the energetic, that which

83

εἶδος διαίρεσιν, (204) καί ἐν αὐτῷ τήν οἰκείαν πρόοδον περιγράφουσαν. Ὅθεν διά τοῦτο, κατά τόν σοφώτατον Κύριλλον, τό Χριστός ὄνομα, οὔτε ὅρου δύναμον ἔχει· οὐδέ γάρ ἄτομον ἐστι, πρός εἶδος ἐστι πολλῶν ἀριθμῷ διαφερόντων κατηγορούμενον, οὔτε μήν τήν τινός οὐσίαν δηλοῖ. Οὐδέ γάρ ἄτομον ἐστί, πρός εἶδος ἤ γενός ἀναγόμενον, ἤ κατ᾿ οὐσίαν ὑπό τούτων περιγραφόμενον· ἀλλ᾿ ὑπόστασις σύνθετος, τήν φυσικήν τῶν 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, 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 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;

(205) Εἰ γάρ τό μή ἀνυπόστατον εἶναι τήν φύσιν, 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