92

and of confusion, God who for our sake became man, and the consubstantial offspring of the Father, our Lord Jesus Christ, how he says there is one energy in Him, although he teaches that the energies are natural; I present him 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 anyone has partaken of the name according to the energy, since it is in a proper sense something both particular and universal. For inasmuch as it proceeds from the essential energy according to natural property, it holds the rank of the particular, just as, again, that which produces it holds the rank of the universal. For the particulars of the name are by nature to partake of the general, and the universals of (232) existence are predicated of the particulars, but not to partake of the name, so that through this it may be somehow particularized and be reckoned in the rank of a particular. The result, then, as I said, of the two innate energies, that is, the action, as comprising both of them according to their union, the teacher, having named it from the term corresponding to them, called it one energy, because nothing divine or human is accomplished separately, but proceeds from one and the same person connaturally and at the same time unitedly, according to the single perichoresis in these; yet for this reason he did not say his essential energy according to natural property was one; just as he did not say one substance and nature because 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 essential difference is preserved, properly co-preserving with it also that of the things essentially belonging to the natures.

And proclaiming this in the very discourse composed *Against the Arbitrator*, after having very knowledgeably made a preliminary distinction concerning both the natural property which is fit for energy, and the energy itself which proceeds from the fitness into work and action, he proceeds thus: "Therefore one energy in Christ," and he adds the reason, because nothing divine or human is accomplished separately, "we also say." And as he in this way showed the principle of the union, bringing in that of the essential difference, he says, "But not one property of His, God forbid; for the property of the divinity and of the humanity is not the same;" that is, the one which is fit for natural energy, according to him. And going on further again, "And otherwise to say the same thing universally, that the energy of the natures that came together, from whichever they may be, is one, evidently by the communion of the union and of its conclusion, is altogether necessary; but to say that their property is one without confusion, and perhaps even in those cases where confusion is utterly inconceivable." Most clearly, then, through his own words, the Father clarified his own meaning, not saying the energy in Christ is essentially one, so that confusion and mingling might not be introduced into His parts; not hypostatic at all, so that there might not be a separation and division of the extremes in Him; I mean, of the Father without beginning and of the pure mother; for by hypostasis, and by their hypostatic properties, He is clearly distinguished. But what does he say? One by the communion of the union and of the conclusion, which he defined above as work and action, having given no entry whatsoever either to those who wish to mingle or to those who wish to separate; but having driven away the former, by knowing what is primarily and by nature proper to His humanity; and what to His super-essential divinity; and having pushed away the latter, by not separating or dividing any energy in the same one person. For the name of energy, taken in common for both the simple (233) and the relational movement alike, or for the result itself, does not introduce a mingling into the realities, as long as a clear elucidation of the things being thought is made, according to which the essential properties of each of the natures

92

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 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 (232) 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 προ«ούσης, 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 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 ἑνώσεως καί τοῦ συμπεράσματος, ὅπερ ἔργον καί πρᾶξιν ἐνωτέρω διώρισε, μήτε τοῖς φύρειν ἐθέλουσι, μήτε μήν τοῖς χωρίζειν παρείσδυσιν τήν οἱανοῦν δεδωκώς· ἀλλά τούς μέν ἀπελάσας, τῷ γνωρίζειν, τί μέν προηγουμένως καί κατά φύσιν ἴδιον τῆς κατ' αὐτόν ἀνθρωπότητος· τί δέ τῆς ὑπερουσίου θεότητος· τούς δέ προπωσάμενος, τῷ μηδεμίαν ἐπί τοῦ αὐτοῦ καί ἑνός διϊστᾷν ἤ χωρίζειν ἐνέργειαν. Τό γάρ ὄνομα τῆς ἐνεργείας κοινῶς ἐπί τε ἁπλῆς (233) ὁμοίως καί τῆς ἐν σχέσει θεωρουμένης κινήσεως, ἤ αὐτοῦ τοῦ ἀποτελέσματος λαμβανόμενον, φυρμόν οὐκ ἐπάγει τοῖς πράγμασιν, ἕως ἄν εὐκρινής ἡ τῶν νοουμένων διασάφησις γένηται, καθ᾿ ἥν τά τε θατέρα φύσεων οὐσιωδῶς