132

looking away from the works done by Christ, you have dogmatized one energy, or you have dogmatized one action; or because of the infinite actions, infinite energies as well. However, the question for us is about the works; for our discussion is not about things outside of Christ, but about things within Christ himself; that is, about the natural principle of the substances of Christ, whether it is incomplete from the union, or has remained complete; and if it is incomplete, whether it is possible for an incomplete nature to have existence; but if it is complete, whether the energy is contemplated in it, I mean in the constitutive principle of the substance, or happens to be among the things external. But, that the natural energy does not happen to be among the external things, is clear from the fact that a nature can exist without works; but without the natural energy, it is possible for the nature neither to exist nor to be known. For by the things which each naturally energizes, it is confirmed what it is, not being changed.

When you did not even consider the work, you dogmatized the one energy fashioned by you like a goat-stag, but with respect to the natural principle of the united substances; and of this the unerring proof is the chapters dogmatized by Cyrus, but by you (344) received kindly and very gladly; in which, having dogmatized one [energy], he said that by the same [energy] he performed both the divine and the human things; conflicting not only with Holy Scripture and the holy Fathers, but also with the very nature of things that have come into being. For none of the things that exist, while remaining in its natural state, is constituted by nature to do contrary things. For fire does not heat and cool; nor does crystal cool and heat; nor does earth dry and moisten; nor does water moisten and dry. If, therefore, this is observed in none of the things that exist, how are you not afraid when you say that the incarnate Word, who became substantially man, accomplished with one energy both the divine wonders and the sufferings, which differ from each other by the principle of nature?

PYRRHUS. What then did the luminary of the Church, Cyril, dogmatize that is contrary to the pious concept that has now appeared from this inquiry, saying of Christ, of course, that He showed "one kindred energy through both"?

MAXIMUS. This present usage does not at all conflict with the two energies; but on the contrary, it even supports them. For he did not say there is one natural energy of Christ's divinity and of his humanity; since otherwise he would not have said elsewhere that, "A sane person would not grant one energy for the Creator and the creature"; but wishing to show that the energy of the divinity is one, both without flesh and with flesh. As if someone, wishing to show the one energy of fire with matter and without matter, would say that fire burns both without matter and with matter. Thus also the Father did not speak of one energy of the two natures; but he spoke of the one energy, the divine and Paternal energy, existing substantially in the incarnate God the Word, by which He not only accomplished the divine signs incorporeally by an all-working command, as he himself says; since even after the incarnation He is a co-worker with his own begetter, who energizes incorporeally; but He also showed them bodily by the touch of his own flesh. For this is what "Through both" means. That the quickening of the child, or the restoration of sight to the blind man, or the blessing of the loaves, or the cleansing of the leper, which came about by a word and an all-working command, is naturally akin to that which was accomplished bodily through touch; in order to prove that the flesh is also life-giving, as belonging properly to Him and to no other, by its pure union with Him. For through both of these, I mean command and touch, the divine energy was made known through the deeds themselves, in no way harming the human and passible natural energy of the flesh which is according to us; but on the contrary, preserving it for its own manifestation; just as the soul, as through the instrument of its (345) own body, and

132

τῶν ὑπό Χριστοῦ γενομένων ἔργων ἀπιδόντες μίαν ἐνέργειαν ἐδογματίσατε, ἤ καί μίαν πρᾶξιν δογματίσατε· ἤ διά τάς ἀπείρους πράξεις, ἀπείρους καί τάς ἐνεργείας. Πλήν περί τῶν ἔργων ἡμῖν ἐστι τό ζητούμενον· οὐ γάρ περί τῶν ἔξω Χριστοῦ ἐστιν ὁ λόγος ἡμῖν, ἀλλά περί τῶν ἐν αὐτῷ τῷ Χριστῷ· τουτέστι περί τοῦ φυσικοῦ τῶν οὐσιῶν τοῦ Χριστοῦ λόγου, εἴτε ἐλλιπής ἐκ τῆς ἑνώσεως, εἴτε ἀνελλιπής μεμένηκε· καί εἰ ἐλλιπής, εἰ δυνατόν ἐλλιποῦς φύσεως ὕπαρξιν εἶναι· εἰ δέ ἀνελλιπής, εἰ ἐν αὐτῷ, φημί δή τῷ συστατικῷ τῆς οὐσίας λόγῳ, ἡ ἐνέργεια θεωρεῖται, ἤ τῶν ἐκτός τυγχάνει. Ἀλλ᾿, ὅτι μέν οὐ τῶν ἐκτός τυγχάνει ἡ κατά φύσιν ἐνέργεια, δῆλον ἐν τοῦ ἄνευ μέν τῶν ἔργων δύνασθαι τήν φύσιν εἶναι· ἄνευ δέ τῆς κατά φύσιν ἐνεργείας, οὔτε εἶναι τήν φύσιν, οὔτε γινώσκεσθαι δυνατόν. Οἷς γάρ ἕκαστον φυσικῶς ἐνεργεῖ, πιστοῦται ὅπερ ἐστί μή τρεπόμενον.

Ὁπόταν οὐδέ πρός ἔργον ἀντιδόντες, τήν ἀναπλασθεῖσαν ὑμῖν τραγελάφου δίκην μίαν ἐνέργειαν ἐδογματίσατε, ἀλλά πρός τόν φυσικόν τῶν ἑνωθεισῶν οὐσιῶν λόγον· καί τούτου πίστις ἀψευδής τά ὑπό Κύρου μέν δογματισθέντα κεφάλαια, ὑφ᾿ ὑμῶν (344) δέ προσηνῶς, καί λίαν ἀσπασίως δεχθέντα· ἐν οἷς καί μίαν δογματίσας, τῇ αὐτῇ ἔφη ἐνεργῆσαι τά τε θεῖα καί τά ἀνθρώπινα· οὐ μόνον τῇ ἁγίᾳ Γραφῇ, καί τοῖς ἁγίοις Πατράσι μαχόμενος, ἀλλά καί αὐτῇ τῇ τῶν γεγονότων φύσει. Οὐδέ τῶν ὄντων, ἐν τοῖς κατά φύσιν μένον, τά ἐναντία ποιεῖν πέφυκεν.Οὐ γάρ θερμαίνει τό πῦρ καί ψύχει· οὔτε ψύχει ἡ κρύσταλλος καί θερμαίνει· οὔτε ξηραίνει ἡ γῆ καί ὑγραίνει· οὔτε ὑγραίνει τό ὕδωρ καί ξηραίνει. Εἰ οὖν ἐπ᾿ οὐδενός τῶν ὄντων τοῦτο θεωρεῖται, πῶς τόν σαρκωθέντα Λόγον καί οὐσιωδῶς γενόμενον ἄνθρωπον, μιᾷ ἐνεργείᾳ τά τε θεύματα καί τά πάθη, λόγῳ φύσεως ἀλλήλων διαφέροντα, ἐπιτελέσαι λέγοντες, οὐ δεδοίκατε;

ΠΥΡ. Τί οὖν ἐναντία τῆς νῦν ἐκ τῆς ζητήσεως ἀναφανείσης εὐσεβοῦς ἐννοίας, ὁ τῆς Ἐκκλησίας φωστήρ Κύριλλος ἐδογμάτισε, "μίαν συγγενῆς δι᾿ ἀμφοῖν ἐπιδεδειγμένον ἐνέργειαν," τόν Χριστόν δηλαδή, φήσας;

ΜΑΞ. Οὐ μάχεται ὅλως ἡ παροῦσα χρῆσις ταῖς δύο ἐνεργείαις· τουναντίον δέ, καί συνίστησιν. Οὐ γάρ μίαν φυσικήν ἐνέργειαν τῆς θεότητος τοῦ Χριστοῦ ἔφη, καί τῆς αὐτοῦ ἀνθρωπότητος· ἐπεί οὐκ ἄν ἀλλαχοῦ ἔλεγειν, ὅτι "Ποιητοῦ καί ποιήματος μίαν ἐνέργειαν, οὐκ ἄν τις δοίη σωφρονῶν" ἀλλά δεῖξαι βουλόμενος, μίαν τῆς θεότητος οὖσαν τήν ἐνέργειαν, καί ἄνευ σαρκός, καί μετά σαρκός. Ὡς εἴ τις μίαν τοῦ πυρός ἐνέργειαν μετά ὕλης καί ἄνευ τῆς ὕλης δεῖξαι θέλων, φήσειεν, ὅτι τό πῦρ καί ἄνευ ὕλης καί μετά ὕλης καίει. Οὕτω καί ὁ Πατήρ οὐ μίαν τήν τῶν δύο φύσεων εἶπεν ἐνέργειαν· ἀλλά μίαν τήν ἐνέργειαν εἶπε τήν θείαν καί τήν Πατρικήν, οὐσιωδῶς ἐνυπάρχουσαν τῷ σαρκωθέντι Θεῷ Λόγῳ, καθ᾿ ἥν οὐ παντουργῷ μόνον προστάγματι τάς θεοσημίας ἀσωμάτως ἐτέλει, καθώς αὐτός φησιν· εἴπερ καί μετά σάρκωσιν ὁμοεργός ἐστι τῷ οἰκείῳ γεννήτορι, ἀσωμάτως ἐνεργοῦντι· ἀλλά καί τῇ τῆς οἰκείας σαρκός ἁφῇ ταύτας ἐδείκνυ σωματικῶς. Τοῦτο γάρ βούλεται τό, "∆ι᾿ ἀμφοῖν." Ὡς συγγενῶς ἔχειν κατά τήν φύσιν διά λόγου, καί παντουργοῦ προστάγματος γενομένην τήν ζώωσιν τῆς παιδός, ἤ τήν ἀνάβλεψιν τοῦ τυφλοῦ, ἤ τήν εὐλογίαν τῶν ἄρτων, ἤ τήν κάθαρσιν τοῦ λεπροῦ, πρός τήν διά τῆς ἁφῇς σωματικῶς τελουμένην· ἵνα ἀποδείξῃ καί τήν σάρκα ζωοποιόν, ὡς αὐτοῦ κυρίως, καί οὐκ ἄλλου ὑπάρχουσαν, τῇ πρός αὐτόν ἀκραιφνεῖ ἑνώσει. ∆ι᾿ ἀμφοτέρων γάρ τούτων, προστάγματός φημι καί ἁφῆς, ἡ θεία ἐνέργεια δι᾿ αὐτῶν ἐγνωρίζετο τῶν πραγμάτων, μηδόλως τήν καθ᾿ ἡμᾶς ἀνθρωπίνην, καί πάσχουσαν φυσικήν τῆς σαρκός ἐνέργειαν παραβλάπτουσα· τοὐναντίον δέ, συντηροῦσα αὐτήν εἰς οἰκείαν ἔκφανσιν· ὥσπερ οὖν καί ψυχή, ὡς δι᾿ ὀργάνου τοῦ (345) οἰκείου σώματος, καί