Apotelesma

It is further to be observed, that although both the Natures in Christ remaine distinct […] both Natures doe that which is proper vnto them, but with Communion of each with other. This Communion is the concurrence of both Natures in the same Person by their severall proper actions, to the producing of one Apotelesma or outward effect pertaining to our Salvation.

Satisfaction is […] looked on as a real act or operation of one or the other nature in Christ, when it is the apotelesma or effect of the actings, the doing and suffering of Christ – the dignity of what he did in reference unto the end for which he did it. For the two natures are so united in Christ as not to have a third compound principle of physical acts and operations thence arising; but each nature acts distinctly according to its own being and properties, yet so as what is the immediate act of either nature is the act of him who is one in both; from whence it has its dignity.

[25][…]Holl. (728) further enumerates the apotelesmata of Christ, as of a twofold order. The divine nature of the λόγος cannot affect some things except by a union with flesh[…]; other things, from his free good pleasure or purpose, he does not will to effect without flesh (for example, miracles).

Leontius of Byzantium calls the result of this retrospective reconstruction – from the trinitarian Son through the creation of human physis to the enhypostasis – an apotelesma. That is an important shift compared to Chalcedon: the apotelesma, the result of the whole process, is not the hypostasis as such, because the hypostasis – as the hypostasis of the second person of the Trinity – is the hegemonikon principle from the very beginning. The apotelesma, the final point, is the retrospectively reconstructed enhypostatical union of the person of Jesus Christ.