Книга третья

Chapter I. About Divine economy and care in relation to us, and about our salvation. So, by this attack of the culprit of evil - the demon, man was deceived, did not keep the commandments of the Creator, was deprived of grace, lost boldness towards God, and was subjected to the severity of a calamitous life - for this means the leaves of the fig tree (Gen. 3:7). - put on mortality, that is, in mortal and coarse flesh - for this means putting on skins (Gen. 3:21), according to the righteous judgment of God, he was expelled from paradise, condemned to death and became subject to corruption. But (even in this state) the Merciful One did not despise man, who gave him existence and a blissful state, but initially admonished him in many ways and called for conversion - groaning and shaking (Gen. 4:14), a water flood and the destruction of almost the entire human race (Gen. 6:13), confusion and division of languages (Gen. 11:7-8), the guidance of Angels ( Gen. 18, 2, etc.), burning of cities (Gen. 19, 24, etc.), educational theophany, wars, victories, defeats, signs and wonders, the appearance of various powers, law and prophets. All this was meant to achieve the destruction of sin, which spread in many different streams, enslaved man and piled up life with every kind of vice, as well as the return of man to a blissful state. But since through sin death entered the world, devouring, like a wild and indomitable beast, the life of man, the Redeemer who was to come had to be sinless and not subject to death arising through sin, since, moreover, it was necessary to strengthen and renew human nature, to instruct him by the very act and teach him the path of virtue, leading away from corruption and leading to eternal life, which finally opens to man the great sea (God's) love for mankind. The Creator and Lord Himself enters into the struggle for His creation and becomes a Teacher in deed. And since the enemy has ensnared man by promising him divine dignity, he himself is ensnared by the fact that the Divinity (in the Redeemer) appears under the cover of flesh. And in this, the goodness, wisdom, truth, and omnipotence of God are revealed together. Goodness, because God did not despise the weakness of His creation, but took pity on him - the fallen - and stretched out his hand (of help) to him. It is true - because when a person was defeated, God does not make another person the conqueror of the tormentor and does not by force abduct a person from death, but whom death once enslaved to sin, the Good and Righteous One again made him a winner and - what seemed impossible - saved like one. Wisdom - because God found the most decent solution to a hopeless situation. For, by the good pleasure of God and the Father, the only begotten Son, the Word of God, and God, who is in the bosom of God and the Father (John 1:18), consubstantial with the Father and the Holy Spirit, pre-eternal, without beginning, He who was in the beginning, was with God and the Father, and (Himself) was God, in the form of God (Phil. 2:6), bows the heavens and descends, that is He unabashedly humbles His indestructible height, and condescends to His servants with ineffable and incomprehensible condescension - for this is what condescension means. Being perfect God, He becomes perfect man - and of all that is new, the newest and only new thing under the sun is made (Eccl. 1:10) - in which the boundless power of God is revealed. What could be more than this - God became man? And the Word became flesh (John 1:14) immutably - from the Holy Spirit and Holy Mary, the Ever-Virgin and Mother of God. Conceived in the immaculate womb of the Virgin, not from desire or lust, or union with a husband, or from voluptuous generation, but from the Holy Spirit and like the first origin of Adam - God the Word, the only man-loving one, is a mediator between God and people, becomes obedient to the Spirit, heals our disobedience by accepting what is like us and from us, and becomes for us an example of obedience. without which it is impossible to obtain salvation 115. Chapter II. About how God the Word was conceived and about His divine incarnation. An angel of the Lord was sent to the holy Virgin, who came from the tribe of David (Luke 1:26). “For it is clear,” says the divine Apostle, “for from the tribe of Judah our Lord rose up (Heb. 7:14), from a worthless one come to the altar (Heb. 7:13), - about which we will speak in more detail later. Preaching the gospel, the Angel said to Her: Rejoice, full of grace; The Lord is with you (Luke 1:28). She will be embarrassed about the word. And the Angel said to her: Do not be afraid, Mariam: for you have found grace with God and have given birth to a Son, and you will call His name Jesus (Luke 1:29-31), for He will save His people from their sins (Matthew 1:21). Hence the name Jesus means Savior. When did She wonder: what cue will I have, where I don’t know my husband? The angel in response says to Her: The Holy Spirit will come upon You, and the power of the Most High will overshadow You. In the same way, that which is born of You will be holy and called the Son of God. She says to him: behold the handmaid of the Lord: wake me according to your word (Luke 1:34-35, 38). Indeed, after the Holy Virgin expressed her consent, according to the word of the Lord, announced by the Angel, the Holy Spirit descended on her, cleansed her and gave her the power to both accept the Divinity of the Word and give birth. Then he overshadowed her, as it were, with the Divine seed, the Son of God, the hypostatic Wisdom and Power of the Most High God, consubstantial with the Father, and from her immaculate and purest blood he formed for himself the firstfruits of our composition - flesh, animated by a thinking and rational soul - not through fertilization by seed, but creatively, through the Holy Spirit. At the same time, the human image was not formed through gradual increments, but was immediately completed. The Word of God itself appeared to the flesh as a hypostasis. For the Word of God was not united with such flesh that would have previously existed personally on its own, but, having taken up residence in the womb of the Holy Virgin, It in its own hypostasis from the pure blood of the Ever-Virgin took upon Himself flesh, animated by a thinking and rational soul. Having taken upon Himself the firstfruits of the human constitution, the Word Himself became (thus) a hypostasis for the flesh. Consequently, at the same time (with how) the flesh was formed, it (was already) the flesh of God the Word, and at the same time - animate, thinking and rational flesh. Therefore, we are not talking about a divine man, but about God made man. The same One who by nature is perfect God became by nature perfect man. He did not change in nature and did not incarnate ghostly, but with the flesh received from the Holy Virgin, a quickened thinking and rational soul and in Himself receiving its existence, he was hypostatically united unfused, unchangeably and inseparably, without changing the nature of His Divinity into the essence of His flesh, nor the essence of His flesh into the nature of His Divinity and without forming one complex nature from His Divine nature and from the human nature that He assumed for Himself 116. Chapter III. About two natures (in Christ), against the Monophysites. The two natures (in Christ) were united with each other without transformation or change, so that neither the Divine was deprived of its inherent nature, nor the human - just as it did not turn into the Divine nature, nor passed into non-existence, nor did the two form one complex nature. For a complex nature, having become different, as composed of different natures, can no longer be consubstantial with any of the natures from which it was formed. For example, a body composed of four elements is not called consubstantial with fire, fire, air, water, or earth, and not consubstantial with any of these elements. Therefore, if Christ, after the union of natures, became one complex nature, as the heretics believe, then He turned from a simple nature into a complex one and is no longer consubstantial with either the Father, whose nature is simple, or the Mother, for She did not consist of Divinity and humanity. In this case, Christ would have neither Divinity nor humanity and could not be called either God or man, but only Christ, and the very name - Christ - according to their opinion - would be the name not of a Person, but of one nature 117. We teach that Christ is not from a complex nature, and not that something different came from different natures, such as, for example, from soul and body - man, or from four elements - body, but He consists of different natures that remain the same. We confess that one and the same (Christ) consists of two natures - Divinity and humanity, and in two natures, and that He is and is called both perfect God and perfect man. We take the name Christ as the name of a person and understand it not one-sidedly, but as a designation of two natures. For Christ anointed Himself: as God, He was the anointing of the body with His Divinity, and as a man, He was the anointed; for He is and is called both the perfect God, and the Godhead serves as the perfect of humanity. And if Christ, being of one complex nature, is consubstantial with the Father, then the Father, in this case, would be composite (according to His nature) and consubstantial with the flesh, which is absurd and full of all blasphemy. And how could one nature contain opposing essential properties? How is it possible for one and the same nature to be at the same time both created and uncreated, mortal and immortal, describable and indescribable? If those who attribute one nature to Christ call the latter simple, then they will either have to confess Christ only as God and allow not the incarnation, but only the ghost of the incarnation, or, in accordance with the teachings of Nestorius, they will have to recognize Christ as a simple man? And where will the truth be that Christ is perfect in Divinity and perfect in humanity? When did Christ, in their opinion, have two natures, if by union He had, as they say, one complex nature? And that Christ before the union had one nature is obvious to everyone. But heretics are misled by this: they recognize nature and hypostasis as one and the same. Although we say that there is one nature in man, we must know that we say this without paying attention to the definition of soul and body. For if you compare the soul and body with each other, you cannot say that they are of the same nature. But since, although there are a lot of human personalities, they all receive one definition of their nature, for they all consist of soul and body, all have received the nature of the soul and have a bodily essence and the same appearance, then we say that the nature of very many and different personalities is one, while each personality actually has two natures and consists of two natures - I mean the natures of soul and body 118. In relation to our Lord Jesus Christ, one cannot find a common view (with people). For there was not, and is not, and there never will be another Christ, Who would consist of Divinity and humanity, Who in Divinity and humanity is one and the same - would be both perfect God and perfect man. Therefore, it cannot be said about our Lord Jesus Christ that He has one nature, that is, it cannot be said that just as a separate human personality is composed of soul and body, so Christ is composed of Divinity and humanity. For here we take a person who is part of the race, but Christ is not such a person, because for Him there is no general species under which He could be subsumed. Therefore, we say that in Christ there was a union of two perfect natures - Divine and human - not in the form of mixing or merging, or admixture, or dissolution - as Dioscorus, rejected by God, Eutyches and Severus and their followers excommunicated from God said. Likewise, it was not a union of two different persons, or a relative union: either by dignity, or by identity of will, or by equality, or by the same name, or by good will, as the God-hating Nestorius, Diodorus, Theodore of Mopsuestia and their demonic assembly said. On the contrary, this union took place by combination, that is, in the unity of the hypostasis, immutably, unmerged, unchangeable, inseparable and inseparable. And in two natures that remain perfect, we confess one hypostasis of the Son of God incarnate, recognizing in Him the same hypostasis of His Divinity and humanity, and confessing that both natures remain whole in Him through union. We do not posit each nature separately and separately, but recognize them as mutually united in one complex hypostasis. We recognize this connection as essential, that is, true and not imaginary. We consider it essential not in the sense that two natures formed one complex nature, but in the fact that they united with each other into one complex hypostasis of the Son of God and retained their essential difference. For what was created remained created, and what was not created remained uncreated; the mortal was preserved by the mortal and the immortal by the immortal; the describable is describable, the indescribable is indescribable; the visible - visible and the invisible - invisible. “One shines with miracles, while the other has been insulted” 119. The Word assimilates human properties to Himself, for everything that belongs to His holy flesh also belongs to the Word. In the same way, the Word Himself allows the flesh to participate in His properties according to the method of mutual transmission due to the mutual penetration and hypostatic union of natures and because One and the Same accomplished both what is characteristic of God and that of man in both forms (of being) with the mutual communion of both (of nature). That is why it is said that the Lord of glory was crucified (1 Cor. 2:8), although His Divine nature did not suffer; and back about the Son of Man it is confessed that He was in heaven before He suffered, as the Lord Himself said. For the same Lord of glory by nature and truly became the Son of Man, that is, man, and we recognize that both miracles and suffering belong to Him, although He performed miracles according to one nature, and suffered suffering according to another nature. For we know that just as there is one hypostasis in Him, so the essential difference of natures is preserved. But how would the difference be preserved if that which has a difference among itself were not preserved? For the difference lies in what actually differs from one another. We say that in the respect in which the natures in Christ differ from each other, that is, in relation to the essence, Christ comes into contact with extremes: in Divinity - with the Father and the Spirit, in humanity - with His Mother and with other people. And in the respect in which the natures are united in Him, He, we say, differs from the Father, and from the Spirit, and from His Mother, and from other people, for His natures are united hypostatically, having one complex Hypostasis, by which He differs both from the Father and from the Spirit, and from His Mother and from us. Chapter IV. On the mutual communication of properties. We have already said many times that one is essence, and the other is hypostasis, and that essence means a general form, embracing hypostases of one type, such as God, man, and hypostasis means the indivisible, for example, the Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit, Peter, Paul. Therefore, one must know that the names of Divinity and humanity indicate essences or natures; The names God and man are also used about nature, when, for example, we say that God is an incomprehensible being and that God is one, but it is also understood in the sense of hypostases, when the particular takes on the name of the general, when, for example, Scripture says: for this reason the anointing of You, O God, is your God (Psalm 44:8). In this case, Scripture designated the Father and the Son by the name of God. When Scripture says: there was a certain man in the country of Austidia (Job 1:1), then by the word man it means Job alone. Therefore, recognizing in our Lord Jesus Christ two natures and one hypostasis, composed of both natures, when we mean natures, we call (them) Divinity and humanity; when we understand a hypostasis composed of (two) natures, then we call Him either Christ - from both natures together, also - the God-man and God incarnate, or - from one of the natures that constitute Him - we call Him either God and the Son of God only, or man and the Son of Man only; in some cases - only from the highest, and in others - from His lower properties. For one and the same is the Son of God and the Son of Man: he remains eternally the Son of God from the Father without guilt, but he became the Son of Man in the end through love for mankind 120 . But, speaking about His Divinity, we do not attribute to Him the properties of humanity. Thus, we do not say that the Deity is subject to suffering or that It is created. In the same way, when speaking about the flesh, or about His humanity, we do not attribute to them the properties of the Divine; we do not say, for example, that His flesh, or humanity, is not created. In relation to the hypostasis, whether we give it a name borrowed from both natures that compose it, or from one, we attribute to it the properties of both natures. Thus Christ, a name meaning both natures taken together, is called both God and man, created and uncreated, subject to suffering and not subject to. Likewise, when He, according to one of His constituent natures (i.e., Divine), is called the Son of God and God, then He takes on the properties of the co-existing nature, that is, the flesh. Thus, He is called God, the suffering one, and the Lord of glory, the crucified one, not because He is God, but because He Himself is also a man. In the same way, when Christ is called man and the Son of Man, He takes on the properties and distinctions of the Divine nature and (is called) the eternal Child, the beginningless man - not because He is a Child and a Man, but because, being the eternal God, He finally became a Child. And this is the way of mutual communication (properties), when each of both natures transfers its properties to the other due to the identity of the hypostasis and the mutual penetration of natures. Therefore, we can talk about Christ: This our God appeared on earth and lived with men (Bar. 3, 36, 38); and also: this man is not created, is not subject to suffering and is indescribable. Chapter V. On the number of natural beings. We confess one nature in the Divinity, but we say that in Him there are really three hypostases. Of everything that pertains to the nature and being (of the Divine), we affirm that it is simple; We recognize the difference between hypostases only in three properties. One has no reason for its existence and is the Father. The second has the cause of Its existence and is the Son. The third has a reason for its existence and comes out. At the same time, we know that these hypostases are inseparable from one another, inseparable from each other, but connected, and one another inextricably penetrates. They are united without merging, for even after the union they remain three hypostases, and together they are different from one another without separation. For although each hypostasis is independent in itself, or is a perfect hypostasis and has its own property, or its own distinct way of being, yet the three hypostases are united by essence and natural properties and, since they do not retreat or move away from the hypostasis of the Father, they are called one God. In the same way, in the divine, ineffable and beyond all understanding and understanding, the economy of our salvation, we confess two natures - Divine and human - one of the Persons of the Holy Trinity, God the Word, our Lord Jesus Christ, brought closer and hypostatically united with each other, but - one complex hypostasis, made up of (two) natures. We affirm, further, that the two natures, even when united in one complex hypostasis, that is, in the one Christ, are preserved intact and truly exist, like their natural properties, and that they are both united without merging, so they differ from each other and are counted without division. As the three Persons of the Holy Trinity are united without merging and are distinguished and counted without division, and number does not produce in Them any division, separation, alienation, or dissection, for we recognize the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit as one God; - So the natures in Christ, although united, are not united; and although they penetrate one another, they do not allow either change or transformation of one into another. For every nature retains its natural property unchanged. Therefore, although natures are counted, this counting does not introduce division, for there is one Christ, perfect both in Divinity and in humanity. After all, counting in itself is not the cause of division or union, but means only the quantity of what is being counted - whether it will be connected with each other or divided. Connected - when we say, for example, that a famous wall consists of fifty stones; divided when we say, for example, that on a certain level place there are fifty stones; and also, on the one hand, they are connected, for example, we say that in a hot coal there are two natures - of course, the nature of fire and wood; on the other hand, they are separated, because the nature of fire is different, the nature of wood is different. At the same time, they are connected and separated by another method, not by number. Therefore, just as the three hypostases of the Divine, although they are united with each other, cannot be called one hypostasis without allowing merging and destroying the differences of the hypostases; - so the two natures in Christ, hypostatically united with each other, cannot be called one nature - in order to prevent the destruction, merging and non-existence in reality of their differences 121. Chapter VI. About the fact that the entire Divine nature in one of the hypostases of the Divine was united with the entire human nature, and not part to part. The general and generic turns out to be such in relation to the particular that is included in its scope. Therefore, essence, as a genus, is general, and person is particular. However, it is particular not because it has one part of nature and does not have another, but one is particular in number, as only one of the indivisibles that make up a whole genus. It is said of persons that they differ in number, not in nature. The essence of personality is attributed because in each of the homogeneous personalities there is a complete essence. Why do individuals not differ from each other in essence, but in accidental accessories that constitute distinctive properties, and, moreover, distinctive properties of personality, and not of nature? For hypostasis is defined as an essence, together with accidental characteristics. Consequently, the personality has a common (generic), together with distinctive features, and also an independent existence; the essence does not have independent existence, but is seen in individuals. Why, when one of the personalities suffers, then the whole entity, which suffers insofar as this personality suffered, is said to have suffered in one of its personalities; however, it is not necessary for all homogeneous individuals to suffer along with the suffering individual. Thus, we confess that the entire divine nature is perfectly present in each of the Persons of the Godhead: all in the Father, all in the Son, all in the Holy Spirit. Therefore, the Father is perfect God, and the Son is perfect God. And we also affirm that during the incarnation of one of the Persons of the Holy Trinity - God the Word, the Divine nature in one of His Persons was completely united with all human nature, and not part with part. Indeed, the divine Apostle says: for in Him lives all the bodily fulfillment of the Divinity (Col. 2:9), that is, in His flesh. Also, the God-bearing disciple of the Apostle Dionysius, well-versed in divine things, says that the Divinity in one of His Persons has completely entered into communication with us. However, that does not force us to assert that all, that is, the Three Persons of the Holy Divinity, were hypostatically united with all the personalities of humanity. For the Father and the Holy Spirit did not participate in the incarnation of God the Word in any other way than through good will and will. We affirm that the entire essence of the Divinity is united with the entire human nature. God the Word, who created us at the beginning, did not neglect anything that He put into our nature, but took on everything - the body, the rational and thinking soul and their properties, for a living being deprived of one of these (accessories) is no longer a person. For He took all of me and united with all of me in order to grant salvation to the whole (man). Otherwise, what was not accepted would remain unhealed 122. So, the Word of God was united with the flesh through the medium of the mind, which occupies an intermediate position between the purity of the Divine and the coarseness of the flesh. The mind rules over the soul and the flesh, and the purest thing in the soul is the mind, and God rules over the mind. And the mind of Christ reveals its dominion when it receives permission from the Highest; but (in general) he submits and follows the highest, and does what the divine will desires 123. And the mind, like the flesh, became the receptacle of the Divine hypostatically united with Him, and not a co-inhabitant, as the accursed opinion of the heretics is mistaken, who, speaking about the immaterial sensually, say: “One measure cannot contain two measures.” How could Christ be called perfect God and perfect man, one in essence with the Father and with us, if in Him a part of the Divine nature was united with a part of the human nature? 124 We say that our nature has risen from the dead, ascended and sat at the right hand of the Father - not in the sense that all human persons have risen and sat at the right hand of the Father, but in the sense that our entire nature has risen and sits at the right hand of the Father in the hypostasis of Christ. Indeed, the divine Apostle says: raise us up and plant us in Christ (Eph. 2:6). We affirm this because the connection arose from common essences. For every essence is common to those persons who are embraced by it, and it is impossible to find a private nature or essence belonging only to one person separately. Otherwise, it would be necessary to call the same persons both consubstantial and heterogeneous, and the Holy Trinity in relation to the Divinity should be called both consubstantial and heterogeneous. So, in each of the hypostases of the Divine one and the same nature is contemplated. And when we say that the nature of the Word was incarnate, then, in accordance with the teaching of blessed Athanasius and Cyril, we mean that the Divinity was united with flesh. That is why we cannot say: the nature of the Word suffered, for it was not the Divinity that suffered in Him. We say that human nature suffered in Christ, without understanding, of course, that all human persons (suffered), but we confess that Christ suffered by human nature. Therefore, when we say: the nature of the Word, we designate the Word Itself. The Word has both a common essence (with other persons of the Divine) and a special personal property. Chapter VII. About one complex hypostasis of God the Word. So, we say that the Divine hypostasis of God the Word existed before all time and eternally - simple, not complex, not created, incorporeal, invisible, intangible, indescribable, having everything that the Father has, as consubstantial with the Father, differing from the Father’s hypostasis in the manner of birth and (personal) property, perfect, never departing from the Father’s hypostasis. Finally, the Word, without departing from the bosom of the Father, indescribably, seedless and incomprehensible, as It Himself knows, entered into the womb of the Holy Virgin and in the most eternal hypostasis received flesh from the Holy Virgin. And being in the womb of the Holy Mother of God, God the Word was, of course, also in everything and above everything, but in Her (primarily) the action of incarnation. So, God the Word became incarnate, receiving from the Mother of God the firstfruits of our composition - flesh, animated by a thinking and rational soul, so that the hypostasis of God the Word itself became a hypostasis for the flesh, and previously simple, the hypostasis of the Word became complex - namely, composed of two perfect natures - Divinity and humanity. And this hypostasis has in itself both the characteristic and distinctive property of the divine Sonship of God the Word, by which it is distinguished from the Father and the Spirit, and so has the characteristic and distinctive properties of the flesh, by which it differs from the Mother and from other people. The Incarnate God the Word has in Himself both those properties of the Divine Nature by which it is united with the Father and the Spirit, and those signs of human nature by which it is united both with the Mother and with us. And, finally, the incarnate Word differs both from the Father and the Spirit, and from His Mother, and from us in that It is one and the same - it is together God and man. For we recognize this as the most distinctive property of the hypostasis of Christ. Therefore, we confess that He is the only Son of God even after the incarnation; He Himself is also the Son of man, the one Christ, the one Lord, the only begotten Son and Word of God, Jesus our Lord. And we honor His birth: one - from the Father, eternal, which is above every reason, word, time and nature; and another - which was in the end for our sake, in our likeness and above us. It is for our sake, because it is for the sake of our salvation; in our likeness - because God the Word became man from a Woman and was born at the usual time after conception; above us because he was born not from a seed, but from the Holy Spirit and from the Holy Virgin Mary, above the law of conception. And we do not preach about Him either as God only, deprived of our humanity, or as a man only, depriving Him of His Divinity, or as God and man separately; but we preach that He is one and the same - there is together God and man, perfect God and perfect man, all God and all man, one and the same - all God together and with His flesh and all man together and with His pre-divine Divinity. By calling Him perfect God and perfect man, we express by this the completeness and absence of any deficiency in natures; By saying that He is all God and all man, we designate the singularity and indivisibility of the hypostasis. We also confess the one nature of God the Word incarnate. When we say “incarnate,” we mean the essence of the flesh, in accordance with the teachings of Blessed Cyril. Therefore, the Word became incarnate and did not lose its immateriality, and everything became incarnate, and everything remains indescribable (unlimited). According to the flesh It is diminished and limited, but according to Divinity it remains unlimited, since His flesh did not expand to the extent of the infinity of His Divinity. Christ is entirely perfect God, but not everything in Him is God; for He is not only God, but also man. In the same way, He is a perfect man, but not everything in Him is man; for He is not only man, but also God. The word all denotes nature, and the word all denotes hypostasis, just as another word indicates nature, and another word indicates hypostasis 125. It is also necessary to know that although we say that (both) natures of the Lord penetrate one another, we know that penetration actually belongs to the Divine nature, for it passes through everything and penetrates as it wishes, but through it nothing (passes or penetrates). It communicates its perfections to the flesh, while itself remaining dispassionate and uninvolved in the passions of the flesh. For if the sun, communicating its actions to us, does not itself become a participant in our properties, then much less the Creator and Lord of the sun. Chapter VIII. Those who inquire about whether the natures in the Lord should be classified as a continuous or scattered quantity? If someone asks about the natures of the Lord, should they be classified as a continuous or scattered number? - We answer that the natures of the Lord are not one body, not one surface, not one line, not time, not place, so that they can be subsumed under a continuous number. For it is continuously calculated. You should also know that calculus only applies to objects that differ from each other, and it is impossible to count objects that do not differ from each other in any way. In what respects objects differ from each other, in this way they are counted. For example, Peter and Paul - since they are one - are not counted. In relation to their essence, being one, they cannot be called two natures; differing in relation to hypostasis, they are called two personalities. Therefore, calculus has to do with objects that differ from each other; and in what respect different objects differ from each other, in this way they are counted 126. So, in relation to the hypostasis of nature in the Lord, they are inseparably united with each other, but in the manner and manner of their differences they are inseparably separated. And in what relation they are connected to each other, they are not counted, for we do not say in relation to hypostasis that in Christ there are two natures. And in what respect the natures are divided inseparably, in that they are counted, for in Christ there are two natures, according to the manner and manner of their distinction. Being united hypostatically and having mutual penetration, they are united unfused, and each of them retains its natural difference intact. Therefore, according to the image of their differences and being countable in this one respect only, the natures in Christ can be summed up under a scattered number. So, one is Christ, perfect God and perfect man. We worship Him with the Father and the Spirit in one worship, together with His most pure flesh. We do not say that the flesh is not worthy of worship, for worship is given to it in the single hypostasis of the Word, which became a hypostasis for the flesh. We do not serve creatures, for we worship the flesh of the Lord not as simple flesh, but as united with the Divinity, and because His two natures are raised to one Person and one hypostasis of God the Word. I'm afraid to touch a burning coal, because fire is connected to wood. I worship both natures together in Christ, because the Divinity is united with His flesh. I do not apply the fourth person to the Trinity - let there not be! - but I confess one Person of God the Word and His flesh. The Trinity remained the Trinity even after the incarnation of the Word 127. Chapter IX. Answer to the question: is there no nature (in Christ) without hypostasis? Although there is no nature that exists without hypostasis, and there is no essence without a face, for both essence and nature are seen in hypostases and persons; however, it does not necessarily follow from this that natures united with each other hypostatically must have - each separately - its own hypostasis. In fact, natures united into one hypostasis may not be hypostasisless, and each may not have a special hypostasis, but both natures can have the same hypostasis. One and the same hypostasis of the Word, having become the hypostasis of both natures, does not allow either of them to be hypostatic, and equally does not allow them to be different hypostases among themselves; and it is not a hypostasis of one nature or another, but always remains a hypostasis of both natures, inseparably and inseparably. The hypostasis is not divided or split into parts, and does not devote one part of itself to one nature and another to another, but always remains a hypostasis of both natures inseparably and completely. For the flesh of God the Word did not receive existence in its own special hypostasis and did not become a different hypostasis in comparison with the hypostasis of God the Word; but, having received hypostasis in it, it became, better to say, accepted into the hypostasis of God the Word, and not existing independently, in its own special hypostasis. That is why it does not exist without hypostasis, and does not introduce another hypostasis into the Trinity 128. Chapter X. About the Trisagion Song. Hence the addition made in the Trisagion Song by the vain Peter Knathevs, we consider blasphemous, since it introduces a fourth person and places separately the Son of God - the hypostatic Power of the Father and the Crucified One separately, as if different from the one who is called the Strong One - or allows the suffering of the Holy Trinity and co-crucifies the Son with the Father and the Holy Spirit. Away with this blasphemous and arbitrarily introduced idle talk! For we understand the words Holy God about the Father, (however) not only separating the name of Divinity to Him alone, but confessing as God (also) both the Son and the Holy Spirit. And we apply the words “Holy Mighty” to the Son, without depriving the strength of the Father and the Holy Spirit. And we apply the words Holy Immortal to the Holy Spirit, but we do not place outside the immortality of the Father and the Son, but we simply and unconditionally understand all the divine names about each hypostasis, imitating the divine Apostle, who says: but to us there is one God the Father, from Him are all things, and we are with Him, and one Lord Jesus Christ, by Him are all things, and we are by Him (1 Cor. 8:6), and one Holy Spirit, in whom are all things, and we are in him. Yes, and Gregory the Theologian in one place says this: (in words) but for us there is one God the Father, from Him is everything, and one Lord Jesus Christ, through Him are all things, and one Holy Spirit, in whom are all things - expressions: from Him, by Him, in Whom - they do not dissect the natures, for (otherwise) those prepositions and that order of names would not change; but they characterize the properties of a single and unmerged nature. And this is clear from the fact that (the indicated expressions) are brought together elsewhere - if you not without attention read the following from the same Apostle: from That and By That and in Him are all things. To him be glory forever and ever. Amen (Rom. 11:36). For the divine and sacred Athanasius, Basil, Gregory and the entire host of God-bearing fathers testify that the Trisagion is not only spoken in relation to the Son, but in relation to the Holy Trinity, namely, that the holy seraphim, with the triple Holy One, proclaim to us the three hypostases of the all-essential Divinity, and in one (word) the Lord gives us to understand the one being and kingdom of the God-originating Trinity. Indeed, Gregory the Theologian says: Thus, the Holy of Holies, covered by the seraphim and glorified by the threefold Holy, converging into one dominion and deity... - about which someone before us philosophized in the most beautiful and sublime way. And the compilers of church history tell that while the people of Constantinople were praying for a certain God-sent disaster that happened under Archbishop Proclus, it happened that a certain youth was taken away from the people and in such a state was taught by some angelic teaching the Trisagion hymn: Holy God, Holy Mighty, Holy Immortal, have mercy on us! And as soon as the boy was returned and proclaimed what he had been taught, then all the people sang a hymn, and thus the threatening disaster ceased. And it is also reported that at the holy great fourth ecumenical council, I mean the one that took place in Chalcedon, the Trisagion was sung in this way, for this is how it is narrated in the acts of the same holy council. So, it is truly funny and amusing that the Trisagion hymn, taught through the angels, certified by the cessation of the misfortune, supported and approved by the council of so many holy fathers, and even earlier sung by the seraphim in commemoration of the Trinitarian Divinity, was now trampled upon and allegedly corrected by Knatheus with his reckless opinion, as if he were superior to the seraphim! What audacity, not to say - what madness! We, even if the demons were torn with frustration, say this: Holy God, Holy Mighty, Holy Immortal, have mercy on us! Chapter XI. About nature, (which is seen in the whole) genus (of beings) and in the indivisible (that is, in each individual being of a certain genus); about the difference between connection and embodiment; and about how the expression should be understood: “The one nature of God the Word incarnate.” Nature is seen either by pure speculation, for in itself it has no independence, or together in all homogeneous hypostases, as mutually connecting them, and (in this case) is called nature, contemplated in a (known) genus (of beings); or else exactly the same (nature) with the addition of accidental accessories in a single being is called the nature contemplated in the indivisible, being identical with that which is contemplated in the (whole) genus. So, God the Word, having become incarnate, did not perceive the nature that is seen in pure speculation, for this would not be the incarnation, but a deception and the ghost of the incarnation, and equally (He accepted) not the nature that is contemplated in the (whole) race, for He did not perceive all the personalities of (human) nature, but (He accepted) that which is in the indivisible, identical with the one that is in kind. For He received the firstfruits of our composition, not one that would have existed in itself and was previously called indivisible, and in this form was accepted by Him, but (our nature), which received being in His hypostasis. For the very hypostasis of God the Word became a hypostasis for the flesh, and in this sense the Word became flesh (John 1:14), - of course, without transformation, and the flesh became the Word - without change, and God (became) man, for the Word is God, and man is God, for the sake of hypostatic union. So, it is one and the same thing to say: “the (human) nature of the Word” and “the nature of the Word in the indivisible.” For this expression in its proper and exclusive sense does not mean either the indivisible, that is, the person, or the aggregate of persons, but the general nature, contemplated and cognized in one of the persons. Indeed, one is connection, and the other is embodiment. Connection actually means only a combination, and with what this connection occurred, it does not yet show. Incarnation, or - which is the same thing - incarnation, means a combination with flesh or with a person, just as the red-hot iron means its union with fire. Therefore, Blessed Cyril himself, explaining in his second letter to Sukens the expression: the one nature of God the Word is incarnate, says this way: “if we, having said: the one nature of the Word, were silent, without adding the word incarnate, as if excluding the economy (incarnation), then perhaps the speech of those who feignedly ask: if (in Christ) in general there is one nature, then where is the fullness of (His) humanity? Or how does the essence corresponding to ours dwell (in Him)? But since the word incarnate introduces an indication of both the fullness of humanity and our corresponding essence, let them stop leaning on the reed staff.” So here he used the nature of the Word instead of nature. For if he took nature for hypostasis, then it would not be inappropriate to say this without adding the word incarnate, for by simply speaking about the one hypostasis of God the Word, we do not sin. In the same way, Leontius of Byzantium understood the saying in relation to nature, and not in the sense of hypostasis. And Blessed Cyril in Apologetics, in view of Theodoret’s censure for the second anathematism, says this: “the nature of the Word, that is, the hypostasis, which is the Word Itself.” Therefore, the expression: the nature of the Word does not designate either only one hypostasis, or the totality of hypostases, but the general nature, wholly contemplated in the hypostasis of the Word. So, that the nature of the Word was incarnate, that is, united with the flesh, it is (really) said; but to this day we have not heard that the nature of the Word suffered in the flesh, but we have been taught that Christ suffered in the flesh, so that the expression the nature of the Word does not denote a person. It remains therefore to say that to be incarnate means to unite with the flesh, and the expression “The Word became flesh” means that the very hypostasis of the Word immutably became the hypostasis of the flesh. And it is said that God became man, and man God, because the Word, being God, was made man without change. But we have never heard that the Divinity became man, or became incarnate, or became human. But we have learned that the Divinity united with humanity in one of His hypostases; that God accepts an image, that is, an alien essence, namely one corresponding to ours - (really) it is said. For the name God is attached to each of the hypostases, but we cannot say Divinity about the hypostasis. For we have not heard that the Father alone, or the Son alone, or the Holy Spirit alone is Divinity, for the word Divinity denotes nature, and the word Father (denotes) hypostasis - just as the word humanity (denotes) nature, and (the name) Peter - hypostasis. The word God also denotes the community of nature, and is used equally in relation to each hypostasis - just like the word man. He who has divine nature is God, and he who has human nature is man. Above all this, one must know that the Father and the Holy Spirit did not participate in the incarnation of the Word in any other way than in relation to divine signs and by good will and will 129 . Chapter XII. About the fact that the Holy Virgin is the Mother of God, against the Nestorians. We glorify the Holy Virgin as the Mother of God in the proper and true sense. For just as He who was born of Her is the true God, so She who gave birth to the true God, who became incarnate from Her, is the true Mother of God. We say that God was born of Her, not in the sense that the Divinity of the Word received its beginning from Her, but in the fact that the Word of God itself, before the ages, born out of time from the Father, abiding without beginning and eternally with the Father and the Spirit, in the last days (Heb. 1:2) for our salvation, entered into the womb of the Holy Virgin and from Her without change was incarnated and born. For the Holy Virgin gave birth not to an ordinary man, but to the true God - not just God, but God incarnate, who did not bring a body from heaven and pass through Her, as if through a channel, but who received from Her the flesh of one essence with us and accepted it into His own hypostasis. For if the body were brought from heaven, and not taken from a nature identical with us, then what need would there be for the incarnation? The incarnation of God the Word was so that the sinned and fallen and corrupted nature itself would defeat the seducing tyrant and thus be freed from corruption, as the divine Apostle says: before death became man, and the resurrection of the dead became man (1 Cor. 15:21). If the first is true, then so is the second 130. If the Apostle says: the first Adam is from the earth, the second Adam is the Lord from heaven (1 Cor. 15:47), then he does not affirm that the body is from heaven, but only makes it clear that He is not an ordinary man. For the Apostle called Him both Adam and Lord, simultaneously denoting both. For the word Adam is interpreted: earth-born. Earth-born clearly signifies human nature, formed from dust. In the word Lord, the divine essence is indicated. The Apostle also says: God sent His only begotten Son, begotten of a woman (Gal. 4:4). He did not say through his wife, but: from his wife. By this, the divine Apostle indicated that it was the Only Begotten Son of God and God who came from the Virgin as a man, and that it was He who was born of the Virgin who was the Son of God and God. He was born in a bodily form, since He became a man, not dwelling in a previously created man, as if in a prophet, but Himself essentially and truly becoming a man, that is, in His hypostasis, giving existence to the flesh, animated by a verbal and rational soul, and Himself becoming a hypostasis for it. For this means the expression of what is born of a woman. How could the Word of God Himself be under the law if it had not become man of the same essence as us? Hence we rightly and truly call Holy Mary the Mother of God, for this name contains the entire sacrament of the economy. For if the one who gave birth is the Mother of God, then the One born of Her is certainly God, but certainly also man. For how could God, who existed before the ages, be born from a woman if He had not become man? If it is He who was born of a woman who is God, then, obviously, one and the same is both He who was born of God the Father according to the divine and beginningless essence, and in recent times He who was born of the Virgin according to that essence that received a beginning and is subject to time, that is, according to human nature. This also means one hypostasis and two natures, and two births of our Lord Jesus Christ. We by no means call the Holy Virgin the Mother of God, because this offensive name was invented by the unclean, vile, Jewish-philosophizing Nestorius, a vessel of reproach, to destroy the word of the Mother of God and to deprive the honor of the Mother of God, who alone is truly exalted in honor above every creature - even if Nestorius and his father Satan were torn with vexation. For both David the king and Aaron the high priest can be called Christ, that is, the anointed one, because these (ministries) - both royal and priestly - were accompanied (upon entering into them) by anointing. And every God-bearing person can be called Christ, but not God by nature, in which sense Nestorius, rejected by God, dared to call the One born of the Virgin God-Bearer. Let us not begin to call or think of Him as the God-Bearer, but as God incarnate! For the Word Himself became flesh, being carried in the womb of the Virgin, (and God came out of Her) together with the perceived human nature, since it was also deified by the Word, at the same time as it was brought into being, so that three events took place simultaneously: perception, being, the deification of humanity by the Word. And thus the Holy Virgin is thought of and called the Mother of God not only for the sake of the (divine) nature of the Word, but also because of the deification of human nature, of which both acceptance and being were accomplished in a miraculous way: acceptance, of course, of the Word, but being in the Word Himself - the flesh. The Mother of God herself supernaturally served to ensure that the Creator became a creature, and God and the Creator of all became incarnate, adoring the perceived humanity, and, at the same time, the union preserves the united natures the same as they entered the union - I mean not only the Divinity, but also the humanity of Christ; both that which is above us and that which corresponds to us. For it is not that (humanity), which was previously identical with ours, subsequently became superior to us, but always - from the first moment of existence - both existed, therefore from the moment of conception (humanity) received existence in the Word Himself. The human (in the human nature of Christ) is such by its own nature, but what is characteristic of God and the divine is supernatural. He also had the properties of animate flesh, for the Word accepted them due to the incarnation, as occurring in a completely natural way, in the order of natural movement 131. Chapter XIII. On the properties of two natures. Confessing the same Lord Jesus Christ as both perfect God and perfect man, we affirm that He has everything that the Father has, except ungeneration, and has everything that the first Adam had, excluding only sin, that is, body and soul, verbal and rational. We also affirm that, corresponding to two natures, He has double properties belonging to two natures: two natural wills - divine and human, and two natural actions - divine and human, and two unique freedoms - divine and human, also wisdom and knowledge - divine and human. Being consubstantial with God and the Father, He freely wants and acts like God. But being consubstantial with us, He Himself freely wants and acts like a man. For His are the miracles, and His are the sufferings. Chapter XIV. About the (two) wills and free actions of our Lord Jesus Christ. Since there are two natures in Christ, we affirm that in Him there are two natural wills and two natural actions. And since the hypostasis of His two natures is one, we affirm that One and the same One wants and acts naturally - according to both natures, of which, in which and which - Christ our God; but he desires and acts not separately, but unitedly, for he desires and acts in each of both natures, with the participation of the other of them. For whoever has the same essence has the same desire and action; whoever has a different essence has different will and action. And vice versa: whoever has the same desire and action, has the same essence; whoever has different desires and actions, has different essence 132. That is why in the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, from the identity of action and will, we recognize the identity of nature. And in the divine economy, from the difference of actions and wills we recognize the differences of natures, and knowing about the difference of natures, we also confess the difference of wills and actions. For just as the number of natures of the same and one Christ, if one thinks and speaks about it piously, does not divide the one Christ; but it certifies the difference of natures that is preserved even in the union itself, - so also the number of wills and actions essentially inherent in His natures - for He desired and acted for our salvation according to both natures - does not introduce division - let it not be! – but it proves conservation, and that’s all. For we call wills and actions natural, and not hypostatic. I’m talking about the very power of desire and action, according to which the willing and the acting wants and acts. If we recognize will and action as personal properties, then we will be forced to say that the three Persons of the Holy Trinity differ from each other in will and activity. One must know that it is not the same thing to want and to want in some (certain) way. To want in general, as well as to see in general, is a property of nature, for it is characteristic of all people. To want in some (certain) way is no longer a property of nature, but of our free choice, just as to see one way or another, good or bad. In fact, not all people want the same and do not see the same. We will accept the same regarding actions. For to want, to see, to act in some (certain) way is a way of using will, sight and action, peculiar only to the one who uses (these abilities) and separating him from others, according to one or another difference 133. So, to want in general is called will, or the ability to want; and this is a rational desire and natural will. To want in some (certain) way, or that which is subject to volition, (presumes) the object of volition and volition by free choice (θελημα γνωμικον). What is by nature capable of willing is called having the property of willing. For example, divine nature, like human nature, is capable of wanting. The one who wants is the one who uses his will, or a certain person, for example, Peter. Therefore, since Christ is one, and His hypostasis is one, then it is one and the same Willer both in the way that is characteristic of God and in the way that is characteristic of man. And since He has two natures - capable of volition, because they are rational, for everything rational is both capable of volition (in general), and has freedom of choice (of certain objects), then we will say that in Him there are two wills or two natural desires. He – the Same One – is capable of wanting according to both of His natures, for He accepted the power of volition that is naturally inherent in us. And since Christ is one and the One who desires according to each of the two natures is one and the same, then we must say that the object of desire in Him is one and the same. And this is not because He wanted only what He wanted by nature - like God - for the desire to eat and drink and the like is not characteristic of the Divine; but he also had such desires that related to the components of human nature, without contradicting the freedom of choice, but due to the properties of natures. For then He naturally wanted this, when His Divine will also wanted, and allowed the flesh to suffer and do what was natural for it. And that desire is inherent in man by nature is clear from the following. With the exception of divine life, there are three kinds of life: vegetative, sentient and rational. Plant life is characterized by movement that promotes nutrition, growth, and birth. Sensing life is characterized by movement corresponding to natural attraction; a rational and reasoning life - free movement. So, if plant life by nature belongs to movement that contributes to nutrition, and to sentient life – movement corresponding to natural attraction, then, consequently, by the nature of rational and reasoning life belongs free movement. Free action is nothing more than desire. Therefore, the Word, having become animate and reasoning flesh, and having free action, became capable of will 134. Next. What belongs to nature does not need to be learned. For no one learns to think or live, or experience hunger or thirst, or sleep. But we don’t learn to want either. Therefore, it is natural to want. And one more thing: if in dumb creatures nature controls, then in a person who moves freely, according to his desire, she (herself) serves as the controlled principle. Therefore, man is capable of volition by nature. And one more thing: if man is created in the image of the blessed and essential Godhead, and God’s nature by nature has the ability of free choice and will, then, consequently, man, as His image, by nature has the ability of free choice and will. For the fathers defined the ability of free choice as will. Moreover, if the ability to want is inherent in all people, and (it cannot be said) that it is inherent in some and not in others, and what is seen in everyone in general characterizes nature in indivisibles of the same kind, then, consequently, man by nature has the ability to will 135 . And again: if nature does not tolerate either increase or decrease, and the ability to want belongs equally to all (people), and not so that some have it to a greater extent and others to a lesser extent, then, consequently, a person has the ability to will by nature. Hence, if a person has the ability to will by nature, then the Lord, not only as God, but also because he became man, has the ability to will by nature. For just as He took on our nature, so He took on our will in nature. And therefore the fathers expressed that He imprinted our will in Himself. If the will is not a property of nature, then it is either a property of the personality or is contrary to nature. But if the will were a property of the individual, then the Son would have a will different from the will of the Father, for a personal property characterizes only one person. And if the will were contrary to nature, then it would mean a loss of nature. For that which is contrary to nature is destructive of that which corresponds to nature 136. God and the Father of all things wills either as the Father or as God. But if He had a will like the Father, it would be different compared to the will of the Son. For the Son is not the Father. If He has will as God, and the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, then, therefore, will is an accessory of nature, that is, natural. More. If in anything, as the fathers say, there is one will, there is one essence, and if at the same time there were one will in Christ - both His Divinity and humanity - then their essence would be one and the same 137. And vice versa: if, as the fathers say, the difference of nature could not manifest itself in a single will, then it is necessary (one of two things): either that those who speak of a single will do not posit a difference of natures in Christ, or do not speak of a single will. And further. As the Divine Gospel says, the Lord, having come to the region of Tire and Sidon and entered into the house, wanted no one to haunt him: and he could not hide himself (Mark 7:24). If His divine will is omnipotent, He could not hide, although He wanted, then, therefore, He could not, having willed like a man, and (in general) had the ability to will, like a man 138. And he also says (the Gospel): having come to the place, the verb: I thirst (John 19:28). And she gave Him wine mixed with gall: and he tasted it, not wanting to drink (Matthew 27:34). So, if He thirsted, like God, and tasted, not wanting to drink, then, consequently, He was subject to suffering, like God, for thirst and eating are a suffering state. If He thirsted not as God, then, without a doubt, as a man, and in general, as a man, he had the ability to want. And the blessed Apostle Paul says: He became obedient even to the point of death, death on the cross (Phil. 2:8). Obedience is submission to the will that really exists, and not to that which does not exist. For we will not call a dumb animal obedient or disobedient. Having become obedient to the Father, He became (such) not as God, but as man. For, as God, He is neither obedient nor disobedient, since this is characteristic of subordinate beings, as the God-bearing Gregory says. Consequently, Christ as a man had the ability to will 139. By calling desire natural, we mean not forced, but free desire. For if it is reasonable, then it is certainly free. Not only does the divine and uncreated nature tolerate no coercion, but also rational creation. And this is obvious: God, being by nature good, by nature the Creator, by nature God, is not such due to necessity. For who can force Him? 140. You should know that freedom is spoken of in different senses differently - in relation to God, differently - in relation to angels, and (even) differently in relation to people. For in relation to God (this word must be understood) in a supernatural meaning. In relation to the angels, such that fulfillment follows directly the inclination and does not allow for any lapse of time. For, in fact, having freedom by nature, the angel uses it unhindered, experiencing neither opposition from the body nor attack from the outside. In relation to people - in the sense that in time the inclination is thought before the fulfillment. For, although man is free and has freedom by nature, he also has an attack from the devil and a (counteracting) movement of the body. So, due to this attack and the heaviness of the body, his fulfillment is delayed compared to his inclination. So, if Adam obeyed (the seducer) voluntarily and tasted because he wanted (it), then, therefore, first of all, the will suffered in us (from sin). If, first of all, the will suffered, and, however, it was not received, along with nature, by the incarnate Word, then, consequently, we were not freed from sin 141. More. If the ability of free will, inherent in our nature, is His work, and the incarnate Word did not perceive it, then either because it neglected its creation as bad, or because, out of envy of us, it did not want to heal this ability, depriving us of perfect healing, and showing Himself to be subject to weakness, since it either did not want or could not save us completely. On the other hand, it is impossible to speak of one thing composed of two wills, just as we speak of (one) hypostasis consisting of (two) natures. Firstly, because addition is allowed by objects that exist independently and are contemplated in their own and not in another sense. Secondly, if we allow the addition of wills and actions, then we will be forced to talk about the addition of other natural properties - (for example), createdness and uncreatedness, visibility and invisibility, and the like. And what do you call a will made up of two wills? For it is impossible to call something composed by the name of the objects from which it is composed. For otherwise, what is composed of (two) natures will have to be called nature, and not hypostasis. Moreover, if we recognize in Christ a single complex will, then, in relation to the will, we will distinguish Him from the Father, for the will of the Father is not complex. So, it remains only for the Hypostasis of Christ to be recognized as complex and common - both to His natures and to His natural properties 142. It is impossible to talk about free choice and free decision in the proper sense in relation to the Lord. For free choice is a disposition towards what is being discussed, (coming) after research and reflection on an unknown subject, that is, after consultation and judgment (about it). It (follows) a free decision, which chooses for itself and prefers one thing to another. The Lord, being not a simple man, but also God, and knowing everything, had no need for examination or research, or consultation, or judgment. He had a natural inclination towards good and an aversion to evil. This is what the prophet Isaiah says: before he knows to reject his will, the evil one will choose what is good; before he knows to reject what is good or evil, he will reject the evil one, even if he chooses what is good (Is. 7:15-16). The Word first shows that He was not like us, as a result of research and deliberation, but, being God and Divine, He began to exist in the flesh, that is, hypostatically united with the flesh, by virtue of His very being and omniscience, He possessed good by His nature. For virtues are natural and are naturally and equally found in everyone, although we do not all do to the same extent what is in accordance with nature. For through crime we fell from a natural state into an unnatural state. The Lord again raised us from an unnatural state to a natural one. For this is what the words mean: in image and likeness (Gen. 1:26). In the same way, both asceticism and ascetic labors were invented not for the acquisition of virtue, as introduced from outside, but so that we overthrow from ourselves a vice that is alien and contrary to nature. Similarly, we achieve the fact that the natural shine of iron appears - with effort we remove the rust found on the iron, which is not natural for it, but came from negligence. However, it should be noted that the word γνωμη has many shades and meanings. Sometimes it means exhortation, instruction, as the divine Apostle says: the imam does not command the Lord about virgins, but I give advice (γνωμην) (1 Cor. 7:25). Sometimes it means a meeting, for example, when the prophet David says: Thy will is wicked against the people (γνωμην) (Ps. 82:4), sometimes it means a sentence, like in Daniel: about what came out the saying (γνωμη) is a cold cue (Dan. 2:15). And sometimes it means faith, opinion or way of thinking - and, generally speaking, the word γνωμη is used in twenty-eight meanings 143. Chapter XV. About actions in our Lord Jesus Christ. We affirm that in our Lord Jesus Christ there are also two actions. As God and consubstantial with the Father, He had, equally (with Him), divine action, but, as having become man and consubstantial with us, He had the action characteristic of human nature. But one must know that one thing is action, and another is that which is capable of acting, and another is that which is produced by action, and another is the agent. Action is an active and independent movement of nature. And that which is capable of action is the very nature from which action comes; what is produced by action is the result of action; The actor is the user of the action, or the person. However, action is called that which is produced, and also that which is produced is called action, just as a creature is called creation. So, we say: all creation, denoting created things. One must also know that action is movement, and it is rather produced than produced, as Gregory the Theologian says in his word on the Holy Spirit: ... “if there is action, then obviously it will be produced, not produced, and as soon as it is completed, it will cease” 144. It should also be noted that life itself is an action, and, moreover, the initial action of a living being; as well as every function of a living being, both conducive to nutrition and growth, that is, physical, and movement corresponding to attraction, that is, the manifestation of a sensory function, and (finally) both rational and free movement. Action is the result of the use of force. So, if we see all this in Christ, then, therefore, we must affirm human action in Him. Action is also called the thinking that first of all occurs in us. And it is a simple action and not manifested externally, since the mind itself invisibly produces its thoughts, without which it actually could not be called mind. Action, in turn, is also called the discovery and disclosure, through the utterance of a word, of what is obtained by reflection. Such an action is no longer something that remains without external detection and is simple, but is already contemplated in external detection, being composed of thought and word. And the very relation that the actor has to what is happening is action. And the very result of action is (sometimes) called action. Some belong to the soul alone, others belong to the soul using the body, others belong to the body animated by the rational soul, and others, finally, are the result. For the mind, having foreseen what will happen, acts through the body. Therefore dominion belongs to the soul; for she uses the body as an instrument, guiding and directing it. Another is the action of the body, controlled by the soul and set in motion. What is done by the body includes touching, holding and, as it were, grasping what is being done. What is accomplished by the soul includes drawing up, as it were, an image and outline of what is happening. So in relation to our Lord Jesus Christ, the power of miracles was the action of His Divinity. The works of His hands and the fact that He wanted and said: I will, be cleansed (Matthew 8:3) - was the action of His Humanity. The breaking of the bread, and the fact that the leper heard what he wanted, was the result of His human action; and the multiplication of the loaves and the cleansing of the leper were the result of divine action. For by both actions - mental and physical - He revealed one and the same, identical and equal His divine action. Just as we recognize (in Christ) natures as united and interpenetrating each other and (however) we do not reject their differences, but (jointly) we count them and recognize them as inseparable, so we recognize the union of wills and actions, and we note the differences, and we count them, and we do not introduce divisions. Just as the flesh (in Christ) was deified and did not suffer a change in its nature, so will and action were both deified and did not go beyond their limits. For there is one, who is both God and man, and who wills and acts in one and the other way, that is, characteristic of both God and man. Therefore, since there are two natures in Christ, it is necessary to talk about two actions in Him. For in whom the natures are different, the actions are also different, and in whom the actions are different, the natures are also different. And vice versa: in whom the nature is one, the action is one, and in whom the action is one, there is one essence, according to the teaching of the God-speaking fathers. Therefore, one of two things is necessary: ​​either that those who speak of one activity in Christ recognize (in Him) one essence; or, if we really adhere to the truth and, in accordance with the teachings of the Gospel and the Fathers, we confess (in Him) two essences, then together we must confess in Him two actions, correspondingly and accompanying ones. For, being consubstantial with God the Father in divinity, Christ must be equal to Him in relation to action. He himself, being consubstantial with us in humanity, must be equal (to us) in action. Blessed Gregory, Bishop of Nyssa, says: “in whom the action is one, in those, without a doubt, the power is the same.” For every action is a product of force. But it is impossible for uncreated and created nature to have one nature, or one force, or one action. If we begin to talk about one action in Christ, then to the Divinity of the Word we will attribute the suffering states characteristic of the rational soul - I mean fear, sadness, death struggle 146. If they say that the Holy Fathers, speaking about the Holy Trinity, asserted: “in whom the essence is one, they have the same action, and in whom the essence is different, the action is different,” and that what is related to the doctrine of God should not be transferred to the Incarnation, then we will answer: if the Fathers said this only in relation to the doctrine of God, if the Son after the Incarnation does not have the same action as the Father, then He will not to have an identical (with Him) essence. But, in this case, to whom do we refer the words: My Father works hitherto, and I work (John 5:17)? Also: if a hedgehog sees the Father doing something, the Son also does the same thing (John 5:19). Also: if you do not believe Me, believe in My work (John 10:38). And: the works that I do testify about Me (John 10:25). Also: just as the Father raises the dead and lives, so the Son also wants them and lives (John 5:21). All this shows that the Son, even after the incarnation, is not only consubstantial with the Father, but has the same action with Him 147. And again: if the providence for the world belongs not only to the Father and the Holy Spirit, but also to the Son, and after the incarnation, this same (providence) is an action, then, consequently, even after the incarnation He has the same action with the Father. If from miracles we learned that Christ is consubstantial with the Father, and miracles are the action of God, then, consequently, even after the incarnation He has the same action with the Father. If the action of Divinity and humanity in Christ is one, then it would be complex. And then it would turn out - either that He has an action that is different from the Father, or that the Father’s action is complex. If action were complex, then it is obvious that nature would also be complex. Perhaps they will say that, along with the action, a (separate) person is introduced. Then we will answer that if a person is introduced along with the action, then, by a completely correct converse conclusion, the action will be introduced along with the person. But then, according to three persons or three hypostases of the Holy Trinity, three actions will also have to be allowed, or - in accordance with one action - one person and one hypostasis will be recognized. But the holy fathers taught in agreement that those who have the same essence also have the same action 148. Moreover, if a person is introduced along with an action, then those who prescribe not to speak of one or two actions in Christ prescribe not to speak of either one or two of His Persons. In a red-hot sword, both two natures - fire and iron - and two actions, along with their results, are preserved. Iron has the power to cut, and fire has the power to burn, and cutting is the result of the action of fire. Moreover, the difference between both is preserved both in a cut accompanied by a burning sensation, and in a burning sensation accompanied by a cut, although after the union (of iron and fire) neither a burning sensation can exist without a cut, nor a cut without a burning sensation. For the sake of the duality of natural action (the red-hot sword), we do not talk about two red-hot swords, and likewise, because of the unity of the red-hot sword, we do not confuse the essential difference (the action it produces). So in Christ, His Divinity is characterized by divine and omnipotent action, while His humanity is characterized by action corresponding to ours. The result of the Lord’s human action was that He took the girl’s hand and raised it, but the Divine action was her return to life. These actions are different, although in the action of the God-man they are inseparable from each other. If, because there is one person in the Lord, one recognizes one action in Him, then, due to the fact that there is one person in Him, it would be necessary to admit one essence. Next. If we talk about one action in the Lord, we will have to call it either Divine, or human, or neither one nor the other. But if we call Him Divine, then we will speak of Him only as God, who does not have our human nature. If we call Him human, then we blasphemously recognize Him as a simple man. If we do not call him either Divine or human, then we cannot recognize the Lord as either God or man, we cannot recognize Him as consubstantial either with God the Father or with us. For hypostatic identity occurred as a result of the union (of natures), but not in such a way that the difference of natures was thereby destroyed. If the difference of natures remains, then it is clear that their actions must also be preserved. For there is no nature devoid of action 149. If the action of the Lord Christ is one, then it would be either created or uncreated. There is no middle action between them, just as there is no middle nature. If it were created, it would show (in Christ) only one created nature; and if it were uncreated, it would characterize only an uncreated entity. For what belongs to nature must fully correspond to its nature, since it is impossible for a nature to exist if it lacks natural properties. Action, in accordance with nature, does not receive existence from the outside; It is also obvious that nature, without action in accordance with it. can neither exist nor be knowable. Through the way each being acts, it confirms its own nature - from the side that is unchangeable in it. If there were one activity in Christ, then the same activity would produce both divine and human works. But nothing that exists, while remaining within the boundaries inherent in nature, can produce opposite actions. For example, fire cannot both warm and cool; water - make wet and dry. How can He, who by nature is God and by nature became man, perform miracles and endure suffering with the same action? If Christ took on the human mind, that is, the rational and thinking soul, then He undoubtedly thought and will always think. Thinking is an action of the mind. Consequently, Christ has and will always have action also as a man 150. The wise and great Saint John Chrysostom, in his interpretation of “Acts,” in the second word says this: “Do not sin if anyone calls His suffering an action. For by the fact that he endured everything, he accomplished that great and wonderful work - destroying death and completing everything else” 151. If every action is defined as the independent movement of some nature, as explained by people knowledgeable in this regard, then does anyone know of a motionless or completely inactive nature, or is it possible to find such an action that would not be the movement of a natural force? And that the natural action of God and creation is one, this - as Blessed Cyril puts it - cannot be allowed by any right-thinking person. It is not human nature that resurrects Lazarus, and it is not divine power that sheds tears: tears are characteristic of humanity, life is characteristic of hypostatic life. However, both are common to both due to the identity of hypostasis. There is one Christ, and one person, or hypostasis, - and yet He has two natures - Divine and human. Therefore, on the one hand, the glory naturally arising from the Divinity, due to the identity of the hypostasis, became common to both natures; on the other hand, the pejorative, which comes from the flesh, has become common to each of both natures. For He who is both, that is, God and man, is one, and to one and the same belong the divine and human properties. The Divine performed divine signs, but not without flesh; the derogatory thing was produced by the flesh, but not separately from the Divinity. For the Divinity was united with the suffering flesh, remaining dispassionate, but making suffering salutary; and with the active Divinity of the Word was connected the holy mind, which understood and was aware of what was happening 152. The Divinity, although it communicates His perfections to the body, is not itself involved in the suffering of the flesh. For it cannot be said that just as the Divinity acted in Christ through the medium of the flesh, in the same way His flesh experienced suffering through the medium of the Divinity. For His flesh received the name of the instrument of the Divine. So, although from the first moment of conception there was no separation between one and the other nature, but throughout the entire continuation (of earthly existence) the actions of one and the other nature belonged to one person - however, in no case do we merge what was completely inseparable, but from the quality of deeds we learn what belonged to which nature. So, Christ acts according to one and the other of His natures, and each of the two natures acts in Him with the participation of the other: the Word, by the unlimitedness and power of the Divinity, accomplishes what is precisely characteristic of the Word - sovereign and royal; the body (does what is proper to it) in accordance with the will of the Word united with it, Whose it has become property. For it did not of itself strive to satisfy natural needs and did not of itself withdraw and evade painful things or endure what happened from the outside, but was set in motion in accordance with its nature, as the Word wanted and, for the purposes of economy, allowed the body to suffer and do what was proper to it, so that the truth of (human) nature would be verified through deeds 153 . Having been conceived of a Virgin, Christ received his being in a supernatural way. In the same way, He performed deeds characteristic of people in such a way that it surpassed (ordinary) man: (for example) He walked with earthly feet on flowing water, not because the water turned into earth, but because, by the power of the Divine that exceeded nature, it was condensed to the point that it did not spill and did not yield to the weight of material feet. For even what is characteristic of man, Christ did not do like an ordinary man, because He was not only a man, but also God; why His sufferings were life-giving and saving. And He did the deeds that belong to the Divinity not in the way that is characteristic of God, because He was not only God, but also a man, - why He performed divine miracles with a touch and a word, and in a similar way 154. If someone says: we recognize in Christ one action not in order to eliminate human action, but because human action - if we contrast it with the Divine action (as special), should be called suffering - that is why we talk about one action in Christ - we will answer this: on the same basis, those who recognize one nature in Christ explain that they do not do this with the aim of eliminating human nature, but because human nature - if compared with the Divine nature, as the opposite of Him - will have to be recognized as subject to suffering. We will not allow ourselves to call human movement, in order to distinguish it from Divine action, suffering. For in no thing, generally speaking, is the state known or determined by juxtaposition or comparison, (since) in this case existing things would turn out to mutually blame each other (for shortcomings). If human movement is suffering only because Divine movement is action, then it is certain that human nature will be evil, because Divine nature is good. And conversely - by contrast - the Divine movement would be called action (only) for the reason that human movement is called suffering, and the Divine nature would be good due to the fact that human nature is evil. And in that case, all creatures would turn out to be bad, and the one who said would be lying: and God saw everything that was created: and this was very good (Genesis 1:31). We affirm that the holy fathers designated human movement in various ways, according to the ideas that underlay (their reasoning in this or that case). They called it power, and action, and difference, and movement, and property, and quality, and suffering, but not from the point of view of distinguishing it from the Divine movement. But by force they called it as constant and unchangeable; by action - as characteristic (of a being) and showing it from that side that is unchanged in all beings of the same kind; difference - as facilitating differentiation (of one being from another); movement - as revealing itself outside, property - as a strong belonging (of a species), moreover, inherent only in one (species), and not in another; quality - as giving certainty to the appearance; by suffering - as produced in movement. For everything that is from God and after God, being in a state of movement, suffers, since it is not self-movement or self-power. So, not from the point of view of opposition (to the Divine movement), as has already been said, (the Fathers called human movement suffering), but in accordance with the meaning that is invested in it by the (Supreme) Cause, which arranged everything. Therefore, when speaking about human movement together with the Divine, they called it action. For the one who said: “each of the two natures acts with the participation of the other” did not mean anything else, just like the one who said: and having fasted for fourty days, after a hunger (Matthew 4:2), for (Christ), when he wanted, allowed the nature to act as it was peculiar to him. The same is understood by those who speak of different actions in Him, or of double actions, or of this and that kind of action. For these expressions only denote two actions in different words. In fact, through the change of names, number is often revealed - in this case, Divine and human actions. For distinction presupposes the distinction of what actually exists. And what does not exist, how will it differ? 155. Chapter XVI. Against those who say: if in man there are two natures and two actions, then in Christ it is necessary to assume three natures and the same number of actions. Each individual person, consisting of two natures - the soul and the body - and having them in himself in an unchanged form, can rightly be called (consisting of) two natures, for even after the union (of soul and body) he retains the natural property of each of them. For the body (even after union with the soul) is not immortal, but perishable; also the soul (even after union with the body) is not mortal, but immortal; and the body does not become invisible, nor does the soul become visible with bodily eyes. The soul has the ability to understand, is endowed with reason, is incorporeal; the body is crude, visible and unreasonable. And what is opposite to each other in its essence is not of the same nature. So, soul and body are not of the same essence. And back. If a person is a living, rational, mortal being, and every definition shows the natures that are subject to (definition), then, from the point of view of nature, the property of rationality is not the same as the property of mortality. Consequently, man - according to the norm of his definition - does not consist of one nature. If it is sometimes said that man is from one nature, then in this case the name of the nature is taken instead of the name of the species. For example, when we say: a person does not differ from a person by any difference in nature, but since all people have exactly the same composition, being made up of soul and body, so that everyone has two natures, then everyone is brought under one definition. And this is not strange, since the sacred Athanasius even called the nature of all creatures, as created, one. In his word against those who blaspheme the Holy Spirit, he says: and that the Holy Spirit is higher than creation, is different from the nature of created being, and belongs to the Divine nature - can be understood from the following. Everything that is seen together and in many things, and is not found in one of them to a lesser extent, and in another to a greater extent, is called essence. Therefore, since every person is made up of soul and body, in this sense it is said that the nature of people is one. In relation to the face of the Lord, we cannot speak of one nature, for even after the union of natures, each of them retains its natural property, and there is no generic concept - Christ, since there was no other Christ - from Divinity and humanity, instead of God and man 156. Next. The expression: one, in relation to the generic concept of man, does not mean at all the same thing as what it means in relation to the essence of soul and body. In fact, in relation to the generic concept of a person, the word: one, indicates that in all people it is completely similar. In relation to the essence of the soul and body, one expression destroys their very existence, bringing them to complete destruction, because either one will turn into the essence of the other, or something else will come from both and they will both change, or, remaining within their own limits, they will remain two natures, since, in relation to the essence, the body is not the same in comparison with what is incorporeal. And therefore, if we are talking about one nature of man - not in the sense of the identity of the essential quality of soul and body, but in the sense that the indivisibles, constituting one species, have something unchangeable in themselves - then it is not at all necessary to talk about one nature in Christ, for in relation to Christ there is no generic concept that would embrace many indivisibles. Moreover, about any complex object it is said that it consists of such elements as are closely included in its composition. So, we do not say that the house is made of earth and water, but of bricks and logs. Otherwise, it would have to be said about man that he consists of at least five natures, namely, the four elements and the soul. So in our Lord Jesus Christ we consider not the parts of His constituent parts, but (only) the parts that are most closely included in the composition (of His personality) - Divinity and humanity. Moreover, if, by saying that there are two natures in man, we would be forced to recognize three natures in Christ, then you, too, by asserting that man is of two natures, will have to teach that Christ is of three natures. The same must be said about actions, because there must necessarily be action in accordance with nature. And that man is called and is made up of two natures, Gregory the Theologian testifies, saying: “God and man are two natures, just like the soul and the body.” And in the word about baptism, he says the following: “since we are dual - from soul and body, and one nature is visible, the other is invisible, then cleansing is twofold, namely, by water and by spirit” 157. Chapter XVII. That in the Lord the nature of the flesh and the will are deified. You should know: it is said about the flesh of the Lord that it was deified, became one with God and God - not by transformation or transformation, or change or merging of nature, as Gregory the Theologian says 158. “One of the natures became deified, the other was deified and, I dare say, became one with God; and He who anointed became man, and He who was anointed became God.” And this is not by a change in nature, but by a union that occurred for the sake of achieving salvation - I mean a hypostatic union, by which the flesh was inextricably united with God the Word and by the mutual penetration of natures - just as we talk about the penetration of iron by fire. For just as we confess the incarnation without change or transformation, so, as we imagine, the deification of the flesh was accomplished. For because the Word became flesh, He did not leave the realm of Divine existence and was not deprived of His inherent perfections befitting God, nor did the flesh, being deified, suffer a transformation in its nature or in its natural properties. And after the union, both the natures remained unmixed and their properties intact. The flesh of the Lord, due to the closest, that is, hypostatic, union with God the Word, was enriched with divine powers, without losing any of its natural properties, for it performed divine actions not by its own power, but because of the union of God the Word with it, since the Word through the flesh manifested the action characteristic of Him. For red-hot iron burns not because it possesses the power of burning by nature, but because it receives this property from combining with fire 159 . So, one and the same flesh was mortal in itself, but through its hypostatic union with God the Word it was life-giving. In a similar way we speak about the deification of the will - not in the sense that the natural movement has changed, but in the fact that it united with His divine and omnipotent will and became the will of God incarnate. Therefore, when the Lord wanted to hide himself (Mark 7:24), He could not do it according to His human will, for God the Word was pleased to show that the weakness of the human will really was in Him. But, according to His will, He carried out the cleansing of the leper due to the union of the human will with the will of the Divine 160. You should also know that the deification of both nature and will is the clearest and most convincing proof of both two natures and two wills. For, just as incandescence does not transform the nature of a red-hot thing into the nature of fire, but shows both that which is incandescent and that which is incandescent, and serves (thus) to designate not one, but two, so deification does not produce one complex nature, but (certifies) two natures and their hypostatic union. In fact, Gregory the Theologian (when) says: “of them, one has deified, and the other is deified,” with the words: “of them,” also: “one,” “other” indicates (precisely) two (natures). Chapter XVIII. Also about the fact that in the Lord there are (two) wills and freedoms, also (two) minds, knowledge and wisdom. Calling Christ a perfect God and a perfect man, without a doubt, we must assimilate to Him all the natural properties of both Father and Mother. For He became man so that the conquered would triumph. The Almighty could snatch a person from under the power of the tormentor with His omnipotent power and strength; but in this case the tormentor would have an excuse to complain that he defeated a man, but suffered violence from God. Therefore, the merciful and humane God wanted to reveal the fallen himself as a winner; he becomes a man, correcting like with like. And no one will object that a person is a living being, gifted with thinking and reason. Indeed, how could God become a man if He took on inanimate flesh or an unreasonable soul? After all, this is not a person. What benefit would we have in becoming human if that (mind) that suffered in man first of all had not been healed, and if it had not been renewed and strengthened through union with the Divine? For what was not received would not have been healed. Therefore, God perceives the whole person, and together the best part of him that has fallen into illness, in order to grant salvation to the whole person. But there can never be a mind without wisdom, devoid of knowledge. For if he were inactive and motionless, then he would not exist at all 161. So, God the Word, wanting to renew what (was created) in (His) image, became man. And what is (created) in the image, if not the mind? Could it be that, having neglected the best, He accepted the worst? For the mind occupies, as it were, an intermediate position between God and the flesh: between the flesh, as united with it, and God, as His image. So, the mind is united with the mind and serves as a means between the purity of the Divine and the coarseness of the flesh. For if the Lord had accepted a soul devoid of reason, then he would have accepted the soul of a senseless animal 162. If the evangelist said that the Word was made flesh (John 1:14), then you should know that in the Holy Scriptures a person is sometimes called a soul, for example: among seventy-five souls Jacob entered Egypt (Gen. 46:27; Acts 7:14); sometimes it is called flesh, for example: all flesh will see the salvation of God (Isa. 40:5. Wed. Luke 7:6). So, the Lord became not inanimate flesh and devoid of reason, but a man. Indeed, He Himself says: that I am beshi (John 18:23) - a man who told you the truth (John 8:40). So, He took on flesh, animated by a meaningful and rational soul, which governed the flesh, while it itself was governed by the Divinity of the Word. So, He naturally had the ability to will both as God and as man; however, His human will followed and obeyed His (Divine) will, being set in motion not by its own command, but by desiring what His Divine will wanted. When the Divine will allowed, then (the human will) naturally experienced what was characteristic of it. So, when His human will denied death, and His Divine will deigned to do this and allowed it, then the Lord naturally prayed for the aversion of death and was in struggle and fear. When His Divine will wanted His human will to choose death, then suffering became voluntary for it, for He voluntarily gave Himself up to death, not only as God, but also as a man. By this He gave us fearlessness against death. Thus, before His saving suffering He says: Father, if it is possible to eat, let this cup pass by from Me (Matthew 26:39). Obviously, He had to drink the cup like a man, for (he could not drink it) like God. Therefore, as a man, He wants His cup to pass. These were words of natural fear. Otherwise, not My will be done (Luke 22:42), that is, since I am a different essence compared to You, but Yours, that is, Mine and Yours, since I am by nature consubstantial with You. These are, on the contrary, words of courage. For the soul of the Lord, as having become, by His good pleasure, a true man, having first experienced natural weakness, due to the feeling that arose during separation (from earthly life) and having experienced natural compassion for the body, then, strengthened by the Divine will, courageously decides to die. Since the Lord - the Same One - was perfect God, together with His humanity - and perfect man, together with His Divinity - then He Himself, as a man, in Himself and through Himself, subordinated (all) human things to God the Father and became obedient to the Father, giving us in Himself the best example and example. But by Divine and human will He wanted freely. For free will is undoubtedly innate in every thinking nature. For why would she have the ability to think if she did not think freely? The Creator also imparted to dumb animals a natural attraction that compels them to strive for the well-being of their own nature. Not possessing reason, they cannot control natural attraction, but (themselves) are controlled by it. Why, along with the emergence of attraction, the desire for corresponding action immediately arises - for animals do not use either conversation, consultation, consideration, or judgment. Therefore, they are not praised or pleased as those who act virtuously, nor are they punished as those who commit evil. And although a thinking being also has an excited natural attraction, in preserving what is in accordance with nature, this attraction is controlled and ordered by reason. For the advantage of reason is free will, which we call natural movement in a thinking being. Therefore, when it follows virtue, it is praised and pleased, and when it follows vice, it is punished. Hence, the soul of the Lord wanted, freely set in motion, but freely wanted exactly what His Divine will wanted it to want. For it was not by the wave (only) of the Word that the flesh was moved; after all, Moses and all the saints were moved by the call of God. But the one Lord - the same - being together God and man, wanted according to the Divine and human will. Therefore, the two wills of the Lord differed from one another not by mood, but rather by nature of strength (both). For His Divine will was both beginningless and had the power to do everything, being accompanied by power, and was impassive. His human will received its beginning from a (known) time, and itself endured natural and immaculate passions and naturally was not omnipotent, but, as having been made truly and by nature by the will of God the Word, it became omnipotent 163. Chapter XIX. About godly action. Blessed Dionysius, having expressed that Christ in His life showed us some new godly action, speaks of one action, composed of human and Divine, without denying (in Him two) natural actions. For in this case we could talk about one new nature, made up of Divine and human, since in which there is one action, there is one essence, according to the teaching of the holy fathers. But (Dionysius put it this way), wanting to show a new and inexplicable image of the manifestation of the natural actions of Christ, according to the inexplicable image of the mutual penetration of natures in Christ, also (wanting to show) an extraordinary wonderful and unknown to the nature of beings way of His human life, as well as an image of mutual communication (properties), according to the ineffable union (of natures). We do not say that (in Christ) actions are separate, and that natures act separately from one another; but (we affirm) that each (of them) together with the other, with the participation of the other, accomplishes what is characteristic of it. For even what is characteristic of man, Jesus Christ did not do as man usually does, since He was not an ordinary man; Equally, he did what was characteristic of God not as God did only, because he was not just God, but God and man together. For just as in relation to nature we recognize both union and natural difference, so also in relation to natural wills and actions 164 . So, you should know that in relation to our Lord Jesus Christ, sometimes we speak of two natures, and sometimes of one person, but both are raised (in fact) to one concept. For there are two natures - one Christ, and one Christ - two natures. Therefore, it makes no difference whether to say: Christ acts according to each of His natures - or to say: each nature in Christ acts with the participation of another. So, the Divine nature takes part in the actions of the flesh, because, by the good will of the Divine will, the flesh was allowed to suffer and do what was characteristic of it, and also because the action of the flesh was undoubtedly saving, which is characteristic not of human action, but of Divine action. The flesh takes part in the actions of the Divinity of the Word, because Divine actions were performed through the body, as if through an instrument, and also because One was the One who acted, both in the way that is characteristic of God, and at the same time in the way that is characteristic of man. One must also know that the holy mind of Christ performs its natural actions, thinking and understanding that he is the mind of God, and that all creation worships him, and together remembering His stay and suffering on earth. In the action of the Divinity of the Word, in His arrangement and management of everything, the mind of Christ takes part, thinking and understanding, and eliminating it not as the ordinary mind of man, but as hypostatically united with God and receiving the name of the mind of God. So, divine action means that since God became a man, that is, became human, His human action was Divine, that is, deified, and not deprived of participation in His Divine action. Likewise, His Divine action was not deprived of participation in His human actions, but each of both actions was contemplated together with the other. This image (of speech) is called περιφρασις - when someone embraces two concepts in one word. In fact, as in a red-hot sword, the burning accompanied by a cut, as well as the cut accompanied by a burning, although we call one (action), we nevertheless affirm that one action is a cut, and the other is a burning, and the first belongs to one, and the second to another nature, namely: burning to fire, and cutting to iron; likewise, and by calling the divine action of Christ one, we mean two actions of His two natures: one action is Divine, belonging to His Divinity, and the other is human, belonging to His humanity. Chapter XX. About natural and impeccable passions. We also confess that Christ assumed all the natural and blameless passions of man. For He took upon the whole man and everything peculiar to man, except sin, because sin is not natural and not implanted in us by the Creator, but arises from the subsequent sowing of the devil in our free will with our consent and does not dominate us by force. Natural and impeccable passions are not in our power - those that have risen into human life as a result of conviction for a crime, such as hunger, thirst, fatigue, labor, tears, decay, evasion of death, fear, death throes, from which sweat, drops of blood, help from angels for the sake of the weakness of nature, and the like, which is inherent in all people by nature. So, Christ accepted everything in order to sanctify everything. He was tempted and won in order to prepare for us victory and to give nature the power to defeat the enemy, so that nature, once defeated, would defeat the once victorious through those attacks through which it itself was defeated. The evil one attacked Christ from without, and not through thoughts, just as he attacked Adam, for he also attacked him not through thoughts, but through the serpent. The Lord repulsed the attack and scattered it like smoke, so that the passions that had attacked Him and were defeated would become easily overcome for us, so that (thus) the new Adam would heal the old one. Of course, our natural passions were in Christ both in accordance with nature and above nature. For in accordance with nature they were aroused in Him when He allowed the flesh to endure what was characteristic of it, and above nature because what was natural in Christ did not precede His will. In fact, nothing in Him is seen as forced, but everything is voluntary. For He hungered of His own free will, He thirsted of His own free will, He feared of His own free will, He died of His own free will. Chapter XXI. About ignorance and slavery. It should be known that Christ assumed a nature that did not have knowledge and was slavish, for human nature in relation to the God who created it is slavish and does not have knowledge of the future. That is why, according to the teachings of Gregory the Theologian, if we separate what is visible from what is known by the mind, then the flesh will have to be called both servile and lacking knowledge. However, due to the identity of the hypostasis and indissoluble connection, the soul of the Lord was enriched with knowledge of the future, as well as with other divine signs. For just as human flesh by its nature is not life-giving, but the flesh of the Lord, hypostatically united with God the Word Himself, although it did not lose the mortality inherent in nature, however, due to the hypostatic union with God the Word, it became life-giving - we cannot say that it was not life-giving and is not always life-giving - so human nature in its essence does not possess knowledge of the future; the soul of the Lord, due to the union with God the Word Himself and the identity of the Hypostasis, - as I said, - was enriched, along with the other signs of the Divinity, - and the knowledge of the future 165. We must also know that we cannot even call Jesus Christ a slave, for the concepts of slavery and dominion characterize not nature, but relationship, just as the concepts of fatherland and sonship express not essence, but mutual relationship. Therefore, as we said regarding ignorance, if in abstract reasoning or in subtle ideas of the mind we separate the created from the uncreated, that is, if the flesh is imagined not to be united with God the Word, then it is slavish. But once united with God the Word hypostatically, how can she appear as a slave? Christ, being one, cannot be at the same time the slave of Himself and the Lord, for these concepts do not refer to what is said without reference, but what is said in relation to another. And who could he be a slave to? God the Father? But then not everything that the Father has would belong to the Son, if only He were a slave of the Father, but in no way to Himself. If He Himself is a servant, then what about us, who through Him have received adoption as sons, does the Apostle say: “The same now bear a servant, but a son” (Gal. 4:7)? So, Christ is called a slave in an improper sense - not because He really is such, but because for our sake he took on the form of a slave and together with us began to be called a slave. For, being dispassionate, He subjected Himself to suffering for our sake and served our salvation. Those who call Christ a slave, like Nestorius, divide the one Christ into two. We affirm that He is the Master and Lord of all creation, the one Christ, together God and man, and knows everything, for in Him are all the hidden treasures of wisdom and understanding (Col. 2:3) 166. Chapter XXII. About success. It is said about Jesus Christ that He increased in wisdom, and in age, and in grace (Luke 2:52) in the sense that, growing over the years, He, as He grew, discovered the wisdom that was in Him. In addition (this is also said in the sense) that He made the advancement of people in wisdom and grace and the fulfillment of the Father’s favor, that is, the knowledge of God and the salvation of people, His own success, appropriating ours in everything. Those who say that Christ excelled in wisdom and grace - as if receiving an increase in them - believe that the union did not occur from the very beginning of the existence of the flesh, and do not accept the hypostatic union, but, following the frivolous Nestorius, they invent an external, apparent and simple indwelling union, not understanding either what they say or assert about them (1 Tim. 1:7). For, if the flesh of Jesus Christ from the beginning of its existence was truly united with God the Word, or, better to say, it received existence in Him and had hypostatic identity with Him, then how could it not be enriched in perfection with all wisdom and grace? Not that she only participated in grace, and not that only by grace she received participation in what belongs to the Word, but it is better to say - because of the hypostatic union, since both the human and the Divine became an accessory to the one Christ, for God and man were one and the same - she exudes to the world grace and wisdom, and the fullness of all blessings 167. The word fear has a double meaning. There is a natural fear when the soul does not want to be separated from the body due to natural sympathy and affinity, which the Creator put into the soul from the very beginning - because of which the soul naturally fears, suffers and turns away from death. The definition of this fear is this: natural fear is an effort to defend one’s existence through aversion to death. For, if the Creator brought everything from non-existence into being, then naturally everything has a desire for existence, and not for non-existence; and all creatures by nature have an attraction to that which supports being. Therefore, God the Word, having become a man, had the same desire, revealing an attraction to what supports nature - he desired food, drink and sleep for Himself, and naturally consumed all of this. He turned away from that which was disastrous for life, as, for example, during suffering He voluntarily felt a shudder before death. For, although what happened was done according to the law of nature, it was not out of necessity, as happens with us, since He took upon Himself voluntarily what was natural - according to His will. Therefore, fear itself, fear and struggle are considered natural passions, impeccable and not subject to sin 168 . There is also fear that comes from darkening of thoughts, unbelief and ignorance of the hour of death, when, for example, we are afraid at night if some noise occurs. Such fear is contrary to nature, and in defining it we say: unnatural fear is a shudder from surprise. The Lord did not allow such timidity to Himself. Therefore, He was never afraid except in the hour of suffering, although repeatedly, according to the plans of the economy, He hid (from danger) - for He knew His hour. And that the Lord was truly afraid, Saint Athanasius speaks about this in his word against Apollinaris: “Therefore the Lord said: now my soul is troubled (John 12:27). The word now means - when he wanted; nevertheless, it shows what actually happened; for the Lord did not call inherent in Himself that which was not in Him, as if we were talking only about what was supposedly happening, since everything (this) happened really and truly.” And in another place - “The Divine in no way accepts suffering without a suffering body, does not show confusion and sorrow without a grieving and embarrassed soul, does not yearn and does not pray without a yearning and praying mind. However, (everything) that happened was done not because nature was defeated, but to prove the existence (of human nature in Christ).” The expression: “everything that happened did not happen as a result of the fact that nature was defeated” shows that Christ did not endure this against his will 169. Chapter XXIV. About the Lord's Prayer. Prayer is the ascent of the mind to God or asking God for what is proper. How did the Lord pray for Lazarus even during his suffering? After all, His holy mind, once united hypostatically with God the Word, - for Christ alone had no need either to ascend to God or to ask anything from God; but He prayed because He took upon Himself our face, portrayed in Himself what was characteristic of us, became a model for us, taught us to ask God and to strive for Him, and with His holy mind paved the way for us to ascend to God. Just as He endured the passions, leading us to victory over them, so He prayed, as I said, to pave the way for us to ascend to God and to fulfill for us all righteousness, as He said to John (Matthew 3:15), to reconcile His Father with us, to honor the Father as the beginning and the reason, and to show that He is not an adversary to God. For when Christ said at the resurrection of Lazarus: Father, I give You praise, because You heard Me. I know that you always listen to Me; But for the sake of the people standing around, I have killed them, so that they may have faith, because You sent Me (Jn. 11, 41-42), - then wasn’t it as clear as possible to everyone that He said this in order to honor His Father as His beginning and reason, and to show that He is not an adversary to God 170. And when Christ said: Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me; Moreover, not as I want, but as You (Matthew 26:39), then isn’t it obvious to everyone that (by this) He taught us during trials to ask for help from God alone, and to prefer God’s will to our own; and at the same time showed that He truly assimilated to Himself what was characteristic of our nature, and really had two wills, of course, natural and consistent with both of His natures, but not hostile to one another? He says: Father, as Consubstantial; If it is possible, he says not because he does not know whether it is possible, for what is impossible to God? - but to teach us to prefer the will of God to ours. For the only thing that is impossible is what God does not want and does not allow. Both, not as I want, but as You want. As God, He has the same will with God the Father, but as man, He naturally reveals the human will, for it naturally turns away from death 171. The words: My God, my God, you have forsaken me in everything (Matthew 27:46), - Christ spoke as having taken our face to Himself. For the Father could not have been called His God if Christ had not placed Himself along with us, and in the abstract ideas of the mind what is visible is separated from what is contemplated by the mind; equally Christ was never abandoned by his own Divinity, but we were abandoned and neglected. Therefore He prayed in this way, as if He had taken our face to Himself 172. You should also know that there are two types of assimilation: one is natural and essential, and the other is personal and relative. Natural and essential - that is, according to which the Lord, out of love for mankind, accepted our nature and all our natural properties, truly and truly becoming a man and experiencing what belongs to our nature. Personal and relative assimilation occurs when someone, for the sake of a certain relationship, for example, for the sake of compassion or love, takes on the face of another and instead speaks in favor of his speech, which has nothing to do with him. Accordingly, the Lord took upon Himself both the curse and our abandonment, and the like, which does not relate to nature—he took it in, not because He exists or became such, but because He took on our person and placed Himself along with us. This is what the saying means: the curse came upon us (Gal. 3:13) 173. Chapter XXVI. About the suffering of the Lord's body and about the impassivity of His Divinity. So, the Word of God Himself endured everything in the flesh, while His Divine and only dispassionate nature remained dispassionate. For when the one Christ, composed of Divinity and humanity, existing both in Divinity and humanity, suffered, then in Him only that which was by nature subject to suffering suffered; the same thing that was dispassionate did not suffer along with the first. For the soul, being capable of suffering, although it is not cut itself at the same time as the body is cut, nevertheless endures and suffers along with the body; The deity, being impassive, did not suffer along with the body. You should also know: we say that God suffered in the flesh, but in no way do we say that the Divinity suffered in the flesh, or that God suffered through the flesh. If, while the sun illuminates a tree, an ax cuts down that tree, the sun remains uncut and not subject to suffering, then the much more impassive Divine Word, hypostatically united with the flesh, remained not subject to suffering when the flesh suffered. And if someone pours water on a hot iron, then that which by nature is capable of suffering from water - I mean fire - goes out, but the iron remains unharmed, for by nature it is not capable of being destroyed by water; then the much more united only impassive Divinity, while the flesh suffered, did not suffer suffering, although it remained inseparable from it. For it is not necessary that the examples should be equal (to the things themselves) completely and without any defect. For it is necessary that in examples one sees both what is similar and what is different, since otherwise it would no longer be an example. Indeed, similarity in everything would be identity, and not an example, especially in what relates to God. For it is impossible to find an example that is similar in everything, both in the teaching about God and in the teaching about the economy of salvation 174. Chapter XXVII. That even during the death of the Lord the Divinity of the Word remained inseparably with the soul and body, and that one hypostasis was preserved. Our Lord Jesus Christ, being sinless, for He did not commit sin (1 Peter 2:22), He took away the sin of the world (John 1:29), and flattery was found in His mouth (Isa. 53:9), - He was not subject to death, for death entered the world through sin (Rom. 5:12). So, He dies, suffering death for us, and sacrifices Himself for us to the Father. For we have sinned against the Father, and it was fitting that He should accept the ransom offered for us, and that we should thus be freed from condemnation. For it was not the tyrant who was offered the blood of the Lord. So, death comes and, having absorbed the body (of the Lord, as it were) a bait, is pierced by the Divinity, as if with a hook of a hook, having tasted the sinless and life-giving Body, it dies and gives back everyone it once swallowed up. For just as the shadow is destroyed by the introduction of light, so corruption is driven away by the onslaught of life, and life comes for everyone, but destruction for the destroyer. So, although Christ died as a man, and His holy soul was separated from his most pure body, yet His Divinity remained inseparable from both - I mean both soul and body. And thus one hypostasis was not divided into two hypostases, for both body and soul from the very beginning (death) equally had existence in the hypostasis of the Word. Although at the time of death the soul and body were separated from each other, yet each of them was preserved, having a single hypostasis of the Word. Therefore, the single hypostasis of the Word was the hypostasis of both the Word and equally the hypostasis of both soul and body. For neither the soul nor the body ever received its own hypostasis, apart from the hypostasis of the Word. The hypostasis of the Word is always one, and there have never been two hypostases of the Word. Consequently, the hypostasis of Christ is always one. And although the soul was separated from the body locally, it was nevertheless united (with it) hypostatically through the Word 175. Chapter XXVIII. About corruption and incorruptibility. The word perishability has two meanings. First of all, it means the suffering states of a person, such as: hunger, thirst, fatigue, piercing by nails, death or separation of the soul from the body, and the like. According to this meaning of the word, we call the body of the Lord perishable, for He accepted all this voluntarily. But on the other hand, corruption also means the complete decomposition of the body into the elements of which it is composed, and its destruction, which many better call decay. The body of the Lord did not experience this corruption, as the prophet David says: for Thou hast not left My soul in hell, let Thy Reverend see corruption (Ps. 15:10). So, it is wicked to assert, in accordance with the opinion of the insane Julian and Gayan, that the body of the Lord was incorruptible even before the resurrection - in the first meaning of the word corruption. For if it were incorruptible, it would not be identical with our essence, and in that case, what the Gospel speaks of as having happened - hunger, thirst, nails, piercing the ribs, death - would have happened only in an illusion, and not in reality. If (all this) happened ghostly, then the mystery of the economy of our salvation is only a lie and a performance on stage, and the Lord became ghostly, and not truly, a man, and we are saved ghostly, and not really. But - let this not happen - and let those who say this be deprived of participation in salvation! We have received true salvation and will receive it. In accordance with the second meaning of the word corruption, we confess, as the God-bearing fathers betrayed to us, that the body of the Lord is incorruptible, or incorruptible. But we also affirm that after the resurrection of the Savior from the dead, the body of the Lord is incorruptible in the first sense. And through His body the Lord gave to our body resurrection and then incorruption, Himself becoming for us the Firstfruits of resurrection, incorruption and dispassion. It is fitting for this corruptible to put on incorruptibility (1 Cor. 15:53), says the divine Apostle. Chapter XXIX. About the descent into hell. The deified soul (of Christ) descends into hell (1 Peter 3:19) - for the purpose that, just as for those living on earth, the Sun of righteousness will shine (Mal. 4:2), and for those sitting under the earth in darkness and the shadow of death, light will shine (Isa. 9:2), so that, just as the Lord preaches peace to those on earth, release to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind (Lk. 4, 18-19; Isa. 61, 1), and for those who believed he became the author of eternal salvation, for those who did not believe - a reproof of unbelief - in the same way he preached to those in hell: - that every tribe should worship Him, of those in heaven, and on earth, and under the earth (Phil. 2:10). Thus, having freed those who had been bound for centuries, He returned again from among the dead, paving the way for us to resurrection. Gregory the Theologian, sermon 6 and 38. Gregory of Nyssa, Great Catechetical Discourse. 20. Basil the Great, Word for the Nativity of Christ. Maximus the Confessor, letter to John Cubularius. Migne, s. gr., t., XCI. Anastasius Sinait, Guide, 9. Leontius of Byzantium. Against the Nestorians and Eutychians. Leontius of Byzantium, Against the Nestorians and Eutychians. Leo the Great, letter XXVIII-oe, to Flavian, ch. 4. Migne, s. lat. t. LIV, coll. 765–771. Gregory the Theologian, word 29. Basil the Great, letter 38 and On the Holy Spirit ch. 17. Migne, s. gr., t. XXXII coll. 323–340, 143–148. Translation, Part VI (1892), pp. 85–97; III (1891), 239–243. Dionysius the Areopagite, On the Names of God, 2. Gregory the Theologian, 1st Epistle to Kledonius. Gregory the Theologian, word, 3, 38, 1st letter to Kledonius. Gregory the Theologian, 2nd letter to Kledonius. Gregory the Theologian, 1st letter to Kledonius. Leontius of Byzantium, On sects, section 3. Cyril of Alexandria, Apologetician against Theodoret. Leontius of Byzantium, On sects, section 7. Dionysius the Areopagite, On the Names of God, 2. Migne, s. gr., t. III, col. 644. Kirill Alexander., Against Nestorius, book. 1. Leo the Great, letter XXVIII, to Flavian, ch. 4 Migne, s. lat., t. LIV, col. 768. Basil the Great, letter 189. Migne, s. gr„ t. XXXII, coll. 692 – 696. Translation of the Moscow Spiritual Academician, part VII (1892), pp. 24–27. Maximus the Confessor, Dialogue with Pyrrhus. Migne, s. gr., t. XCI. col. 289, 292. Maximus the Confessor, Dialogue with Pyrrhus. Migne, s. gr., t. XCI col. 301. Maxim the Confessor, ibid. Migne, 304. Gregory of Nyssa, Antirrhetic against Apollinaris. Maximus the Confessor, Dialogue with Pyrrhus. Migne, 321. Maximus the Confessor, Dialogue with Pyrrhus. Migne, 293. Maximus the Confessor, Dialogue with Pyrrhus. Migne, 325. Maximus the Confessor, Dialogue with Pyrrhus. Migne, 296. Maximus the Confessor, Dialogue with Pyrrhus, Migne, 312. Gregory the Theologian, word 31. Maximus the Confessor, 2nd letter to Marin. Basil the Great, letter 38. Maximus the Confessor, Dialogue with Pyrrhus, Migne, 348–349. Right there. Migne, 337–340 and 341. Maxim the Confessor. Right there. Migne, 340, 341, 344. John Chrysostom, 1st Discourse on the Acts of the Apostles. Russian translation Petersburg. Spirit. Acad., vol. IX, book. 1st, page 10. Leo the Great, letter XXVIII, to Flavian. Migne, s. lat., t. LIV, col. 765–772 Dionysius the Areopagite, On the Names of God, 2. Maximus the Confessor, Dialogue with Pyrrhus. Migne, 349–352. Leo V. letter XXVIII, to Flavian. Gregory of Nyssa, Antirrhetic against Apollinaris. Athanasius Alexander, epistle 11 to Serapion. Gregory the Theologian, letter 1 to Kledonius and word 40. Gregory the Theologian, word 45. Gregory the Theologian, words 39. Gregory the Theologian, word 29, 30. Maximus the Confessor, Dialogue with Pyrrhus. Maximus the Confessor, Dialogue with Pyrrhus. Leo the Great, letter XXVIII-oe to Flavian. Gregory the Theologian, word 30. Gregory the Theologian, 43, 30. Athanasius Alexander., About the saving coming of Christ. Gregory the Theologian, sermon 30, 45. John Chrysostom. Discourse LXIII on the Gospel of John. Maximus the Confessor, Epistle to Marinus. Gregory the Theologian, word 30. Athanasius Alex., About the saving coming of Christ. Athanasius Alex., About the saving coming of Christ. Afanasy Alexander., About the Incarnation. Gregory of Nyssa, Against Eunomius, book 1.