About the properties of two natures in the One Christ our Lord, and along the way about two wills and actions and one hypostasis

Essay by Rev. John of Damascus “On the properties of two natures in the One Christ our Lord, and incidentally about two wills and actions and one hypostasis” (“On two wills in Christ”) is directed against the Monothelites and is dedicated to the defense of the Orthodox teaching about the presence in Christ of two perfect wills. The treatise consists of 44 chapters, which thematically can be divided into 4 parts: - chapters 1-7: explanation of the concepts of “nature”, “hypostasis”, “natural properties” and “hypostatic properties”; - chapters 8-14: the doctrine of two natures and one complex Hypostasis of Christ, discussion of the properties of each of the natures and the Divine Hypostasis, criticism of the doctrine of one complex nature and two hypostases; - chapters 15-33: the concept of human will, the doctrine of two wills in Christ, refutation of the formula of a single hypostatic will; - chapters 34-44: explanation of the doctrine of two actions in Christ and the formula “divine action.” St. John, relying on the Chalcedonian Oros and the teaching of the holy fathers (especially St. Maximus the Confessor), proves that in Christ, as in one Person (Hypostasis), two perfect and unfused natures are united - Divine and human. It follows from this that each nature has its own natural energy (action) and, accordingly, its own natural will. * Title of the work in Greek: ἰδιωμάτων τῶν ἐν τῷ ν Χριστῷ τῷ κυρίῳ ἡμῶν δύο φύσεων, ἐξ ἐπιδρομῆς δὲ κα περ δύο θελημάτων κα ἐνεργειῶν κα μιᾶς ὑποστάσεως. * Title of the work in Latin: De duabus in Christo voluntatibus. (1) Those who confess two natures and one hypostasis in our Lord Jesus Christ must recognize the natural properties of the two natures as dual and different, and that which relates to the hypostasis is individual. For it is impossible for nature to exist outside of the natural properties inherent in it, which compose it and separate it from other natures, properties, the totality of which cannot be seen in another species. And again, it is impossible for one and the same hypostasis to differ from itself by those properties that constitute and distinguish it, and limit it from other hypostases of the same type, that is, by hypostatic properties, the totality of which cannot be seen in another hypostasis. Experts usually call them incidental or inherent characteristics. (2) They say that nature is compared with nature and nature is distinguished from nature (that is, species from species) by essential and natural differences. In the same way, a hypostasis is compared with a hypostasis of the same type, and differs from hypostases of the same type in distinctive properties - but the hypostasis as such is not compared with a hypostasis of another type. After all, the hypostatic characteristics of, say, Peter in comparison with that bull, rather determine nature, and not hypostasis - we say that this man differs from this horse not in that one is bald, and the other has a magnificent mane, or that one is large, and the other is short, but in that one is reasonable, and the other is dumb - but also not in that the first son of so-and-so, and the second son of so-and-so. And even if we say that this is the son of Nestor, and that one is the son of this stallion, and the first is wise, and the second is not, this refers to natural differences - for the hypostatic differences of people in relation to the hypostatic differences of horses are considered natural. Therefore, in our Lord Jesus Christ, the physical appearance and facial features, and the fact that He is the Son of the Virgin, regarding the fact that He is the indescribable Son of God, defines not different hypostases, but different natures and one hypostasis, delimiting it from those who are consubstantial with it in Divinity, that is, from the hypostases of the Father and the Holy Spirit, and from the hypostases that are consubstantial with it in humanity, that is, from the mother and other individual people: for when one complex hypostasis arises from two natures, both of them, that is, the natural and hypostatic properties of, say, the Divine and human natures, become components of one and the same hypostasis. Hence Christ God and Man, beginningless and having a beginning, one and the same hypostasis, visible and invisible, created and uncreated, limited and limitless, suffering and impassive, the Son of God and the Son of the Virgin, that is, the Son of Man, without a mother from the Father, without a father from the Mother, eternal and new, indescribable both in the form of a slave and in human form, more beautiful than the sons of men (Ps. 45:3). All this constitutes and distinguishes the hypostasis of Christ God, and He is named for all together and for each individually [of these properties]. (3) So, the Creator wisely created great differences between natures, that is, species, showing the wealth of His wisdom and power, so that a thinking and rational being, for the sake of which He created many species, admiring Him, would be more attracted to Him, because of the attraction, would think more about Him, and He would make the thinking one more like God. For the invisible things of Him... from the creation of the world are visible through viewing the creations (Rom. 1:20) and from the beauty of the creatures the Author of their existence is comparatively known (Wis. 13:5). And among the hypostases in each form, He, again, created difference and closeness in relation to each other - natural closeness, because all hypostases of the same type are united by the definition of nature, and the difference is hypostatic, for they differ from each other by certain distinctive properties, that is, by added attributes. For since loneliness is unsociable and unkind, and communication with one’s own kind is sweet and welcoming—after all, every being loves one’s own kind and rejoices in him—even the first and only blessed, beginningless and undying nature itself is contemplated in three hypostases, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. So, hypostatic Wisdom says: I am, in whom He rejoiced (Prov. 8:30), that is, God the Father. Therefore, in each regiment of angelic forces He created different hypostases, likewise in human nature, moreover, in each form, so that, having a natural community with each other, they rejoiced at each other and, bound by a natural relationship, were mutually friendly. And the difference of hypostases separates one’s own from another’s, so that everyone, knowing those close to him by family or property, takes care of them, and does not encroach on someone else’s as if it were his own, and so that one can know what belongs to whom. So, anyone who asks a question about any object must first know what kind of object it is, and then decide whether there are two of them or one. I mean questions about our Lord Jesus Christ, about natures and hypostases, wills and actions and other properties. But to make this clearer, let us first say how nature differs from hypostasis, and then we will know quite clearly what properties constitute hypostasis and nature. And then we will consider them in our Lord Jesus Christ, whether they are double or single. (4) 1 So, nature, according to the holy fathers, is a general and indefinite, that is, the most specific form, like a man, a horse, a bull, and hypostasis is a particular that exists in itself, like Peter, Paul, John. For nature is a community that embraces and includes many - after all, each species is a nature, and first of all, although it is super-essential, the blessed nature of the Divine, for it is one and common, embracing three limitless hypostases, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Likewise is angelic nature, and human nature, and every kind of animal, or plant, or inanimate object. You should know that, according to the holy fathers, nature, essence and appearance 2 are one and the same. And a hypostasis is a certain essence together with incidental [properties], which has actually and in fact received an independent existence separately and apart from other hypostases, something communicating with indivisible beings of the same type by definition of nature, but having a difference from similar ones in appearance and nature in some incidental and distinctive features. For Peter and every man are an essence (after all, he is a man), but together with those who are incidental (after all, he is either tall, or short, or snub-nosed, or hook-nosed, and these are incidental signs), and each has existence in itself. And it’s easier to say: nature is general, like, for example, humanity - after all, Peter is a man, and Paul, and the others, each of them is a man - but hypostasis is particular, such and such. Peter is a hypostasis, and Paul is a different hypostasis, but Peter is not one nature, and Paul is another nature, but Peter is a hypostasis, having the perfect nature of humanity - therefore he is a perfect man. But Paul is a different hypostasis, having exactly the same nature of humanity. And every human hypostasis has the same nature, but not the same hypostasis. All people do not have one [common] hypostasis - after all, one is Peter, and another is Paul, one and another hypostasis, but not a different nature, Peter, and a different Paul. For all people are of the same nature. Both Peter and Paul, each of them is a perfect man: but Peter is not Paul, and Paul is not Peter. For now, let’s finish talking about nature and hypostasis (hypostasis, a person, and an indivisible being are one and the same). Let us now say what is a natural property and what is a hypostatic property, and what is the difference between them. (5) A natural property is one that constitutes nature, without which the nature to which it belongs cannot be preserved, like in man life, reason, volition, feeling, walking, breathing, action, mortality, and the like. For a person who is not alive or who does not understand is not a person - after all, there is no person who is not alive or who does not understand, whether it is bad or good. And one who does not have a will is not a perfect person, because there is no person without a will, whether evil or good. Likewise, someone who does not feel, and does not breathe, and does not walk is not a perfect person, but an inferior one. So, a natural property is what constitutes nature and separates species from species, that is, nature from another nature, and is seen in each hypostasis of the same species, like rationality and mortality. For the latter constitute the nature of man, entering into his definition (for man is a rational and mortal being) and separate man, rationality from all dumb things, and mortality from immortals, God and angels. And every man is rational and mortal, for he who is not rational and mortal is not a man. For it is impossible for a person not to be a rational mortal being. (6) And the hypostatic property is that which separates a hypostasis from another hypostasis, like a snub nose, white or dark skin, baldness, and the like - after all, not every person is snub-nosed, but one is snub-nosed, another is hook-nosed, and another is with a straight nose, and not every person is white-skinned, but one is white-skinned, another is dark-skinned, and another is dark-skinned, and not every person is bald, but one is bald, and another is hairy, that is thick hair And simply put, regarding humanity: everything that people have given from the Creator, according to the holy fathers and true judgment, are their natural properties, that which is from creation or from condemnation 3. But sin is not natural, for it was not given by the Creator. For nature is a possibility given by God's command to each species, in accordance with which it acts and suffers. And the fact that some of the hypostases have the same type, and others do not, are hypostatic properties. So, it is impossible to see either the totality of properties of a given type in another form, or the totality of properties of a given hypostasis in another hypostasis. For the same natural property is seen in different forms, like rationality in an angel and a man and mortality in a person and in all dumb animals, and the same incidental attribute, that is, a hypostatic property, is seen in different hypostases, just as whiteness is seen in different hypostases (after all, many people are white-skinned) - but neither all the natural properties of a person in another form, nor all the hypostatic properties of some person are seen in a different form. What is seen only in one species and in all its hypostases is called not a property, but a feature. Thus, having eyes, a nose and other members is natural for a person (after all, someone deprived of one of them is not a perfect person), and their difference is hypostatic and delimits the hypostasis from the one-type and consubstantial hypostasis, but not from the other-type and other-essential one - after all, as we have already said, the hypostasis is compared with the hypostasis of another species not as a hypostasis, but as nature with nature. Sight and vision are natural, but different vision, that is, good and bad, is hypostatic. The lust for food and food itself are natural, but the lust for various types of food and various lusts, strong and weak, that is, large and small, are hypostatic; will and action and to desire and act are from nature, and different desires and actions, and to desire and act differently, good or bad, are from hypostasis. It is good to desire by nature in obedience to the Creator, but bad - against nature for the sake of pleasure and willfully, contrary to the law of God. (7) So, you should know that every human hypostasis has existence and is brought into existence by the Creator from non-existents, that is, it has createdness, and vitality, and action, and feeling, and attraction, sensual or rational, that is, free will, and existence, consisting of essence and incidentals. All this is essential and natural, and the peculiar and self-elected movement of these [properties] is a hypostatic difference. For participation in them represents the identity of nature, and the mode of existence introduces the difference of hypostases, [as well as] the separate and independent hypostasis and composition of each, and the peculiar, original and different use of natural properties shows the hypostases and makes us talk about the plurality of people. Thus, as regards the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, since the hypostasis of each is different, They are three hypostases; and since nature and its properties are equally seen in each hypostasis, they are one essence and one nature; and since They are not separated and Each one desires and acts not in its own image and choice, but united, the Three are not three Gods, but each other with each other and each other in each other, they are and are called one God. Having stated this, let us see whether there are two natures in Christ, and thus we will find out whether He has dual natural properties - after all, nature cannot exist outside the natural properties that constitute it. (8) Is Christ God perfect and is Man perfect even after the union of natures in hypostasis? Yes, sure. Perfect in Godhead and perfect in humanity? Truly so. Are Divinity and humanity one nature or two? Two, truly, because one is the nature of Divinity and the other is that of humanity. One and the other are not one, but two. So, there are two natures in Christ, and in two natures Christ after the hypostatic union, if He is perfect God and perfect Man after the union, perfect in Divinity and perfect in humanity. And again: do we confess Christ of two natures? Certainly. Why of the two? Because He is of Divinity and humanity. So what? To say “Divinity and humanity” is not, of course, to represent two natures? Of course: after all, there is not one nature of Divinity and humanity. Then: shall we confess Christ after the union in Divinity and humanity? Certainly. So, if after the union we confess Him in Divinity and humanity, and Divinity and humanity are two natures, and not one, then it is necessary to say that after the union He is in two natures, as from two natures. And again: does Christ have the nature of the Father even after the union, perfect, indestructible, unchangeable and unfused? Of course. And does the nature of the Mother, that is, Adam’s, also have a perfect, indestructible, unchangeable and unmerged nature? Without a doubt. Are the natures of God the Father and the nature of the Holy Virgin one or two? Of course, two, not one. So, two natures in Christ after the union. For before the union the Word of God has not two natures, but one Fatherly nature. And again: Is the Divinity which is in Christ a passionate nature or an impassive one? Of course, passionless. And is humanity that is in Christ passionate or dispassionate? It is clear that it is passionate. So, the passionate nature and the impassive are not one nature, but two natures in Christ. Is the Divinity of Christ the same Divinity as that of the Father and the Spirit, or not? The same and nothing else. Is this nature in Christ perfect or part of nature? Perfect. Is His humanity perfect nature in Him? Perfect. So, in Christ there are two perfect natures. If you say that Christ has one complex nature, then the Divinity and humanity are parts of the complex nature of Christ, and God the Father and Adam will be parts of the one nature of Christ, and Christ will be a perfect nature, and the Father will be partial and imperfect in comparison with Christ. And again: why don’t you talk about two natures in relation to Christ? Because number brings division. Therefore, the statement about the three hypostases of the Divine divides the Divinity. But this is not so: after all, number only indicates the difference and quantity of the things being counted, regardless of whether they are combined or separated. After all, speaking about the three hypostases of the Divine, we do not separate them from each other - for they are united in essence - but we designate the difference between the hypostases, and the fact that they do not merge and are not pulled together into one hypostasis. In the same way, when speaking about the two natures of Christ, we do not separate them - after all, they are united hypostatically - but we designate the difference of natures and the fact that they did not transform and did not merge. For you, declaring Christ to be of one complex nature from Divinity and humanity, affirm [thereby] that He is not consubstantial with either the Father or us - after all, the Father is not of a complex nature, and we are not composed of Divinity and humanity. In addition, you confess the Divinity as passionate: after all, if Christ is of one nature, complex of Divinity and humanity, and Christ suffered, it is clear that His single complex nature, God-manhood, suffered. But it is clear that this is Arianism, because you, like them, say that nature and hypostasis are one and the same, and that the Divinity of Christ is passionate, and that His nature is complex, in order to blaspheme Him, calling Him other than the Father. God forbid that we should think like this, because we know the difference between nature and hypostasis according to the holy fathers. Therefore, we confess in the Divinity both the trinity of hypostases and the singularity of nature, and in our Lord Jesus Christ, “on the contrary in comparison with the Trinity,” according to Gregory the Theologian, we preach the singularity of the hypostasis and the duality and difference of natures, and we confess Him as one complex hypostasis, consubstantial with the Father and impassive by the nature of the Divinity, and Him consubstantial with us and passionate by the nature of humanity 4. For it is impossible for one and the same nature to be created and uncreated, beginning and beginningless, passionate and impassive. After all, if it began to be, it is not without beginning, and if it is uncreated, then it is not created. So Christ is not one nature, but one hypostasis, having two natures, one uncreated and one created, one beginningless and one begun, one impassive and one passionate. And again: if nature is composed of different natures, then none of them is consubstantial. For each has only its own definition, and the complex one has a different, complex definition. But it is impossible for things that take different definitions to be of the same essence. So, if Christ has one nature, how will He be consubstantial with the Father and Mother? After all, He is God, and He is also a man, and God and man are not one nature, because Divinity and humanity do not have one definition. For He is the Creator, this one is the creature. And again: one and the same nature cannot be of the same essence with different essences. And one more thing: they do not say that nature is consubstantial with nature or that a hypostasis of the same nature is consubstantial with hypostases of different essences. Therefore, if Christ, after the union, is of one nature, how will He be consubstantial with the Father and Mother, who are of different essences? And that Christ is one hypostasis, and not two, we learn from this: is Christ one Son or two? Of course, one. But what about two hypostases if there is one Son? If there are two hypostases, one and the other, there will be either two Christs, or one Christ, and the other the Word of God, and no longer one Son. And again: if there are two hypostases of Christ, and He sits at the right hand of the Father on the cherubim throne and receives worship from all creation together with the Father and the Holy Spirit, then it means that we worship the quaternity, and not the Trinity. And again: if there is one nature of Christ after the union, what is it called? Christhood, therefore, or God-manhood. By what nature did [He suffer]? If she is alone, it is clear that she is alone by Her nature. So, His God-manhood is [passionate], and the Divinity in Christ will be passionate 5. And again: did Christ suffer? Certainly. Which nature suffered, His Divinity or humanity? Humanity. And His Divine nature remained impassive? Yes. His nature that suffered and that which did not suffer, is it the same nature or different and different? Of course, different and different. And if the other and the other, how are the two the same? But two natures, or one and the other, are not one nature, but one hypostasis, two natures, one passionate and the other impassive. And the reasoning will be consistent. (9) We call Christ a single complex hypostasis - for, being one of the Divine hypostases, with the favor of the Father, He was incarnated by the Holy Spirit and Mary the Ever-Virgin and Mother of God and became a perfect Man, not by transformation, or merging, or change, but by taking on flesh, animated by a rational and thinking soul, remaining the same as He was, perfect God, and becoming what He was not, perfect Man, having assumed nature, not hypostasis, nature not extra-hypostatic, but having acquired hypostasis in Him and having His hypostasis - for it became not someone else’s flesh, but God’s Word. For about all flesh and every soul it is said that it is someone’s, and it belongs to someone and has him as a hypostasis, because Petrov’s flesh and soul have Peter as a hypostasis, and Petrov’s soul does not have one hypostasis, and his flesh has another. For the soul has one nature, and the flesh has another, the soul is incorporeal and immaterial, and the body is material, but since they belong to one thing, they have one hypostasis. So, whose flesh became animated by the Virgin? If God is the Word, she has His hypostasis. If there is another besides Him, then he should neither be worshiped nor served - after all, we do not worship the creature or anyone other than the Holy Trinity. But she did not [belong to] another - after all, she was not an angel, not a messenger, but the Lord Himself came and saved us. And the first Adam was from the earth, earthy, the second Adam, the Lord from heaven (1 Cor. 15:47). The Trinity is said because there are three hypostases of the Godhead, the Father and the only begotten Son, and the Holy Spirit. So, if one hypostasis is the only begotten Son, and the other the son of the Virgin, then either the only begotten Son is expelled and the son of the Virgin is introduced in its place, or the son of the Virgin is not subject to worship, or four sit on the throne, and we worship the quaternity. But let it not be that we serve the fourfold, but the holy and worshiped Trinity, one Father, one hypostasis, one Son and Word of God incarnate, one hypostasis together with His flesh, one Holy Spirit, one hypostasis, the Most Holy and Glorified Trinity. And again: that there is one hypostasis of Christ, we learn from this. The beginning of the existence of every embryo is a seed thrown by the father into the womb of the wife; the wife, conceiving it, delivers her blood, and this is how the embryo is formed. One hypostasis of the seed and maternal blood, forming flesh in it, and the conception of the seed. And a woman conceives from intercourse with her husband the seed implanted by him, and it is the hypostasis of the embryo. So what did the Holy Virgin conceive? Flesh? This means that the flesh is not from Her - after all, a woman does not conceive of herself. So what did she conceive? Word of God? For the Holy Spirit intervened instead of intercourse and overshadowed Her, and the Son and Word of God was conceived and Himself became flesh, animated by a rational and thinking soul, and Himself, like the Divine seed, became a hypostasis for the flesh, one hypostasis of two natures, Divinity and humanity. For being perfect God, He became perfect Man, and is one Son of God and Man, without a mother from the Father as God, without a father from the Mother as Man, the same two natures, one hypostasis - for there is one Son Christ, and not two. If there is one Son, how are there two hypostases? After all, a hypostasis creates another, and separates one from the other - because if two hypostases from one father and one mother, born as twins, are not one son, but two, then how can hypostases, born one from a non-essential Father, the other from a non-subsisting mother, be one Son? After all, God the Father and the Virgin are not of the same essence. And if two human hypostases, being of the same essence, do not become one son, how will two hypostases of different essences become one Son? So, it is necessary either to call Christ and the Word of God two sons, or one hypostasis and one Son. And how can you say that Christ is two-natured, if one is Christ, and the other is God the Word? After all, in your opinion, it turns out: God the Word is of one nature and one hypostasis, and Christ is of one nature and one hypostasis. If we allow this, then, of course, the Scriptures will turn out to be false, declaring that God and the Word, who was in the beginning, became flesh, and that just as there is one God the Father, so the Lord Jesus Christ is one, God’s own and only begotten Son, was given by the Father for the world and suffered, and that from the Israelites, coming from the flesh, Christ is God above all, blessed forever, and the Power of God, and the Wisdom of God, and the Heir of all, and the Creator of ages, and the radiance of the glory of the Father and the image of His hypostasis (Heb. 1:3), and that the great God, being in the form of God, took on the form of a servant (Phil. 2:6-7), and similar [sayings]: for this and the like are said about one and the same Christ, and not about one and another person, and not about one and another hypostasis, that is, not about one and another son and Christ. Yes, and Christ our God himself will appear to be speaking the truth, affirming that he was before Abraham (John 8:58) and the ancient foundation of the world (John 17:24), and that He came down from heaven (John 3:13), and that He is the light (John 8:12), and the life (John 14:6), and the resurrection (John 11:25), and, crying: I and the Father are one (John 11:25). 10:30) and He who saw Me saw the Father (John 14:9) and the like, through which He is shown not to be a simple and recently appeared man, but to be God incarnate and one Christ the Son of God in two natures (I mean in the Divinity, by which He was known as one with God the Father, and in humanity, by which He is of another substance to the Father, but to us, the earthly, consubstantial and in no way not different from us by nature), and not one and the other, but one and the same hypostasis, carrying within itself one and the other nature without merging or transformation, one uncreated, and pre-eternal, and creating creations, and the other created and new. For humanity is not co-eternal, not one in kind and not consubstantial with the Divine, and did not come down from heaven, but since He was one and the same Word of God, who hypostatically united humanity with Himself, therefore He sometimes uttered lofty words about Himself and befitting God, and sometimes derogatory words befitting man. Therefore, He wanted Him to be thought of both as the Lord and as the Son of David, and approved as pious both those who called Him the Son of God and those who called Him the Son of David - the first, because they pointed to His invisible Divinity and the eternal birth from God the Father, and second, because they preached the truth of the visible essence of His humanity. If we abandon all this, we will be forced to speak of two only begotten sons, one the Son of God the Father and the other of the Virgin and Mother. And the Only Begotten will no longer be called the Only Begotten, because another will be added to Him by adoption, and He will be the eldest, and the other the younger, one natural and genuine, and the other adopted and by-product. And then, even if we dared to introduce a fourth hypostasis, born of Mary, and worship her together with the Trinitarian Godhead, it would turn out that we worship an alien God, new and recent, which is forever prohibited to do, and, like the Greeks, we would fall under the charge of serving man, and would be condemned by the curse that befalls man-worshipers: for, as it is written, cursed is the man who trusts in man (Jer. 17:5). But we do not wickedly introduce another hypostasis in addition to the three hypostases of the Godhead, which alone are worthy of worship and veneration, because we are taught from inspired sayings not to call the one Son and Christ two sons and Christs. And we do not tolerate the service of a simple man, which is hateful to God, but we serve and worship the one Christ, complex of Divinity and humanity and perfect in both essences, of which and in which He is composed, we eternally worship the Father and the Holy Spirit, with one worship honoring His Divinity and humanity, as inseparably and beyond any division, hypostatically united and forming one person. And let it not be that we serve the fourfold, but the Holy Trinity, one Father, one hypostasis, one Son and Word of God incarnate, one hypostasis together with His flesh, one Holy Spirit, one hypostasis, the Most Holy and Glorified Trinity. For just as a flaming sword remains one even after being incandescent, so even more so Christ is one and one hypostasis even after the incarnation. And just as I fear to touch a flaming sword, not because of the nature of iron, but because of the nature of the fire united with it, so I worship God the Word incarnate and together I worship flesh, not for the sake of the nature of the flesh, but for the sake of God the Word united with it. I worship the king together with the scarlet and I honor the scarlet for the sake of the king. Because the union of the king and his robe is not hypostatic and does not endure forever, but in Christ our God the hypostatic union is indissoluble and abides forever. Therefore, together with the Father and the Holy Spirit, I worship Christ, the incarnate Son of God and God, as one of the Holy Trinity. (10) So, it is shown that there are two natures of Christ and one hypostasis. Therefore, since He has two natures, it is necessary to recognize in Him the natural properties of two natures completely and without damage, if we know Him as a perfect God and a perfect Man. (11) From the Divine and Fatherly nature He has uncreatedness, timelessness, originlessness - after all, He did not begin to be, was not previously, but [He] always had in His birth being God, volition, action, omnipotence, infinite power, creativity, omnipotence, limitlessness, limitlessness, incomprehensibility, unsearchableness, immortality, omnipotence, omnipotence, goodness, wisdom, righteousness, salvation, simplicity and uncomplicated nature, immutability, immutability, all-seeing, providence of the future, embracing everything, that is, all-embracing, inaccessibility, accessibility by the sacrament by action, and not by nature 6, autocracy and omnipotence, beneficence, enlightenment, invisibility, intangibility, pre-divinity, super-essence, and, simply put, everything that the Father has belongs to the Son, except unbornness. And the true witness to this is our Lord and God, who said: All that the Father has is Mine (John 16:15). And he says to the Father Himself: And all that is mine is yours, and yours is mine (John 17:10). (12) The proper property of His hypostasis is that He is the Son, begotten of the Father, and not the unborn Father and not the Parent. For He was born of the Father dispassionately, without substance, that is, without confusion, like light from fire, or rather, perfect light from perfect light. So from the Father He has being and everything that He has. That is why he says: My Father is greater than Me (John 14:28) - “for I am from Him, although not after Him, but He is not from Me.” That is why He honors the Father. (13) So, having spoken about the properties of the Divine nature of Christ, which He has from the Father, let us also say about the natural properties of His human nature, which He acquired from what He received from us. For if, being a perfect God, He became a perfect Man for our sake, then it is clear that, having all the natural properties of Godhead and in this sense being a perfect God, He will also have all the natural properties of humanity, that is, all the natural possibilities of humanity, active and passive, to be a perfect Man - after all, if He did not accept any of the natural [properties], then He is not perfect, but a flawed man. (14) Let it be determined in advance that we received the ability of every action, use, deed and suffering from the Creator by nature, and that these are natural [qualities] - after all, it is impossible for any nature to use such an act, or perform such an action, or endure such suffering, the ability of which it did not receive by nature. The earth, for example, cannot grow without receiving the creative power from the Creator, and water cannot give life, so to speak, the birth of fish and contribute to the growth of the fruits of the earth, if it has not received such an ability from the Creator, and a plant cannot grow if it has not received a growing power, and a bird cannot fly without receiving the ability to fly, and a land animal cannot walk, and a reptile cannot crawl, if each of them has not received the corresponding ability 7. Likewise, a person cannot see, or think, or desire and act freely, if he has not received each of the abilities by nature from the Creator. (15) Man is a small world. For he has soul and body and stands in the middle of mind and matter - because he is the connecting link between the visible and the invisible, that is, the sensible and intelligible creation. For the mind is the eye of the soul and its purest part. Therefore, a person has in common with inanimate bodies the mixing and composition of the four elements, with plants - in the same thing and in the nutritional and growth (as well as seed) ability, with a dumb animal - in the same thing, but also in vitality, imagination and memory, in feeling and movement according to aspiration 8 (and movement according to aspiration is the movement of the whole body), in voice, and breathing, and moving from place to place. With incorporeal and intelligible forces, he is connected by reason and the rational aspiration of the mind, which is will, the first movement of the mind - for, rushing, he moves towards thinking, and rushing, he calculates, and rushing, he judges. And this aspiration is autocratic - for he thinks, calculates and judges, striving with free will. (16) The intrinsic properties of the body are dissection, and expiration, 9 and change in quality, that is, in cold, heat, moisture and dryness, and the structure of the members. Actually, what is inherent in the rational soul is that it lives alone by itself, thinking and rational aspiration, which, in fact, is will. And even before that, the very exclusive property of the soul that separates it from the angelic essence is that it resides in the body and imparts life and movement to it, and freely directs the body according to its own aspiration and will, as well as unreasonable aspiration, lust and anger, movement according to aspiration, and the fact that by nature it rules over the body as over its slave. Therefore, man is more in the image [of God] than an angel, since an angel does not have a natural slave, and he is not a master by nature. (17) What is common to the soul and body is that the soul gives to the body - vitality, imagination, that is, the perception or recognition of sensory things, feeling itself, that is, the five senses: sight, hearing, smell, taste, touch, as well as memory and movement according to aspiration, nutrition, growth and unreasonable desire, I am talking about anger and lust, hunger and thirst, and fatigue, and salivation, pleasure, sorrow and disgust, fear, timidity and anxiety, melancholy, confusion, sweat and death - for death is the separation of the soul from the body - and the whole arrangement of nutrition and growth. (18) All these are unreasonable sufferings and actions: actions and abilities of nature (that is why everything natural is given to nature from God), but suffering, because every created creature moves and acts passively - and only the Divine nature is impassive, moving non-passively and acting immovably. Moreover, some of them seem to be rather actions, and some of them undergoing - for life is more appropriately called action, and death, cutting and expiration - suffering. So, dissection, and expiration, and qualitative change, that is, whitening, blackening, cooling, heating, illness, and the like, are undergoing, and so is the arrangement or placement of members - for nature acts, arranging and placing, and the body endures, being arranged. By nature I mean the law and ability originally given by the Creator to each species, in accordance with which it moves or rests 10. He moves in those actions for which he has the opportunity: thinking, reasoning, wishing, feeling, moving from place to place - because he received the opportunity to do this from the Creator. And it rests, not moving, incapable of those actions for which it did not receive the opportunity. Movements are emergence, destruction and change, increase, decrease and spatial movement. The latter is of six types: forward, backward, left, right, up, down. And all the other things listed are also movements, but thinking and rational striving, reasoning, searching, consideration, advice, judgment, disposition and choice, decision and striving for use are actions. But thinking is rather represented as action, and striving as undergoing - for everything that strives undergoes. But we call rational aspiration action because it is free, ruling over unreasonable sufferings and judging, controlling and curbing them, [that is,] anger, lust, and feeling, and movement according to aspiration. For these are irrational passions, subject and obedient to reason, because they are by nature subject and obey reason and move as it commands, if we talk about the natural man. These same passions are also components of the animal essence - for without them there can be no life. And they were given by the Creator to help man: lust for God and His will, anger against the devil and sin, and to instill courage in lust. So, an irrational desire is given to maintain the animal essence, and a rational and free one is given in order to curb any natural movement with free will, to subordinate it and to obey the law of the Creator. Therefore, thinking and striving are combined in man, so that we do not endure the passions of dumb [creatures] against our will, while being rational. After all, the mind, intelligently, intellectually and autocratically striving, in aspiration thinks, and considers, and seeks, and consults, and distinguishes, and is tuned in judgment, and chooses, and rushes to action - for the rational naturally rules over the unreasonable. Therefore, if man, being rational, was created as the king of all dumb creatures, how could he not be sovereign over all irrational passions in himself? So, being both rational and thinking, he strives to think and reason and strives intelligently, thoughtfully and freely. And from what is common to the soul and body, vitality is rather an action, and imagination, feeling, memory and movement according to aspiration are rather passive actions or active undergoings, while anger and lust, hunger and thirst, fatigue, fear, timidity and anxiety, pleasure, sorrow, salivation and sweat, nutrition and growth, and, above all, death are sufferings. (19) All this is natural and impeccable, since it was given by the Creator to human nature. For He gave both existence and this way of being, and there is no person who is not involved in Him. The possession of this speaks of the wisdom and virtue of the Creator, but for us it is not considered either a virtue or a vice, for all this is good and given by the Good for good, and the method of use constitutes a virtue or a vice. For if the will is subject to the law of God, and the mind governs its subjects according to His law (I mean all mental movements, especially anger and lust - after all, they are subordinate to the mind), then we have done virtue and fulfilled righteousness. For for this we received power over them, and as those who received power, we accepted the law and became subject to the law - after all, the dumb, not having a leader of the mind, autocratic over anger and lust, did not receive the law. So, being by nature slaves of the Creator, and having free will, a condition of virtue (after all, what happens violently is not virtue and does not bring joy), we received the law in order to know that we have a Master - so that, walking in darkness, we would not fall into pits: Your law is a lamp to my feet and a light to my paths (Ps. 119:105), - said the prophet David; so that we know attraction and devotion to the Master and so that we share the good with God, “so that the good of the one who receives the seed is no less than the one who delivers it” 11 - after all, He Himself gave us the ability to do good deeds. He created us free, so that good would come from Him and from us (after all, God works for the good of everyone who chooses good), so that by observing the natural, we would achieve the supernatural, incorruptibility and deification through union with the Divine by making the will as similar to Him as possible; so that, by foolishly using our natural abilities, we do not equate ourselves with foolish beasts and become like them. For if our will does not submit to the will of God, but a self-willed mind uses anger and lust according to its own decision and choice, evil will be committed - for evil is nothing more than sin, and transgression, and disobedience to the Lord's law. So free will is the first good befitting rational nature, and to use it, to rule and subdue irrational passions, that is, anger and lust, is a virtue, but to betray free will, and to submit to irrational passions, and to live unreasonably in a bestial manner is evil, this is sin. So that we do not act indecently, doing the same as the dumb, but with reason we restrain the impulses of nature. For it is not appropriate for a rational person to live the life of the dumb, but rather to rationally use even irrational passions, and to order them through reason, and to lead and direct with authority, and to yield to the law of God, and to be guided by it, and to use these passions as the Lord has ordained. (20) It is therefore necessary to know that heretics are misled by the confusion of names. Therefore, just as for the Monophysites, that is, the acephalians, the identification of nature and hypostasis became the reason that they speak about one nature in Christ, so as not to separate Christ into two hypostases, and for the like-minded people of Nestorius - that they speak about two hypostases, so as not to merge Christ’s two natures into one, so for the Monothelites, ignorance of the difference between natural and hypostatic, that is, gnomic 12, will became the reason for the affirmation of one will in Christ. Therefore, in order to avoid confusion due to the same name, let us make the following argument about the will. (21) “Will” is a polysemantic word. For sometimes it means volition, that is, volitional ability, and sometimes the thing desired, subject to volition, that is, the very thing that someone wants. But one is desire, and the other is desired, just as one is vision, and the other is visible, because vision is the visual faculty operating in the eyes, thanks to which we see, and the visible is the visible thing itself, a stone, a tree or something else. So volition is the very volitional ability of the soul that we desire, and what is desired is the very thing that someone desires. For example, I want to swim, and swimming is what I want, I want to get married, and marriage is what I want. But, in any case, what is desired is either action, that is, action, or suffering. So, let's see whether volition is natural or hypostatic. (22) Does every person have the ability to will or not? It is clear that every person has the ability to desire and will - for what kind of person is who would not want anything? But not every person wants the same thing, but one wants this, and another wants that, and not every person wants the same, but one wants it well, and the other badly, each according to his own choice. So volition, that is, the volitional ability, and simply wanting something is natural, but what is desired, that is, wanting this and that, is hypostatic and selective 13 . (23) And again: “will,” belonging, as we said, to the number of polysemantic words, sometimes means willing, and sometimes desired. For one must know that there is another will, another to want, another what and how to want, another desired, another ability to desire, and another who wants, as there is another vision, another to see, and another what and how to see, and another visible, and another seeing, and another seeing. After all, vision is the very visual faculty of the soul, acting in the eyes, with which we see. To see means to use the visual ability, and to act and look: no one sees without having vision, that is, the ability to see. To see something means to see the sky, or the earth, or something else. How to see means good or bad. The visible is that which is subject to vision, that is, the visible body, or color, or appearance. What is sighted is that which by nature has the visual ability, just as, for example, a person by nature has the visual ability, even if he is asleep or blind - for man is a sighted being. The seer is the one who uses the visual ability, acts and looks. Thus, volition is a volitional ability naturally given to the soul by the Creator, that is, the ability to want. To want means to use the volitional ability in action and strive; but no one wants without having the will, that is, the ability to want. What is desired is something subject to volition, the very thing that we want: for example, I want to swim, and “swimming” is what is desired, I want to become chaste, and chastity is what is desired. What is undesirable is something that someone does not want, like something invisible that someone does not see. To want something means to want to unite with God, to want to eat, to want to drink, to want to swim, to want to unite with a woman. To want such and such means to want in a good way, that is, let’s say, in a good way and according to God’s law, to want to get along with one’s own wife, or badly and contrary to God’s law – with someone else’s. And the ability to desire is something that by nature has the ability to will, like a person, like an angel, like God. For each of them by nature has a strong-willed ability - after all, each hypostasis of the Divine wants, and each hypostasis of the angels wants, and each human hypostasis wants. And what each hypostasis has is natural - for what is natural is what is seen in all consubstantial hypostases of the same type. The desiring person is the one who uses the will, that is, the volitional ability, and the striver, or hypostasis. (24) So, will sometimes means volition, that is, volitional ability, and sometimes what is desired, that is, the very thing that we want - so, volition is natural, and simply wanting is natural. For every person has the ability to want, and every person wants, that is, uses the will - for a person is a being capable of wanting. What is desired is not only natural, but also selective and hypostatic. But not every person wants the same thing - so how to want, good or bad, or what to want, this or that, is not natural, but selective and hypostatic, as regards people and angels. After all, in the Holy and indivisible Trinity there is one natural will of the three hypostases and one natural good, and each hypostasis does not have its own desired or its own movement, but there is one movement and one desire in the three hypostases - therefore, not three gods, but one God with three hypostases, one God with His powers, but not complex. For each of the hypostases is a perfect God and a perfect hypostasis, but the composition of nature does not come from the hypostases, and this is completely unusual and befits only God. This is not the case with angels and people, for angels have a single will, the ability to want, given to them by God. For every angel wants, and every person wants, but there is not one movement of all angels, much less all people, but each hypostasis has its own movement and its own desired - after all, all angelic hypostases, like human ones, do not desire the same thing and not the same thing, but one is good, and the other is bad, and one is this, and the other is that, and when one moves and wants, the other does not move and does not want with him. So with angels and people volition is natural, and likewise it is natural to want. For every person is able to desire and wants, but not every person is able to desire the same thing and not everyone wants the same thing. For in the Holy Trinity the three hypostases are in each other, and the Word and the Spirit are the powers of the Father, and therefore one movement and in the same way one desired. With angels and people, each has its own hypostasis separately and independently, even if they are of the same nature, - therefore, the ability to want and wanting is one and natural, but how and what to want is hypostatic and selective. And they have one strong-willed nature, but there are many who want, who desire this or that differently. (25) So, will is a vital and rational desire - and if vital, then, of course, also sensual. Therefore, the dumb strive sensually, but unreasonably and not freely, and man, being a rational being, as a living being strives vitally and sensually, and as a rational being, rationally and freely. So, natural will is a rational and vital desire, aimed only at natural things. Natural desires are, first of all, to obey the law of God (for man is by nature a slave and servant of God), and then the components of nature, such as hunger, thirst, sleep and the like; and hypostatic and selective will is the desire of the hypostasis using it in accordance with its own pleasure and according to its own choice, and not according to the law of God, and the way of using natural will according to the choice of the using hypostasis. Therefore, the separation of hypostases produces a difference in choice. (26) But they say that man does not have a natural will. And they say that there are only two wills - one Divine, good, the other evil, devilish; and when a person wants good, he has the will of God, and when he wants evil, he has the will of the devil. But they do not know that it is impossible for any nature to produce any action, the ability of which it has not received by nature. Just as, for example, a bird cannot fly if it has not received the ability to fly by nature, so a land animal cannot walk if it has not received the corresponding ability by nature. Likewise, a person cannot think if he has not received thinking by nature, nor can he speak if he has not received the ability to speak by nature, nor can he see or want if he has not naturally received the ability to will. Therefore, one must first by nature have the ability to want, which is volition, and then one must want. Therefore, our Lord Jesus Christ has two natural wills, since He also has two natures, so that He may be both perfect God and perfect Man, not deprived of any of the properties, either Divine or human; and two desires and different desires according to the difference of natures, Divine and omnipotent (for the Divine will is omnipotent) and not omnipotent, but weak and passionate (for the human will is passionate and weak), and one and the other natural desired. For the desires of humanity are also not desirable for the Divine - after all, human nature naturally desires and strives for food, and drink, and sleep and the like, but the Divinity does not strive for this. For It itself does not strive for this, although it wants human nature to strive for this naturally, as needed and when needed. (27) So, by natural difference, the two wills of our Lord Jesus Christ are not opposite. For the natural will of man is not contrary to the will of God, nor the natural volitional ability, nor its natural objects, nor the natural use of will - after all, the creator of everything natural is the Divine will. And only the unnatural is contrary to God’s will, that is, the desire for sinful pleasures and by one’s own choice, that is, sin. The Lord did not accept him: He committed no sin and no flattery was in His mouth (1 Pet. 2:22). And since there is one hypostasis of Christ, one Christ, the one who wills according to both natures, as a well-willing God and as a Man who obeys our will, His Divine and Fatherly will. For He obeyed God not in relation to His Divine will - after all, the Divine will can neither be obeyed nor disobeyed. “For this is characteristic of subjects,” as Gregory the Theologian says, 14 and the image of a slave received from us. He obeyed naturally according to His human will - for obedience is the free and non-violent subordination of a will to another will. So, He desired and desires as God the Divine, and desired and desires the human as Man, not because of the contradiction of choice, but due to the peculiarity of natures. For He desired and desires the human as a Man, and then that which His Divine will pleases, because His human will voluntarily submits to His Divine will. (28) “For the will and action of God,” according to Blessed Irenaeus, “is the creative and providential cause of every time, and place, and age, and of all nature,” and human will is a natural ability, striving for what exists by nature and embracing what is essentially inherent in nature - for the essence strives to be, and to live, and to move sensually, and to think, achieving its own full natural fulfillment. For nature desires itself and with its desire is directed towards everything that composes it in accordance with the cause of being for which it exists and arose. Therefore, others, defining this natural will, say: “natural will is a rational and vital desire” 15, aimed only at the natural. So, “will,” according to Blessed Clement, “is the ability to strive for one’s own existence” and also: “a striving corresponding to the nature of the rational,” and also: “the free movement of the autocrat of the mind” 16. For God, having first created man, “created him with a sinless nature and a free will,” as St. Athanasius says 17. And sinless nature is all creation, rational and irrational, sensory and inanimate, but not all creation has free will. And the Divine nature is sinless and free will, but not changeable, but immutable. So, the Divine nature is volitional, and free, and sinless, and immutable. All creation was created by God sinless - for everything that God created was very good (Gen. 1:31), but changeable. For that whose emergence began with transformation is changeable by nature - transformation is a bringing from non-existence into being. So, if He did not accept the will of man, by what will did He obey the Father? If He did not accept human will, by what will did He submit to the law? If you did not accept human will, by what will did you fulfill all righteousness? About the fact that He has surpassed all virtue and righteousness, listen to how He says to John the Baptist: Leave now, for in this way it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness (Matthew 3:15). For He fulfilled all virtue and righteousness, but did not prosper from works or virtue, but was perfect from the very union - after all, He did not become God, being [before] a man, but, being perfect God, became perfect Man. If He did not accept human will, then He did not become a perfect Man. If He did not accept the human will, He did not heal the first-suffering thing in us. “For what is not received cannot be healed,” as the Theologian Gregory said 18. For what has fallen if not the will? What sinned if not the will? Therefore, that which fell, that which sinned, was in greater need of healing. If you say that He did not accept the sinner, then He did not accept the sinned and sick nature. If he did not accept this, then he did not accept the nature of humanity - after all, it was she who sinned. If He did not perceive the human will, how, before He understands good and bad, will He reject the bad and choose the good (Isa. 7:16)? After all, it is not the Divine will that rejects, or obeys, or chooses. So, He rejects the bad and chooses the good, voluntarily submitting, as a man, to the will of the Father - for election is [an action] of free will, but He, not like us, decides, and judges, and reasons about this or that opposite, that is, about virtue and vice, and knows them - but knows only good, which is the good will of God, and thus pays the debt of Adam. Therefore it is said: before he understands bad and good, - after all, God the Word incarnate did not know and did not think bad due to the hypostatic union; His thought was not double or doubtful, but Himself being one Christ, both, that is, God and Man, He used His human properties, that is, everything that is inherent in humanity by nature, to obey His Father’s and Divine will. If He accepted help from the angels (for it is said: and behold, an angel strengthened Him (cf. Luke 22:43), as befits human nature), did He not accept the will? After all, it is said that He will command His angels concerning you, and they will bear you up in their hands (Ps. 91:11–12). If He accepted God-forsakenness, [then] did He not accept will? After all, He says: Eloi, Eloi, Lama Savachthani? that is: My God, My God! Why have you forsaken me? (Matthew 27:46). For God the Father, for our sake, gave His only begotten Son, who became Man, to death - and His flesh was not abandoned, was not separated from His Divinity, did not see corruption (cf. Ps. 15:10), and His soul was not abandoned in hell, but God the Father did not spare His own Son, but for us gave Him to reproach, and dishonor, and to unrestrained and sinless passions and to death. Therefore, being obedient to the Father's good pleasure even to the point of death and despising shame (Phil. 2:8; Heb. 12:2), He crowned our nature with the glory and honor of incorruptibility (cf. Ps. 8:6). If those who profess one nature in Christ and deny two accept the difference of natures, why, by declaring two natures in Christ, are you fooling your head with His will alone? But they say: the will is not natural, but hypostatic. So what kind of will are you talking about? About volitional ability, and simply about wanting, and about natural desires, or about the way of using desire, that is, about how to want, and about what is desired by one’s own choice and for the sake of pleasure? But if you call volitional ability and simple desire hypostatic, you are speaking incorrectly. For every person has a volitional ability and simple desire, and what is seen in all hypostases of the same type is natural, and not hypostatic. But not every person wants the same thing, and not in the same way. So the volitional ability and simple desire are natural, but wanting something is somehow different for each hypostasis, and, as an incidental sign, is hypostatic. And Saint John, truly Chrysostom, is a witness to this, who says in the first book, in the fourteenth word of the explanation of the Epistle to the Hebrews: “For desire is innate and from God, and this or that desire is ours and from our choice” 19. In addition, if the willpower is hypostatic, then since the Son is other-hypostatic to the Father, He will also have a different desire. They don’t learn what is natural: no one learns to hunger or thirst, sleep or breathe, and no one learns to want. And how to desire, good or bad, or what to desire, they learn this. For the law of God does not teach us to want - after all, this is given to us by Him by nature - but to desire well and to desire this and that. So to want is natural, but how and what to want is hypostatic and different, except for the Holy Trinity - for there the hypostases desire the same thing and equally in the essence of the Divinity. For One is from the Holy Trinity, the incarnate Son and Word of God and God, since, unlike the Father and the Holy Spirit, He took on human flesh and in the fact that He became Man, He is different from the Father and the Spirit, in the same way in the natural properties of humanity He is different from the Father and the Spirit, having two natures and two natural identities. Moreover, what is essential and natural is that which, when present, preserves, and when absent, destroys the definition of nature. Does this mean that man will be a weak-willed creature? No way. For there has never been a person devoid of desire. Therefore, volition is natural. If hunger, thirst, and the desire to sleep, being irrational aspirations, are natural, then is not the rational and free aspiration of the mind natural? We are created in the image of God, in the sense of thought and free will. Therefore, if He did not perceive the mind and free will, then He did not perceive it “in the image” (a little lower we will briefly explain about the image). If He did not accept human will, then everything that Christ wanted, He wanted by Divine will. But what about entering the house and wanting to hide, he could not (Mark 7:24)? Therefore, God's will is not omnipotent, but weak. Stop talking this nonsense, man. It is not the divine will to want to eat and drink, to move from place to place, and the like, but to the human, even if Christ desired this by human will according to the Father’s good pleasure. (29) But they say: free will was not given to man by nature, but by honor, relying on the words of Gregory the Theologian: “Honoring him with free will.” But also listen to your father: “him, venerable in the mind and image of God” 20. This means that he will not have reason by nature, but by honor, and it is appropriate for you to say that the Lord did not accept a rational nature, but a dumb one. (30) In how many senses is it said “in the image”? In the sense of rationality, and thinking, and freedom, and because the mind gives birth to the word and exhausts the spirit, in the sense of leadership. In this sense, both angels and people are in the same image. Also exclusively human in the sense of the ungeneracy of Adam, and the birth of Abel, and the procession of Eve; in the sense of command, for the soul by nature has the body as a slave and rules over it; and because it brings together all creation: after all, all creation is united both in God and in man, since he is the connection of the intelligent and sensory creation. And in the image that the Son of God had to become - after all, He became not an angel; but a Man. (31) Every complex hypostasis, composed of different natures, necessarily possesses the natural properties of these two natures, even if the connection is seen as a fusion. For fire and water are completely opposite, fire is hot and dry, water is cold and wet, but when a body is formed from the four elements, it has four qualities, heat and cold, dryness and wetness. So, if where a merger is seen, one has to see the natural properties of the terms, then how much more so in a non-fused compound. (32) However, they say that man does not have a natural will, and in a Manichaean manner they assert that there are only two wills - one Divine, good, and the other devilish, evil. And when a person wants good, he has God’s will, and when he wants evil, he has the devil’s will. O excess of madness! O darkness of ignorance! Can God's will do everything or not? Yes, they say. So, if a person, desiring good, has the will of God, he, in their opinion, will be omnipotent. But they do not know that it is impossible for any nature to use any action, the ability of which it has not received by nature. Just as, for example, a bird cannot fly unless it has received the ability to fly by nature, so a land animal cannot walk if it has not received the corresponding ability by nature. Likewise, a person cannot want and act if he has not received by nature the volitional and effective ability, - after all, he cannot think if he has not received the thinking ability by nature, likewise to see or do anything else: so a person by nature has a volitional and effective ability, and will, and action. Therefore, natural actions are always inherent in all nature and exist together with it. And natural volition, that is, volitional ability, is one, but the desired objects are numerous and varied. After all, Scripture says: all His desires are in them (Ps. 15:3). It is not said: “The Divine will is in them,” but all His desires are in them, that is, desired objects. (33) One should know that the desires of the Divine are natural - for It is not characteristic of Him, the unchangeable One, to want one way or another, but It always desires the same way. Therefore, the desires of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit are the same - for all the natural properties of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit are the same, as Their nature is one and the same. And there is nothing hypostatic in the all-essential Divinity except the ungeneracy and parenthood of the Father, and the begetting of the Son, and the procession of the Holy Spirit. (34) As we said about the will, so we say about action, that the naming of action means different things. The property of God’s action is not only to be infinitely higher than any feeling, mind and any age, but any essence and name. For the natural motion and force of every essence is a natural action. And again: the innate movement of every essence is a natural action. And again: the force that manifests each essence is a natural action. And one more thing: the ever-moving power of the thinking soul, that is, its ever-moving word, naturally flowing eternally from it, is a natural and first action. Actions are also called actions, such as seeing, speaking, breathing, walking, eating, drinking, that is, using any natural ability. And natural passions are often called actions, like hunger, thirst, and the like. And simply put: natural action is the force and movement of every essence, outside of which there is only non-existence. So how will the Lord not have the natural action of human nature? After all, the absence of natural action in each case is the absence of nature. Therefore, if He did not have natural human action, He did not have human nature either - for those who have a different nature have different will and action. (35) So, another is the action, and another is the action, and another is what and how to act, another is the action, that is, the deed, and another is the active, and another is the doer. Therefore, action is the active ability itself, that is, the ability to act, and to act means to use the active ability. Doing something means seeing, thinking, listening, walking, eating, drinking. How to act means good or bad. The active is that which has the ability to act, for example, a person, an angel. The doer is the one who uses the action, that is, the hypostasis. So, action sometimes means actual ability, sometimes action, and sometimes deed. So, action, that is, an actual ability, and action is natural. For every person has the ability to act and every person has action - for man is an active being. The matter is not only natural, but also hypostatic among angels and among people. For in the Holy Trinity, everything desired and effective is natural, and therefore the same in the three hypostases. Angels and people do not have the same desire, and not the same deed, and not the same method of use - for each hypostasis of angels and people has its own movement and separately wants and acts. Therefore, in Christ our Lord there are two natural actions, since there are two natures, in order for Him to be perfect God and perfect Man, and two desires and different desires in accordance with the natural difference of natures, Divine and human, omnipotent and impassive according to the Divine nature and weak and passionate according to the human. And one and the other are natural affairs, for one is a matter of Divine nature, and the other is of human nature. For the active of human nature is not the active of the Divine nature, and the active of the Divine nature is not the same as that of human nature, because human nature does not create and is not Divine, and does not move from place to place, although the Divine action acts through human action. But the Actor of both is one, because there is one hypostasis. For if He did not perceive human action, then He did not live as a man, did not think, did not reason, did not eat, did not drink, did not taste food, did not walk, did not see, did not hear, did not breathe, and did not do anything human, and did not become a man at all. For Gregory of Nyssa says: “Having fasted for forty days, at last he became hungry - for he allowed nature to produce its effect when he wanted” 21. (36) Having analyzed and explained this in this way, let us see whether the Holy Gospels, and the Apostles, and the Holy Fathers confirm that the Lord possessed all this or not. So, that He had a human soul, the Lord Himself says in the Gospel of John: I have power to lay down My life, and I have power to take it again (John 10:18) and also: And I lay down My life for the sheep (John 10:15). And that He had a body was witnessed by Joseph, who asked for His body and dressed Him, and laid him in a tomb. And that He had the constitution of His members is testified by the one who anointed His head with ointment and wet His feet with tears, as well as the nails driven into His palms and into the soles of His feet, the spear that pierced His ribs, and the disciple who fell to His chest, and the tongue that said: if anyone thirsts, let him come to Me and drink (John 7:37), the lips that gave the Holy Spirit, the teeth that ate the Passover, and the throat, which carried it into the stomach, and the liver, which converted it into blood, and fatigue from the journey, which came from overstraining the muscles and veins, as the divine Basil says, and circumcision of the foreskin, and the lads mounted on a donkey, and the scourging of the back, and the blowing of the cheeks along with spitting in the face. And that He accepted both my cut and my discharge is evidenced by the circumcision, the nails, the spear, the spitting, the sweat, the blood and water that flowed from the ribs. And that He perceived both spiritual actions and passions is evidenced by the actions of His holy soul through His immaculate body - for it is said that, seeing the city of Jerusalem, He wept (Luke 19:41), and that He heard that John was thrown into prison (Matthew 4:12), as well as the olfactory sensation of the world, and the voice that raised Lazarus, and the tasting of bile and vinegar, which caused natural disgust (all of this, of course, is not actions Divine nature), and touching the leper, and walking, and stretching out hands on the cross, and from the natural ability the nutrition and growth of the body - for it is said that blessed is the womb that bore You, and the breasts that nourished You (Luke 11:27) and that the child grew (Luke 2:40). From the sentient, since animate, but unreasonable nature - feeling, movement according to aspiration, hunger, thirst (for it is said that at last I was hungry (Matthew 4:2), and on the cross: I thirst (John 19:28), desire for food (for it is said: I greatly desired to eat my Passover with you (Luke 22:15)), anger (for it is said that I was troubled in spirit, and testified, and said: One of you will betray Me (Jn. 13:21)), digesting food and drink and turning them into blood - because where does sweat, saliva, saving blood and water come from, if not from digestion? For He felt and used everything, but not passionately, but naturally, and ate not for the sake of passionate pleasure, but to replenish what was exhausted. For even if His all-holy body did not know corruption, it nevertheless underwent dissection and flow naturally - after all, corruption is the disintegration of the body into its components. But first of all [witnesses] life itself, which is the first action of a living being, given to the body by the soul. (37) He did not have seed or generation - for the properties of the Divine hypostases are indispensable, and the Father or the Spirit cannot become the Son. Therefore, it was precisely the Son of God who became the Son of Man, so that the property would remain unchanged. Then, the hypostasis is combined with a hypostasis of the same nature. But there is no other hypostasis like the Son of God and man - for there is one only begotten Son, the only one from the only Father and the only one from the only Mother, the Son of God and the Son of Man, God and Man, Jesus Christ the Son of God. In addition, although it is natural to mix for the sake of multiplying people, it is not necessary - for it is possible for a person to live and be a person without entering into a relationship, and many are free from this passion. (38) After all, the body itself has no action of its own, except for cutting and expiration, which are experiences, and not actions - and everything else is quite obviously the actions of the soul using the body, and not the Divinity. Like confusion, for He says: My soul is now troubled (John 12:27), sorrow and anguish: I began to grieve and yearn (Matthew 26:37) and My soul grieves unto death (Matthew 26:38), fear of death: My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me (Matthew 26:39), and death. All this is not characteristic of the Divine - after all, He is impassive, and ever-living, and immortal - but of a living being, that is, an animate and sensual entity. From the rational and thinking soul [He had] wisdom. For he increased in wisdom and stature (Luke 2:52). After all, He did not succeed in Divine wisdom - for from the very conception a perfect union and highest combination took place, and He did not have an addition to any Divine power, but He succeeded in human wisdom. For human wisdom manifested itself in Him as His bodily age increased - after all, just as from the very conception He became a perfect embryo, without gradual development and structure of the body, as Basil the Great says in the Word for Christmas 22, so from the very conception He became perfect in Divine and human wisdom, of course, as a Man - for as God He did not become perfect in Divine wisdom, but was such from eternity, the revelation in Him, perfect human wisdom in accordance with advancement in bodily age was considered advancement [in wisdom]. If He had human wisdom, then, of course, He also had intelligence, because wisdom is the product and power of the intellect. Yes, and the apostle says: we have the mind of Christ (1 Cor. 2:16). And the holy fathers, whose testimonies we have enclosed, understand “in the image” in the sense of thinking. So, if He took on man created in His image, that is, the nature of humanity, He certainly took on a thinking and rational nature. He also accepted free will. For just as He accepted an irrational desire obedient to reason, so He also accepted a rational one - after all, He did not perceive nature without mind and reason. After all, if He took on an unreasonable and dumb nature, He took on not a man, but a dumb animal. For man is a thinking and rational nature. (39) So, all the holy fathers spoke both about two natures in our Lord Jesus Christ, and in a dual number about all natural properties - after all, nature cannot exist outside of the properties that constitute it. Thus, it follows of necessity that those who speak of His two natures also recognize two wills, that is, two volitional abilities, because as God by nature He had the omnipotent Divine will, but as having become man by nature He had a human will, with which He wanted to hide when He entered the house, but could not. After all, I think they will not attribute impotence to the Divine will. So, He possessed the volitional ability of His human soul, and with it He desired the human, and according to His spiritual will moved toward the human, just as by Divine will the One and the same Son of God Christ, perfect God and perfect man, desired the Divine, but without the opposite of choice - for His human will voluntarily submitted to His Divine and Father’s will and desired what His Divine will wanted it to desire. (40) For since Adam’s will did not submit to the will of God, but his choice desired something contrary to God’s will - and this was the Fall, and none of Adam’s descendants became obedient to God’s will in everything, but each hypostasis, by its own choice, disobeyed the will of God (for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, according to the Apostle (Rom. 3:23) - therefore the Son of God, by good will Therefore, having become a Man, he accepted human nature and natural human will, but did not accept human hypostasis, so that the natural will of humanity would not behave according to its own hypostatic and gnomic will contrary to God’s will, but so that it would be voluntarily obedient in everything, and so the ancient Fall was resolved. (41) And again: He had a human will, according to the Evangelist Mark, because, having entered the house, he wanted to hide, but could not (Mark 7:24). Consequently, the Divine will is omnipotent, and not powerless, but human will is powerless. Therefore, He wanted with human will, while the Divine will deigned and gave the opportunity to His human nature to take advantage of what actually belonged to it, that is, to want and not be able to. And again: Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me (Matthew 26:39), that is, the cup of death. This is the natural desire and desire for life, which both rational and dumb creatures naturally have. However, not My will, but Yours be done (Luke 22:42). This is the natural and reasonable aspiration of the mind, free, reasonable and curbing the unreasonable aspiration. Not my will, but yours be done. “Mine”, human, as far as it is not common with You - after all, You did not become a person like Me, that is, the same, and did not accept human passions. “But Yours,” common to Me and You, to which I am involved, as well as to the nature of the Divine. For I came down from heaven not to do My will, but the will of the Father who sent Me (John 6:38), not so that My human will would act according to my own choice, contrary to Your will, but so that I would obey Your will, and so that the desire of Your will would become the desire of My human will. For it is the will and good pleasure of the Father that He should suffer for the salvation of the world, for the sake of which He became incarnate. For here will does not mean volition, but what is desired - after all, He has to create not the will of God (for it is uncreated and without beginning), but the Desire of God's will, in which sense we must understand all His desires in them (Ps. 15:3). After all, God does not have many volitional abilities, but one, and there is no volitional ability of God in the saints, because there is no nature either - for whose will is one, nature is one - but the wills of God, that is, His commandments, are in the saints. (42) So, it is shown that Christ has both two natures, and two natural wills, and two natural actions, in order to be perfect God and perfect Man - after all, he is not a perfect God who does not have all the properties of the Divine, and he is not a perfect man who does not have a perfect human nature and all the natural properties of humanity. So, He possessed the Divine will, which as God willed the Divine with the Father and the Spirit - Who have both one nature and a will corresponding to it. He also possessed natural human will, that is, natural volitional ability, as having become a perfect man, the same as His Mother, with whom He had both the same nature and the same will. He also had Divine action, with which, freely willing, He performed Divine deeds together with the Father and the Spirit; He also had human action, with which, freely willing, He accomplished human deeds. For it was not by Divine will that He wanted to hide, but He could not, and He wanted to drink and eat - after all, these are the desires of human, and not Divine nature; - and it was not by the Divine action that he walked or stretched out his hands - after all, it is not characteristic of the Divine action to walk or stretch out his hands. However, each of Christ’s natures, together with the other, desired and did what was characteristic of it, and His human will and action served His Divine will and action. For just as through His bodily action His Divine action acted - after all, He took the girl’s hand with His hand and said: maiden, stand up (Luke 8:54), and through touch and word the Divine action revived the girl - so through human will His Divine will acted. For having wished divinely, He performed miracles, and having wished humanly, He extended His hand and said: “Get up.” And it’s easier to say: what He willed and accomplished humanly became the salvation of the world - after all, He created the Divine not as God (for a pure God does not perform miracles by touching and stretching out hands) and the human not as a man (after all, the passions of a mere man are not saving the world) - but, being God and becoming Man, He revealed some new and extraordinary Godly action 23, Divine, but acting through the human, human, but serving the Divine and showing signs of the Divinity co-hypostatic with it. (43) For just as iron is of one nature and fire is of the other, and each of them has a different effect: for just as fire does not cut, but burns and shines, so iron does not burn and does not shine by its own natural action, but cuts and is black in color; when the combination of both occurs, each produces its own action jointly, and not separately - after all, along with the cut, a burn occurs, and the fire burns and shines through iron, but not one natural action, but two, one natural and burning with the fire, and the other natural and cutting with the iron, and the own influence of each, the fire has a burning, and the iron has a cutting, although there is a burning cut and a cutting burning - so it is with our Lord Jesus Christ each nature does its thing together with the other, and the two are not one, and the two do not have the same thing, but His human nature is to obey and serve the Divine will and, with its own will, reach out and touch the girl in obedience and service to the Divine will, while the Divine resurrects the girl through touch. So the limit of human action is the voluntary outstretching of a hand and touch, and the limit of Divine action is the resurrection of the girl. (44) Therefore, the great Dionysius spoke not about one “God-manned action”, but abstractly about “new”, that is, unusual 24. For each of them was unusual and God-given - after all, he said this, indicating not a number, but an unusual way. After all, the Lord, having taken pity on his own creation, which voluntarily accepted the passion of sin, like the enemy’s sowing, accepted the disease entirely in order to heal it as a whole: for “what is not accepted cannot be healed.” And what is received is saved. What fell and suffered first, if not the mind and its rational aspiration, that is, the will? This, therefore, needed healing - after all, sin is a disease of the will. If He did not accept the rational and thinking soul and its will, then He did not heal the suffering of human nature - that is why He accepted the will. He did not accept sin - after all, sin is not His creation. So, in order to expel from the soul the disease of sin planted by the enemy, for this purpose He took on the soul and its will, but did not create sin, and in order to free the body from corruption and the service of sin, He also took on the body. He also accepted the punishments for the first fall, so that, by paying our debts for us, he would free us from condemnation - for a slave cannot free a slave. Therefore, He, being Himself, as sinless, free, and not subject to death or any other punishment, took upon Himself our punishments for us and died for us, in order to give those who accepted Him the power to become children of God (John 1:12), and to grant them incorruptibility, and to give them equal angelic, carefree and serene life in the rebirth of the next century - for they must first endure what belongs to the first Adam, from whom we came, and then already receive the gifts of the second Adam. If we follow in His footsteps and keep the law of freedom, and do not enslave ourselves again to the yoke of sin - for, having freed our nature, He also gave us a commandment and showed us the path, following which, we will reign with Him, going where He Himself went as our forerunner, and having gone along a different path, we will remain outside - so, may it come true for us, following in His footsteps, to always be with Him and eat from His glory and kingdom now and ever and unto ages of ages. Amen. From this point to the last paragraph of Ch. 9, the manuscript tradition has preserved two slightly different versions of the text, which complement each other. In translation, they are combined, since this can be done without compromising the meaning and consistency of the argument, and in each specific case, preference is given to a more detailed version. The appearance (μορφή) here most likely refers not to philosophical terminology, but to the well-known expression of the apostle. Paul “having taken the form of a servant” (Phil. 2:6), where this very word is used in Greek (in the Church Slavonic translation “zrak” as opposed to “image” - εἰκών). The translation “image” in this case is impossible, since it would cause confusion with the teaching of the same St. John about icons. This means that, although sin is not an essential property of human nature, the Fall of Adam changed this nature as such. The definition of a person accepted in ancient philosophy, which St. uses here. John (a rational and mortal living being, ζῶον λογικὸν θνητόν), applies only to fallen human nature, since death was a consequence of the Fall. See note. 81 to the treatise “The Epistle to the Jacobite.” The text of this paragraph appears to be corrupted. Added for meaning. In the original, the opposition is ἀμέτοχον – μεθεκτόν, something in which one cannot or can be involved. St. John wants to say that one can participate not in the Divine essence, but only in the Divine action. The difference between the absolutely unknowable essence of God and His partially knowable action is explained in great detail in the works of St. Gregory Palamas. Here, in all cases, the word δύναμις is used, the meaning of which is conveyed by the philosophical term “potency”, but the translation into literary Russian may vary depending on the context: strength, opportunity, ability. Movement according to aspiration (καθ ’ὁ ρμὴν κίνσις) – the ability to arbitrarily move your body in space; according to the ideas of the ancients, one of the characteristics by which animals differ from plants. By “outflow” (ῥ εῦσις) one should understand what in modern biology is called “metabolism”, i.e. that the material composition of the body is not constant, but fluid. “Dissection” (τομή) is one of the main characteristics of the body, because the soul, unlike it, cannot be divided into parts. Moreover, τομή is inherent in any material body, and ῥ εῦσις only in living nature. About this law, as a form of Divine creation after the creation of the world, see “Conversation between a Saracen and a Christian,” chapter 1. St. Gregory the Theologian. Sl. 45 b (PG 36, 632 C). From the word γνώμη - moral choice, a conscious decision manifested in actions. Γνωμικόν, object γνώμη. From unsurvived creations, fr. V. Clement of Alexandria, fr. 40. On the Incarnation against Apollinaris, 1 (PG 26, 1120 B) (authenticity doubtful). Message 101 (PG 37, 181 C). In fact, in Discourse 13 on the Epistle to the Romans, ch. 2 (PG 60, 510). The source for these two quotes has not been found. The quotation itself was omitted from the manuscripts and was filled in by the publisher according to the treatise “On the Beatitudes,” chapter 4 (PG 44, 1237 A). Θεανδρικὴ ἐνέργειαε, a concept first found in Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite (5th century). The Orthodox interpretation of this expression, which is reproduced here by St. John, it was given to Rev. Maximus the Confessor. Dionysius the Areopagite. Message 4 (PG 3, 1072 C).