On complex nature against acephalous

“On complex nature against acephalous” (9 chapters) is one of the important Christological works of St. John of Damascus, dedicated to the defense of the Chalcedonian doctrine of two natures in Christ from the radical Monophysite errors represented by the so-called acephali. Akephals (lit. “headless”) were an extreme movement in Monophysitism that appeared after the Council of Chalcedon (451). They categorically rejected the recognition of two natures - Divine and human - in Christ, insisting that in Christ after the incarnation there is only one, single (mono-) nature. Their teaching ranged from the assertion that human nature was completely absorbed by the Divine, to the idea of ​​\u200b\u200bthe formation of some new, mixed divine-human nature. In his work, Rev. John systematically refutes these views using theological distinctions gleaned from the Cappadocian Fathers and the Chalcedonian Oros. Central to his argument is the concept of the “complex hypostasis” of Christ. He explains that although Christ has two perfect and unmixed natures - Divine and human - He is one, single Person (Hypostasis). This Person is "compound" (or composite) in the sense that it is composed of these two natures, but is not fused into a new, third nature. The essay gives an Orthodox interpretation of the expression St. widely used by Monophysites. Cyril of Alexandria “the one nature of God the Word incarnate.” The author distinguishes between the concepts of nature (essence) and hypostasis (personality), showing that Monophysites confuse them, attributing the “unity of nature” to what is in fact the “unity of hypostasis.” He emphasizes that the Godhead was not changed or diminished, and humanity was not destroyed or absorbed; on the contrary, both natures retained all their properties, being united in one Divine-Human Person. For Rev. John of Damascus, the hypostasis of Christ is “complex” not in the sense of the presence of a third, new nature, but due to the unification in it of two simple (inherently non-composite) natures. * Title of the work in Greek: Περ συνθέτου φύσεως κατὰ ἀκεφάλων. * Title of the essay in Latin: De natura composita sive Contra acephalos. 1. One complex nature arises from different natures, when when natures are combined, something other than the combined natures is obtained. And what results is not and is not called in the proper sense either this or that, but another. For example, from the four elements, that is, fire, air, water and earth, a body is made up by the combination and co-dissolution of all four, and the resulting body is not and is not called either fire, air, water, or earth, but from them is something other than them. Likewise, a mule is born from a horse and a donkey, and it is neither a horse nor a donkey, and is not called that, but is something other than them. Our Lord Jesus Christ, being from Divinity and humanity, is both in Divinity and in humanity, and is and is called perfect God and perfect man, and wholly God, and wholly man, which cannot be found in complex nature - after all, the whole body is not fire, and not all of it is air, just as neither is earth or water, and a mule is not wholly a horse, nor wholly a donkey, and not a perfect horse, nor a perfect ass, but Christ, as I said, is perfect God and perfect man and wholly God and wholly man. Therefore, He is not one complex nature, but one hypostasis, cognizable in two natures, and two natures in one complex hypostasis. 2. So, let us ask the heretics: saying that Christ is of two natures, which natures are you talking about? They will answer: about Divinity and humanity. Then let us say: how, when you say that Christ is in Divinity and humanity, do you deny that He is in two natures? After all, they cannot answer that Christ is not in Divinity and humanity. Let us ask them again: is there one complex nature of Christ or two? And they will say: one is difficult. Then we say: are the simple and the complex consubstantial? And they cannot say that the simple and the complex are consubstantial. Then we say: therefore, if Christ is of one complex nature from Divinity and humanity, then He is not consubstantial with the Father, because the Father is not of a complex nature from Divinity and humanity, but simple. But He will not be consubstantial with the Mother - after all, the Mother is not composed of Divinity and humanity. We, saying that Christ is one hypostasis in two natures in Divinity and humanity, affirm that in Divinity He is consubstantial with the Father, and in humanity He is consubstantial with the Mother, and we do not separate Him, speaking of one hypostasis, and do not merge Him, confessing two united natures. And again let’s say this: if the nature of the Divinity of Christ and His flesh are one, and the nature of the Father and Christ is one, then the Father and the flesh will have one nature. And again: how do you profess the difference of natures? After all, difference introduces at least two different natures, or hypostases, or one hypostasis, which changes and is transformed according to the separated incoming attribute. The fact that you do not mean the difference in hypostases is clear in relation to Christ. It is also clear that (we are not talking about) a separable attribute - after all, you don’t say that He is sometimes immortal, and sometimes mortal, passing from immortality to mortality, just as we do from illness to health. So, it remains for you to talk about the difference of natures, which you recognize, and, having first confessed the difference of natures, to also confess those natures between which there is a difference - after all, if there are no essences, there will be no essential differences. If there is one nature, just as there is one hypostasis in Christ, why, when speaking about the difference of natures, do you not also talk about the difference in His hypostases? Why, while claiming that Christ is of two natures, do you not say that He is also of two hypostases? If Christ is of one complex nature, He is not consubstantial with the Father - after all, the Father is of simple nature. The simple and the complex are not consubstantial. If Christ, by one and the same essence, is consubstantial with the Father and consubstantial with us, then the Father and we will be of the same nature. If Christ is of the same nature and consubstantial with the Father, Who is of a simple nature, but also has a complex nature, then He will have two natures - one simple and the other complex. If, in your opinion, nature and hypostasis are identical, then, since there are three hypostases of the Divine, He will have three natures, or, since there is one nature, there will be one hypostasis. If you say that one thing is the general nature, and another thing is that which is seen in the indivisible being, which you call private, then you need to admit that not only Christ, but also the Father and the Holy Spirit have two natures, one simple and one complex. If the Divinity is uncreated and without beginning, and humanity is created and has a beginning, then how can the beginningless and the beginning be of the same nature? 3. Since they present to us the saying of Saint Athanasius and Saint Cyril, which speaks of “the one incarnate nature of God the Word,” we say that the saying of Saint Gregory the Theologian is equivalent to it, saying: “Of whom one was deified, and the other was deified.” For just as incandescence does not mean the transformation of what is incandescent, but union with fire, so deification means union with the Divine, and incarnation means union with the flesh. Therefore, we know one nature of God the Word, that is, His Divinity, incarnate, that is, united with the flesh, and one nature of the flesh of the Word deified, that is, united with the Divinity. So there are two natures connected to each other. After all, if he had spoken about the one nature of God the Word, even the incarnate one, this would without contradiction mean that both are one nature. Having said “one nature of God the Word” and adding “incarnate,” he designated the essence of the flesh, as he, interpreting himself, says in his letter to Sukens: “For if we, having said “one nature of the Word,” were silent without adding “incarnate,” then perhaps their speeches would not be unconvincing, feigning to ask: if everything as a whole is one nature, then where is the perfection in humanity? Since the designation of flesh is introduced through the expression “incarnate,” let them stop leaning on the reed staff” (cf. Isa. 36:6, 2 Sam. 18, etc.). So he clearly refused to call the whole, that is, both principles, one nature, and says that through “incarnate” the designation of flesh was introduced. So we have “one nature of God the Word.” and the word “incarnate” indicates flesh—but flesh is not without essence. Therefore the nature of the Word and the realized flesh will be two essences. 4. Why, while confessing in Christ the nature of the Divinity and the nature of the flesh and saying that they are one and the other, do you not recognize two natures, being afraid of fear where “there is no fear” (Ps. 52:6)? And they say that number is the beginning of division and that, “avoiding division, we do not recognize the two natures of Christ.” And we tell them that every number denotes the quantity of those being counted, but not the ratio, because when we speak of three people, we do not denote three separate natures, and when we speak of the three hypostases of the Divine, we do not confess them to be separate. So, while affirming two natures in Christ and designating a number, we do not allow separation, for just as in the Holy Trinity the three hypostases are united inseparably and at the same time unfused - inseparably because of the uniqueness of nature and unmerged passage into each other, unfused because of the hypostatic difference, or mode of existence, that is, ungeneracy, birth and procession - and the number of hypostases does not introduce division, so when In the incarnation of God the Word, two natures are united inseparably and at the same time unmerged - inseparably because of the uniqueness of the hypostasis and unmerged transition into each other, unmerged because of the essential difference, I mean between created and uncreated, mortal and immortal, limited and indescribable, and the like - and the number of natures does not introduce division. 5. Since they, as it seems to us, are in difficulty, bringing shaky arguments that if there is no essence without hypostasis and nature without person, then, speaking of two natures and essences in Christ, you necessarily recognize two hypostases and two persons, we will answer that [indeed] there is no essence without hypostasis and nature without person - for the essence is contemplated in hypostases and persons, but the essence is not is not a hypostasis, but nature is a person. After all, if essence is a hypostasis, and nature is a person, it will be necessary in the Holy Divinity, speaking about one nature and essence, to recognize both one hypostasis and one person, or, confessing three hypostases and persons, to confess at the same time three essences and natures; and moreover, in humanity, in the same way, either recognize one nature and one hypostasis, or talk about infinite essences, as well as hypostases, but, saying that Christ is from two natures, one will also have to assert that He is from two hypostases. 6. So, we say that the essence is contemplated in hypostases (which is why it is hypostatic), but not hypostasis. This means that what is hypostatic should not be called hypostasis. After all, hypostasis and the hypostatic are understood in two ways. For hypostasis sometimes means simply existence, in which sense it means not only a simple essence, but also an incidental one, and sometimes it means an indivisible being, that is, a person, which is called a hypostasis in itself, which points to Peter, Paul, this horse, and the like. Hypostatic sometimes means essence, as contemplated in hypostasis and independently existing, and sometimes - each of those included in one hypostasis, as in the case of soul and body. Therefore, the Divinity and humanity of Christ are hypostatic - after all, both of them have one common hypostasis - the Divinity is eternal and eternal, but the animate and thinking flesh, being perceived by Him in the last times, received existence in Him and acquired His hypostasis. 7. They also say that the holy fathers used the likeness of man in relation to the sacrament of Christ - and people have one nature, which means Christ will also have one nature. So let them hear: the name “nature” is also used in relation to species. Therefore, they say that all people are of the same nature, as belonging to the same species, humanity. But man is not of one nature, since he consists of soul and body - after all, the incorporeal and invisible soul is not consubstantial with the visible body. Therefore, when a person is compared with a person, they say that they are of the same essence as falling under one species, and since everything is composed of soul and body, and everyone carries two natures within themselves - in the natural sciences of man, two natures are seen in him, souls and bodies, combined in one hypostasis. For when comparing soul and body, who would be so ignorant as to speak of the same nature of both? In relation to Christ, there is no species - after all, there are not many Christs made up of Divinity and humanity, so that they all, belonging to the same species, could be called one nature, but one Christ, cognizable from two and in two natures. For Gregory the Theologian says: “There are two natures, God and man, because there are soul and body, but there are not two Sons.” 8. Again: how can one and the same nature have opposite essential differences? After all, if an essence can have even non-essential differences separately, and not simultaneously, then even more so the essential ones. After all, it is clear that opposite essential differences cannot exist in one and the same essence. because one and the same essence cannot be rational and unreasonable, created and uncreated. Also: essences are formed by the differences that make up the essence, which is why they are called essential and components, and exist in essences. Therefore, if you confess in Christ the essentially formative differences, it is necessary to confess the essences as well - otherwise to what would they belong? And without forming entities, [these differences] would be unnecessary. Again: since you speak of the same nature of the Divinity and humanity of Christ, tell us by which nature Christ suffered? It's clear that it's complicated, you say. For speaking about one, you will necessarily attribute to it suffering, and you will have both humanity and the Divinity of Christ passionately. Again: if there is one complex nature of Christ, it will either be only passionate, or only impassive, or passionate-impassionate, that is, both passionate and impassive, or changeable, that is, sometimes passionate and sometimes impassive, or part of it will be passionate and partly impassive. So, choose whichever of the wickednesses you want. For if she is only passionate, then Christ is not God. If it is only impassive, Christ is not a man. If sometimes it is passionate, and sometimes it is impassive, then it is neither passionate by nature, nor impassive by nature, but by an incidental sign - after all, what is inherent by nature does not pass on. If part of it is passionate, and part is impassive, but both are what they are by nature, then the parts will not be of the same nature, and then Christ will be two-natural, Who is not nature, but hypostasis. For it is not possible for one and the same nature to be both passionate and impassive, since one and the same nature cannot simultaneously accept opposite essential differences. 9. Tell us also this: does Christ have a Divine nature? Yes, of course, you say. Does it have a human one? And you admit this, unless, of course, you want to decide on outright wickedness. So, are Divine nature and human nature one nature or two? But if you say, “one upon,” the Father will be consubstantial with us. If there are two, and not one, then why don’t you, throwing away pride along with its parent, that is, the devil, confess with us one Christ, one Son, one Lord, one hypostasis from two natures, and two natures, and in two natures after union? After all, if you know that Christ never had two natures, then why in vain do you say that He is of one nature after the union? If you speak of one nature after the union, claiming that before the union He was two-natured, then you are directly opposing the truth. For before the union, that is, the Divine incarnation, He, being one hypostasis of one simple nature, that is, Divine, was not and was not called Christ, except when the future was foreshadowed by a prophetic word. Therefore, you either completely eliminate the two natures in Christ, or you assert that Christ was two-natured even before the incarnation from the Virgin, not wanting to recognize for Him after the union the two natures that actually belong to Him. We do not think like that, and this is not the “portion of Jacob” (Jer. 10:16), but, standing within the limits of piety, we call Him one complex hypostasis - for this eternal hypostasis of God the Word, having settled in the womb of the Holy Ever-Virgin, realized in itself the most rational animate flesh, itself appearing as a hypostasis for the rational and animate flesh, and became of perfect Divinity and perfect humanity there is one Christ, one Son He is both God and Man, one and the same Lord, perfect God and perfect man, completely God and completely man, in an unfused, untransformed and inseparable union of natures with each other. Unmerged, for each nature retains its difference. Divinity is uncreatedness, humanity is creatureliness, Divinity is dispassionateness, humanity is passionality, and the like. It is immutable, because each of the natures remained unchanged, without turning into another and without appearing as one complex nature, but two natures exist and remain forever. Inseparably, because they are hypostatically united with each other, having one hypostasis, eternally incorporeal and simple, but in recent times, without transformation, having acquired a body from the Holy Ever-Virgin - for she is both, incorporeal by the beginningless Divinity, corporeal by the arisen, that is, perceived flesh. This hypostasis is the eternal Son and Word of God, Who Himself is both incorporeal as God, and corporeal as in the last days He became man. So, natures are united hypostatically and interpenetrate. You might be interested in: