Книга третья

Chapter 1 (45). About Divine economy and care in relation to us, and about our salvation So, a person who was seduced by this attack by the culprit of evil - a demon and who did not keep the commandments of the Creator; deprived of grace and stripped of the boldness that he had towards God; covered with the severity of a calamitous life, for this [was signified] by the leaves of the fig tree (see Gen. 3:7); clothed with deadness, that is, mortality and coarseness of the flesh, for this meant being clothed in skins (see Gen. 3:21); according to God's righteous judgment, he became expelled from paradise; condemned to death and subject to corruption, was not despised by the Compassionate One, who gave him existence and bestowed blissful existence. But [man] was first brought up in many ways and called to conversion through groaning and fear, a flood of water and the complete destruction of almost the entire human race (see Gen. 6, 13), through the confusion and division of languages (see Gen. 11, 7), angelic supervision (see Gen. 18, 1), burning of cities (see Gen. 19, 1), transformative Epiphanies, wars, victories, defeats, signs and miracles, various powers, through the law, through the prophets. Through this it was sought: the destruction of sin, which was spread in many different ways and enslaved man and piled up every kind of vice for life, as well as the return of man to a blissful life; since death entered the world through sin (see Rom. 5:12), just like some wild and ferocious beast tormenting human life, it was necessary that the One who Intends to redeem was infallible and not subject to death through sin, and moreover, it was necessary that the nature [of man] was strengthened and renewed, and was in fact instructed and taught the path of virtue that leads away from corruption, leading to eternal life. God finally shows in relation to him a great sea of ​​philanthropy. For Himself, both the Creator and the Lord, takes upon Himself the struggle for His own creation, and in fact becomes a Teacher. And since the enemy seduces a person with the hope of [receiving] divine dignity, He is equipped with the garment of flesh as a bait, and at the same time shows the goodness and wisdom, and righteousness, and the power of God. Goodness, because He did not despise the weakness of His own creation, but took pity on him, the fallen, and stretched out his hand. Righteousness is because after a person has been defeated, He does not cause another to defeat the tyrant, and does not snatch a person by force from the hands of death, but the one whom death once enslaved to itself through sin, the Good and Righteous One again made him a winner and, what was difficult, brought like to a primitive state through like. And wisdom because He found the most decent destruction of the difficult. For, by the good pleasure of God and the Father, the only begotten Son and Word of God, and God, who is in the bosom of God and the Father (John 1:18), consubstantial with the Father and the Holy Spirit, pre-eternal, without beginning, who was in the beginning, and was with God and the Father, and was God (see John 1:1), who is in the image of God (Phil. 2:6), bowing heaven, descends, that is, having humiliated His indestructible height, descends for the benefit of His servants with such a condescension that was both ineffable and incomprehensible; for this is what the word means: descent. And, being perfect God, He becomes perfect man, and a work is accomplished, the newest of all new things, a work that alone is new under the sun (see Eccl. 1:10) and through which the boundless power of God is revealed. For what is greater than this, that God became man? The Word, without undergoing change, became flesh: from the Holy Spirit and Holy Mary, the Ever-Virgin and Mother of God. It is called the Mediator between God and people, the only one who loves mankind, conceived in the immaculate womb of the Virgin, not from desire or lust, or union with a husband (see John 1:13), or birth associated with pleasure, but from the Holy Spirit and the first Source of Adam. It becomes obedient to the Father, through the fact that It became like us, and through what it accepted from us [ours], healing our disobedience and becoming for us a Model of obedience, without which it is impossible to receive salvation. Chapter 2 (46). About the image of the conception of the Word and about His Divine Incarnation For the Angel of the Lord was sent to the Holy Virgin, who came from the tribe of David (Luke 1:26,27). Surely our Lord rose from the tribe of Judah (Heb. 7:14), from which tribe no one came to the altar (Heb. 7:13), as the divine Apostle said, about which we will say in more detail later. So, preaching the gospel to her, he said: Rejoice, full of grace! The Lord is with you (Luke 1:28). She is confused about words; and the Angel said to Her: Do not be afraid, Mariam: for you have found grace with God... and you will bear a Son, and you will call His name Jesus (Luke 1:29-31). He will save His people from their sins (Matthew 1:21). Why is the name Jesus translated as Savior? When She wondered: how will this be for me, even though I don’t know a husband (Luke 1:34), then the Angel again spoke to Her: The Holy Spirit will come upon You, and the power of the Most High will overshadow You. In the same way, what is born of You is holy; He will be called the Son of God (Luke 1:35). She said to him: Behold the Handmaid of the Lord: be unto Me according to thy word (Luke 1:38). Indeed, after the Holy Virgin expressed her consent, according to the word of the Lord, which the Angel said, the Holy Spirit descended on Her, purifying Her and giving Her the strength to accept the Divinity of the Word, and at the same time for His birth. And then the hypostatic Wisdom and Power of the Most High God, the Son of God, consubstantial with the Father, overshadowed Her, as if the Divine seed, and from Her immaculate and purest blood formed for Himself flesh, animated by a soul, endowed with both reason and intelligence, the firstfruits of our mixture; not in the manner of being born through seed, but in a creative manner, through the Holy Spirit; It’s not that the appearance was created little by little through additions, but that it was completed in one moment. The Word of God itself became a Hypostasis for the flesh. For the Divine Word was not united with the kind of flesh that previously existed by itself, but, having settled in the womb of the Holy Virgin, It in His Hypostasis indescribably received from the pure blood of the Ever-Virgin flesh, animated by a soul, gifted with both reason and intelligence, taking for Himself the beginnings of human mixture, the Word itself became a Hypostasis for the flesh. So, at the same time - flesh, at the same time - the flesh of the Word of God, at the same time - animate flesh, endowed with both reason and intelligence. This is why we speak not about a deified man, but about God made man. For Who was by nature a perfect God, the same One became by nature a perfect man: without changing regarding His nature, also not only being incarnate ghostly, but with the flesh received from the Holy Virgin, animated by a soul, both rational and intelligent, and in Him receiving its being, united hypostatically, [but] unfused, and immutable, and inseparably, without changing the nature of His Divinity into essence His flesh, nor the essence of His flesh - into the nature of His Divinity, and from His Divine nature and that human nature that He assumed for Himself, without making one complex nature. Chapter 3 (47). About two natures, against monophysites For the natures were united with each other immutably and unchangeably, while neither the Divine nature lost its own simplicity, nor the human, of course, just as it did not change into the nature of the Divine, nor did it pass into non-existence in reality, and one complex nature was not formed from the two. For a complex nature cannot be of one essence with either of the two natures from which it is composed, being made from something else, as something new in comparison with that. Just as, for example, a body composed of four elements is not called consubstantial with fire, is not called fire, is not called air, nor water, nor earth, and is not consubstantial with any of these. Consequently, if, according to the opinion of the heretics, Christ after the union assumed one complex nature, then He changed from a simple nature to a complex one, and He is not consubstantial either with the Father, Who has a simple nature, or with the Mother, for She is not composed of Divinity and humanity. And He will not exist, of course, in Divinity and humanity; and He will be called neither God nor man, but only Christ; and the word Christ will not be the name of a hypostasis, but of one nature, according to their opinion. We decree that Christ was not with one complex nature and that He was not something new in comparison with the other from which He was formed, just as a person consists of soul and body, or like a body - from four elements; but [in Christ] the same thing was from another [compared to this “other.”] For we confess that from Divinity and humanity the perfect God and the perfect man are and are called [by both names] One and the same, and that He is from two natures and exists in two natures. By the word Christ we call the name of the Hypostasis, which is understood not as something of one kind, but as serving to designate two natures. For He Himself anointed Himself: anointing His Body with His Divinity, being anointed as a man; for He Himself is this and that Anointing of humanity - Divinity. For if Christ, being of one complex nature, is one in essence with the Father, then, therefore, the Father will be compounded and one in essence with the flesh, which is completely absurd and full of all blasphemy. But also, how will one nature be capable of accepting significant differences - opposite [one to another]? For how is it possible for one and the same nature to be at the same time created and uncreated, mortal and immortal, describable and indescribable? If those who say that in Christ there is one nature would call it simple, then they will either agree that He is only God, and introduce a ghost, and not [real] incarnation, or they will agree that He is only man, as Nestorius said. And where is that which is perfect in the Divinity and perfect in humanity? And also when will they say about Christ that He was with two natures, those who say that after the union He was with a single complex nature? For that Christ before the union was with one nature is, of course, clear to everyone. But this is what, for heretics, is the cause of their error: the assertion that nature and person are one and the same. For, although we say that the nature of people is one, however, we must know that we are saying this without turning our gaze to the concept of soul and body, for it is impossible to say that soul and body, compared with each other, are the essence of one nature, but because although there are very many faces of people, all people possess nature, understood in the same sense, for all are composed of soul and body and all have received the nature of the soul and own the essence body, also in general appearance. [That’s why we] say that the nature of very many and different persons is one, although each person, of course, has two natures and reaches fullness in two natures: in the nature of the soul, that is, and the body. But in our Lord Jesus Christ a general appearance cannot be allowed. For there was not, and is not, and never will be another Christ, consisting of both Divinity and humanity, abiding in Divinity and humanity, Who is One and the same - perfect God and perfect man. Therefore, it cannot be said that in our Lord Jesus Christ there is one nature, so that, just as we speak of the indivisible, composed of soul and body, so we speak of Christ, Who consists of Divinity and humanity. For there is the indivisible, but Christ is not the indivisible, for He does not have the form [or property] of “Christhood,” [like that property] that was mentioned [above in relation to people]. Why, of course, do we say that from two perfect natures: both Divine and human, a union occurred, not in the image of staining or not through merging, or mixing, or dissolution, as Dioscorus, rejected by God, and Eutyches, and Severus, and their lawless society said; and not personal or relative, or in the sense of dignity, or in relation to the same will, or equality, or likeness, or good will, as the God-hating Nestorius, and Diodorus, and Theodore of Mopsuet, and their demonic assembly said; but through a combination, namely hypostatic, [which occurred] immutably and unmerged, and unchangeably, and inseparably, and inseparably; and in two natures, which are perfect, we confess one Hypostasis of the Son of God incarnate, considering the same Hypostasis of His Divinity and humanity and confessing that the two natures are preserved intact in Him after the union; not positing each nature separately and separately, but united with each other in one complex Hypostasis. For we say that the connection is essential, that is, true and not in the sense of a ghost. We consider it essential not because two natures made one complex nature, but because they truly united with each other into one complex Hypostasis of the Son of God and that their essential difference remains intact. For the things that were made remained made, and the things that were not made, that were not made. The mortal remained mortal and the immortal remained immortal; described - described; indescribable - indescribable; the visible - visible and the invisible - invisible. One shines with miracles, the other falls under insults. Further, what is characteristic of humanity, the Word appropriates to Himself, for what belongs to His holy flesh belongs to Him; and gives to the flesh what belongs to it, according to the image of mutual communication, due to the penetration of parts into each other and hypostatic union, and because there was One and the Same One, in each of the two images he accomplished both the Divine and the human with the participation of the other. Why exactly is it said that the Lord of glory was crucified (see 1 Cor. 2:8), although His Divine nature did not experience suffering; and it was declared about the Son of Man that He was in heaven before He suffered, as the Lord Himself said (see John 3:13). For there was one and the same Lord of glory, who became by nature and truly the Son of Man, that is, man; and we know of His miracles and sufferings, although He performed miracles in one respect [i.e. one of His nature] and He Himself endured suffering in another respect [i.e. His other nature]. For we know that both His one Hypostasis and the essential difference of natures are preserved intact. But how would the difference be preserved intact if those who had a difference in relation to each other were not preserved intact? For difference is the difference of those things that are different. So, in the respect in which the [two] natures of Christ differ from each other, that is, in relation to the essence, He, we say, is in contact with the edges, [i.e.] as far as the Divinity is concerned, then with the Father and the Spirit, and as far as humanity is concerned, then with the Mother and all people. And in what respect His natures come into contact, in that, we say, He differs from the Father, and from the Spirit, and from the Mother, and from other people; for His natures come into contact through Hypostasis, having one complex Hypostasis, in relation to which He differs from the Father, from the Spirit, from the Mother and from us. Chapter 4 (48). On the manner of mutual communication of properties So, that one is essence, the other is hypostasis [or person], we have said very many times; also that the essence shows a general form and contains homogeneous persons; such as: God, man; the person denotes the indivisible, that is, the Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit, Peter, Paul. Therefore, one should know that the name of Divinity and humanity shows essences or natures; the name: God and man is also used about nature, just as we say: God is an incomprehensible essence and that one is God; it is also used in relation to persons, when the more specific takes the name of the more general, just as Scripture says: for this reason of the anointing of Thee, O God, thy God (Ps. 44:8); for - look! - it [here] pointed to the Father and the Son; just as it says: a certain man lived in the country of Austidia (Job 1:1), for it [here] pointed to Job alone. Therefore, since in our Lord Jesus Christ we know, of course, two natures, but one is a complex of both Hypostases, then when we consider the natures in Him, then we call Divinity and humanity, but when we call the Hypostasis composed of natures, then we call Christ, consisting of both together: God, and at the same time man, and God incarnate; and then in one of the parts - only God and the Son of God and only man and the Son of Man; and then according to the sublime only [i.e. His divine nature], otherwise, according to only the base [i.e. His human nature]; for One is the One who is equally both this and that: always being first innocently from the Father, and having become another later through love for mankind. So, speaking about the Divine, we do not attribute to Him those properties that are inherent in humanity. For we do not say that the Divinity is subject to passions or created. But we do not attribute the properties of the Divine to flesh or humanity; for we do not say that the flesh or humanity is uncreated. And when we talk about the Hypostasis, then, whether we call It by both natures together, or by one of its parts, we give It the properties of both natures. For Christ is both together, and is called both God and man, both created and uncreated, both subject to passions and impassive. And every time He is called in one part the Son of God and God, He takes on the properties of a coexistent nature, that is, flesh, being called God - subject to suffering, and Lord of glory - crucified (see 1 Cor. 2:8): not because He is God, but because He Himself is also a man. And whenever He is called man and the Son of Man, He takes on the properties of the Divine nature and adornment: the eternal child, the beginningless man: not because He is a child and a man, but because, being the eternal God, He in the last days (see Heb. 1, 2) became a child. And this is an image of mutual communication, when each of the two natures offers what is characteristic of it in exchange to the other due to the identity of the Hypostasis and the penetration of one into the other. Therefore, we can say about Christ: This is our God... appeared on earth and lived with men (Bar. 3:36, 38); and this man is uncreated, and not subject to passions, and indescribable. Chapter 5 (49). On the number of natures But just as, on the one hand, we confess one nature in the Divinity, and on the other, we say that there are truly three Hypostases; and all that, of course, that is natural and essential, we call simple, and we recognize the difference of Hypostases in only three properties: in the fact that One is innocent and is the Father, and the Other came from the Cause and the Son, and the Third came from the Cause and is emanating; and we are convinced that They [i.e. Hypostases] cannot be removed and separated One from the other, and that They are united and seamlessly penetrate One into the other, and, on the one hand, are united unfused, for They are three, although united, and on the other hand, they are inseparably separated, for although Each exists by Itself, that is, a perfect Hypostasis and has a peculiarity peculiar to It, that is, a different way of being, however, They are united both by essence and natural properties, and the fact that They are not divided and are not removed from the Fatherly Hypostasis, and as they are, they are called one God; in the same way, in the Divine and mysterious economy, which surpasses all mind and understanding, we confess although there are two natures of one of the Holy Trinity of God the Word and our Lord Jesus Christ: both Divine and human, united with one another and hypostatically united, but one complex Hypostasis, made of [two] natures. Further, we say that the two natures, even after the union, remain intact, in a single complex Hypostasis, that is, in the one Christ, and that they, like their natural properties, truly exist, being, of course, united unfused and inseparable, both differing and being countable. And just as the three Hypostases of the Holy Trinity are both inseparably united and inseparably divided and counted, and this number does not produce division or separation, or alienation and dissection in Them, for we know one God: the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit; in the same way the natures of Christ, although they are united, are not united; although they penetrate each other, they do not allow either change or transformation of one into the other. For each of the two retains its natural property unchanged. Why are they counted, and [however] this number does not introduce division. For one is Christ, perfect both in divinity and humanity; because number by its nature is not the culprit of division or connection, but it serves to designate the number of those things that are counted, either united or divided: united, when [for example] this wall consists of fifty stones; divided, when [for example] fifty stones lie on this field; and [again, for example] united, because two natures are in the coal; I mean the nature of fire and wood; separated, because the nature of fire is one, and the nature of wood is another, since they are united and separated by a different image, and not by number. Consequently, just as it is impossible for the three Hypostases of the Divinity, although They are united One with the other, to be called one Hypostasis, in order [otherwise] not to produce a merger and destruction of the difference of the Hypostases, so it is impossible to call the two natures of Christ, hypostatically united, one nature, so that [otherwise] we would not bring about the destruction, and fusion, and the non-existence in reality of their differences. Chapter 6 (50). About the fact that the entire Divine nature in One of Its Hypostases is united with the entire human nature, and not part to part That which is general and universal is so called in relation to the particular that is the basis for it. So, essence, as a species, is general; and the person is private. However, it is particular not because it has [one] part of nature and does not have [another] part, but because it, as indivisible, is particular in number; for persons are said to be distinguished by number, and not by nature. So, the essence is called so in relation to the person, because in each of the homogeneous persons the essence is perfect. Why do persons not differ from each other in essence, but in accidents, which are their characteristic properties; but the characteristic properties of the person, and not of nature. For a person is defined as an essence together with accidental characteristics; so that a person has that which is general, together with that which is particular, also an independent existence; the essence does not exist independently, but is contemplated in persons. Therefore, when one of the persons suffers, it is said that the whole entity, being suffering, insofar as this person suffered, [also] suffered in one of its persons, but in all this it is not necessary that all persons belonging to the same genus should suffer along with the suffering person. Thus, therefore, we confess that the nature of the Godhead is all perfectly found in each of His Persons: all in the Father, all in the Son, all in the Holy Spirit; therefore the Father is perfect God, perfect God and Son, perfect God and the Holy Spirit. Thus, in the incarnation of one of the Holy Trinity, God the Word, we say that the whole and perfect nature of the Divinity in one of His Persons was united with the whole human nature, and not part with part. Indeed, the divine apostle says that in Him lives all the fulfillment of the physical Divinity (Col. 2:9), that is, in His flesh; and a God-bearing disciple of that and strong [in the knowledge of] Divine objects - Dionysius says that the Divinity has completely entered into community with us in one of His Persons. However, we will not be forced to say that all the Persons of the Holy Deity, that is, the three, are hypostatically united with all the persons of humanity. For the Father and the Holy Spirit did not participate in any sense in the incarnation of God the Word, if not in the sense of favor and desire. But we affirm that the whole essence of the Divine is united with all human nature. For from what God the Word planted in our nature, having created us from the beginning, He did not neglect anything, but took on everything, body, soul, endowed with mind and intelligence, as well as their properties. For a living being lacking one of these is not a person. For He took all of me, and all of me was united with all, in order to grant salvation to all. For what was not accepted could not be healed. So, the Word of God was united with the flesh with the help of the mind, which mediated between the purity of God and the coarseness of the flesh. For the mind, on the one hand, is the guiding principle of both the soul and the flesh. On the other hand, the mind is the purest part of the soul; and God is the guiding principle of the mind; and when the mind of Christ receives permission from the one standing above, then it shows its sovereignty. But he is overcome and follows the one standing above, and does what the Divine will desires. Further, the mind became the place of the Divinity hypostatically united with it, just as, without a doubt, the flesh; not as a cohabitant, as the lawless opinion of heretics is mistaken, saying: after all, a medimn cannot accommodate two medimn; judging the immaterial in a corporeal way. How then will Christ be called perfect God and perfect man, and of one essence both with the Father and with us, if in Him a part of the Divine nature was united with a part of the human nature? We say that our nature rose from the dead and ascended and sat at the right hand of the Father, not because all the faces of people rose from the dead and sat at the right hand of the Father, but because this happened to all our nature in the Person of Christ. Indeed, the divine apostle says: raise us up with Him and make us sit down in Christ (Eph. 2:6). But we also affirm that the connection arose from common essences. For every essence is common to those persons who are embraced by it, and it is impossible to find [any] particular and special nature or essence, since [otherwise] it would be necessary to call the same persons both consubstantial and having a different essence, and the Holy Trinity, in relation to the Divinity, to be called both consubstantial and having a different essence. Therefore, in each of the faces the same nature is contemplated. And every time, in accordance with the opinion of the blessed Athanasius and Cyril, we say that the nature of the Word was incarnate, we affirm that the Divinity was united with the flesh. This is why we cannot say: the nature of the Word has suffered; for the Divinity in Him experienced no suffering; but we say that human nature suffered in Christ, not meaning, of course, all the faces of people; and we also confess that Christ suffered in human nature. Therefore, when speaking about the nature of the Word, we designate the Word Itself. The Word has both a commonality with the essence and a distinctive property of the Person. Chapter 7 (51). About the one complex Hypostasis of God the Word So, we affirm that the Divine Hypostasis of God the Word existed first of all, timeless and eternal, simple and uncomplicated, uncreated and incorporeal, invisible, intangible, indescribable, having everything that the Father has, since the Word is consubstantial with Him, distinguished from the Fatherly Hypostasis by the manner of birth and relation, existing in a perfect way, never departing from the Fatherly Hypostasis; We also affirm that the Word, without separating from the Father’s bosom, in the last days indescribably dwelt in the womb of the Holy Virgin, seedless and incomprehensible, as He Himself knows, and in the most eternal Hypostasis received flesh from the Holy Virgin. And being in the womb of the Holy Mother of God, He, of course, was in everything and above everything, but in Her herself - the action of the incarnation. So, He became incarnate, receiving from Her the firstfruits of our mixture, flesh, animated by a soul, gifted with reason and intelligence, so that the Hypostasis of God the Word itself was called the Hypostasis for the flesh, and the formerly simple Hypostasis of the Word became complex; complex - from two perfect natures: both Divinity and humanity; and She has the characteristic and distinguishing property of the Divine sonship of God the Word, a property by which She is distinguished from the Father and the Spirit; has both characteristic and distinguishing properties of the flesh, by which She differs from both the Mother and other people; She also has the properties of the Divine nature, with which She is united with the Father and the Spirit, as well as the distinctive signs of human nature, with which She is united both with the Mother and with us. And moreover, God the Word differs from the Father, the Spirit, the Mother, and us in that One and the same is both God and man. For we know this as the most special property of the Hypostasis of Christ. Therefore, we confess that He is the only Son of God even after His incarnation, and that He Himself is the Son of Man, the one Christ, the one Lord, the only Only Begotten Son and Word of God, Jesus our Lord; We confess, honoring His two births: one - pre-eternal from the Father, above reason and all description, and time, and nature, and the other, which happened in the last days for our sake, like us and above us. For our sake because for the sake of our salvation; like us because he was born a man from a wife and after the usual time after conception; above us because he was born not from a seed, but from the Holy Spirit and the Holy Virgin Mary, above the law of conception; preaching Him not only as God, deprived of our humanity, but also not as a man only, depriving Him of His Divinity; not as another and another, but as one and the same, together both God and man, perfect God and perfect man; as all God and all man; as one and the same - all of God and together with His flesh, and all of man and together with His pre-divine Divinity. Through what we said: perfect God and perfect man, we denote completeness and the absence of any shortcomings in natures; and through what they said: all God and all man, we show the singularity and indivisibility of the Hypostasis. But we also confess the one nature of God the Word - incarnate; through what they said: incarnate, denoting the essence of the flesh, according to Blessed Cyril; and further, the Word became incarnate, and [still] did not lose His own immateriality, and everything became incarnate, and everything remains indescribable. By the fact that It has taken on a body, It is diminished and reduced, and in terms of Divinity It is indescribable, since His flesh does not extend near His indescribable Divinity and is not comparable to It. So, all of God the Word is perfect God, but not all are God, for He is not only God, but also man; and all are perfect man, but not all are man, for He is not only man, but also God. For “everything” shows nature; and “whole” is the face, just as one shows nature, and the other shows the face. You should know that although we say that the natures of the Lord penetrate one into another, we know that this penetration came from the Divine nature. For it passes through everything as it wishes and penetrates, and through it nothingness; and it imparts its own properties to the flesh, remaining itself dispassionate and uninvolved in the passions of the flesh. For if the sun, making us participants in its powers, remains uninvolved in our affairs, then how much more so does the Creator of the sun and Lord! Chapter 8 (52). To those who find out whether the natures of the Lord are raised to a continuous quantity, or to a divided one. If anyone asks about the natures of the Lord, whether they are elevated to a continuous quantity or to a divided one, then we will say that the natures of the Lord are not one body, nor one surface, nor one line, nor time, nor place, in order for them to be elevated to a continuous quantity; for this is something that is continuously calculated. One must know that number is characteristic of that which differs [from each other]; and it is impossible for that which is not distinguished in any respect to be countable; but since [objects] differ, for this reason they are counted; as, for example, Peter and Paul, since they are united, are not counted. For when united in relation to essence, they cannot be called two natures; differing in hypostasis, they are called two hypostases. Therefore number is peculiar to that which differs from one another; and inasmuch as what differs is distinguished, in this way it is counted. So, the natures of the Lord, as far as the Hypostasis is concerned, are united inseparably; but, so far as the meaning and manner of the difference are concerned, they are inseparably separated. And how they are connected, [from this side] they are not counted; for we do not say that in relation to the Hypostasis there are two natures of Christ; and how they are inseparably divided, [from this side] they are counted; for there are two natures of Christ due to the concept and image of the difference. For, being united from the side of the Hypostasis and having penetration into one another, they are united unfused, each maintaining intact its natural distinction. Therefore, being countable due to the image of difference, and this alone, they will be subsumed under the divided quantity. So, one is Christ, perfect God and perfect man, whom we worship with the Father and the Spirit with one worship, not excluding His immaculate flesh, not saying that His flesh does not deserve worship; for she is worshiped in the one Hypostasis of the Word, which became a Hypostasis for her; We do not serve the creature, for we worship it not as simple flesh, but as united with the Divinity, and since His two natures are raised to one Person and one Hypostasis of God the Word. I am afraid to touch coal because of the fire connected to the wood. Because of the Godhead united with the flesh, I worship both natures of Christ together. For in the Trinity I do not insert a fourth Person - let there not be! - but I confess one Person of God the Word and His flesh. For the Trinity remained the Trinity even after the incarnation of the Word. To those who ask whether two natures are raised under continuous quantity, or under divided The natures of the Lord are not one body, not one surface, not one line, not one place, not one time, so that they can be elevated to a continuous quantity; for this is something that is continuously calculated. The natures of the Lord are united in relation to the Hypostasis without fusion, and due to the concept and image of the differences [of both] they are separated inseparably. And how they are connected, [from this side] they are not countable. For we do not say that the natures of Christ are two Hypostases, or that there are two in relation to the Hypostasis. And how they are inseparably divided, [from this side] they are counted. For, due to the concept and image of difference, there are two natures. For, being united in relation to the Hypostasis and penetrating one into the other, they are united unfused, not allowing one to transform into the other, and after the uniting, preserving intact the natural difference inherent in each. For what was created remained created and what was not created remained uncreated. Therefore, being countable due to the image of difference and this alone, they will be elevated to divided quantity. For it is impossible for something to be countable that does not differ in any respect; but since [something] differs, therefore it is counted; as, for example, Peter and Paul, since they are united, are not counted; for, being united due to the concept of their essence, they are not two natures, and are not called. But, differing in relation to the hypostasis, they are called two hypostases. Therefore, difference is the cause of number. Chapter 9 (53). The answer to this: is there no nature devoid of hypostasis? For, although there is no nature that is devoid of hypostasis or essence that does not have a face, because both essence and nature are contemplated in hypostases and persons; however, it is not necessary that natures united with each other in relation to hypostasis each have their own hypostasis. For, having united into one hypostasis, they can neither be without hypostasis, nor have each a special hypostasis, but both of them can be one and the same. For one and the same Hypostasis of the Word, having become the Hypostasis of both natures, does not allow either that one of them be deprived of hypostasis, does not allow, however, either that they should be with different hypostases in relation to each other, or that the Hypostasis belongs sometimes to this nature, sometimes to that, but the Hypostasis always possesses both inseparably and inseparably, without being decomposed into parts and divisible and not distributing one part of Himself to this nature, and another part to that, but inseparably and completely owning all of this nature and all of that. For the flesh of God the Word did not come into being with its own hypostasis and did not become a hypostasis different from the Hypostasis of God the Word, but, existing in It, it became hypostatic rather than becoming a hypostasis, existing separately - on its own. Why is it not devoid of hypostasis, and does not introduce another hypostasis into the Trinity. Chapter 10 (54). About the Trisagion Song As a result of this, we consider the addition to the Trisagion hymn, made by the reckless Peter Knathevs, to be blasphemous, as introducing a fourth person and as placing separately the Son of God - the hypostatic Power of the Father and separately - the Crucified One, as if He were different in comparison with That Mighty One, or as considering the Holy Trinity to be subject to passions and as co-crucifying the Son of the Father and the Holy One. Spirit. Away from this blasphemous and illegally attributed idle talk! For we understand the words: Holy God about the Father, not only separating the name of the Divinity from Him alone, but knowing Him as God and the Son and the Holy Spirit. And the words: Holy Mighty we understand about the Son, without depriving the Father and the Holy Spirit of strength. And the words: We relate the Holy Immortal One to the Holy Spirit, not placing the Father and the Son outside of immortality, but in relation to each of the Hypostases accepting all the Divine names simply and independently and faithfully imitating the Divine Apostle, who says: but to us there is one God the Father, of whom are all things, and we are with Him, and there is one Lord Jesus Christ, by Him are all things, and we are (1 Cor. 8, 6); and one Holy Spirit, in whom are all, and we in him; however, [imitating] Gregory the Theologian, who almost says in the following way: we have one God the Father, from whom are all things, and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and one Holy Spirit, in whom are all things, since the words: from which and: through which, and: in which they do not separate natures, for [otherwise] those prepositions or the order of names would not change; but they depict the properties of a single and unmerged nature. And this is clear from the fact that they are again united together, unless in this case someone carelessly reads about this from the same apostle the words: from That and by That and in Him are all things. To him be glory forever. Amen (Rom. 11:36). For that the Trisagion is said not only in relation to the Son, but in relation to the Holy Trinity, is testified by: the divine and holy Athanasius, and Basil, and Gregory, and the whole host of God-bearing fathers; namely, that the holy Seraphim, through the triple: Holy, announce to us the three Hypostases of the all-essential Divinity. And through one dominion they proclaim both the one essence and the one Kingdom of the God-originating Trinity. Indeed, Gregory the Theologian says: In this way, of course, is the Holy of Holies, which is both covered by the Seraphim and glorified by three holinesses, converging into one dominion and deity...; which was explored in the most beautiful and sublime way by some other man who came before us. Of course, the compilers of church history say that at a time when the people in Constantinople were sending up prayers [to God], due to some threat sent by God [precisely a storm] that took place under Archbishop Proclus, it happened that a child from the people was caught up, and under such circumstances, with some angelic instruction, the Trisagion was taught: Holy God, Holy Mighty, Holy Immortal, have mercy on us. And when this child returned and spoke about what he had been taught, the whole crowd, without exception, sang this song, and thus the threatening misfortune ceased. And it is also conveyed that at the holy and great Ecumenical Fourth Council, that is, which took place in Chalcedon, this Trisagion hymn was sung in this way; for so is declared in the acts of the same holy Council. Therefore, it is truly ridiculous and amusing that the Trisagion hymn, taught through the Angels and certified by the cessation of the attack [of evil], and both strengthened and approved by the Council of so many holy fathers, and previously sung by the Seraphim, as expressing the Trinitarian Divinity, was, by the reckless opinion of Knatheus, as if trampled underfoot and as if in fact corrected for the better, as if he were superior to the Seraphim. But, oh audacity, so as not to say to me: oh, madness! We, although the demons lose their temper with frustration, say this: Holy God, Holy Mighty, Holy Immortal, have mercy on us. Chapter 11 (55). About nature, which is contemplated in genus and indivisible, and about the difference of both union and incarnation; and about how one should understand [the expression]: “The one nature of God the Word is incarnate” Nature is seen either by thinking alone, for in itself it does not exist; or together in all homogeneous hypostases, as what connects them; and [then] is called nature contemplated in the species; or exactly the same thing, with the addition of accidents, in one hypostasis; and is called nature contemplated in the indivisible, being one and the same with that contemplated in the genus. So, God the Word, having become incarnate, did not perceive the nature perceived only by thinking, for this would not be incarnation, but a deception and a disguise of incarnation; so He did not perceive the nature contemplated in the generation, for He did not perceive all the hypostases, but He perceived that which is in the indivisible, identical with that which is in the generation, for He perceived the firstfruits of our mixture [or flesh]; not that nature that existed in itself and was previously called indivisible and under such circumstances was accepted by Him, but that which received being in His Hypostasis. For this Hypostasis of God the Word became a Hypostasis for the flesh, and therefore the Word became flesh (Jn. 1, 14), of course, is immutable; and the flesh became the Word, without change; and God is a man. For God is the Word and man is God because of the hypostatic union. So, it is the same thing to say: “the nature of the Word” and “that nature which is in the indivisible.” For this, in its own and unique sense, does not designate either the indivisible, that is, hypostasis, or the union of hypostases, but the common nature, contemplated and considered in one of its hypostases. The other, of course, is the connection and the other is the incarnation. For connection denotes only one connection; and why this connection occurred, it does not yet show. The incarnation, but it is the same thing to say, incarnation, means a connection with the flesh or with a person; just as the incandescence of iron signifies its connection with fire. Indeed, Blessed Cyril himself, in his second letter to Sukens, interpreting the words: The one nature of God the Word is incarnate, says this way: “For if, having spoken about the one nature of the Word, we were silent, without adding the word incarnate, but as if putting the incarnation outside, then perhaps, of course, the speech of those who feignedly ask: if everything is one nature, then where is the perfection in humanity? Or how does an entity equal to ours exist? And after, through the word: incarnate, both perfection in humanity and an indication of an essence equal to ours are introduced, then let them stop relying on the reed staff.” So here he placed the nature of the Word instead of nature itself. For if he took nature instead of hypostasis, then it would not be absurd to say about this even without the word incarnate. For, regardless of speaking about the one Hypostasis of God the Word, we do not sin. In the same way, Leontius of Byzantium understood this passage about nature, and not about hypostasis. And Blessed Cyril, in his Apology against Theodoret’s reproaches for his second anathematism, says this way: “The nature of the Word, that is, the Hypostasis, which is the Word Itself.” Therefore, the saying “the nature of the Word” does not designate either only one hypostasis, or a union of hypostases, but the general nature, wholly contemplated in the Hypostasis of the Word. So, that the nature of the Word was incarnate, that is, united with the flesh, it is said; and we have not yet heard of the nature of the Word, which suffered in the flesh, even until now, but we have been taught that Christ suffered in the flesh; so that the saying “the nature of the Word” does not designate a Person. Therefore, it remains to be said that, on the one hand, the incarnation is a union with the flesh, and on the other, the fact that the Word became flesh means that the very Hypostasis of the Word immutably became the Hypostasis of the flesh. And it is said that God became man and man God. For the Word, being God, became man without change. But we have never heard that the Divinity became man, or became incarnate, or became human. But we learned that the Divinity united with humanity in one of His Hypostases; and that God takes on an image, that is, an alien essence, exactly the same as ours, it is said. For the name God is applied to each of the Hypostases, but we cannot say the word Divinity about the Hypostasis. For we have not heard that the Godhead is the Father alone, or the Son alone, or the Holy Spirit alone; for the word Divinity signifies nature; and the word: the Father is a hypostasis, just as humanity is a nature, and Peter is a hypostasis. The word God denotes the community of nature and in relation to each Hypostasis has the same place, just as the word: man. For God is the one who has the divine nature, and man is the one who has the human. Besides all this, it must be known that the Father and the Holy Spirit did not participate in any sense in the incarnation of the Word, if not in relation to Divine signs and in relation to good will and desire. Chapter 12 (56). That the Holy Virgin is the Mother of God; against the Nestorians We proclaim the Holy Virgin to be the Mother of God in the proper sense and in truth. For, just as the true God is the One who was born of Her, so the true Mother of God is the One who gave birth to the true God incarnate from Her; for we affirm that God was born from Her - we affirm, not supposing that the Divinity of the Word received the beginning of being from Her, but that the Word of God Himself, Who before the ages was born without flight from the Father, and without beginning and eternally was with the Father and the Spirit, in the last days, for the sake of our salvation, dwelt in Her womb and, without change, was incarnated and born from Her. For the Holy Virgin gave birth not to a mere man, but to the true God; not naked, but clothed in flesh; who did not bring a body from heaven and did not pass through Her, as if through a channel, but who received from Her the flesh that is consubstantial with us and gave it hypostatic existence in Himself [i.e. “who received it with His Divinity into the unity of His Divine Hypostasis.”] For if the body had been brought from heaven, and not taken from a nature identical with ours, then what need would there have been for incarnation? For the incarnation of God the Word occurred for the reason that the sinned, fallen, and corrupted nature itself would defeat the tyrant who had seduced it, and that it would thus be freed from corruption, just as the divine apostle says: For death was by man, and the resurrection of the dead was by man (1 Cor. 15:21). If the first is true, then so is the second. If the [apostle] says: the first [man] Adam is from the earth, ringed: the second [man] Adam the Lord is from heaven (1 Cor. 15:47), but he does not affirm that the body is from heaven, but explains that He is not only man. Because, look! he called Him both Adam and Lord, indicating both together. For the word Adam is translated: coming from the earth; and it is clear that what came from the earth is the nature of man, formed from dust. And the word Lord shows the Divine essence. The Apostle again says: God sent His only begotten Son, born of a woman (Gal. 4:4). He did not say: through his wife, but: from his wife. So, the divine apostle showed that He Himself is the Only Begotten Son of God and God, Who came from the Virgin as man, and that He Himself was born of the Virgin, Who is the Son of God and God - born in a bodily form, since He became a man, not dwelling in a previously created man, as in a prophet, but Himself essentially and truly becoming a man, that is, giving in His Hypostasis the existence of flesh, animate a soul gifted with reason and intelligence, and Himself becoming a Hypostasis for it. For this means the saying: born of a woman; because how would the Word of God Himself find itself under the law if He had not become one in essence with us as man? Therefore, we call Mary righteously and truly Holy Mother of God, for this name constitutes the entire sacrament of the economy. For if the one who gave birth is the Mother of God, then the One born of Her is certainly God, but certainly also man. For how could God, who existed before the ages, be born of a woman, if He had not become man? For the Son of Man is without a doubt a man. If the very One who was born of a woman is God, then, without a doubt, the One and the same is both the One who was born from the Father in relation to His Divine and beginningless essence, and the One who in recent times was born of the Virgin in relation to the essence that received a beginning and is subject to time, that is, human. This also means one Hypostasis, and two natures, and two births of our Lord Jesus Christ. But we do not call the Holy Virgin “Christ Mother” in any way, because this name, as an insult, was invented by the unclean, vile, and Jewish-minded Nestorius, a vessel of dishonor, to destroy the word “Theotokos” and to deprive the honor of the Mother of God, Who alone is truly honored above every creature, even if he were torn with grief along with his father, Satan. For King David is called Christ, that is, anointed, and so is the High Priest Aaron; because both kingship and priesthood were associated with anointing; and every God-bearing person can be called Christ, but not God by nature, just as Nestorius, rejected by God, in his pride called the One born of the Virgin God-Bearer. May we not say or think that He is the God-bearer, but that He is God incarnate. For the Word Himself became flesh, being conceived from the Virgin, but appearing by God together with the perceived flesh, since immediately she was deified by Him simultaneously with bringing her into being, so that three circumstances happened together: perception, being, and her deification by the Word. And thus the Holy Virgin is thought of and called the Mother of God not only because of the nature of the Word, but also because of the deification of human nature, of which both conception and being were accomplished in a miraculous way: conception, of course, of the Word, and of the flesh - being in the Word Himself; since the Mother of God herself prenaturally provided for the Creator that He too should be created, and for the God and Creator of all, who deifies the perceived humanity, that He too should become man, while the union preserved the united as such as it was united, that is, not only the Divinity, but also the humanity of Christ, that which is above us, and that which is the same with us. For what did not happen before like us later became higher than us; but always - from the first being, both existed, because from the beginning of conception in the Word Itself it took on its existence. So, what is human is [such] by its nature, and what is God and Divine is [such] in a prenatural way. Moreover, He had the properties of animate flesh, for they were accepted by the Word in the discourse of the Economy, occurring in a truly natural way, in accordance with the order of natural movement. Chapter 13 (57). On the properties of two natures Confessing that one and the same Lord Jesus Christ is a perfect God and a perfect Man, we affirm that He Himself has everything that the Father has, except infertility, and has everything that the first Adam had, excluding only sin, which is: body and soul, endowed with both reason and intelligence; and that He has, according to two natures, and double natural properties of two natures: two natural wills - both Divine and human, and two natural activities - both Divine and human, and two natural free wills - both Divine and human, as well as both wisdom and knowledge - both Divine and human. For, being of one essence with God and the Father, He autocratically desires and acts as God. But, being of one essence with us, He freely wills and acts as a man, identical [with us]. For miracles belong to Him, and suffering belongs to Him. Chapter 14 (58). About the [two] wills and freedoms of our Lord Jesus Christ So, because there are two natures of Christ, we speak of His two natural wills and natural actions. And since the Hypostasis of His two natures is one, we affirm that One and the Same is the One who naturally desires and acts according to both natures, from and in which, and that precisely is Christ our God; but he desires and acts not separately, but jointly, “for he desires and acts in each of the two images with the participation of the other of them.” For what has one and the same essence, it has one and the same desire and activity; and where the essence is different, desire and activity are different. And vice versa: where desire and activity are one and the same, the essence is one and the same; and where desire and activity are different, the essence is also different. For this reason, in the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, due to the identity of activity and will, we recognize the identity of nature. And in the divine incarnation, due to the difference in actions and desires, we also recognize the difference in natures; and, knowing the difference of natures, together we confess the difference of desires and actions. For, just as the number of natures of the same and one Christ, piously conceived and declared, does not divide the one Christ, but shows even in the union the difference of natures preserved intact, so the number of desires and actions essentially inherent in His natures - for He, in relation to both natures, was endowed with the ability to will and accomplish our salvation - does not introduce division, let it not be!, but shows their preservation and integrity even and upon connection, and only [this]! For we say that desires and actions are properties belonging to nature, and not personal. I am talking about the very power of desire and action, in accordance with which both the desiring and the acting desire and act. For if we assume that they are personal properties, then we will be forced to say that the three Persons of the Holy Trinity are different from each other in will and activity. For one must know that it is not the same thing to desire and how to desire; for to desire, just like to see, is a part of nature, because it is characteristic of all people; and how to desire is not a property of nature, but of our soul, which chooses a direction and decides, just like how to see, good or bad. For not all people desire in the same way, and do not see in the same way. We will allow the same for actions. For how to desire, how to see, or how to act is an image of how someone uses the will and ability to see and act, which is peculiar only to the user and, in accordance with the usually understood difference, distinguishes him from others. So, simply desiring is called desire or desirable ability, which is a rational desire and natural desire; and how to desire, or what is subject to desire, is the object that we desire, and desire combined with the activity of the mind. Θελητικόν is that in which the power of desire is naturally located; as, for example, the Divine nature is θελητική, that is, it has the power of desire, just like human; the one who desires is the one who uses desire, or a person, such as Peter. So, because Christ is one and His Hypostasis is also one, the Desirer is one and the same, both in the Divine image and in the human one. And since He has two natures endowed with the ability to desire, because they are rational, for everything rational is capable of desire and is free, then we will say that in Him there are two wills or two natural desires. For He is One and the Same and possesses the faculty of desire in accordance with both His natures. For He perceived that desirable ability that is found in us by nature. And since there is one Christ and one and the same Desirer in accordance with each of the two natures, we will say that the object of desire in Him is one and the same, not because He desired only what He desired by nature as God, for the desire to eat, drink, and the like is not characteristic of the Divine, but because He also desired what constitutes human nature, not due to the opposition of opinion, but due to the property of natures; for then He naturally desired this, when His Divine will also desired it, and allowed the flesh to suffer and do what was natural to it. And that desire is inherent in man by nature is clear from here. With the exception of Divine life, there are three types of life: vegetative, sentient, intelligent. Part of plant life, of course, is the movement that nourishes, increases, gives birth; the feeling one - movement in accordance with the impulse; rational and spiritual - free. So, if plant life by nature is characterized by nourishing movement and sentient life is characterized by movement in accordance with impulse, then, consequently, rational and spiritual life is characterized by free movement. Freedom is not anything other than will (or desire). Therefore, the Word, having become animate, rational and free flesh, was also endowed with the ability of desire. Further, what is natural is not acquired by teaching; for no one learns to think, or to live, or to hunger, or to thirst, or to sleep. We don’t even learn to desire; so the fact that we desire is innate. And again: if in dumb animals nature controls, and in man, who moves autocratically - at will, it is controlled, then, consequently, man by nature has the ability to desire. And again: if man originated in the image of the blessed and essential Divinity - and the Divine nature is independent by nature and has the ability to desire - then, consequently, man, as His image, is free by nature and has the ability to desire. For the fathers defined the will as independence. Moreover, if desire is inherent in all people, and not that it is inherent in some and not in others; and what is contemplated together in everything characterizes nature in the indivisibles subordinate to it, then, therefore, man by nature has the ability of desire. And again: if nature does not allow more and less, but desire is inherent in everyone equally, and not in such a way that some have more, others less, then, therefore, man by nature has the ability to desire; so that if man by nature has the ability to desire, then the Lord also by nature has the ability to desire, not only because He is God, but also because He became man. For, just as He took on our nature, so He took on our will according to natural laws. And therefore the fathers said that He imprinted our will in Himself. If the will is not natural, then it will be either hypostatic or contrary to nature. But if it is hypostatic, then under such circumstances the Son will differ from the Father on the part of the will, for that which is hypostatic can characterize only one hypostasis. If the will is contrary to nature, then it will be a falling away from nature, for that which is contrary to nature is destructive of that which is in accordance with nature. For God and the Father wills all things either because He is the Father or because He is God. But, if He desires, since He is the Father, then His will (or desire) will be different in comparison with the will of the Son. For the Son is not the Father. If He wills, since He is God, and God and the Son, God and the Holy Spirit, then, consequently, the will belongs to nature, and therefore is natural. Moreover, if something, according to the fathers, has one will, it also has one essence, and the will of the Divinity of Christ and His humanity is one, then, consequently, their essence will be the same. And one more thing: if, according to the fathers, the difference of nature is not manifested in a single will, then it is necessary that either, when speaking about a single will, we do not talk about the natural difference in Christ, or, when speaking about the difference of natures, we do not talk about a single will. And further: if, as the Divine Gospel says, the Lord, having come to the region of Tire and Sidon, and entered into the house, did not want anyone to surmise Him, and could not hide (Mark 7:24); if His Divine will is omnipotent, and He, having willed, was not able to hide; then, therefore, He was not able to will, since He was a man; and He had the faculty of desire and so far as He was a man. And again: having come, says the Holy Gospel, to the place of the verb: I thirst (John 19:28). And giving him a taste mixed with bile: and he tasted without wanting to drink (Matthew 27:34). So, if He thirsted like God, and tasted without wanting to drink, then, consequently, He was subject to passion like God; for both thirst and eating are passions. If He thirsted not as God, then certainly as a man, and had the ability of desire also as a man. Moreover, the blessed Apostle Paul says: He became obedient even to the point of death, death on the cross (Phil. 2:8). Obedience is submission to the will that is real, and not to that which is not true; for we will not call an unreasonable animal obedient or disobedient. The Lord, having become obedient to the Father, became not because He was God, but because He was a man. For as God, He is neither obedient nor disobedient; because this, as the God-bearing Gregory said, is characteristic of subordinate beings. Consequently, Christ, even as a man, possessed the ability of desire. Speaking about natural desire, we affirm that it is not forced, but free; because if it is reasonable, then it is certainly free. For not only does the Divine and uncreated nature have nothing forced, but neither does the rational created thing. This is clear, for God, being by nature Good, and by nature Creator, and by nature God, is not this due to necessity, because who brings this necessity? You should know that freedom is spoken of in many meanings: differently - in relation to God, and differently in relation to Angels, and differently in relation to people. For in relation to God [this word must be understood] in an all-essential way; in relation to the Angels - so that the decision on something follows along with the disposition [toward it] and does not allow any lapse of time at all; for, by nature possessing freedom, the Angel uses it unhindered, having neither opposition from the body nor anyone who would attack him. In relation to people, it is so that from the point of view of time, the disposition [of the soul towards something] is thought before its fulfillment. For although man is independent and by nature possesses freedom, he nevertheless suffers attack from the devil and has movement of the body. So, because of that attack and because of the heaviness of the body, the determination to do something follows the disposition [of the soul towards it]. So, if Adam obeyed, desiring, and having desired, he ate, then, consequently, the first desire in us brought death. If the first desire was subject to death, and the incarnate Word did not accept it along with nature, then, consequently, we did not become free from sin. Moreover, if the free will of nature is His work, and He did not accept it, then either because He had a bad opinion about His work, as not good, or because He did not want to give us its (i.e., free will) healing, depriving us of perfect healing, and showing Himself to be subject to passion, through the fact that He did not want or could not heal us completely. On the other hand, it is impossible to talk about anything complex of two wills as one, just as we talk about the Hypostasis, a complex of natures. Firstly, because there are additions of what exists hypostatically, and not of what is contemplated in another, and not in its own sense: secondly, because if we talk about the addition of wills and actions, then we will be forced to talk about the addition of other natural properties: the uncreated and the created, the invisible and the visible, and the like. And also, what will the will be called, a composite of [two] wills? For it is impossible for the complex to be called by the name of those things that are combined, since [otherwise] we would call the complex of natures a nature, and not a hypostasis. Moreover, if we talk about a single complex will in Christ, then by will we will separate Him from the Father, for the will of the Father is not complex. Therefore, it remains to speak about the only one Hypostasis of Christ, as complex and common to both the natures and His natural properties. But it is impossible to speak about opinion and choice in the Lord, unless we wish to speak in the proper sense. For opinion is [coming] after research on an unknown subject and deliberation, that is, consultation and decision, a disposition towards what is decided, after which [follows] free choice, which chooses for itself and prefers one thing over another. The Lord, being not only a man, but also God, and knowing everything, had no need for consideration, research, consultation and decision, and by nature had both a disposition towards the beautiful and an aversion to evil. For this is what the prophet Isaiah says, that first, before he foresees evil, he will choose what is good; before he foresees good or evil, he will reject evil, even if he chooses what is good (Is. 7:15-16). For the word: first means that He did not study and think about it like we do, but, being God and in the Divine image, bestowing the hypostatic existence of the flesh, that is, hypostatically uniting with the flesh, by virtue of His very being and knowledge of everything, possessed good by His nature. For virtues are natural and naturally found equally in everyone, although we do not all equally do what is in accordance with nature. For through crime we have fallen from what was in accordance with nature into what is contrary to nature. The Lord returned us from what is contrary to nature to what is in accordance with nature; for this is what the words mean: in image and likeness (Gen. 1:26). And also, the ascetic life and its labors were invented not for the acquisition of virtue, which is brought about from the outside, but in order for us to cast off sin that is alien and contrary to nature, just as by effortfully removing the rust on iron, which is unnatural, but occurred as a result of [our] negligence, we show the natural shine of the iron. You should know that the name γνώμης - opinions - is multifaceted and meaningful. For it means advice, as the divine apostle says: the imam does not command the Lord about virgins, but I give advice (1 Cor. 7:25); then your will, just as when the prophet David says: Your evil will is against your people (Ps. 83:4); that saying, as Daniel says: about this thing that came forth, this is a shameless saying (Dan. 2:15); sometimes it is taken in the sense of faith, or opinion, or way of thinking; and simply say: the name (γνώμης) is used in twenty-eight meanings. Chapter 15 (59). About the actions that take place in our Lord Jesus Christ Further, we affirm that in our Lord Jesus Christ there are also two actions. For, as God and one in essence with the Father, He had equally the Divine action, and, as having become man and one in essence with us, the action of human nature. One must know that there is something else that is action, and another thing that is capable of action, and another thing that is produced, and another thing that is active. Action, of course, is the active and independent movement of nature; and that which is capable of action is the nature from which action proceeds; and what is produced is the result of action; the actor is the user of the action or the person. However, action is also called what is produced, and also what is produced is action, just as κτίσμα (a created thing) is called κτίσις (creation). For we say this way: every creation (πασα ή κτίσις), denoting created things (τα κτίσματα). One must know that action is movement, and it is more produced than produced, as Gregory the Theologian says in his word on the Holy Spirit: “If there is action, then, without a doubt, it will be produced, and not produce, and at the same time, as it is produced, it will cease.” One must know that life itself is an action and even the first action of a living being; as well as every direction of life, both the power that feeds and grows, that is, natural, and movement in accordance with impulse, that is, sensory, as well as rational and free movement. Action is achievement through the power of perfection. So, if we contemplate all this in Christ, then, therefore, we will say that in Him there was human activity. Action is also called that thought that first of all occurs in us; and it is a simple and propertyless action, since the mind itself secretly produces its thoughts, apart from which it could not rightly be called mind. Action, in turn, is called both the discovery and disclosure, through the utterance of a word, of what is thought out by the mind. But this is no longer a propertyless and simple action, but is contemplated in property, since it is composed of thought and word. And also the very position that the actor has in relation to what is being done is action; and the very thing that is produced is called action. And the first belongs to the soul alone, the second to the soul using the body, the third to the body intelligently animated, and the fourth is the result. For the mind, having first considered what will happen under such circumstances, acts through the medium of the body. Therefore the supreme power belongs to the soul; for she even uses the body as an instrument, controlling and directing it. The action of the body, controlled by the soul and set in motion, is of a different kind. And what is done by the body is touching and holding and, as it were, an embrace of what is being done; and what is accomplished by the soul is, as it were, giving form and figure to what is happening. So in relation to our Lord Jesus Christ, the power of miracles was the activity of His Divinity; and the works of his hands and what He wanted and said: I want, be cleansed (Matthew 8:3), was the activity of His humanity. And what was accomplished by His human nature was the breaking of bread (see John 6:11), what He heard the leper, what He said: I want; The work of His Divine nature was the multiplication of the loaves (see John 6:11 and following) and the cleansing of the leper. For through both: both through spiritual action and through the action of the body, He showed one and the same thing - His akin and equal Divine action. For, just as we recognize that natures are united and have penetration into one another, and do not deny their differences, but count and recognize them as inseparable, so we recognize the union of wills and actions, notice the difference, count and do not introduce division. For just as the flesh is deified and has not suffered a change in its nature, in the same way will and action are deified and are not removed from their boundaries; for One is the One who is this and that, and who in this and that way, that is, Divine and human, desires and acts. Therefore, due to the fact that there are two natures in Christ, it is necessary to talk about two actions in Him. For where the nature is different, the action is different, and where the action is different, the nature is also different. And vice versa, what nature is one and the same, action is one and the same, and what action is one, this, according to the God-speaking fathers, is one and the same essence. Therefore, one of two things is necessary: ​​either that, when speaking about one action in Christ, we speak about one essence, or, if in fact we are zealously striving for the truth and, in accordance with the teaching of both the Gospel and the Fathers, we confess two essences, so that together we also confess two actions, respectively accompanying them. For, being one in essence with God and the Father in Divinity, He will also be equal in relation to action. And He Himself, being consubstantial with us in humanity, will be equal in relation to action. For Blessed Gregory, Bishop of Nyssa, says: “Wherever there is one action, there is undoubtedly one and the same power.” For every action is an achievement by the force of its perfection. But it is impossible for there to be one nature, or power, or action of the uncreated and the created nature. If we talk about one action of Christ, then to the Divinity of the Word we will add the passions of the rational soul: fear, I say, and sadness, and death throes. If anyone says that the Holy Fathers, when talking about the Holy Trinity, asserted: “Whose essence is one, the action is the same, and what the essence is different, the action is different,” and that what is said about God should not be transferred to the Incarnation, then we will answer: if the Fathers said this only in relation to the doctrine of the Divinity, and if the Son, even after the Incarnation, does not have the same action with the Father, then He does not will be one and the same [with Him and] essence. To whom do we refer the words: My Father works hitherto, and I do (John 5:17), and: if He sees the Father doing, the Son also does likewise (John 5:19), and: if you do not believe me, believe in my work (John 10:38), and: the works that I do... testify of Me (John 10:25), and: like the Father raises the dead and gives life, so also the Son, who He wills, gives life (John 5:21)? For all this shows not only that He is of one essence with the Father even after the incarnation, but also that He has the same action with Him. And again: if the providence of what exists belongs not only to the Father and the Holy Spirit, but also to the Son even after the Incarnation, and this is action, then, consequently, even after the Incarnation He has the same action as the Father. If from miracles we learned that Christ is of the same essence with the Father, and miracles are the action of God, then, consequently, even after the incarnation He has the same action with the Father. If the action of His Divinity and His flesh are one, then He will be complex, and it will turn out that either He will have a different action in comparison with the Father, or that the Father will also have a complex action. If - with complex action, then it is clear that with [complex] nature. If they say that a person is introduced along with an action, then we will answer that if a person is introduced along with an action, then, according to a correspondence consistent with reason, the action will be introduced along with the person; and there will be, just as there are three Persons or Hypostases of the Holy Trinity, so there will be three actions, or, just as there is one action, so there is one Person and one Hypostasis. The Holy Fathers agreed in saying that that which is of the same essence also has the same effect. Moreover, if a person is introduced along with the action, then those who did not order to speak about either one or two of Christ’s actions did not order to speak about either one or two of His Faces. But even in a red-hot sword, both the nature of fire and iron are preserved intact, so are the two actions and their results. For iron has the ability to cut, and fire has the ability to burn, and cutting is the result of the action of iron, and burning is the result of the action of fire; and their difference is preserved intact during cutting, accompanied by a burning sensation, and when burning, accompanied by cutting, although after a connection of this kind there is neither a burning sensation without cutting, nor cutting without a burning sensation; and just as, due to the duality of natural action, we do not talk about two red-hot swords, so because there is only one red-hot sword, we do not merge their essential differences. Thus also in Christ: to His Divinity belongs Divine and omnipotent action, but to His humanity belongs action identical with ours. The product of human action was that He took the hand of the girl and drew her to Him (see Luke 8:54); The Divine is its revival. For the other is this and the other is that, although in godly action they exist inseparable from each other. If, due to the fact that the Lord’s Hypostasis is one, the action will be one, then due to the fact that the Hypostasis is one, the essence will also be one. And again: if we talk about a single action in the Lord, then we will call it either Divine, or human, or neither one nor the other. But if Divine, then we will speak of Him as only God, deprived of humanity equal to ours. If human, then let us blasphemously call Him only human. If, however, He is neither Divine nor human, then we will not call Him either God or man, not of the same essence either with the Father or with us. For identity in relation to the Hypostasis occurred as a result of the union, but, however, [for this reason] the difference of natures was not destroyed. And since the distinction of natures is preserved intact, then, without a doubt, the actions characteristic of them will also be preserved. For there is no nature devoid of action. If the action of the Lord Christ is one, then it will be either created or uncreated, for there is no action, just as there is no nature, occupying the middle between them [i.e. created and uncreated]. So, if it is created, then it will show only the created nature; if uncreated, then it will depict only one uncreated entity. For what is natural must necessarily be in accordance with natures, since it is impossible for existence to belong to a nature that is least of all perfect. But action in accordance with nature does not arise from what is outside [nature], and it is clear that it is impossible for nature to exist or be known without action in accordance with nature. For each, through what it does, gives evidence regarding its nature, what exactly is unchangeable. If the action of Christ is one, then it will be one and the same who produces Divine and human affairs; but nothing that exists, while remaining in a position consistent with nature, can produce the opposite; for fire does not cool or warm, and water does not dry but makes wet. Therefore, how did He, who by nature is God and Who by nature became man, perform miracles and endure passions through a single action? So, if Christ took on the human mind, that is, a soul endowed with both intellect and reason, then He will undoubtedly think and will always think; and reflection is the action of the mind, therefore Christ, since He is a man, is active, and always active. The all-wise and great Saint John Chrysostom, in his interpretation of the Acts, in the second Word says this: “No one would sin in calling His passion an action. For by enduring everything, He accomplished that great and amazing work, destroying death and doing everything else.” If every action is defined as the independent movement of some nature, as explained by people knowledgeable in these matters, then where does anyone know of a motionless or completely inactive nature, or where has anyone found an action that would not be the movement of a natural force? And that the natural action of God and creation is one, this, according to the opinion of Blessed Cyril, no one with good thoughts could allow. Just as it is not human nature that revives Lazarus (see John 11:43–44), so it is not Divine power that sheds tears; for tears belong to humanity, and life belongs to hypostatic Life. But, however, both are common to both, due to the identity of the Hypostasis. For although Christ is one, and His Person or Hypostasis is one, yet He has two natures: His Divinity and humanity. Therefore, on the one hand, glory, naturally emerging from the Divinity, became common to both, due to the identity of the Hypostasis; on the other hand, that which is base, flowing from the flesh, has become common to both. For One and the Same is the One who is both this and that, that is, God and man, and to One and the Same belongs both that which is characteristic of the Divine and that which is characteristic of humanity; for, although Divine signs were performed by the Divine, it was not without the participation of the flesh, and what was base was performed by the flesh, but not without the Divinity. For the Divinity was also united with the suffering flesh, remaining dispassionate and performing saving suffering; and with the active Divinity of the Word was united a holy mind, thinking and knowing what was being done. The Divine, of course, imparts His own advantages to the body, but itself remains uninvolved in the passions of the flesh. For just as the Divinity acted through the medium of the flesh, His flesh also did not suffer through the Divinity. For the flesh received the name of the instrument of the Divine. Therefore, although from the beginning of conception the division between one and the other image found absolutely no place, but the actions of one Person, which occurred throughout the entire time, belonged to one and the other image, however, we in no way merge the very thing that was inseparably accomplished, but from the quality of the deeds we learn: what belonged to which image. Therefore, Christ acts in accordance with both of His natures, and each of the two natures acts in Him with the participation of the other: when the Word does what is proper to the Word because of the authority and power of the Divinity, [that is,] what is the property of the supreme power and what is proper to the king, and the body carries out what is proper to the body, in accordance with the will of the Word united with it, whose property it has become. For it was not from its own impulse that it showed a desire for natural feelings and not from its own impulse did it undertake the most withdrawal and evasion from the sad or endure what happened from the outside, but moved in accordance with the conditions of its nature, when the Word wanted and, for the purposes of economy, allowed it to suffer and do what was proper, so that through the actions of nature the truth would be certified. But, just as, having been conceived from the Virgin, He was supernaturally realized, so He accomplished what is characteristic of people, exceeding what was permitted by the conditions of human nature, walking with earthly feet on unsolid water, not because the water turned into earth, but because by the supernatural power of the Divine it was condensed so that it did not spill and did not yield to the weight of material feet. For He did not do human things humanly, because He was not only a man, but also God; why His passions were life-giving and saving. And He did not do Divine things in a Divine way, because He was not only God, but also a man; that is why He performed Divine signs through touch, word and the like. And if someone were to say that it is not for the abolition of human action that we are talking about a single action in Christ, but since human action, opposed to the Divine action, is called suffering, then therefore we are talking about a single action in Christ; then we will say that in the same sense those who speak of a single nature do not speak about this with the goal of destroying human nature, but because human nature, contrasted in relation to the Divine nature, is called passive. But let it not be that we call human movement suffering in order to distinguish it from Divine action. For, in general, no thing's existence is known or determined by opposition or comparison, [since] under such circumstances, things that exist would turn out to be mutual causes of each other. For if, for the reason that the Divine movement is action, the human is suffering, then there is no doubt that human nature will be vicious, due to the fact that the Divine nature is perfect. And according to the correspondence associated with the opposition, due to the fact that human movement is called suffering, the Divine movement is called action, and due to the fact that human nature is flawed, the Divine will be perfect; and also all creations under such conditions will be vicious, and the one who said will be a liar: and God saw everything that was created: and this was very good (Genesis 1:31). We affirm that the Holy Fathers named human movement in a variety of ways, according to the thoughts they accepted as the basis. For they called it power, and action, and difference, and movement, and property, and quality, and suffering, not in opposition to the Divine movement, but: power - as a containing and unchangeable force; and by action - as a force designating [an object] with signs and showing the perfect similarity found in all homogeneous things; difference as a delimiting force; and by movement as a revealing force; but a property, as a component and inherent only in one [species] and not in another; quality, as a communicating form; but by suffering, as if moved. For everything that is from God and after God suffers through that which moves, since it is not self-movement or self-power. So, they named it not by opposition, as said, but in accordance with the meaning creatively invested in it [i.e. human movement] from the side of the Cause that arranged everything. Why, speaking about it together with the Divine movement, the fathers called it action. For he who said: “Since both the one and the other species acts with the participation of the other,” what did he do differently, in comparison with the one who said: and having fasted forty days ... after a hunger (Matthew 4:2), because [the Savior], when He wanted, allowed nature to do what was proper to it, - or in comparison with those who allowed different actions in Him, or - who recognized the twofold, or - which are different and different? For this, by means of altered names, signifies two actions. For by changing names the number is often shown, just as by what we say the divine and the human are shown. For difference is the difference of that which differs; and what does not exist, how will it be distinguished? Chapter 16 (60). Against those who say that if a person is of two natures and with two actions, then it is necessary to say that in Christ there were three natures and the same number of actions Each individual person, consisting of two natures: both soul and body, and having them in himself in an unchanged form, will naturally be called two natures, for he retains intact the natural property of both of them even after their union. For the body is not immortal, but perishable; and the soul is not mortal, but immortal; and the body is not invisible, and the soul is not visible with bodily eyes, but one is endowed with reason and intelligence and is incorporeal, and the other is both gross, visible, and unreasonable. And that which is opposite in essence is not of the same nature; therefore, both soul and body are not of the same essence. And again: if man is a living being, rational, mortal, and every definition explains the underlying natures, and, in accordance with the concept of nature, rational is not the same as mortal, then, consequently, man, in accordance with the measure of his definition, cannot be from the same nature. If it is sometimes said that man is of one nature, then the name of nature is taken instead of species, when we say that man is not distinguished from man by any difference in nature; but all men, having the same composition, and being composed of soul and body, and each being of two natures, are all raised under one definition. And this is not unfounded, since Saint Athanasius, in a word against those who blaspheme the Holy Spirit, said that the nature of all created things, as things that happened, is one, saying in this way: and that the Holy Spirit is higher than creation and, on the one hand, different in comparison with the nature of things that happened, and on the other, constitutes the property of the Divine, can again be understood. For everything that is perceived together and in many ways, not belonging to something more, but to something less, is called essence. So, because every person is composed of soul and body, in accordance with this they speak of one nature of people. But we cannot talk about one nature in relation to the Hypostasis of the Lord, for the natures, even after union, retain each of their natural properties intact, and the form of Christ cannot be found. For there was no other Christ, both of Divinity and humanity, One and the same, both God and man. And one more thing: it is not the same thing - one in relation to the species of a person and one in relation to the essence of both soul and body. For the oneness in relation to the human species shows the perfect similarity found in all people; the same thing in relation to the essence of both soul and body destroys their very existence, leading them to complete non-existence in reality. For either one will change into the essence of the other, or something else will come from them, and [thus remaining within their own boundaries, they will be two natures. For, in relation to essence, the body is not one and the same with the incorporeal. Therefore, it is not necessary that, when speaking about the one nature in man, not because of the identity of the essential quality of both soul and body, but because of the perfect equality of those raised to the form of indivisibles, we also talk about one nature in Christ, where there is no form that would embrace many hypostases. Moreover, any addition is said to consist of that which is most closely connected; for we do not say that the house is built of earth and water, but of bricks and logs. Otherwise, it is necessary to say that man consists of at least five natures: the four elements and the soul. Thus, in our Lord Jesus Christ we do not pay attention to the parts of the parts, but to what is most closely united: the Divinity and humanity. Moreover, if, because we say that man consists of two natures, we are forced to talk about three natures in Christ, then you, who say that man is made of two natures, will introduce the dogma that Christ consists of three natures. Likewise [it must be said] about actions. For it is necessary that there be action in accordance with nature. And what is said about man is that he consists of two natures and that he exists with two natures, the witness is Gregory the Theologian, saying: “For there are two natures: God and man, since two natures are also soul and body.” And also in the Word on Baptism, he says the following: “And since we are dual: from soul and body, and since one nature is visible, the other is invisible, then purification is twofold: with the help of water and the Spirit.” Chapter 17 (61). That the nature of the Lord's flesh and will are deified You should know that it is said about the flesh of the Lord that it was not due to transformation of nature, or change, or alteration, or fusion, that it was deified and became a participant in the same Divinity and God, as Gregory the Theologian says: “Of which one is deified, and the other is deified, and, I venture to say, participates in the same Divinity. And that which was anointed became man, and that which was anointed became God.” For this happened not because of a change in nature, but because of the connection associated with the economy, I mean: hypostatic, according to which the flesh is inextricably united with God the Word, and also because of the penetration of natures into each other, just as we talk about the burning of iron. For, just as we confess the incarnation of man without change and transformation, so we also imagine the event of the deification of the flesh. For, for the reason that the Word became flesh, He did not leave the boundaries of His Divinity and did not lose His inherent ornaments, corresponding to the dignity of God; neither the deified flesh, of course, changed in relation to its nature or its natural properties. For even after the union both the natures remained unmixed and their properties intact. The flesh of the Lord, due to the purest union with the Word, that is, hypostatic, was enriched with Divine actions, [however] in no way suffering the deprivation of its natural properties, for it performed Divine actions not by its own power, but because of the Word united with it, since the Word through it revealed His power. For red-hot iron burns, possessing the power of burning not as a result of a natural condition, but acquiring it from its connection with fire. So, the same flesh was mortal by nature and life-giving due to the hypostatic union with the Word. In a similar way we speak about the deification of the will, which [happened] not in such a way that the natural movement changed, but in such a way that it united with His Divine and omnipotent will and became the will of God incarnate. Why, wanting to hide, He could not, since God the Word deigned to show through Himself that the weakness of the human will truly resided in Him. But, willingly, He accomplished the cleansing of the leper (see Matt. 8:3), due to union with the Divine will. One must know that the deification of both nature and will serves to designate and indicate both two natures and two wills. For just as incandescence does not transform the nature of that which is incandescent into the nature of fire, but shows both that which is incandescent and that which is incandescent, and serves to designate not one, but two, so deification makes not one complex nature, but two, and also a hypostatic union. Indeed, Gregory the Theologian says: “Of which one is deified, and the other is deified.” For having said: of which and: one, also and: the other, he pointed to two things. Chapter 18 (62). More about [two] wills, and freedoms, and minds, and knowledge, and wisdom In saying that Christ is a perfect God and a perfect man, we, of course, assimilate to Him all the natural qualities of both Father and Mother; for He became man in order that what had previously been conquered might overcome. For He was not weak, He who could [do all things], and by His omnipotent power and strength to deliver man from the tormentor. But for a tormentor who had defeated man and been subjugated by God, there would have been a pretext for complaint. Therefore, the compassionate and humane God, wishing to show the fallen himself as a winner, becomes a man, correcting like by means of like. And no one will contradict that a person is a living being, gifted with reason and intelligence. Therefore, how would God become a man if He took on soulless flesh or a mindless soul? Because this is not a person. What profit would we have in becoming human if the one who first fell ill had not been healed, and if he had not been renewed and strengthened by union with the Divine? For what is not perceived is incurable. Therefore, he perceives the whole person and his most beautiful part, which has fallen under illness, in order to grant salvation to everyone. But there could never be a mind without wisdom, devoid of cognitive ability. For if it is inactive and motionless, then, of course, it does not really exist. So, God the Word, wanting to restore what was in His image, became a man. And what is what is in the image, if not the mind? So, has He really, having neglected the best, accepted the worst? For the mind is in the middle between God and the flesh: the flesh, as living with it, and God, as His image. So, mind is united with mind, and the mind of God serves as a mediator between purity and carnal coarseness. For if the Lord accepted a soul devoid of intelligence, then He accepted the soul of an unreasonable animal. If the Evangelist said that the Word became flesh (see John 1:14), then you should know that in Holy Scripture a person is sometimes called a soul, as in this place: Jacob entered Egypt among seventy-five souls (Gen. 46:27); sometimes - by the flesh, as in this place: all flesh will see the salvation of God (Is. 40:5). So, the Lord became not soulless flesh and not devoid of mind, but a man. Indeed, He Himself says: why do you beat Me (see John 18:23), the Man who told you the truth (John 8:40). So, He took on flesh, animated by a soul, both rational and intelligent, dominion over the flesh, but led by the Divinity of the Word. So, He had a will naturally - both as God and as man; but the human followed and submitted to His [Divine] will, not being excited by its own thought, but desiring what His Divine will desired. For, when the Divine will allowed, He endured what was natural, in accordance with the laws of nature. For when He shied away from death, then, while His Divine will desired and allowed, He shied away from death, and was languishing and naturally afraid. And when His Divine will wanted His human will to choose death for itself, then suffering for it became voluntary; for not only as God did He voluntarily give Himself up to death, but also as a man. That is why He gave us boldness against death. Indeed, He says this before His saving suffering: My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me (Matthew 26:39). It is clear that He was to drink the cup as a man and not as God. Therefore, as a man, He wants the cup to pass by. These are words of natural timidity. Otherwise it is not My will be done (Lk. 22, 42), that is, to what extent I am different, in comparison with You, in essence, but Yours, that is, Mine and Yours, to what extent I am by nature consubstantial with You. These are, on the contrary, words of courage. For the soul of the Lord, as truly, by His good pleasure, became man, having first experienced natural weakness due to the feeling that arose at parting with the body, and having experienced natural sympathy, then strengthened by the Divine will, boldly acts against death. For, since one and the same was all God together with His humanity and all man together with His Divinity, then He Himself, as man, in Himself and through Himself, subordinated what was human to God and the Father, giving Himself to us in the best way and example, and became obedient to the Father. Further, He freely willed the Divine and human will. For free will is undoubtedly innate in every rational nature. For why would it have reason if it does not reason freely? For the Creator instilled a natural desire in irrational animals, forcing them to preserve their nature. For that which does not participate in reason cannot lead, but is led by natural desire. Why and at the same time as the desire occurs, the impulse to action immediately arises; for it [i.e. that which is devoid of reason] does not use reason, or consultation, or consideration, or discussion. Why is it not praised as following virtue and not pleased; and is not punished for committing a vice. Rational nature, of course, has a natural striving, moving, but a striving of this kind, which, in preserving what is in accordance with nature, is led by reason and controlled; for the advantage of reason is free desire, which we call natural movement in the rational essence; why and, as following virtue, it is praised and pleased, and, as following vice, it is punished. Therefore, although the soul of the Lord desired, freely moved, it freely desired what His Divine will wanted it [the soul] to want. For the flesh did not move as a result of the movement of the Word; for both Moses and all the saints moved according to the Divine wave; but the Same One - One, being both God and man, desired both Divine and human will. Why did the two wills of the Lord differ from one another not by thought, but rather by natural force. For His Divine will was both beginningless and capable of doing everything, having the power that followed it, and impassive; His human will began from a [known] time, and itself endured those passions that were natural and immaculate, and by nature, of course, was not omnipotent, but, as having become a property of God the Word truly and by nature, it was also omnipotent. Chapter 19 (63). About godly action Blessed Dionysius, having said that Christ, [living] among us, performed some new divine action, speaks of one action that originated from both the human and the Divine, without abolishing natural actions. For under these conditions we could call new a single nature, originating from both the Divine and the human, because what has one action, this, in the opinion of the Holy Fathers, has one essence. But he speaks, wanting to show a new and ineffable type of revelation of the natural actions of Christ, according to the ineffable way of the penetration of Christ's natures one into another, also the human nature of His life - extraordinary and amazing; and unknown to the nature of existence - and the image of communication that arises due to an ineffable connection. For we are not talking about divided actions and not about separately acting natures, but about the fact that together each one does, with the participation of the other, what it was its own business to do. For He did not do anything human in a human way, because He was not only a man; nor Divine - as God only, because he was not God alone, but accomplished being both God and man. For, just as we understand both the union and the natural difference of natures, so we understand the difference of natural wills and actions. So, you should know that in relation to our Lord Jesus Christ we speak sometimes as of two natures, sometimes as of one Person, but both this and that go back to the same idea; for there are two natures - one Christ, and one Christ - two natures. Therefore, it is the same thing to say: Christ acts in both of His natures, and each of the two natures acts in Christ with the participation of the other. So, the Divine nature has communion with the active flesh, due to the fact that, by the good pleasure of the Divine will, it was allowed to suffer and do what was characteristic of it, and due to the fact that the action of the flesh was undoubtedly saving, which is precisely characteristic not of human action, but of Divine action. The flesh had communion with the active Divinity of the Word, both due to the fact that Divine actions were performed through the body, as if through an instrument, and due to the fact that there was One who acted both Divinely and humanly. But one must know that His holy mind also carries out its natural actions, both thinking and understanding that he is the mind of God and that all creation worships him, and remembering his past activities and sufferings on earth; and with the active Divinity of the Word, by Whom everything is arranged and governed, he has communion, thinking and understanding, and bringing into order not as the human mind alone, but as hypostatically united with God and called the mind of God. So, divine action means that after God became a man, that is, became man, and His human action was Divine, that is, deified and not deprived of participation in His Divine action, and His Divine action was not deprived of participation in His human action, but each of the two was contemplated together with the other. This image [of speech] is called περίφρασις [i.e. description], every time someone, through one word, embraces any two concepts. For, just as the burning of a red-hot sword, accompanied by cutting, we call one, so also the cutting, accompanied by burning, however, we affirm that cutting is one action, and another is burning, also of different natures, that burning is characteristic of fire, and cutting is characteristic of iron; Thus calling the God-manly action of Christ one, we think of two actions of His two natures: on the one hand, the Divine, characteristic of His Divinity, on the other, human action, characteristic of His humanity. Chapter 20 (64). On natural and immaculate passions Further, we confess that Christ accepted all the natural and immaculate passions of man. For He took upon the whole man and everything that belongs to man, except sin. For this one is not natural and not implanted in us by the Creator, but arbitrarily occurs in our free will as a result of the devil’s sowing and does not dominate us by force. Natural and immaculate passions are not in our power, which entered human life as a result of condemnation resulting from a crime, such as hunger, thirst, fatigue, labor, tears, decay, evasion of death, fear, death throes, from which sweat and drops of blood occur; help from the Angels that occurs as a result of the weakness of nature, and the like, which is inherent in all people by nature. So, He received everything in order to sanctify everything. He was tempted and won in order to prepare us for victory and to give nature the strength to defeat the enemy, so that nature, which was anciently defeated, would put the anciently victorious one to flight with the help of those attacks through which it was defeated. The evil one attacked [Christ] from without, of course, not through thoughts, just as he attacked Adam; for even he attacked him not with the help of thoughts, but through the medium of the serpent. The Lord repulsed the attack from Himself and dissipated it like smoke, so that the passions that attacked Him and defeated would become easily overcome both for us and so that the New Adam would bring the ancient one to the primitive state. Our natural passions were in Christ, without any doubt, both in accordance with nature and above nature. For, in accordance with nature, they were aroused in Him when He allowed the flesh to experience what was characteristic of it; and above nature because in the Lord what was natural did not precede His will, for in Him nothing is seen as forced, but everything as voluntary. For, desiring, He was hungry; desiring, He thirsted; desiring, He was afraid; desiring, He died. Chapter 21 (65). About ignorance and slavery It should be known that Christ assumed a nature that lacked knowledge and was servile; for human nature is slave to God who created it and does not have knowledge of the future. Therefore, if you, in accordance with the opinion of Gregory the Theologian, separate the visible from what is perceived by the mind, then the flesh is called both slave and lacking knowledge, but because of the identity of the Hypostasis and because of the inextricable union, the soul of the Lord was greatly enriched with the knowledge of the future, as well as with the rest of the Divine signs. For, just as the flesh of people by its own nature is not life-giving, but the flesh of the Lord, hypostatically united with God the Word Himself, although it did not lose its natural mortality, but, due to the hypostatic union with the Word, became life-giving, and we cannot say that it was not life-giving and is not always life-giving; so human nature, by its essence, does not possess the knowledge of the future, but the soul of the Lord, due to its union with God the Word Himself and hypostatic identity, was greatly enriched, as I said, along with the rest of the Divine signs, also in the knowledge of the future. It should be known that we cannot even call Him a slave; for the name of slavery and the name of dominion are not signs of nature, but of something that relates to something, just like the name of patronymic and the name of sonship. For this is suitable for designating not an essence, but a relationship. Consequently, just as we said regarding ignorance, that whenever with the help of subtle thoughts, that is, insightful ideas of the mind, you separate the created from the uncreated, then the flesh is slave if it is not united with God the Word; but once united hypostatically, how can it be servile? For Christ, being one, cannot be His own servant and Lord; because this is not characteristic of what is simply spoken of, but of what has to do with something else. So, whose slave will He be? Father? Consequently, not everything that the Father has belongs to the Son, if only He is a slave of the Father, and in no way of Himself. How then does the apostle say about us, who have been adopted as sons through Him: “The same is a servant, but a son” (Gal. 4:7), if only He Himself is a servant? So, He is called a slave by name alone, not being one himself, but for our sake taking on the form of a slave and calling himself a slave with us. For, being impassive, He submitted to the passions for our sake and became the servant of our salvation. And those who say that He is a slave divide the one Christ into two, just like Nestorius. We say that He is the Master and Lord of every creature, one Christ, one and the same both God and man, and knows everything: in Him are all the hidden treasures of wisdom and understanding (Col. 2:3). Chapter 22 (66). About prosperity It is said that Christ prospered in wisdom, and in age, and in grace (Luke 2:52), increasing in age, and through increasing age, revealing the wisdom that was in Him, and in addition, the success of people in wisdom and grace and the fulfillment of the desire of the Father, that is, the knowledge of people and their salvation, considering His own success and everywhere appropriating to Himself what was ours. And those who say that He excelled in wisdom and grace, accepting, as it were, their increase, believe that the union did not occur from the beginning of the existence of the flesh, and do not honor the union as hypostatic, but, following the senseless Nestorius, they falsely talk about the union of the relative and simple infusion, not understanding either what they say or affirm about them (1 Tim. 1:7). For if the flesh, from the beginning of existence, was truly united with God the Word, or better yet: in Him it received being and had a hypostatic identity with Him, then how was it not completely enriched with all wisdom and grace! Not that she received participation in grace, and not that by grace she partook of what belonged to the Word, but better: because of the hypostatic union, when both the human and the Divine became the property of the one Christ, since God together and man were one and the same, she exuded to the world grace, and wisdom, and the fullness of all blessings. The name of fear contains a double thought. For there is natural fear, when the soul does not want to be separated from the body, because of the natural sympathy and natural friendship implanted in it by the Creator from time immemorial, as a result of which it naturally fears, and experiences languor, and avoids death. The definition of fear is this: natural fear is a force that tries to protect its existence through despondency. For if the Creator brought everything from non-existence into being, then naturally it has a desire for existence, and not for non-existence. This same [i.e. everything] by nature has a desire directed towards that with the help of which it exists. Therefore, God the Word, having become a man, had this desire, showing His desire in relation to that with the help of which nature exists, desiring for Himself food, drink, and sleep, and naturally experiencing this in practice; and in relation to what is fatal, showing fear when, during suffering, He voluntarily allowed Himself despondency to the point of death (Matthew 26:38). For although what happened happened according to the law of nature, it was not forced, as happens in relation to us. For what was natural, He accepted voluntarily - at will. Therefore, fear itself, and fear, and melancholy, belong to the number of natural and immaculate passions, and not subject to sin. On the other hand, there is timidity resulting from erroneous thinking and distrust, and ignorance of the hour of death, just as when at night we are horrified if any noise occurs; what kind of timidity occurs contrary to nature, and defining it, we say: timidity occurring contrary to nature is an unreasonable loss of spirit. The Lord did not allow this timidity to come to Himself. Therefore, He was never afraid, except during His suffering, although, according to the plans of the economy, He was often in despondency; for He was not ignorant of time. And that He was truly afraid, says Saint Athanasius in his word against Apollinaris: “Therefore the Lord said: now my soul is troubled (John 12:27). The word now means this: when He willed; but, however, it shows what happened; for He did not speak of things that were not, as if they were present, [i.e.] as if only apparently what was spoken about happened; for everything happened according to natural laws and truly.” And after other words he says: “But in no way does the Divine allow passion to Himself apart from the body, which would suffer, and does not show confusion and sadness apart from the soul, which would grieve and be embarrassed, and does not worry and pray separately from the mind, which worries and prays; however, although what happened did not happen as a result of the defeat of nature, it was done in order to show who He was.” The expression: what happened did not happen as a result of the defeat of nature shows that He did not endure it against his will. Chapter 24 (68). About the Lord's Prayer Prayer is the ascent of the mind to God or asking God for what is proper. Therefore, how did the Lord pray for Lazarus even during his suffering? For His holy mind, once hypostatically united with God the Word, had no need either to ascend to God or to ask God; for there is one Christ; but He prayed because He made our face His own, imprinting in Himself what was ours, and becoming a Model for us, and teaching us to ask God and to rise to Him, and through the medium of His holy mind, assisting us in ascending to God. For, just as He suffered suffering, deciding for us to overcome them, so He prays, assisting us, as I said, in ascending to God and fulfilling all righteousness for us, as He spoke to John (Matthew 3:15), and reconciling His Father with us, and honoring Him as the Beginning and the Cause, and showing that He is not adversary to God. For when He spoke from behind Lazarus: Father, I give You praise, because You heard Me. But I knew that you always obey Me: but for the sake of the people standing around, I cut them down, so that they may have faith, because You sent Me (Jn. 11:41-42), then was it not as clear as possible to everyone that He said this, honoring His Father as His Beginning and Cause and showing that He is not an adversary to God? When He said: My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me; Moreover, not as I want, but as you (Matthew 26:39), then isn’t it clear to everyone, of course, that He [said so], teaching us during trials to ask for help from God alone and to prefer the Divine will to our will, and showing that He truly assimilated to Himself what belonged to our nature, and that He truly had two wills, natural, of course, and corresponding to His natures, and not hostile? Father, He says, as one in essence; If it is possible to eat, he says, without ignorance, for what is impossible for God? but teaching us to prefer the Divine will to our will. For this alone is impossible, what God does not want and does not allow: not as I want, but as You want. As God, being identical with the Father by His will, and as man, He naturally reveals the will of mankind; for this one naturally avoids death. The words: My God, my God, have you forsaken me? (Matthew 27:46) He spoke because he had our face as His own. For neither God the Father would have been placed with us, if precisely, with the help of subtle ideas of the mind, the visible had not been separated from what is perceived by the mind, nor He, on the other hand, had never been abandoned by His Divinity, but we were abandoned and neglected; so He prayed about it, taking our face to Himself. Chapter 25 (69). About assimilation One must know that there are two assimilations: one is natural and essential, and the other is personal and relative. Natural and essential, of course, is that according to which the Lord, out of love for mankind, accepted both our nature and everything natural, naturally and truly becoming human and experiencing what belongs to our nature; personal and relative happens when someone takes on the face of another because of some kind of relationship, that is, compassion or love, and instead of him pronounces speeches aimed at his defense, which have nothing to do with himself. Accordingly, the Lord assimilated to Himself both the curse and our abandonment, and the like, which is not natural, He assimilated, not being this Himself or not having become it, but taking our face and placing Himself along with us. This is the meaning of the saying: the curse came upon us (Gal. 3:13). Chapter 26 (70). About the suffering of the Lord's body and the impassivity of His Divinity So, the Word of God Himself suffered everything in the flesh, while His divine and only dispassionate nature remained not subject to suffering. For when the one Christ suffered, united both from Divinity and humanity, existing both in Divinity and humanity, then that part that was subject to suffering, as naturally inclined to suffer, suffered, but that part that was dispassionate did not suffer together. For the soul, being capable of suffering, although it itself is not cut while the body is cut, nevertheless, together with the body, it is sick and suffers together; The deity, being impassive, did not suffer along with the body. One must know that we say that God suffered, of course, in the flesh, but that the Divinity suffered in the flesh, or that God suffered through the flesh, in no way. For if, while the sun is shining on a tree, an ax cuts down that tree, then the sun remains uncut and not subject to suffering; [hence] the much more impassive Divinity of the Word, hypostatically united with the flesh, remains immune to suffering, while the flesh suffers. And just as if someone pours water on a red-hot iron, then that which by nature is inclined to suffer from water, I mean fire, is extinguished, but the iron remains unharmed, for it is by nature incapable of being destroyed by water; [hence] the much more united only impassive Deity, while the flesh suffered, did not suffer suffering, although it remained unseparated from it. For it is not necessary that the examples should be equal to [things] completely and without any defect. For it is necessary that in examples both what is similar and what is different be contemplated, since otherwise it would not be an example. For that which is the same in everything would be identical, and not an example, and most of all [this must be said] in relation to that which is Divine. For it is impossible to find an example equal in everything, both in the case when it comes to God, and when it comes to the economy (incarnation). Chapter 27 (71). That the Divinity of the Word remained undivided from soul and body even during the death of the Lord and that a single Hypostasis was preserved Our Lord Jesus Christ, being sinless, for he did not commit lawlessness, and flattery was found in his mouth (Isa. 53:9. John 1:29), was not subject to death, for death entered the world through sin (see Rom. 5:12). So, He dies, suffering death for us, and sacrifices Himself to the Father for us. For before Him [i.e. We sinned by the Father, and it was necessary that He should accept the ransom that was for us, and that we should thus be freed from condemnation; for the blood of the Lord was not brought to the tyrant. So, death comes, and, having absorbed the bodily bait, is pierced by the milk of the Divinity, and, having tasted the sinless and life-giving body, dies and gives back all that it once swallowed up. For, just as darkness is destroyed through the introduction of light, so corruption is driven away through the touch of life, and life arises for everyone, but destruction for the destroyer. So, although Christ died as a man, and His holy soul was separated from the immaculate body, the Divinity remained unseparated from both, that is, soul and body, and even under such circumstances the one Hypostasis was not divided into two hypostases, for both the body and the soul at the same time - from the beginning had their being in the Hypostasis of the Word, and although at the time of death they were separated from each other, each of them remained, having one Hypostasis of the Word. Therefore, the single Hypostasis of the Word was the Hypostasis of both the Word, the soul, and the body; for neither the soul nor the body ever received a special hypostasis in comparison with the Hypostasis of the Word, but there was always one Hypostasis of the Word and there were never two. Therefore, the Hypostasis of Christ has always been one. For although in relation to the place the soul was separated from the body, in relation to the Hypostasis it was united with it through the Word. Chapter 28 (72). About decay and death The name corruption means two things. For it denotes these human passions: hunger, thirst, fatigue, piercing nails, death or separation of the soul from the body, and the like. In accordance with this meaning, we say that the body of the Lord was subject to corruption. For He accepted all this voluntarily. But corruption also means the complete dissolution of the body into those elements of which it is composed, and destruction, which many better call: διαφθορά [i.e. e., destruction, glory: decay]. The body of the Lord did not recognize this from experience, as the prophet David says: for thou hast not left my soul in hell, let Thy venerable one see corruption (Ps. 15:10). So, like the crazy Julian and Gayan, to say that the body of the Lord, in accordance with the first meaning of corruption, was incorruptible before the resurrection, is impious. For if it was incorruptible, then it was not the same essence with us, and also ghostly, then what the Gospel says did not truly happen: hunger, thirst, nails, perforation of the rib, death. If this happened only in a ghostly way, then the sacrament of the economy was a lie and a deception, and He became a man only in appearance, and not truly, and we were saved in a ghostly, and not truly; but - no!; and those who say this, let them lose their participation in salvation! We have received true salvation and will receive it. And that the body of the Lord is incorruptible or incorruptible, in accordance with the second meaning of corruption, we confess as the God-bearing fathers conveyed to us. We, of course, say that after the resurrection of the Savior from the dead, the body of the Lord is incorruptible and in accordance with the first meaning; for through His body the Lord gave to our body both resurrection and, after this, incorruption, Himself becoming for us the Firstfruits of resurrection, incorruption, and dispassion. It is fitting for this corruptible to put on incorruptibility (1 Cor. 15:53), says the divine apostle. Chapter 29 (73). About the descent into hell The deified soul descends into hell so that, just as the Sun of righteousness would shine for those on earth (Mal. 4:2), in the same way the light would shine for those under the earth, who were in darkness and the shadow of death (Is. 9:2); so that, just as the Lord preached peace to those on earth, release to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind (Luke 4:18), and for those who believed he became the Author of eternal salvation, and for those who did not believe - the reproof of unbelief, in the same way he preached to those in hell (see 1 Pet. 3:19): That in the name of Jesus every knee should bow down, those in heaven and on earth, and the graves (Phil. 2:10). And thus, having resolved those who had been bound for centuries, He returned back - from death to life, paving the way for us to resurrection.