CHAPTER I.
Concerning the Divine Oeconomy and God's care
over us, and concerning our salvation.
MAN, then, was thus snared by the
assault of the arch-fiend, and broke his Creator's
command, and was stripped of grace and put off his
confidence with God, and covered himself with the
asperities of a toilsome life (for this is the meaning of
the fig-leaves(1)); and was clothed about with death, that
is, mortality and the grossness of flesh (for this is what
the garment of skins signifies); and was banished from
Paradise by God's just judgment, and condemned to death,
and made subject to corruption. Yet, notwithstanding all
this, in His pity, God, Who gave him his being, and Who in
His graciousness bestowed on him a life of happiness, did
not disregard man(2). But He first trained him in many
ways and called him back, by groans and trembling, by the
deluge of water, and the utter destruction of almost the
whole race(3), by confusion and diversity of tongues(4),
by the rule(5) of angels(6), by the burning of cities(7),
by figurative manifestations of God, by wars and victories
and defeats, by signs and wonders, by manifold faculties,
by the law and the prophets: for by all these means God
earnestly strove to emancipate man from the wide-spread
and enslaving bonds of sin, which had made life such a
mass of iniquity, and to effect man's return to a life of
happiness. For it was sin that brought death like a wild
and savage beast into the world s to the ruin of the human
life. But it behoved the Redeemer to be without sin, and
not made liable through sin to death, and further, that
His nature should be strengthened and renewed, and trained
by labour and taught the way of virtue which leads away
from corruption to the life eternal and, in the end, is
revealed the mighty ocean of love to man that is about
Him(9). For the very Creator and Lord Himself undertakes a
struggle(1) in behalf of the work of His own hands, and
learns by toil to become Master. And since the enemy
snares man by the hope of Godhead, he himself is snared in
turn by the screen of flesh, and so are shown at once the
goodness and wisdom, the justice and might of God. God's
goodness is revealed in that He did not disregard(2) the
frailty of His own handiwork, but was moved with
compassion for him in his fall, and stretched forth His
hand to him: and His justice in that when man was overcome
He did not make another victorious over the tyrant, nor
did He snatch man by might from death, but in His goodness
and justice He made him, who had become through his sins
the slave of death, himself once more conqueror and
rescued like by like, most difficult though it seemed: and
His wisdom is seen in His devising the most fitting
solution of the difficulty(3). For by the good pleasure of
our God and Father, the Only-begotten Son and Word of God
and God, Who is in the bosom of the God and Father(4), of
like essence with the Father and the Holy Spirit, Who was
before the ages, Who is without beginning and was in the
beginning, Who is in the presence of the God and Father,
and is God and made in the form of God(5), bent the
heavens and descended to earth: that is to say, He humbled
without humiliation His lofty station which yet could not
be humbled, and condescends to His servants(6), with a
condescension ineffable and incomprehensible: (for that is
what the descent signifies). And God being perfect becomes
perfect man, and brings to perfection the newest of all
new things(7), the only new thing under the Sun, through
which the boundmight of God is manifested. For what
greater thing is there, than that God should become Man?
And the Word became flesh without being changed, of the
Holy Spirit, and Mary the holy and ever-virgin one, the
mother of God. And He acts as mediator between God and
man, He the only lover of man conceived in the Virgin's
chaste womb without will(8) or desire, or any connection
with man or pleasurable generation, but through the Holy
Spirit and the first offspring of Adam. And He becomes
obedient to the Father Who is like unto us, and finds a
remedy for our disobedience in what He had assumed from
us, and became a pattern of obedience to us without which
it is not possible to obtain salvation(8).
CHAPTER II.
Concerning the manner in which the
Word(9) was conceived, and concerning His divine
incarnation.
The angel of the Lord was sent to the
holy Virgin, who was descended from David's line(1). Far
it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Judah, of which
tribe no one turned his attention to the altar(2), as the
divine apostle said: but about this we will speak more
accurately later. And bearing glad tidings to her, he
said, Hail thou highly favoured one, the Lord is with
thee(3). And she was troubled at his word, and the angel
said to her, Fear not, Mary, for thou hast found favour
with God, and shalt bring forth a Son and shalt call His
name Jesus(4); for He shall save His people from their
sins(5). Hence it comes that Jesus has the interpretation
Saviour. And when she asked in her perplexity, How can
this be, seeing I know not a man(6)? the angel again
answered her, The Holy Spirit shall came upon thee, and
the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee. Therefore
also that holy thing which shall be born of thee(7) shall
be called the Son of God(8). And she said to him, Behold
the handmaid of the Lord: be it unto me according to Thy
word(9).
So then, after the assent of the holy
Virgin, the Holy Spirit descended on her, according to the
word of the Lord which the angel spoke, purifying her(1),
and granting her power to receive the divinity of the
Word, and likewise power to bring forth(2). And then was
she overshadowed(3) by the enhypostatic Wisdom and Power
of the most high God, the Son of God Who is of like
essence with the Father as of Divine seed, and from her
holy and most pure blood He formed flesh animated with the
spirit of reason and thought, the first-fruits of our
compound nature(4): not by procreation but by creation
through the Holy Spirit: not developing the fashion of the
body by gradual additions but perfecting it at once, He
Himself, the very Word of God, standing to the flesh in
the relation of subsistence. For the divine Word was not
made one with flesh that had an independent
pre-existence(5), but taking up His abode in the womb of
the holy Virgin, He unreservedly in His own subsistence
took upon Himself through the pure blood of the eternal
Virgin a body of flesh animated with the spirit of reason
and thought, thus assuming to Himself the first-fruits of
man's compound nature, Himself, the Word, having become a
subsistence in the flesh. So that(6) He is at once flesh,
and at the same time flesh of God the Word, and likewise
flesh animated, possessing both reason and thought(7).
Wherefore we speak not of man as having become God, but of
God as having become Man(8). For being by nature perfect
God, He naturally became likewise perfect Man: and did not
change His nature nor make the dispensation(9) an empty
show, but became, without confusion or change or division,
one in subsistence with the flesh, which was conceived of
the holy Virgin, and animated with reason and thought, and
had found existence in Him, while He did not change the
nature of His divinity into the essence of flesh, nor the
essence of flesh into the nature of His divinity, and did
not make one compound nature out of His divine nature and
the human nature He had assumed(1).
CHAPTER III.
Concerning Christ's two natures, in
apposition to those who hold that He has only one(2).
For the two natures were united with
each other without change or alteration, neither the
divine nature departing from its native simplicity, nor
yet the human being either changed into the nature of God
or reduced to non-existence, nor one compound nature being
produced out of the two. For the compound nature(3) cannot
be of the same essence as either of the natures out of
which it is compounded, as made one thing out of others:
for example, the body is composed of the four elements,
but is not of the same essence as fire or air, or water or
earth, nor does it keep these names. If, therefore, after
the union, Christ's nature was, as the heretics hold, a
compound unity, He had changed from a simple into a
compound nature(4), and is not of the same essence as the
Father Whose nature is simple, nor as the mother, who is
not a compound of divinity and humanity. Nor will He then
be in divinity and humanity: nor will He be called either
God or Man, but simply Christ: and the word Christ will be
the name not of the subsistence, but of what in their view
is the one nature.
We, however, do not give it as our view
that Christ's nature is compound, nor yet that He is one
thing made of other things and differing from them as man
is made of sold and body, or as the body is made of the
four elements, but hold(5) that, though He is constituted
of these different parts He is yet the same(6). For we
confess that He alike in His divinity and in His humanity
both is and is said to be perfect God, the same Being, and
that He consists of two natures, and exists in two
natures(7). Further, by the word "Christ" we
understand the name of the subsistence, not in the sense
of one kind, but as signifying the existence of two
natures. For in His own person He anointed Himself; as God
anointing His body with His own divinity, and as Man being
anointed. For He is Himself both God and Man. And the
anointing is the divinity of His humanity. For if Christ,
being of one compound nature, is of like essence to the
Father, then the Father also must be compound and of like
essence with the flesh, which is absurd and extremely
blasphemous(8).
How, indeed, could one and the same
nature come to embrace opposing and essential differences?
For how is it possible that the same nature should be at
once created and uncreated, mortal and immortal,
circumscribed and uncircumscribed?
But if those who declare that Christ
has only one nature should say also that that nature is a
simple one, they must admit either that He is God pure and
simple, and thus reduce the incarnation to a mere
pretence, or that He is only man, according to Nestorius.
And how then about His being "perfect in divinity and
perfect in humanity"? And when can Christ be said to
be of two natures, if they hold that He is of one
composite nature after the union? For it is surely clear
to every one that before the union Christ's nature was
one.
But this is what leads the heretics(9)
astray, viz., that they look upon nature and subsistence
as the same thing(1). For when we speak of the nature of
men as one(2), observe that in saying this we are not
looking to the question of soul and body. For when we
compare together the soul and the body it cannot be said
that they are of one nature. But since there are very many
subsistences of men, and yet all have the same kind of
nature(3): for all are composed of soul and body, and all
have part in the nature of the soul, and possess the
essence of the body, and the common form: we speak of the
one nature of these very many and different subsistences;
while each subsistence, to wit, has two natures, and
fulfils itself in two natures, namely, soul and body.
But(4) a common form cannot be admitted
in the case of our Lord Jesus Christ. For neither was
there ever, nor is there, nor will there ever be another
Christ constituted of deity and humanity, and existing in
deity and humanity at once perfect God and perfect man.
And thus in the case of our Lord Jesus Christ we cannot
speak of one nature made uof divinity and humanity, as we
do in the case of the individual made up of soul and
body(5). For in the latter case we have to do with an
individual, but Christ is not an individual. For there is
no predicable form of Christlihood, so to speak, that He
possesses. And therefore we hold that there has been a
union of two perfect natures, one divine and one human;
not with disorder or confusion, or intermixture(6), or
commingling, as is said by the God-accursed Dioscorus and
by Eutyches(7) and Severus, and all that impious company:
and not in a personal or relative manner, or as a matter
of dignity or agreement in will, or equality in honour, or
identity in name, or good pleasure, as Nestorius, hated of
God, said, and Diodorus and Theodorus of Mopsuestia, and
their diabolical tribe: but by synthesis; that is, in
subsistence, without change or confusion or alteration or
difference or separation, and we confess that in two
perfect natures there is but one subsistence of the Son of
God incarnate(8); holding that there is one and the same
subsistence belonging to His divinity and His humanity,
and granting that the two natures are preserved in Him
after the union, but we do not hold that each is separate
and by itself, but that they are united to each other in
one compound subsistence. For we look upon the union as
essential, that is, as true and not imaginary. We say that
it is essential(9), moreover, not in the sense of two
natures resulting in one compound nature, but in the sense
of a true union of them in one compound subsistence of the
Son of God, and we hold that their essential difference is
preserved. For the created remaineth created, and the
uncreated, uncreated: the mortal remaineth mortal; the
immortal, immortal: the circumscribed, circumscribed: the
uncircumscribed, uncircumscribed: the visible, visible:
the invisible, invisible. "The one part is all
glorious with wonders: while the other is the victim of
insults(1)."
Moreover, the Word appropriates to
Himself the attributes of humanity: for all that pertains
to His holy flesh is His: and He imparts to the flesh His
own attributes by way of communication(2) in virtue of the
interpenetration of the parts(3) one with another, and the
oneness according to subsistence, and inasmuch as He Who
lived and acted both as God and as man, taking to Himself
either form and holding intercourse with the other form,
was one and the same(4). Hence it is that the Lord of
Glory is said to have been crucified(5), although His
divine nature never endured the Cross, and that the Son of
Man is allowed to have been in heaven before the Passion,
as the Lord Himself said(6). For the Lord of Glory is one
and the same with Him Who is in nature and in truth the
Son of Man, that is, Who became man, and both His wonders
and His sufferings are known to us, although His wonders
were worked in His divine capacity, and His sufferings
endured as man. For we know that, just as is His one
subsistence, so is the essential difference of the nature
preserved. For how could difference be preserved if the
very things that differ from one another are not
preserved? For difference is the difference between things
that differ. In so far as Christ's natures differ from one
another, that is, in the matter of essence, we hold that
Christ unites in Himself two extremes: in respect of His
divinity He is connected with the Father and the Spirit,
while in respect of His humanity He is connected with His
mother and all mankind. And in so far as His natures are
united, we hold that He differs from the Father and the
Spirit on the one hand, and from the mother and the rest
of mankind on the other. For the natures are united in His
subsistence, having one compound subsistence, in which He
differs from the Father and the Spirit, and also from the
mother and us.
CHAPTER IV.
Concerning the manner of the Mutual
Communication(8).
Now we have often said already that
essence is one thing and subsistence another, and that
essence signifies the common and general form(9) of
subsistences of the same kind, such as God, man, while
subsistence marks the individual, that is to say, Father,
Son, Holy Spirit, or Peter, Paul. Observe, then, that the
names, divinity and humanity, denote essences or natures:
while the names, God and man, are applied both in
connection with natures, as when we say that God is
incomprehensible essence, and that God is one, and with
reference to subsistences, that which is more specific
having the name of the more general applied to it, as when
the Scripture says, Therefore God, thy God, hath anointed
thee(1), or again, There was a certain man in the land of
Uz(2), for it was only to Job that reference was made.
Therefore, in the case of our Lord
Jesus Christ, seeing that we recognise that He has two
natures but only one subsistence compounded of both, when
we contemplate His natures we speak of His divinity and
His humanity, but when we contemplate the subsistence
compounded of the natures we sometimes use terms that have
reference to His double nature, as "Christ," and
"at once God and man," and "God
Incarnate;" and sometimes those that imply only one
of His natures, as "God" alone, or "Son of
God," and "man" alone, or "Son of
Man;" sometimes using names that imply His loftiness
and sometimes those that imply His lowliness. For He Who
is alike God and man is one, being the former from the
Father ever without(3) cause, but having become the latter
afterwards for His love towards man(4).
When, then, we speak of His divinity we
do not ascribe to it the properties of humanity. For we do
not say that His divinity is subject to passion or
created. Nor, again, do we predicate of His flesh or of
His humanity the properties of divinity: for we do not say
that His flesh or His humanity is uncreated. But when we
speak of His subsistence, whether we give it a name
implying both natures, or one that refers to only one of
them, we still attribute to it the properties of both
natures. For Christ, which name implies both natures, is
spoken of as at once God and man, created and uncreated,
subject to suffering anti incapable of suffering: and when
He is named Son of God and God, in reference to only one
of His natures, He still keeps the properties of the
co-existing nature, that is, the flesh, being spoken of as
God who suffers, and as the Lord of Glory crucified(5),
not in respect of His being God but in respect of His
being at the same time man. Likewise also when He is
called Man and Son of Man, He still keeps the properties
and glories of the divine nature, a child before the ages,
and man who knew no beginning; it is not, however, as
child or man but as God that He is before the ages, and
became a child in the end. And Ibis is the manner of the
mutual communication, either nature giving in exchange to
the other its own properties through the identity of the
subsistence and the interpenetration of the parts with one
another. Accordingly we can say of Christ: This our God
was seen upon the earth and lived amongst men(6), and This
man is uncreated and impossible and uncircumscribed.
CHAPTER V.
Concerning the number of the Natures.
In the case, therefore, of the
Godhead(7) we confess that there is but one nature, but
hold that there are three subsistences actually existing,
anti hold that all things that are of nature and essence
are simple, and recognise the difference of the
subsistences only in the three properties of independence
of cause and Fatherhood, of dependence on cause and
Sonship, of dependence on cause and procession(8). And we
know further that these are indivisible and inseparable
from each other and united into one, and interpenetrating
one another without confusion. Yea, I repeat, united
without confusion, for they are three although united, and
they are distinct, although inseparable. For although each
has an independent existence, that is to say, is a perfect
subsistence and has an individuality of its own, that is,
has a special modof existence, yet they are one in essence
and in the natural properties. and in being inseparable
and indivisible from the Father's subsistence, and they
both are and are said to be one God. In the very same way,
then, in the case of the divine and ineffable
dispensation(9), exceeding all thought and comprehension,
I mean the Incarnation of the One God the Word of the Holy
Trinity, and our Lord Jesus Christ, we confess that there
are two natures, one divine and one human, joined together
with one another and united in subsistence(1), so that one
compound subsistence is formed out of the two natures: but
we hold that the two natures are still preserved, even
after the union, in the one compound subsistence, that is,
in the one Christ, and that these exist in reality and
have their natural properties; for they are united without
confusion, and are distinguished and enumerated without
being separable. And just as the three subsistences of the
Holy Trinity are united without confusion, and are
distinguished and enumerated without being separable(2),
the enumeration not entailing division or separation or
alienation or cleavage among them (for we recognise one
God the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit), so in the
same way the natures of Christ also, although they are
united, yet are united without confusion; and although
they interpenetrate one another, yet they do not permit of
change or transmutation of one into the other(3). For each
keeps its own natural individuality strictly unchanged.
And thus it is that they can be enumerated without the
enumeration introducing division. For Christ, indeed, is
one, perfect both in divinity and in humanity. For it is
not the nature of number to cause separation or unity, but
its nature is to indicate the quantity of what is
enumerated, whether these are united or separated: for we
have unity, for instance, when fifty stones compose a
wall, but we have separation when the fifty stones lie on
the ground; and again, we have unity when we speak of coal
having two natures, namely, fire and wood, but we have
separation in that the nature of fire is one thing, and
the nature of wood another thing; for these things are
united and separated not by number, but in another way.
So, then, just as even though the three subsistences of
the Godhead are united with each other, we cannot speak of
them as one subsistence because we should confuse and do
away with the difference between the subsistences, so also
we cannot speak of the two natures of Christ as one
nature, united though they are in subsistence, because we
should then confuse and do away with and reduce to nothing
the difference between the two natures.
CHAPTER. VI.
That in one of its subsistences the
divine nature is united in its entirety to the human
nature, in its entirety and not only part to part.
What is common and general is
predicated of the included particulars. Essence, then, is
common as being a form(4), while subsistence is
particular. It is particular not as though it had part of
the nature and had not the rest, but particular in a
numerical sense, as being individual. For it is in number
and not in nature that the difference between subsistences
is said to lie. Essence, therefore, is predicated of
subsistence, because in each subsistence of the same form
the essence is perfect. Wherefore subsistences do not
differ from each other in essence but in the accidents
which indeed are the characteristic properties, but
characteristic of subsistence and not of nature. For
indeed they define subsistence as essence along with
accidents. So that the subsistence contains both the
general and the particular, and has an independent
existence(5), while essence has not an independent
existence but is contemplated in the subsistences.
Accordingly when one of the subsistences suffers, the
whole essence, being capable of suffering(6), is held to
have suffered in one of its subsistences as much as the
subsistence suffered, but it does not necessarily follow,
however, that all the subsistences of the same class
should suffer along with the suffering subsistence.
Thus, therefore, we confess that the
nature of the Godhead is wholly and perfectly in each of
its subsistences, wholly in the Father, wholly in the Son,
and wholly in the Holy Spirit. Wherefore also the Father
is perfect God, the Son is perfect God, and the Holy
Spirit is perfect God. In like manner, too, in the
Incarnation of the Trinity of the One God the Word of the
Holy Trinity, we hold that in one of its subsistences the
nature of the Godhead is wholly and perfectly united with
the whole nature of humanity, and not part united to
part(7). The divine Apostle in truth says that in Him
dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily(8), that is
to say in His flesh. And His divinely-inspired disciple,
Dionysius, who had so deep a knowledge of things divine,
said that the Godhead as a whole had fellowship with us in
one of its own subsistences(9). But we shall not be driven
to hold that all the subsistences of the Holy Godhead, to
wit the three, are made one in subsistence with all the
subsistences of humanity. For in no other respect did the
Father and the Holy Spirit take part in the incarnation of
God the Word than according to good will and pleasure But
we hold that to the whole of human nature the whole
essence of the Godhead was united. For God the Word
omitted none of the things which He implanted in our
nature when He formed us in the beginning, but took them
all upon Himself, body and soul both intelligent and
rational, and all their properties. For the creature that
is devoid of one of these is not man. But He in His
fulness took upon Himself me in my fulness, and was united
whole to whole that He might in His grace bestow salvation
on the whole man. For what has not been taken cannot be
healed(1).
The Word of God(2), then, was united to
flesh through the medium of mind which is intermediate
between the purity of God and the grossness of flesh(3).
For the mind holds sway over soul and body, but while the
mind is the purest part of the soul God is that of the
mind. And when it is allowed(4) by that which is more
excellent, the mind of Christ gives proof of its own
authority(5), but it is under the dominion of and obedient
to that which is more excellent, and does those things
which the divine will purposes.
Further the mind has become the seat of
the divinity united with it in subsistence, just as is
evidently the case with the body too, not as an inmate(6),
which is the impious error into which the heretics fall
when they say that one bushel cannot contain two bushels,
for they are judging what is immaterial by material
standards. How indeed could Christ be called perfect God
and perfect man, and be said to be of like essence with
the Father and with us, if only part of the divine nature
is joined in Him to part of the human nature(7)?
We hold, moreover, that our nature has
been raised from the dead and has ascended to the heavens
and taken its seat at the right hand of the Father: not
that all the persons of men have risen from the dead and
taken their seat at the right hand of the Father, but that
this has happened to the whole of our nature in the
subsistence of Christ(8). Verily the divine Apostle says,
God hath raised us up together and made us sit together in
Christ(9).
And this further we hold, that the
union took place through common essences. For every
essence is common to the subsistences contained in it, and
there cannot be found a partial and particular nature,
that is to say, essence: for otherwise we would have to
hold that the same subsistences are at once the same and
different in essence, and that the Holy Trinity in respect
of the divinity is at once the same and different in
essence. So then the same nature is to be observed in each
of the subsistences, and when we said that the nature of
the word became flesh, as did the blessed Athanasius and
Cyrillus, we mean that the divinity was joined to the
flesh. Hence we cannot say "The nature of the Word
suffered;" for the divinity in it did not su, but we
say that the human nature, not by any means, however,
meaning(1) all the subsistences of men, suffered in
Christ, and we confess further that Christ suffered in His
human nature. So that when we speak of the nature of the
Word we mean the Word Himself. And the Word has both the
general element of essence and the particular element of
subsistence.
CHAPTER VII.
Concerning the one compound
subsistence of God the Word.
We hold then that the divine
subsistence of God the Word existed before all else and is
without time and eternal, simple and uncompound,
uncreated, incorporeal, invisible, intangible,
uncircumscribed, possessing all the Father possesses,
since He is of the same essence with Him, differing from
the Father's subsistence in the manner of His generation
and the relation of the Father's subsistence, being
perfect also and at no time separated from the Father's
subsistence: and in these last. days, without leaving the
Father's bosom, took up His abode in an uncircumscribed
manner in the womb of the holy Virgin, without the
instrumentality of seed, and in an incomprehensible manner
known only to Himself, and causing the flesh derived from
the holy Virgin to subsist in the very subsistence that
was before all the ages.
So then He was both in all things and
above all things and also dwelt in the womb of the holy
Mother of God, but in it by the energy of the incarnation.
He therefore became flesh and He took upon Himself thereby
the first-fruits of our compound nature(2), viz., the
flesh animated with the intelligent and national soul, so
that the very subsistence of God the Word was changed into
the subsistence of the flesh, and the subsistence of the
Word, which was formerly simple, became compound(3), yea
compounded of two perfect natures, divinity and humanity,
and bearing the characteristic and distinctive property of
the divine Sonship of God the Word in virtue of which it
is distinguished from the Father and the Spirit, and also
the characteristic and distinctive properties of the
flesh, in virtue of which it differs from the Mother and
the rest of mankind, bearing further the properties of the
divine nature in virtue of which it is united to the
Father and the Spirit, and the marks of the human nature
in virtue of which it is united to the Mother and to us.
And further it differs from the Father and the Spirit and
the Mother and us in being at once God and man. For this
we know to be the most special property of the subsistence
of Christ.
Wherefore we confess Him, even after
the incarnation, the one Son of God, and likewise Son of
Man, one Christ, one Lord, the only-begotten Son and Word
of God, one Lord Jesus. We reverence His two generations,
one from the Father before time and beyond cause and
reason and time and nature, and one in the end for our
sake, and like to us and above us; for our sake because it
was for our salvation, like to us in that He was man born
of woman(4) at full tithe(5), and above us because it was
not by seed, but by the Holy Spirit and the Holy Virgin
Mary(6), transcending the laws of parturition. We proclaim
Him not as God only, devoid of our humanity, nor yet as
man only, stripping Him of His divinity, nor as two
distinct persons, but as one and the same, at once God and
man, perfect God and perfect man, wholly God anti wholly
man, the same being wholly God, even though He was also
flesh and wholly man, even though He was also most high
God. And by "perfect God" and "perfect
man" we mean to emphasize the fulness and
unfailingness of the natures: while by "wholly
God" and "wholly man" we mean to lay stress
on the singularity and individuality of the subsistence.
And we confess also that there is one
incarnate nature of God the Word, expressing by the word
"incarnate(7)" the essence of the flesh,
according to the blessed Cyril(8). And so the Word was
made flesh and yet did not abandon His own proper
immateriality: He became wholly flesh and yet remained
wholly uncircumscribed. So far as He is body He is
diminished and contracted into narrow limits, but inasmuch
as He is God He is uncircumscribed, His flesh not being
coextensive with His uncircumscribed divinity.
He is then wholly perfect God, but yet
is not simply(9) God: for He is not only God but also man.
And He is also wholly(1) perfect man but not simply(2)
man, for He is not only man but also God. For
"simply(2)" here has reference to His nature,
and "wholly(1)" to His subsistence, just as
"another thing" would refer to nature, while
"another(3)" would refer to subsistence(4).
But observe(5) that although we hold
that the natures of the Lord permeate one another, yet we
know that the permeation springs from the divine nature.
For it is that that penetrates and permeates all things,
as it wills, while nothing penetrates it: and it is it,
too, that imparts to the flesh its own peculiar glories,
while abiding itself impossible and without participation
in the affections of the flesh. For if the sun imparts to
us his energies and yet does not participate in ours, how
much the rather must this be true of the Creator anti Lord
of the Sun(6).
CHAPTER VIII.
In reply to those who ask whether(7)
the natures of the Lord are brought under a continuous or
a discontinuous quantity(8).
If any one asks concerning the natures
of the Lord if they are brought under a continuous or
discontinuous quantity(9), we will say that the natures of
the Lord are neither one body nor one superficies(1), nor
one line, nor time, nor place, so as to be reduced to a
continuous quantity. For these are the things that are
reckoned continuously.
Further note that number deals with
things that differ, and it is quite impossible to
enumerate things that differ from one another in no
respect: and just so far as they differ are they
enumerated: for instance, Peter and Paul are not counted
separately in so far as they are one. For since they are
one in respect of their essence they cannot be spoken of
as two natures, but as they differ in respect of
subsistence they are spoken of as two subsistences. So
that number deals with differences, and just as the
differing objects differ from one another so far they are
enumerated.
The natures of the Lord, then, are
united without confusion so far as regards subsistence,
and they are divided without separation according to the
method and manner of difference. And it is not according
to the manner in which they are united that they are
enumerated, for it is not in respect of subsistence that
we hold that there are two natures of Christ: but
according to the manner in which they are divided without
separation they are enumerated, for it is in respect of
the method and manner of difference that there are two
natures of Christ. For being united in subsistence and
permeating one another, they are united without confusion,
each preserving throughout its own peculiar and natural
difference. Hence, since they are enumerated according to
the manner of difference, and that alone, they must be
brought under a discontinuous quantity.
Christ, therefore(2), is one, perfect
God and perfect man: and Him we worship along with the
Father and the Spirit, with one obeisance, adoring even
His immaculate flesh and not holding that the flesh is not
meet for worship: for in fact it is worshipped in the one
subsistence of the Word, which indeed became subsistence
for it. But in this we do not do homage to that which is
created. For we worship Him, not as mere flesh, but as
flesh united with divinity, and because His two natures
are brought under the one person and one subsistence of
God the Word. I fear to touch coal because of the fire
bound up with the wood. I worship the twofold nature of
Christ because of the divinity that is in Him bound up
with flesh. For I do not introduce a fourth person(3) into
the Trinity. God forbid! but I confess one person of God
the Word and of His flesh, and the Trinity remains
Trinity, even after the incarnation of the Word.
In reply(4) tothose who ask whether the
two natures are brought under a continuous or a
discontinuous quantity.
The natures of the Lord are neither one
body nor one superficies, nor one line, nor place, nor
time, so as to be brought under a continuous quantity: for
these are the things that are reckoned continuously. But
the natures of the Lord are united without confusion in
respect of subsistence, and are divided without separation
according to the method and manner of difference. And
according to the manner in which they are united they are
not enumerated. For we do not say that the natures of
Christ are two subsistences or two in respect of
subsistence. But according to the manner in which they are
divided without division, are they enumerated. For there
are two natures according to the method and manner of
difference. For being united in subsistence and permeating
one another they are united without confusion, neither
having been changed into the other, but each preserving
its own natural difference even after the union. For that
which is created remained created, and that which is
uncreated, uncreated. By the manner of difference, then,
and in that alone, they are enumerated, and thus are
brought under discontinuous quantity. For things which
differ from each other in no respect cannot be enumerated,
but just so far as they differ are they enumerated; for
instance, Peter and Paul are not enumerated in those
respects in which they are one: for being one in respect
of their essence they are not two natures nor are they so
spoken of. But inasmuch as they differ in subsistence they
are spoken of as two subsistences.So that difference is
the cause of number.
CHAPTER IX.
In reply to the question whether
there is Nature that has no Subsistence.
For although(5) there is no nature
without subsistence, nor essence apart from person (since
in truth it is in persons and subsistences that essence
and nature are to be contemplated), yet it does not
necessarily follow that the natures that are united to one
another in subsistence should have each its own proper
subsistence. For after they have come together into one
subsistence, it is possible that neither should they be
without subsistence, nor should each have its own peculiar
subsistence, but that both should have one and the same
subsistence(6). For since one and the same subsistence of
the Word has become the subsistence of the natures,
neither of them is permitted to be without subsistence,
nor are they allowed to have subsistences that differ from
each other, or to have sometimes the subsistence of this
nature and sometimes of that, but always without division
or separation they both have the same subsistence--a
subsistence which is not broken up into parts or divided,
so that one part should belong to this, and one to that,
but which belongs wholly to this and wholly to that in its
absolute entirety. For the flesh of God the Word did not
subsist as an independent subsistence, nor did there arise
another subsistence besides that of God the Word, but as
it existed in that it became rather a subsistence which
subsisted in another, than one which was an independent
subsistence. Wherefore, neither does it lack subsistence
altogether, nor yet is there thus introduced into the
Trinity another subsistence.
CHAPTER X.
Concerning the Trisagium ("the
Thrice Holy").
This being so(7), we declare that the
addition which the vain-minded Peter the Fuller made to
the Trisagium or "Thrice Holy" Hymn is
blasphemous(8); for it introduces a fourth person into the
Trinity, giving a separate place to the Son of God, Who is
the truly subsisting power of the Father, and a separate
place to Him Who was crucified as though He were different
from the "Mighty One," or as though the Holy
Trinity was considered possible, and the Father and the
Holy Spirit suffered on the Cross along with the Son. Have
done with this blasphemous(9) and nonsensical
interpolation! For we hold the words "Holy God"
to refer to the Father, without limiting the title of
divinity to Him alone, but acknowledging also as God the
Son and the Holy Spirit: and the words "Holy and
Mighty" we ascribe to the Son, without stripping the
Father and the Holy Spirit of might: and the words
"Holy and Immortal" we attribute to the Holy
Spirit, without depriving the Father and the Son of
immortality. For, indeed, we apply all the divine names
simply and unconditionally to each of the subsistences in
imitation of the divine Apostle's words. But to us there
is but one God, the Father, of Whom are all things, and we
in Him: and one Lord Jesus Christ by Whom are all things,
and we by Him(1)(2) And, nevertheless, we follow Gregory
the Theologian(3) when he says, "But to us there is
but one God, the Father, of Whom are all things, and one
Lord Jesus Christ, through Whom are all things, and one
Holy Spirit, in Whom are all things:" for the words
"of Whom" and "through Whom" and
"in Whom" do not divide the natures (for neither
the prepositions nor the order of the names could ever be
changed), but they characterise the properties of one
unconfused nature. And this becomes clear from the fact
that they are once more gathered into one, if only one
reads with care these words of the same Apostle, Of Him
and through Him and in Him are all things: to Him be the
glory for ever and ever. Amen(4).
For that the "Trisagium"
refers not to the Son alone(5), but to the Holy Trinity,
the divine and saintly Athanasius and Basil and Gregory,
and all the band of the divinely-inspired Fathers bear
witness: because, as a matter of fact, by the threefold
holiness the Holy Seraphim suggest to us the three
subsistences of the superessential Godhead. But by the one
Lordship they denote the one essence and dominion of the
supremely-divine Trinity. Gregory the Theologian of a
truth says(6), "Thus, then, the Holy of Holies, which
is completely veiled by the Seraphim, and is glorified
with three consecrations, meet together in one lordship
and one divinity." This was the most beautiful and
sublime philosophy of still another of our predecessors.
Ecclesiastical historians(7), then, say
that once when the people of Constantinople were offering
prayers to God to avert a threatened calamity(8), during
Proclus' tenure of the office of Archbishop, it happened
that a boy was snatched up from among the people, and was
taught by angelic teachers the "Thrice Holy"
Hymn, "Thou Holy God, Holy and Mighty One, Holy and
Immortal One, have mercy upon us:" and when once more
he was restored to earth, he told what he had learned, and
all the people sang the Hymn, and so the threatened
calamity was averted. And in the fourth holy and great
(Ecumenical Council, I mean the one at Chalcedon, we are
told that it was in this form that the Hymn was sung; for
the minutes of this holy assembly so record it(9). It is,
therefore, a matter for laughter and ridicule that this
"Thrice Holy" Hymn, taught us by the angels, and
confirmed by the averting of calamity(1), ratified and
established by so great an assembly of the holy Fathers,
and sung first by the Seraphim as a declaration of the
three subsistences of the Godhead, should be mangled and
forsooth emended to suit the view of the stupid Fuller as
though he were higher than the Seraphim. But oh! the
arrogance! not to say folly! But we say it thus, though
demons should rend us in pieces, "Do Thou, Holy God,
Holy and Mighty One, Holy and Immortal One, have mercy
upon us."
CHAPTER XI.
Concerning the Nature as viewed in
Species and in Individual, and concerning the difference
between Union and Incarnation: and how this is to be
understood, "The one Nature of God the Word
Incarnate."
Nature(2) is regarded either abstractly
as a matter of pure thought(3) (for it has no independent
existence): or commonly in all subsistences of the same
species as their bond of union, and is then spoken of as
nature viewed in species: or universally as the same, but
with the addition of accidents, in one subsistence, and is
spokenof as nature viewed in the individual, this being
identical with nature viewed in species(4). God the Word
Incarnate, therefore, did not assume the nature that is
regarded as an abstraction in pure thought (for tiffs is
not incarnation, but only an imposture and a figment of
incarnation), nor the nature viewed in species (for He did
not assume all the subsistences): but the nature viewed in
the individual, which is identical with that viewed in
species. For He took on Himself the elements of our
compound nature, and these not as having an independent
existence or as being originally an individual, and in
this way assumed by Him, but as existing in His own
subsistence. For the subsistence of God the Word in itself
became the subsistence of the flesh, and accordingly
"the Word became flesh(5)" clearly without any
change, and likewise the flesh became Word without
alteration, and God became man. For the Word is God, and
man is God, through having one and the same subsistence.
And so it is possible to speak of tile same thing as being
the nature of the Word and the nature in the individual.
For it signifies strictly and exclusively neither the
individual, that is, the subsistence, nor the common
nature of the subsistences, but the common nature as
viewed and presented in one of the subsistences.
Union, then, is one thing, and
incarnation is something quite different. For union
signifies only the conjunction, but not at all that with
which union is effected. But incarnation (which is just
the same as if one said "the putting on of man's
nature") signifies that tile conjunction is with
flesh, that is to say, with man, just as the heating of
iron(6) implies its union with fire. Indeed, the blessed
Cyril himself, when he is interpreting the phrase,
"one nature of God the Word Incarnate," says in
the second epistle to Sucensus, "For if we simply
said 'the one nature of the Word' and then were silent,
and did not add the word 'incarnate.' but, so to speak,
quite excluded the dispensation(7), there would be some
plausibility in the question they feign to ask, 'If one
nature is the whole, what becomes of the perfection in
humanity, or how has the essence(8) like us come to
exist?' But inasmuch as the perfection in humanity and the
disclosure of the essence like us are conveyed in the word
'incarnate,' they must cease from relying on a mere
straw" Here, then, he placed the nature of the Word
over nature itself. For if He had received nature instead
of subsistence, it would not have been absurd to have
omitted the "incarnate." For when we say simply
one subsistence of God the Word, we do not err(9). In like
manner, also, Leontius the Byzantine(1) considered this
phrase to refer to nature, and not to subsistence. But in
the Defence which he wrote in reply to the attacks that
Theodoret made on the second anathema, the blessed
Cyril(2) says this: "The nature of the Word, that is,
the subsistence, which is the Word itself." So that
"the nature of the Word" means neither the
subsistence alone, nor "the common nature of the
subsistence," but "the common nature viewed as a
whole in the subsistence of the Word."
It has been said, then, that the nature
of the Word became flesh, that is, was united to flesh:
but that the nature of the Word suffered in the flesh we
have never heard up till now, though we have been taught
that Christ suffered in the flesh. So that "the
nature of the Word" does not mean "the
subsistence." It remains, therefore, to say that to
become flesh is to be united with the flesh, while the
Word having become flesh means that the very subsistence
of the Word became without change the subsistence of the
flesh. It has also been said that God became man, and man
God. For the Word which is God became without alteration
man. But that the Godhead became man, or became flesh, or
put on the nature of man, this we have never heard. This,
indeed, we have learned, that the Godhead was united to
humanity in one of its subsistences, and it has been
stated that God took on a different form or essence(3), to
wit our own. For the name God is applicable to each of the
subsistences, but we cannot use the term Godhead in
reference to subsistence. For we are never told that the
Godhead is the Father alone, or the Son alone, or the Holy
Spirit alone. For "Godhead" implies
"nature," while "Father" implies
subsistence just as "Humanity" implies nature,
and "Peter" subsistence. But "God"
indicates the common element of the nature, and is
applicable derivatively to each of the subsistences, just
as "man" is. For He Who has divine nature is
God, and he who has human nature is man.
Besides all this, notice(4) that the
Father and the Holy Spirit take no part at all in the
incarnation of the Word except in connection with the
miracles, and in respect of good will and purpose.
CHAPTER XII.
That the holy Virgin is the Mother of
God: an argument directed against the Nestorians.
Moreover we proclaim the holy Virgin to
be in strict truth(5) the Mother of God(6). For inasmuch
as He who was born of her was true God, she who bare the
true God incarnate is the true mother of God. For we hold
that God was born of her, not implying that the divinity
of the Word received from her the beginning of its being,
but meaning that God the Word Himself, Who was begotten of
the Father timelessly before the ages, and was with the
Father and the Spirit without beginning anti through
eternity, took up His abode in these last days for the
sake of our salvation in the Virgin's womb, and was
without change made flesh and born of her. For the holy
Virgin did not bare mere man but true God: and not mere
God but God incarnate, Who did not bring down His body
from Heaven, nor simply passed through the Virgin as
channel, but received from her flesh of like essence to
our own and subsisting in Himself(7). For if the body had
come down from heaven and had not partaken of our nature,
what would have been the use of His becoming man? For the
purpose of God the Word becoming man(8) was that the very
same nature, which had sinned and fallen and become
corrupted, should triumph over the deceiving tyrant and so
be freed from corruption, just as the divine apostle puts
it, For since by man came death, by man came also the
resurrection of the dead(9). If the first is true the
second must also be true.
Although(1), however, he says, The
first Adam is of the earth earthy; the second Adam is Lord
from Heaven(2), he does not say that His body is from
heaven, but emphasises the fact that He is not mere man.
For, mark, he called Him both Adam and Lord, thus
indicating His double nature. For Adam is, being
interpreted, earth-born: and it is clear that man's nature
is earth-born since he is formed from earth, but the title
Lord signifies His divine essence.
And again the Apostle says: God sent
forth His only-begotten Son, made of a woman(3). He did
not say "made by a woman." Wherefore the divine
apostle meant that the only-begotten Son of God and God is
the same as He who was made man of the Virgin, and that He
who was born of the Virgin is the same as the Son of God
and God.
But He was born after the bodily
fashion inasmuch as He became man, and did not take up His
abode in a man formed beforehand, as in a prophet, but
became Himself in essence and truth man, that is He caused
flesh animated with the intelligent and reasonable to
subsist in His own subsistence, and Himself became
subsistence for it. For this is the meaning of "made
of a woman." For how could the very Word of God
itself have been made under the law, if He did not become
man of like essence with ourselves?
Hence it is with justice and truth that
we call the holy Mary the Mother of God. For this name
embraces the whole mystery of the dispensation. For if she
who bore Him is the Mother of God, assuredly He Who was
born of her is God and likewise also man. For how could
God, Who was before the ages, have been born of a woman
unless He had become man ? For the son of man must clearly
be man himself. But if He Who was born of a woman is
Himself God, manHe Who was born of God the Father in
accordance with the laws of an essence that is divine and
knows no beginning, and He Who was in the last days born
of the Virgin in accordance with the laws of an essence
that has beginning and is subject to time, that is, an
essence which is human, must be one and the same. The name
in truth signifies the one subsistence and the two natures
and the two generations Of our Lord Jesus Christ.
But we never say that the holy Virgin
is the Mother of Christ(4) because it was in order to do
away with the title Mother of God, and to bring dishonour
on the Mother of God, who alone is in truth worthy of
honour above all creation, that the impure and abominable
Judaizing Nestorius(5), that vessel of dishonour, invented
this name for an insult(6). For David the king, and Aaron,
the high priest, are also called Christ(7), for it is
customary to make kings and priests by anointing: and
besides every God-inspired man may be called Christ. but
yet be is not by nature God: yea, the accursed Nestorius
insulted Him Who was born of the Virgin by calling Him
God-bearer(8). May it be far from us to speak of or think
of Him as God-bearer only(9), Who is in truth God
incarnate. For the Word Himself became flesh, having been
in truth conceived of the Virgin, but coming forth as God
with the assumed nature which, as soon as He was brought
forth into being, was deified by Him, so that these three
things took place simultaneously, the assumption of our
nature, the coming into being, and the deification of the
assumed nature by the Word. And thus it is that the holy
Virgin is thought of and spoken of as the Mother of God,
not only because of the nature of the Word, but also
because of the deification of man's nature, the miracles
of conception and of existence being wrought together, to
wit, the conception the Word, and the existence of the
flesh in the Word Himself. For the very Mother of God in
some marvellous manner was the means of fashioning the
Framer of all things and of bestowing manhood on the God
and Creator of all, Who deified the nature that He
assumed, while the union preserved those things that were
united just as they were united, that is to say, not only
the divine nature of Christ but also His human nature, not
only that which is above us but that which is of us. For
He was not first made like us and only later became higher
than us, but ever(1) from His first coating into being He
existed with the double nature, because He existed in the
Word Himself from the beginning of the conception.
Wherefore He is human in His own nature, but also, in some
marvellous manner, of God and divine. Moreover He has the
properties of the living flesh: for by reason of the
dispensation(2) the Word received these which are,
according to the order of natural motion, truly
natural(3).
CHAPTER XIII.
Concerning the properties of the two
Natures.
Confessing, then, the same Jesus
Christ, our Lord, to be perfect God and perfect man, we
hold that the same has all the attributes of the Father
save that of being ingenerate, and all the attributes of
the first Adam, save only his sin, these attributes being
body and the intelligent and rational soul; and further
that He has, corresponding to the two natures, the two
sets of natural qualities belonging to the two natures:
two natural volitions, one divine and one human, two
natural, energies, one divine and one human, two natural
free-wills, one divine and one human, and two kinds of
wisdom and knowledge, one divine and one human. For being
of like essence with God and the Father, He wills and
energises freely as God, and being also of like essence
with us He likewise wills and energises freely as man. For
His are the miracles and His also are the passive states.
CHAPTER XIV.
Concerning the volitions and
free-will of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Since, then, Christ has two natures, we
hold that He has also two natural wills and two natural
energies. But since His two natures have one subsistence,
we hold that it is one and the same person who wills and
energises naturally in both natures, of which, and in
which, and also which is Christ our Lord: and moreover
that He wills and energises without separation but as a
united whole. For He wills and energises in either form in
close communion with the other(4). For things that have
the same essence have also the same will and energy, while
things that are different in essence are different in will
and energy(5); and vice versa, things that have the same
will anti energy have the same essence, while things that
are different in will and energy are different in essence.
Wherefore(6) in the case of the Father
and Son and Holy Spirit we recognise, from their sameness
in will and energy, their sameness in nature. But in the
case of the divine dispensation(7) we recognise from their
difference in will and energy the difference of the two
natures, and as we perceive the difference of the two
natures we confess that the wills and energies also are
different. For just as the number of the natures of one
and the same Christ, when considered and spoken of with
piety, do not cause a division of the one Christ but
merely bring out the fact that the difference between the
natures is maintained even in the union, so it is with the
number of wills and energies that belong essentially to
His natures. (For He was endowed with the powers of
willing and energising in both natures, for the sake of
our salvation) It does not introduce division: God forbid!
but merely brings out the fact that the differences
between them are safeguarded and preserved even in the
union. For we hold that wills and energies are faculties
belonging to nature, not to subsistence; I mean those
faculties of will and energy by which He Who wills and
energises does so. For if we allow that they belong to
subsistence, we will be forced to say that the three
subsistences of the Holy Trinity have different wills and
different energies.
For it is to be noted s that willing
and the manner of willing are not the same thing. For to
will is a faculty of nature, just as seeing is, for all
men possess it; but the manner of willing does not depend
on nature but on our judgment, just as does also the
manner of seeing, whether well or ill. For all men do not
will in the same way, nor do they all see in the same way.
And this also we will grant in connection with energies.
For the manner of willing, or seeing, or energising, is
the mode of using the faculties of will and sight and
energy, belonging only to him who uses them, and marking
him off from others by the generally accepted difference.
Simple willing then is spoken of as
volition or the faculty of will(9), being a rational
propension(1) and natural will; but in a particular way
willing, or that which underlies volition, is the object
of will(2), and will dependent on judgment(3). Further
that which has innate in it the faculty of volition is
spoken of as capable of willing(4): as for instance the
divine is capable of willing, and the human in like
manner. But he who exercises volition, that is to say the
subsistence, for instance Peter, is spoken of as willing.
Since, then(5), Christ is one and His
subsistence is one, He also Who wills both as God and as
man is one and the same. And since He has two natures
endowed with volition, inasmuch as they are rational (for
whatever is rational is endowed with volition and
free-will), we shall postulate two volitions or natural
wills in Him. For He in His own person is capable of
volition in accordance with both His natures. For He
assumed that faculty of volition which belongs naturally
to us. And since Christ, Who in His own person wills
according to either nature, is one, we shall postulate the
same object of will in His case, not as though He wills
only those things which He willed naturally as God (for it
is no part of Godhead to will to eat or drink and so
forth), but as willing also those things which human
nature requires fits support(6), and this without
involving any opposition in judgment, but simply as the
result of the individuality of the natures. For then it
was that He thus willed naturally, when His divine
volition so willed and permitted the flesh to suffer and
do that which was proper to it.
But that volition is implanted in man
by nature(7) is manifest from this. Excluding the divine
life, there are three forms of life: the vegetative, the
sentient, and the intellectual. The properties of the
vegetative life are the functions of nourishment, and
growth, and production: that of the sentient life is
impulse: and that of the rational and intellectual life is
freedom of will. If, then, nourishment belongs by nature
to the vegetative life and impulse to the sentient,
freedom of will by nature belongs to the rational and
intellectual life. But freedom of will is nothing else
than volition. The Word, therefore, having become flesh,
endowed with life and mind and free-will, became also
endowed with volition.
Further, that which is natural is not
the result of training: for no one learns how to think, or
live, or hunger, or thirst, or sleep. Nor do we learn how
to will: so that willing is natural.
And again: if in the case of creatures
devoid of reason nature rules, while nature is ruled in
man who is moved of his own free-will and volition, it
follows, then, that man is by nature endowed with
volition.
And again: if man has been made after
the image of the blessed and super-essential Godhead, and
if the divine nature is by nature endowed with free-will
and volition, it follows that man, as its image, is free
by nature and volitive(8). For the fathers defined freedom
as volition(9).
And further: if to will is a part of
the nature of every man and not present in some and absent
in others, and if that which is seen to be common to all
is a characteristic feature of the nature that belongs to
the individuals of the class, surely, then, man is by
nature endowed with volition(1).
And once more: if the nature receives
neither more nor less, but all are equally endowed with
volition and not some more than others, then by nature man
is endowed with volition(10). So that since man is by
nature endowed with volition, the Lord also must be by
nature endowed with volition, not only because He is God,
but also because He became man. For just as He assumed our
nature, so also He has assumed naturally our will. And in
this way the Fathers said that He formed our will in
Himself(11).
If the will is not natural, it must be
either hypostatic or unnatural. But if it is hypostatic,
the Son must thus, forsooth, have a different will from
what the Father has: for that which is hypostatic is
characteristic of subsistence only. And if it is
unnatural, will must be a defection from nature: for what
is unnatural is destructive of what is natural.
The God and Father of all things wills
either as Father or as God. Now if as Father, His will
will be different from that of the Son, for the Son is not
the Father. But if as God, the Son is God and likewise the
Holy Spirit is God, and so volition is part of His nature,
that is, it is natural.
Besides(12), if according to the view
of the Fathers, those who have one and the same will have
also one and the same essence, and if the divinity and
humanity of Christ have one and the same will, then
assuredly these have also one and the same essence.
And again: if according to the view of
the Fathers the distinction between the natures is not
seen in the single will, we mast either, when we speak of
the one will, cease to speak of the different natures in
Christ or, when we speak of the different natures of
Christ, cease to speak of the one will.
And further(1), the divine Gospel says,
The Lord came into the borders of Tyre and Sidon and
entered into a house, and would have no man know it; but
He could not be hid(2). If, then, His divine will is
omnipotent, but yet, though He would, He could not be hid,
surely it was as man that He would and could not, and so
as man He must be endowed with volition.
And once again(3), the Gospel tells us
that, He, having come into the place, said 'I thirst': and
they gave Him same vinegar mixed with gall, and when He
had tasted it fare would not drink(4). If, then, on the
one hand it was as God that tie suffered thirst and when
He had tasted would not drink, surely He must be subject
to passion s also as God, for thirst and taste are
passions(6). But if it was not as God but altogether as
man that He was athirst, likewise as man He must be
endowed with volition(7).
Moreover, the blessed Paul the Apostle
says, He became obedient unto death, even the death of the
cross(8). But obedience is subjection of the real will,
not of the unreal will. For that which is irrational is
not said to be obedient or disobedient(9). But the Lord
having become obedient to the Father, became so not as God
but as man. For as God He is not said to be obedient or
disobedient. For these things are of the things that are
trader one's band(1), as the inspired Gregorius said(2).
Wherefore, then, Christ is endowed with volition as man.
While, however, we assert that will is
natural, we hold not that it is dominated by necessity,
but that it is free. For if it is rational, it must be
absolutely free. For it is not only the divine and
uncreated nature that is free from the bonds of necessity,
but also the intellectual and created nature. And this is
manifest: for God, being by nature good and being by
nature the Creator and by nature God, is not all this of
necessity. For who is there to introduce this necessity?
It is to be observed further(3), that
freedom of will is used in several senses, one in
connection with God, another in connection with angels,
and a third in connection with men. For used in reference
to God it is to be understood in a superessential manner,
and in reference to angels it is to be taken in the sense
that the election is concomitant with the state(4), and
admits of the interposition of no interval of time at all:
for while the angel possesses free-will by nature, he uses
it without let or hindrance, having neither antipathy on
the part of the body to overcome nor any assailant. Again,
used in reference to men, it is to be taken in the sense
that the state is considered to be anterior in time to the
election. For than is free and has free-will by nature,
but he has also the assault of the devil to impede him and
the motion of the body: and thus through the assault and
the weight of the batty, election comes to be later than
the state.
If, then, Adam(5) obeyed of his own
will and ate of his own will, surely in us the will is the
first part to suffer. And if the will is the first to
suffer, and the Word Incarnate did not assume this with
the rest of our nature, it follows that we have not been
freed from sin.
Moreover, if the faculty of free-will
which is in nature is His work and yet He did not assume
it, He either condemned His own workmanship as not good,
or grudged us the comfort it brought, and so deprived us
of the full benefit, and shewed that He was Himself
subject to passion since He was not willing or not able to
work out our perfect salvation.
Moreover, one cannot speak of one
compound thing made of two wills in the same way as a
subsistence is a composition of two natures. Firstly
because the compositions are of things in subsistence
(hypotasis), not of things viewed in a different category,
not in one proper to them(6): and secondly, because if we
speak of composition of wills and energies, we will be
obliged to speak of composition of the other natural
properties, such as the uncreated and the created, the
invisible and the visible, and so on. And what will be the
name of the will that is compounded out of two wills? For
the compound cannot be called by the name of the elements
that make it up. For otherwise we should call that which
is compounded of natures nature and not subsistence. And
further, if we say that there is one compound will in
Christ, we separate Him in will from the Father, for
theFather's will is not compound. It remains, therefore,
to say that the subsistence of Christ atone is compound
and common, as in the case of the natures so also in that
of the natural properties.
And we cannot(7), if we wish to be
accurate, speak of Christ as having judgment
(<greek>gnwmh</greek>) and preference(8). For
judgment is a disposition with reference to the decision
arrived at after investigation and deliberation concerning
something unknown, that is to say, after counsel and
decision. And after judgment comes preference(9), which
chooses out and selects the one rather than the other. But
the Lord being not mere man but also God, and knowing all
things, had no need of inquiry. and investigation, and
counsel, and decision, and by nature made whatever is good
His own and whatever is bad foreign to Him(1). For thus
says Isaiah the prophet, Before the child shall know to
prefer the evil, he shall choose the good; because before
the child knows good or evil, he refuses wickedness by
choosing the good(2). For the word "before"
proves that it is not with investigation and deliberation,
as is the way with us, but as God and as subsisting in a
divine manner in the flesh, that is to say, being united
in subsistence to the flesh, and because of His very
existence and all-embracing knowledge, that He is
possessed of good in His own nature. For the virtues are
natural qualities(3), and are implanted in all by nature
and in equal measure, even if we do not all in equal
measure employ our natural energies. By the transgression
we were driven from the natural to the unnatural(4). But
the Lord led us back from the unnatural into the
natural(5). For this is what is the meaning of in our
image, after our likeness(6). And the discipline and
trouble of this life were not designed as a means for our
attaining virtue which was foreign to our nature, but to
enable us to cast aside the evil that was foreign and
contrary to our nature: just as on laboriously removing
from steel the rust which is not natural to it but
acquired through neglect, we reveal the natural brightness
of the steel.
Observe further that the word judgment
(<greek>gnwmh</greek>) is used in many ways
and in many senses. Sometimes it signifies exhortation: as
when the divine apostle says, Now concerning virgins I
have no commandment of the Lord; yet I give my
judgment(7): sometimes it means counsel, as when the
prophet David says, They have taken crafty counsel against
Thy people(8): sometimes it means a decree, as when we
read in Daniel, Concerning whom (or, what) went this
shameless decree forth(9)? At other times it is used in
the sense of belief, or opinion, or purpose, and, to put
it shortly, the word judgment has twenty-eight(1)
different meanings.
CHAPTER XV.
Concerning the energies in our Lord
Jesus Christ.
We hold, further, that there are two
energies(2) in our Lord Jesus Christ. For He possesses on
the one hand, as God and being of like essence with the
Father, the divine energy, and, likewise, since He became
man and of like essence to us, the energy proper to human
nature(3).
But observe that energy and capacity
for energy, and the product of energy, and the agent of
energy, are all different. Energy is the efficient
(<greek>drastikh</greek>) and essential
activity of nature: the capacity for energy is the nature
from which proceeds energy: the product of energy is that
which is effected by energy: and the agent of energy is
the person or subsistence which uses the energy. Further,
sometimes energy is used in the sense of the product of
energy, and the product of energy in that of energy, just
as the terms creation and creature are sometimes
transposed. For we say "all creation," meaning
creatures.
Note also that energy is an activity
and is energised rather than energises; as Gregory the
Theologian says m his thesis concerning the Holy
Spirit(4): "If energy exists, it must manifestly be
energised and will not energise: and as soon as it has
been energised, it will cease."
Life itself, it should be observed, is
energy, yea, the primal energy of the living creature and
so is the whole economy of the living creature, its
functions of nutrition and growth, that is, the vegetative
side of its nature, and the movement stirred By impulse,
that is, the sentient side, and its activity of intellect
and free-will. Energy, moreover, is the perfect
realisation of power. If, then, we contemplate all these
in Christ, surely we must also hold that He possesses
human energy.
The first thought(5) that arises in us
is called energy: and it is simple energy not involving
any relationship, the mind sending forth the thoughts
peculiar to it in an independent and invisible way, for if
it did not do so it could not justly be called mind.
Again, the revelation and unfolding of thought by means of
articulate speech is said to be energy. But this is no
longer simple energy that revolves no relationship, but it
is considered in relation as being composed of thought and
speech. Further, the very relation which be who does
anything bears to that which is brought about is energy;
and the very thing that is effected is called energy(6).
The first belongs to the soul alone, the second to the
soul making use of the body, the third to the body
animated by mind, and the last is the effect(7). For the
mind sees beforehand what is to be and then performs it
thus by means of the body. And so the hegemony belongs to
the soul, for it uses the body as an instrument, leading
and restraining it. But the energy of the body is quite
different, for the booty is led and moved by the soul. And
with regard to the effect, the touching and handling and,
so to speak, the embrace of what is effected, belong to
the body, while the figuration and formation belong to the
soul. And so in connection with our Lord Jesus Christ, the
power of miracles is the energy of His divinity, while the
work of His hands and the willing and the saying, I will,
be thou clean(8), are the energy of His humanity. And as
to the effect, the breaking of the loaves(9), and the fact
that the leper heard the "I will," belong to His
humanity, while the multiplication of the loaves and the
purification of the leper belong to His divinity. For
through both, that is through the energy of the booty anti
the energy of the soul. He displayed one and the same,
cognate and equal divine energy. For just as we saw that
His natures were united and permeate one another, and yet
do not deny that they are different but even enumerate
them, although we know they are inseparable, so also in
connection with the wills and the energies we know their
union, and we recognise their difference and enumerate
them without introducing separation. For just as the flesh
was deified without undergoing change in its own nature,
in the same way also will and energy are deified without
transgressing their own proper limits. For whether He is
the one or the other, He is one and the same, and whether
He wills and energises in one way or the other, that is as
God or as man, He is one and the same.
We must, then, maintain that Christ has
two energies in virtue of His double nature. For things
that have diverse natures, have also different energies,
and things that have diverse energies, have also different
natures. And so conversely, things that have the same
nature have also the same energy, and things that have one
and the same energy have also one and the same essence(1),
which is the view of the Fathers, who declare the divine
meaning(2). One of these alternatives, then, must be true:
either, if we hold that Christ has one energy. we must
also hold that He has but one essence, or, if we are
solicitous about truth. and confess that He has according
to the doctrine of the Gospels and the Fathers two
essences, we must also confess that He has two energies
corresponding to and accompanying them. For as He is of
like essence with God and the Father in divinity, He will
be His equal also in energy. And as He likewise is of like
essence with us in humanity Hewill be our equal also in
energy. For the blessed Gregory, bishop of Nyssa, says(3),
"Things that have one and the same energy, have also
absolutely the same power." For all energy is the
effect of power. But it cannot be that uncreated and
created nature have one and the same nature or power or
energy. But if we should hold that Christ has but one
energy, we should attribute to the divinity of the Word
the passions of the intelligentspirit, viz. tear and grief
and anguish.
If they should say(4), indeed, that the
holy Fathers said in their disputation concerning the Holy
Trinity, "Things that have one and the same essence
have also one and the same energy, and things which have
different essences have also different energies," and
that it is not right to transfer to the dispensation what
has reference to matters of theology, we shall answer that
if it has been said by the Fathers solely with reference
to theology. and if the Son has not even after the
incarnation the same energy as the Father s, assuredly He
cannot have the same essence. But to whom shall we
attribute this, My Father worketh hitherto and I work(6):
and this, What things soever He seeth the Father doing,
these also doeth the Son likewise(7): and this, If ye
believe not Me, believe My works(8): and this, The work
which I do bear witness concerning Me(9): and this. As the
Father raised up the dead and quickeneth them, even so the
Son quickeneth whom He will(1). For all these shew not
only that He is of like essence to the Father even after
the incarnation, but that He has also the same energy.
And again: if the providence that
embraces all creation is not only of the Father and the
Holy Spirit, but also of the Son even after the
incarnation, assuredly since that is energy, He must have
even after the incarnation the same energy as the Father.
But if we have learnt from the miracles
that Christ has the same essence as the Father, and since
the miracles happen to be the energy of God, assuredly He
must have even after the incarnation the same energy as
the Father.
But, if there is one energy belonging
to both His divinity and His humanity, it will be
compound, and will be either a different energy from that
of the Father, or the Father, too, will have a compound
energy. But if the Father has a compound energy,
manifestly He must also have a compound nature.
But if they should say that together
with energy is also introduced personality(2), we shall
reply that if personality is introduced along with energy,
then the true converse must hold good that energy is also
introduced along with personality; and there will be also
three energies of the Holy Trinity just as there are three
persons or subsistences, or there will be one person and
one subsistence just as there is only one energy. Indeed,
the holy Fathers have maintained with one voice that
things that have the same essence have also the same
energy.
But further, if personality is
introduced along with energy, those who divine that
neither one nor two energies of Christ are to be spoken
of, do not maintain that either one or two persons of
Christ are to be spoken of.
Take the case of the flaming sword;
just as in it the natures of the fire and the steel are
preserved distinct(3), so also are their two energies and
their effects. For the energy of the steel is its cutting
power, and that of the fire is its burning power, and the
cut is the effect of the energy of the steel, and the burn
is the effect of the energy of the fire: and these are
kept quite distinct in the burnt cut, and in the cut burn,
although neither does the burning take place apart from
the cut after the union of the two, nor the cut apart from
the burning: and we do not maintain on account of the
twofold natural energy that there are two flaming swords,
nor do we confuse the essential difference of the energies
on account of the unity of the flaming sword. In like
manner also, in the case of Christ, His divinity possesses
an energy that is divine and omnipotent while His humanity
has an energy such as is our own. And the effect of His
human energy was His taking the child by the hand and
drawing her to Himself, while that of His divine energy
was the restoring of her to life(4). For the one is quite
distinct from the other, although they are inseparable
from one another in theandric energy. But if, because
Christ has one subsistence, He must also have one energy,
then, because He has one subsistence, He must also have
one essence.
And again: if we should hold that
Christ has but one energy, this must be either divine or
human, or neither. But if we hold that it is divine(5) we
must maintain that He is God alone, stripped of our
humanity. And if we hold that it is human, we shall be
guilty of the impiety of saying that He is mere man. And
if we hold that it is neither divine nor human, we must
also hold that He is neither God nor man, of like essence
neither to the Father nor to us. For it is as a result of
the union that the identity in hypostasis arises, but yet
the difference between the natures is not done away with.
But since the difference between the natures is preserved,
manifestly also the energies of the natures will be
preserved. For no nature exists that is lacking in energy.
If Christ our Master(6) has one energy,
it must be either created or uncreated; for between these
there is no energy, just as there is no nature. If, then,
it is created, it will point to created nature alone, but
if it is uncreated, it will betoken uncreated essence
alone. For that which is natural must completely
correspond with its nature: for there cannot exist a
nature that is defective. But the energy(7) that
harmonises with nature does not belong to that which is
external: and this is manifest because, apart from the
energy that haromonises with nature, no nature can either
exist or be known. For through that in which each thing
manifests its energy, the absence of change confirms its
own proper nature.
If Christ has one energy, it must be
one and the same energy that performs both divine anti
human actions. But there is no existing thing which
abiding in its natural state can act in opposite ways: for
fire does not freeze and boil, nor does water dry up and
make wet. How then could He Who is by nature God, and Who
became by nature man, have both performed miracles, and
endured passions with one and the same energy?
If, then, Christ assumed the human
mind, that is to say, the intelligent and reasonable soul,
undoubtedly He has + thought, and will think for ever. But
thought is the energy of the mind: and so Christ. as man,
is endowed with energy, and will be so for ever.
Indeed, the most wise and great and
holy John Chrysostom says in his interpretation of the
Acts, in the second discourse(8), "One would not err
if he should call even His passion action: for in that He
suffered all things, tie accomplished that great and
marvellous work, the overthrow of death, and all His other
works."
It all energy is defined as essential
movement of some nature, as those who are versed in these
matters say, where does one perceive any nature that has
no movement, and is completely devoid of energy, or where
does one find energy that is not movement of natural
power? But, as the blessed Cyril says(9), no one in his
senses could admit that there was but one natural energy
of God and His creation(1). It is not His human nature
that raises up Lazarus from the dead, nor is it His divine
power that sheds tears: for the shedding of tears is
peculiar to human nature while the life is peculiar to the
enhypostatic life. But yet they are common the one to the
other, because of the identity in subsistence. For Christ
is one, and one also is His person or subsistence, but yet
He has two natures, one belonging to His humanity, and
another belonging to His divinity. And the glory. indeed,
which proceeded naturally from His divinity became common
to both through the identity in subsistence. and again on
account of His flesh that which was lowly became common to
both. For He Who is the one or the other, that isGod or
man, is one and the same, and both what is divine and what
is human belong to Himself. For while His divinity
performed the miracles, they were not done apart from the
flesh, and while His flesh performed its lowly offices,
they were not done apart from the divinity. For His
divinity was joined to the suffering flesh, yet remaining
without passion, and endured the saving passions, and the
holy mind was joined to the energising divinity of the
Word, perceiving and knowing what was being accomplished.
And thus His divinity communicates its
own glories to the body while it remains itself without
part in the sufferings of the flesh. For His flesh did not
suffer through His divinity in the same way that His
divinity energised tbrough the flesh. For the flesh acted
as the instrument of His divinity. Although, therefore,
from the first conception there was no division at all
between the two forms(2), but the actions of either form
through all the time became those of one person,
nevertheless we do not in any way confuse those things
that took place without separation, but recognise from the
quality of its works what sort of form anything has.
Christ, then, energises according to
both His natures(3) and either nature energises in Him in
communion with the other, the Word performing through tile
authority and power of its divinity all the actions proper
to the Word, i.e. all acts of supremacy and sovereignty,
and the body performing all the actions proper to the
body, in obedience to the will of the Word that is united
to it, and of whom it has become a distinct part. For He
was not moved of Himself to the natural passions(4), nor
again did He in that way recoil from the things of pain,
and pray for release from them, or suffer what befel from
without, but He was moved in conformity with His nature,
the Word willing and allowing Him oeconomically *(5) to
suffer that, and to do the things proper to Him, that the
truth might be confirmed by the works of nature.
Moreover, just as(6) He received in His
birth of a virgin superessential essence, so also He
revealed His human energy in a superhuman way, walking
with earthly feet on unstable water, not by turning the
water into earth, but by causing it in the superabundant
power of His divinity not to flow away nor yield beneath
the weight of material feet. For not in a merely human way
did He do human things: for He was not only man, but also
God, and so even His sufferings brought life anti
salvation: nor yet did He energise as God, strictly after
the manner of God, for He was not only God, but also man,
and so it was by touch and word and such like that He
worked miracles.
But if any one(7) should say, "We
do not say that Christ has but one nature, in order to do
away with His human energy, but we do so because(8) human
energy, in opposition to divine energy, is called passion
<greek>paGdod</greek>." we shall answer
that, according to this reasoning, those also who hold
that He has but one nature do not maintain this with a
view to doing away with His human nature, but because
human nature in opposition to divine nature is spoken of
as passible <greek>padhtikh</greek>. But God
forbid that we should call the human activity passion,
when we are distinguishing it from divine energy. For, to
speak generally, of nothing is the existence recognised or
defined by comparison or collation. If it were so, indeed,
existing things would turn out to be mutually the one the
cause of the other. For if the human activity is passion
because the divine activity is energy, assuredly also the
human nature must be wicked because the divine nature is
good, and, by conversion and opposition, if the divine
activity is called energy because the human activity is
called passion, then also the divine nature must be good
because the human nature is bad. And so all created things
must be bad, and he must have spoken falsely who said, And
God saw every thing that He had made, and, behold, it was
very good(9).
We, therefore, maintain(1) that the
holy Fathers gave various names to the human activity
according to the underlying notion. For the called it
power, and energy, and difference, and activity, and
property, and quality, and passion, not in distinction
from the divine activity, but power, because it is a
conservative and invariable force; and energy, because it
is a distinguishing mark, and reveals the absolute
similarity between all things of the same class; and
difference, because it distinguishes; and activity,
because it makes manifest; and property, because it is
constituent and belongs to that alone, and not to any
other; and quality, because it gives form; and passion,
because it is moved, For all things that are of God and
after God suffer in respect of being moved, forasmuch as
they have not in themselves motion or power. Therefore, as
has been said, it is not in order to distinguish the one
from the other that it has been named, but it is in
accordance with the plan implanted in it in a creative
manner by the Cause that framed the universe. Wherefore,
also, when they spoke of it along with the divine nature
they called it energy. For he who said, "For either
form energises close communion with the other(2),"
did something quite different froth him who said, And when
He had fasted forty days, He was afterwards an hungered(3)
:(for He allowed His nature to energise when it so willed,
in the way proper to itself(4),) or from those who hold
there is a different energy in Him or that He has a
twofold energy, or now one energy and now another(5). For
these statements with the change in terms(5a) signify the
two energies. Indeed, often the number is indi-cated both
by change of terms and by speaking of them as divine and
human(6). For the difference is difference in differing
things, but how do things that do not exist differ?
CHAPTER XVI.
In reply to those who say(7) "If
man has two natures and two energies, Christ must be held
to have three natures and as many energies."
Each individual man, since he is
composed of two natures, soul and body, and since these
natures are unchangeable in him, could appropriately be
spoken of as two natures: for he preserves even after
their union thee natural properties of either. For the
body is not immortal, but corruptible; neither is the soul
mortal, but immortal: and the body is not invisible pot
the soul visible to bodily eyes: but the soul is rational
and intellectual, and incorporeal, while the body is dense
and visible, and irrational. But things that are opposed
to one another in essence have not one nature, and,
therefore, soul and body cannot have one essence.
And again: if man is a rational and
mortal animal, and every definition is explanatory of the
underlying natures, and the rational is not the same as
the mortal according to the plan of nature, man then
certainly cannot have one nature, according to the rule of
his own definition.
But if man should at any time be said
to have one nature, the word "nature" is here
used instead of "species," as when we say that
man does not differ from man in any difference of nature.
But since all men are fashioned in the same way, and are
composed of soul and body, and each has two distinct
natures, they are all brought under one definition. And
this is not unreasonable, for the holy Athanasius spake of
all created things as having one nature forasmuch as they
were all produced, expressing himself thus in his Oration
against those who blasphemed the Holy Spirit: "That
the Holy Spirit is above all creation, and different from
the nature of things produced and peculiar to divinity, we
may again perceive. For whatever is seen to be common to
many things, and not more in one and less in another, is
called essence(3). since, then, every man is composed of
soul and body, accordingly we speak of man as having one
nature. But we cannot speak of our Lord's subsistence as
one nature: for each nature preserves, even after the
union, its natural properties, nor can we find a class of
Christs. For no other Christ was born both of divinity and
of humanity tobe at once God and man."
And again: man's unity in species is
not the same thing as the unity of soul and body in
essence. For man's unity in species makes clear the
absolute similarity between all men, while the unity of
soul and body in essence is an insult to their very
existence, and reduces them to nothingness: for either the
one must change into the essence of the other, or from
different things something different must be produced, and
so both would be changed, or if they keep to their own
proper limits there must be two natures. For, as regards
the nature of essence the corporeal is not the same as the
incorporeal. Therefore, although holding that man has one
nature, not because the essential quality of his soul and
that of his body are the same, but because the individuals
included under the species are exactly the same, it is not
necessary for us to maintain that Christ also has one
nature, for in this case there is no species embracing
many subsistences.
Moreover, every compound(9) is said to
be composed of what immediately composes it. For we do not
say that a house is composed of earth and water, but of
bricks and timber. Otherwise, it would be necessary to
speak of man as composed of at least five things, viz.,
the four elements and soul. And so also, in the case of
our Lord Jesus Christ we do not look at the parts of the
parts, but at those divisions of which He is immediately
composed, viz., divinity and humanity.
And further, if by saying that man has
two natures we are obliged to hold that Christ has three,
you, too, by saying that man is composed of two natures
must hold that Christ is composed of three natures: and it
is just the same with the energies. For energy must
correspond with nature: and Gregory the Theologian bears
witness that man is said to have and has two natures,
saying, "God and man are two natures, since, indeed,
soul and body also are two natures(1)." And in his
discourse "Concerning Baptism" he says,
"Since we consist of two parts, soul and body. the
visible and the invisible nature, the purification is
likewise twofold, that is, by water and Spirit(2)."
CHAPTER XVII.
Concerning the deification of the
nature of our Lord's flesh and of His will.
It is worthy of note(3) that the flesh
of the Lord is not said to have been deified and made
equal to God and God in respect of any change or
alteration, or transformation, or confusion of nature: as
Gregory the Theologian(4) says, "Whereof the one
deified, and the other was deified, and, to speak boldly,
made equal to God: and that which anointed became man, and
that which was anointed became God(5)." For these
words do not mean any change in nature, but rather the
oeconomical union(I mean the union in subsistence by
virtue of which it was united inseparably with God the
Word), and the permeation of the natures through one
another, just as we saw that burning permeated the steel.
For, just as we confess that God became man without change
or alteration, so we consider that the flesh became God
without change. For because the Word became flesh, He did
not overstep the limits of His own divinity nor abandon
the divine glories that belong to Him: nor, on the other
hand, was the flesh, when deified, changed in its own
nature or in its natural properties. For even after the
union, boil the natures abode unconfused and their
properties unimpaired. But the flesh of the Lord received
the riches of the divine energies through the purest union
with the Word, that is to say, the union in subsistence,
without entailing the loss of any of its natural
attributes. For it is not in virtue of any energy of its
own but through the Word united to it, that it manifests
divine energy: for the flaming steel burns, not because it
has been endowed in a physical way with burning energy,
but because it has obtained this energy by its union with
fire(6). Wherefore the same flesh was mortal by reason of
its own nature and life-giving through its union with the
Word in subsistence. And we hold that it is just the same
with the deification of the will(7); for its natural
activity was not changed but united with His divine and
omnipotent will, and became the will of God, made man(8).
And so it was that, though He wished, He could not of
Himself escape(9), because it pleased God the Word that
the weakness of the human will, which was in truth in Him,
should be made manifest. But He was able to cause at His
will the cleansing of the leper(1), because of the union
with the divine will. Observe further, that the
deification of the nature and the will points most
expressly and most directly both to two natures and two
wills. For just as the burning does not change into fire
the nature of the thing that is burnt, but makes distinct
both what is burnt, and what burned it, and is indicative
not of one but of two natures, so also the deification
does not bring about one compound nature but two, and
their union in subsistence. Gregory the Theologian,
indeed, says, "Whereof the one deified, the other was
deified(2)," and by the words "whereof,"
"the one," "the other," he assuredly
indicates two natures.
CHAPTER XVIII.
Further concerning volitions and
free-wills: minds, too, and knowledges and wisdoms.
When we say that Christ is perfect Gods
and perfect man, we assuredly attribute to Him all the
properties natural to both the Father and mother. For He
became man in order that that which was overcome might
overcome. For He Who was omnipotent did not in His
omnipotent authority and might lack the power to rescue
man out of the hands of the tyrant. But the tyrant would
have had a ground of complaint if, after He had overcome
man, God should have used force against him. Wherefore God
in His pity and love for man wished to reveal fallen man
himself as conqueror, and became man to restore like with
like.
But that man is a rational and
intelligent animal, no one will deny. How, then, could He
have become man if He took on Himself flesh without soul,
or soul without mind? For that is not man. Again, what
benefit would His becoming man have been to us if He Who
suffered first was not saved, nor renewed and strengthened
by the union with divinity? For that which is not assumed
is not remedied. He, therefore, assumed the whole man,
even the fairest part of him, which had become diseased,
in order that He might bestow salvation on the whole. And,
indeed, there could never exist a mind that had not wisdom
and was destitute of knowledge. For if it has not energy
or motion, it is utterly reduced to nothingness.
Therefore, God the Word(4), wishing to
restore that which was in His own image, became man. But
what is that which was in His own image, unless mind? So
He gave up the better and assumed the worse. For mind s is
in the border-land between God and flesh, for it dwells
indeed in fellowship with the flesh, and is, moreover, the
image of God. Mind, then, mingles with mind, and mind
holds a place midway between the pureness of God and the
denseness of flesh. For if the Lord assumed a soul without
mind, He assumed the soul of an irrational animal.
But if the Evangelist said that the
Word was made flesh(6), note that in the Holy Scripture
sometimes a man is spoken of as a soul, as, for example,
with seventy-five souls came Jacob into Egypt(7): and
sometimes a man is spoken of as flesh, as, for example,
All flesh shall see the salvation of God(8). And
accordingly the Lord did not become flesh without soul or
mind, but man. He says, indeed, Himself, Why seek ye to
kill Me, a Man that hath told you the truth(9)? He,
therefore, assumed flesh animated with the spirit of
reason and mind, a spirit that holds sway over the flesh
but is itself under the dominion of the divinity of the
Word.
So, then, He had by nature, both as God
and as man, the power of will. But His human will was
obedient anti subordinate to His divine will, not being
guided by its own inclination, but willing those things
which the divine will willed. For it was with the
permission of the divine will that He suffered by
naturwhat was proper to Him(1). For when He prayed that He
might escape the death, it was with His divine will
naturally willing and permitting it that He did so pray
and agonize and fear, and again when His divine will
willed that His human will should choose tire death, the
passion became voluntary to Him(2). For it was not as God
only, but also as man, that He voluntarily surrendered
Himself to the death. And thus He bestowed on us also
courage in the face of death. So, indeed, He said before
His saving passion, Father, if it be possible, let this
cup pass from Me(3)," manifestly as though He were to
drink the cup as man and not as God. It was as man, then,
that He wished the cup to pass from Him: but these are the
words of natural timidity. Nevertheless, He said, not My
will, that is to say, not in so far as I am of a different
essence from Thee, but Thy will be done(4), the is to say,
My will and Thy will, in so far as I am of the same
essence as Thou. Now these are the words of a brave heart.
For the Spirit of the Lord, since He truly became man in
His good pleasure, on first testing its natural weakness
was sensible of the natural fellow-suffering involved in
its separation from the body, but being strengthened by
the divine will it again grew bold in the face of death.
For since He was Himself wholly God although also man, and
wholly man although also God, He Himself as man subjected
in Himself and by Himself His human nature to God and the
Father, and became obedient to the Father, thus making
Himself the most excellent type and example for us.
Of His own free-will, moreover, He
exercised His divine and human will. For free-will is
assuredly implanted in every rational nature. For to what
end would it possess reason, if it could not reason at its
own free-will? For the Creator hath implanted even in the
unreasoning brutes natural appetite to compel them to
sustain their own nature. For devoid of reason, as they
are, they cannot guide their natural appetite but are
guided by it. And so, as soon as the appetite for anything
has sprung up, straightway arises also the impulse for
action. And thus they do not win praise or happiness for
pursuing virtue, nor punishment for doing evil. But the
rational nature, although it does possess a natural
appetite, can guide and train it by reason wherever the
laws of nature are observed. For the advantage of reason
consists in this, tire free-will, by which we mean natural
activity in a rational subject. Wherefore in pursuing
virtue it wins praise and happiness, and in pursuing vice
it wins punishment.
So that the soul s of the Lord being
moved of its own free-will willed, but willed of its
free-will those things which His divine will willed it to
will. For the flesh was not moved at a sign from the Word,
as Moses and all the holy men were moved at a sign from
heaven. But He Himself, Who was one and yet both God and
man, willed according to both His divine and His human
will. Wherefore it was not in inclination but rather in
natural power that the two wills of the Lord differed from
one another. For His divine will was without beginning and
all-effecting, as having power that kept pace with it, and
free from passion; while His human will had a beginning in
time, and itself endured the natural and innocent
passions, and was not naturally omnipotent. But yet it was
omni-potent because it truly and naturally had its origin
in the God-Word.
CHAPTER XIX.
Concerning the theandric energy.
When the blessed Dionysius(6) says that
Christ exhibited to us some sort of novel theandric
energy(7), he does not do away with the natural energies
by saying that one energy resulted from the union of the
divine with the human energy: for in the same way we could
speak of one new nature resulting from the union of the
divine with the human nature. For, according to the holy
Fathers, things that have one energy have also one
essence. But Ire wished to indicate the novel and
ineffable manner in which the natural energies of Christ
manifest themselves, a manner befitting the ineffable
manner in which the natures of Christ mutually, permeate
one another, and further how strange and wonder-rid and,
in the nature of things, unknown was His life as man(8),
and lastly the manner of the mutual interchange arising
from the ineffable union. For we hold that the energies
are not divided and that the natures do not energies
separately, but that each conjointly in complete community
with the other energises with its own proper energy(9).
For the human part did not energise merely in a human
manner, for He was not mere man; nor did the divine part
energise only after the manner of God, for He was not
simply God, but He was at once God and man. For just as in
the case of natures we recognise both their union and
their natural difference, so is it also with the natural
wills and energies.
Note, therefore, that in the case of
our Lord Jesus Christ, we speak sometimes of His two
natures and sometimes of His one person: anti the one or
the other is referred to one conception. For the two
natures are one Christ, and the one Christ is two natures.
Wherefore it is all the same whether we say "Christ
energises according to either of His natures," or
"either nature energises in Christ in communion with
the other." The divine nature, then, has communion
with the flesh in its energising, because it is by the
good pleasure of the divine will that the flesh is
permitted to suffer and do the things proper to itself,
and because the energy of the flesh is altogether saving,
and this is an attribute not of human but of divine
energy. On the other hand the flesh has communion with the
divinity of the Word in its energising, because the divine
energies are performed, so to speak, through the organ of
the body, and because He Who energises at once as God and
man is one and the same.
Further observe(1) that His holy mind
also performs its natural energies, thinking and knowing
that it is God's mind and that it is worshipped by all
creation, and remembering the times He spent on earth and
all He suffered, but it has communion with the divinity of
the Word in its energising and orders and governs the
universe, thinking and knowing and ordering not as the
mere mind of man, but as united in subsistence with God
and acting as the mind of God.
This, then, the theandric energy makes
plain that when God became man, that is when He became
incarnate, both His human energy was divine, that is
deified, and not without part in His divine energy, and
His divine energy was not without part in His human
energy, but either was observed in conjunction with the
other. Now this manner of speaking is called a
periphrasis, viz., when one embraces two things in one
statement(2). For just as in the case of the flaming sword
we speak of the cut burn as one, and the burnt cut as one,
but still hold that the cut and the burn have different
energies and different natures, the burn having the nature
of fire and the cut the nature of steel, in the same way
also when we speak of one theandric energy of Christ, we
understand two distinct energies of His two natures, a
divine energy belonging to His divinity, and a human
energy belonging to His humanity.
CHAPTER XX.
Concerning the natural and innocent
passions(2a).
We confess(3), then, that He assumed
all the natural and innocent passions of man. For He
assumed the whole man and all man's attributes save sin.
For that is not natural, nor is it implanted in us by the
Creator, but arises voluntarily in our mode of life as the
result of a further implantation by the devil, though it
cannot prevail over us by force. For the natural and
innocent passions are those which are not in our power,
but which have entered into the life of man owing to the
condemnation by reason of the transgression; such as
hunger, thirst, weariness, labour, the tears, the
corruption, the shrinking from death, the fear, the agony
with the bloody sweat, the succour at the hands of angels
because of the weakness of the natu, and other such like
passions which belong by nature to every man.
All, then, He assumed that He might
sanctify all. He was tried and overcame in order that He
might prepare victory for us and give to nature power to
overcome its antagonist, in order that nature which was
overcome of old might overcome its former conqueror by the
very weapons wherewith it had itself been overcome.
The wicked one(4), then, made his
assault from without, not by thoughts prompted inwardly,
just as it was with Adam. For it was not by inward
thoughts, but by the serpent that Adam was assailed. But
the Lord repulsed the assault and dispelled it like
vapour, in order that the passions which assailed him and
were overcome might be easily subdued by us, and that the
new Adam should save the old.
Of a truth our natural passions were in
harmony with nature and above nature in Christ. For they
were stirred in Him after a natural manner when He
permitted the flesh to suffer what was proper to it: but
they were above nature because that which was natural did
not in the Lord assume command over the will. For no
compulsion is contemplated in Him but all is voluntary.
For it was with His will that He hungered and thirsted and
feared and died.
CHAPTER XXI.
Concerning ignorance and servitude.
He assumed, it is to be noted(5), the
ignorant and servile nature(6). For it is man's nature to
be the servant of God, his Creator, and he does not
possess knowledge of the future. If, then, as Gregory the
Theologian holds, you are to separate the realm of sight
from the realm of thought, the flesh is to be spoken of as
both servile and ignorant, but on account of the identity
of subsistence and the inseparable union the soul of the
Lord was enriched with the knowledge of the future as also
with the other miraculous powers. For just as the flesh of
men is not in its own nature life-giving, while the flesh
of our Lord which was united in subsistence with God the
Word Himself, although it was not exempt from the
mortality of its nature, yet became life-giving through
its union in subsistence with the Word, and we may not say
that it was not and is not for ever life-giving: in like
manner His human nature does not in essence possess the
knowledge of the future, but the soul of the Lord through
its union with God the Word Himself and its identity in
subsistence was enriched, as I said, with the knowledge of
the future as well as with the other miraculous powers.
Observe further(7) that we may not speak of Him as
servant. For the words servitude and mastership are not
marks of nature but indicate relationship, to something,
such as that of fatherhood and sonship.For these do not
signify essence but relation.
It is just as we said, then, in
connection with ignorance, that if you separate with
subtle thoughts, that is, with fine imaginings, the
created from the uncreated, the flesh is a servant, unless
it has been united with God the Word(8). But how can it be
a servant when t is once united in subsistence? For since
Christ is one, He cannot be His own servant and Lord. For
these are not simple predications but relative. Whose
servant, then could He be? His Father's? The Son, then,
would not have all the Father's attributes, if He is the
Father's servant and yet in no respect His own. Besides,
how could the apostle say concerning us who were adopted
by Him, So that you are no longer a servant but a son(9),
if indeed He is Himself a servant? The word servant, then,
is used merely as a title, though not in the strict
meaning: but for our sakes He assumed the form of a
servant and is called a servant among us. For although He
is without passion, yet for our sake He was the servant of
passion and became the minister of our salvation. Those,
then, who say that He is a servant divide the one Christ
into two, just as Nestorius did. But we declare Him to be
Master and Lord of all creation, the one Christ, at once
God and man, and all-knowing. For in Him are all the
treasures of wisdom and knowledge, the hidden
treasures(1).
CHAPTER XXII.
Concerning His growth.
He is, moreover, said to grow in wisdom
and age and grace(2), increasing in age indeed and through
the increase in age manifesting the wisdom that is in
Him(3); yea, further, making men's progress in wisdom and
grace, and the fulfilment of the Father's goodwill, that
is to say, men's knowledge of God and men's salvation, His
own increase, and everywhere taking as His own that which
is ours. But those who hold that He progressed in wisdom
and grace in the sense of receiving some addition to these
attributes, do not say that the union took place at the
first origin of the flesh, nor yet do they give precedence
to the union in subsistence, but giving heed(4) to the
foolish Nestorius they imagine some strange relative union
and mere indwelling, understanding neither what they say
nor whereof they affirm(5). For if in truth the flesh was
united with God the Word from its first origin, or rather
if it existed in Him and was identical in subsistence with
Him, how was it that it was not endowed completely with
all wisdom and grace? not that it might itself participate
in the grace, nor share by grace in what belonged to the
Word, but rather by reason of the union in subsistence,
since both what is human and what is divine belong to the
one Christ, and that He Who was Himself at once God and
man should pour forth like a fountain over the universe
His grace and wisdom and plenitude of every blessing.
CHAPTER XXIII.
Concerning His Fear.
The word fear has a double meaning. For
fear is natural when the soul is unwilling to be separated
from the body, on account of the natural sympathy and
close relationship planted in it in the beginning by the
Creator, which makes it fear and struggle against death
and pray for an escape from it. It may be defined thus:
natural fear is the force whereby we cling to being with
shrinking(6). For if all things were brought by the
Creator out of nothing into being, they all have by nature
a longing after being and not after non-being. Moreover
the inclination towards those things that support
existence is a natural property of them. Hence God the
Word when He became man had this longing, manifesting, on
the one hand, in those things that support existence, the
inclination of His nature in desiring food and drink and
sleep, and having in a natural manner made proof of these
things, while on the other hand displaying in those things
that bring corruption His natural disinclination in
voluntarily shrinking in the hour of His passion before
the flee of death. For although what happened did so
according to the laws of nature, yet it was not, as in our
case, a matter of necessity. For He willingly and
spontaneously accepted that which was natural. So that
fear itself and terror and agony belong to the natural and
innocent passions and are not under the dominion of sin.
Again, there is a fear which arises
from treachery of reasoning and want of faith, and
ignorance of the hour of death, as when we are at night
affected by fear at some chance noise. This is unnatural
fear, and may be thus defined: unnatural fear is an
unexpected shrinking. This our Lord did not assume. Hence
He never felt fear except in the hour of His passion,
although He often experienced a feeling of shrinking in
accordance with the dispensation. For He was not ignorant
of the appointed time.
But the holy Athanasius in his
discourse against Apollinarius says that He did actually
feel fear. "Wherefore the Lord said: Now is My soul
troubled(7). The 'now' indeed means just 'when He willed,'
but yet points to what actually was. For He did not speak
of what was not, as though it were present, as if the
things that were said only apparently happened. For all
things happened naturally and actually." And again,
after some other matters, he says," In nowise does
His divinity admit passion apart from a suffering body,
nor yet does it manifest trouble and pain apart froth a
and troubled soul, nor does it suffer anguish and offer up
prayer apart from a mind that suffered anguish and offered
up prayer. For, although these occurrences were not due to
any overthrow of nature, yet they took place to shew forth
His real being(8)." The words "these occurrences
were not due to any overthrow of His nature," prove
that it was not involuntarily that He endured these
things.
CHAPTER XXIV.
Concerning our Lord's Praying.
Prayer is an uprising of the mind to
God or a petitioning of God for what is fitting. How then
did it happen that our Lord offered up prayer in the case
of Lazarus, and at the hour of His passion? For His holy
mind was in no need either of any uprising towards God,
since it had been once and for all united in subsistence
with the God Word, or of any petitioning of God. For
Christ is one. But it was because He appropriated to
Himself our personality and took our impress on Himself,
and became an ensample for us, and taught us to ask of God
and strain towards Him, and guided us through His own holy
mind in the way that leads up to God. For just as He(9)
endured the passion, achieving for our sakes a triumph
over it, so also He offered up prayer, guiding us, as I
said, in the way that leads up to God, and
"fulfilling all righteousness(1)" on our behalf,
as He said to John, and reconciling His Father to us, and
honouring Him as the beginning and cause, and proving that
He is no enemy of God. For when He said in connection with
Lazarus, Father, I thank Thee that Thou hast heard Me. And
I know that Thou hearest Me always, but because of the
people which stand by I said it, that they may believe
that Thou hast sent Me(2), is it not most manifest to all
that He said this in honour of His Father as the cause
even of Himself, and to shew that He was no enemy of
God(3)?
Again, when he said, Father, if it be
possible, let this cup pass from Me: yet, not as I will
but as Thou wilt(4), is it not clear to all(5) that He
said this as a lesson to us to ask help in our trials only
from God, and to prefer God's will to oar own, and as a
proof that He did actually appropriate to Himself the
attributes of our nature, and that He did in truth possess
two wills, natural, indeed, and corresponding with His
natures but yet in no wise opposed to one another?
"Father" implies that He is of the same essence,
but "if it be possible" does not mean that He
was in ignorance (for what is impossible to God?), but
serves to teach us to prefer God's will to our own. For
that alone is impossible which is against God's will and
permission(6). "But not as I will but as Thou
wilt," for inasmuch as He is God, He is identical
with the Father, while inasmuch as He is man, He manifests
the natural will of mankind. For it is this that naturally
seeks escape from death.
Further, these words, My God, My God,
why hast Thou forsaken Me(7)? He said as making our
personality His own(8). For neither would God be regarded
with us as His Father, unless one were to discriminate
with subtle imaginings of the mind between that which is
seen and that which is thought, nor was He ever forsaken
by His divinity: nay, it was we who were forsaken and
disregarded. So that it was as appropriating our
personality that He offered these prayers(9).
CHAPTER XXV.
Concerning the Appropriation.
It is to be observed(1) that there are
two appropriations(2): one that is natural and essential,
and one that is personal and relative. The natural and
essential one is that by which our Lord in His love for
man took on Himself our nature and all our natural
attributes, becoming in nature and truth man, and making
trial of that which is natural: but the personal and
relative appropriation is when any one assumes the person
of another relatively, for instance, out of pity or love,
and in his place utters words concerning him that have no
connection with himself. And it was in this way that our
Lord appropriated both our curse and our desertion, and
such other things as are not natural: not that He Himself
was or became such, but that He took upon Himself our
personality and ranked Himself as one of us. Such is the
meaning in which this phrase is to be taken: Being made a
curse for our sakes(3).
CHAPTER XXVI.
Concerning the Passion of our Lord's
body, and the Impassibility of His divinity.
The Word of God then itself endured all
in the flesh, while His divine nature which alone was
passionless remained void of passion. For since the one
Christ, Who is a compound of divinity and humanity, and
exists in divinity and humanity, truly suffered, that part
which is capable of passion suffered as it was natural it
should, but that part which was void of passion did not
share in the suffering. For the soul, indeed, since it is
capable of passion shares in the pain and suffering of a
bodily cut, though it is not cut itself but only the body:
but the divine part which is void of passion does not
share in the suffering of the body.
Observe, further(4), that we say that
God suffered in the flesh, bat never that His divinity
suffered in the flesh, or that God suffered through the
flesh. For if, when the sun is shining upon a tree, the
axe should cleave the tree, and, nevertheless, the sun
remains uncleft and void of passion, much more will the
passionless divinity of the Word, united in subsistence to
the flesh, remain void of passion when the body undergoes
passion(5). And should any one pour water over flaming
steel, it is that which naturally suffers by the water, I
mean, the fire, that is quenched, but the steel remains
untouched (for it is not the nature of steel to be
destroyed by water): much more, then, when the flesh
suffered did His only passionless divinity escape all
passion although abiding inseparable from it. For one must
not take the examples too absolutely and strictly: indeed,
in the examples, one must consider both what is like and
what is unlike, otherwise it would not be an example. For,
if they were like in all respects they would be
identities, and not examples, and all the more so in
dealing with divine matters. For one cannot find an
example that is like in all respects whether we are
dealing with theology or the dispensation.
CHAPTER XXVII.
Concerning the fact that the divinity
of the Word remained inseparable from the soul and the
body, even at our Lord's death, and that His subsistence
continued one.
Since our Lord Jesus Christ was without
sin (for He committed no sin, He Who took away the sin of
the world, nor was there any deceit found in His mouth(6))
He was not subject to death, since death came into the
world through sin(7). He dies, therefore, because He took
on Himself death on our behalf, and He makes Himself an
offering to the Father for our sakes. For we had sinned
against Him, and it was meet that He should receive the
ransom for us, and that we should thus he delivered from
the condemnation. God forbid that the blood of the Lord
should have been offered to the tyrant(8). Wherefore death
approaches, and swallowing up the body as a bait is
transfixed on the hook of divinity, and after tasting of a
sinless and life-giving body, perishes, and brings up
again all whom of old he swallowed up. For just as
darkness disappears on the introduction of light, so is
death repulsed before the assault of life, and brings life
to all, but death to the destroyer.
Wherefore, although(9) He died as man
and His Holy Spirit was severed from His immaculate body,
yet His divinity remained inseparable from both, I mean,
from His soul and His body, and so even thus His one
hypostasis was not divided into two hypostases. For body
and soul received simultaneously in the beginning their
being in the subsistence(9a) of the Word, and although
they were severed from one another by death, yet they
continued, each of them, having the one subsistence of the
Word. So that the one subsistence of the Word is alike the
subsistence of the Word, and of soul and body. For at no
timehad either soul or body a separate subsistence of
their own, different from that of the Word, and the
subsistence of the Word is for ever one, and at no time
two. So that the subsistence of Christ is always one. For,
although the soul was separated from the body topically,
yet hypostatically they were united through the Word.
CHAPTER XXVIII.
Concerning Corruption and
Destruction.
The word corruption(1) has two
meanings(2). For it signifies all the human sufferings,
such as hunger, thirst, weariness, the piercing with
nails, death, that is, the separation of soul and body,
and so forth. In this sense we say that our Lord's body
was subject to corruption. For He voluntarily accepted all
these things. But corruption means also the complete
resolution of the body into its constituent elements, and
its utter disappearance, which is spoken of by many
preferably as destruction. The body of our Lord did not
experience this form of corruption, as the prophet David
says, For Thou will not leave my soul in hell, neither
wilt Thou suffer Thine holy one to see corruption(3).
Wherefore to say, with that foolish
Julianus and Gaianus, that our Lord's body was
incorruptible, in the first sense of the word, before His
resurrection is impious. For if it were incorruptible it
was not really, but only apparently, of the same essence
as ours, and what the Gospel tells us happened, viz. the
hunger, the thirst, the nails, the wound in His side, the
death, did not actually occur. But if they only apparently
happened, then the mystery of the dispensation is an
imposture and a sham, and He became man only in
appearance, and not in actual fact, and we are saved only
in appearance, and not in actual fact. But God forbid, and
may those who so say have no part in the salvation(4). But
we have obtained and shall obtain the true salvation. But
in the second meaning of the word "corruption,"
we confess that our Lord's body is incorruptible, that is,
indestructible, for such is the tradition of the inspired
Fathers. Indeed, after the resurrection of our Saviour
from the dead, we say that our Lord's body is
incorruptible even in the first sense of the word. For our
Lord by His own body bestowed the gifts both of
resurrection and of subsequent incorruption even on our
own body, He Himself having become to us the firstfruits
both of resurrection and incorruption, and of
passionlessness(5). For as the divine Apostle says, This
corruptible must put an incorruption(6).
CHAPTER XXIX.
Concerning the Descent to Hades.
The soul(7) when it was deified
descended into Hades, in order that, just as the Sun of
Righteousness(8) rose for those upon the earth, so
likewise He might bring light to those who sit under the
earth in darkness and shadow of death(9): in order that
just as He brought the message of peace to those upon the
earth, and of release to the prisoners, and of sight to
the blind(1), and became to those who believed the Author
of everlasting salvation and to those who did not believe
a reproach of their unbelief(2), so He might become the
same to those in Hades(3): That every knee should bow to
Him, of things in heaven, and things in earth and things
under the earth(4). And thus after He had freed those who
had been bound for ages, straightway He rose again from
the dead, shewing us the way of resurrection.
