De fide contra Nestorianos

Of our father among the saints John of Damascus, a discourse on faith against the Nestorians. 1 It would have been fitting for us, who have been saved by God through his only-begotten son, whom he gave as a ransom on our behalf, to believe according to the Lord's word in Father and Son and Holy Spirit, one God and one essence of divinity in three hypostases, and that the Word of God for our salvation became flesh without change and dwelt among us, being persuaded by the holy Gospels. But since the sower of tares, having seized instruments worthy of himself, confounded the people of God and threw them into confusion, his Holy Spirit roused the defenders of truth, the shepherds and teachers, who hold the word of life as luminaries in the world, and through them guided us onto the royal path. They taught us to walk the middle way, inclining neither to what seems right nor to what is manifestly known as left, and following them with all our might we shall not go astray.

We believe, therefore, in Father and Son and Holy Spirit, a consubstantial Trinity, one divinity worshipped and adored in three hypostases or persons by all creation, and that the only-begotten Son and Word of God himself, who was born of the Father before all ages, by the Father’s good will became flesh without change from the Holy Spirit and Mary the Virgin, neither the divinity being changed into the nature of flesh—for the divine is immutable and unalterable—nor the flesh being transformed into the nature of divinity; for the divine is incapable of any addition. We confess, therefore, in our Lord Jesus Christ, the one of the Holy Trinity, two natures, each perfect according to its own definition and principle, so that we may not introduce change or confusion, but one hypostasis, so that we may not introduce a duality of sons and a fourth person to the Trinity; for nature makes something other, but hypostasis distinguishes someone other and a person. For if in the Holy Trinity, speaking of three hypostases, we proclaim three persons, those who confess two hypostases in our Lord Jesus Christ must necessarily also confess two persons. Nature and essence and form indicate the species, that is, the commonality, such as divinity, humanity; hypostasis and person indicate the particular and self-subsistent, such as a certain one and a certain one, in the case of divinity Father, Son, Holy Spirit, in the case of humanity Peter, Paul, John. Just as it is impossible for nature and nature to be one nature in Christ, so it is impossible for hypostasis and hypostasis to be one hypostasis.

If it is possible for hypostasis and hypostasis to be one hypostasis, and for person and person to be one person, then it is possible for nature and nature to be one nature in Christ. Just as there is no hypostasis without essence, but it is not necessary that each hypostasis have its own essence, so there is no nature without hypostasis, and it is not necessary, in the case of things united, that each nature have its own separate hypostasis. Just as when we speak of three hypostases in the Holy Trinity we are not compelled to give each hypostasis its own nature, but the three have one nature and essence common to the divinity, and neither is any one of them without essence, nor does each have its own essence, so when we speak of two natures in Christ we are not compelled to give each nature its own hypostasis, but the two natures have one hypostasis common to the sonship, that is, of the Son of God—for this hypostasis is Son of God according to the divinity and Son of the Virgin according to the humanity, and neither is each of the natures without hypostasis, nor does each have its own hypostasis—and just as there we say the three hypostases are one nature, so here we say the two natures are one hypostasis. Question: Is there a hypostasis without essence? You will say: By no means. Then give each hypostasis of the Holy Trinity its own essence. But you do not give it. And if you say that the same nature belongs to the three hypostases, I will say that, even if there is no nature without hypostasis, the same hypostasis belongs to the two natures of Christ.

Question: If there is no hypostasis without a person, and there are two hypostases in Christ, must we then speak of two persons? Just as Peter is one hypostasis, but two natures, soul and body, and according to one nature he thinks, that is according to the essence of the soul, and according to the other he is cut, that is according to the body, and he is one Peter and one hypostasis which both performs this and suffers that, and neither does the soul get cut, even if Peter is cut, nor does the body think, even if Peter thinks, but Peter thinks insofar as he has a soul, and is cut insofar as he is a body, so also Christ, being one hypostasis, but having two natures, of divinity and of incarnation, according to his divinity he worked miracles, according to his humanity he suffered, and neither did his divinity suffer nor did his body work miracles, but the one Christ, the one hypostasis, the one person, both performed these as God and suffered those as man. And just as in the case of Peter the soul imparts to the body life, sensation, movement, and the body receives, and there is one hypostasis of the giver and the receiver, so also in the case of Christ the divinity gives, and the humanity receives, and there is one hypostasis of the giving divinity and the receiving humanity.

If, then, the son of the Virgin became son of God by grace, there are two sonships, one by nature and another by grace, and not one son, but two; for a son by nature and a son by grace would be called brothers, but would never be said to be one son, since also all those adopted by God through baptism are one son with the son of God by nature and one person. But we do not say that the son of the Virgin became son of God, nor that the hypostasis of the man became God, but that the son of God became son of the Virgin and that the hypostasis of the son of God was manifested as man. The name God and the name man, likewise soul and body, do not characterize a hypostasis, but a nature; even if spoken of a hypostasis, they do not indicate the definition of the hypostasis, but of what nature the hypostasis is. God the Father: the word God does not indicate the particular property of the hypostasis, but of what nature it is, while the word Father indicates the particular property of the hypostasis. Peter is a man: the word man indicates of what nature he happens to be, while the word Peter properly indicates the hypostasis.

Hypostasis is contemplated in the nature, and nature in the hypostasis, and according to this we say that in Christ there are two natures, divinity and humanity, and that Christ is in two natures, divinity and humanity; for the whole is in the parts and the parts in the whole. Parts of Peter are soul and body, but parts of Christ are divinity and humanity. It is customary for Scripture sometimes to name the whole from both parts, as the Lord says: "But fear rather the one who is able to destroy both soul and body in Gehenna." Behold, it named the whole from both, that is, the man. And from one of the parts, as David says: "Let every flesh bless his holy name," meaning: Every man—for flesh without soul does not bless God—and "Jacob went down into Egypt with seventy souls," and "his soul passed through iron"; for a soul is not bound without a body. Thus Scripture sometimes calls Christ God, sometimes man, sometimes both God and man, and sometimes it speaks concerning his divinity, sometimes concerning his humanity, sometimes concerning the composite. It is necessary, therefore, to assign the lofty things to his divinity, the lowly things to his humanity, and both these and those to the one hypostasis.

To say "perfect God and perfect man" indicates the perfection of the natures, not the hypostases. "God" is indicative of nature, and likewise "man". We know that the Son and Word of God is a perfect hypostasis, and that he is timeless, invisible, incomprehensible, intangible, uncircumscribed, impassible, and that no passion nor insult touches him. Insofar, then, as he is a perfect hypostasis, he is other than the Father; for the Father is other, and the Son is other, and the Holy Spirit is other—that is, each is a different hypostasis, as the theologian Gregory says: "There, indeed, it is 'other and other,' so that we do not confuse the hypostases, but not 'other thing and other thing'; for the three are one and the same in divinity"—that is, in nature. For "divinity" is a name of nature, not of hypostasis. But having pre-eternal existence, and being invisible, incomprehensible, intangible, uncircumscribed, impassible, the creative, divine, and all-powerful will, the all-powerful energy—all these are not of hypostasis, but of nature; for they are contemplated alike in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Those things contemplated alike in all the consubstantial hypostases are natural; hypostatic are those that separate a hypostasis from a consubstantial hypostasis, such as the unbegottenness of the Father, the begottenness of the Son, and the procession of the Holy Spirit.

We know again that the flesh of the Lord has temporal existence and production from non-being into being, and shape and size and form and limbs and circumscription and tangibility and human life and movement and sensation and change from place to place and human will and human energy and hunger and thirst and sleep and reasoning and fear and anguish and being slapped and being spat upon and being helped by angels and suffering and dying and all human things. But all these belong to nature and not to hypostasis; for all these are observed in each hypostasis. For having a nose does not indicate hypostasis, but having a snub or aquiline nose distinguishes among consubstantial hypostases; for having a nose is natural to all men, but having a snub or aquiline nose defines a hypostasis and a person. Therefore neither are human things elevated to the divinity nor divine things lowered to the humanity, even if the flesh partook of divine things; for divinity is communicative, not receptive, it imparts its own, it does not receive the things of the flesh. So neither do divine things define a hypostasis nor human things, but they signify nature and nature.

We know again that the flesh of the Lord never existed by itself, nor did it have a beginning or cause of existence except the Son and Word of God, nor did that holy body or that immaculate soul come to be from any other than the Son of God, and all its attributes are his and are said of him, not of his divine nature, but because his flesh is his and not another's, all the attributes of his flesh are his and are said of him. For this reason we say one hypostasis of the Word and the flesh, and not two, because it is not one and another, but one. For if there are two hypostases, there is one and another—for hypostasis makes a particular individual—and if there is one and another, there is no longer one, but two sons. Therefore Christ is one and not two. For the flesh subsisted, and it is impossible that it not subsist, but it did not subsist by itself nor did it belong to anyone except the Word of God; for subsisting does not make a hypostasis and a hypostasis, but each subsisting by itself in a unitary, separate, and distinct manner, and becoming a particular individual and having its own person.

We do not say that the flesh of the Lord lacks hypostasis or prosopon—for it is impossible for it not to have them—but we say that it does not have another hypostasis or prosopon apart from the Word of God; for that to which the soul and the body belong, that itself is their hypostasis and prosopon. If, then, that flesh came to be from someone else and not from the Word of God, how is He one Son? For we have subscribed that hypostasis makes a particular individual, such as Peter and Paul, and that Peter and Paul are not one Son, and neither is Peter Paul nor Paul Peter. Therefore, if we were to say there are two hypostases, one of the Son of God and another of the son of the virgin according to us, then the son of the virgin would not be the Son of God, nor would the Son of God be the son of the virgin, except as we are by grace. And it is impossible for the Son by nature and the son by grace to be one Son; for son and son are called brothers, if they are sons of the same father or the same mother, but both are never one Son, since even we who have become sons of God by grace are one Son with the Son of God, and let the heavenly, earthly, and subterranean beings worship us—but this is not so. And that son and son are many sons, the Apostle says: "For it was fitting for Him, through whom are all things and by whom are all things, to lead many sons to glory." Behold, the sons by grace are many and not one.

We do not say that the Word was changed and became flesh, but that the Word himself dwelt in the womb of the Virgin like a divine seed and took from the Virgin from her pure blood and in himself constituted flesh animated by a rational and intellectual soul, and that he existed and subsisted as flesh in truth, not by itself, but in the Word of God, nor did it have any seed or any other hypostasis except God alone; for the hypostasis of every infant is seed, but of this one the Word of God. And every flesh becomes of someone, but this flesh becomes of no one except the Word of God. Therefore there is one hypostasis. Thus we understand "the Word became flesh," and "he was incarnate," and "he became man," not that he was changed—for the divine is immutable and unalterable—nor that the flesh was changed into divinity—for each remained in the perfect definition of its own nature—but that that holy flesh had neither beginning nor cause of existence except the Son and Word of God himself, nor did it become of any other except him, and that in him it subsisted and in him the union of the natures, the divine and the human, took place without any confusion or change or alteration whatsoever. Concerning the passion, how it is said of the Word. We do not say that the Word in his divine nature was spat upon or suffered, but, since he himself became the hypostasis for the flesh and the flesh is his and not another's, and there is not one and another, but one and the same Son and Christ and Lord, the sufferings of his flesh are referred to him; for they are his and not another's.

Just as my soul is mine and not another's, and my body is mine and not another's, and all things of the soul and of the body are mine and are not another's, but neither are the things of my soul those of my body, nor are the things of my body those of my soul; rather, cutting and flowing belong to the body and not to the soul, while reasoning and piety belong to the soul and not to the body, and yet both these and those are mine, since I reason with my soul and am cut with my body. So also the Word of God suffers in the flesh and works miracles in the divinity, and neither does the divinity suffer nor does the nature of the flesh work miracles, even if through the human activity the divine activity was manifested. It is impossible, therefore, to say or conceive concerning God anything other than what he himself has revealed to us through the holy scriptures, and it is impossible to say to God: "Why did you do this?" — for "everything that the Lord willed, he did" — and one ought not to say with human reasonings: "How is this possible?" "Let God be true, and every man a liar." For tell me: Whence do we know that God made all things? How did the Father beget the Son? Or how is the Holy Spirit not begotten but proceeds? Or how did "the Word become flesh"? That the Son is begotten, and the Spirit proceeds, we have received from holy scripture, and that "the Word became flesh"; but how, no one knows except the begetting Father and the begotten Son Word who became flesh and the proceeding Holy Spirit.

What is this strange mystery hidden from the generations, which the wise did not know, nor the rulers of this age, except the word of the cross, the folly of the proclamation, that God became man and was crucified? For Abraham was a friend of God and died, Moses was a lawgiver and died, Isaiah was a prophet and was sawn in two, Jeremiah was sanctified from his mother's womb and was cast into a pit of mire and died, and John was filled with the Holy Spirit from his mother's womb and was beheaded, and none of these was considered folly, except the word of the cross, that God became man and the Lord of glory was crucified. This is among men unbelievable and foolish and impossible, that God was seen and spat upon. These things are for the faithful the power of God, that he can do all things that he wills. This is the strange and ineffable mystery. For if they had known that the son of the virgin is God and Lord of glory, they would not have crucified him. Thus the invisible is seen and the impassible suffers and remains no less impassible. For he suffers by the nature of the flesh and remains impassible in his divinity; for the divine is impassible, even though it is united hypostatically with the suffering body.

It is necessary, therefore, to preserve the harmony of Scripture, and that "the Word became flesh and dwelt among us," and that he is son of David and lord of David and son of Abraham, and that he took on flesh and took hold of the seed of Abraham and was before Abraham, "and he is a man, and who will know him?" and he is a man coming after John and was before John, and that the bread of life which comes down from heaven is his flesh, and that "no one has ascended into heaven except the one who descended from heaven," and the second Adam, the lord from heaven, and that the son of man, the nature which heard, "You are earth and to earth you will return," sits upon a throne and is worshipped by all creation, and the Trinity received no addition, and cursed is everyone who trusts in a man. 28 How can these things be in harmony, unless the Son and Word of God, who is God by nature, became the son of the Virgin, a man, two natures, one hypostasis, the same one pre-eternal and before Abraham and John and lord of David, invisible, impassible, intangible as God, the same one recently having become a man and as a man visible, the same one tangible, passible, spat upon, with his divine nature undergoing none of these things.

The Scripture says, "He took hold of the seed of Abraham" and that "according to the flesh, he is from the seed of David," and "son of David, son of Abraham," that the Virgin was from the Abrahamic race and from the seed of David, and the flesh assumed by the Word from her was also from that race, and that the flesh was of our nature and not consubstantial with the Father nor did it descend from heaven. But "the Word became flesh" means that he himself became the hypostasis for the flesh and that there is one hypostasis. And "he dwelt among us" is to show the difference and immutability of the natures; for the nature of the one dwelling is different from that of the dwelling. For the seed also takes up a body from the woman's blood, and the hypostasis of the seed is one thing, the hypostasis of the woman and her blood is another, but there are not two bodies nor two hypostases of the seed and of the body taken up by the seed from the woman, but one body and one hypostasis in two natures, of soul and of body. So also the Son of God was a complete hypostasis, and if he assumed ensouled flesh from the holy Virgin, there are not two hypostases, but one hypostasis in two natures; for what happens there naturally, happens here supernaturally and beyond conception. Thus Christ is God. Therefore the Virgin who bore him is also Theotokos. For she who bore God would rightly be called Theotokos, not as having borne a bare God nor as if the divinity of the only-begotten had its beginning from her, but as having given birth to God incarnate from herself; for if she who bore him is not Theotokos, then he who was born is not God.

For it was not after being born from her that he became God, but being God he was enfleshed from her and was born God incarnate. 31 Others too are Christ-bearers. For Jeremiah was anointed and sanctified from his mother's womb, and John was filled with the Holy Spirit from his mother's womb, and all prophets and priests and kings are anointed of the Lord, and all Christians are anointed. "For you went forth for the salvation of your people to save your anointed ones." For no other God-bearer has come to be, nor is, nor will be. Rightly and worthily, then, is she called God-bearer who alone bore the truly existing God and Son of God incarnate. There is no hypostasis without a person. If, then, there are two hypostases, there are certainly also two persons, even if they appropriate each other's actions and passions. If we say there is one nature of Christ, of his divinity and his humanity, we introduce confusion and change of his natures and will predicate passion of the divine nature. But if we say there are two natures of Christ, we preserve the union unconfused and the divine impassible and unchanging. And if we say there are two hypostases, we introduce two sons and will worship a tetrad of hypostases, and the triad will be a tetrad, whether we wish it or not; for if we count three and one, it is impossible not to say four, and it is impossible for beings and things said not to be numbered. But if we say one hypostasis of Christ and two natures, all will be well, as the soul is said to be in the body and to dwell, and the body is said to be the garment of the soul, and there are not two hypostases, but two natures, and one hypostasis, for instance Peter or Paul.

For if two consubstantial hypostases, twins of one father and one mother, alike in all respects, could not be called one son, how could two heteroousian hypostases, born from different natures, become one son? Why then is the creature worshipped together with the creator, if they are neither of one nature nor of one hypostasis? For if the son of God and the son of the virgin are for us neither of one nature nor of one hypostasis, how are the two one? For Peter and Paul, even if they share the same nature and the grace and dignity of the apostolic office, are not one man or one apostle. Just as in the holy Trinity the three hypostases, on account of their natural identity and their mutual interpenetration, are and are called one God, so in the case of our Lord Jesus Christ the two natures, on account of their hypostatic identity and their mutual interpenetration, are one son; for "son" is of hypostasis and not of nature. And just as there is one worship of the three, so also here there is one worship, since, if there is neither one nature nor one hypostasis, why is there one son and one dignity and one worship? Just as a red-hot blade is untouchable not because of the proper nature of the iron, but because of the nature of the fire hypostatically united with the iron, so the flesh of the Lord is worshipped not because of its own nature, but because it is hypostatically united with the Word of God. If the Word of God is master of Christ, how are the two one? For master and slave could not become one son.

If the Lord of Christ is God the Word, they are not of the same rank; for lordship and servitude are not one rank. If it was not the person of the pre-eternal and only-begotten that was spat upon, then it is another person; but if it is one person and another, then they are not united according to person. If the suffering body belonged to the only-begotten Son of God, then the passion also belongs to him; but if it belonged to another son, how are there not two sons? The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit share in everything except hypostasis. If, therefore, you do not affirm the union and the incarnation according to hypostasis, you will also assert the incarnation of the Father and the Holy Spirit. For if we were to speak of the incarnation according to grace, same-will, relation, and love, we would also ascribe the incarnation to the Father and the Spirit; for there is one will, grace, and love of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. But if it is according to homonymy, then he has no more than we do; for "he gave us the power to become children of God," and "I said: You are gods and sons of the Most High, all of you." And God is both the Father and the Holy Spirit. If there are two hypostases, one from the Father alone and one from the mother alone, the same one will not be both fatherless and motherless.

If the union by grace is called incarnation, then God has become incarnate many times, both more and less; for He dwells in us and we are His temple. "I will not give my glory to another," says God. How then will the son of the virgin be glorified together with God, if he is of a different nature and a different hypostasis? Things that are homoousios are not compared with each other according to essence—for no one compares Peter and Paul according to essence, since the essence is one—but things that are heteroousios are compared according to essence and not according to hypostasis; for no one says that John is taller than this horse. The soul and the body are heteroousios, but they are homo-hypostatic. Therefore, having limbs belongs to the body, and the sense organs belong to the body, while the perceptive power belongs to the soul, and yet they do not differ from each other hypostatically; for it is natural for the body to have limbs and sense organs, and likewise it is natural for the soul to have the perceptive power and to act through the body; for the body is an instrument of the soul. This difference, then, is natural and distinguishes natures. But that Paul is bald and Peter is hairy, that one is snub-nosed and the other hook-nosed, is a hypostatic difference and distinguishes hypostases. However, receiving spittings and blows and not receiving them does not distinguish a hypostasis; for the whole nature of humans is receptive of spittings and blows, while the nature of the divinity is unreceptive. Thus, when Christ is spat upon, the flesh was spat upon, but the divinity was unreceptive of the spittings; likewise, when He is struck and suffers, the nature of the flesh received

these things, but the divinity did not receive them. For even in the case of a mere man who is spat upon, the body receives the spittle, but the soul does not at all, and yet this does not make the soul a different hypostasis and a different person from the body. For having limbs and a visible face that is spat upon, and not having limbs or a visible face that is spat upon, belongs to nature; for the visible and the invisible, the material and the immaterial, the shaped and the shapeless are differences of nature. What is hypostasis and person? Hypostasis is that which subsists by itself and becomes another, and person is that which acts individually and separately. But the Lord's flesh never subsisted by itself and became someone other than the Word of God, nor did it act separately from the Word of God, as is the case with soul and body; for the body is not one thing and the soul another, nor is the body of one and the soul of another, nor do they act separately, but the soul acts through the body, and the divine will and energy acted through the soul and body, through the union and will of the soul and the movement of the body. Every hypostasis wills, acts, and moves separately and individually, and this is a property of hypostasis, and for this reason hypostasis and person are the same. But in the case of the divinity alone, each hypostasis does not act individually nor does it will individually, but there is one will, one energy, one movement of the three hypostases, only the unbegotten being a property of the Father's hypostasis, the begotten of the Son's hypostasis, and the procession of the Holy Spirit's hypostasis.

In the case of our Lord Jesus Christ, if you say there are two hypostases, each of them must necessarily will and act separately and distinctly, and they are united neither in activity nor in any other way. But if they are united in activity and will, there is one hypostasis and one person. We can say that the Virgin gave birth to God the Word, and that the Son and Word of God was not born of a woman. For we know two births of the only-begotten Son and Word of God: one pre-eternal, incorporeal and divine, from the Father alone, according to which birth he was not born of a woman and is motherless; and another at the end, from a mother alone, with flesh, economically for our salvation, according to which birth he is fatherless. According to the first birth he was not born of a woman; according to the second birth he was born of a woman. For he did not have the beginning and cause of his divine existence from a woman, but from the Father alone; but the beginning of his incarnation and becoming man was from the Holy Spirit and Mary the Virgin. For many things are said in one way and another, and seem discordant to one who does not attend carefully. For in the case of the Lord's transfiguration, one evangelist says "after six days," and another says "after eight days," and they disagree, if one does not attend carefully; but to one who attends carefully, there is no discord, but harmony. For the one who said "after six days" counted neither the day on which the Lord spoke nor the day of the transfiguration; the one who said "after eight days" counted both that day and that day.

Nature is the commonality of the species, for example, divinity, humanity. The name "God" is sometimes applied to the divine nature, as when we say "one God," that is, one divinity, and sometimes also to a hypostasis, as when we say: God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit, and this we name from the nature, similarly also "God." We say therefore: God is one thing and man is another, that is, one nature of divinity and another of humanity. And Saint Gregory the Theologian writes to Cledonius: "For there are two natures, God and man, since there are also soul and body." And again we say: God the Father and God the Son and God the Holy Spirit, and man Peter and man Paul. A hypostasis is a certain individual and a certain individual, Peter and Paul, and Peter is not Paul nor is Paul Peter, but they are different and different and two and not one, even if they share one nature, nor are Peter and Andrew one, but two, even if they share one nature and the same father and the same mother and the same grace and rank; for nothing can make one son except the identity of hypostasis. Just as essence and nature are the same among the holy fathers, so also hypostasis and person are the same. Is the only-begotten and pre-eternal Son of God and the Son of the Virgin of one nature or two? Of one hypostasis or two? Is there one will of divinity and humanity or two, different and different? Is there one energy of divinity and humanity or two, different and different? Is natural sonship and sonship by grace one or different and different? Is the Son of the Virgin a servant of God?

Slavery and mastery: one dignity or different and different? They spat upon the person of the only-begotten and preeternal Son, but upon which person? When Gabriel was sent and spoke to the virgin from the person of God, was his person one and the same as that of God? If there is one nature and another nature, one will and another will, one energy and another energy, one hypostasis and another hypostasis, one sonship and another sonship, one dignity and another dignity, one person and another person, how are there not two sons? It is necessary to preserve these things entirely: the divinity impassible and immutable, three worshiped hypostases in God, and to believe in the Trinity and be baptized, and not to worship creation, and to preserve the harmony of holy scripture, both the Old and the New.