11 - Book III Chapters 12-14

Section 11 of The Orthodox Faith by John of Damascus. Translated by S. B. F. Solomon. This LibriVox recording is in the public domain. Book 3, Chapter 12 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 the Mother of God. For inasmuch as he who was born of her was true God, she who bear 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 and 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 bear mere man, but true God, and not mere God, but God incarnate, who did not bring down his body from heaven, nor simply pass through the Virgin as channel, but received from her flesh of like essence to our own and subsisting in himself. 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 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. If the first is true, the second must also be true. Although, however, he says, the first Adam is of the earth earthy, the second Adam is Lord from heaven. He does not say that his body is from heaven, but emphasizes 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 the 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. 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 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, manifestly he 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 born in the last days of a virgin in accordance with the laws of an essence that has a 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, because it was in order to do away with the title mother of God and to bring dishonor on the mother of God, who alone is in truth worthy of honor above all creation, that the impure and abominable Judaizing Nestorius, that vessel of dishonor, invented this name for an insult. For David the king and Aaron the high priest are also called Christ, for it is customary to make kings and priests by anointing. And besides, every God-inspired man may be called Christ, but yet he is not by nature God. Yea, the accursed Nestorius insulted him who was born of the virgin by calling him God-bearer. May it be far from us to speak of or think of him as God-bearer only, 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 of 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 from his first coming 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, the word received these which are, according to the order of natural motion, truly natural. 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 energizes freely as God, and being also of like essence with us, he likewise wills and energizes 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 also has 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 energizes naturally in both natures, of which and in which and also which is Christ our Lord. And, moreover, that he wills and energizes without separation, but as a united whole. For he wills and energizes in either form in close communion with the other. 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. And vice versa, things that have the same will and energy have the same essence, while things that are different in will and energy are different in essence. Wherefore, in the case of the Father and Son and Holy Spirit, we recognize from their sameness in will and energy, their sameness in nature. But in the case of the divine dispensation, we recognize 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 energizing 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 energizes 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 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 energizing 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 the others by the generally accepted difference. Simple willing, then, is spoken of as volition, or the faculty of will, being a rational propension and natural will. But in a particular way, willing, or that which underlies volition, is the object of will and will depend on judgment. Further, that which has innate in it the faculty of volition is spoken of as capable of willing, 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 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 for its support, and this without involving any opposition in judgment, but simply as a 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 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 superessential 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, for the Father has defined freedom as volition. 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 class, surely then man is by nature endowed with volition. 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. 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. 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 of God, and likewise the Holy Spirit is God, and so volition is part of His nature, that is, it is natural. Besides, 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 must 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, 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. 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, the gospel tells us that, He having come into the place, said, I thirst, and they gave him some vinegar mixed with gall, and when he tasted it fair would not drink. If then on the one hand it was as God that he suffered thirst, and when he had tasted would not drink, surely he must be subject to passion also as God, for thirst and taste are passions. But if it was not as God, but altogether as man that he was a thirst, likewise as man he must be endowed with volition. Moreover, the blessed Paul the Apostle says, He became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. 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. 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 traitor one's man, as the inspired Gregorius said. Therefore 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 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, 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 man 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 body, election comes to be later than the state. If then, Adam 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 showed 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, hypostasis, not of things viewed in a different category, not in one proper to them. 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? 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 nature's 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 the Father's will is not compound. It remains, therefore, to say that the subsistence of Christ alone is compound and common, as in the case of the natures, so also in that of the natural properties. And we cannot, if we wish to be accurate, speak of Christ as having judgment, nome, and preference. 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, which chooses out and selects the one rather than the other. For 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. 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. 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, 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, but the Lord led us back from the unnatural into the natural, for this is what is the meaning of in our image, after our likeness. 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, nōme, 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. Sometimes it means counsel, as when the prophet David says, They have taken crafty counsel against thy people. Sometimes it means a decree, as when we read in Daniel, Concerning whom or what went this shameless decree forth? 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 different meanings.