正統信仰闡釋 第 1 章 第 10/15 段

And to whom shall we assign the words, 'My Father works hitherto, and I work,' and 'whatsoever things the Father does, these also the Son does likewise,' and 'if ye believe not Me, believe My works,' and 'the works which I do bear witness concerning Me,' and 'as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, so also the Son gives life to whom He will'? For all these things show Him to be not only consubstantial with the Father even after the incarnation, but also of the same energy.

If the providence over existing things belongs not only to the Father and the Holy Spirit, but also to the Son even after the incarnation, and this is an energy,

then even after the incarnation He is of the same energy as the Father.

If from the miracles we have known Christ to be of the same essence as the Father, and the miracles are the energy of God, then even after the incarnation He is of the same energy as the Father.

But if the energy of His Godhead and that of His flesh are one, it will be composite, and He will be either of a different energy from the Father, or the Father too will be of a composite energy.

And if of a composite energy, then clearly also of a composite nature.

But if they should say that with the energy a person is co-introduced, we shall reply that, if with the energy a person is co-introduced, then by the reasonable conversion a person too will have an energy co-introduced with it; and there will be, just as there are three persons, that is, hypostases, of the Holy Trinity, so also three energies; or, just as there is one energy, so also one person and one hypostasis.

But the holy fathers have said with one accord that things of the same essence are also of the same energy.

Moreover, if with the energy a person is co-introduced, then those who ordained that we should say neither one nor two energies of Christ have likewise prescribed that we say neither one person of Him nor two.

And in the case of the red-hot knife, just as the natures of both the fire and the iron are preserved, so also the two energies and their effects.

For the iron has the cutting power, and the fire the burning power, and the cutting is the effect of the iron's

energy, while the burning is that of the fire;

and their difference is preserved in the burnt cut and in the cut burn, even though after the union neither the burning takes place apart from the cutting, nor the cutting apart from the burning;

and neither, because of the twofold character of the natural energy, do we speak of two red-hot knives, nor, because of the singleness of the red-hot knife, do we work a confusion of their essential difference.

Thus also in Christ: the divine and all-powerful energy belongs to His Godhead, while the energy according to us belongs to His humanity;

and the effect of the human was the grasping of the maiden's hand and the drawing of it, while the effect of the divine was the giving of life;

for the one is this and the other is that, even though they are inseparable from one another in the theandric (God-manly) energy.

If, because the hypostasis of the Lord is one, the energy too will be one, then because of the one hypostasis the essence too will be one.

If we should say that in the case of the Lord there is one energy, we shall call it either divine, or human, or neither.

But if divine, we shall call Him God only, bare of the humanity according to us;

but if human, we shall blaspheme Him as a mere man;

but if neither divine nor human, then He is neither God nor man, nor consubstantial either with the Father or with us;

for from the union came the identity according to hypostasis, but the difference of the natures has by no means been done away.

And the difference of the natures being preserved, their energies too will plainly be preserved;

for there is no nature without energy.

If the energy of Christ the Master is one, it will be either created or uncreated;

for there is no energy intermediate between these, just as there is no nature either.

If, then, created, it will indicate a created nature only;

but if uncreated, it will characterize an uncreated essence only.

For natural properties must by all means correspond to the natures;

for it is impossible that there should be the existence of a deficient nature.

But the energy according to nature is not among external things, and it is clear that the nature can neither exist nor be known apart from energy;

for by the things through which each thing acts it confirms its own nature, which is something unchanging.

If the energy of Christ is one, the same will be productive both of the divine things and of the human.

But none of existing things, remaining within the limits of nature, is able to produce contrary things;

for fire does not chill and warm, nor does water dry and moisten.

How, then, did He who is by nature God and by nature became man accomplish both the miracles and the sufferings by one energy? If, then, Christ took a human mind, that is, a rational and intellectual soul, He will assuredly reason, and will reason for ever;

and the energy of the mind is thought.

Therefore Christ is active also inasmuch as He is man, and is for ever active.

And the holy John Chrysostom, in the second discourse of his exposition of the Acts, speaks thus:

'And one would not err in calling even His passion an action;'

for in suffering all things He wrought that great and wondrous work, having abolished death and accomplished all the rest.

If every energy is defined as the essential motion of some nature, as those skilled in these matters have laid down, where has anyone seen a nature unmoved or wholly without energy, or found an energy that is not the motion of a natural power? But that the natural energy of God and of a creature is one, no one of sound mind would grant, according to the blessed Cyril;

for neither does the human nature give life to Lazarus, nor does the divine authority weep.

For weeping is proper to the humanity, but life belongs to the self-subsistent Life.

Nevertheless both belong in common to both natures, because of the identity of the hypostasis.

For Christ is one, and one is his person, that is, his hypostasis; yet he has two natures, that of his divinity and that of his humanity.

Thus from the divinity the glory, naturally proceeding, became common to both because of the identity of the hypostasis; while from the flesh the lowly things became common to both.

For one and the same is he who is both this and that, that is, both God and man, and to the same one belong both the things of the divinity and the things of the humanity.

For the divinity wrought the divine signs, yet not apart from the flesh; and the flesh wrought the lowly things, yet not without the divinity.

For even while the flesh was suffering, the divinity was joined to it, remaining impassible,

and accomplishing the sufferings as salvific; and to the working divinity of the Word the holy mind was joined, perceiving and knowing the things being accomplished.

Thus the divinity imparts its own glories to the body, while it itself remains without share in the sufferings of the flesh.

For just as the divinity of the Word worked through the flesh, it was not in the same way that his flesh suffered through the divinity;

for the flesh served as the instrument of the divinity.

Although, therefore, from the very moment of conception nothing whatever was separated as belonging to one form or the other, but the actions of all time belong to one person of both forms, yet we in no way confuse those things which came to be inseparably, but we perceive from the quality of the works which is of which form.

Christ therefore works according to each of his natures, and each nature works in him in communion with the other: the Word accomplishing what belongs to the Word, by the authority and power of the divinity—whatever is sovereign and royal; and the body carrying out what belongs to the body, according to the will of the Word united to it, whose own it had become.

For he did not of himself rush toward the natural sufferings, nor did he take from grievous things an occasion or pretext, nor did he suffer the things that befell from without; but he was moved according to the sequence of nature, since the Word willed and permitted, by way of the economy, that it should suffer and do its own proper things, so that through the works of the nature the truth might be confirmed.

And just as he was made to be in a manner above being, having been conceived of a virgin, so also above the manner of man he wrought the things of men, walking with earthly feet upon unstable water—not that the water was made solid, but that by the supernatural power of the divinity it was made firm so as not to give way, and yielded not to the weight of material feet.

For he did not do human things in a merely human way (for he was not man only, but also God;

wherefore his sufferings also are life-giving and salvific), nor did he work the divine things in a merely divine way (for he was not God only, but also man;

wherefore he wrought the divine signs by touch and word and the like).

But if anyone should say that we speak of one energy in Christ not so as to abolish the human energy, but because the human energy, when contrasted with the divine energy, is called passion, and that in this sense we speak of one energy in Christ—we shall reply:

By this same reasoning, those who speak of one nature do not assert it so as to abolish the human nature, but because the human nature, when contrasted with the divine nature, is called passible.

But far be it from us, by reason of its contrast with the divine energy, to call the human motion a passion;

for the existence of nothing whatsoever, to speak generally, is known or defined by juxtaposition or comparison.

For in that case existing things would be found to be the causes of one another.

For if the human motion is a passion because the divine motion is an energy, then surely the human nature will also be evil because the divine nature is good; and by the conversion of the opposites, because the human motion is called passion the divine motion is called energy, and because the human nature is evil the divine will be good.

And so all created things will be evil, and he who said this will be proved a liar:

"And God saw all that he had made, and behold, it was very good."

But we say that the holy fathers named the human motion in many ways according to the underlying concepts.

For they called it both power and energy and difference and motion and property and quality and passion;

not by way of contrast with the divine, but as a cohesive and unchangeable power; as an energy, in that it is characteristic and manifests the invariability in all things of the same kind; as a difference, in that it distinguishes; as a motion, in that it is indicative; as a property, in that it is constitutive and belongs to it alone and to no other; as a quality, in that it is form-giving; and as a passion, in that it is moved.

For all things that are from God and after God suffer in being moved, inasmuch as they are not self-motion or self-power; not, then, by way of contrast, as has been said, but according to the principle implanted in them by the creative

cause that constituted the universe.

Wherefore, uttering it together with the divine, they named it energy.

For each form works in communion with the other—what else did he mean who said:

For having remained without food for forty days, he afterward hungered (for he allowed the nature, when he willed, to work its own proper things)—or those who declared in him a differing energy, or a twofold, or one and another? For these, by way of contradistinction, signify two energies;

for often number is indicated by way of contradistinction, and by saying both 'divine' and 'human.'

For difference is the difference of things that differ;

but things that do not exist, how shall they differ? Against those who say:

If man is of two natures and energies, it is necessary in the case of Christ to speak of three natures and as many energies.—The individual man, being composed of two natures, soul and body, and having these unchangeable in himself, will rightly be said to be of two natures;

for he preserves, even after the union, the natural property of each.

For neither is the body immortal but corruptible, nor is the soul mortal but immortal; nor is the body invisible nor is the soul visible to bodily eyes; rather the one is rational and intellectual and incorporeal, while the other is dense and visible and irrational.

But things that are divided in opposition according to essence are not of one nature;

soul and body, therefore, are not of one essence.

If man is a rational mortal animal, and every definition is declarative of the underlying natures, and 'rational' is not the same as 'mortal' in the principle of nature;

then man would not be of one nature according to the rule of his own definition.

But if man is ever said to be of one nature, the name of 'nature' is taken in place of 'species,' when we say that man does not differ from man by any difference of nature, but all men, having the same constitution and being composed of soul and body, and each consisting of two natures, are brought under one definition.

And this is not unreasonable, since the holy Athanasius said that all created things, as having come into being, are of one nature, speaking thus in his treatise against those who blaspheme the Holy Spirit:

"That the Holy Spirit is above creation and is something other than the nature of created things, and proper to the divinity, one may again perceive thus."

For everything that is contemplated commonly and in many things, existing not more in one and less in another, is called an essence.

Since, then, every man is composed of soul and body, in this respect the nature of men is said to be one.

But in the case of the hypostasis of the Lord we cannot speak of one nature;

for the natures preserve, even after the union, each its natural property, and a species of 'Christs' is not to be found.

For there did not come to be another Christ out of divinity and humanity; he is the same, both God and man.

The 'one according to species' of man is not the same as the 'one according to essence' of soul and body.

For the 'one according to species' of man indicates the invariability among all men;

but the 'one according to essence' of soul and body destroys their very being, reducing them to utter nonexistence;

for either the one will be transformed into the essence of the other, or out of two something other will arise and both will be changed, or, remaining in their own proper limits, they will be two natures.

For body is not the same as the incorporeal in the principle of essence.

It is not necessary, therefore—since when we say man is of one nature we do so not because of the identity of the essential quality of soul and body, but because of the invariability of the individuals brought under the species—it is not necessary to speak of one nature in the case of Christ also, where there is no species comprising many hypostases.

Furthermore, every composite is said to be composed of the things immediately combined;

for we do not say that a house is composed of earth and water, but of bricks and timbers.

Otherwise it would be necessary to say that man too is composed of five natures, namely of the four elements (and of soul).

So also in the case of our Lord Jesus Christ we do not consider the parts of the parts, but those immediately combined, namely divinity and humanity.

Furthermore, if by saying man is of two natures we shall be compelled to speak of three natures in Christ, then you too, by saying man is of two natures, are dogmatizing that Christ is of three natures;

and likewise concerning energies;

for the energy must necessarily correspond to the nature.

That man is said to be and is of two natures, the theologian Gregory is a witness;

for he speaks thus: 'Two natures, God and man.'

And in his discourse on baptism he says the following:

'Since we are twofold, of soul and body, the one a visible and the other an invisible nature, twofold also is the cleansing, by water and by Spirit.'

On the deification of the nature of the Lord's flesh and of his will. It must be known that the flesh of the Lord is said to be deified and to have become equal-to-God and God, not by a change of nature or by alteration or transformation or confusion, as the theologian Gregory says:

'Of which the one deified, the other was deified; and I make bold to say, became equal-to-God—the anointing one becoming man and the anointed one becoming God.'

For these things are not by a change of nature, but according to the economic union—I mean the hypostatic—by which it is inseparably united to God the Word, and according to the mutual interpenetration (perichoresis) of the natures one in the other, as we also speak of the kindling of iron.

For just as we confess the incarnation to be without change and transformation, so also we glorify the deification of the flesh to have come about.

For neither, because the Word became flesh, did he go outside the limits of his own divinity nor of the divine majesties belonging to it; nor, on the other hand, did the flesh, having been deified, change from its own nature or from its own natural properties.

For even after the union the natures remained unmingled, and their properties unimpaired.

But the flesh of the Lord was enriched with the divine energies through the most pure union with the Word, that is, the hypostatic union, having in no way undergone any loss of its own natural properties;

for it wrought the divine things not by its own energy, but on account of the Word united to it, the Word manifesting through it his own energy.

For red-hot iron burns, possessing the burning energy not by a natural principle, but having acquired it from its union with the fire.

The very same flesh, therefore, was mortal in respect of itself, and life-giving on account of the hypostatic union with the Word.

Likewise we speak of the deification of the will, not as though the natural motion were changed, but as united to his divine and all-powerful will, and become the will of God-made-man;

wherefore, willing to hide himself, he could not, since God the Word was pleased that there should be shown in him truly to exist the weakness of the human will; but willing it, he wrought the cleansing of the leper, on account of the union with the divine will.

And it must be understood that the deification of the nature and of the will is most expressive and most demonstrative of both the two natures and the two wills;

for just as the kindling does not change the nature of the kindled thing into that of fire, but makes manifest both the kindled and that which kindles, and is indicative not of one but of two, so also the deification produces not one composite nature, but the two and the hypostatic union.

The theologian Gregory says, then:

'Of which the one deified, the other was deified'; for in saying both 'the one' and 'the other' he showed two.

Further, concerning wills and free choices and minds and knowledges and wisdoms: in calling Christ perfect God and perfect man, we shall certainly grant him all things, both the natural things of the Father and those of the Mother;

for he became man, that what had been conquered might conquer.

For he who is able to do all things was not unable, even by his all-powerful authority and might, to deliver man from the tyrant; but there would have been ground of complaint for the tyrant, who had conquered man and

Wishing, therefore, to show the very one who had fallen to be victor, the compassionate and loving God becomes man, restoring the like by the like.

That man is a rational and intellectual animal, no one will dispute.

How, then, did he become man, if he assumed flesh without a soul, or a soul without mind? For that is not man.

And what should we have gained from the incarnation, if the one who first suffered were not saved nor renewed and strengthened by the conjunction with the divinity? For what is not assumed is not healed.

He assumes, therefore, the whole man, even that most excellent part of him which had fallen into sickness, that he might bestow salvation upon the whole.

But a mind without wisdom and deprived of knowledge could never be;

for if it is inert and motionless, it is altogether nonexistent.

Wishing to renew that which is according to the image, God the Word became man.

And what is that which is according to the image, if not the mind? Did he then pass over the better and assume the worse? For the mind is at the borderland between God and flesh—dwelling with the latter, but the image of God.

Mind, then, is mingled with mind, and mind mediates between the purity of God and the density of flesh;

for if the Lord assumed a soul without mind, he assumed the soul of an irrational animal.

But if anyone, because the evangelist said that the Word became flesh, [should object], it must be known that in Holy Scripture man is sometimes called 'soul,' as in the saying, 'Jacob went into Egypt with seventy-five souls,' and sometimes 'flesh,' as in the saying, 'all flesh shall see the salvation of God.'

The Lord, therefore, became not flesh without soul nor without mind, but man.

'Why do you beat me, a man who has spoken the truth to you?' He assumed, therefore, flesh ensouled with a rational and intellectual soul, ruling over the flesh but ruled by the divinity of the Word.

He had, then, naturally, the power of willing both as God and as man; but he followed and submitted to his own [divine] will, not moved by his own private opinion (gnome), but willing those things which his divine will willed.

For when the divine will permitted, he suffered his own proper things naturally.

For when he begged off from death, it was naturally—his divine will having willed it and permitted it—that he begged off from death, and was in agony, and was afraid.

And when his divine will willed that his human will should choose death, the passion became voluntary to it;

for he gave himself up to death voluntarily not only as God, but also as man.

Wherefore he bestowed upon us also boldness against death.

Thus, then, before the saving passion he says:

'Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me';

evidently it was as man that he was about to drink the cup, not as God.

As man, therefore, he wills the cup to pass;

these are the words of the natural fear.

'Nevertheless, let not my will be done'—that is, in so far as I am of a different essence from you—'but yours,' that is, mine and yours, in so far as I am consubstantial with you;

these are the words of the courage.

For having first experienced the natural weakness according to perception in the separation of the body, and having undergone the natural sympathy, the soul of the Lord—since he had truly become man according to his good pleasure—being then strengthened by the divine will, takes courage against death.

For since the same one was wholly God with his humanity and wholly man with his divinity, he himself as man, in himself and through himself, subjected the human to God and Father, giving us himself as the best pattern and example, and became obedient to the Father.

And he willed with free self-determination by both the divine and the human will;

for in every rational nature the self-determining will is altogether implanted.

For to what end will [the rational nature] possess reason, if it does not reason with self-determination? For the natural appetite the Creator has sown also in the irrational animals, leading them toward the maintenance of their own nature;

for, being without share in reason, they cannot lead, but are led by the natural appetite.

Wherefore, as soon as the appetite arises, immediately there is also the impulse to action;

for [the irrational animal] makes no use of reason or counsel or deliberation or judgment.

Wherefore it is neither praised and blessed as pursuing virtue, nor

punished as doing evil.

But the rational nature has the natural appetite, indeed, moved, yet led and regulated by reason in those who keep that which is according to nature;

for this is the prerogative of reason, the self-determining will, which we call the natural motion in the rational being.

Therefore, pursuing virtue, it is praised and blessed, and pursuing evil, it is punished.

So that the soul of the Lord willed, indeed, being moved with self-determination, but it willed with self-determination those things which his divine will willed it to will;

for the flesh was not moved at the nod of the Word (for Moses too and all the saints were moved at the divine nod), but the same one, being one God and man, willed according to both the divine and the human will.

Wherefore the two wills of the Lord differed from one another not in opinion (gnome), but rather in natural power.

For his divine will was without beginning and all-effecting, having power attendant on it, and impassible; but his human will began from a point in time and itself underwent the natural and blameless sufferings, and was naturally not all-powerful, though, as truly and according to nature having become [the will] of God the Word, it was also all-powerful.

On the theandric energy. The blessed Dionysius, in saying that Christ, having lived among us, [exercised] a certain new theandric energy, does not, by abolishing the natural energies, assert one energy produced out of the human and the divine—for thus we should also say there is one new nature produced out of the divine and human nature;

for of those things whose energy is one, the essence also is one, according to the holy fathers—but, wishing to show the new and ineffable manner of the manifestation of Christ's natural energies, corresponding to the ineffable manner of the mutual interpenetration of Christ's natures, and his manner of life as man as strange and paradoxical and unknown to the nature of beings, and the manner of the interchange [of properties] in accordance with the ineffable union;

for we do not say that the energies are divided, nor that the natures work dividedly, but united, each working in communion with the other that which is its own.

For he neither wrought the human things in a merely human way (for he was not a mere man), nor the divine things according to God alone (for he was not naked God), but being at once God and man.

For just as we understand the union and the natural difference of the natures, so also of the natural wills and energies.

It must therefore be known that in the case of our Lord Jesus Christ we sometimes make our discourse as concerning two natures, and sometimes as concerning one person, and both this and that are referred to one concept;

for the two natures are one Christ, and the one Christ is two natures.

Christ works according to each of his two natures, and each nature works in Christ in communion with the other.

The divine nature, then, communicates with the flesh in its working, because by the good pleasure of the divine will it is permitted to suffer and do its own proper things, and because the energy of the flesh is altogether salvific—which is not of the human energy, but of the divine.

And the flesh communicates with the divinity of the Word in its working, both because the divine energies are accomplished as through the instrument of the body, and because the one who works divinely and at the same time humanly is one.

For it must be known that his holy mind also works its own natural energies, perceiving and knowing that it is the mind of God and that it is worshiped by all creation, and remembering his sojournings and sufferings upon the earth; and it communicates with the working divinity of the Word, which governs and directs the universe—perceiving and knowing and governing, not as the mere mind of a man, but as united hypostatically to God and having become the mind of God.

This, then, is what the theandric energy declares: that, when God was made man—that is, became incarnate—his human energy too was divine, that is, deified, and not without share in his divine energy; and his divine energy was not without share in his human energy, but each was contemplated together with the other.

This manner is a periphrasis, when one comprehends two things by means of one word.

For just as we speak of one 'cut-burning' and one 'burnt-cutting' of a red-hot knife, yet we say that the cutting is one energy and the burning another, and of one nature and another—the burning of the fire, the cutting of the iron—so, when we speak of one theandric energy of Christ, we understand two energies of his two natures: the divine energy of his divinity and the human energy of his humanity.