Глава 1-я

A brief preliminary preparation that makes it clear to the industrious worker about what he should first of all exercise [his mind] and gain knowledge First of all, it is necessary to lead a worthy life and acquire the indwelling of the Spirit of God 1 . One should [with all] one’s heart 2 understand the definitions, especially the most necessary ones. It is necessary to thoroughly understand the way of thinking of [one’s] opponents and carefully study their writings, for we can often put them to shame based on their own works. In general, there is no need to meet [to interview people] who are uninitiated and unreasonable, but one should [enter into communication] with those who have this need for the sake of faith, and [meet with them] when it is necessary and to the extent necessary. One should study all Scripture with the fear of God, but do this not with any evil intent, but in simplicity of heart. It is impossible to explore the depths of our nature 3; it is also impossible to examine what is passed over in silence in the Holy Scriptures. This is the commandment “not to break bones” (Ex. 12:10, 46; Num. 9:12, Prov. 23:15; Is. 33:3; John 19:36), that is, not to touch anything that is solid. One should carefully study both what is said clearly and what is said somehow, as well as in an improper sense or ingenuously 4 . For example, [the latter include] the words: “Every man is a lie” (Ps. 116:2) and “do not do goodness” (Ps. 13:1). Scholia. It should be noted that the Church received some traditions orally. For example, the legend about the communion of [the Holy Mysteries] on an empty stomach, about prayer facing the east, about the fact that the [Holy] Mother of God remained a Virgin even after giving birth, and also about the fact that She gave birth in a cave, and much more 5 . There are two purposes of conversations; one [conviction] through the sayings of Scripture, and the other [conviction] through actual evidence 6 ; the latter is more powerful and true, for the sayings of Scripture can be counterfeited. You should know that if you bring evidence to your opponent [from Scripture as evidence], then he, a heretic or a Jew, immediately brings another testimony. Therefore, he who is able to [argue] through actual evidence comes forward to meet opponents who are more [strongly] armed. You should also know chronographs and know at what time such and such a father [lived] and when this or that heresy occurred. Let the following also not be hidden from you: When we lead the enemy into difficulty with [any] question, he will strive to transfer the course of reasoning to another topic - this cannot be allowed. Before the interview, it is necessary to demand an oath from the enemy that he will not go against his conscience in a single word he utters. Before any reasoning, we should anathematize the false preconception that the enemy has about us. For example, that we are going to negotiate with the Arabs 7 . First, let us also pronounce anathema on anyone who speaks about two gods, or on someone who says that God gave birth to a son in a carnal way, or on someone who worships any heavenly or earthly creature as a god. In addition, other heresies that hold false opinions about us and [our] faith should first be anathematized. Those who listen favorably to these anathemas [usually also favorably] perceive [usually everything] else. We must make the following preliminary statement to any Monophysite: “We object to you, not based on the [religious definition] of the Council of Chalcedon, but relying on the Fathers [who lived] before this Council, who are recognized by both you and us as Orthodox” 8. We should take preliminary precautions against [any] Monophysite and sincerely anathematize [anyone] who does not confess Christ as the true God. As if adopting the guise of a Jew or Paul of Samosata, one should obtain from the Monophysite a clear answer to the question: how is it clear that Christ is the Most High God? Ammonius did the same in relation to Halicarnassus. You will find Ammonius's objections in the twenty-first notebook [of our work] 9. It should be noted that the Monophysites, using a chalice [at the Eucharist], offer [to the communicants] undiluted wine, [that is, wine] without water, and thereby clearly expose [themselves] who confess that Christ is only one pure and simple Divinity, devoid of any admixture of flesh or soul 10. I, 2 Summary of Faith We must know and not be ignorant of the fact that any dogmatic statement should not be uttered thoughtlessly and without prior careful verification. The statement about two natures, wills and actions in Christ, like any other dogmatic statement, can be both pious and impious. Likewise, those who speak of two natural properties in Christ must explain how “natural” is to be understood. For it can be used in either a pious or an impious sense. [You should know that] this word is in circulation in ordinary usage and in such a case does not contain any [shade] of what is worthy of surprise; in this sense it cannot be applied to a nature or property in Christ. In the same way, whoever wants to proclaim the different wills and actions of the Divinity and humanity in Christ, let him not preach madly, having lost his sense of proportion and without examining [carefully] this issue, as happened with some ignorant people [in theology], about two natural wills and two natural actions 11 . For such statements about two natural [wills and actions, like] this and this, easily lead into temptation the listeners, especially ordinary people. Therefore, let it be said, interpreted, and answered with the fear of God and with all reverence to those who can comprehend what is meant by “nature” and how this “nature” is thought of in relation to Christ. [In other words, we can say that by “nature” is meant] the true thing 12 and not the hypostatic or personal nature and not the natural part of the flesh. [Therefore, we should speak] about two hypostatically united true things, that is, perfect Divinity and perfect humanity, unmerged, unchangeable and inseparably [united] in the one Person of Christ. For Christ is one Hypostasis and one Person 13. I also admonish [you] to warn in advance against the danger of the listener and [in the question of] wills, speaking as follows: “I do not at all affirm, as you believe, [the presence] in Christ of two warring and opposing wills, I am not speaking at all about the will of the flesh, passionate or evil, for even demons do not dare to say this in relation to Christ. But since He took on perfect man in order to save him all, 14 since He is perfect both in humanity and in Divinity, then therefore we call the divine will in Christ the sovereign care of His commandments and commandments, and by the human will in him we think of the willful power of the intelligent soul, which is in the image and likeness of God, given and breathed into the soul by God when He created [man], so that the soul, through this volitional power, she wanted to obey God’s will and fulfill Divine commands” 15 If the soul of Christ is deprived of rational, volitional, discriminating, creating, active and desiring power, then it ceases to be truly in the image of God and consubstantial with our souls, but [becomes consubstantial with] weak-willed, desireless, unwise, unreflective and unreasonable souls. And therefore, it cannot be said that Christ is perfect in humanity. Therefore, Christ, “being the image of God” (Phil. 2:6), has a sovereign will according to the Divinity, which is the will common to the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit; but He, “who took the form of a servant” (Phil. 2:7), also has the will of His thinking and pure soul, which, [being] in the image and likeness of God, fulfills the will of the Master 16. If the will of His holy and thinking soul is destroyed, then in this case it will be revealed that [Christ] according to Divinity slavishly obeyed and fulfilled the will of the Father. But in this way Arius, Diodorus and Theodore blasphemed [God], speaking about two wills according to the Divinity of the Father and the Son - the sovereign will of the Father and the servile will of the Son. And therefore, in the words of [Aria]: “The Son speaks like a servant, [addressing] the Master: “Nevertheless, not My will, but Thine be done” (Luke 22:42) and “I do not seek My will, but the will of the Father” (John 5:30)” 17. In contrast to the heretics who say this, our holy fathers interpret these words of the Lord as referring to His humanity. If the soul of the Lord were deprived of a thinking will, then it is clear that it submitted to God the Word involuntarily, like an unreasonable [creature]. But that's not true. For if [the Lord] is perfect in Divinity, and equally perfect and consubstantial with us in humanity, then He possesses both perfect divine and [perfect] human properties. In the same way one should think and explain [judgments] regarding the two actions of Christ. We call His divine action the creation of miracles and signs; This especially applies to those [miracles] for which the touch of His all-holy body was not required. Such a miracle was [the healing of the daughter of] the Canaanite woman, who [even] did not approach Christ (Matthew 15:21–28; Mark 7:24–30), [as well as the healing of] the paralytic servant of the centurion (Matthew 8:5–13). Similar miracles were: the tearing of the veil [in the church] (Matthew 27:51), the darkening of the sun (Luke 23:45), the dispersal of stones (Matthew 27:51), the opening of the tomb and the resurrection of the dead [saints] (Matthew 27:52). For when [His] all-holy body hung [on the Cross] and did not touch any of this, the divine action of God the Word in the body alone did and accomplished this. By human action in Christ, pure and holy, impeccable and God-given, God-created and vital, we call the life-giving action of His holy soul, thanks to which His all-holy body was made alive. During the suffering of the cross, it separated and left the body, which immediately became dead, but the divine action did not separate from it. Scripture also testifies that through the vital action of the thinking soul the body is given life; Through the inhalation of God, the vital soul was created and given to our earthy body, about which Solomon speaks, addressing certain wicked people and idolaters: “More dishonorable than clay is its life. For I have not lost the One who created him, who breathed into him the real soul, and who breathed into him the animal spirit” (Wis. 15:10-11). Here we are clearly taught that the body is given life by the action of the soul, just as the Lord speaks of the flesh and soul: “The Spirit gives life; the flesh profiteth nothing” (John 6:63). If the opponent says: “God the Word was the One who gives life to the body,” 19 then of necessity he must also declare: “The body died when it lost God the Word, who withdrew from it.” But if this is so, then what need was there for Him to perceive and have a rational and vital soul at all? Some say: “Every increase, decrease, separation and need of the holy flesh of Christ is not naturally contemplated, and therefore the human action of Christ is said to depend on the Godhead.”20 We [talk] about a godly act and understand by it [everything] that is done by Christ in a manner appropriate to both natures, and contemplated [as such] 21, for example, the healing of a blind man through spitting (Mark 8:22-26; John 9:1-7), the resurrection of the daughter of the ruler of the synagogue by the laying on of His holy hand (Mark 5:22-24, 35–42), blessing of the loaves (Matthew 14:13–21; Mark 6:31–44), healing the deaf and tongue-tied through His fingers (Mark 7:32–35), awakening Lazarus [from the sleep of death] with His voice (John 11:43–45), flowing out blood and water from [His] dead body (John 19:34), the procession of [the Lord] on the sea (Matthew 14:25–34; Mark 6:48–53; John 6:19–21), the transmission of the [Holy] Spirit through His divine lips (John 20:21–23). Heretics, seeing this godly action, befitting both natures, turn away from confessing in it some kind of divine action, as well as spiritual, vital and human action. We must know precisely and unequivocally that our opponents, based on observation of their own will, as well as of the action of their own soul and body, constantly and continuously fought, defiled and incited by the devil, refuse (for the same reason as Nestorius) to talk about human will and action in Christ, but invent a one-natural identity of will and identity of action [in Him] 22. But we will talk about this in more detail in subsequent [chapters] and in other [works]. Scholia. Let the industrious [among us] not remain ignorant of the fact that since we are in the habit of calling those possessed by demons who are [under someone's evil] influence 23 , then heretics, when they hear about the actions in Christ, then immediately, considering them to be the actions of those suffering [possessed], they become indignant and reject such an expression, as if [they themselves] were truly possessed by a demon or being under the influence of [evil forces]. A preliminary examination of the basis of definitions in the book, which is called “Guide” The structure of our mortal essence, consisting of a rational and thinking soul and a combination of [material] elements, that is, flesh, was given [to us] by the all-wise Creator, so that good would be based on a virtuous and impeccable life, taking its source in pious faith and in observing the divine commandments. For just as the body by itself, devoid of a soul, cannot gain life, so keeping the commandments without [preserving] Orthodoxy cannot bring benefit to a person. After all, what the soul is to the body, Orthodoxy is also to the spirit 24 . Therefore, first of all, if you wish, let us take care of [acquiring] dispassionate thoughts about God and the divine, let us assimilate and cherish it, so that the building we are erecting on a pure and unshakable foundation, everything and in everything, will become flawless, held together by Christ, whom we piously honor as the Cornerstone [of our faith] 25, and so that [this building] will be unshakable under all the blows and onslaughts of heretical divination. Since the preliminary comprehension and reflection of actual definitions is inherent in being the solid foundation and unshakable cornerstone of all rational wisdom, they must precede [our] reasoning, like reliable guides. For few (especially in our generation) show diligence and are not afraid to work in order to learn definitions and [be able to] think about them in advance. [It should be known] that many of the heretics with whom we met tried to dogmatize about Christ, as if fighting a night battle or [participating in] a fight of the blind. We could [talk] with them only with difficulty holding back laughter, especially [when this happened] in the city of Alexandria. For what could be more ridiculous [of such interviews]? – They dogmatized about nature, but did not know what the definition of nature was; They argued about hypostasis, but did not know what hypostasis was. And [everything] else in the same way. We, with the assistance of Christ, from a young age perceived in parts from the Fatherly Tradition the instructions in definitions 26. Thanks to this, we consider all [our] opponents as weaker, [seeing in them those] who should be converted to God through [the same] instruction. [And we exhort all Orthodox Christians, first of all, to take care of the knowledge of definitions, especially those that relate to the teaching of Christ, so that you will not be blind strangers, and those who speak for you will also be a stranger 27 . First of all, one must know that the Tradition of the Catholic Church does not follow in everything and does not follow the definitions of Hellenic philosophers, especially when it comes to the sacrament of Christ and triadology, but God-like follows its Gospel and Apostolic canon. For the mystery of the Divine is above physical definitions and laws; not understanding this difference, heretics dogma the Divine in generally accepted and natural-philosophical [concepts] and as a result fall into error 28 . As a result, [Apostle] Paul said that he preaches Christ “not in convincing words of the wisdom of this age” (1 Cor. 2:4-6), because the generally accepted philosophy is “foolishness before God” (1 Cor. 3:19) 29. Now, notice that the first definition of this philosophy reads: “[Things] opposite to each other by nature are impossible to enter into union; for example, fire cannot be intactly combined with hay.” And the first definition of our saving [teaching] refutes this philosophical definition, proclaiming [the combination in the Mother of God] of virginity and liberation, as well as communion and unity [in the Lord] of divine fire with the opposite nature of the flesh. The second definition of philosophy reads: “The individual hypostasis, which embraces all [beings], is indescribable; but it is impossible to say that two or three are indescribable, for two is known when one is described. And the Holy Church confesses an indescribable God in three Persons.” Again Plato says: “Paternity is the pre-existence of sonship” 30. The Church says that the Son, before [all] ages, coexisted and was without beginning together with the Father 31 . God-bearing Basil, who knows this, says, turning to Amphilochius: “Nature and essence, in accordance with church dogmas, are one thing” 32. The [Holy] Father, speaking “in accordance with church dogmas,” indicated that, according to Hellenic [teaching], essence and nature are not the same thing. Therefore, Clement [of Alexandria], [a man] abundant in wisdom and knowledge, created in a special way the definitions of church dogmas 33, being a student and true pupil of the Apostles Peter and, especially, the wise Paul; hearing how the latter rejects, turns away and mocks Hellenic wisdom, [Clement also rejected it]. Our first question to the heretics who are trying to object to our [teaching] about the Economy of Christ’s Incarnation is this: where or from which author of Holy Scripture did the Holy Church first of all receive the [concept of] “nature”? And who [of the sacred authors] asserts that nature is action? And where did the Church learn about [the concept of] “genus”? And who was the first to speak regarding [the word] “will”? Where does [the concept] “hypostasis” come from? Where did [Christians] first hear about “essence”? And since the enemy will [surely] be confused by this kind of questioning, this will be his first defeat. Wed. at St. Athanasius: “For the study and true understanding of what is said in Scripture, a good life, a pure soul and Christ-like virtue are required, so that the mind, having succeeded in this, is able to achieve what it wants and acquire it, to the extent that knowledge of God’s Word is possible for human nature. For without a pure mind and without imitating the life of the saints, no one is able to understand the words of the saints.” St. Athanasius the Great. Creations, vol. I. M., 1994, p. 263. Lit. "chest" (ἐκ στήϑους). The role of the heart as an “epistemological principle” in Christianity is well known. It was especially emphasized by ascetic church writers. For details, see: Zarin S. Asceticism according to Orthodox Christian teaching, M., 1996, p. 392–394, 577–582. This phrase (lit. “one cannot probe our most intimate depths” - οὐ δεῖ τὰ βαϑύτερα ἡμῶν ψηλαφᾶν) probably implies the meaning that constant self-reflection (or “soul-searching”) can be useless, and even harmful, in spiritual and moral life, if such reflection does not lead to repentance, that is, to the transformation of a person. This selection of different types of statements (τὰ ὁριστικῶς λεγάμενα, τὰ μέσως πῶς, τὰ καταχρηστικῶς καὶ ἀκάκως) probably suggests a distinction between “defining judgments” (i.e., clear and unambiguous), “average judgments” (i.e., not having such unambiguous clarity) and “imprecise and free judgments” (i.e., those that cannot be perceived in the proper sense of the word). Wed. at St. John of Damascus, speaking about worship to the east “This is the unwritten Tradition of the Apostles. For they conveyed much to us without expressing it orally.” Further, speaking about icon veneration (“the honor given to the image is transferred to the prototype”), he notes: “This same tradition is one of those not recorded in the Holy Scriptures. Scripture, as well as concerning worship to the east and worship of the cross and many other similar things.” Creations like the saints of our father John of Damascus. An Accurate Statement of the Orthodox Faith. M., Rostov-on-Don, 1992, p. 218, 237. About these “real evidence” (πραγματικῶν παραστάσεων) see above, note. 1 to “The first word about the structure of man” [p. 69 present ed.] {footnote beginning: “Wed. reasoning of St. Cyril of Alexandria, who is in “Dialogues...”.” Editorial of the ABC of Faith}. In this case, “Arabs” or “Arabians” most likely mean Muslims, and negotiations with them are perceived as a betrayal of the Christian faith. This thesis by Rev. Anastasia is explained by the fact that Monophysitism was initially predominantly an anti-Chalcedonian movement (though it remained so in many ways in subsequent times). This “anti-Chalcedonianism” was especially clearly manifested, for example, in Egyptian Monophysitism, where the Council of Chalcedon was assessed as nothing less than “diabolical.” See: Cramer M. , Bacht N. Der antichalcedonische Aspekt im historisch-biographischen Schrifttum der koptischen Monophysiten (6–7. Jahrhundert) // Das Konzil von Chalcedon Geschichte und Gegenwart. Hrsg von A. Grillmeier und H. Bacht. Bd. II. Würzburg, 1953, S. 315–318 One of the main arguments of the Monophysites was that the creed of this Council contradicts the previous patristic tradition. As one Russian scientist states, in a relatively short time, opponents of the Council of Chalcedon and “enemies of the Church managed to come up with all sorts of means and methods to discredit the Chalcedonian dogma in the eyes of Christians. The most important and heaviest accusation leveled against this dogma was that it introduces a new faith, which the previous fathers and teachers of the Church did not know, which St. Cyril of Alexandria, this pillar of Orthodoxy" Sokolov V. Completion of Byzantine Christology after Leontius of Byzantium // Orthodox Interlocutor, 1916, No. 910, p. 257. Therefore, reliance on the texts of the holy fathers was of utmost importance for all Orthodox polemicists of the 6th–7th centuries, which is associated with the appearance at that time of numerous collections of patristic testimonies (florilegies). See: Schermann Th. Die Geschichte der dogmatischen Florilegien vom V–VIII. Jahrhundert Leipzig, 1904, pp. 2–11. Almost nothing is known about this Ammonius, presbyter of Alexandria, church polemicist of the 6th century. For a brief information about him, see: Beck N. G. Kirche und theologische Literatur im byzantinische Reich München, 1959, S. 383. There is no complete certainty that this Ammonius is identical to Ammonius, the interpreter of the Holy Scriptures, from whose works only fragments of interpretations on the Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of John have survived. See: Reuss J. Der Exeget Ammonius und die Fragmente seines Matthaus und Johannes Kommentars // Biblica, v. 22, 1941, S. 13–20. Rev. Anastasius preserved in the Guide one excerpt from Ammonius’s work “Against the Heresies of Eutyches and Dioscorus” (chap. XIV, 1) and two excerpts from the work “Against Julian of Halicarnassus” (chap. XIII, 8 and ΧIII, 10). Ammonia Rev. Anastasius calls him “the most experienced of exegetes” (πολυπειρότατος τῶν ἐξηγητῶν); he, polemicizing against Julian, who “dissolved the holy flesh of Christ, like a drop of vinegar, in the sea of the Divinity,” used the indicated technique, i.e., “took the guise of [Paul] of Samosata” (ἀναλαβὼν γὰρ καὶ προσποιησάμενος τὸ τοῦ Σαμοσατέως). The essence of this technique was probably to pretend to express the positions of Paul of Samosata and the Jews (who believed that the Lord was a simple man), to force his opponent (Julian of Halicarnassus) to extremely emphasize his opposite theses, and thereby completely expose his own wrong-headedness. As for Julian of Halicarnassus, he first appears on the historical stage among the eastern monks - opponents of the Council of Chalcedon, who flooded Constantinople during the reign of Anastasius I. Under Justin I, he, along with Severus of Antioch and other Monophysites, was expelled from the capital, finding refuge in Egypt. Here, a controversy broke out between Julian and Severus, who had hitherto been like-minded people, regarding the incorruptibility of the body of Christ before the Resurrection. See: Draguet R. Juhep d'Halicarnasse et sa controverse avec Severe d'Antioche sur i'incorruptibilitr du corps du Christ. Louvain, 1924, p. 3–74. This controversy was to a certain extent explained by different understandings of the term “corruption” (φϑόρα), which for Julian was often synonymous with “sin.” See: Ibid., p. 100–135. How widespread was this practice of communion with wine alone among the Monophysites in the era of St. Anastasia, it’s hard to say. Currently, among all the eastern “non-Chalcedonian” churches, only the Armenian church adheres to it. See: Bishop Yeznik Petrosyan. Armenian Apostolic Holy Church. Echmiadzin, 2001, p. 89–90. Atiya A. S. A History of Eastern Christianity. London, 1968, p. 345. It should be noted that “many in the East, accusing the Jacobites of apostasy from the universal Church and attributing to them various errors, among other things they accuse them of celebrating the Liturgy on unleavened bread, like the Latins and Armenians, and not dissolving wine with water, but this is completely unfair.” Zephaniah, Bishop of Turkestan and Tashkent. Modern life and Liturgy of Christians of heterodox Jacobites and Nestorians. St. Petersburg, 1876, p. 53. Who does Rev. mean here? Anastasius under “ignorant” (ἀπαιδεύτους - “ill-mannered, uneducated”), it’s hard to say. A little lower, he talks about the temptation of statements regarding “two natural [wills and actions], about this and about that” (δύο φυσικά, τόδε καὶ τόδε), and implies, apparently, a sharp distinction between natures, their properties, wills and actions in Christ, i.e. extreme diopheliteism and Dyophysitism. In this extreme diopheliteism one should hardly see Nestorianism, for, as the “Book of Heraclides” shows, for example, in the teaching about wills and actions in Christ there was no complete clarity: sometimes two actions and two wills, sometimes one action and one will of the Lord were affirmed. See: Nestorius The Bazaar of Heracleides. Transl. and edited by G. R. Driver and L. Hodgson. Oxford, 1925, p. 405–406. Most likely, Rev. Anastasius implicitly polemicizes against the tendency towards extreme diopheliteism among the Orthodox themselves, which is an overly harsh reaction to monothelitism. The designation of nature as a “true thing” (τὸ ἀληϑὲς πρᾶγμα) is attributed to Clement of Alexandria, one fragment from whose work “On Providence” is quoted by St. Maximus the Confessor (see: PG 91:264); however, the authenticity of this fragment is questioned. In this case, Rev. Anastasius follows the Chalcedonian definition of faith, especially in identifying the concepts of “hypostasis” and “person,” as well as using the adverbs “unmerged, unchangeable and indivisible” (ἀσυγχύτως, ἀτρέπτως, ἀδιαιρέτως). This phrase (ἐπειδὴ τέλειον τὸν ἀνϑρωπον ἔλαβεν, ἵνα ὅλον σώση) is undoubtedly an echo of the classical expression of St. Gregory the Theologian: “After all, what is not perceived remains unhealed, but what is united with God is saved” (τὸ γὰρ ἀπρόσληπτον, ἀϑεράπευτον; ὅ δὲ ἥνωται τῷ Θεῷ, τοῦτο καὶ σῴζεται), expressed by him in the context of the anti-Arian polemic. See: Grégoire de Nazianze. Lettres théologiques. Ed. par P. Gallay // Sources chrétiennes, No. 208. Paris, 1974, p. 50. See also note. 1 to the “Third Word” [p. 159 present ed. {footnote beginning: “This is the reasoning of Rev. Anastasia is the development of thoughts...” Editorial of the ABC of Faith }]. According to the teachings of St. Gregory, “The divine nature was united in Jesus Christ with human nature for the purpose that the latter, as having been damaged after the fall of man, through this union would be sanctified and restored to its original purity. Now, if at the same time we exclude any part of human nature, then the latter, of course, will no longer participate in the sanctification that takes place through the union of the Divinity with humanity.” Vinogradov N. Dogmatic teaching of Saint Gregory the Theologian. Kazan, 1887, p. 416–417. These are the thoughts of Rev. Anastasius develops in the “Third Word about the creation of man in the image and likeness of God” (III, 5). See also the teaching of Rev. Maximus the Confessor, according to which “man is the image of the Divine, and God by nature has freedom; therefore, man as such by nature has freedom, or will (ϑελητικὸς ἄρα φύσει ὁ ἀνϑρωπος).” Orlov I. Works of St. Maximus the Confessor on the disclosure of the dogmatic doctrine of two wills in Christ. St. Petersburg, 1888, p. 116. St. Theophan, interpreting Philippians 2:6–7, notes. “Here the image of God is μορφὴ, there the image of a slave is also μορφή. But the image of a slave there signifies human nature, therefore, the image of God here signifies the Divine nature.” Creations like the saints of our father Theophan the Recluse. Interpretations of the Epistles of the Apostle Paul. Epistle to the Colossians and Philippians. M., p. 1998, p. 353. Rev. Anastasius, in his work “Florilegium against the Monothelites,” cites two fragments of Arius, where the indicated Gospel passages are interpreted in a similar sense. See: Anastasii Sinaitae Sermones duo, p. 87. However, the authenticity of these two fragments is questioned: Bardy G. Recherches sur saint Lucien d'Antioche et son ecole. Paris, 1936, p. 287–295 It is difficult to say how authentic this excerpt (most likely Aria) can be considered. Wed. one observation of Father Cyprian (Kern) regarding the “psychology” of the Rev. Anastasia “The word ψυχή itself comes from the verb ψυχεῖν - to revive the body. St. Anastasius distinguishes the animal and dumb soul from the rational soul, as the principle (energy) that animates the blood. Verbal reason is defined as the contemplative feeling of the immortal and rational soul. The mind itself is a disembodied vision.” Archimandrite Cyprian (Kern). Anthropology of St. Gregory Palamas. M., p. 1996, p. 204. This thesis practically coincides with one of the fundamental positions of the Apollinarians. Only this thesis in the words of Rev. Anastasia is thought within the framework of dichotomous anthropology, while Apollinaris, rather, gravitated towards trichotomous anthropology. Therefore, “the mystery of the Incarnation and its reality is preserved, according to Apollinaris, only when the Incarnation is understood not as God’s perception of the complete man, but as the unity of God with the flesh in the likeness of man. This unity is achieved only through the replacement of the human mind with the Divine mind or the Word. Christ “would not have been in the likeness of man if he had not been mind clothed with flesh, like man,” “just as man is one, consisting of spirit, soul and body,” so Christ is one, consisting in the likeness of man of God, soul and flesh.” Spassky A. The historical fate of the works of Apollinaris of Laodicea with a brief preliminary sketch of his life. Sergiev Posad, 1895, p. 310. This situation is typical for Monophysites. The texts of Dioscorus of Alexandria, Timothy Elur, Severus of Antioch and others show that in the Economy of the incarnate God of the Word they see two aspects of His action (but not two actions!). “God-like” (ϑεοπρεπῶς) and “human-like” (ἀνϑρωποπρεπώς), but the active Subject for them is one. Therefore, the two named aspects of the action of this Subject are incomparable with each other: one correlates with nature and being (i.e., ontological), and the other – with will and Housekeeping (i.e., only “economic”). See: Lebon J. Le monophysisme sévérien Louvain, 1909, p. 467–473. The expression “divine action” belongs to Dionysius the Areopagite, who in his fourth epistle, speaking about the fact that God the Word truly became Man (ἀληϑῶς ἄνϑρωπος γεγενώς), notes that “He did not do anything divine in the Divine way (οὐ He lived among us and acted (or: controlled us) by some new godly action πεπολιτευμένος)". PG 3, 1072. Later, Monophysites and Monothelites used this expression, but significantly distorting it: they either added “one” (μίαν) [divine action], or simply replaced “new” with “one”. St. St. was one of the first to draw attention to this distortion of the expression of Dionysius the Areopagite. Sophronius of Jerusalem See: Schönbom Chr. , von. Sophrone de Jérusalen. Vie monastique et confession dogmatique. Paris, 1972, p. 222. Then Rev. Maximus the Confessor interpreted this expression in a clear Orthodox sense. For him, “the descriptive expression ‘ϑεανδρικὴ’ indicates the dual nature of Christ, and precisely the manner of existence of two natures in Christ.” Orlov I. Works of St. Maximus the Confessor on the disclosure of the dogmatic doctrine of two wills in Christ, p. 101. St. John of Damascus interprets the words of Dionysius in a similar way: “He speaks, wanting to show a new and ineffable way of revealing the natural actions of Christ, according to the ineffable way of the penetration of Christ’s natures - one into the other, - also the human race of His life - extraordinary and amazing and unknown to the nature of existence - and the way of communication arising due to the ineffable union.” Works like the saints of our father John of Damascus An exact exposition of the Orthodox faith, p. 183. A similar understanding of the expression of Dionysius by St. Anastasius expresses through the adverb κοινοπρεπῶς (i.e., in a manner corresponding to both natures of Christ, or: befitting both natures). This expression (μονοφυῆ ταὐτοβουλίαν καὶ ταὐτοπραξίαν) most likely means a certain “natural fusion” of wills and actions in Christ. In this case, Rev. Anastasius identifies τοὺς δαιμονιζομένους and ἐνεργουμένους. The use of the participle (medial passive) from the verb ἐνεργέω in the sense of “possessed” is quite common in ancient church writing. See, for example, such a classic work as “The Life of St. Anthony the Great." “And another one of the noble people came to Anthony, having a demon in himself (ἐχων δαίμονα πρὸς αὐτὸν); This demon was very fierce; possessed by him (ἐνεργούμενον) did not know that he was brought to Anthony.” See: St. Athanasius the Great. Creations, vol. III. M., 1994, p. 228. Text: Athanase d'Alexandrie. Vie d'Antoine. Ed. par G.J.M. Bartelink // Sources chretiennes, No. 400. Paris, 1994, p. 302. But in the eyes of opponents, Rev. Anastasia, such usage of words, judging by the scholium, seemed to cast a shadow on the very concept of “action” (ἐνέργεια). This statement expresses one of the basic principles of the theology of the Venerable himself. Anastasia, and one of the main leitmotifs of the entire patristic worldview: Orthodoxy (ὀρϑοδοξία) is the focus (soul, heart) of a person’s entire spiritual and moral life. In other words, the sanctity of life is unattainable without right dogmas (and vice versa). Therefore, Rev. Justin remarks: “What are the Lives of the Saints? Dogmas put into practice. What are dogmas? – Realized “Lives of the Saints”. Rev. Justin Popovich. On the Divine-Human Path. SPb., 1999, p. 116. The image of the “Cornerstone” (ὁ ἀκρογωνιαῖος λίϑος) in relation to Christ was already used by St. Justin. See: St. Justin Philosopher and Martyr. Creations M., 1995, p. 316. A similar instruction (τὴν τῶν ὅρων παίδευσιν), perceived gradually from the Fatherly Tradition (ἐκ πατρικῆς παραδόσεως παραλαβόντες μερικῶς), probably suggests a fairly thorough school and theological education of the Rev. Anastasia. It is difficult to say where it was obtained. Perhaps in the same Alexandria, which in the 7th century. did not lose its status as a powerful cultural center. In any case, under Emperor Heraclius, it was from Alexandria that the “universal teacher” (οἰκουμενικὸς διδάσκαλος, καϑολικὸς διδάσκαλος) Stephen was summoned to renew philosophical and theological education in Constantinople. See: Diakonov A. P. Types of higher theological school in the ancient Church of the 3rd–6th centuries. // Scientific Notes of the Russian Orthodox University. John the Theologian. Vol. 3. M., 1998, p. 26. See: 1 Cor. 14, 11. According to the explanation of the blessed one. Theophylact, “if I do not understand the meaning of the words, then the speaker will turn out to be a stranger to me, that is, speaking something incomprehensible; I will seem like him too” by Blessed Theophylact, Archbishop of Bulgaria, Commentary on the Epistles of St. Apostle Paul. M., 1993, p. 185. For Rev. Anastasia, a clear definition of the main theological concepts is the “language of communication” in dogmatic disputes. Those who do not master this categorical apparatus of theology are “blind strangers” (“barbarians” - τυφλοὶ βάρβαροι). In this case, Rev. Anastasius follows the holy fathers of the previous time (especially the 4th–5th centuries), who “strictly limited the limits of independent research of reason and in no way allowed the possibility of comprehending or deducing by the logical, dialectical action of the mind the very dogmas of faith. This thought was developed with particular persistence and clarity in their polemics with Eunomius, who tried to penetrate and embrace with his mind the secrets of the Divine essence.” According to the holy fathers, “if a person cannot comprehend much in physical nature, inanimate and animate, and in the moral world, then shouldn’t he all the more give up trying to comprehend the being of God, that is, such a being that, being above all creatures, being their First Cause, is for that alone much more inconceivable and incomprehensible than the latter for the human mind? All such sublime truths, according to the fathers, constitute the subject not of natural, purely rational knowledge, but of frank, positive knowledge, and are known by faith.” Smirnov P. Patristic view of the importance of scientific and philosophical education and the relationship of faith to knowledge // Faith and Reason, 1898, No. 22, p. 612 Wed. interpretation: “Just as he commands to be dead to the world (Col. 2:20) and this deadness not only does not harm, but also brings benefit, becoming a source of life, so now he commands to be foolish to the world, showing us true wisdom in this. The one who despises external wisdom and is convinced that it does not in the least contribute to his acceptance of faith is the one who is mad for the world. Therefore, just as poverty according to God leads to wealth, humility to greatness, contempt of (earthly) glory to glory, so this madness makes a person wiser than everyone else.” Our Holy Father John, Archbishop of Constantinople, Chrysostom, Discourses on the First Epistle of St. Apostle Paul to the Corinthians, part I. St. Petersburg, 1858, p. 167. Wed. also “By “wildness” one should understand humble faith, which must be preferred to external wisdom; and if a person has not destroyed pride and arrogance in himself, and in their place has not acquired obedience and devotion to the will of God, then salvation is impossible for him. God, having deprived a person of self-praise in order to provide him with the spiritual advantages of the highest dignity, which are truth, sanctification and deliverance in Christ Jesus, helps him to be cleansed from sins, guides him in the fight against the world, the flesh, the devil and helps him achieve through this the purity of the soul, having received which and always boasting in the Lord, a Christian is never exalted by this, but is even more humbled” Hieromonk Alexy (Kuznetsov). Foolishness and pillarism. Religious and psychological research St. Petersburg, 1913, p. 67–68. This saying of Plato is not found in his surviving works. Wed. at St. John of Damascus: “Speaking about him (the Son - A. S.): before all ages, we show that His birth is flightless and without beginning; for the Son of God, the radiance of glory, the image of the Father’s hypostasis, living wisdom and power, the hypostatic Word, the essential and perfect and living image of the invisible God, was not brought into being out of non-existence, but He was always with the Father and in him, born of Him eternally and without beginning. For the Father never existed unless the Son existed, but together the Father, together the Son, begotten of Him.” Creations like the saints of our father John of Damascus. "An Accurate Statement of the Orthodox Faith", p. 15. These words of St. Basil the Great ἐστιν) are found in the “Guide” and further (IX, 2). However, this statement is not found in the authentic works of the Cappadocian saint. A distant resemblance to it can be found in one of the letters (236) of St. Basil to Amphilochius, where it says: “Essence and hypostasis have the same difference between themselves as there is between the general and the individual (τὸ κοινὸν πρὸς τὸ καϑ’ ἕκαστον), for example, between a living being and such and such a person (τὸ ζῶον πρὸς τὸν δεῖνα ἀνϑρωπον)". Works like the saints of our father Basil the Great, Archbishop of Caesarea of ​​Cappadocia, vol. III. St. Petersburg, 1911, p. 289. Text: ΒΑΣΙΛΕΙΟΣ About ΜΕΓΑΣ. E´ // ΣΥΓΓΡΑΦΕΩΝ, τ. 55. ΑΘΗΝΑΙ, 1977, σ. 289. In general, it can be noted that such a precise and unambiguous identification of “nature” and “essence”, which sounds in this definition, is found in St. the Cappadocian fathers were often absent. Because, according to A. Spassky, “one of the reasons for the uncertainty of the dogmatic terminology of the Cappadocians lies in their constant oscillation between the concepts of “οὐσία” and “φύσις” when defining the essence of God. Vasily uses both terms indifferently and, one might say, uses the latter more often than the first. In the polemic with Eunomius, only the word “φύσις” is found in application to the Divine being. In books about the Holy Spirit. he understands holiness itself as his own nature, and if he sometimes in his letters applies “identity” to the being of God, then he understands it as ταυτότης τῆς φύσεως (identity of nature) or as communion by nature (συμφυὴς κοινωνία) The same is observed in Gregory the Theologian, although he more often uses the term “οὐσία”. Gregory of Nyssa in one case gives preference to the word οὐσία over φύσις, but does not establish a theoretical difference between them, but in practice he rather leans toward the latter than the former. But “οὐσία” and “φύσις” are far from interchangeable concepts. “Οὐσία” denotes a constant and unchanging substrate of being (τὸ εἶναι) “Φύσις”, rather, the totality of its essential properties, expressed in external manifestation.” Spassky A. History of dogmatic movements in the era of the Ecumenical Councils (in connection with the philosophical teachings of that time). M., 1995, p. 496–497. Only in the VI century. Orthodox theologians have a clear and distinct identification of the concepts of “essence” and “nature.” For example, John the Grammar of Caesarea says that Christ is “in two natures, that is, essences” (in duabus naturis, id est, substantiis). Iohannis Caesariensis Presbyteri et Grammatici Opera quae supersunt. Ed. M. Richard et M. Aubineau // Corpus Christianorum. Series Graeca, v. 1. Turnhout, 1977, p. 13. We are talking about a collection of theological and philosophical definitions attributed to Clement of Alexandria, but actually belonging to some other ancient church writer, see the preface to the edition of Clemens Alexandrinus, Bd. III. Hrsg. von O. Stahlin und L Friichtel. Berlin, 1970, S. XXIII. You might be interested in: