Глава 2-я

Various definitions pronounced in accordance with Tradition and the faith of the Holy Catholic Church. Collecting from Clement and other holy fathers, they should, with the help of God, be convincingly presented before any other teaching to anyone who wishes to defend the teaching of piety For a more accurate [understanding] of Tradition, one must know that every question or topic of discussion presupposes some three subordinate questions with which we baffle our opponents. These questions, for example, are: “What is God?”, “Why is He called God?” and “In how many ways can [the concept of] God be thought of?” And when we ask the first question, it is clear that we are seeking the definition of a thing; when we ask the second one, we require the etymology of the name; and when the third, we demand from our opponents an answer to the question of how many ways we can talk about God. Scholia. When the first question is posed, the definition [of the thing] is revealed; when the second, the etymology becomes clear, and when the third, the ways [of comprehending this thing] are indicated. He who begins to present dogmatic questions without knowledge of definitions is like a blind man undertaking a journey to where he has already arrived. To begin with, one should, in the above-mentioned manner, study definitions in three ways and [answer the questions]: “What is a definition?”, “Why is it called a definition?” and “In how many ways is it thought?” [In this regard, first of all it should be said] that a definition is a short statement that reveals the underlying essence in a thing 34. They say that definitions are like the sight and eyes of things and, as it were, define and close [within clear boundaries] the meaning of thought. For example, instead of saying: “Man is a being [consisting] of flesh, soul, mind, blood, [material] elements and much more,” we give the following definition: “Man is a mortal and rational living being who can accommodate intelligence and knowledge” 35 . There are countless definitions of any thing, but due to the negligence of the current generation, we present only some of them, the most important. In addition, one must know and believe that [a person] who spares no effort in studying definitions can easily silence rhetoricians and loquacious talkers in disputes. For when the questions are asked: “What is a word?”, “Why is it called a word?” and “In how many ways is it [thought of]?”, then the opponent will be stumped because he will not be able to give definitions, and, in the end, will be disgraced as an ignoramus. The definition of definitions is the One who defines everything, but Himself is not determined by anything; such a unique definition of definitions is God, for He is infinite and incomprehensible in [His] essence 36. What is difficult to define is that which is known only in part, and not entirely, such as, for example, the Tree of Life. For people there are three [things] that are unknowable in [their] essence and cannot be defined: God, Angel and souls - only by God [Himself] they are known in essence. Finally, the correct questioner addresses the opponent like this: “What [is] the limit?”, “What [is] indefinite?”, “What [is] difficult to define?” Easily defined is something that is tangible and subject to decay, such as bread and the like. The limit is irresistible immobility. The indefinite is the only uncreated [Being], that is, God. And something difficult to define is a created and invisible [being], such as an Angel, a soul and a demon. Why is He [called] God? In how many senses is God spoken of? God is an uncaused Being, an omnipotent Cause or some super-essential Cause of every essence. He is also a nameless and incomprehensible Being for people, creating [every] other being. For Solomon said that God is an “uncommunicable Name” (Wis.14:21); and the “incommunicable Name” is that which is not perceived by the hearing or thought of either people or Angels. In how many senses is the Name of God used in Scripture? It is clear that in two: [when talking about God] by nature and [about God] by communion 37; [God] by nature is the Creator, and by communion and grace the righteous are called “gods” 38 . Question: Is the Name of God essential, personal, effective, symbolic or metaphorical? Answer: It is clear that it is effective, for it does not reveal to us the essence of God (after all, it is impossible to know it), but [the name] “God” shows us only His action accessible to contemplation 39 . Question: What is the Father? Why is He called Father? And in how many ways is Fatherhood in God [thought of]? Answer: Father in the proper sense of the word is the causeless, unborn and giving birth Hypostasis. She is called Father because she either protects everything or protects her own children. [The word “father” comes] from “pay-ter” 40. God is called Father in two senses: by nature and by grace; by nature He is the [Father] of the Word's own and consubstantial God, and by grace He is the [Father] of us, for [it is said]. “Az reh: you are gods, and all are sons of the Most High” (Ps. 82:6) 41. Question: What is the Son? Why is He called the Son? And in how many ways is the Son conceived? Answer: The Son in the proper sense of the word is either a doubling of the Hypostasis with the identity of nature, or a homogeneous multiplication of Persons, or a manifestation of the [Divine] nature, cognizable in affinity 42. Also, in the proper sense of the word, the son is spoken of as if “such”, for as the father is in essence, so is [his] only begotten son: from the Uncreated - Uncreated, from a mortal - mortal, and from a man - man. Again, sonship in God is spoken of in two senses: by nature and by grace; The Son by nature is God the Word, and [sons] by grace are righteous. Question: What is spirit? Why is it called spirit? And in how many senses does Scripture speak of the spirit? Answer: Spirit is a subtle, immaterial, imageless and outgoing being 43. The spirit is spoken of as if it were “all-command,” 44 because, as a certain command, it gives a sign to everything, and everything is set in motion. It is spoken of in Scripture in four senses: the Holy Spirit, the Angel, the soul, and the wind are called spirit; sometimes the mind is also called spirit 45. The Trinity is, according to the natural order, a combination of units, and according to the Divine essence, it is a being greater than the number 46. Eternity is that which always continues, and also that which never ceases 47. After all, not every endless [being] is also beginningless: Angels and souls have a beginning of [their] existence, but do not have an end [it]. A peculiar feature is something that is truly recognizable in some nature, but is in no way present in another essence 48 . For example, the ability to laugh in man, which is absent in any other nature 49. What is nature? In how many ways is it spoken of? Why is it called nature? According to the ecclesiastical way of thinking, nature is a true existence, but according to Aristotle and other Hellenes, it is defined in many different ways, and the Severians got lost in these [numerous] definitions. According to the divine Apostle, nature is everything that exists in a true way, and not what is expressed as a figment of the imagination - we will talk about this later in more detail. The Church calls nature the true reality of existing things, or their actualization 50. It is called nature because it occurred and is 51, just as essence [is called essence] as existing and knowable in reality. According to church teaching, essence, genus and species are one and the same, just as “artos”, “psomion” and “vukin” are one and the same. Therefore, the realized and the natural are one and the same. As already mentioned, four concepts are used to denote nature: “essence”, “nature”, “genus” and “species”. Scholia. As for “by nature,” it can be said from the Old and New Testaments that “Christ is by nature God and by nature man” means the same as “He, being true God, becomes immutably true man.” And the wise Solomon speaks of wicked people: “For all men are naturally vanity, and in them ignorance of God is found” (Wis. 13:1). And the divine Apostle speaks of us, [formerly] pagans: “And we were once by nature children of wrath” (Eph. 2:3). If wicked people were by nature and naturally vain, then they would also be blameless. For those [traits] that are inherent in us by nature and in a natural way are flawless and impeccable, since they were created in us naturally by God, such as the ability to breathe, eat and sleep. Then it will be discovered that God naturally created vanity in people. Therefore, if we were by nature children of wrath, the reason for this would go back to God, who created us as such. After all, “by nature” means that which exists in such an essential way, as, for example, it is inherent in the nature of light to shine, fire by nature is created [capable of] burning, and earth is created [by nature capable of] producing [fruits]. And heretics are invited to say one of two things: either that God created the nature of vanity and wrath, or that [the expression] “by nature” means only what exists in reality. Therefore, it is difficult to throw any reproach at us who say: “Christ is by nature God and by nature man,” that is, [claiming] that He is “truly God and truly man” 54. This is the tradition and definition that we derive from the Old and New Testaments. And no teacher and even no Angel from heaven can either introduce innovation into this tradition or destroy it forever. Question: About hypostasis. What [is] hypostasis? Why [is it called] hypostasis? In how many senses is hypostasis spoken of? Answer: Hypostasis, according to Church and Apostolic Tradition, is a person or image; [Apostle] Paul speaks about this, saying that the Son is the “radiance of the glory” of the Father and “the image of His hypostasis” (Heb. 1:3), that is, the consubstantial person of the image and hypostasis of the Father 55. We speak of persons and images in relation to God as incorporeal, indescribable and formless. According to the holy fathers, a person or hypostasis is something special in comparison with the general, for nature is a certain common principle in every thing, and hypostases are separate individuals 56. For example, nature or essence is one Deity, and there are three Hypostases [in Deity]: Father, Son and Holy Spirit - three Persons or Images, but one essence or race. When you say: “The Divine protects us,” you mean the entire Holy Trinity; and if you say: “The Son of God is with us,” then you will be talking about one of the Hypostases and [at the same time] about the whole Divinity 57. Listen to this again: Divinity denotes the common principle or totality of essence, Fatherhood – one Person or Hypostasis; Sonship is another Hypostasis [of the Holy Trinity], and the Holy Spirit is the third. There are three hypostatic properties in the Godhead: the unbornness of the Father, the begottenness of the Son and the procession of the Holy Spirit, for neither the Father is begotten, nor the Son is he who proceeds, nor is the Holy Spirit begotten. There are five designations for hypostasis: [actually] “hypostasis”, “person”, “image”, “special” and “individual” 58 . Again about nature. The angelic essence is called nature, and hypostases are the proper names of each Angel, such as: Gabriel, Michael, Uriel, Raphael. And again, nature is a single and common humanity, and the hypostases are Paul, Thomas and other persons and images. Nature is the mistress, the cause and the parent of the hypostases included in it; they are called hypostases because they are subordinate to nature, their source. We are talking about the same thing again. If you say: “An angel is a beautiful nature,” then you will designate the entire essence of the Angels, and if you say: “Great is Gabriel,” then you will be talking about one hypostasis from all [other angelic hypostases]. The phrase “Man is pitiful” [denotes] the whole essence, and Conon, Simon and Philo are [human] hypostases. When you say: “The bird is light,” you mean the whole essence, and [the names] “dove,” “dove,” “nightingale,” “peacock,” and “swan” suggest hypostases. [The word] “cattle” implies the whole essence of cattle, and the [words] “horse”, “lion” and “dog” imply hypostases, images and faces. This canon of definitions applies not only to thinking, rational and animate [creatures], but also to every inanimate, insentient and motionless being. For example, when we say: “God created the light” (Gen. 1:3, 14), then with these words we denote the entire essence of the luminaries. This very essence is divided into its hypostases, and these hypostases of the nature of light are the following: the moon and stars, Orion, the evening star, Ursa Major, the morning star, Cancer and the rest. The same is true with the winds; when you say “spirit,” you mean the entire nature of the winds, and when you say “Not,” “Boreas,” and “Lips,” you [mean] the hypostases [of the various winds]. Also, fire is a single essence, which is divided into hypostases: lamps, candles, lamps, ovens and forges. In the same way, all humanity, as was said earlier, is a single essence, but there are a great many persons [people]. We call the holy flesh of Christ not a person, but an essence, in order to indicate that He received and saved our entire nature. For if we call this flesh a hypostasis, then it turns out that we are affirming that Christ accepted and saved a certain one person. It is impossible to call it a hypostasis, since this flesh is inseparable from God the Word; for a single person is called a hypostasis. Therefore, we consider this flesh of Christ not to be a hypostasis, but to be hypostatic, for the hypostatic is what exists, just as the non-hypostatic is that which does not have existence or essence; for example, a dream is non-existent, [that is, not possessing] hypostasis and is ghostly. And to say [all this] in the form of a definition, [it can be expressed this way]: the non-hypostatic, non-existent and non-existent is that which is often spoken of, but which is not recognized either in essence or in hypostasis, such as, for example, hell, death and illness. In turn, we call realized either the existing itself or the originality recognized in the essence: for example, rationality and perishability are the “realized” of man. In the same way, the word “hypostatic” is used in two ways: either [it denotes] what truly exists, or a unique feature in the hypostasis, such as, for example, unbornness in God the Father, birth in the Son and procession in the Holy Spirit - this was discussed above 59. A property is a certain ability of each nature, which distinguishes and separates it from other entities, which is what the divine Dionysius says: “For corruption is the weakness of nature and the lack of natural properties, actions and abilities” 60. What is will? Why is it called will? In how many ways does it exist? Will is the aspiration of a thinking and rational soul towards what is dear to it 62. For it is obvious that everything that thinks is also willing; will, just like breathing and life, is essentially inherent in every rational nature. It is called will because, together with nature, it strongly strives towards what is desired or towards obtaining and possessing what is desired. Will is considered in three of its types: as divine will, angelic will and spiritual will. After all, these three natures themselves, [that is, the divine, angelic and spiritual], are commanding. In addition, in [Holy] Scripture we find statements about [other] three types of wills: divine, natural (or average) and carnal, the latter denoting the will of the devil. The divinely created natural will of a person is the rational movement of the desiring part of the soul, which, in accordance with nature, encourages a person to [unite] with the object of desire. The divine will of people is the haste of innate and rational desire from what corresponds to nature to what exceeds this nature. And the carnal will is a passionate perversion of the natural into the unnatural. About a peculiar feature. What is she? In how many ways is it [thought]? Why is it called a peculiar feature? Etymology [of the word] “peculiar feature.” It is called a peculiar feature from “being special,” that is, from existing, together with one’s own nature, outside of mixture with other entities. Or [it is called a peculiar feature] from “being together,” for their features are inseparable from their natures and hypostases 63 . A peculiar feature, or originality, is that which is legitimately and especially recognized in some nature, but is not found in another. For example, in the divine nature [there are such properties as] pre-eternity, uncreatedness and indescribability, which are absent in any other essence; they are not in essence even in the all-holy body of Christ: after all, it is neither pre-eternal, nor uncreated, nor indescribable - and will never be such. A peculiar feature of the angelic nature is the dispassionate nature and incessant praise; dispassion [sometimes] is also called the immortality of a given nature. A peculiar feature of man in the proper sense of the word is the combination of mortal and immortal natures, which is not observed in any other entity. There are peculiar natural features, which were just mentioned, and there are peculiar hypostatic features. For example, whiteness [of skin], snub nose, dark complexion, disfigurement, light-eyedness, zeal, laziness, and the like - they are not found equally in all people. After all, not everyone is snub-nosed, not everyone is zealous, and not everyone is light-eyed. Therefore, some call the peculiar combination of characteristic features 64 that have been discussed as hypostasis. And natural peculiarities are equally and similarly contained in the entire genus; for example, all people are equally mortal and intelligent, they breathe and sleep equally, they all have nails, they all have the ability to walk and engage in agriculture. A random property is something that appears and disappears; for example, infancy, which arises and disappears with maturity. Equally transitory are health, illness, heat and dryness. Simply put, everything that can change is called a random property 65. The essential will is that general thing that is equally contemplated in [all] nature. If the flesh of Christ, as the holy fathers say, did not voluntarily want to die, then if this kind of will were revealed both in the Father and in the Holy Spirit, then it would be possible [to make an incredible statement] that the will of the flesh and the Divinity are one. The natural will of man, as Saints Basil and Cyril affirm, is love of life; after all, every person loves life and loves to see the light - this is a common desire [of all people]. As for personal wills 67 in our nature, there are many of them. For one person loves to lead a solitary contemplative life, 68 another loves to build houses, a third loves to be a farmer, a fourth loves to sail the seas. The same can be said about other [people]. We have many personal wills, but one natural will - the love of life. Man does not love life at random, but nature [human’s love for life] indicates that she loves and seeks what she has possessed since the beginning of her creation - that is, she loves and seeks immortality. The divine will is the commands of God. The natural will of the rational nature is to do the will of God. And the carnal will is disobedience to the law of God. About action. What [is] action? Why is it called action? In how many ways is an action [thought]? As Saint Gregory of Nyssa says, “Action is the natural force and movement of every essence, which only non-existence lacks. That which participates in any essence, of course, also participates in the action that makes it manifest. For true reasoning can determine the boundaries of entities, knowing their non-false actions” 69. For example, thinking is the action of thinking [creatures], feeling is the action of sentient beings, flight is of birds, swimming is of waterfowl, growth is of growing things, crawling is of reptiles, glowing is of luminous things, burning is of igniting things, flowing is of liquid things, sight is of seeing things, and birth is of giving birth. Generally speaking, the natural action of any nature is what designates and determines it - when it ceases, then nature is destroyed and perishes along with it 70 . After all, with the cessation of heat, the fire goes out; when a living being is deprived of movement, it dies; and when [a person] ceases to think, then the thinking and reasoning [beginning of his] soul perishes. That is why we speak of two wills and actions in Christ, so that we do not express [a false position] about His inanimate body and His unreasonable soul. For the action of the animate body is walking and labor, and the action of the rational soul is its volitional, reasoning and desiring thought. Natural actions are found not only in animate and moving [creatures], but also in inanimate and motionless [creatures]. This is evidenced by scammonia and [other] cleansing [plants] that have a laxative effect; hydrargyra, which produces a deadly effect, and hemlock, also destructive. It is surprising that some very different natures, being deprived of their natural actions, often give rise to other actions. For example, a hot stone loses its cooling effect, but acquires (since it cannot be extinguished) the ability to burn the body. In the same way, cedar, when it is burned in fire, is deprived of its vegetative, growing and generative effects, but it is granted healing and worm-destroying effects. For those who are knowledgeable and judicious in considering and judging the names of existing things, it is not difficult to discover that most of the names of any existing thing are related to action, and not to nature, 71 for they have names derived from their own actions. To prove this, we should start with the title itself and the name “God”. This word represents to us not the incomprehensible and nameless essence of the Creator itself, but God [so called] due to His contemplative action. Likewise, [the word] “Angel” does not reveal the very essence and being of the nature of Angels, but comes from the announcing action and their angelic service. In the same way, a person is called “man” not from his essential quality, but because he, directing his gaze upward and called “upward looking,” is the only one of all living beings who [usually] looks at the ground and raises his eyes to grief. Therefore, that is, because of his “upward looking” action, he is called “man” 72. Others say that he is called “man” because of all living creatures that [usually] walk bent and with their heads down, he alone has the effect of walking upright 73 . If both names of the essences of Christ (I mean: "God" and "man") are derived from their natural actions, then why are some not ashamed to deny the two actions in him? They, even if they do not cite any evidence from the [Holy] Scriptures and the Fathers, are put to shame by the very names of Christ, that is, by designating Him as “God and man.” For, as we have just said, almost every nature is named from its essential action. For example, "virgin" [which means] "putting to death the fire" comes from "putting to death the kindling of the flesh." And again, when we say “dove,” we do not denote the nature of this living creature or the quality of its flesh, but the action it performs - after all, the name “dove” comes from “to be stable in flight.” And other names refer to action, and not to nature. In particular, [the word] “deer” [comes] from “to slay snakes,” “swallow” from “to shake its beak while chirping,” “snake” from “who once spoke or addressed Eve,” “antelope” from “to watch or see keenly”; the turtle dove, or “preserver of the fruit,” [is so called] because she “preserves her kind” and never enters into a second marriage; [the word] “nightingale” [comes] from “to always sing”, that is, to sing in summer and winter, “kite” - from “circling in the heights”, “horse” - from “to strike a spouse”, “ellebor” - from “to strike or kill food” (since “food” is also called “food” in another way), “eagle” or “eternal year” - from “often renewed” and “to live a lot”, “bird” - from “to strain the wing”; the river [is called so] because it gives water, the stream - because it “flows in winter”; [the word] “nature” [comes] from “to give birth to hypostases,” “grass” from “to go upward,” and “flower” from “to move or rush upward.” And the soul is called “soul” from its own action, for “to breathe” means “to give life”; therefore, its name comes from the life-giving action of the soul, since it gives life to the body. And one can find countless other [beings], if not all, that receive names according to their actions, for action is a force of nature. Not the same action, the actor and the result of the action 74. After all, “acting” is called existence itself or the reality of essence. The result of an action is the final result of the action of the actor; for example, the results of God's action are heaven, man, Angel and [in general] every creature. Action is called “action” because it exists and is manifested in actions. It is thought of in two ways: as a thinking [action] and as a sensual [action]. Sensual is that [action] that is felt, heard and subject to decay; the intelligible is incorruptible and eternal [action]; and the thinking is that [action] which contemplates invisible speculations. Action is also called “action” from [the verbs] “act” and “commit.” The will, the willing and the desired are not the same thing. For will is the thinking aspiration of a thinking entity; willing – that very thing that has will; and what is desired is the object of love 75 . What is a connection? Why is it called that? And in how many ways is it thought? Union is a commonality in the combination of separated things. It is called “conjunction” because it drives or collects things together. We can talk about five types of compounds: mixing, for example, the combination of wine and water; divisible, for example, the connection of person to person; relative, for example, the union of peoples in faith; attributed to 76, for example, the combination of gold with gold. The unity of the [natures] of Christ exceeds all these [types of unions] and is called hypostatic. Hypostatic unity is the joint union of two natures in the womb of the Holy Mother of God 77 . After all, neither body nor soul existed there before God the Word, but at the same time flesh and God the Word began to exist there; at the same time God the Word and at the same time rational and animate flesh arose in him. And it seems to me that our conception is a prototype of the unity of Christ: soul and body are combined [at conception] together, for neither the body exists on its own, nor the soul precedes the body 78 . About the consubstantial. What is consubstantial? Why is it called consubstantial? In how many ways is the consubstantial [thought]? Consubstantial is that which invariably exists in relation to the same essence and action; for example, man - relative to the [essence of] man, Angel - [essence of] Angel, animal - [essence of] animal, flame - [essence of] flame: [all of them] are one essence in different hypostases. That which has acquired similar essence and power is called consubstantial. To designate what is consubstantial, five concepts are used: [actually] consubstantial, homogeneous, akin, one-natural and one-tribe. Consubstantial is [also] that which, to a greater or lesser extent, potentially enters into the same essence. For example, cracked stone and cut stone, date wood and ebony wood, fish flesh and camel flesh. Foreign is something that is in all respects unlike another. For example, fire and water; man, God and Angel; clay, sun and grass. Some call "semi-essential" 79 dead flesh separated from life. What is alien, foreign and heterogeneous is that whose existence belongs to a different essence. Scholia. It speaks of each of the two, that is, of this and that, or of both. Innovation is something that has completely departed from the law of general nature and is not likened to any human custom. This definition should be known because there are those [people] who incorrectly think about the renewal of [humanity] in Christ 80 . After all, even if He renewed [human] nature, being born not from a [male] seed, however, after birth He matured according to age, [experienced] all bodily [sensations], absorbed food and excreted it, was circumcised, moved from place to place, had an external appearance and members [of the body], He grew hair, teeth and nails, He babbled like a child and walked like a child - all this [Christ] possessed not according to the renewal [of human nature], but “according to our likeness [in all things], except sin” (Heb. 4:15), as [Apostle] Paul says. About the soul. What [is] the soul? Why is it called the soul? In how many senses is the soul spoken of? In the Old Testament the soul is spoken of in two ways: as the rational soul and the irrational soul (that is, the soul of cattle and other animate [creatures]). The rational soul is a thinking, nameless, unknowable, verbal entity that gives life and preserves the body. She is a subtle, immaterial, formless essence, the image and imprint of God. It is called “soul” from [the verb] “to breathe” or [also] because through its actions it gives life to the body 81 . The irrational soul is the vital and warming action of the blood, which sets [the body] in motion through the material spirit. The bestial soul is a material, active, sensing and body-preserving force. The rational mind is the contemplating feeling of the immortal and thinking soul 82. The mind is non-corporeal vision, tirelessly penetrating into all [existing things]. We say that there are three: the Mind of God, the Angel is also a mind, and also our mind. Scholia. “Who has known the mind of the Lord?” (Isa.40:13; Rom.11:34; 1Cor.2:16). The intelligible is that which is thought by the mind; the thinking is called so from “seeing thoughts” 83. About the body. The body, according to external [philosophers], is everything that has three dimensions, that is, it has length, width and thickness. According to church [teaching], it is everything that is brought into existence from non-existence. For “there are heavenly bodies and earthly bodies” (1 Cor. 15:40) 84, and the heavenly bodies do not have thickness. You should know that all flesh is called a body, but not every body is called flesh, for the stars are also called “celestial bodies”, but are not called “heavenly flesh” 85. The body is spoken of in two ways: the material body and the subtle body. The material body is tangible and subject to decay, but the subtle body cannot be felt or touched. Flesh is a combination of elements 86 It is a fluid essence, consisting of blood, phlegm, bile and [vital] juice; or - from air, earth, fire and water, that is, from warm, cold, wet and dry 87. The sun gives rise to the warm and vital element, air - the cold element, earth - dry, and water - wet. The element is a simple essence, the fourth part of creation. Therefore, when you hear the words of [Apostle] Paul: “Now we no longer know Christ according to the flesh” (2 Cor. 5:16), then know that he here calls the corruptible [essence] “flesh.” For he does not say: “Now we no longer know Christ according to the body,” but “according to the flesh,” that is, [the Apostle asserts] that [Christ no longer abides] in a fluid essence. About feeling. We have five senses: sight, hearing, smell, taste and touch. The sensible is everything that falls under any one of these five senses. Sensitivity 88 is an integral organ of [our] body that observes feelings. A sentient being is every living being that has a sense of fear and death. And the intelligible is that which is inaccessible [to the perception of] our five senses. About perishable things. What [is] perishable? Why is it called perishable? In how many senses is corruption spoken of? Divine Scripture speaks of corruption in two senses: physical and mental. For example, “And the Lord God saw the earth, and it was not corrupted by sin” (Gen. 6:12); again it is said about people: “corrupt and disgusted in their iniquities and undertakings” (Ps. 53:2; Ps. 13:1). Finally, when you hear the teacher that the body of Christ was incorruptible before the Cross, then understand this to mean that it was incorruptible and pure relative to the corruption of sin, but not in the sense of subtlety or alienness to our bodies 89 . For incorruptible in the proper sense of the word is impassive, immaterial and intangible; it is something that cannot be damaged by another entity, that is completely unchangeable, invulnerable and lacks nothing. And the all-holy body of Christ suffered, wounds were inflicted on it with nails and a spear, blood and water flowed out of it, and from living it became dead. Scholia. Some say that the all-holy body of Christ was potentially corruptible, that is, capable of receiving corruption, but in reality it remained incorruptible even in the tomb thanks to the Divinity of the Word. The perishable is everything that can perceive death and be separated from life. As Saint Dionysius says, “corruption of nature is weakness and lack of natural properties, actions and powers” ​​90. Destruction is complete destruction; corruption is when one essence is destroyed by another, such as, for example, a body by worms 91. A species, as a combination of its constituent parts, is called “species” or “essence”; the constituent parts of a species are considered to be its hypostases or parts 92 . Man is a rational, upright living creature with wide nails; or - a rational, material and laughing living being, simultaneously and ineffably combined from opposite essences, or - a rational and mortal living being, capable of containing intelligence and knowledge. [One can give the following] interpretation to this definition: living creature, since it differs from an unreasonable creature; reasonable, because it differs from an unreasonable entity; mortal, because it differs from the immortal existence of Angels; capable of containing mind and understanding, since it is by grace [created] in the image of God. Scholia. Scripture speaks of man in four senses: of God as man, of Angel as man, [of Satan] as man, and, finally, of the inner and outer man in us. An angel is an intelligent, glorifying, fiery and never-sleeping living being. What is faith? Why is it called faith? In how many ways is the right faith [thought of]? Faith is voluntary conviction. Scholia. Faith is something that exists within [a person]. It is called "faith" from being convinced of something. Right faith is understood in two senses: faith is “from hearing” (Rom. 10:17) 93, from preaching [the Good News], and there is an [even] stronger faith – “the realization of expected” (Heb. 11:1) benefits 94. All people can have faith “from hearing,” but only the righteous can acquire the second faith. Orthodoxy is not a false opinion about God and creation; or – the true thought about everything; or - an idea of ​​existing [things], as they are [in reality]. About the word. What [is] a word? In how many senses is it [understood]? Why is it called a word? The word is spoken of in three senses: there is the incarnate Word, or God the Word; The Angels and we have an inner word when it is pronounced mentally; finally, there is a word spoken by the tongue 95. The word is called so from [the verb] “to speak.” The spoken word is a messenger of thought. A Christian is a true and reasonable dwelling of Christ, built from good deeds and pious dogmas 96. A heretic is a sycophant and a denier of truth, and heresy is the false acceptance of something that does not exist 97. The immutable is that which always remains the same. Natural is either that which is in nature; or happening in accordance with general and complete custom; or that which, as true, is true and is known. What is unnatural is either that which God did not create as it became, or that which He did not create at all, such as sin and death. The supernatural is the assimilation of that which surpasses created [nature]; for example, marriage is in accordance with nature, fornication is contrary to it, and the birth of Christ surpasses all nature. Deification is an ascent to a higher [state of nature], and not a belittlement or change of it. Economy is the voluntary condescension of the great [God], accomplished for the salvation of some. To be deified means to be elevated to greater glory, but does not imply a change in one's own nature. Mixing sometimes means joining and sometimes merging 98 . Sadness is a lack of desire, and desire is the movement of the desirable part of the soul 99; the desirable [beginning of the soul with necessity] is also willing. Therefore, Christ voluntarily accepted sadness into the willing part of [His] soul 100. The sadness is called the "sadness" of "disappearance." And Christ truly grieved over the death of Judas, the Jews and Jerusalem (Luke 19:44), and while grieving, he mourned them with sincere feeling, revealing Himself to be a lover of mankind by nature. Anxiety is a kind of gloomy disposition of the soul that arises when you fail to achieve something desired. Rebellion is the action of the furious part of the rational soul. Timidity is a contraction of the soul within itself; it arises when expecting something unwanted. Autocratic is not subject to anyone, because what is under someone’s authority is not autocratic. And if autocracy is truly free and unhindered domination over what is dear, then autocracy of the thinking soul is the unhindered aspiration and movement of our desiring [beginning] towards virtue or vice 101. Therefore, there is no attack against evil or virtue, where [we] do not recognize [the presence of] the autocracy of the soul. For how will autocratic will be revealed when there is no opposing force? 102 Scholia. These definitions must be noted; they refer to Christ and what is associated with Him. Only the mind of Christ and His all-holy soul were impervious [to evil] and did not experience any evil attack, for “the image of a servant” (Phil. 2:7) was curbed and was under the dominion of God the Word, hypostatically united with this image. Therefore, man, mentally comprehended in the Savior, said: “I can do nothing of Myself” (John 5:30). For He, surpassing the limits and laws of our nature, was born [according to humanity] without [male] seed, existed as the body and soul of God and, deified, willingly obeyed [every] wave of the Lord 103. Quality is realized power; for example, moisture [is inherent in] water, heat in fire, hardness in stone, and dryness in earth. Quality, property, difference and peculiarity mean the same thing. A four-part body, consisting of four elements, like a certain cosmos. The soul is tripartite, prefiguring in the body the Holy Trinity, which was to be revealed in a dead world [due to sin], as if in a certain body, and to revive it through the knowledge of God. The soul is called tripartite because it has its own [three] parts, through which it is formed, as if by some intelligent elements; This refers to the rational, desirable and violent [beginnings]. Through the rational [beginning], she reflects on virtue, through the desirable, she loves God, and through the fierce, she is angry with demons and courageously resists them. And just as the existence of the body is unthinkable without the four elements, so the soul is unthinkable without its three parts, thanks to which it was formed. About attitude. Nature is the mistress, source, mother and reality of 104 all [things]. But all other [things] coming from nature are spoken of as having something to do with something. For hypostases, sonship, property, quality, simplicity and everything else come from nature, having it as their cause and outcome, and therefore they [all] belong to those related to 105 and depend on nature as their root. And from them will and action already occur. A statement is an opinion or judgment expressed about something; for example, when we say: “a river begins” or “a ruler enters.” Denial is a refutation of an affirmation; for example, “the river does not begin” or “the ruler does not enter.” A judgment is expressed not only regarding what is bad, but also regarding what is good, for it is any defining explanation regarding any thing; An example of this [can be judgments] that God is good by nature, the devil is cunning, the fox is cunning, the ferret is a thief. An inaccurate statement is everything said by someone not as a definition, but out of simplicity [of the heart] and without malice; it cannot be elevated to law or [considered] a definition. For example, “then they spat in the face of Christ” (Matthew 26:67) - on the basis of such a statement, we cannot call the holy body of Christ a “special person,” but [consider it] a nature 106. About what “house-building” [is] 107 The word "economy" in relation to Christ can be thought of in three ways. Firstly, in the sense of for the sake of the Economy; for example, when we say: “In economy Christ was breast-fed, was a child, grew, slept and was hungry,” that is, [we speak out] about His economy according to the nature of the flesh 108. Again, we speak economically when something happens that is not entirely proper, but which nevertheless happens out of condescension and for the sake of the salvation of some. For example, when Paul circumcised Timothy (Acts 16:3), wanting to attract the Jews; therefore he was purified along with them (Acts 21:24, 26). The circumcision of Christ in a similar way took place economically (Luke 2:21), so that He would not appear as one who abolishes the law (Matt. 5:17). It is also economical that [Christ], being hungry in the morning, approached the fig tree and, [not finding fruit on it], dried it (Matthew 21:18-20), or when He came to the disciples at night, walking on the waters (Matthew 14:25; Mark 6:48, John 6:19), - [He did this] for the sake of some hidden Economy. The heretics refuse to think of [the word] “economically” in these [three] ways, but say that by economically one should understand what happened in a ghostly and apparent way 109 . Scholia. You should know that complex natures, being complex, are easily dissolved, in the words of the great Gregory: “Complexity is the beginning of dissolution” 110. Therefore, the bodies of people and animals are easily subject to decay and death, since they consist of four natures and elements, which are, as it were, opposite to each other and rebel against one another. But simple and uncomplicated things are very stable and remain indissoluble to the end; for example, the human soul, the sun, light, luminaries, air, fire, spirit and all simple, unique, unalloyed and uncomplicated [things]. As a result, plants and trees, as consisting of four elements (I mean earth, water, sun and air), do not remain ageless, incorruptible and unfading, but die, like bodies. And the earth is composed in a similar way; make a brick from earth and water, and it will fall apart easily. Refutation of the well-known position of all Monophysites, which states that there is no non-hypostatic nature Orthodox question: “Speaking about two births regarding Christ, that is, about the birth of [His] before [all] ages from the Father according to Divinity and about the birth in last times from the Virgin according to humanity, first answer us: is the birth 111 without hypostasis? “Then we will tell you whether nature is non-hypostatic.” Indeed, in the proper sense of the word, birth is the addition of a hypostasis to the identity of nature. Therefore, just as the two births that took place in the one Hypostasis of God the Word did not result in the addition of a hypostasis to Him, so He did not accept the addition of a person from two natures united by hypostasis 112 . Therefore, when heretics, trying to lead us into confusion, ask: “Is nature non-hypostatic?”, they should answer with this question: “Is birth impersonal?” For where the new birth [occurs], there the addition of a person becomes known. This formula goes back to Aristotle’s Topics. It became common in late antique philosophy. See, for example: “A definition is a short word that reveals the nature of the subject thing.” David Anakht. Essays. M., p. 1975, p. 41. This formula was also adopted by Christian theology. See: “A definition is a short speech expressing the nature of the subject, that is, speech denoting this nature in a few words. For example, man is a rational animal, mortal, capable of understanding and comprehension.” John of Damascus. Dialectics, or Philosophical Chapters. M., 1999, p. 51. This is one of the most common definitions of man among ancient authors, both pagan and Christian. One example can be given: “Therefore, a person is defined as a rational, mortal animal, possessing the ability of thinking and cognition: an animal - because a person is an animate, sentient being, and this is the definition of an animal; rational - to separate (distinguish) it from unreasonable creatures; mortal to distinguish from rational and immortal beings; finally - possessing the ability of thinking (reason - νοῦ) and knowledge - because through teaching we become involved in the sciences and arts, having (by nature) only the power (potency - δύναμιν), capable of perceiving (δεκτικήν) both thoughts and arts, and manifestations (discoveries - ἐνέργειαν) achieving (acquiring) this power through learning.” Nemesius, Bishop of Emesa On the nature of man. M., 1996, p. 30. Wed. one thought of Dionysius the Areopagite: “We correctly assert that It [Anarchy. - A . S.] is not comparable with anything that exists, although we do not know His essential, unthinkable and unspeakable infinity.” Here the scholia is also noteworthy: “What he calls unthinkable is not what is stupid, but what is not comprehended by anyone’s thought, but God is infinite, as not subject to any definition: He Himself, who is the limit of everything and determines everything in Himself, does not fall under the definition, because definitions are made up of statements, and statements about God are absurd, because they are misleading, for God exceeds all definitions, as not being the essence, but surpassing the essence.” Dionysius the Areopagite. About the celestial hierarchy of St. Petersburg p. 1997, p. 19. In this case, Rev. Anastasius, Dionysius the Areopagite and his scholiast, we encounter that apophatism that, according to V.N. Lossky, “inherent in its various aspects to most Christian theologians (exceptions are rare).” Lossky V. N. Theology and God-vision. M., 2000, p. 9–10. So, I think, it is better to translate in this case the polysemantic concept σχέσει, which here differs from φύσει. Wed. from Dionysius the Areopagite: “You will find that theology also calls gods (see Ex. 4:16; 7:1; Ps. 81: 1, 6; John 10:34) heavenly entities that exceed us and our most God-loving sacred men, although the God-originating Mystery is exalted above all and surpasses everyone and none of those who exist can be called like Her completely and in in the true sense of the word. Nevertheless, that one of the rational and verbal, who, to the best of his ability, is fully turned to uniting with Her and to Her divine insights, as far as possible, incessantly strives, he, in his own capacity, so to speak, has been honored with the imitation of God and the divine co-name.” Dionysius the Areopagite. On the heavenly hierarchy, p. 13. In other words, according to Rev. Anastasia, name (προσηγορία - “name, denomination”) God does not correlate either with the Divine essence (is not οὐσιώης), nor with any of the Persons of the Holy Trinity (is not προσωπκὴ), and is also not symbolic (τυπικὴ) or metaphorical (μεταφορικὴ); it is associated with the energy of God (ἐνεργετικὴ) or reveals this energy, comprehended in contemplation (τὴν ϑεωρητικὴν αὐτοῦ ἐνέργειαν δηλοῖ). This etymology (“παι-τήρ”) goes back to two words: παῖς (“boy, child, youth”) and τηρήεω (“keep, guard, protect”). A similar interpretation of this passage in the Psalter is quite often found among the Fathers of the Church. Yes, St. Cyril of Alexandria, referring to this place, assigns a large role in the “sonification” of people to the second Hypostasis of the Holy Trinity, saying that thanks to God the Word we become “sons by grace” (ϑεοὶ κατὰ χάριν). See: PG 73, 128. Cf. at St. Basil the Great: “By confessing the identity of nature, both consubstantial beings are acceptable, and we avoid complexity, because in essence God and the Father gave birth in essence to God and the Son. For this proves that God is one in essence and one in essence with God. It is true that man is called god, as in: “Az rekh: God of nature” (Ps. 82:6), and the demon is called god, as in: “God is the tongue of the demon” (Ps. 95:5), but some are called so by grace, while others are falsely. The One God is in essence God.” Works like the saints of our father Basil the Great, Archbishop of Caesarea of ​​Cappadocia, vol. III. St. Petersburg, 1911, p. 16–17. So, I think, it is better to translate the phrase πρόοδος φύσεως εἰς συγγένειαν γνωριζομένη. The term πρόοδος (“coming forth, procession”) in ancient church writing was often used to refer to the birth of the Son and the procession of the Holy Spirit. See: Lampe G. W. N. A Patristic Greek Lexicon. Oxford, 1978, p. 1160. This expression (ἐκπορευτὴ ὕπαρξις) indicates a characteristic property of the third Person of the Holy Trinity. Speaking about the entire Trinity, St. Gregory the Theologian briefly formulates the uniqueness of these Persons in this way: “Unborn, Born and Outgoing.” Saint Gregory the Theologian. Collection of works, vol. 1. Sergiev Posad, 1994, p. 595. This etymological delicacy should probably be translated in this way: “πᾶν-νεῦμα.” See St. John of Damascus: “The Spirit is understood in many different ways. [For this name is also called] the Holy Spirit. The powers of the Holy Spirit are also called spirits. The Spirit is also a good Angel; spirit - and demon; spirit - and soul; sometimes the mind is also called spirit; spirit - and wind; spirit - and air." Creations like the saints of our father John of Damascus. "An Accurate Statement of the Orthodox Faith", p. 41. The idea is assumed that the category of number is correlated only with the created order of being (κατὰ τὴν φυσικὴν ἀκολουϑίαν - “according to the natural sequence”). The sphere of God's essence cannot be thought of through such a category (ὑπεράριϑμος ὕπαρξις). Wed. reasoning of St. Basil the Great: “That which has no beginning of itself and no reason for being is called unborn; and eternal is that which is before all time and age. Therefore, although the Son is not unborn, he is nevertheless eternal. Some give the name “eternal” to centuries, as if they were worthy of this name because they always exist. But we consider it equally insane to attribute eternity to a creature, and also to not confess this about the Lord of creation.” Works like the saints of our father Basil the Great, Archbishop of Caesarea of ​​Cappadocia, part III. M., p. 1993, p. 90–91. About these peculiar features of Rev. Maximus the Confessor in one of his epistles says this: every nature is essentially distinguished by its unique characteristics διειλημμένη) and thereby reveals both the image of its own existence (τὸν τρόπον τῆς οἰκείας ὑπάρξεως), and the difference that delimits it without confusion from other natures. If an entity is deprived of its basic unique features, then it will either cease to exist altogether or become something it was not. See: PG 91, 436. Regarding this ability (τὸ γελαστικὸν), see one statement by Nemesius: “Laughter is a property of human nature, since it is inherent in him alone.” Nemesius of Emesa. On human nature, p. 29. Such an ecclesiastical definition of the concept of “nature” by Rev. Anastasia τὸ τούτων ἐνοὐσιον) practically repeats a similar definition attributed to Clement of Alexandria (its authenticity is questioned): φύσις ἐστιν ἡ τῶν πραγμάτων ἀλήϑεια ἤτούτων τὸ ἐνούσιον. Clemens Alexandrinus. Bd. III. Hrsg. von O. Stählin und L. Früchtel. Berlin, 1970, S. 219. The concept of “unrealized” (τὸ ἐνούσιον) presupposes the substantiality of the existence of something or someone. This definition of nature (φύσις δὲ εἴρηται διὰ τὸ πεφυκέναι καὶ εἶναι), emphasizing the dynamic aspect of this concept, is quite often found in ancient church theology. See, for example, Leontius of Byzantium: “Φύσις - nature, according to Leontius’ philology, comes from πεφυκέναι - to occur, to be of the same kind, and means that common thing that belongs to many objects or beings at once.” Sokolov V. Leontius of Byzantium. His life and literary works. Experience of church-historical monograph. Sergiev Posad, 1916, p. 306. Compare: “[The Greek name for nature] φύσις comes from πεφυκέναι - to be born.” John of Damascus. Dialectics, or Philosophical Chapters. M., 1998, p. 78. This refers to varieties of bread (ἄρτος, ψωμίον, βουκίν). In this case, Rev. Anastasius identifies the concepts τὸ ἔμφυτον (“natural, innate”) and τὸ ἐνούσιον (“realized”). This understanding is “by nature” (φύσει or φυσικῶς) by St. Anastasia clearly goes back to the Alexandrian tradition, especially to St. Cyril of Alexandria. For “in Alexandria “φυσικῶς” means: “naturally, naturally, really, in truth, undoubtedly,” and to demand from the Egyptian that he abandon such word usage and not call “true unity” the usual “φυσική” was the same violence against his dialect as a proposal to throw out the word would seem to us “real” from the philosophical lexicon.” Bolotov V. IN . Review of the book. N. Glubokovsky “Blessed Theodoret” // Christian Reading, 1892, part II, p. 95–96. Wed. interpretation of Father Chrysostom: ““The radiance,” he says, “of glory.” Look in what sense he accepts this - and accept it yourself in the same way: that is, that the Son is from the Father, dispassionately, without diminution or humiliation; for there are people who deduce from this similarity some absurd thoughts... And the image of His hypostasis; By this addition he expresses that just as the Father is independent and does not need anyone in order to be independent, so is the Son. Here he proves their indifference (essentially) and, pointing you to a completely corresponding Image of the Prototype, teaches that the Son is independent in Himself.” Our Holy Father John, Archbishop of Constantinople, Chrysostom, Discourses on the Epistle of the Holy Apostle Paul to the Hebrews. St. Petersburg, 1859, p. 26–27. This definition of hypostasis (person) in relation to nature or essence (τὸ ἰδικόν παρὰ τὸ κοινόν; κοινότης γὰρ ἐστιν ἡ φύσις ἐκαστου πράγματος, ἴδια δὲ εἰσιν αἱ ὑποστάσεις) goes back mainly to the holy Cappadocian fathers. See the above (note 32 to Chapter I {footnote beginning: “The difference between these three principles of the soul...” Editorial of the ABC of Faith}) definition of St. Basil the Great. Later, similar definitions are quite often found in church theology. Compare, for example, with Rev. Maximus the Confessor, according to whom nature or essence, according to the fathers, is general (κοινόν), whole (καϑολικὸν - “universal”) and generic (γενικὸν), and hypostasis or person is special (ἴδιον) and partial (μερικόν). See: PG 91, 545. By ὅλην τὴν ϑεότητα is meant, most likely, the unity of the Divine essence, which is entirely present in each of the three Hypostases. Wed... “The Holy Fathers, abandoning useless debates of words, the general and what is expressed about many objects, i.e. the lower form, called substance (οὐσίαν), nature (φύσιν) and form (μορφήν).. They called the individual (μερικόν) individual (ἄτομον), person, hypostasis, for example Peter, Paul.” John of Damascus. Dialectics, p. 72. Rev. Anastasius also adds “image” (χαρακτὴρ – “mark”; cf. Heb. 1:3) and “special” (ἲδιον – “own”). Rev. Anastasius distinguishes here two meanings of the term “hypostatic”: 1) the meaning of what is true and really exists (τὸ ὑπαρχον, τὸ κατὰ ἀλήϑειαν ὑπαρχον); in this sense, this term is practically identical to the term “realized” (ἐνούσιον); andˆ2) the meaning of “a peculiar feature in hypostasis” (τὸ ἐν τῇ ὑποστάσει ἰδίωμα). Applying this term to the human nature (“flesh”) of Christ, Rev. Anastasius partially follows Leontius of Byzantium, who was the first to give this concept a specifically Christological application. For Leonty, it “is not something that does not have any hypostasis of its own, and it is not something that has its own special, independent hypostasis, it is not non-hypostatic and not self-hypostatic, it is not a general generic concept and not a specific individual one, it occupies the middle between these latter and is attached to the fact that, not having its own special hypostasis, it finds one in another hypostasis and appropriates it for itself as its own. In relation to the Person of Jesus Christ, such ἐνυπόστατον is His human nature, which does not have its own human hypostasis, but has the Divine Hypostasis, God the Word, as its own, not in part (God has no parts), but in a whole and perfect form. This ἐνυπόστατον in Christ is not something abstract, mental or fictitious, but is the real and real human nature of Christ, no less complete and real, like the Divinity of the Savior. The human nature of Christ is both general and at the same time private nature, as having a special hypostasis; it is also impersonal, since it is specific, and personal, since it is headed by the Hypostasis of the Son of God. The term ἐνυπόστατον in this case serves to designate the connecting point at which mutual opposites are reconciled: Divinity and humanity, general and particular.” Sokolov V. Leontius of Byzantium, c. 317–318. See: Dionysius the Areopagite. About divine names. On mystical theology, p. 169. We provide our own translation. Rev. Anastasius uses the term ϑέλημα, which has three main meanings: 2) ability or act of will andˆ3) the result of volition. In this case, the context mainly implies the second meaning, and ϑέλημα is identified with ϑέλησις. Wed. definition from the teacher Maximus the Confessor “The will, as they say, is a rational and vital desire (ὄρεξιν λογικὴν τε καὶ ζωτικήν).” PG 91, 13. Rev. Anastasius gives two types of etymology of the word ἰδίωμα: 1) τὸ ἰδία εἶναι ἅμα τῆς ἰδίας φύσεως ἀμιγῶς τῶν λιοπῶν οὐσιῶν ὑπαρχον иˆ2) τὸ ἐν τῷ εἴδει ἅμα εἶναι. He considers this word as a synonym for the concept of “originality” (ἰδιότης). A similar identification of two words is found, by the way, in the author of the 6th century. Theodore of Raifa See: Diekamp F. Analecta patristica. Texte und Abhandlungen zur griechischen Patristic. Roma, 1938, S. 217. A similar definition of hypostasis ἰδιωμάτων) goes back to the 38th Epistle of St. Basil the Great, which actually belonged to his brother St. Gregory of Nyssa (ἕκαστον ἰδιωμάτων). See: ΒΑΣΙΛΕΙΟΣ Ο ΜΕΓΑΣ. ΜΕΡΟΣ Ε´, σ. 61. We are talking about an “accidental (random) property”, or “accident” (συμβεβηκὸς), the definition of which ultimately goes back to ancient logic (in particular, to Porphyry’s “Introduction”). St. John of Damascus defines it as follows: “Accident is that which is present and absent in objects, without destroying the object. And again, an accident is something that can either belong to the same object or not.” John of Damascus. Dialectics, p. 42. They contrast accident with “essential quality,” which “is immovable, but what transforms and changes is transformed according to incidental signs, arising and disappearing without the destruction of the subject.” Works of St. John of Damascus. Christological and polemical treatises. Words for the Mother of God holidays M., 1997, p. 47. Rev. Anastasius uses the logical principle of reduction ad absurdum: the recognition by the Monothelites of the single (one) will of Christ leads to the recognition of “human will” in all Persons of the Holy Trinity. This expression (γνωμικὰ ϑελήματα) should probably be understood in the sense of “hypostatic wills” inherent in every rational person. Lit. “to be (or live) alone, to be special” (ἰδιάζειν); Most likely, Rev. Anastasius implies monastic life. This quote is taken from the work of St. Gregory of Nyssa's "Word to the grammarian Xenodorus", which in its entirety is lost. A fragment from this work was published: Diekamp F. Op. cit, S. 14–15. This fragment partially coincides with the quotation from Rev. Anastasia. The next sentence of Anastasia is a paraphrase of the further content of the fragment. This position is one of the fundamental foundations of Orthodox diopheliteism. It is clearly expressed, for example, by St. Sophronius of Jerusalem, who emphasized the inseparability of nature and its natural action (“energy”), while simultaneously noting their differences. In this he relied on the conceptual apparatus developed by the holy Cappadocian fathers in the field of the doctrine of the Holy Trinity. See: Schonbom Chr. , von. Sophrone de Jerusalem. Vie monastique et confession dogmatique. Paris, 1972, p. 211. Letters “represent active, not natural names” (ἐνεργετικάς, ἀλλ’ οὐ φυσικάς). Wed. according to Plato, “The name “man” means that, while other animals do not observe what they see, do not make comparisons, do not compare anything (ανατηρείν), a person, as soon as he sees something - and one can also say: “catch with his eyes” - immediately begins to look closely and reflect on what he has caught.” Plato. Works in three volumes, vol. 1. M., 1968, p. 436–437. A similar thought is observed in the Nyssa saint. “The appearance of a man is straight and stretching towards the sky, and he looks up. And this signifies his superiority and royal dignity. After all, the mere fact that of all beings man is such, and the bodies of all others are lowered to the ground, clearly shows the difference in the dignity of those who bowed to dominion and the power that rose above them.” Like in the saints of our father Saint Gregory, Bishop of Nyssa, On the dispensation of man. Translation by V.M. Lurie. SPb., 1995, p. 21. This distinction goes back to Didymus the Blind, to whom IV belongs and Book V “Against Eunomius”, added to the work of the same name by St. Basil the Great; however, Didim has a slightly different terminology: ἐνεργῶν, ἐνέργεια, ἐνεργηϑέν. This trinity of terms was also adopted by North Antioch, but used it to substantiate its Monophysite Christology, that is, in a completely different sense than Orthodox theologians. He correlated “Action” not with nature, but with the subject of action, arguing that there is one Actor - the incarnate Word of God, who has one “active movement” (κίνησις ἐνεργητική) or action (ἐνέργεια), but different results of this action (ἐνεργηϑέν, ἀποτέλεσματα). See: Lebon J. Le monophysime severien, p. 445–447. Rev. Anastasius combines action with nature (ἐνέργεια γὰρ ἐστιν ἡ τῆς φύσεως δύναμις), and also claims that “acting” is called “existence itself” (αὐτὸ τὸ ὄν) or “reality of essence” (τὸ τῆς οὐσίας πρᾶγμα) In this he is completely unanimous with all representatives of Orthodox diopheliteism. Thus, St. Sophronius of Jerusalem in his “Conciliar Epistle” says about Christ: we “recognize in both natures both actions, that is, essential and natural, as well as mutual, inseparably arising from both beings and natures, due to the essential and natural quality innate to it, and at the same time the inseparable and unfused interaction of both beings that accompanies it. This serves as the reason for the difference of actions in Christ, and equally gives the existence of natures to natures, because the Divinity and humanity are not the same in relation to the natural quality inherent in each of them, although they were unspeakably united with each other into one Hypostasis and united inseparably into one Person, having united and come together hypostatically, they made for us one and the same Christ and the Son. Ecumenical Councils, vol. IV. SPb., p. 1996, p. 150. The difference between “will”, “willing” and “desired” ϑελητὸν) is similar to the above distinction between “action”, “actor” and “result of action”. Compare: “Simply desiring is called desire or a desirable ability, which is a rational desire and natural desire, and the way to desire, or what is subject to desire, is the object that we desire, and the desire combined with the activity of the mind. Θελητικόν is that in which the power of desire is naturally located; as, for example, the divine nature is ϑελητική, that is, it has the power of desire, as well as human, but the desirer is the one who uses desire, or a person, like, for example, Peter.” Creations like the saints of our father John of Damascus. An Accurate Statement of the Orthodox Faith, p. 154. More St. John of Damascus notes: “You must know that from nature there is infused into the soul that power that strives for what is in accordance with nature, and which preserves everything that is essentially found in nature; a force called desire (ϑέλησις). For the essence strives for being, and for life, and for movement, both in relation to the mind and feelings, desiring what is characteristic of it - consistent with the laws of nature and complete existence. Therefore, this natural desire is defined in this way: desire is both a rational and a vital desire, depending on the only thing that is natural. Therefore, desire [is nothing other than] that very natural, vital, and rational desire for everything that determines the lasting state of nature - a simple ability. For the desire of dumb creatures, not being rational, is not called desire” Ibid., p. 96–97. In this case, St. John of Damascus also talks about the concept of “will,” which is not entirely accurately translated by the term “desire” (for “desires” are also inherent in irrational creatures). This is probably how we can translate this word (ϑετική), which most likely means an unimportant connection. This statement φύσεων συνδρομή) indicates the simultaneity of the mutual combination of both natures of the God-man. Compare: “The Word itself became flesh, carried in the womb of the Virgin, and came into the world as God together with what was received, which was deified by Him at the same time as being brought into being, so that all three [events] happened together - acceptance, implementation and deification by the word, and therefore the Holy Virgin is thought of and called the Mother of God, not only because of the nature of the Word, but because of the deification of the human [beginning]; and their conception and implementation miraculously worked together, the conception of the Word, the flesh in the Word Himself, the implementation through the Mother of God Herself, supernaturally granting creation to the Creator and the Incarnation of God and the Creator of everything, deifying what is perceived, and the union preserves the components as they were united - I am talking not only about the Divine, but also about the human [beginning] of Christ, which is above us and like us. Works of St. John of Damascus. Christological and polemical treatises, p. 182. This is the last statement of Rev. Anastasia (οὔτε δὲ ψυχὴ προυπάρχει τοῦ σώματος) is clearly directed against the theses of the Origenists about the pre-existence of the soul and is most likely an echo of the 6th century disputes. About the problem of the origin of the soul, which arose during these disputes, see: Diekamp F. Die origenistische Streitigkeiten im sechsten Jahrhundert und das fünfte allgemeine Concil. Münster im Westfalen, 1899, pp. 83–97. Rev. Anastasius uses the word ἡμιούσιος, rare in patristic vocabulary, which G. Lampe records only from him. See: Lampe G. W. N. A Patristic Greek Lexicon. Oxford, 1978, p. 607. Among the holy fathers and ancient church writers, the concept of “innovation” (καινοτομία - “innovation”), in contrast to new and modern times (abundant praise for the “new word in science”, etc.), was usually associated with negative meanings, implying a departure from the truth, which, as a rule, was associated with antiquity, see, for example: “I ask those who have laid trust in Christ to care for nothing more than the ancient faith; but as we believe, so we are baptized; as we are baptized, so we praise. It is enough for us to confess those Names that we have received from the Holy Scriptures, and to avoid innovations in this; because our salvation does not lie in the invention of names, but in a sound confession of the Godhead in whom we have believed.” Works like the saints of our father Basil the Great, vol. III. St. Petersburg, 1911, p. 193. Therefore, this concept often denoted heresies. However, in this case it has a positive meaning, denoting the renewal of humanity that was brought about by the Incarnation of God the Word (τὴν καινοτομίαν ἐν τῷ Χριστῷ). Further in the “Guide” (XIII, 5) it is said that Christ, on the one hand, voluntarily acted and acted according to the laws of our nature, becoming like us, and on the other hand, being God and the Creator of nature, he accomplished what exceeds man and what is characteristic of human nature (ἅπερ ὑπὲρ ἀνϑρωπον καὶ ὑπὲρ φύσιν ἐν τοίς φυσικοῖς ἡμῖν), renewing the limits, laws and order of our human nature and existence. This thought by Rev. Anastasia can be compared with the teachings of St. Maximus the Confessor, according to which the Lord, “on the one hand, “renewed” the laws of nature, “revived” human nature in Himself, in other words, adopted the sinlessness of the primordial Adam, without, however, accepting his incorruption, and on the other hand, in everything he became like us, became a sin for us, a curse, having assimilated the corruption of the fallen Adam, without, however, his sin.” Epifanovich S.L. St. Maximus the Confessor and Byzantine theology M., 1996, p. 89–90 However, it should be noted that Rev. Anastasius, using the concept καινοτομία and the verb καινοτομέω, emphasizes the beginning of a new stage of human existence from the moment of the Incarnation: “renewal” was not simply a return to the state of Adam before the Fall, but entailed a completely new transformation of human nature, i.e., its deification. A similar idea is found in St. Cyril of Alexandria in his teaching on “heading” See: Sidorov A. AND . Saint Cyril of Alexandria. His life, church service and creations // Creations of St. Cyril, Bishop of Alexandria, book. 1. M., p. 2000, p. 119–120. See note. 1 to chapter 1 [p. 203 present ed.] {footnote beginning: “Wed. one observation of Father Cyprian (Kern)...” Editorial of the ABC of Faith } and notes. 1 to the “Third Word” [from 147 ad. ed.] {footnote beginning: “So, I think, it is better to translate the expression ἐκ τοῦ ψύχειν...”. Editorial of the ABC of Faith}. In this definition νοερᾶς) traces the doctrine of spiritual feelings outlined in the works of a number of Church fathers and ancient church writers. In particular, this teaching is developed by Rev. Simeon the New Theologian, who considers the mind as the main sensory organ that allows us to contemplate God. See: Julien V. Les sens spirituels et la vision de Dieu selon Symeon le Nouveau Theologien. Paris, 1985, p. 166–181. True, at the heights of God-contemplation the mind, according to St. Simeon, as it were, ceases its activities. See: “The always moving mind then becomes motionless and devoid of thoughts, when it is completely covered with Divine darkness and light, however, it is in contemplation and feeling and tasting the good things in which it is located. For the depth of the Holy Spirit is not the same as the depth of the waters of the sea, but it is the water of eternal life. Everything that is there is incomprehensible, inexplicable and incomprehensible; the mind finds itself in these (realities) when it passes through everything visible and intelligible, and motionlessly moves and rotates in them, living in a life above life, being light in light, but not light in itself. For then he sees not himself, but the One who is above him, and, changed by the glory there in thought, he is completely unaware of himself.” Our Reverend Father Simeon the New Theologian, abbot of the monastery of St. Mamas of Xirokercus, Chapters theological, speculative and practical. M., 1998, p. 76–77. In other words, Rev. Anastasius points out the difference between the object of thinking (νοητόν) and thinking itself (νοερὸν), deriving the latter from τὰ νοήματα ὁρᾶν. Wed. interpretation: “By celestial bodies the Apostle means the sun, moon and stars, as can be seen from the flow of speech; and not the bodies of Angels, as others believe. Under the earthly ones are those that I have listed, and all others similar to them. He says: there are celestial bodies, just as there are terrestrial ones. But the heavenly ones are completely different from the earthly ones. They are luminous, unchanging, solid, constant. A simple glance is enough to see how the heavenly bodies are more glorious than the earthly ones. This point seems to be the main one for the Apostle. And he says this in order to suggest that just as celestial bodies differ from earthly bodies, so future bodies differ from present ones.” Creations like the saints of our father Theophan the Recluse. Interpretations of the Epistles of the Apostle Paul. First Epistle to the Corinthians. M., 1998, p. 582–583. In this case, Rev. Anastasius may be close to St. Apostle Paul, who distinguishes between the concepts of “body” (σῶμα) and “flesh” (σὰρξ), although quite often he identifies them. For the Apostle, “everything that appears and confronts a person, as a definitely outlined object in space, is σῶμα. The scope of this concept is not limited to the objects of this world: “there is also a spiritual” (body), states the Apostle (1 Cor. 15:44). Such a body takes our imagination to the day of world metamorphosis, when the objective revelation of God’s Kingdom will impart new properties to bodies (1 Cor. 15:50–52; Rom. 8:21, 23)” In general, σῶμα is “the concept of the body with the character of a logical category, in it all genera and types of visible being and life are united into one family manifested through the body, objectively defined, limited by space The form of the concept corresponds to its content: it embraces everything inorganic, organic and animal. Σὰρξ limits the concept of σῶμα to the animal kingdom and is thought of in it as a generic concept (1 Cor. 15:39)” Gumilevsky I. The teaching of the Holy Apostle Paul about the natural and spiritual man. Sergiev Posad, 1913, p. 17–18. The doctrine of the four elements (στοιχείων) was adopted by ancient church writers from ancient science. Compare: “The world element is the smallest part of a specific body. There are four elements: earth, water, air and fire; They are located in the above order (if you move) from lower bodies to higher ones, they are original and simple in comparison with other bodies. And indeed, every element is homogeneous (ὁμογενές) with that of which it is an element. After all, the beginning is not homogeneous with what comes from it, but the element is completely homogeneous. And that earth and water, air and fire are elements, this is obvious: in them, after all, essential (elementary) qualities (properties) are seen both in potency (δυνάμει) and in action (ἐνεργέια), although, of course, none of these elements, subject to sensory perception, are not alien to mixing and combining with another element: they are all somehow imperceptibly mixed and involved in each other to a greater or lesser extent, but the nature of each of them is obvious in the mixture.” Nemesius of Emesa. On human nature, p. 76. Compare: “Every body is a mixture of four elements and is primarily composed of them (προσεχῶς) The bodies of animals that have blood consist of four moistures: blood, mucus (phlegm), yellow and black bile, and the bodies of bloodless animals are made up of other moistures (except blood) and also from what replaces blood in them. The closest way (προσεχῶς) is said when something comes directly from one or the other, so that the four humours (liquids) come from the four elements, and from the humours (form) omiomeriums, which are members of the body” Ibid., p. 73. Or: “the location of any feeling,” its “abode, home” (αἰσϑητήριον). Compare: “The dwellings of the senses are the organs, that is, the members through which we feel; and the sensible is that which falls under the power of feeling, while a living being that has feeling is capable of feeling. There are five senses; likewise the five and the dwellings of the senses.” Creations like the saints of our father John of Damascus. An Accurate Statement of the Orthodox Faith, p. 89. Whom does the Rev. understand? Anastasius under the “teacher” (διδασκάλου), it is difficult to say, but he started a discussion about the “incorruptibility” of the body of Christ before His Ascension at the beginning of the 6th century. Julian of Halicarnassus is one of the Monophysit theologians with whom North Antioch entered into polemics. Julian’s idea of the “corruptibility” (φϑαρτή) of human nature after its fall included three aspects: 1) perishability as exposure to suffering and death, 2) corruption as lust (ἐπιϑυμία) andˆ3) corruption as sin (ἁμαρτία). All these three aspects are closely united in human nature, where the moral principle of “corruption,” according to Julian, is inseparable from the physical, and therefore he argued that every person perceives sin along with nature, and as a result, every person is sinful from birth. Christ perceives “incorruptible” human nature, since He is sinless; hence, after the Incarnation, two “incorruptible” principles (ἄφϑαρτοι) are combined in him, although they are not equal to each other. The Word of God is incorruptible in essence, and human nature, perceived by this Word, is incorruptible only in the moral sense. This terminological complexity and ill-conceived terminology of Julian gave rise to many misunderstandings and caused lively debate within the Monophysite movement, see: Dragnet R. Julien d'Halicarnasse et sa controverse avec Sévère d'Antioche sur 1'incorruptibilité du corps du Christ. Louvain, 1924, p. 100–256. Later, the discussion went beyond the boundaries of Monophysitism, and Orthodox theologians also entered into it. Thus, John the Grammar of Caesarea wrote an entire essay “Against the Aphthartodocetes,” to which he appended a large collection of quotations from the Fathers of the Church (florilegia). For fragments of it, see: Iohannis Caesariensis Presbyteri et Grammatici Opera quae supersunt. Ed. M. Richard et M. Aubineau // Corpus Christianorum Series Graeca, v. 1. Turnhout, 1977, p. 69–78. In addition, church historian Evagrius Scholasticus reports that Emperor Justinian the Great, before his death, fell into the heresy of “Aphthartodocetism” and even prepared a corresponding edict, planning to make this heresy the official religion of Byzantium. According to the historian, in this edict, the emperor “called the body of the Lord incorruptible and impervious to genuine physical suffering, saying that the Lord ate before the agony of the cross in the same way as after the Resurrection, and from the very appearance in the [womb] of the Mother He did not undergo any change or change in natural or chosen sufferings of His own free will until the resurrection of His all-holy body; he forced all the priests to approve these [postulates].” The Emperor was prevented from introducing this dogmatic innovation by the Antiochian Patriarch Anastasius, and then Justinian died, so the edict remained only on paper, see: Evagrius Scholasticus. Church history. Books III–IV. Translation from Greek, comments and applications by I.V. Krivushchina. SPb., 2001, p. 247–249. This message of Evagrius was recognized by many modern historians, but at present it raises more and more doubts about its truth, because it comes into irreconcilable contradiction with the logic of the development of the worldview of the outstanding emperor-theologian. See Gerostergios A. Justinian The Great. The Emperor and Saint. Belmont, 1982, p. 147–154; Uthemann K. -H. Kaiser Justinian als Kirchenpolitiker und Theologe //Augustinianom, v. 39, 1999, pp. 79–82. Dionysius the Areopagite. About divine names. About mystical theology. St. Petersburg, 1994, p. 169. True, we have slightly changed this translation (in it: “The death of nature is weakness and lack of natural properties, energies and forces”). Rev. Anastasius distinguishes between the concepts of καταφϑορά (“destruction”) and διαφϑορά (“damage”). A similar distinction is made by Julian of Halicarnassus, for whom “corruption” (διαφϑορὰ) is the path to “corruption” (φϑορά), and “destruction” (καταφϑορά) is the maximum limit of “corruption.” See: Draguet R. Op. cit., p. 104. We are talking about the term μορφὴ, which usually denotes the form or external image of a thing or living being. Rev. Anastasius, identifying in a particular case this term with the concept of “essence” (οὐσία), probably proceeds from the patristic interpretation of Phil. 2:6–7. Compare: “For I affirm that the expression: to be in the image of God (Phil. 2:6) is equivalent to the expression to be in the essence of God. For just as the words: took on the form of a servant (v. 7) mean that our Lord was born in the essence of human nature, so, of course, the words “be in the image of God” show the properties of God’s essence.” Works like the saints of our father Basil the Great, Archbishop of Caesarea of ​​Cappadocia, part III. M., 1993, p. 45. As St. explains. John Chrysostom, here we are not talking about simple hearing, “not about hearing human speech and believing them,” but “about high hearing: hearing is the word of God. The righteous did not speak their own, but proclaimed what they learned from God, this is much higher than miracles. God, when He speaks and performs miracles, must be equally believed and obeyed, because works and miracles are wrought by His word; That’s exactly how heaven and everything else appeared.” Like our holy father John Chrysostom, Archbishop of Constantinople, Selected works. Discourses on the Epistle to the Romans. M., 1994, p. 721. Wed. interpretation: “Faith is the contemplation of the implicit and leads to the same complete conviction in the invisible as in the visible. Objects of hope seem to have no reality, but faith gives them reality, or, better, does not, but this is their reality; for example, the resurrection has not yet happened and does not exist in reality, but hope makes it real in our soul.” Our Holy Father John, Archbishop of Constantinople, Chrysostom, Discourses on the Epistle of the Holy Apostle Paul to the Hebrews. St. Petersburg, 1859, p. 333. The distinction between the “inner word” and the “spoken word” goes back to ancient Stoicism, and later this difference was adopted by ancient church theologians. See, for example, the reasoning of one of them: “The internal word (ἐνδιάϑετος λόγος) is a movement of the soul that occurs in the mind - without any external expression. Hence, we often and silently carry on a whole reasoning with ourselves, and also talk during dreams: it is primarily due to this ability that we are all considered reasonable - not so much by the word spoken, but by the inner one. The spoken word (προφορικὸς λόγος) manifests itself in sound and conversation.” Nemesius of Emesa. On human nature, p. 107–108. Rev. Anastasius, however, puts at the forefront of all types of “logoi” the “incarnate Word” (λόγος ἐνοὐσιος), i.e., the Word of God. The definition of the concept of “Christian” in patristic writing usually implied the unity of thought, words and deeds. Wed. remark of the greatest ascetic (and, possibly, mentor St. Anastasius): “A Christian is one who, as much as possible for a person, imitates Christ in words, deeds and thoughts, rightly and immaculately believing in the Holy Trinity.” Our Reverend Father John, abbot of Mount Sinai, Ladder. Sergiev Posad, 1908, p. 2. So, it seems, it is better to translate this phrase (ἡ ψευδὴς ὑπόληψις τοῦ μὴ όντος), suggesting the ontological non-existence of lies, and, consequently, the “phantomism” of heresy. This definition δηλοῖ) shows that Rev. Anastasius took a cautiously objective position in relation to the term σύγκρασις, which, in its Christological application, was discredited by the heretic Apollinaris of Laodicea, who chose it as the main concept to denote the union of the natures of Christ and gave this term only a one-sided meaning of confusion. See: Raven Ch. E. Apollinarism. An Essay on the Christology of the Early Church Cambridge, 1923, p. 204 However, the great contemporary of Apollinaris, St. Gregory the Theologian, used the same term in a completely Orthodox sense, speaking about the natures of the Lord this way: both of them are unity in union (τὰ ἀμφότερα ἕν τῇ συγκράσει), that is, unity is God incarnate and deified man (Θεοῦ μὲν ἐνανϑρωπήσαντος, ἀνϑρώπου δὲ ϑεωϑέντος). See: Grégoire de Nazianze. Lettres théologiques. Ed. par P. Gallay // Sources chrétiennes, No. 208 Paris, 1974, p. 44. A similar Christological use of this term is also observed in some later Orthodox authors. For example, a church theologian of the 6th century. Pamphilius considers it synonymous with the concept of “unity”. See: Diversorum postchalcedonensim auctorum collectanea I. Pamphilii Theologi opus edid. J.H. Declerck. Eustathii Monachi opus edid. P. Allen // Corpus Christianorum Series Graeca, v. 19. Turnhout-Leuven, 1989, 163, 191. In this definition (ὄρεξις δέ ἐστιν ἡ τοῦ ἐπιϑυμητικοῦ μέρους τῆς ψυχῆς κίνησις) we are most likely talking about sadness (sorrow, melancholy) in the neutral sense of the word, as a natural state of the soul. Already St. The Apostle Paul made a clear distinction between two types of “sorrows”, saying: “Godly sorrow produces unfailing repentance unto salvation; but worldly sorrow produces death” (2 Cor. 7:10) This distinction became one of the guidelines of patristic moral theology. Yes, Rev. Maximus the Confessor devotes an entire epistle, which is a short treatise (PG 91, 413–420), to sorrow for God, which he calls “praiseworthy sorrow” (τὴν ἐπαινετήν λύπην). It, in his opinion, is characteristic of the righteous, who do not allow their souls to evade the judgments of God and indulge in what destroys nature. Probably, the same praiseworthy sadness is spoken of in this case by the Rev. Anastasius, giving it also a Christological meaning. We are talking about the concept of αὐτεξουσιότης, which is largely identical in meaning to the concept of “free will”. Wed. definition: “Amocracy is the will of the rational soul (ψυχῦς λογικῦς ϑέλησις), willingly moving towards what it would like; Let us convince her to be ready only for good, so that we can constantly destroy the memory of evil with good thoughts (ἐννοίαις). Popov K. Blessed Diadochos (5th century), Bishop of Photiki of Ancient Epirus, and his works, vol. I. Kyiv, 1903, p. 25–26. Rev. Anastasius connects this autocracy with the desirable beginning of our soul (τοῦ ἐπιϑυμητικοὐ ἡμῶν). The concept of “attack” (ἡ προσβολή – “adjacent”) is a predominantly ascetic term, which was used differently in ascetic writing and was assessed no less differently by scientists. Thus, according to K. Popov, “by attack we mean an effect produced by external or internal causes on our soul, perceived by it and causing a certain movement in it (κίνημα). This movement, in its initial manifestation, indefinite, alien even to the image (ἀνείδωλον) of the thing that caused it, is actually an impact. It is an impression, sensory perception (πρόληψις), sensation (αἴσϑησις), indicating that something influenced the soul and found a corresponding echo in it.” K. Popov, relying mainly on Rev. Mark of the Ascetic, considers the attack to be “forced”, that is, it occurs initially against our will and is an action that we cannot prevent. Being initially “innocent,” the enemy can become the cause of sin if a person voluntarily enters into “assistance” with it. See: Popov K. Decree. cit., p. 69–70. S. Zarin defines the idea in a slightly different way, believing that “this term denotes such a representation of some object or action, corresponding to one of the vicious inclinations of human nature, which, either under the influence of external feelings, or due to its connection with the psychological work of memory and imagination, according to the laws of association, enters the sphere of human consciousness.” Relying primarily on Rev. John Climacus, S. Zarin correlates the attack with the conscious life of a person and considers it such a spiritual and mental phenomenon that undoubtedly has a form or appearance. See: Zarin S. Asceticism, p. 250–252. For Rev. Anastasia, judging by his remarks, the enemy is neutral (for it can be a “preposition” to both good and evil) and is associated primarily with the volitional principle in a person. Wed. teaching Maxim: “Having not accepted sin at birth, the Lord preserved His will forever incorruptible and immutable in His life. Although He put on the “passion” (παϑητόν) of our nature, which served in us as the source of the development of sin and the support for the influence of evil spirits, yet to the end and as a person He remained dispassionate (in relation to reproachful, or unnatural, passions). Having accepted (to abolish sinful birth) not for Himself, but for our sake, spiritual birth in baptism and the gifts of the Spirit, the Lord in His life showed us an example of virtue and perfection.” Epifanovich S. L. St. Maximus the Confessor and Byzantine theology, p. 90. Defending the presence of human will in Christ (naturally, impeccable), Rev. Maxim inextricably combined this will with the rational soul of the Lord (ϑέλησις καλεῖται τῆς νοερᾶς ψυχῆς). The human nature of the incarnate God the Word was unthinkable for him both without reason and without the will closely combined with it. See: Elert W. Der Ausgang der altkirchlichen Christologie. Berlin, 1957, pp. 244–245. A similar inextricable combination of the volitional and rational principles in the human nature of Christ is also observed in St. Anastasia, who in this case emphasizes the voluntary submission of this deified human nature to the Divine nature. This is how we dare to translate this term (ὀντότης - “foundation, principle of being”). Wed: “Let us sing the Good as the truly Existing One, the creator of all beings in general. Existence (Ex. 3:14) is the super-essential substantial Cause of every possible being, the Creator of existence, existence, substance, essence, nature, beginning, and the Measure of ages, and the Reality of times (χρόνων ὀντότης), and the Eternity of existing, and the Time of arising, and the being of everything that only happens, and the Birth of everything that appears.” Dionysius the Areopagite. About divine names. On mystical theology, p. 195–197. If Dionysius the Areopagigus speaks about the highest Principle (Reality) of Divine Existence, then St. Anastasia is talking about the first principle in the hierarchy of created being, and therefore nature is presented to him as the original reality of all creatures. Or: “belongs to the relative” (τῶν πρός τι), nature in this regard is, as it were, something “absolute” in relation to other creatures, or there is something like a “relative absolute”. This phrase by Rev. Anastasia φύσιν) is clearly directed against Nestorian Christology. Perhaps its defenders and supporters cited Matthew 26:27 as “proof from Scripture” in favor of the human nature of the Lord having its own face. The section “On Etymology” is skipped as it does not have significant theological and philosophical significance. This use of the adverb “house-building” (οἰκονομικῶς) and the concept of “house-building” (οἰκονομία) in a sense identical to the term “Incarnation” (or “Incarnation”) long before St. Anastasia was established in ancient church theology. Compare, for example, “In general, the more exalted sayings refer to the Divinity and to nature, which is higher than suffering and the body, and the more humiliating sayings – to the One who was complex (τῷ συνϑέτῳ), exhausted Himself for you and became incarnate, or, what’s worse, and became human, then exalted (ὑψωϑέντι - “ascended”), so that you, having destroyed in your dogmas everything carnal and reptiles on the earth, learn to be more elevated and ascend with your mind to the Divine, and not stop at the visible, ascend to the mental and know where we are talking about the nature of God, and where about His Economy (τις μὲν φύσεως λόγος, τίς δὲ λόγος οἰκονομίας).” Saint Gregory the Theologian. Collected Works, vol. 1, p. 426. Text Grégoire de Nazianze Discours 27–31 (Discours theologiques) Ed par P Gallay // Sources chrétiennes, No. 250 Paris, 1978, p. 216. The distinction between “nature” and “economy” outlined by St. Gregory the Theologian, the Monophysites took it to extremes and perverted it. “Such a difference among them tended toward antithesis: “nature” correlated with the realm of Divine existence (primarily birth from the Father and the existence of God the Word), and “economy” correlated with the will (of God the Word, who voluntarily wished to be incarnated and be born according to humanity).” See Lebon J. Le monophysime séverien, p. 194–198 Maybe that’s why Rev. Anastasius combines the concepts of “nature” and “economy” (κατὰ τὴν φύσιν τῆς σαρκὸς τῆς οἰκονομίας αὐτοῦ), naturally preserving them difference. Elsewhere in the Guide (XIII, 4) Rev. Anastasius clarifies that these heretics should be understood as the Manichaeans, for the founder of this heresy, Mani, was the first to invent the identification of the words “economically” and “imaginarily” (τὸ γὰρ “οἰκονομικῶς” ἀντὶ τοῦ "φαντασιωδῶς" ἐφεῦρειν ὁ Μάνης). So, I think, it is better to translate this phrase of St. Gregory the Theologian (Σύνϑεσις ἀρχὴ διαστάσεως). For him, the concept of “complexity” was usually correlated with the realm of created existence and contrasted with Divine simplicity. Compare: “Since it is not at all characteristic of God - the first and uncomplicated nature (for simplicity is peaceful and serene) and also, I dare say, the nature of the Angels, or the nature closest to God, due to its very closeness, but sinning is a human matter, and is characteristic of further complexity (because complexity is the beginning of rebellion), then the Lord did not consider leaving His creation helpless and neglect her when she is in danger of rebelling against Him.” Saint Gregory the Theologian, Archbishop of Constantinople. Collected Works, vol. 1, p. 547. In a specific case, Rev. Anastasius uses the concept of τόκος (often meaning “child, child, offspring”), identifying it with the concept of γέννησις (actually “birth”). Similar usage in relation to the birth of the Lord is also found in St. John Chrysostom. See Lampe G. W. N. A Greek Patristic Lexicon, p. 1395. Wed. reasoning of Leontius of Byzantium “The Divine Hypostasis, as it was from eternity the Hypostasis of the Son of God, must remain the same after the Incarnation of the Savior. It could not be replenished through increase by humanity, nor could it change, for in God there can be no change or increase, for He is always fullness, fulfilling everything in everything. If before the Incarnation the Son of God is one simple Hypostasis (ἀπλῆ ὑπόστασις), such, and only such, He can remain after His Incarnation without complications, increase or decrease. The Word became flesh, but one and the same as He was.” Sokolov V. Leontius of Byzantium, p. 294. You might be interested in: