II. Споры христологические («христологическая» стадия споров о Богочеловеке)

1. Time before the Nestorian dispute arose The transition from triadological disputes to Christological ones: Apollinaris of Laodicea 35 In the era of struggle over the doctrine of the Holy Trinity with Arianism, a new topic for theological discussion was quietly brewing - Christological. This new theme gave the content of the history of the next three centuries. In its historical significance, it exceeded the dispute with Arianism itself, since in its development this second dispute served as the reason for the separation from the church of several heresies with a clear national connotation, which have not disappeared to this day. The transition from the stage of a purely theological dispute to the stage of a Christological dispute took place imperceptibly. Less was done for Christology in ancient church writing than to reveal the doctrine of the Trinity. The fact of the actual existence of the human side in Christ was asserted against the Docetians, but they explained it little. Only Origen said with special emphasis that Λόγος took not only the human body, but also the soul. The Arians left the Christological question in the shadows. But for them it did not present such a difficulty as for the Orthodox: the union of the finite Divinity with a finite man is easier to imagine than the union of the infinite God with a finite man. The finite human spirit next to the finite divine spirit - the Logos - the Son did not represent any particular need in the Person of Christ: the human rational soul in Christ could be conveniently replaced by the finite deity of Christ. This is what the Arianists did, perhaps not realizing the full historical importance of their decision (as an impetus for the Christological dispute). In any case, Athanasius V. says quite definitely that among the Arians, human flesh in Christ was only the outer cover of the deity, which replaced the soul in Him. And in fact, the Arians of the first generation conducted their polemics with the Orthodox as if the human soul of Christ was out of the question. In all the places of Holy Scripture where the Orthodox saw an indication of the humanity of Christ, the Arians saw an indication of a limited deity. And what the Christology of the Arians of the second generation was, this is known, for example, from the symbol of Eudoxius and passages from Lucius of Alexandria. Eudoxius says: “We believe in one Lord, incarnate, but not made man, because He did not take on a human soul, but became flesh; not two natures, because He was not a perfect man, but instead of a human soul, God in the flesh.” Luke wrote: “That is why John cries: The Word became flesh, that is, it was formed with the flesh, but not with the soul. If He also had a soul, then the movements of God and the movements of the soul would be opposite to each other; for both One and the other are self-moving and determine themselves to various actions.” Thus, the Arians spoke out in terms of the future of Monophysitism. On the part of the Orthodox, the bishop was the first to deviate in this direction. Laodicean Apollinaris the Younger (so called in contrast to his father Apollinaris, a presbyter in the same Syrian Laodicea), whose high literary talent was also recognized by his dogmatic opponents. Philostorgius puts Apollinaris along with Basil V. and Gregory of Nazianzus, recognizing them as such celebrities that Athanasius V. himself is just a child in comparison with them. Apollinaris received a comprehensive education and wrote in prose and almost all types of poetry, and during the era of Julian’s persecution of literature he tried to replace Homer with poetic adaptations from the Bible. In terms of the purity of his life, he represented one of the brightest phenomena in the east, therefore the Orthodox Christians remained on friendly terms with him for a long time, although the purity of his dogmatic views was already darkened; as a dogmatic opponent of the Arians, he had long been known. The two Arian bishops of Laodicea, Theodotus and George, treated him and his father unfavorably, and the latter even ended by depriving him of church communion. Sometime before 362, Apollinaris became the bishop of Laodicea, and at the Council of Alexandria in 362 there were also monks sent by Apollinaris, who signed on his behalf that Christ took on a human body that was not soulless and insane. Only in 373 did Vasily V. speak about the heresy dissolved by Apollinaris. Rumors had reached Afanasy before. Its first discovery dates back to 362; over the next decade, Apollinarism intensified. But Athanasius treated Apollinaris condescendingly, as well as Marcellus 36 . Soon after, the Apollinarians emerged as a special society. In Antioch, the Meletian presbyter Vitaly joined Apollinaris. When his good relations with Meletius were broken, he went to Rome at the end of 374 and returned from there with a letter of recommendation from Damasus to Paulinus. But Vitaly’s union with the Paulinians did not take place; Damas apparently doubted Vitaly’s Orthodoxy and sent Pavlin a special program to clarify the beliefs of this presbyter. It ended with Vitaly being ordained Bishop of Antioch by Apollinaris. The teaching of the Apollinarians with their various ramifications was condemned at several councils, among other things, at the Roman councils of 376, 377 and 382, ​​and the ecumenical council of 381. Already in an earlier era, the era of the struggle against Arianism (before 362), Apollinaris became a banner of discord. Although, on the one hand, he was the subject of respect from many Orthodox Christians (for example, even Athanasius V. treated him with favor), but on the other hand, there were features in his talents that should have caused a different attitude. It is remarkable that Philostorgius, who always characterizes only the type of activity in which a given person is the first, says that Apollinaris had an advantage in the so-called ὑπομνηστικόν, i.e., when translated into modern language, this means that Apollinaris is recognized as a great master of writing editorials, of forcing something to be kept in memory. And what we require from an editorial is to pay attention to any issue and keep it in memory longer; No special (knowledge) is required here. Indeed, a characteristic feature of Apollinaris is that he had an extremely courageous mind. He wavered between the points of view of Athanasius and Vasily V., on issues of a dogmatic nature, in the main, after all, adjoining Athanasius; but he deviated (from it) because he took on insoluble questions. The distinctive features of Apollinaris’ abilities stand out especially clearly when comparing him with Vasily V., with whom, due to special circumstances, he corresponded for some time. Vasily V. was such a serious scientist that it seemed that he was directly created for science. He, for example, produced such a work as a treatise on the Holy Spirit, consisting of almost nothing but quotations, weighed with such detail and objectivity as is strived for in our time. He demanded completeness, truly classical, up to and including the formulation, and everything that responded only with the colors of eloquence and hints did not satisfy him. Meanwhile, Apollinaris offered only such flowers. The skill with which he used Greek phrases, he was reminiscent of Gregory the Theologian, so that he could charm and captivate listeners, but did not resemble him in seriousness. He only played with these expressions and shone with them, trying to explain even what was inexplicable in essence. He was never averse to speaking out with risky courage, βιαιότερον, even if his sharp innovation here could cause antipathy in persons of a more strict mental disposition. When Basil V. arrived from Athens, the polemic with the Arians was already completely defined; it was precisely this that came down to the word ὁμοούσιος, which the Orthodox applied to the Son of God. 1) The essence of the Arians' evidence was as follows. The word οὐσία is not found in Holy Scripture even once in application to God, and from this they drew the conclusion that ὁμοούσιος cannot be applied to Him. True, the Orthodox referred to the expressions “ἄρτος ἐπιούσιος” (daily bread) and “λαὸς῾ περιούσιος” (chosen people), in which Greek epithets contained the root οὐσία, but The Arians demanded such expressions about God and without this considered themselves winners in the dispute. 2) The philosophical meaning of the word ὁμοούσιος also presented difficulties for Vasily. As a classically educated St. the father had to solve the question of ὁμοούσιος more deeply, solve it from a philosophical point of view. And modern philosophy taught that matter first exists as a substrate, ὑποκείμενον, and then things, first the highest genus (γένος κοινὸν ὑπερκείμενον), and then its species. Obviously there is an obstacle in applying these principles to the doctrine of the Persons of the Holy Trinity. It is clear that in relation to divine Persons it is impossible to speak of some genus superius, as previously given (προύπάρχον), to which the Father and Son of God would be subordinated and in which they would be united. 3) The meaning of the concept of ὁμοούσιος as applied to the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, according to Vasily V., boiled down to the following: everything that is assumed (καθ᾽ ὑπόθεσιν) as the being (οὐσία) of the Father is necessarily thought of in the Son. If God the Father is essentially an eternal unborn light, then the Son is essentially an eternal begotten light. But here another question arose for Vasily: does the word ὁμοούσιος accurately express this relationship between the Father and the Son? Wouldn’t it be more appropriate to express them with the term: “similar to indifference” (ἀπαραλάκτως ὅμοιος or ὅμοιος κατ᾽ οὐσίαν ἀκριβῶς άπαραλλάκτως)? After all, between “light” and “light” there is no quantitative difference, but there is also no identity: each light has its own specific outline ἑκάτερον). It was these perplexities that occupied Vasily’s deep mind that prompted him to turn to “the most venerable Bishop Apollinaris” as a “wise doctor”, “precise in mind and word.” Apollinaris also responded to the written appeal of Basil V. with a letter that characteristically depicts the intellectual personality of the Bishop of Laodicea. He begins his message by praising Vasily for his firmness in faith (φιλοθέως πιστεύεις) and love for dealing with theological issues (καὶ φιλολόγως ζητεῖς). For Apollinaris, as for Athanasius V., it was undoubted that the Arian objections to οὐσία were directed against ὁμοούσιον; that ὅμοιον was introduced to undermine the concept of ὁμοούσιον 37; that ὅμοιον was used incorrectly because it did not resolve the issue of “οὐσία” itself, since ἡ ὁμοιότης τῶν ἐν οὐσία ἐστὶν τῶν οὐσιωδῶν. Ὅμοιος by the very essence of the matter is a secondary concept, when the first question is a question about οὐσία (and it is resolved by the word ὁμοούσιος). In the same way, he praises Basil for the fact that he does not allow anything to precede the Holy Trinity, as genus superius. The Son is essentially the same as the Father, says Apollinaris, and Vasily is wise correctly. Apollinaris dismisses his doubts like this. a) For “consubstantiality” it is not required that the “consubstantial” represent a specific unity (τὸ ἐν μιᾷ περιγραφῇ): all people ταὐτὸν κατ᾽ οὐσίαν, are identical in essence, although are different from each other as individuals, b) That idea of ὁμοούσιος, according to which genus superius is assumed, is inapplicable not only to God, but even to people. It does not at all express τὴν γεναρχικὴν ἰδιότητα, the features of genetic relationships. After all, between Adam, as created by God, θεόπλαστος, and us, as human-born, ἀνθρωπογέννητοι, there is a difference that excludes the genus superius, as previously given. We are consubstantial with Adam, but not because before Adam there was some common substrate that united us as entities. The same is the attitude of the son of David towards David. For his part, Apollinaris tried to explain the concept of ὁμοούσιος with a spectacular play on words and oppositions: this is ταὐτὸν ἐν ἑτερότητι καὶ ἕτερον ἐν ταὐτότητι, “Otherness” simply (ἁπλῶς, in itself) will not express the truth of sonship, “identity” simply will not express the inseparability of hypostasis (τὸ ἀμέριστον τῆς ὑποστάσεως - Apollinaris obviously recognizes one hypostasis in the Trinity - being). Therefore, it is necessary to think, ταὐτὸν ἑτέρως, καὶ ἔτερον ὡσαύτως. It is necessary to imagine the Son as ὁμοειδὲς μὲν, ὑφεμένον δὲ φῶς, light of the same type, but subordinate, in order to think of Him as equal to the Father and in subordination, and the Father as greater than the Son and in equality. There were elements in Apollinaris's view with which Vasily V. could not agree. Playing with words and expressions was not enough for him, but the very essence of the matter was required. The play with pronouns ταὐτὸν – ἕτερον and adverbs ἑτέρως – ώσαύτως in Vasily’s bright and clear mind undoubtedly raised one persistent question: κατὰ τί; "in what respect?" Vasily V. demanded an answer in certain terms - nouns (like οὐσία on the one hand, ὑπόστασις on the other). As a result, relations with Apollinaris completely ceased, and Vasily V. himself abstained from them. However, the former relations did not remain without a trace. Opponents of Vasily V., knowing about his former correspondence with Apollinaris, began to pass off all sorts of views of Apollinaris as the views of Vasily V. This was the case when the latter became a bishop. For example, once there were rumors that Vasily taught strangely. It turned out that the reason for such rumors was an essay that was circulating in Sevastia, which was passed off as belonging to Vasily V. But it was enough to look at this essay to recognize its real author. The same terms are found here as in Apollinaris’ letter to Basil, the same ταὐτότης and ἑτερότης... Even more than that, it is explained here that “connected with otherness, one must think of the first identity and call this same identity both the second and the third, since what is the Father is first (in the first instance) πρώτως - the same thing is the Son δευτέρως and the Holy Spirit - τρίτως. And on the other hand, that the Spirit is in the first instance (as Πνεῦμα par excellence), then the Son is in the second (for the Lord is Spirit) and the Father is in the third (for God is Spirit). And in order to more energetically (βιαιότερον) express the ineffable, the Father (ὁ Πατὴρ) is the fatherly Son (πατρικῶς ϒἱός), and the Son (ὁ ϒἱὸς) is the filial Father (υἱΐκῶς Πατήρ). One should also think about the Spirit, since the Trinity is one God.” One can judge how antipathetic Vasily was to such a teaching, where the play on words was taken to the extreme. From the indicated relationship between the Persons of the Holy Trinity, it emerged that the doctrine of the personal characteristics of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit was cut at the root: the Father here ceases to be the first Person of the Holy Trinity, the beginning, because in a certain respect one can think of the first and the Holy Spirit, and the Father as the third. Therefore, Basil V., in a letter to Meletius of Antioch, writes that the person he is talking about, i.e. Apollinaris, is approaching the heresy of Sabellius. Another characteristic expression of Apollinaris, which brought reproach on him in Arianism, is where in the doctrine of the Holy Trinity he spoke about “the great, the greater and the highest” (the words were preserved only in the instructions of the polemicists). One must think that Apollinaris was far from what he was accused of, from the doctrine of the inequality of Persons. He only wanted to say that just as in these three terms the concept of magnitude remains the same, but only the form of expression is different, so the Persons of the Holy Trinity differ from each other, but their Divinity is the same. From the examples given, one can judge how Apollinaris should have theologized on issues of a Christological nature, representing a still new area. Here he carried out his reasoning extremely boldly. His system aroused delight in his students, who said: “only our father Apollinaris was the first to explain the mystery of the incarnation, hidden for all.” Some of his works have survived in fragments, for example. Περὶ πίστεως, Περὶ σαρκώσεως, others - in full - Ἡ κατὰ μέρος πίστίς. From what has survived, one can see the courage of the task he took upon himself: he wanted to give a belief that was reasonably justified, to prove it in such a way that the force of the arguments was equal to the coercive force of geometric argumentation. The teaching that Christ took on the whole man was, of course, known to Apollinaris, but he found that on this point it was necessary to yield to the Arians and only correct their construction. A) The highest interest of Christianity - the question of redemption itself - depends on the correct formulation of this point: for our real redemption it is necessary that the true God really become incarnate; but this is something that cannot be achieved with the theory of unity in Christ of divinity and complete tripartite humanity: spirit, soul and body. Firstly, it presents such an insurmountable metaphysical difficulty that one would rather drill through a rock with one’s finger than construct one Face of Christ with two minds, divine and human. Every mind is autocratic by nature, has the ability of self-determination (αὐτοκίνητον), produces certain actions in the soul: how could humanity exist in Christ with two minds, each of which could determine it in its own way, even to actions that are directly opposite? The coexistence of two minds in one person, ὑποκείμενον, would only destroy the real unity of this personality. The coexistence of two minds in one person is just as metaphysically impossible as the existence of two bodies in the same space is physically impossible. 2) True incarnation would not have been achieved: it would have been a subsumption of two minds, divine and human, as was the case in the prophets: only “ἔνθεος ἄνθρωπος” would have turned out, and Christianity would not have risen above either Judaism or paganism. Sometimes Apollinaris called such a combination “ἀνθρωπόθεος” - a man-god, which seemed to him as monstrous as the mythical minotaurs. 3) If a perfect God were united with the whole man, then there would be two Sons, one would be a Son by nature, and the other by adoption, there would be two natures, one worshiped and the other unworshipped, we would be baptized into one Son, and not into the other. But if we began to worship the whole Christ, according to divinity and humanity, we would end up in idolatry. 4) Instead of the Trinity, we would come to the quaternity. So, a whole cannot be made from two perfect beings. B) But with such a formulation of the question, the goal of incarnation would not be achieved. Firstly, the purpose of the incarnation is the destruction of sin and victory over death. To accomplish this, it is necessary for God to die as a man. But if Christ has two complete natures, then it means that the subject of suffering and death would be a complete person, and they would not stand in any relation to the deity. And the death of a person, of course, could not have any redemptive meaning. 2) “Where a person is full, there is sin.” This is based on the original theory of sin. The leaven of sin, according to Apollinaris, lies in the human soul, which has neither mind (ἄλογος) nor self-determination (ἑτεροκίνητον): it is always determined by another. The mind is powerful (αὐτοκίνητον), but weak: it itself is affected by the opposite desires of the soul and, in accordance with them, directs all human activity. To defeat sin, the human personality needs a mind so powerful that it does not succumb to the sinful desires of the soul. And this can be achieved in two ways: a) you can, by leaving the mind, take away the ability of its self-determination, but then God the creator would be the destroyer of the nature of the mind created by him; secondly, b) the mind could be elevated to the immobility of the Divine mind, but then there would be a deified mind, and the Trinity would turn into a quaternity. Apollinaris sees a way out of all these Christological and soteriological (A and B) difficulties only in his theory. There is a perfect God in the flesh and a perfect man in the spirit. Christ took on flesh and soul, but not a human mind. From our usual point of view, this would mean exactly what Apollinaris wanted to avoid: the Creator destroys the human nature He created, eliminating the mind from it. But Apollinaris looked from a different angle. Let us assume that human nature resembles a chemically complex formation, for example. water. From our point of view, the release of oxygen from water is the destruction of the nature of water, since it then ceases to be water. Apollinaris sees in this division a process that is not contrary to nature: the destruction of nature would begin if chemistry decomposed both hydrogen and oxygen into even more elementary quantities, or took away from them their specific characteristics (for example, weight). Christ took on body and soul, but did not take on the human mind. He was a true (perfect) man, since he had a body animated by a soul and rational human flesh, although His mind was not a human mind, but instead of a human spirit there was a divine spirit. This cannot be a contradiction to nature: the soul, by its nature, is always governed by something else. Consequently, this does not violate the natural state of the soul: it makes no difference to it whether it is controlled by the human spirit or the divine spirit. In the person of Christ the Savior, the human soul was given an immutable mind, therefore He is naturally sinless. In the person of I. Christ, therefore, there is no ascetic, no moral struggle, no progress; There is no division in Him either. He is not just a vessel of the Divine, but an organic unity of man and God. Christ – μία φύσις, μία ὑπόστασις, μία ἐνέργεια, ἓν πρόσωπον, ὄλος Θεός, ὅλος ἄνθρωπος, αὐτὸς ὅλος Θεός. It is in no way possible to speak of Him as two persons, or as two natures: but He is one nature of God the Word incarnate, μία φύσις τοῦ Θεοῦ Λόγου σεσαρκωμένη, worshiped together with the flesh in one worship. We are dealing with one nature, complex, mixed, σύνθετος, σύγκρατος. “Oh, new faith! oh, divine confusion: God and flesh constituted (ἀπετέλεσε) one nature!” exclaims Apollinaris in delight at this conclusion. Thus, Apollinaris introduces the concept of confusion (μίξις) into his teaching about the Face of Christ. But he protests against everyone who wants to see in his teaching the idea that deity is transformed into humanity or humanity into deity, so that they become consubstantial. Iron, penetrated by fire, turns into a liquid state, but even with this action, iron remains iron, and fire remains fire. We see exactly the same thing in man: the soul and the body are completely different from each other, but when combined into one organic whole, both retain their distinctive properties. So in the Person of I. Christ, divinity and humanity constitute one nature in Him, but they remain and do not merge (διαμένοντα καὶ οὐ συγχεόμενα), and do not pass into each other. Christ is thus both non-essential and consubstantial in relation to humanity. Since He is God, the Logos, He is of the same essence to humanity, and since He is flesh, He is of the same essence to us. This dual nature of nature in I. Christ declares himself throughout His earthly life: He is born, hungers in the desert, is tempted by the devil - a revelation of human nature; He drives away the devil, accepts the ministry of angels, feeds the people in the desert - a manifestation of the deity. As a man, He asks the question about the dead Lazarus: “Where did they lay him?” As God, He exclaims: “Lazarus! get out!” In Christ, humanity was the covering under which the treasure was kept - His divinity. Of course, Apollinaris himself did not even allow the thought of the suffering of the Divine, which his opponents attributed to him. True, he expresses about the Face of the Savior that “God suffered,” but this expression from him must not be taken literally. The Deity suffered voluntarily, not out of necessity, not out of the compulsion of His nature, but out of compliance with His nature (due to the reverse effect on Him of the fact that He is μία φύσις with a suffering body). When we hear Paul speaking about Christ suffering, we do not understand this μερικῶς (that is, not in such a way that only and exclusively one side of Christ suffered, and for the other it was completely indifferent) and we do not consider the Divinity to be subject to suffering: both the impassivity of the Divinity and the suffering of humanity are attributed to one complex nature. We confess the suffering of the Lord according to the flesh. Here, for Apollinaris, we were talking, therefore, about ἀντιμεθίστασις ὀνομάτων, according to which this exchange of definitions is possible; otherwise, with the division of natures, the one who came down from heaven would have to be called only the Son of God, and not the Son of man, and the one born of a woman - only the Son of man, and not the Son of God. His opponents made various objections to Apollinaris' system. 1) They pointed out that the humanity of Christ is not true humanity. Christ is human-like, not a man, and since not only humans, but also animals have a soul and a body without a mind, the incarnation of the Logos according to Apollinaris’ system does not even represent a guarantee for His actual incarnation, for the fact that he took on the soul of a truly human being, and not some animal. But Apollinaris foresaw this objection and wanted to turn it into the honor and glory of his system. Indeed, Christ is not a man, but is “as a man” (οὐκ ἄνθρωπος, ἀλλ᾽ ὡς ἄνθρωπος), for He is not consubstantial with man in the main aspect of man - in spirit, in mind. Therefore, Apollinaris gives very precise captions to his writings, for example: “proof of the divine incarnation in the likeness of man.” Here it is proven that Christ took on the flesh, i.e., “humanoid build” (πρόσληψις σαρκός), and the elevation to the Divinity of the full empirical man (ἀνάληψις ὄλου ἀνθρώπου) takes place only in the souls of believers. But having accepted the objection as his own thesis, Apollinaris wanted to justify it both by the teaching of Holy Scripture (the Apostle Paul says of Christ that He was found in the likeness of man), and philosophy (the nature of any mixture lies in the fact that the mixed elements do not remain mixed in their entirety, but only in part, οὐκ ἐξ ὁλοκλήρου, ἀλλά μερικῶς). And in Christ there is not a whole man and a whole God, but a mixture of both, just as in physical nature the color blue, for example, is a mixture of white and black. 2) Another objection was made to the system of Apollinaris from the point of view of the consequences of the atonement. His teaching has the character of Pelagianism; man is given too much importance in redemption, contrary to the meaning of the system itself. The human mind, according to Apollinaris, is so weak and so badly damaged that if it had remained in Christ, it would have prevented even Him from overcoming sin, and therefore, in order to dominate sin, such an essential element of human nature as the mind had to be taken away from human nature and replaced with the divine Spirit. Meanwhile, after redemption, man is left with his natural mind, unsanctified by personal unity with God, and is also given a soul with its sinful desires, and with such powers he is left to triumph over sin. The task is far from easy! Christ Himself distanced itself from it, and man, Apollinaris suggests, can “by imitation of Christ” assimilate the fruits of redemption and overcome sin in his personal life. In any case, Apollinaris’s system does not imply the redemption of the whole person. 3) Apollinaris was also credited with the idea that Christ did not receive humanity from the Holy Virgin. Indeed, on the basis of ἀντιμεθίστασις ὀνομάτων Apollinaris built an original doctrine about the heavenly man. The words of the Apostle Paul about Christ the Savior - “the second man, the Lord from heaven” (1 Cor. 15:47), Apollinaris understood in their literal sense: this is how Christ is called not according to the foreknowledge of His incarnation as a future fact, but as the Logos, because He constitutes the highest part in the humanity of Christ. The highest part of human nature, therefore, existed in the Person of Christ from eternity. However, Apollinaris revealed this teaching in an extremely dark way, which is evident from the very variety of objections to this point on the part of opponents. Some of them pointed out to Apollinaris that from his teaching about the heavenly man the consequence follows that Christ brought flesh from heaven and passed through the Virgin Mary as through a pipe; others - that it follows from this that humanity is consubstantial with the Divine; third, that the man Christ was not created. Apollinaris finds all these objections not based on his system, however, his teaching remained obscure, so that even his closest successors argued what Apollinaris denied. Some of the Apollinarians said that God took on flesh, and not the soul (here one can see the influence of Aristotelian elements in the system of Apollinaris, who did not always maintain the tripartite composition of human nature, and sometimes by soul he meant both spirit and soul). Others (the Polemians) argued that Christ brought flesh from heaven, and even went further and said that the very flesh of Christ was consubstantial with the Divinity. The teaching of Apollinaris in the history of dogmas has significance as the first and detailed construction of the Christological system, and in patrolology it was destined to acquire fatal significance. In recent times, several interesting discoveries have been made by the Norwegian professor, a famous expert on ancient symbols, Caspari (S. Caspari. Alte und neue Quellen zur Geschichte des Taufsymbols und der Glaubensregel. Christiania 1879). It turns out that, after a serious struggle with the Apollinarians on dogmatic grounds, an easier struggle began using police means: it was ordered to exterminate their works. In order not to lose their spiritual heritage, the Apollinarians began to resort to this means: they inscribed the works of Apollinaris, Polemius and Timothy with the names of respected church fathers. The ancient Apollinarians knew who the true authors of such ψευδεπίγραφα were, but subsequent generations began to take these inscriptions at face value. Eg. Ἡ κατὰ μέρος πίστις has long circulated in literature under the name of a lengthy exposition of the faith of Gregory the Neo-Caesarean Wonderworker (inter spuria). But Theodoret quotes from it as from the work of Apollinaris, and this quotation helped Caspari indicate the actual author. In the same way, the Apollinarians attributed many works to Julius of Rome, whose name was known as a zealous fighter for the Nicene faith, and the works, of course, were little known in the east (4-5 letters of Apollinaris are known under the name Julius). And (regarding this), does the passage really belong to Athanasius (and not to the Apollinarians) where the words are read: μία φυσις τοῦ Θεοῦ Λόγου σεσαρκωμένη, (it must now be considered proven that this is also Apollinarian forgery) 38. Christology of Apollinaris' opponents. Theodore of Mopsuestia The first works of Orthodox polemicists against Apollinarianism, like all new theological experiments, present some hesitation in methods of defense and in the choice of technical words. Therefore, the same fathers used expressions that later became characteristic of different directions. For example, Athanasius V. (we leave aside the question of μία φύσις τοῦ Θεοῦ Λόγου σεσαρκωμένη) speaks of Christ: ἴνα εἷς (= masculine to express hypostases) ᾖ τὰ ἑκάτερα (= average - for nature), “let there be one - both, perfect God, He is also perfect man.” He also spoke of “the whole nature of the Word (ὅλη φύσις τοῦ Λόγου), not in the division of persons (προσώπων), but in the being (ὑπάρξει) of Divinity and humanity.” Connection image: ἡ ἀσύγχυτος φυσικὴ ἕνωσις, ἕνωσις κατὰ φύσιν; but the name “συναφή” is also used; Divinity and humanity in Christ act συνημμένως, in touch, in communion so complete that Christ spat like a man, but His spitting was divine. However, on the other hand, the real difference between Divinity and humanity is sometimes maintained with Antiochian severity - humanity is called the house, organ, church of the Divinity: “the leper, as in a created church, worshiped the Creator of all.” Gregory the Theologian gave a classically accurate Christological expression: “two natures, God and man, not two Sons and not two Gods; for that from which the Savior is “another and another,” but not “another and another,” let it not be!” (? ἄλλε μὲν καὶ ἄλλο τὰ ἐξ ὧν Σωτὴρ, – οὐκ ἄλλος καὶ ἄλλος, μὴ γένοιτο!). In general, the word φύσις corresponds to the neuter gender of the adjective, the masculine gender corresponds to the concept of hypostasis (however: τὰ γὰρ ἀμφότερα ἓν τῇ συγκράσει. Image of the connection: a) μίξις, σύγκρασις, b) συνάφεια κατ᾽ οὐσίαν. In Gregory of Nyssa there is also inconsistency in language from the point of view of later terminology. a) On the one hand: “the received nature, the right hand of God, raised the man united with her (ἄνθρωπος) to its own height,” b) On the other hand, the image of the union is μίξις, ἀνάκρασις, and the deification of man in Christ is set out in the strongest terms, as μεταποίησις. But especially strong resistance was caused by the teachings of Apollinaris in Syria, where Diodorus of Tarsus and Theodore of Mopsuestia entered into the fight against him. The energy of this struggle is explained by the special position of the Syrian church. Syria was on the border with Persia, on the outskirts of the east - a country of dualism and fatalism. Here Manichaeism was so widespread that Diodorus refuted it in 25 books; in the essay “Against Fate” (εἱμαρμένη) he also refuted the dualists. Theodore wrote against the magicians and against the Augustinian doctrine of predestination (this dispute on the outskirts of the east only became known from the work of Theodore: in the Chronicon Edessenum under the year 428 it was noted: “the heresy of those who say that sin lies in the very nature of man has become known”). The Marcionites also stayed in the east: Theodoret of Cyrrhus, in his parikia, converted 8 Marcionite villages to Orthodoxy. Thus, Eastern teachers had to vigorously defend: a) the doctrine of the reality of human nature in Christ (against docetic dualism), and b) the high dignity of human freedom (against fatalism). They tried to reveal the doctrine of the high dignity of man both in anthropology and in Christology. a) In anthropology. Man is created in the image of God, but the image of God does not lie in the spirituality of man, because angels are spirits, but it is not said about them that they are created in the image of God. The image of God consists, first of all, in the predominance of man over nature, over all creatures, and this has its basis in man’s relationship to the world. Man is the crown of the world; in man there is a harmonious unification of spirit and matter, and he, like a microcosm, has control over material nature. b) In Christology. Therefore, in the Person of I. Christ, the human side is of high importance. He had everything human and freedom itself. Athanasius V. and Gregory the Theologian directly assert that in Christ there was “the freedom of God,” allowing the election of only the good. Gregory of Nyssa, recognizing that “freedom” is a great good in man, believes that in the Person of Christ it would only be a deficiency, “changeability,” τρεπτόν; in the Person of the God-Man he understands it not as a general ability of human nature. The Antiochian writers recognize, on the contrary, complete human freedom in the Person of Christ. Christ, according to their system, is a man - an ascetic. He really faced the terrible possibility of choosing between good and evil, and He really chose only good. The real difference of natures was displayed so prominently that the unity of the Face of Christ appeared dimly. This can be shown by asking, for example, about the worship of Christ. Apollinaris, in his criticism of Orthodox teaching, related worship to the natures, which he represented in sharp isolation, like two non-converging parallel lines starting from the viewer. === Athanasius V. defeated this objection with the simple statement that worship refers to hypostasis, as the point where two natures are united, and to which the thought of the viewer rushes, from whatever point he looks. X Theodore of Mopsuestia returned again to the point of view of Apollinaris, only modifying it. Worship refers to natures, but “idolatry” is set aside by the fact that even when worshiping humanity, the one bowing sees the Divinity behind it and through it (Diodorus: “adoramus purpuram propter indutum”). Graphically it will be: || Such “relative” worship, of course, does not reconcile the sharp separation of natures. The peculiarities of the Syriac theological trend were more fully reflected in the system of Theodore of Mopsuestia 39 - perhaps because it is better known to us (a significant number of passages and a symbol examined and condemned by the Ephesian I, Ecumenical III, Council have been preserved) than the teaching, for example, of Diodorus. To depict the dogmatic teaching of Theodore of Mopsuestia, we have an important document; this is a symbolic presentation of his teachings, directed against the fourteeners, where the question of the Divinity and humanity of Christ is widely raised. Here are the most important places. The Lord God the Word took the perfect man (ἄνθρωπον) from the seed of David and Abraham, inexpressibly united (συνῆψεν) him with Himself, raising him from the dead and seating him at the right hand of God, so that this man, having inseparable contact (ἀχώριστον συνάφειαν) with divine nature, as a result of this he receives worship from all creation, which renders this worship to him in relation to God and with the thought of God. When we think about I. Christ, we first of all understand God the Word; but together with him we think (συνεπινοοῦντες) and perceived: Jesus the man from Nazareth, whom God anointed, so that he, due to συνάφεια with God the Word, is involved in the name and honor of the Son and Lord. Thus, Theodore considers the man accepted into the Divinity as a perfect man, and argues that God the Word, dwelling in him, raised him from the dead. He calls one God the Word, and the other the man Jesus of Nazareth. The difference between the two natures is expressed quite clearly. But by what principle does Theodore unite them? Theodore considers various conceivable ways of uniting Divinity and humanity. He counts three such methods: 1) unity in essence, 2) indwelling of God the Word κατ’ ἐνέργειαν, 3) unity by good will. But 1) the first method of uniting natures is impossible, because the unity κατ’ οὐσίαν is conceivable only where the natures being united are of the same essence (ὁμοούσια). In relation to other things (the Divinity and the creature), this means that God is omnipresent and is not contained in any place. To say that God dwells in I. Christ essentially means to say either too much or too little, i.e., either to say that God dwells only in Christ and nowhere else - but this is impossible, or to express the general idea that God is omnipresent, therefore dwells in I. Christ - but in this sense, God is inherent even in inanimate nature. 2) The second method of connecting natures, κατ’ ἐνέργειαν, raises the same bewilderments as the first. God acts everywhere, and to say that He acts in Christ means either to limit divine activity to one place, if He acts only in Christ, which contradicts the absoluteness of God, or to equate I. Christ with all other objects of the world where God acts. 3) There remains a third way - dwelling by good will - a method that is also spoken of in Holy Scripture: “I will dwell in them and walk around” (Lev.26:12, cf. Ps.146:11). Here we stand on the correct dogmatic point of view and at the same time the highest. If God dwelt only by His omnipresence, then He would be bound by the necessity that lies in His being, He would dwell in both the good and the evil; but, dwelling by grace, God is completely morally free. Under this category we must also think of the union of two natures in Jesus Christ. Theodore sees that the “contact of natures” here is thought of as analogous to the dwelling of God in other holy people; he realizes that the modus of unity in Christ does not differ toto genere from the form of God's indwelling in the saints; but he recognizes an undoubted (essentially quantitative) difference - in appearance. The favor of God is capable of diversifying the form of its presence. “We have not gone so crazy,” says Theodore, “as to think that God dwells in Christ only in the same specific sense as in the prophets. No, He dwells in Christ as in the Son.” In his letter to Domnus, (later) bishop. Antioch, which constitutes a kind of compendium of his theology, he points out the important consequences of “dwelling according to good will.” This dwelling, this unity (ἕνωσις) of natures, assigns to both natures one name, one will and action, authority, power, dominion and dignity, and this unity is in no way separate, for both natures constitute one person (πρόσωπον) and are called one person. The method of unity essentially has an application in relation to those of the same essence, but when applied to those of a different essence, such a method is impossible, since it would lead to their merging. Thus, according to the method of good will, two natures were united from the mother’s womb, have one face, both are preserved unfused and indivisible, and reveal in everything the identity of will and action, and it is impossible to imagine anything closer than this union (ὦν οὐδέν ἐστιν συναφέστερον). So, we see that Theodore’s dogmatic language is based on a special theoretical basis, which cannot be ignored. He, for example, cannot be offered a direct demand that he recognize ἕνωσιν κατ’ οὐσίαν, when he connected with this term a meaning completely different from that which Orthodox dogmatics assimilates to it. It is also impossible to beat his system on the simple etymological basis that συνάφεια does not mean unity, but external and most superficial contact, when Theodore himself believes that his system speaks of a unity so complete and close that behind it there is already a direct consubstantiality or fusion. But Theodore's theoretical assumptions were undoubtedly erroneous. He, comparing the incarnation with the grace of the prophets, omitted the obvious difference that in the prophets God dwells essentially, that is, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit (a fact that was obscured for the ancient theologian, although it was then widespread that the God of revelation is - almost exclusively - God the Word), and in Christ not all became human. The Holy Trinity, and exclusively God the Word; so the similarity in this analogy is extremely small, and the difference (toto genere) is quite significant. Having brought to the fore the inseparability and non-fusion of the two natures, Theodore spent all the means of the theological lexicon to clarify this point. Firstly, φύσις in his system had a meaning equivalent to ὑπόστασις, so δύο φύσεις δύο ὑποστάσεις. Secondly, although this difference of natures is brought to unity by the fact that they constituted one person, ἓν πρόσωπον, the strength of this unity is weakened by other explanations of Theodore. a) He did not find it difficult to explain this unity by reference to Matthew 19:6, where it is said about a husband and wife: “who are two in number, but have one flesh.” “Just as in this case real duality does not prevent their unity, so when we distinguish between natures, we speak about the perfect nature of God the Word and about the perfect person: for it is impossible to talk about an impersonal hypostasis (ἀπρόσωπον); We are equally talking about the perfect nature of man and the perfect person. But when we consider natures from the point of view of their contact, we are talking about one person. One person now embraces two natures, and humanity accepts the honor given by creation to the Divine, and the Divinity performs in humanity everything that is due.” Consequently, Theodore is on the side of the view that a non-hypostatic nature is impossible, and for a hypostatic nature he incessantly demands the idea of ​​a face. It is clear that the main thing for Theodore of Mopsuestia is duality, not unity. b) Recognizing the right to consider human nature as a special person, Theodore could comfortably present the earthly life of Christ precisely as human and follow the relationship of Jesus to God the Word. For the history of the earthly life of Christ, Theodore takes a undoubtedly Arian point of view: “God from eternity foresaw the highly moral life of Jesus and, for this reason, chose Him as the organ and church of His Divinity.” I. Christ was born supernaturally and from the very moment of His conception God the Word began to dwell in Him. But, nevertheless, at the first stages of earthly life, the “contact” of God the Word and Jesus was relatively incomplete. In terms of humanity during his adolescence, Christ gave the impression of a child of genius; Christ amazed with His knowledge, His intelligence and moral development. He also had a natural opportunity for this, being a man pure from sin due to supernatural birth; but beyond this, God the Word who dwelt in Him contributed to His prosperity. The life of Jesus was characterized by constant moral improvement; Before the distinction between good and evil is noticed in ordinary children, He discovered a desire exclusively for good. Before I.'s baptism, Christ lived as one under the law; He fulfilled the law perfectly and thus justified Himself through the law. When the time came, He appeared for baptism, which was a spiritual rebirth for Him: He became the Son of God according to humanity. From this time begins the second period of His life - life under grace. He is morally absolutely perfect, not because He is not subject to temptation, but because He heroically endures temptation. As He improves, the path to even higher perfection becomes easier and easier for Him, and He reveals in Himself the ideal of moral life: συνάφεια with the Logos is realized more and more fully. Finally, after death on the cross, the third period of His existence begins - the period of glorification, deification. However, Theodore finds an analogy for this deification: in the future life we ​​will be led by the spirit both in soul and in body. So, Christ appears as the greatest ascetic, and His “unity” or “contact” with God the Word increased as His real moral improvement. c) On the question of how complete the personal unity in Christ of God and man was, the paraphrase of John 5:30 is important: “I cannot do anything for myself. As I hear, I judge: and My judgment is righteous: for I do not seek My will, but the will of the Father who sent Me.” It is unthinkable for us that I. Christ in his self-consciousness would distinguish Himself as “I” from the Logos. Theodore of Mopsuestia admits this. He paraphrases the words of I. Christ: “I, whom you see, cannot create anything like a man, by my own nature, but I create, for the Father abides in Me; God the Word, the only begotten of God, is in Me, and therefore the Father also abides in Me with Him.” Thus, in Christ, His human “I” could oppose itself to the Divine “I” of the Word, and, consequently, the unity of the person did not even include the unity of self-consciousness. It is not surprising after this if Theodore distinguishes between God the Word and Jesus as “saving” and “saved,” as “benefactor” and “beneficent.” Theodore’s answer to one particular question is significant for history: Is the Holy Virgin Mary Θεοτόκος or ἀνθρωποτόκος? - She is both (ἀμφότερα): She is the mother of man - by the nature of the fact (τῇ φύσει τοῦ πράγματος), since the one who was in Mary’s womb was a man; She is the Mother of God, since God was in the man born of Her. Excursion: Origenistic disputes at the end of the 4th and beginning of the 5th century Theodore of Mopsuestia expressed the peculiarities of his views on the Christological question more fully than Nestorius. Next, it would be natural to move on to an exposition of the teachings of Nestorius and the history of his work. But the history of Nestorius is not only dogmatic, but canonical issues were also raised in it. Therefore, some intermezzo is necessary, important not on the merits (in the sense of clarifying the dogmatic teaching that was the subject of the dispute), but to clarify the character of the persons who took part in this dispute (since the issue of departments was raised). In view of this, it should be said about the Origenistic disputes that preceded the Nestorian dispute. There are three stages in the Origenistic disputes of this time: Palestine, Alexandria and Constantinople. 1) Having broken moral ties with the Roman clergy, Jerome in 386 settled near Jerusalem in the Bethlehem monastery. Rufinus of Aquileia was also in Jerusalem. Their alliance with John of Jerusalem was close: they were also connected by scientific aspirations, expressed in the study of the works of Origen. Jerome understood the very hardships and misfortunes of Origen as a consequence of anger and envy towards Origen, and therefore spoke of him with praise. He proudly pointed out that he used the works of Origen: hexapla and tetrapla. Everything seemed to promise lasting peace. But in 393, pilgrims arrived from the west to Jerusalem, led by Aterbius. They were the prototypes of what the Spanish inquisitors later represented. Aterbiy was a man who did not like to talk about things for a long time; he began with conclusions, then expressed judgments (premises), and finally - already concepts - about what they were arguing about. He was dissatisfied that Westerners were studying Origen, whom he had heard was a heretic, and demanded condemnation of Origen's errors. Jerome, sensitive to his reputation as a strictly Orthodox man, gave up his respect for Origen and condemned him; Rufinus locked himself in his house and never saw Aterbius again, which is why he did not renounce Origen and remained Orthodox. This circumstance already created some division. Jerome began to behave as if he had never had any respect for Origen. Rufinus continued to relate to the memory of Origen. But then St. appears in Jerusalem (in 394). Epiphanius, Bishop of Constantia of Cyprus, who became a bishop, apparently, in 367. He lived in Egypt for a long time and was an opponent of Origenism, where, in his opinion, Arianism came from. Jerome himself looked with respect at Epiphanius as speaking 5 languages ​​- πεντάγλωσσος (Jerome himself knew 4 languages). Epiphanius arrived in Jerusalem to worship the holy places. He also had his own monastery in Palestine, in Eleutheropolis. He was received well by John of Jerusalem, Jerome and the Latins. Epiphanius, according to custom, was invited to officiate and preach. During the service, Epiphanius began to speak against Origen. Almost the entire clergy was on the side of Origen; he began to grumble, and the matter ended with something that was not allowed on the part of the bishop even in relation to a subordinate presbyter: John sent his archdeacon to Epiphanius to tell him to stop talking on this topic. On the same day, they then went to Golgotha ​​with the goal of serving in the church that was there. Those accompanying the procession blocked Epiphanius's road, asking for his blessing and wanting to touch the sandals and hems of his clothes. Out of necessity, Epiphanius stopped for a while. John did not refrain and said out loud that Epiphanius did this out of ambition, so that the ovation would last longer. Then in the church, after the service, when the people were already quite tired, John of Jerusalem began to rant at length against those who represent God with ears, eyes, etc. (i.e. anthropomorphically). John's mouth was finally dry, and the people, who were waiting for the end of the service to receive a blessing from Epiphanius, were very tired. Epiphanius came out after John. “Peace to all,” he said: “everything that you heard from your beloved brother in rank and son in age, all this is fair, and I completely agree with him; but let John also anathematize Origen...” There was loud laughter and applause. Everyone understood that John was killed in the competition. Relations between John and Epiphanius became so strained that the latter was forced to go to Bethlehem, where he said that it was in vain that he entered into communication with the Origenist heretic John of Jerusalem. But they persuaded him to go and make peace, and in the evening he went to Jerusalem, but John met him so well that he returned back that same night. It was decided to break ties, but it was necessary to get a presbyter for the Bethlehem monastery; (Jerome himself and another presbyter, Vincent, had previously decided not to perform presbyteral actions). The choice fell on Paulinian, brother of Jerome, who did not have the canonical age (30 years) and was not yet free from military service. The dedication took place in a monastery near Eleutheropolis. Epiphanius ordered brother Jerome to cover his mouth so that he would not cast a spell in the name of Christ and prevent the dedication. The dedication took place by the hand of Epiphanius. This was a violation of the rights of the bishop of Jerusalem, i.e. John. However, Epiphanius did not try at all to hide this fact and - in a letter to John - he himself told the details of the event, convincing John to condemn Origen. Epiphanius soon left and the situation of those remaining in the Bethlehem monastery was not entirely good. It was necessary to look for a means of reconciliation with John. There were two attempts at reconciliation. The first belonged to the committee of Palestine Archelaus. For this purpose, he called both sides to himself (396, Easter). But the Bethlehemites waited in Archelaus’s house for three days, and John still did not want to appear, citing the fact that the illness of one person delayed him. Then, two months later, Theophilus of Alexandria sent presbyter Isidore to stop the strife, at the request of John. But Isidore sided with John. The consequence of the failure was that Jerome came forward, trying to settle the matter by letters. Only Rufinus, who was leaving Jerusalem for the West, was reconciled (397); It was difficult to reconcile with John. When Rufinus arrived in Rome, he met here with Macarius, who intended to write an essay against mathematicians (who practice astrology). Macarius, who had heard a lot about Origen, wanted to know Rufinus' opinion about him. At his request, Rufinus translated a book in defense of Origen Pamphilus, and then, at his request, began translating Origen’s own work “Περὶ ἀρχῶν”. But he understood that the West would not be able to treat this work solely from a historical point of view, and therefore, taking advantage of the note he made in the previous translation that Origen’s works were distorted in some places by heretics, he corrected some points. In the preface, he had the imprudence to praise Presbyter Jerome as an admirer of Origen. The consequences of this were not long in coming. Even in its translated form, much of the translation smacked of decisive heresy. Westerners, having read it, became alarmed, suspecting Jerome’s Orthodoxy. Jerome flared up and made a very literal translation of “Περὶ ἀρχῶν”, where in the preface he resolutely refused any solidarity with Origen. As a result of this incident, a controversy ensued between the former friends. They began to mutually dismantle the past and humiliated everything high in each other. It got to the point that Jerome mocked Rufinus's accent and called him a pig (grunnitus grunt). Rufinus paid with the same coin. Because Jerome had the courage to become acquainted with the Hebrew language from a Jew - a certain Barkhani, Rufinus called him a student of Barabbas. Thus, it is clear that this dispute flared up due to Western machinations and had no objective basis. Its further development in the West is of no interest to us. The most important issue is the complications that occurred in Egypt. 2) It is known that in Egypt, in the hermitage desert, there were many monastics who represented God in bodily form. In the 11th year of his reign, in 399, Theophilus, in his Easter Epistle, burst out against those who represent God in a sensual image (at that time he stood on the side of the Origenists). This message caused a stir. One fine day, a huge mass of monks with staffs surrounded Alexandria and demanded Theophilus for an explanation. In a moment of danger, Theophilus was found, came out to them and said: “Fathers, I look at you as the image of God.” Those who argued were satisfied, they saw that Theophilus recognized the image of God, accepted the blessing and left reassured. Theophilus now sided with the anti-Origenists and began to attack Origen. But here the matter was complicated by his clashes with Isidore and the Nitriots. Isidore the presbyter was ordained under Athanasius. He occupied the place of the chief commander, head of church charity. Theophilus owed him a lot for the following matter. In 394, Emperor Theodosius went to war against the usurper Eugenius. The battle was supposed to take place in Italy. Theophilus sent Isidore to Italy so that on his behalf he would greet the victor as an emperor. Isidore prepared two messages and undertook to carry out this delicate task, which could cost him his head. His secret was discovered and Isidore escaped in shameful flight. Nevertheless, Theophilus could not help but appreciate the devotion of this man and at one time thought to thank him. In 397, the see of Constantinople became vacant. At court, they decided not to elect from local candidates, but to follow the advice of the eunuch Eutropius, who pointed to the famous John Chrysostom. John was secretly kidnapped and brought to Constantinople, and here they decided to consecrate him as a bishop in the presence of a whole host of bishops, among whom Theophilus was invited. But he wanted to give this place to Isidore, having wider views. He wanted to have people loyal to himself in the see of Constantinople, and thus weaken the growing influence of the bishop of Constantinople. But then he encountered the will of Eutropius, who made him understand that he must agree with the election of a new bishop. Theophilus submitted, and John, presbyter of Antioch, became bishop of Constantinople (398). The excellent relationship between Isidore and Theophilus was finally interrupted and, as always happens in such cases, because of trifles. Theophilus remembered that 18 years ago Isidore took 1000 ducats from one woman without telling Theophilus about it. Isidore openly declared that he took 1000 ducats, but did not tell Theophilus because the woman who gave them swore him not to tell Theophilus about them, so that he would not spend the money on church needs without giving anything to the poor. An investigation opened, which revealed such dirty deeds that Isidore was forced to flee to Nitria, to four famous monks known for their high stature: Dioscorus, Eusebius, Euthymius and Ammonius. Theophilus's attitude towards them can be seen from the following. In general, monks were most afraid of women and bishops, because neither one nor the other gave them peace. Bishops tried to appoint monks to the highest church positions. Thus, Dioscorus was appointed bishop of Hermopolis, and Eusebius and Euthymius were presbyters. Then the choice fell on Ammonius. But when the messengers from Theophilus came for him, the determined Ammonius grabbed a lancet, cut off his left ear and exclaimed: “Now I am a carno-eared man and - according to the law of Moses - I have no right to bishopric!” Those sent with despondency returned to Theophilus, but the latter declared that he would have dedicated Ammonius even if he had no nose. Those sent again went for Ammonius, but the latter promised to cut out his tongue and - thus - make it impossible for himself to become a bishop. Now Theophilus sent out messages in which he declared that three persons in Nitria should be expelled. Ammonius and his two brothers came to Theophilus, asking about the reason for his anger, but Theophilus threw his omophorion over Ammonius’ neck and beat him, saying: “heretic, pronounce anathema on Origen.” The cathedral was assembled by Theophilus (at the beginning of 400). The meetings of the council were very stormy. There were a lot of passages from Origen that could not be defended. Some of the fathers considered these passages to be genuine, while others said that because of these passages it was impossible to reject all the works of Origen, in which there is undoubtedly a lot of goodness. However, the conciliar condemnation took place, and Theophilus turned to the secular authorities to carry out the sentence. The consequence of this was first an attack on Dioscorus and then a night attack on Nitria and plunder. Up to 300 monks fled to Palestine. 3) The impression of the attack and excommunication for Origenism was so enormous for the monks that they went further and further, and finally fifty of them arrived in Constantinople and turned to John Chrysostom, who was touched by their unfortunate situation. The monks, the “long brothers,” asked to judge them and said that if John did not judge them, they would turn to the emperor. John inquired about them from the Alexandrian presbyters who were in Constantinople, who recognized the long brothers as innocent, but asked not to irritate Theophilus and not to accept them, as excommunicated, into communion. John did not accept them into church communion, but gave them refuge and wrote to Theophilus. The latter unfavorably accepted John's intervention and sent monks to Constantinople, who before the emperor accused John of violating church rules and accepting heretics. The Long Brothers turned to John with a formal request, and John again wrote to Theophilus, but received a harsh and cold answer. “You must know,” he wrote to John, “the decisions of the ecumenical council; It is not you who will judge me, but the bishops of Egypt: matters must be decided within the limits of the accused.” The exiles filed a petition in August. Thus, the secular authorities intervened and began to investigate the matter in the praetorium, which revealed such abuses and so much dirt that many of those sent by Theophilus were worthy of death. True, they recognized themselves only as tools in the hands of Theophilus, but still some died in prison. Bishop Theophilus was summoned to the court of the bishop of Constantinople, because the primacy of honor belonged to the bishop of Constantinople. Thus, de facto, the bishop of Alexandria was subordinate to the bishop of Constantinople. John did everything to prevent this, but did not have time. In reality it turned out to be completely different: Theophilus became the judge, and John became the defendant. To understand this strange circumstance, we must pay attention to the personal character of John and the manner of his election. John was chosen through the influence of Eutropius. John found himself in a city of mixed religious beliefs and had to reckon with persons in high public positions. His predecessor Nectarius was all about tact, which was lacking in John. John's voters wanted to have in him a beautiful decoration, an eloquent preacher for solemn days, but they met something else, that is, a true shepherd. John combined the features of two famous fathers: Basil the Great and Gregory the Theologian. Vasily V.'s nature was imperious, but his actions were tempered by extreme calm. Gregory the Theologian presented ideal demands; contemplation was felt in all his impetuosity; but his encounters with the dark phenomena of time and exposure were tempered by his sublime theology: Gregory encountered them only sideways, and not face to face. In the present case we are dealing not with a dogmatist, but with a teacher of practical morality. From early childhood, John indulged in excessive ascetic deeds, which ruined his health. When he arrived in Constantinople, he was completely ill and could not eat anything except rice soup and drank only weak, warmed wine. Hence the isolation in life and absence from public dinners. Dinners thus ceased. The people of Constantinople had to get acquainted with such a bishop, who himself had never been anywhere and did not invite him to visit him. Many bishops who came to Constantinople were unhappy that they were not given decent meetings. If we imagine John in Constantinople next to the monarch of the eastern half of the empire, we will understand what an abyss of difficulties arose for him in carrying out his ideas. John was a man of ideas and pursued his ideas steadily, stopping at nothing. Many found that he spoke extremely harshly; in his denunciations they saw hints clear enough to know at whom they were directed. They were unhappy with John. Even Eutropius, who called John, was dissatisfied with him for his accusations. Thus, the authorities were disappointed in John Chrysostom, because he was not only a brilliant orator, but also a shepherd who defended the interests of the church. The relationship to the clergy of Chrysostom seems mysterious. His rejected rivals could make peace by electing a third person, but they could also unite against the new bishop. How their personal relationship with Chrysostom developed is unknown; only among the Constantinople clergy there were many people dissatisfied with the new bishop. The presbyters and deacons, in the person of the new bishop, received the author of a book on the priesthood, which the ideal of the priesthood developed to such a height that it could only be realized by angels; Meanwhile, in the Constantinople clergy there were many weak persons who irritated Chrysostom with their obvious shortcomings. There were, of course, people in the Constantinople clergy who were devoted to him. Such was Archdeacon Serapion, inspired by the ideals of Chrysostom. But for the historical course of things and for Chrysostom’s personal human happiness, it would be good if a person of an opposite character came along with him, who would moderate his impulses. None of this happened. In Serapion, Chrysostom met a man who sympathized with him even in his harsh methods - who spoke of the Constantinople clergy: “I would like to drive them all with one stick.” And Chrysostom himself called the clergy unfit people, worth three copper pennies. Of course, with all this Chrysostom irritated the clergy. In addition, Chrysostom was not imbued with clericalism. He did not intercede before the secular authorities on behalf of a clergyman if he was guilty. There was a case when he handed over two guilty elders to the authorities. This put him at a very disadvantage among the clergy. Chrysostom was under the eyes of countless spies who watched his every step, interpreted his words in a bad way, read between the lines of his writings a meaning that they did not have. It was all the more convenient for the presbyters and deacons to agitate because Chrysostom was of an autocratic nature. It was not without reason that the accusation could be brought against Chrysostom that he arbitrarily disposes of church property. Pointed out the facts. For example, marbles were bequeathed to decorate the church, and Chrysostom sold them (of course, to help the poor). Further, Chrysostom was accused of not consulting with the clergy during the consecration of bishops, since he liked a famous person for his merits. Chrysostom also freely looked at local liturgical practice. Once, as his accusers said, he ordained four bishops at one liturgy, and he ordained deacons not even at the liturgy. So broadly did he look at the grace of the priesthood. It was noted that once he entered the church and left it without praying, that he had the habit of unmasking himself while sitting in a high place and eating marshmallows (John actually demanded that after communion they either eat marshmallows or drink something warm). If we now look at the environment more distantly, it was not entirely smooth sailing. The case of Antoninus, the bishop of Ephesus, came to light, against whom accusations of sacrilege were brought. The investigation revealed that there were six Asian bishops who bought their rank; Yes, there were seven of these in Lydia. This partly depended on economic reasons. People became bishops to get rid of taxes and duties of decurions. Chrysostom did not disguise this fact; he, without oppressing persons, tried to mitigate their guilt. But the fact still remained that he defrocked thirteen bishops. In Constantinople itself, two Syrian bishops appeared - Antiochus of Ptolemais and Sevirian of Gaval. The latter entered into glory for his eloquence. During Chrysostom's absence from Ephesus to investigate the case of Antoninus, Chrysostom even left him as his deputy in Constantinople. But he had an affair with Archdeacon Serapion. When one day Sevirian passed by Archdeacon Serapion, the latter did not stand up, because, as he later justified, he had not noticed him. Chrysostom reprimanded Serapion and temporarily banned him from serving. However, Sevirian was not content with this and demanded that he be banned from serving forever. Chrysostom stated that, as a person interested in this matter, he renounces the trial of Serapion and transfers the case to the cathedral. He got up and left. The council also followed him, thereby recognizing Serapion’s cause as right. Sevirian was left alone. Thus, a major dispute arose between him and Chrysostom. Then Chrysostom suggested that Sevirian leave Constantinople and go to his diocese, because it was inconvenient for the church to remain without a shepherd for a long time. Reconciliation between Sevirian and Chrysostom took place only through the mediation of the empress herself. In the church of St. Apostles, during the service of Chrysostom, the empress placed the baby Theodosius, the future emperor, Chrysostom’s godson, on the latter’s lap, begging him to reconcile with Sevirian. – Thus, a relationship began between John and the bishops, which his enemies could later take advantage of. If we now look at the Constantinople intelligentsia, there were many spots here too. The intelligentsia was affected by the harshness of his language. Chrysostom really did not look at the faces. The three widows who felt most affected were Marsa, Kastrizia and Evgrafia. We know from Palladius of Elenopolis that Chrysostom, both in his sermons and during personal visits to houses, did not hesitate to denounce widows who were getting younger. “Why do you curl your hair? he said; respectable women are ashamed to look at you.” The arrows of Chrysostom began to be attributed to the named widows, and especially Evgrafia. But other persons, not particularly high-ranking ones, were also affected by Chrysostom. In Constantinople, the widow of a noble citizen, Olympias, was famous for her charity. While Nectarius lived, anyone who was in need or showed the appearance of need could receive generous help from Olympias. Chrysostom, taking a closer look at this charity, said that doing charity like this means throwing money into the water. The generous hand of Olympias then became more cautious, and accusations began to be heard against Chrysostom that he was interfering with charity. Things got funny. They said that a separate bathhouse was being prepared for Chrysostom. They also saw something bad in this. Chrysostom's seclusion gave rise to wild suspicions that he fasted only in front of his eyes, and secretly spent time at the feasts of the Cyclops. They reinterpreted Chrysostom’s relationship to the Olympiad, which looked to him for guidance. The close circle of people devoted to him and the entire mass of Constantinople deeply loved John, but, nevertheless, there were many hostile elements. Under such circumstances, Chrysostom had to enter into business with Theophilus of Alexandria. At this time, one of the long brothers, Dioscorus, was already deposed. The Council of Alexandria drew up a formidable definition against Origenism. Wanting to acquire an accomplice in the person of Epiphanius of Cyprus, a zealous champion of Orthodoxy and an enemy of Origenism, Theophilus sent him a notice that Chrysostom was introducing Origenism in Constantinople. Elder Epiphanius arrived in Constantinople. Chrysostom wanted to show him respect, but Epiphanius, already prejudiced against Chrysostom in advance, did not want to enter into communication with him as a heretic. He celebrated the liturgy in the country church of John the Baptist and even ordained a deacon. The canonical rules were violated; however, Chrysostom reacted complacently to this and invited Epiphanius to his place. But Epiphanius demanded that Chrysostom condemn the Long Brothers and sign the definitions against Origenism. Chrysostom saw no reason for such an act. Then Epiphanius began to advocate for Orthodoxy. Persons hostile to Chrysostom urged Epiphanius to appear in the church of St. Apostles, pronounce anathema on the Origenists and reproach Chrysostom, who did not want to condemn the long brothers. But among the bishops there were those who protested against Epiphanius’s impetuosity; They were led by Theotimus, bishop of the city of Tom. He said that one should not condemn a person who was not judged by the fathers during his lifetime. But Epiphanius wanted to insist on his own. However, Chrysostom was also warned. On the appointed day he sent to the church of St. The apostles and deacon tell Epiphanius that he is causing confusion, which cannot bring good to the church. Epiphanius (to do him justice) realized his mistake and left the church. When leaving Constantinople, he said: “I leave you the capital, the court and hypocrisy.” After Epiphanius, Theophilus also arrived in Constantinople. When the Alexandrian pope arrived in any city or trading port, he knew how to give himself an honorable reception. The Alexandrians are the Englishmen of our time; they were located in all port cities. There were many of them in Constantinople. They, of course, met their dad solemnly. How much Theophilus managed to do in his favor can be judged by the fact that, having arrived as an accused, he was placed in one of the palaces. He did not want to enter into communication with Chrysostom and did not see him for two weeks. Theophilus gave gifts to the right people, which in the language of that time were called “blessings” (εὐλόγια). A secular person could not refuse such a gift, for it was a bishop's blessing. But the bishop could not be refused a gift when one was asked from him, for that would mean refusing a blessing. Theophilus influenced the lower people with sumptuous dinners. Soon he reached the point that those who had been imprisoned by Chrysostom were released. Meanwhile, bishops began to gather for the council, and among them were 28 Egyptian bishops. Chrysostom knew what was going on with Theophilus, and yet he remained to sit only with the bishops devoted to him. Suddenly one day he receives from Theophilus an invitation to appear at the council (on the outskirts of Chalcedon to Rufinian, “at the Oak” ’επὶ δρῦν, where Theophilus crossed from Constantinople). The invitation was expressed in the following form: “holy council of bishops - to John. Many indictments have been filed against you; Therefore, come to the council and take Serapion and Sevirian with you.” The bishops who sat with John noticed that Theophilus had no right to do this to John. 40 bishops sit with him, including 7 metropolitans, but with Theophilus only 36. Moreover, it is better for the council to meet in Constantinople than in Rufinian. Chrysostom thanked the council and - for his part - declared that he was ready to go to the council of Theophilus, only so that his obvious enemies would be excluded from the number of judges - Theophilus, who on the way said that he was going to depose John, Akakios of Berean, who, dissatisfied with Chrysostom's reception, said: “I’ll make porridge for him” (ἐγὼ αὐτῷ ἀρτύω χύτραν), also Sevirian and Antiochus. These demands were not respected, and the fathers began the trial in the absence of John. Things worked out like this back then. If the accused did not appear, then, although he did not yet find himself guilty, he thereby created a new charge for himself. This council held 13 meetings under Duba (403), 12 meetings against Chrysostom and one against Heraclid of Ephesus. The main accusers were Deacon John and monk Isaac the Syrian. Deacon John was deposed by Chrysostom for murder; but at the council, accusing Chrysostom, he declared that the bishop, having deprived him of his dignity, had acted too harshly with him. Such accusations were quite legal at the council, which had already decided in advance to condemn John. Chrysostom was accused by this council on all those points that were presented, and declared defrocked. And since among the accusations was the charge of lese majeste (causa majestatis), the fathers of the council left the investigation of this accusation to the civil authorities. Theophilus played his role masterfully. The first bishop of the east was put on trial, but Theophilus put the matter in the wrong way. From Theophilus’s point of view, it turned out that he was only present with his bishops at this council, and John Paul of Irakli was judged by the metropolitan, the bishop subordinate to him. The emperor had the weakness to approve the verdict of the council at Duba, and John was sentenced to exile. But the earthquake that soon followed Chrysostom’s departure prompted the emperor, as a result of the empress’s intense requests, to return John to Constantinople again, and the saint solemnly entered his see. John received a handwritten letter from the Empress, in which she wrote to Chrysostom that she had no words to express her grief, that she was not at all to blame for everything that happened, that she could not forget how her children received baptism from Chrysostom. Thus, in the upper circles the horizon cleared. As soon as it became known in Constantinople that the beloved shepherd was returning, a brilliant celebration was arranged: the Bosporus, covered with many ships, and the nearest streets of the city shone with countless lights. But Chrysostom understood his predicament very well and did not dare to enter the city directly. He sent word from himself that he would only enter the city when a larger council recognized his innocence. So he stayed at his suburban dacha. But the excitement of the people increased. Chrysostom was carried away by the mass of people into the city and was forced to enter the church of St. Apostles. Here he uttered a brilliant word, which is especially famous for its repeated repetition of the words “blessed be God.” Here John said that he, in essence, was not separated from his flock and that one must bless only God for everything that happened. “Whatever was good, blessed be God; whatever was bad, blessed be God, that it passed away.” Of course, everything that was left of the cathedral had to scatter. The cries of the people were heard against Theophilus himself, that he should be lowered into the Bosporus. Theophilus had to seek salvation in flight. But several months passed, and spots again began to appear on the cleared horizon. Various misunderstandings with the aristocracy began to happen again. Soon there was a discovery of a statue of the Empress near the Church of St. Sofia, where Chrysostom performed divine services. The screams of the crowd could be heard in the church itself, and this gave Chrysostom a reason to say a word, where hints were given about the empress: “Herodias is raging again, dancing again, again demanding the head of John the Baptist.” Meanwhile, John insisted that his justification take place at a legal council. Those gathered at this council sent word to Theophilus that he either come himself to lead the actions of the council, or send some other leader. Theophilus understood very well how inconvenient it would be for him to appear in Constantinople again, and therefore he sent several young Egyptian bishops here, giving them instructions on how to act. This instruction was very simple. In it. Theophilus drew attention to one rule of the Council of Antioch, 4th, and this, in fact, was quite enough to condemn Chrysostom. The bishops - from Chrysostom's former enemies - understood that they would have made a big mistake if they had directly opened the meetings of the council. Therefore, they entered into fellowship with John and thereby removed any suspicion of enmity towards him. When the proceedings at the council began, the matter did not reach formal charges. Everything was built on the rule of the Council of Antioch. Chrysostom was condemned at the council, and the civil authorities carried out only the council's decision, and therefore he did not have the right, without a church decision, to return only on the orders of the civil authorities. The rule of the Council of Antioch states that such a bishop, unless acquitted in advance by an ecclesiastical court, is irrevocably deprived of the right to occupy the episcopal see. According to the meaning of the rule, it therefore turned out that a bishop, even if he were innocent, like an angel of God, could not be restored to his rank, since he voluntarily occupied the see. The rule was, therefore, against John. This was well understood by the assembled bishops, but they understood that, nevertheless, such condemnation was illegal. First of all, Chrysostom did not recognize the legitimacy of the council that judged him: this council was presided over by his subordinate bishop, Paul of Irakli; secondly, he was forced to take his place by force of circumstances; 3, most importantly, he did not recognize the very rule of the Council of Antioch. Other bishops did not recognize him either. This rule does not belong to the Council of 341 (but belongs, one must think, to the Council of 333) 40 , and the bishops looked at it as a rule directed by the Arians against Athanasius. As a rule, Arian, it could not be obligatory for the Orthodox. Opponents insisted the opposite. The matter reached the emperor. One of the bishops, supporters of Chrysostom, told the emperor that if the bishops of the opposing side recognize this rule as completely binding, then let them sign that they believe in exactly the same way as those fathers who issued this rule. The fathers, pressed (against the wall), promised to sign, but as soon as they left the emperor, they forgot about their promise. The Bishop of Constantinople was thus condemned twice and his position became more and more difficult. On December 25, the emperor did not appear at the church, saying that he could not enter into communication with the bishop, who was under church condemnation. Time passed, and the opposing party acted. But they still hoped that a formal investigation would be ordered over Chrysostom. During Lent, an order was finally received from the emperor - Chrysostom should leave the church. The bishop replied that by his own will he could not leave the church, which was entrusted to him by God Himself; if violence is used, he will have to submit. The main leaders of the hostile party told the emperor that they would take the deposition of John upon their own heads, and convinced him to remove John and give the city a new bishop by Easter. Chrysostom's supporters, for their part, asked the emperor not to cause confusion among the people for the sake of the holiday. Finally, Great Saturday arrived. Anyone who attends the service of this day with archaeological interest will be amazed by the liturgical practice of the latter. But what is now unknown was once the most real reality. 15 proverbs are read at the service; We also know that the regulations stipulate that when the service ends, it will be two o’clock in the morning. Why is this so? Archeology answers that on this day the baptism of adults took place. Before the start of Vespers, after the small entrance, the bishop retired from the church to βαπτιστήριον, for the baptism of adults, and those who remained, naturally, were edified by reading the proverbs. When those baptized with lighted candles, in white robes, together with the bishop, entered the church, the first song they heard was “The Elites have been baptized into Christ,” and after this greeting they listened to the apostle, beginning with similar words: “The Elites have been baptized into Christ Jesus.” This is what Holy Saturday was like for the bishop. Chrysostom had the same thing, and he needed to baptize thousands of enlightened people. It was nine o'clock in the afternoon when suddenly Thracian soldiers burst into the church and the beating began. The newly baptized, barely dressed, threw away the lighted candles and ran out of the church. The church was cleansed of the bishop, but it was also cleansed of the believers. On Easter no one came to the church, but all the believers gathered in the main hall of the Constantine Baths. But since here too there was an attack by soldiers, the believers withdrew to the outskirts of Constantinople, 5 miles away. Chrysostom's opponents made every effort to prevent the emperor from finding out about what was happening in the city and about the people's ardent affection for the bishop. (When Arkady saw many newly baptized people in white robes and asked: “Who are these?”, they answered him: “These are heretics”). Thus, Chrysostom also spent Easter in Constantinople. But it was obvious that all he had left was removal. Finally, on June 9, 404, the fifth day after Pentecost, a formal order for removal followed. Before leaving the capital on June 20, Chrysostom gave a commandment to his flock - not to destroy the church world for the sake of John; he only gave advice not to subscribe to his condemnation, but commanded that his successor be recognized as legitimate. Having said goodbye to the bishops, he entered the βαπτιστήριον to give a blessing to the deaconesses and, by the way, to Olympias; and these he urged to continue his charitable work, to recognize the legitimacy of his successor, and to honor his leadership as they honored his own. John endured his exile with amazing fortitude. As if removed from the bustle of the world, he completely devoted himself to observing church affairs. But he declared the injustice of his overthrow of the Western Church and sent a message to Pope Innocent that revealed to the West the correct view of the matter. And we must give the pope justice for the fact that he was sympathetic to the case of Chrysostom. But the pope failed to do anything in favor of John. One expression of his deserves special attention. Theophilus posed a dilemma to Innocent: to recognize peace either with John, or with him - Theophilus and the Eastern Church. Innocent replied: “We have both you and Chrysostom as brothers, and whoever despises our communication, God is his judge.” The triumph of Chrysostom’s enemies was not great either. Theophilus published an essay in which he could not find words to denigrate John; he calls him a persecutor, a non-Christian, Belshazzar; he says that God Himself spoke to him: “Judge between me and John,” he calls Chrysostom a blasphemer of Christ Himself (because Chrysostom said that Christ prayed and was not heard, because he did not know how to pray). Jerome did not slow down in his activity and soon introduced the Western church to the eloquence of Theophilus through the Latin translation of his work. Meanwhile, Chrysostom had to endure difficult trials. His greatest disaster was the cowardice of the bishops. Unsure of the rightness of their cause, they were afraid to have John near them and therefore tried to frighten him with stories of all sorts of horrors, just to remove Chrysostom. The place of his exile was first assigned to the city of Kukuz in Lesser Armenia, but it was soon decided to transfer him to Pitiunt, on the northeastern shore of the Black Sea. It was summer time. The rays of the scorching eastern sun baked the exhausted Chrysostom. Not being able to continue his journey, Chrysostom stopped at the church of the martyr Basilisk near Comana and here he received a vision; The martyr appeared to him and revealed that he had only a short time left to wander in this life. Despite this vision, rude soldiers dragged Chrysostom to the place of his exile, but were soon to return to the church near Comana, where Chrysostom died on September 14, 407. Even earlier than Chrysostom, Eudoxia died (October 6, 404), shortly after him - Arkady (May 1, 408). Chrysostom's department passed to his enemy Arsakios and soon afterwards to Atticus (406). Meanwhile, it became more and more clear that Chrysostom was dear to the entire Christian world. Bishop Alexander of Antioch restored the name of John in the diptychs of his church and tried to encourage others to do the same. Atticus also decided to take such a step; not sure, however, of the correctness of his action, he justified himself in the latter when he informed the Alexandrian bishop about this: he referred to the pressure of the people (417). The bishop of Alexandria condemned the act of Atticus and wrote a letter to him in the most arrogant tone: “If John is in the bishopric, then why is Judas not with the apostles? If there is a place for Judas, then where is the place for Matthew? By this, the Alexandrian bishop wanted to let Atticus know that if John was recognized, then how would the predecessor of the Alexandrian bishop and himself be recognized? But the message did not reach its goal. These aspects of the history of Chrysostom's life and work should be exposed, because they throw a bright light on the subsequent relationship between Cyril of Alexandria and Nestorius 41. Dogmatic basis of the dispute In the history of the Nestorian dispute, it is necessary to find out A) the main meaning of this turmoil and B) its side complications. That Arianism was a product of the peculiarities of the Antiochian theological trend can be thoroughly proven by reference to the personal relations of prominent Arian figures to Antioch; but it is not easy to guess which elements in the Arian doctrine itself were the product of the Antiochene school. The dependence of Nestorianism on the Antiochian direction is not difficult to prove in both ways. Nestorius's personal attitude towards the Antiochians is known to everyone. The latter themselves recognized their solidarity with Nestorius: the entire Patriarchate of Antioch became in corpore for his cause against Cyril of Alexandria. The internal affinity of Nestorianism with Antiochene theology can be confirmed by any evidence: in the teachings of Nestorius, the continuity of ideas and scientific techniques of the Antiochene direction is obvious, and Theodore of Mopsuestia in his system represents the best commentary on passages from Nestorius 43. The generation closest to Nestorius transferred their disgust for his teaching to his very personality. With malice and terrible legends, it carried this tragic life to the grave. However, several data have been preserved that make it possible to soften the too thick shadows in which the personality of Nestorius and even his teaching are depicted. This Patriarch of Constantinople was not at all a superficial scientist and a talented preacher: the latter is vouched for by the fact that one of his sermons was once attributed to John Chrysostom 44 (another was published with the name of Chrysostom in modern times, in 1839, and was considered to belong to him until 1905) 45. That this was not a low character is vouched for by the fact that his former adherents, the eastern bishops, leaving his historically lost cause, still retain respect for his personality: having decided to leave his invincible banner, they still consider it their moral duty to write a farewell letter to Nestorius, respectful, heartfelt. And the famous Theodoret of Cyrus, after all efforts had been exhausted to persuade one venerable metropolitan, unswervingly devoted to Nestorius, to unity with the church, decided on the last measure: he turned to Nestorius himself with a prayer - to morally influence this metropolitan, to convince him, for the good of his loving flock, to leave the fight for the name of Nestorius. Whether Nestorius lived up to these expectations is unknown. But it’s good if people who knew him closely were capable of making such mistakes about his character and could assume such generosity in him. Nestorius was a fanatic, but probably no more than many of his brethren. Nestorius began to reveal the teachings of the Antiochian theological school, of which the most brilliant representative was Theodore, Bishop of Mopsuestia, in Constantinople and brought it to certain extremes, which were, however, given in Theodore's messages 46. But even here it must be said that Nestorius walked not ahead, but behind his followers, moderating and restraining their impulses. It was not he, but his presbyter Anastasius who was the first to challenge the population of Constantinople with a sermon against Θεοτόκος. It was not Nestorius, but Dorotheus of Marcianopolis who, as they claimed, proclaimed anathema to those who call the Holy Virgin the Mother of God. Nestorius was relatively moderate in his views. In addition, he acted as a deep respecter of the memory of St. Chrysostom. That is why he, a stranger, met in Constantinople not only stormy protests and libels hung in the streets, but also sympathy and even applause, and this despite the fact that he found in Constantinople two strong opponents in the person of the suspended contenders for the see of Constantinople - Proclus, the named bishop of Cyzicus, and the learned presbyter of Constantinople Philip, and soon incurred the displeasure of the powerful Augusta Pulcheria. Of course, some Constantinople residents broke off church communion with their bishop, but in any case, the gap between him and the flock never took on the dimensions described by Nestorius’s victorious opponent, Cyril of Alexandria. The very struggle waged by Nestorius, as the consequences showed, was not aimless and devoid of any foundation. It is true that the suspicious archbishop was inclined to hunt down “Apollinarian rottenness” even among the undoubtedly Orthodox. But in Constantinople there were also Arians, who also could not be ignored, and - most importantly - already at that time in the capital, in the clergy, monasticism and laity, one could find those people who, 20 years later, with their heads raised, came out as defenders of Monophysitism. The opponent of Nestorius, whose teaching thus consisted not only of errors, was St. Cyril of Alexandria. It must be recognized as indisputable that he fought against Nestorius because of a deep conviction in the unorthodoxy of the latter’s teachings, and that the main motive that prompted him to do this was devotion to church truth. He, as a representative of one dogmatic system, opposed the representative of another dogmatic system. But this dogmatic interest was the main, predominant, but still not the only one. Cyril of Alexandria was a true type of zealot not only in the light, but also in the shadow. Despite the purity of his main motives, Kirill’s character was, however, not without blemishes. A man of such high moral purity, spiritual and life experience and dogmatic insight as St. Isidore of Pilusium more than once considered it necessary to warn Cyril against his passionate irritable nature, against his antipathy, which led him to blindness, against his love of controversy (ἐρίδας), which reduced him to the limits of intrigue and vindictiveness. How far he was capable of going in his prejudices is shown by his very harsh letter from 417. This side of Cyril’s character, in any case, under certain circumstances, was supposed to exacerbate his struggle with the enemy and opened up less opportunities for their agreement. A man brought up in the traditions of Alexandrian theology, Cyril was far from sensitive to those special interests that had a governing significance in Antiochene theology. This difference in theological trends closed one of the ways for their mutual understanding. Moreover, he conducted his polemic not only against what was false in Nestorius’ system, but without sparing its details that were based on the correct view. In his theological direction, Cyril not only reached the line that the Council of Chalcedon indicated for the expression of Orthodox truth, but also crossed this line and took one extra step towards the future of Monophysitism. Consequently, he stood further from Nestorius, and demanded from him more renunciation than was necessary to defend Orthodoxy. Given the uncertainty of the dogmatic language of the great fathers of the 4th century, Cyril chose for himself one part of their dogmatic sayings and attached little importance to the other part, which was not identical with it. That is why he demanded from Nestorius not only a firm and clear recognition of the unity of hypostasis, but also the unity of nature 47 . Thus, at its core it was a dogmatic dispute. Nestorius was a representative of the Antiochian theological school. He expressed the teaching that Theodore of Mopsuestia proposed. 1) Christ – αὐτὸς εἷς ἐστι διπλοῦς τῇ φύσει, ἁπλοῦς’ τῇ αὐθεντίᾳ. “The one Christ himself is dual in nature, simple in power.” Nestorius not only distinguishes, but also “separates” (διαιρῶ) two unmerged natures, although - according to his intention - he does not allow the dissolution of their unity. Φύσεις for Nestorius is at the same time ὑποστάσεις, so that if He thinks of Christ as a person, he thinks of Him as personal. Distinguishing the “church” from the “living in it”, the “Lord” from the “image of a servant”, the “Almighty God” from the “worshipped man” (τὸν συμπροσκυνούμενον ἄνθρωπον), he however did not allow the thought that this would lead to the assumption of two Christs or two Sons: Christ is not “ἄλλος καὶ ἄλλος” “The same is both the child and the Lord of the child.” So, no matter how sharply Nestorius distinguished between natures, he had no intention of dissolving the unity of the Face of Christ, and the only question is whether the consciousness of oneself as both a child and the Lord of the child is really compatible in one personal self-consciousness. 2) The image of the unity of natures: συνάφεια εἰς ἑνòς πρόσωπον, ἕνωσις σχετική, “relative unity” (In contrast to absolute unity in consubstantiality), "unity in dignity." According to the intention of Nestorius, these words mean, however, a unity so close (ἄκρα συνάφεια), that further than it stands either the transformation (τροπὴ) of the Divinity into humanity, or “ἀποθέωσις”, the absorption of humanity by the Divinity, or the merging of both (σύγχυσις). 3) The most difficult point for Nestorius was the question of ἀντιμεθίστασις τῶν ὀνομάτων (or communicatio idiomatum). He recognized that a) "Christ" (as well as "Son" and "Lord") signifies both natures, β) "God" or "Word" - the divine nature, and γ) "man" or "infant" - the human nature. The first names (α) include all the facts of Christ’s life and all His definitions, but the last two (β and γ) include only one (each with its own) part of the facts and names. Let us denote these facts and names by α', β' and γ'. So α = α' – or, what is the same, α = β + γ', because β + γ = α; but β = only β' and by no means = γ'; and γ = only γ' and not = β'. That is, we can say: “Christ (Son, Lord) is eternal” and “Christ (Son, Lord) died and fed on milk.” But it is impossible to say: “the eternal baby (man)”, “the three-month-old God (the Word) fed on milk.” Joseph “took the Child and His Mother and went into Egypt” (Matthew 2:14) - this is an exact image of the expression (γ = γ'). Joseph took Christ (the Lord) and His Mother - this expression is correct (α = γ'). Joseph took God (Logos) and His Mother - this is an impossible expression (β = γ'). Thus, Nestorius, rejecting in principle the communicatio idiomatum, allowed only that due to the fact that Christ is the God-man, communication was established between His Divinity and His humanity. “It is good and worthy of the Gospel traditions to confess that the nature of the Divinity has appropriated for itself a church, that is, the body of the Son, φύσιν", but only to these subjects (“Divinity” and “humanity”) this assimilation (οἰκειότης) extends, and not at all to their detailed specific definitions, i.e. from the fact that β' = β ~ γ = γ', it does not follow that β = γ' or β ~ γ'. 4) The dispute over Θεοτόκος is only a particular question about the communicatio idiomatum. The banal ἀνθρωποτόκος was suggested by Presbyter Anastasius. Nestorius could not help but recognize this image of expression as accurate (γ = γ', while Θεοτόκος is β = γ'); but he proposed (at first and consistently) to replace it with the correct one (α = γ') Χριστοτόκος, he agreed (then inconsistently, but repeating Theodore of Mopsuestia) and to calling the Holy Virgin together Θεοτόκος and ἀνθρωποτόκος (β = γ' and γ = γ'). – His opposition to the word Θεοτόκος had the following motives: a) (ecclesiastical polemical): This word is used in its forms by Arians and Apollinarians who deny two natures; b) (philosophical-dogmatic): This word is inaccurate, and understood in a strictly literal sense it means either that “from the Holy Virgin the Divinity itself was born and received the beginning of its existence” (therefore Nestorius proclaimed: “Mary did not give birth to the Divinity”; his opponents, according to him, maliciously changed these words so: “Mary did not give birth to God,” as if he did not recognize Christ as God), or - at least - that that Christ was born of the Virgin by His very divine nature “καθ῾ ἑαυτὸ Θεός.” The truth that Christ was and is the true God even at his very conception from the Virgin, Nestorius proposed to designate with the word Θεοδόχος - God-receiver. Nestorius argued in favor of his opinion as follows: aa) Man consists of soul and body (α = β + γ); since only the body comes from the parents, and the soul from God, then the mother gives birth to the body itself, (ἡ γυνὴ τίκτει μὲν τὸ σῶμα) (γ = γ'); she can be called ἀνθρωποτόκος, the mother of man (α = γ'), but she cannot be called ψυχοτόκος, the soul-mother (β = γ'), although it is certain that she gives birth to an animated being (ὅτι ἔμψυχον ἐγέννησεν). But next to this formally correct argument, Nestorius also put a false argument. bb) The Forerunner (α = β + γ) of the Holy Spirit was filled from his mother’s womb (α = γ + β ~ δ); nevertheless, Elizabeth cannot be called Πνευματοτόκος, Spiritual Mother (γ is not δ) [but this does not yet prove that γ is not β, since δ is not integrating into α, but only its accidental attribute]. The possibility of such a comparison shows that without the communicatio idiomatum the identity of the hypostasis does not find full expression: instead of the direct revelation of God in Christ, only the mediocre is obtained (mediated by humanity, which contains within itself, as in a vessel, the Divinity and eliminates His direct relation to the world, like the wall of a vessel). It must be assumed that Nestorius, like all the Antiochian theologians, considered it possible to talk about two ὑποστάσεις and, perhaps, even about two πρόσωπα. But the first of these words has not been strictly clarified in its difference from φύσις, and the last - the possibility of speaking about two πρόσωπα, has the meaning that whether we begin to talk about the Face of Christ as God or as a man, we will in any case think of Him as a personal God or a personal man. Generally speaking, given the state of philosophical (thought) in which it can be represented in the 5th century, a completely scientific debate about such abstract issues as the unity of personality and what should be represented by it, how the unity of personality relates to the unity of consciousness and self-awareness, was impossible. We have to be content with only more or less clear instructions in this direction. The question of the unity of the person then seemed clearer in its most concrete formulation, as a question about one and two sons, about whether it can be said about Christ that He is ἄλλος καὶ ἄλλος, or - ἄλλο καὶ ἄλλο. And with such a statement of it, Nestorius always spoke out with all clarity for the unity of the person, decisively rejecting the assumption that he taught about two sons, that the Son of God is “another and another.” No, this one Son has two natures, αὐτὸς ὁ εἷς εστι διπλοῦς τῇ φύσει, ἁπλοῦς τῇ αὐθεντίᾳ. The same is both the child and the Lord of the child. In a word, where we are talking about the fundamental principles of Nestorius, his language is not so clear as to conclude from the identity of his theological terms with ours in phrase and their identity in content. Much more vulnerable points can be found in the detailed side of Nestorian Christology. Here he so often distinguishes the man Jesus from God the Word, the church from the one who lives in it, the Lord from the image of a slave, the garment from the one who wears it, speaks about the man who died and God who raised him, that - if we do not keep in mind his constant assurances that he recognizes only the Son - it is not difficult to come to the assumption that Nestorius positively developed the doctrine of two natures to the doctrine of two persons, breaking the hypostatic unity of the God-man. With this differentiating direction, it is clear that only extremely modest differences could take place in Nestorius’ system. Only a few predicates, definitions of Christ in the gospel and apostolic teaching can have an application to both natures in Christ, but usually they characterize either only the Divinity, or only His humanity. All such definitions must be applied to the one Christ, the one Son, the one Lord, because these names signify both natures. But to say that God Himself, καθ᾽ ἑαυτὸ Θεός, was born of a Virgin, fed on milk, was a child, died, is, according to Nestorius, illegal, because all these expressions characterize only humanity and contradict the essential definitions of the Divine, the very concept of God as eternal, as impassive. It is true that God the Word appropriates to Himself, οἰκειοῦται, the suffering of united human flesh, but to say that these sufferings are His own would mean preaching the fusion of natures. From the expression of Nestorius: “I separate natures and unite worship,” all his opponents could easily draw the absolutely correct conclusion that the unification of natures by worship is only an unfounded assumption and a deception of human understanding; from here it was easy to conclude that the difference of natures in Jesus Christ is given objectively, and their unity is subjective. As for the word Θεοτόκος, Nestorius did not even think about excluding it from the church lexicon. In purely dogmatic treatises he found it inappropriate and inconvenient, but he accepts it in liturgical use, accepts it on the assumption that believers will not understand it in the Arian or Monophysite sense, which he declared even from the church pulpit. Nestorius's opponent is St. Cyril of Alexandria. The theological language of the Alexandrian trend was not the one to which they were accustomed in Syria. The stronger the contrast was; the more renunciation they demanded from Nestorius; still less was there any hope of reconciling the dispute without outside help. a) The image of the union of Divinity and humanity in St. Emmanuel. Kirill designated not only “ἔνωσις καθ᾽ ὑπόστασιν”, a connection in hypostasis, but also “ἕνωσις φυσικὴ”, a physical, natural connection, “ἕνωσις κατὰ φὑσιν.” Nestorius refused to understand what this meant, if not that the Divinity and humanity in Christ merged into one nature with the loss of their distinctive properties and, moreover, merged due to physical compulsory necessity. Kirill did not demand this at all. According to him, the unity “κατὰ φύσιν” indicates only true, unimaginary unity. b) The exact meaning of the terms πρόσωπον, ὑπόστασις and φύσις was not firmly established by Cyril. Usually (like the eastern ones) he has ὑπόστασιςφύσις; but sometimes (anath. 4): “προσώποις δυσὶν, ἤγουν ὑποστάσεσι.” It was not easy for a person prejudiced against him, like Nestorius, to understand his language correctly. The main features of Cyril's teachings were as follows. Christ is “ἕν τι τὸ ἐξ ἀμφοῖν”, “something one of both”: “different natures, combined into true unity; but one of both is Christ and the Son - not in the sense that the difference of natures was destroyed as a result of unity” (from “Καταφλυαροῦσι”). But this “ἕν τι το έξ άμφοιν” is mainly called “μία φύσις τού θεού Λόγου σεσαρκωμένη.” It is assumed as a fact that God the Word is perfect nature - hypostasis, and man is perfect nature - hypostasis (since the humanity of Christ would be a complete separate person if it were not perceived into unity with God the Word); that the qualitative determinations of one and the other nature are different, and were not destroyed through the union. But from the moment of unity, God the Word and human nature constitute (ἀποτελεσασῶν) one living whole, “one incarnate nature of God the Word,” and the theologian must look at this unity from the point of view of unity, and not state duality in this living whole 48 and not distribute facts and names according to natures in such a way that this leads to fear for the consciousness of their true unity: only in abstract thinking is it possible to distinguish these two natures and mainly as τὰ ἐξ ὧν (i.e., considering them at the moment before the union). Consequently, aa) Nestorius was offered a special method of contemplation; bb) the word “φύσις” was used in two senses and did not have a stable terminological meaning. c) Communicatio idiomatum, from Cyril’s point of view, did not present any difficulty. Christ, God the Word, is μία φύσις σεσαρκωμένη, the only center (subject) of the entire personal life of the God-man (so that de facto β = α = γ), and therefore all facts and definitions relate to this subject (so there is not even any “transfer from one to another”, ἀντιμεθίστασις): suffering is His own suffering in the flesh, because it is the suffering of His own flesh (τὸ ἴδιον αὐτοῦ σῶμα), although He is impassive in divinity. Ὁ Θεὸς Λόγος ἀπαθῶς ἔπαθεν (suffered impassively, because not εἰς τὴν ἰδίαν αὐτοῦ φύσιν, but “σαρκὶ” suffered no less truly), (Thus: since β' = β ~ γ = γ'); then β ~ γ'). d) Θεοτόκος is, according to Cyril, a name that is characteristically precise, like a name a potiori. Man consists of soul and body; but man is not simply a soul plus a body, not only their sub-position, but their living unity, in which the soul predominates; whoever kills the body dissolves this vital union, and for this he is called a murderer and murderer. With this understanding, it became clear that in Christ the personal unity of Divinity and humanity is undoubtedly objective, that God the Word in Christ is revealed directly: Christ is not only Θεοφόρος, but Θεάνθρωπος. The word ὑπόστασις in Cyril, as well as in Nestorius, was still very close to the concept of φύσις, and Cyril contrasted the doctrine of Nestorius with the doctrine of ἕνωσις φυσική, natural unity. “Μία φύσις τοῦ Θεοῦ Λόγου σεσαρκωμένη,” he repeated the words (attributed to the great Athanasius), “do not separate natures by union.” He did not want to admit that the one Son is διπλοῦς. This does not mean that he merged Divinity and humanity in Christ, or allowed the idea of ​​​​absorption of the latter by the former, or indifference between them. Recognizing the nature of God the Word as one, he does not want to consider it identical in the definitions of both beings. But recognizing in full force the difference between Divinity and humanity in abstracto, he did not want to apply this distinction in concreto when talking about the God-man. He recognized this distinction only theoretically, for all intents and purposes, and was suspicious of any energetic statement of his reality when they wanted to make this recognized distinction in a number of particulars, when, for example, they saw in some facts of the gospel history a characteristic of the Divine, in others - of His humanity. In this distribution of the Gospel sayings, he saw the division of Christ himself into two independent parts. If Nestorius must be reproached for the fact that he understood humanity in Christ too specifically, turning it almost into a separate person, then in Cyril’s system humanity was presented as too abstract, almost only a property of the God-man, and not His nature, vital, real. But Cyril saved the great truth - the personal unity of the God-man. Never was this humanity an independent subject in the life of Christ, so as to open up space for the question of in what relation these or other facts of this life stand to the Divinity of Christ: God the Word Himself is always the subject of the facts and states of life. God the Word Himself is born of the Virgin, albeit in the flesh, He Himself, although dispassionately, suffers on the cross. Strictly speaking, in Kirill’s system this is the name. There was no place for them, because there was nothing to carry them from; one cannot endure, for example, suffering when the only subject of this suffering is God the Word, albeit impassive. God the Word does not assimilate only these sufferings, does not place Himself only in relation to them; after all, these are the sufferings of His own, His one incarnate nature, therefore, these are His own sufferings in the flesh. Equally natural and understandable for Cyril was the name of this own flesh of the Word - divine, θεία σάρξ. One particular example (already mentioned above) shows how both opponents diverged in their views. Nestorius explains his view with this example. Man consists of soul and body; whoever kills him is called a murderer, ἀνθρωποκτόνος, although there is no doubt that he did not kill the whole person, but only the body, and did not have the physical ability to kill the soul, because it is immortal. Thus, the one who in the proper sense is σωματοκτόνος, a killer of the body, we call ἀνθρωποκτόνος, a murderer, because the name “man” contains both concepts: soul and body. But to call such a murderer a ψυχοκτόνος, a soul killer, would be absurd. It is clear, therefore, that although God the Word suffered as a man, one can speak of the suffering of Christ, and one cannot speak of the suffering of God. – To this Kirill replies that this example speaks in his favor. After all, a person is not at all the same as the soul = body in their simple subposition. No, despite all the differences in their natures, man is their living unity. That is why it is possible to talk about murder; a person’s soul is not killed, like an immortal, only his body is killed; but since it is his own body, they say that they killed him himself, a man. That is why it must be said that God the Word Himself suffered. You see that this example, from a formal syllogistic side, is indisputably in favor of Nestorius; but Kirill brings so much vital understanding into the fact itself that his conclusion loses its paradoxical character. From this example it is clear how energetically he realized the significance of the Divine as the bearer and source of personal life in the God-Man. The soul of a person coincides to the point of identity with the very face of a person. It is the vital center, in relation to which the body is only its accessory, and is not equated with the latter, as a component united in a third. Thus, St. Cyril especially emphasized the unity of Divinity and humanity in Christ, presuming, as undeniable, the reality of the difference between the two natures. Nestorius, against Arian and Apollinarian Monophysitism, defended the real difference between the two natures, without thinking of challenging the unity of Christ and the Son. Cyril found that Nestorius’ system gives reason to doubt that Christ is the true God. Nestorius found that in Cyril’s system there is an element of theopaschytism, that in his favorite word “Emmanuel” Cyril emphasizes the word “il” (God אֵל) so strongly that “emmanu” (with us עׅמַּנוּ) remains completely without emphasis. Both Cyril and Nestorius accused each other of deviating from the “Nicene symbol”, in which the Christological (III) member reads: “for the sake of us men and for the sake of our salvation he came down and became incarnate and became man.” But neither one nor the other denied this, and the accusation was based on the different (mental) interpuncture of members II and III. According to Cyril: “And into one Lord Jesus Christ = the Son of God = consubstantial with the Father = descended,” etc. Consequently, the Son of God, consubstantial with the Father, was incarnate and suffered. Consequently, the Lord Jesus Christ became incarnate and suffered. And the anathematism of the Council of Nicea on those who recognize the Son of God as changeable (τρεπτόν), Nestorius extended to those who allow the union of Divinity and humanity in Christ into one nature, which - according to Nestorius - without “change” (τροπὴ) of the Divinity is unthinkable. Side complications of the dispute and its history before the third ecumenical council But the purely dogmatic dispute was complicated by a) the relationship of the See of Constantinople to the Alexandrian and b) to the Roman. a) Primacy in the east, by right of historical prescription, belonged not to Constantinople, but to Alexandria. The advantages of the See of Constantinople, granted to it by Rule 3 of the Second Ecumenical Council, were not readily recognized in Alexandria - especially when they were directed directly against Alexandria, as was the case, for example, in the case when Theophilus was summoned to the trial of Chrysostom. Nestorius tried to show that his case was similar to that of Chrysostom. And in fact, in this case something similar was mixed in: several Alexandrians of dubious moral qualities came to Constantinople with complaints about St. Cyril and, apparently, were received favorably by Nestorius (although he denied this). It could have been expected that the emperor would order that Cyril of Alexandria appear for trial before Nestorius of Constantinople, and Nestorius, perhaps, regarded such a prospect not without pleasure. Cyril declared to his people that Nestorius would not have to judge him, but on the contrary, Nestorius himself would answer in advance before the universal church for his false teaching. Thanks to this complication, Nestorius, having received Cyril’s message “Τοῦ Σωτῆρος,” publicly declared in church on December 6 that the “Egyptian persecution” had begun against him, Nestorius, just like against Meletius and Flavian, Nectarius and John. To identify his cause with that of John Chrysostom was, of course, very beneficial for Nestorius and extremely unprofitable for Cyril. Therefore St. Isidore of Pilusius wrote to the latter to act as carefully as possible, since the external similarity of his and Theophilus’ positions was striking to everyone and covered up the internal difference. b) The bishop of Constantinople at that time could not be persona grata in Rome, firstly, because they did not want to recognize the 3 rules of the Council of Constantinople. In this rule, the elevation of the See of Constantinople was motivated by the fact that Constantinople is a royal city. Meanwhile, Rome was once a royal city, but has now lost this honor, as a result of which they feared that it would fall in church terms and become even lower than Constantinople. Bo-2, because between Rome and Constantinople there was a silent dispute over eastern Illyricum (Thessalonica vicariate), which in civil terms depended on Constantinople, and in ecclesiastical terms on Rome. Thirdly, Nestorius, when the Pelagians expelled from Italy turned to him, seeking a church trial for themselves, in a message to “brother” Celestine asked the latter to deliver information for which the Pelagians were excommunicated from the church, since they consider themselves innocent victims. This intention: - to consider the case after Roma locuta est, did not please Kelestin. The Pelagians could only be driven out by civil authority and came to Constantinople to the emperor. And as a church matter, their case had to be considered by the bishop of Constantinople. Relations between East and West at this time were such that what happened in the West was completely unknown in the East. When the Pelagians appeared, the eastern bishops knew nothing about them. And Nestorius and the eastern bishops quite rightly assumed that if people are persecuted, it is not without guilt. But since Pelagius resolutely does not admit the position that sin is insurmountable and is rooted in the very nature of man, with which the eastern bishops were completely in agreement, the Pelagians in the east were found (at this point) to be completely Orthodox. Nestorius informed Kelestin about the result of his research and asked him to clarify the reason for the excommunication. And since Nestorius saw that a case was being raised against him, in order to warn his “brother” Celestine, he attached two of his sermons. This message remained without any result: Kelestin, who disapproved of the title of “brother,” solemnly declared that since these documents were written in Greek and there was no translation attached, he could not read them. They remained unread until the statement from Alexandria. When after this, Cyril of Alexandria sent a message to Celestine, addressed not to the “brother”, but to the “father of fathers” - a message in which he outlined the errors of Nestorius point by point and to which he added a Latin translation; then Celestine, being a homo simplex in dogmatic matters, entrusted the preparation of a refutation of the teachings of Nestorius to the disciple of John Chrysostom - John Cassian, who actually presented this refutation in his work - De incarnatione. After this, Celestine, at the Roman Council on August 11, 430, condemned the teachings of Nestorius - with great authority and some haste (without calling Nestorius) - and demanded that the bishop of Constantinople renounce his errors within ten days. Nestorius did not attach any morally binding significance to this measure, since he did not consider the “simple” Kelestin a competent judge on the theological issue on the merits and thought that Kelestin was simply repeating what was written to him from Alexandria. Kelestin instructed Cyril to carry out this decree of the council, assimilating to him the significance of his governor ἡμετέρου θρόνου καὶ τῇἡμετέρᾳ τοῦ τοποῦ διαδοχῇ έπ’ ἐξουσίᾳ χρησάμενος, nostracue vice et loco cum potestate usus). The most important bishops of the East were informed about this from Rome. Kirill also wrote. John of Antioch turned to Nestorius with advice to abandon his inappropriate polemics against Θεοτόκος. Nestorius agreed. At the same time, the venerable elder, the 110-year-old Bishop of Beroea (Aleppo) Acacius, on behalf of John of Antioch and his own, turned to Cyril with a request to act as gently as possible in relation to Nestorius, expressing his conviction that in this case they were dealing not so much with real heresy, but with the theologian’s passion and difference in words. Akaki pointed to the words of 2 Cor. 10:8 (free translation of Akaki): “If I use the power given to us by God for creation, and not for disorder (καθαίρεσιν), then I will not remain in shame.” Meanwhile, in the fall, Cyril convened a council in Alexandria and, in a message from him to Nestorius, offered him a formula in which he must renounce his errors: he must sign 12 anathematisms directed against him. This message was transmitted to Nestorius on November 30, and on November 19, the emperor was already invited to an ecumenical council at Pentecost the following year (June 7). Nestorius prepared for the council with joy, convinced of the triumph of his cause, that an open struggle with his opponent at the council would clear him of all complaints. He did not attach any importance to Cyril’s message, believing that with the transfer of the matter to the court of an ecumenical council, eo ipso everything done at private councils is suspended and undone. In his condemnation in Rome, he saw the consequence, on the one hand, of the simplicity (“simplicior”), dogmatic lack of insight of Celestine, on the other, of the intrigue of Cyril. In the actions of the Alexandrian bishop against him, he saw not an isolated incident, but only one of the moments of the historically inherited policy of the Alexandrian hierarchs - only one of the phases of the persecution that the Egyptians successively raised against Meletius and Flavian of Antioch and Nektarios and John of Constantinople. He expressed this view before the entire church in a sermon. The council's judgment did not live up to Nestorius' expectations, and the Council of Ephesus ended with a temporary break in communication between the Alexandrian church and the Antiochian church. The reasons for this lay a) in the very nature of the theological question and the Eastern attitude towards it, b) in the tactless manner of action of the Byzantine government, which was reflected, first of all, in the uncertainty of the program (external procedure) of the council. a) The Easterners generally considered Nestorius to be their bones and believed that in his teaching there were, perhaps, exaggerations, omissions, errors, but there was no heretical error. Their teaching was similar to the system of Nestorius, and they expressed their solidarity with Nestorius by looking for errors on the side of Cyril. First, respected by the entire East, Akaki, Bishop. Berean, tried to reconcile Cyril with Nestorius, asking the former to look condescendingly at the doctrine of the latter, in which, of course, there is no heresy. At first this mediation was successful; but when the message “Τοῦ Σωτῆρος” appeared, Eastern theologians (for example, Andrew of Samosata) came to the conviction that in the 12 chapters of Cyril the heresy of Apollinaris was restored. Therefore, they took the side of Nestorius and against Cyril. Nestorius himself did not see in this message a correct presentation of his teaching; on the contrary, in it he saw the beginnings of such theological positions that themselves could develop into heresy. He contrasted Cyril’s message with his 12 anti-anathematisms. In them, he did not answer the essence of the question, but tried to catch Cyril in inaccuracies and deduce from his words any false teaching. So, for example, in anathematism 1, Nestorius is attached to the word “σαρκικῶς” - “carnally”, and roughly understands this expression (as if it presupposes the transformation of God the Word Himself into flesh). And although the Eastern ones were more neutral in this regard, they still found that the error was on Cyril’s side. In the entire region of Antioch they saw the wrong in 12 chapters. Theodoret of Cyrus wrote a refutation of them; Andrew of Samosata also (the latter on behalf of John of Antioch and the Council of All Eastern). John of Antioch himself, in a letter to Firmus, bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, expressed regarding the 12 chapters that he does not know who these chapters belong to, but that the teaching contained in them is unorthodox. Then, for the eastern bishops the strained relations between Constantinople and Alexandria were not unknown and they were sincerely convinced that Nestorius was being persecuted precisely as the bishop of Constantinople, especially since Nestorius himself was even a conciliator, proposing to replace the expression “ἀνθρωποτόκος” expressed by Anastasius with the expression "Χριστοτόκος." By the way, it was explained that Metropolitan Dorotheos of Marcianopolis, who was present, solemnly proclaimed: “anathema to the one who calls the Virgin Mary the Mother of God.” If anyone is to blame, then it is precisely this Dorotheus, while he is not touched upon at all, and only Nestorius is mentioned, who is only to blame for the fact that he did not excommunicate Dorotheus and through his co-service expressed communication with him. Consequently, aa) the eastern ones were disposed to look at the case of Nestorius as their own, and could not agree to condemn Nestorius without seeing with their own eyes that Nestorius did not teach what they recognized as the truth; bb) Cyril’s authority in their opinion did not matter at all. But it so happened that unforeseen difficulties (famine in Antioch, the excited state of the people, which caused fear of a riot) prevented the easterners from leaving on time, and the road spoiled by rain slowed down their journey, so that they arrived in Ephesus not by June 7, but only on the 26th. However, by June 20, written relations had been established between the fathers who were in Ephesus and the approaching eastern ones. John in the letter asked Cyril to wait 5-6 days, but the sender added in words: “if I still delay, then get down to business,” which Cyril understood as John’s desire not to be present at the condemnation of Nestorius. Arriving on June 26 in Ephesus and learning that the 22nd council had been opened under the chairmanship of Cyril and Nestorius had already been deposed, John of Antioch and the easterners around him treated this as flagrant lawlessness (iniquitas, violation of the canons), he himself compiled his own council, conciliabulum, and on the same day declared Cyril and Memnon (without any canonical formalities) deprived of the rank, and the fathers Council (of Ephesus, chaired by Cyril) excommunicated until repentance 49 . b) Both sides willingly accepted the sovereign’s mediation. Unfortunately, Theodosius II, for all his good intentions (he wanted a church court, free from the interference of secular power), did not have the willpower and understanding of the matter that were required from such a mediator. Therefore, he made many mistakes that disturbed the world of the church even more. αα) In his sacra, which announced the council, he did not clarify 1) neither his point of view on the state of affairs, 2) nor his attitude towards the Roman council, 3) nor who should lead the external course of the council, and 4) did not give categorical explanations regarding the composition of the council. 1) Theodosius, as naturally, was influenced by Nestorius and looked at the matter through the eyes of the latter. In his secret letter to Cyril, he directly called him (not Nestorius) the culprit of the church unrest and summoned him to the council almost as a defendant. This was the point of view of Nestorius and the Easterners. Cyril, like everyone else, knew the enormous importance August Pulcheria, the emperor’s sister, had at court, and sent his explanations not only to Emperor Theodosius, but also to the Augustans. This act of tact on Kirill’s part, however, turned out to be a big political mistake. At this time, hostility developed between the emperor and the women's apartments of the palace. The Emperor therefore wrote to Kirill in a completely irritated tone. Consequently, the emperor’s point of view coincided with the point of view of Nestorius and the eastern ones. But the Sacra said absolutely nothing about the fact that the emperor considered the bishop of Alexandria himself to be at least one of the disputing parties. 2) Nestorius believed that with the announcement of the Ecumenical Council, everything decided in Rome was reduced to zero and the matter should be considered anew. Nothing was said about this in the Sacre. But Cyril believed that the ecumenical council could only complete what, in accordance with Orthodox teaching, was decided at the Roman Council. And since Celestine entrusted the implementation of this decree to Cyril, as his representative, then Cyril in Ephesus acted as “occupying the place of the most holy Celestin of Rome,” therefore, as the natural leading member of the council. 3) The emperor entrusted his authorized representative with the responsibility of taking care of the peaceful progress of the council meetings, but not interfering in the very subjects of the meetings. But the question of whether the opening of the cathedral depends on this commissioner was left without a clear answer. The sacra said that the cathedral should be opened on the next day of Pentecost, when all the bishops would gather. Thus, two conditions were specified - the day and the presence of all bishops. Now the question is what should the commissioner do if it turns out that all the bishops will not gather on Monday. And indeed, it turned out to be impossible to open the cathedral because not only the Eastern, but also some Western fathers were late. In the sacre there was no hint of what to do if such a thing happened. 4) The Sacra was circularly sent out to the metropolitans (and perhaps two or three prominent bishops, like Acacius of Veria and Augustine of Hippo) and invited them to come to the council, taking with them the “few” (ὀλίγους) bishops under their charge. Thus, from the point of view of the sacra, the universal church is a union of metropolitans (suffragan bishops are considered as assistants to their metropolitans). The Easterners also joined this view, believing that the metropolitans should appear with two or three bishops, as most of the Easterners did. Therefore, they were extremely dissatisfied that, for example, the Bishop of Alexandria, whom they wanted to consider as an ordinary metropolitan, took with him up to 50 (46 are known by name) Egyptian bishops, and the Bishop of Ephesus Memnon - up to 35 Asian. Therefore, when on June 21 there was a disagreement between the bishops about whether to open the council on June 22, up to 150 bishops (including 16-19 metropolitans) spoke with Cyril in favor of opening the council, while the minority wanted to wait for John of Antioch and the Roman legates and submitted a statement about this with 68 signatures; but since among these 68, 21 signatures belonged to metropolitans, the protesters were not inclined to consider themselves a minority and withdrew from participating in the Ecumenical Council, repeating on the 22nd their protest against its opening. Thus, the question of the method of casting votes at the council, debated in 1415 in Constance, was already anticipated in Ephesus. In essence, the Eastern Fathers were right that Memnon was wrong in appearing with 35 bishops; but in relation to Kirill they were wrong. The Church did not establish rules for church structure that were the same for all localities. There were few bishops in Gaul, but many in Italy; when Asia was dotted with bishops, there was a shortage of them in Cappadocia. Egypt also represented a unique church structure. The bishop of Alexandria, who bore the name of the pope, had under his control all the Egyptian regions (both Egypt, two Augustamniki, Arcadia, two Thebaids, two Libyas). In all of them he occupied the position of metropolitan; he ordained all the bishops with his own hand. Consequently, in the Egyptian provinces there were no metropolitans in the proper sense (i.e., those who had the right to preside over councils and ordain bishops): everyone was confirmed by the bishop of Alexandria (he also convened councils and presided over them). Cyril was invited with the metropolitans, who were not there, and therefore Cyril had to bring several bishops from each province, from where there were 46 bishops, a number far from terrible. In essence, all this is the fruit of clerical wisdom, not the church. Thus, the sacra could be violated without being bound by conscience. ββ) St. Isidore of Pilus made every possible effort on his part to prepare his sovereign for a possible high role for him at the council. “If you devote some of your time,” he wrote to the emperor, “and personally attend the council meetings, then I am quite sure that things will go flawlessly. But if you leave the council to the influence of various selfish interests, what will protect it from stumbling? You will do a great service to the cause of the church if you forbid your dignitaries to theologize. These people, in their chaotic disunity, are obedient to their sovereign and opposed to God. Otherwise, they, of course, will not harm the church, but they can cause serious harm to the state.” Indeed, it was very important to place the emperor closer to the cathedral, and by tearing him out of the midst of the courtiers, to free this sovereign, full of good intentions, but extremely spineless, from the influence of his court, overflowing with corrupt dignitaries who were very happy about the beginning of church unrest and were ready to theologize with all their might, because it promised a bountiful harvest of “blessings” for their insatiable thirst for gold. Unfortunately, Theodosius did not listen to this wise advice. He himself remained in Constantinople, and instead of himself sent as his representative to Ephesus one of the chiefs of the imperial retinue (magnificentissimus comes devotissimorum domesticorum, commander of the guards corps) Flavius ​​Candidian, a dignitary not so significant that his voice was heard as the will of the sovereign himself. From all that has been said, it is clear, firstly, that Nestorius in this case was only a representative, albeit an extreme one, of those views that were expressed by those who received theological education in the Antiochian direction. One might say, the whole east rose in corpore for Nestorius. Thus, it was not possible to separate the work of Nestorius from the general trend of the learned theologians of Antioch. If Nestorius was destined to reap laurels in the arena of dogmatic dispute in Ephesus, then he should, in all fairness, share them with the bishops of the east. If he had to appear before the highest body of ecclesiastical authority as a man whose teaching was unclear, then the Antiochian theologians were the most desirable mediators and interpreters, as persons who understood the teaching of Nestorius better than anyone else. If, finally, he must appear at the council directly as a defendant, then it is not clear how it is possible to free his eastern brethren, who so openly declared their solidarity with Nestorius in most points of his dogma, from the same trial. In a word, at this future council the Church of Antioch with its provinces was to be represented. Secondly, the importance of Nestorius’s work lay not only in the fact that he was the foremost hierarch of the East, but mainly in the fact that he was a representative of a very large group of learned theologians. The verdict against him could not but affect them. Therefore, saving Nestorius, converting him, was not only a matter of Christian charity, but also a historical feat of high importance, a significant statement of church unity in the faith, an authoritative word: “be silent, be still,” addressed to the troubled sea of ​​theological thought. But every action emanating from Cyril, every manifestation of his authority, could not have the desired effect on Nestorius, because it was poisoned in advance by his antipathy, his distrust of the character and Orthodoxy of his Alexandrian brother. It was capable not of pacifying him, not of awakening repentance in him, but of arousing in him a proud dream of the halo of a confessor over his head, similar to the one that overshadowed Meletius, Flavian, and Chrysostom. It was very important that the direct influence of the rivals on each other was weakened, so that other intermediaries with authority and power came between them. Therefore, a church council as complete as possible, as ecumenical in composition as possible, was highly desirable. It must be fair to the emperor that he wanted to submit the church matter to the judgment of the church itself, convening a free and independent council: he forbade his commissioner from any interference in dogmatic issues. Most of the bishops were invited naturally from the east; but the emperor took care to invite prominent representatives of the West, including Augustine of Hippo, one of the most profound thinkers of the Western Church. His authority would be all the more precious since he successfully declared himself in the fight against a certain Leporius, whose error was akin to Nestorianism, and returned him to the bosom of the church. Unfortunately, the great Ippon saint died on April 28, 430. But all these important conditions remained unfulfilled. Views on the tasks of the upcoming council were different. If Nestorius saw in it the undoing of everything done against him, dreamed of a free arena for a dogmatic struggle with his rival, then Cyril in the upcoming council saw only the completion of everything done against Nestorius in Rome and Alexandria; he was not inclined to start the fight with Nestorius all over again. He thought so little about the abolition of all this that he even turned to Celestine with the question of what to do in the possible event that Nestorius repented at the council? Should he be granted forgiveness, or should he still be considered deposed in view of the fact that he did not curse his errors within 10 days? While Nestorius thought, at least, about his complete equality with Cyril in the upcoming trial, and the emperor was ready to look at Cyril almost as a defendant: he sent Cyril a very strict order, backed up by threats, to appear in Ephesus without fail - Cyril himself looked at himself not as an accused, but as the leading hierarch at the upcoming council, superior by the mere fact that the Roman bishop, indisputably recognized by all as the first bishop in the universal church, he gave him his voice, appointed him as his vicar and instructed him to carry out the sentence of the Roman Council over Nestorius. And in fact, at the Council of Ephesus (in the name of) Cyril it is written: “διέποντος καὶ τὸν τόπον τοῦ ἁγιωτάτου καὶ ὁσιωτάτου ἀρχιεπισκόπου τῆς Ῥωμαίων ἐκκλησίας Κελεστίνου”, although no document by which Kelestin would have appointed Cyril as his vicar at the ecumenical council, has not survived. Yes, Kelestin could not appoint Cyril as his vicar, because he sent other legates from himself, and the answer to Cyril’s request mentioned above was brought to him in Ephesus by these legates. It is obvious, therefore, that Cyril recognized himself as the vicar of the apostolic see at the ecumenical council simply on the basis of the above-mentioned message of Celestine of August 11, 430. And since Cyril looked at himself in this way, he, understandably, did not see for himself either the obligation or the right to withdraw from the primacy role in Ephesus. He could have been forced or begged to do this. Regarding the events preceding the first meeting of the council, the Coptic translation of the acts of the council provides information that is partly legendary, partly reliable. From these latter it is clear that John of Antioch motivated and explained his behavior in advance, declaring that he could not arrive in Ephesus on time, which was allowed to him in Constantinople 50 . But the correspondence on this matter was of a secret nature, and therefore the behavior of John of Antioch caused different assessments. During the discussions about the opening of the council, a division occurred, and Candidian had to face the disagreement of the fathers of the council. As a Byzantine, he had to look at the matter through the eyes of Nestorius. Therefore, when there was a disagreement, he decided to wait for John of Antioch. When on the 22nd the fathers appeared at the church of St. Mary, he, along with a minority of bishops, declared a protest. He was immediately followed by an objection that the fathers of the council acted on the basis of the sacra, but they did not know what Candidian relied on. But then Candidian made a mistake. He read the sacra, in which he was entrusted with managing only the outside of the cathedral and which should be read at the opening of the cathedral. He thought that they would listen to him. The fathers, having greeted the sacra, announced that after its reading, the cathedral was ipso facto opened and that they asked that Candidian not interfere in theological debates. He left and the cathedral opened. We would not have known anything about this if it had not been for the small council of John, at which it was revealed about this. This sacra is not included in the deeds, obviously because Candidian did not leave the act. After the fathers were left alone in the church, the fact of Nestorius’s absence was, of course, stated; it was stated that he had been invited the day before, and he replied: “I’ll think about it, and if I consider it necessary, I will come.” A second written invitation was sent, to which the answer followed: “I will appear when all the other bishops arrive.” There was no response to the third (written) invitation, since the messengers could not convey it to Nestorius, whose house was surrounded by guards. Then the fathers decided to carry out the matter about Nestorius in his absence. The Nicene symbol was read as an immutable norm of Orthodoxy, then the second letter of Cyril to Nestorius “Καταφλυαροῦσι μὲν”. The fathers declared that it was in complete agreement with the teachings of St. fathers of Nicaea. Then the response message of Nestorius was read: “Τὰς μὲν χαθ ἡμῶν ὕβρεις.” The fathers declared that it did not agree with the Orthodox faith. It was proven that the famous message of Celestine was presented to Nestorius, but he did not renounce his opinions. Several fathers stated that from their conversations with Nestorius they gained the conviction that he still clings to his errors and teaches even worse than before. Then excerpts from St. fathers on the incarnation and excerpts from the sermons of Nestorius. Cyril's message with 12 anathematisms was also read. But the vote on this message did not take place at this meeting; undoubtedly, if it came to voting, then protests could not be expected; but still, the fact is that there was no such vote, and, therefore, from the formal canonical side, it could not have the meaning that Cyril’s second message had. After this entire procedure, when Nestorius’ beliefs were recognized as sufficiently explained, the fathers of the council made a verdict about him, which is formulated as follows: “through the mouth of St. Council, the Lord Jesus Christ Himself, Whom Nestorius blasphemed, deprives him of his episcopal and priestly dignity.” The reasons for this verdict are: Nestorius’s refusal to come to the council, the proven wickedness of his teaching, the weighty authority of the canons and the message of Celestine κανόνων καὶ ἐκ τῆς ἐπιστολῆς – Κελεστίνου). It was already dark when this verdict took place and was announced to the people. The Ephesians celebrated the deposition of Nestorius in a solemn procession with torches. The matter was resolved very quickly, but this was to be expected. There were no dissenting opinions at the council; therefore, there could be no debate. The plan for the conciliar readings had been prepared earlier, probably back in Alexandria, and drawn up very logically, but its implementation turned out to be a formality. It is not for nothing that the following expressions were used about the open sessions of the council: σογκροτεῖθαι, celebrare - “to celebrate.” Each of the bishops, according to the principle, appeared not to learn Orthodoxy, but to testify to it. He, therefore, had to know in advance what he would say in a positive sense. Everyone also had a negative judgment about Nestoria in advance; There was probably not a single one who became acquainted with the documents read here for the first time at the council. Each bishop, therefore, submitted his final judgment, weighing and deciding for himself all sorts of pros and cons. That is why the voices of the fathers who spoke about the message of Nestorius turn out to be even too harsh. They usually say that it is completely inconsistent with the Nicene symbol; only two (Firmus of Caesarea and Valerian of Iconium) stated that it consists of internally contradictory parts, that in the first half it looks pious (μόρφωσιν εὐσεβείας περιθεὶς ἐν τοῖς προοιμοίοις – Firm), but in the end it is resolved by complete wickedness. They saw no purpose in understanding these details when, in their opinion, Nestorius was ultimately subject to deposition. The procedure was even unnecessarily lengthy, and the voices of the fathers were ahead of even the development of a deeply thought-out plan: already when voting on the message of Nestorius was cast, many bishops pronounced an anathema on him, and completed this part of the first meeting by proclaiming this anathema in chorus. Therefore, strictly speaking, it would be possible not to read everything else - the verdict was already a done deal - and directly write ψῆφον. But of course, this was not such a trial that Nestorius could leave it without protest. The first invitation to the council on June 21 found him unprepared: he needed to think about whether to go. A decision was made: to demand a delay until John’s arrival, otherwise to appear at the council only if Candidian invited him. But the emperor's representative did not consider the meeting of the 22nd to be legitimate, and therefore Nestorius could only see naivety or slyness when the second invitation of the council was motivated by the fact that the sacred will of the emperor required that the fathers immediately begin to discuss a dogmatic question. One of the officials of Candidian, this living interpreter of the will of the emperor, on behalf of Nestorius conveyed to the messengers his firm decision not to appear at the council until all the bishops arrived. It must be added that these first two invitations were conveyed to Nestorius not as an accused, but as a co-member, as one of the fathers 51. He, of course, well understood that as soon as he appeared, his trial would begin. However, the formality was not observed: only the last ἀναγνωστικὸν of the council was addressed to him as an accused, but it did not reach Nestorius. Consequently, there were many legal reasons for protest. And Nestorius, as soon as he was informed of the verdict of the council, sent his protest to the sovereign, transferring his case to the court of the legal council and asking that in this council there should be no more than two bishops with each metropolitan. 15 metropolitans and all others (supporters of Nestorius) signed this letter of Nestorius. Three days later, on the fourth, only on the 26th, John of Antioch arrived. The fathers of the council sent him a notice so that he would not enter into communication with the deposed Nestorius. John responded by gathering his conciliabulum, no less than 43 members, and, without entering into communication with Nestorius, having listened to Candidian's report on the first meeting of the Council of Ephesus, he deposed Cyril and Memnon, as the main leaders of the illegal act on June 22, “deposing Nestorius without trial,” χωρίς τινος κρίσεως καὶ ζητήσεως, and declared their other members out of communication, ἀκοινωνήτους, until they abandon Cyril and Memnon and go over to him. To all the legal shortcomings of the first meeting, here they responded with an act that was directly illegal (Kirill and Memnon were not even called). But Candidian sided with John (τὸ ἀποστατικὸν σονέδριον). Some of the metropolitans and bishops, who protested against the opening of the council on the 22nd, went over to the side of Cyril - it is unknown at what time, perhaps even after the arrival of John, under the impression of his first act. But in any case, no less than (34) bishops (not counting Nestorius) represented this eastern group, which had the formal right to title itself: “St. Council of the eastern diocese and dioceses: Bithynia, Pisidia, Paphlagonia, Cappadocia II, Europe, Rhodope, Thessaly and Dacia." With such numbers, they did not consider their cause lost. The fact that the council accepted without protest the “heretical – as they used to say – chapters of Cyril” was the starting point of their struggle against the council. Not only did they not consider the teaching of Nestorius to be wicked from beginning to end, but some of them, even moderate ones, like Theodoret, expressed that “to anathematize without any circumstance (indeterminate) the teaching of the Holy Nestorius means the same thing as to anathematize Orthodoxy itself.” In the general formulation of the question, the “Easterns” adhered to the same scheme as Nestorius, and were completely convinced that Nestorius did not go to the extremes that are attributed to him, that, for example, he did not unconditionally reject the words Θεοτόκος. Nestorius himself claimed that passages from his sermons were presented in a distorted form and that false patristic passages were put forward against him. Therefore, the eastern ones, without placing Nestorius at their head, without apparently involving him in participation in their conciliar meetings, defended his cause, which seemed right to them. The fathers of the Council of Ephesus made the opposing party feel that they had decided to conduct things coolly, and were not slow to show that they were completely ignoring the prohibition imposed on them by the East. Sunday was coming. Candidian, fearing any complications in the matter, warned his supporters not to perform divine services. From Candidian’s point of view, this was quite consistent: he considered the dispute still unfinished, since the council in Ephesus, in his opinion, was illegal. The fathers of the Council of Ephesus acted differently. As is known, according to the canonical view, if a person is subjected to a lesser punishment and does not submit to it, then he can act at his own risk, and then be subjected to a greater punishment. If, for example, a presbyter serves the liturgy under prohibition, he ipso facto exposes himself to defrocking. Of course, history knows of exceptions when such orders were ignored, but the legal canonical norm was this: that person who is declared to be excommunicated or prohibited from performing sacred functions, and, nevertheless, begins to perform sacred functions, ipso facto exposes himself to deprivation of the priesthood. All the bishops who gathered in Ephesus for the council had not yet performed divine services; they left the services to the elders. But as soon as the fathers of the cathedral became aware of this threatening decree of John against them, they began to prepare for the solemn service in the church the following Sunday. Candidian, having learned about this, went to them and earnestly asked them not to do this, but his request was not respected: convinced of the correctness of the Council of Ephesus, the fathers naturally considered the controversial issue formally resolved and therefore solemnly performed the service. Thus, the council fathers showed complete contempt for John's definition and, consequently, subjected themselves to defrocking. In this ecclesiastical turmoil, firm state power, the authority of which was invoked by both sides, could do much in the interests of the church world. The emperor could either, with the dignity of Valentinian, withdraw from any interference in church matters and leave the pacification of the church to its own creative forces, or, following a more usual policy, accept the case brought into his consideration and at the same time - either trust the testimony of his commissioner, recognize the meeting of June 22 as premature, contrary to his will, and insist on considering the case again, or directly and irrevocably decide that either Candidian was wrong interpreted his intentions, or he himself considers another direction of the matter necessary - and take the side of the decision of the first meeting. But Theodosius was not capable of taking any firm step. Weak-willed, somewhat of a cross between Feodor Alekseevich and Feodor Ioannovich, he needed someone’s tutelage all his life, was under someone’s influence, was often a toy in the hands of his corrupt courtiers, and therefore all sorts of contradictions could be expected from his church politics, like a cane shaken by the wind. The first decision he made was in the Candidian sense. Having still no information about John’s arrival, the emperor, with a special courier, sent his letter dated June 29, which canceled everything decided on June 22, and demanded that the case be considered again together with John of Antioch. But both sides were dissatisfied with this verdict, because both sides considered their decisions to be completely canonical and not subject to cancellation. On July 1st, both sides responded to the emperor in this sense. The emperor’s demand was late, for many (unforeseen) facts had already happened in Ephesus. The fathers of the council did not agree with this decision, because they considered the actions of the council to be correct. The Emperor had to listen to their explanations; Meanwhile, they were deprived of the opportunity to present these explanations, because rather peculiar measures were taken, which did not lead to the purpose for which they were taken, due to the aggravation of relations between the bishops and the civil authorities. By the way, the duties of the emperor’s commissioner were to ensure that no cases were initiated that were not related to the subject of conciliar discussions, for example, so that there was no dispute among the bishops about property matters, in a word - accounts, so to speak, of civil order; these scores could give rise to some persons declaring themselves dissatisfied and wishing to leave the cathedral, but it was the duty of the emperor’s authorized representatives to prevent such a departure. Around Ephesus, a kind of security was set up, so to speak, purely police, and this cordon did not let any of the members out of Ephesus. Thus, due to the fact that the bishops were forbidden to appear with complaints until the end of the council meetings, the fathers were deprived of the physical opportunity to notify the emperor about what happened in Ephesus. The documents of the meeting on June 22 could not be delivered as quickly as was desirable, and if - in the end - they were received in Constantinople, then a trick was allowed: one person, disguised as a beggar, brought the documents in a drilled stick. Naturally, the emperor had to resolve the matter according to a one-sided report. But on the other hand, the party of the Antiochian fathers was also dissatisfied, since it recognized its decision as completely correct and in the same way not subject to cash. When these circumstances became clear to the emperor, he had no reason to either insist on reconsidering the case or cancel (his decision). Meanwhile, the Constantinople dignitaries began to theologize, and the opinion of the weak sovereign wavered indecision between recognition of the Council of Ephesus and its complete condemnation. Unfortunately, Theodosius had a character that could not be called weak in the absolute sense: he was capable of rapid energetic charges, but was always charged with the charges of the person with whom he spoke last. One could have expected from Constantinople a simple repetition of the first edict. But in Constantinople, various influences were already swirling around the sovereign. Over a period of 4–5 weeks, the main direction of court dogma changed no less than 4 times. The emperor himself, in the presence of influential dignitaries, personally listened to the debate between the committee of Irenaeus, the representative of the East, and the representatives of Cyril, and decided that the actions of the council on June 22 were illegal. But several days passed, and Irenaeus did not dare to even mention this sentence of the sovereign. Cyril’s report, written on June 24–25, reached Constantinople through a beggar. The Orthodox decided to move the greatest moral force that was at that time in Constantinople. At this time, Dalmatius lived there (in the Dalmatia monastery), who remained hopelessly in the monastery for many years. Now he admitted that the good of the church required that he leave the monastery and intercede with the emperor himself. Abba Dalmatius went to the palace in a solemn procession, was received by the emperor and opened his eyes to what was happening in Ephesus. This had an effect on the emperor, but still not so much that he ipso facto took the side of the council, and therefore the acts of the Council of Ephesus were subject to a completely unexpected revision. They came to a measure that is very characteristic of the half-hearted policy of this emperor, who did not want to deviate from the direction he had adopted, and did not have the firmness to insist on the implementation of his will openly. Constantinople diplomats came up with the following measure: they pretended that the emperor had no idea that the bishops were divided in Ephesus, but had information about the decisions made there. He convened one council and addressed his new sacra to one council, that is, to all the bishops to whom the invitation was sent, not excluding those who did not appear (Celestine of Rome, Rufus of Thessalonica) and those who died, like Augustine of Hippo. He confirms the verdict pronounced by the council - the deposition of Nestorius, Memnon and Cyril - and invites the fathers, in the spirit of peace, to begin further consultations. This sacra was sent with the comes sacrarum largitionum (Minister of Finance) John, who did everything that a person with a strong will could do. The relations between the parties were already so hostile that it was necessary to establish a certain order for entering John’s premises so that clashes would not break out. They appeared at the request of John. The main cathedral did not even want to hear about the presence of Nestorius, whom they had deposed, and even John and the Easterners. Then John, for his part, declared that Cyril had also been deposed, and his name was omitted from the address of the imperial sacra, like the name of Nestorius. Comite John ordered that they be taken into honorable custody. The fathers of the main cathedral protested - and yet they stayed and listened to the sacra together. In the evening Memnon was also taken into custody. Obviously they assumed that with the elimination of the main instigators things would go better - and they were mistaken. John had instructions to demand from both sides a written statement of faith. The Easterners agreed, the council refused, hiding behind the requirements of the etiquette of that time: we, the fathers declared, know the faith, and we were not called here as heretics, from whom such statements of faith are required in order to test their way of thinking; and the emperor does not need this exposition, because he knows the Orthodox faith, as if he had been granted baptism. One of the hidden motives (Cyrilli ep. 27/25 Ἐταράχθη λίαν) for this refusal was the fear that John of Antioch would pay too easily for his outburst against the council: he and the Easterners could sign the statement of faith of the council - and then there would be no serious grounds to consider him out of communion with the church, while the fathers of the council wanted “The eastern ones fell to the council as if they had sinned,” and, having destroyed all their decrees, they anathematized Nestorius in writing. It must be added, however, that for the council, which, under the influence of the fight against Nestorianism, on July 22 prohibited the compilation of a new statement of faith after the Nicene one, (it would have been necessary, if they had agreed to fulfill John’s demand, soon) ipso facto to prove the impracticability of such a rule in church life. The emperor finally decided to call 8 deputies from each side to negotiate with them. Around this time, Nestorius announced his desire to retire to the Antioch monastery of Euprepius, and was honorably dismissed. The highest state dignitary (praefectus praetorio), transmitting the order for the journey, officially wrote to Nestorius: “We pray to the merciful Lord, may your holiness complete this journey safely and may he live according to his own desire. We dare not offer you any consolation: with your wisdom and gifted with such spiritual perfections, you do not need them, because you stand above other people.” Meanwhile, personal meetings with the sovereign did not lead to any result. The Emperor tuned himself to the tone of the party that spoke to him last. Outwardly so impartial, he did not take care with his sovereign power to protect the eastern deputies from the insults of the Chalcedonian mob (it turned out to be impossible to admit either one or the other deputies to Constantinople due to the indignation of the “good monks”). Not convinced of the rightness of Cyril, who was still in custody in Ephesus, Theodosius had already begun to hate Nestorius with all the dull hatred of a spineless man because the memory of failure was associated with his name. He either shook his purple robe in horror when they told him that Cyril’s supporter, Akaki of Melitina, calls God subject to suffering, πάθητόν (Synodicon, 27), then he stopped his ears when they started talking about Nestorius in his presence (Syn. 30). He reproached the “Easterns” for performing divine services, and when they responded with a request that their opponents also be prohibited from performing divine services, he made the excuse that “he cannot order the bishops.” In a short time, he issued two contradictory decrees: with one he dissolved the council, directly recognizing Cyril and Memnon as deposed, with the other he dismissed everyone from Ephesus, including Cyril and Memnon, recognizing them as bishops, declared before everyone that while he was alive, he could not condemn the eastern ones, because they had not been accused of anything before him, and asked the fathers to take care of restoring the peace of the church. “I am not the cause of all the evil that has happened. God knows who the culprits are.” This last sacra was final. The Eastern ones went to their dioceses. Meanwhile, their opponents entered Constantinople and here, with the consent of the emperor, they ordained a certain Maximian as bishop of the capital, a man of practical piety, but not outstanding in other qualities. And the emperor, imagining that he was completely impartial, turned to his new archpastor with the question: what should be done to restore church peace? From Maximian’s side, of course, only one answer was possible: let the Easterners anathematize the wicked teaching of Nestorius, recognize him as deposed and accept the definitions of the holy and ecumenical council. This instruction became Theodosius’ program. As for the other sessions of the Council of Ephesus, there was a certain gap between the first and second sessions: on the one hand, there were attempts to notify the emperor and the Constantinople clergy, and then it was necessary to send a notification to Egypt; in addition, from time to time they composed words that were supposed to serve as an indicator of the view of the council participants on the face of Jesus Christ. The second meeting was only on July 10; it was caused by the arrival of Roman ambassadors from Celestine. They arrived so late because they were delayed by storms and winds. The ambassadors were Presbyter Philip and bishops Arkady and Project. For a researcher just beginning the study of ancient monuments, it cannot but seem striking that everywhere Prester Philip appears in the foreground, and not Bishop Arcadius. This, however, reflects ancient logic: the deputy of a famous person at the cathedral or in other meetings used the place that was appropriate for the absent person. But, according to the ancient view, a bishop, no matter how high he was in the importance of the see, did not have the right to elect a bishop as his delegate, as a person equal to him; delegate - a person always smaller than delegans; thus, only his clergy could be a bishop's deputy. Thus, Philip was the deputy of Celestine himself, and therefore he had the right of precedence to two bishops. These same two bishops were representatives of the Italian council, which Celestine convened, and in accordance with which he acted. Rome consistently maintained the traditions of papal supremacy. Celestine, like other popes, wanted to cast his own separate voice on this issue, but in order to give his voice authority, he convened a council of Italian bishops. The council of bishops is higher than one bishop, but later it turned out differently. The Pope wanted his own special representation, indicating his primacy. The bishop could not be the spokesman for the pope, as the representative of the council. Only the youngest member of the hierarchy could replace the pope. That is why Presbyter Philip was sent along with Bishops Arcadius and Project. The second meeting was limited to the fact that the Roman legates read the message of Celestine, which was listened to and received sympathetically. Of course, the Roman delegates could not do without a few phrases about the greatness of the Roman see. At the third meeting on July 11, the act of June 22, which condemned Nestorius, was read; This act was also signed by the legates of the pope. The fourth meeting on July 16 is highly characteristic. Almost a month has passed since the opening of the cathedral, and only now Cyril and Memnon submitted a statement to the cathedral that they were offended by John of Antioch and his like-minded people, who had defrocked them. A summons was sent to John and the other 35 to the council. But of course, this challenge remained without consequences, since John did not appear, and the next day - July 17, at the fifth meeting, excommunication (ἀφορισμὸς) followed for 35 bishops. The question arises: why did such a change occur in the views of Cyril and Memnon regarding their condemnation? It's not hard to guess. Although Candidian took strict measures to ensure that there were no relations with Constantinople, Cyril secretly managed to establish relations with the capital. Only now did they learn in Constantinople about the division of bishops and about two separate councils. Obviously, by July 16, news was received from Constantinople that, no matter how illegal the condemnation by the Council of John was, with a weak emperor it was necessary to take it seriously. In addition to the meetings caused by the necessary historical circumstances of the time, there were also meetings on random issues. Some of them were important for subsequent times. For example, at one meeting of the council, Bishops Euprepius and Cyril from Europe in Thrace, subordinate to the Metropolitan of Herakleia, declared to the fathers of the council that their Metropolitan Fritila, being, in his convictions, an adherent of Nestorius, could use his power as a metropolitan to strengthen his party. The fact is that in the church practice of that time there was a custom for one bishop to be appointed for two cities and to be called by the names of both of them (as is now the case in Russia). In reality, of course, there was no bishop in the second city. The applicant pointed out that Fritila could take advantage of this circumstance and appoint like-minded people as actual bishops in the second cities, which have bishops only nominally. To prevent this, the council approved, as inviolable, the practice that (in Europe) one bishop would be appointed for two cities and the metropolitan would not appoint separate bishops for the second cities. In the same way, the council had to decide (July 31) the question of the autonomy of the Cypriot church. The Cypriot bishops asked the fathers of the council to approve the independence of their church from the church of Antioch, whose bishop sought to subordinate it to his influence. The arguments presented to the council by the Cypriot fathers, on which they based their autonomy, were not entirely obvious and tangible. But since this question arose suddenly, it is not surprising that they could not present all the documents to which they referred as evidence that from the very beginning. Barnabas, Cyprus was independent of Antioch and was governed independently in church terms. The decree of the fathers is expressed in conditional form: if it is proven that the Cyprians enjoyed independence, then let them enjoy it for the future. Nevertheless, from that time on the autocephaly of Cyprus became a fact. One of the acts of the council, caused by a fortuitous circumstance, is of great importance and is connected with that canonical decree, which is known to us under the name of the seventh rule of the third ecumenical council, and which plays an important role in the issue of changing the 8th article of the creed by the Western Church. This matter is much more complicated than it appears according to the lengthy Orthodox Catechism. On July 22, the fathers of the council, being convinced that the views of Nestorius were contrary to the Nicene symbol, by analogy with the practice of previous councils, confirmed the Nicene symbol as a symbol that all Orthodox Christians must adhere to. This circumstance, apparently, gave rise to the steward of the Philadelphia church, Charisius, to point out to the fathers of the cathedral the cases of deviation from this symbol. Bishop Charisia carried out extensive missionary activity, the fruit of which was that many of the so-called Pentecostals, who celebrated Easter in disagreement with the resolution of the Council of Nicea - together with the Jews, expressed a desire to join the Orthodox Church. To announce them, some presbyters appeared, led by the chorebishop Iakovos, who brought letters from the Constantinople presbyters Anastasius and Photius, followers of Nestorius. They, according to Charisius, during the announcement used, in the expression of that time, a “corrupt” creed, written for cases of conversion from heresies to the church and containing a detailed Christology in the spirit of Nestorius. Charisius himself adhered to the Nicene symbol and signed it. As a result of this statement, the fathers forbade the formation and use of a new faith other than the Nicene one. But disputes arose over this decree already at the Council of Chalcedon: in their disputes with Dioscorus, the fathers of this council declared that there was no such decree of the Council of Ephesus. When the creed of Eutyches was read at the Council of Chalcedon (with reference to this “definition” of the Council of Ephesus (ὅρος), Eusebius of Doryleia declared that there is no such “definition” (ὅρος), no “rule” (κανὼν) commanding this. But Dioscorus, noticing that Eutyches did not use the word “κανὼν”, pointed out that the “definition” (ὅρος) is found in codes 4–5. When then exclamations were heard from the adherents of Eutyches: “nothing can be added or subtracted (of course, from the Nicene symbol); let the Nicene symbol remain in use” (the eastern ones exclaimed: “Eutyches said it”). How can we reconcile this circumstance with the fact that among the decrees of the Council of Ephesus we recognize, under the name of the seventh, the rule prohibiting the composition of a new symbol of faith and directed against the Filioque of the Western Church? 52 There is some inconsistency in the acts of the Council of Ephesus. Above the act that approved the common use of the Nicene symbol is the date July 22. Then at the council there was a case about Bishop Eustathius in Pamphylia, who refused the see. Then the question of appointing one bishop for two cities and some other issues were considered. But these acts of the council have no date, and it is unknown which meeting they refer to. The matter of the autonomy of Cyprus was the last matter of the council and was marked with the date July 31. There is another date - August 31; but the name “August” here is obviously a mistake and should read instead: July 31st. Judging by the fact that the statement of Charisius was caused by the decision of the council on July 22 and that some correspondence was required before reporting it to the council, one cannot think that it was reported to the council on July 22; but we must assume that this happened a little later. It was probably reported to the council by the Alexandrian presbyter Peter. The Council discussed it and, at the same time, a solution to this issue was intended; but formally it did not take place. This was prevented by the arrival of the imperial official John with the sacral message about the arrest of John of Antioch, St. Cyril and Memnon. Therefore, by July 31, the seventh rule of the council had not yet been worked out and signed by the fathers. As a result of this, in the acts of the council there are only six of its rules with the signature of the fathers, and there is no seventh. In the Russian translation of the acts of the council (I 1, 764) the seventh rule is also given, as formulated and signed by the fathers. But this is an illusion. In the original text of the acts, these signatures appear below the line and have nothing to do with this rule, and are only a variant, a special edition of the signatures under the first act of the council. Thus, the council had the intention of establishing the rule that we know under the name of the seventh. Apparently, it had already been decided by the council and Presbyter Peter had already prepared a formula for it, but it did not have time to go through its entire formal course and was not signed by the fathers. Rough records of the actions of the council, of course, were preserved in the archives of the Ephesian Church, from where this definition was later extracted and became known to us under the name of the seventh rule of the Council of Ephesus. (Eutychius, according to him, had a list of definitions of the council from Cyril himself). Continuation of the dispute after the council and reconciliation The Ecumenical Council dispersed, producing few favorable results. Nestorius was convicted, but in absentia, so it was not clear to everyone that the teaching attributed to him really belonged to him. In a positive sense, the council did nothing for dogma; there was no debate. The teaching of Nestorius was condemned without a clear indication of what was heretical in it. The writings of Cyril were accepted as Orthodox, but this is still far from being the same as the statement of faith compiled by the council itself. An excellent opportunity was omitted when Alexandrian theology could come face to face with Antiochian theology in its best representatives. The results that could be expected from such activity in a dogmatic sense would be immeasurably important. The patriotic erudition of Cyril would have had a worthy pendant in the patristic knowledge of the learned Theodoret. One-sidedness in the direction of both would have to collide here polemically, but not yet hostilely, be clarified scientifically and complement each other - on the basis of patristic authority, sacred to both. Each side would have to experimentally find out for itself the strong side of its opponent - strong in that it relied on the authority of the fathers. The Orthodox East would have the opportunity once again before the entire Catholic Church to declare its reverence for the names sacred to those who were touched by the Antiochian theological influence, but forgotten, barely recognized in Alexandria. The Theodorites, Pauls of Emesa of the East could renew in the memory of their contemporaries the exploits and church glory of Diodorus of Tarsus, whose name half a century ago was recognized as the norm, a guarantee of Orthodoxy, and now was in danger of almost anathema - and justify from unnecessary suspicion the dogmatic hobbies of Theodore of Mopsuestia himself, in order to win for him, if not an aura of glory, then peace in grave, as a bishop who died in peace with the church. An agreement between both parties was possible: they shared suspicions, but they were not mixed with a burning feeling of undeserved insult; There were no personal scores between them yet. It was easier for them to be mutually convinced of their Orthodoxy now than a year later, and the dogmatic formula of unity (later sent to Cyril by the Easterners) was already written in Ephesus. Instead of all this, the council limited itself to condemning Nestorius and did not write any statement of faith, starting from the fictitious ahistorical assumption of the all-sufficiency and clarity of the “faith set forth by the 318 fathers who gathered at Nicaea,” although John and his council demanded from Cyril and the council nothing more or less than that they return to the confession of precisely this faith set forth by the Council of Nicaea. This opened up the possibility for each party to interpret the symbol in its own way, and whoever felt external force on his side was even more tempted to pass off his personal thoughts as the dogma of the Nicene fathers. Theodosius dissolved the council without approving it, without directly deciding which side represented the voice of the universal church. From the official point of view, one could rather say that the ecumenical council did not take place. The eastern ones returned home, admonished by the anathemas of Theodotus of Ancyra and Firm of Caesarea. In Tarsus, at the council, they repeated the deposition of Cyril and Memnon and added the names of 7 more deputies to the council. In Antioch, at a council, they again repeated their sentence; 200 episcopal signatures sealed what they did in Ephesus. But the Eastern ones went too far in their measures, and even more so there were thorns for them on the inevitable return path to church unity. Cyril and the cathedral were more moderate; retreat was therefore easier for them. The Council of Ephesus, except for Nestorius, did not depose (anyone) by name, although its canons contained a threat of deposition for those who would side with Nestorius. John of Antioch and his companions were subjected to excommunication, ἀκοινωνησία, and suspensio (πᾶσαν αὐτῶν ἐνέργειαν ἱερατικήν περιεῖλε). On the contrary, John of Antioch and his council deposed, deposed Cyril, Memnon and 7 other bishops, and imposed excommunication on all others. Therefore, without entering into a sharp contradiction with himself, Cyril could enter into communion with the Eastern ones; it was only necessary to return communion to them - and they became Orthodox bishops, with all the powers of their rank. On the contrary, John, even having entered into communication with Cyril, while remaining consistent, had to recognize him as a layman. The question arose about returning his dignity. The consecration of Maximian, from the point of view of John, was an action, in any case, illegal, and the East could not consider the bishop of Constantinople to be a bishop. Meanwhile, Maximian of Constantinople and Firmus of Caesarea deposed four metropolitans who stood on the side of the east (Dorotheus of Marcianopolis, Imerius of Nicomedia, Euthyrios of Tyana and Helladius of Tarsus). The emperor, for his part, decided to start restoring the peace of the church and with this mission he sent the tribune and the notary (secretary of state) Aristolaus to Antioch, and the eastern ones were forced to work on developing conditions for reunification with the church. The Eastern ones developed six points, including: the norm of faith is to recognize the text of the Nicene symbol without any additions, as an authoritative interpretation to it (integram interpetationem) - the letter of Athanasius V. to Epictetus, bishop. Corinthian against Apollinarianism, Cyril must take back his anathematisms. With these points of agreement and a letter from Acacius of Vera, Aristolaus went to Alexandria. Cyril protested in a letter to Akaki, explaining his teaching, against the unambiguous demand contained in the last paragraph that he renounce both his messages and his anathematisms. that is, he almost pleaded guilty to the deposition of Nestorius. This demand was expressed very mildly, because in the east many were thinking about such a world war that Cyril would directly anathematize his heretical chapters. But it turned out that for Kirill the matter was set in such a way that he could not even think about completely brilliant satisfaction. He had to ignore all personal insults, because all the wheels of the court mechanism, set in motion by appeals to the court from Ephesus, were now working at full speed and in a direction completely undesirable for Cyril. Colorless Maximian turned out to be a very bad helper for Cyril in these complications. The theologizing comites and cubicularii demanded eulogy and eulogy, both from the right and from the wrong, threatening to go over to the side of the east. At court they began to talk about the restoration of Nestorius to the see. Aristolaus sat in Alexandria and urgently demanded that Cyril agree... He had to send bribe after bribe to Constantinople... The Alexandrian clergy began to grumble that because of this turmoil the Alexandrian church was impoverished. We can say, without fear of being too mistaken, that these “blessings” to the courtiers cost Cyril a million rubles in gold. In the mentioned letter to Akakios, Cyril flatly refused to take back his 12 chapters, because by such an act he would condemn himself. The only thing he could admit without humiliating himself was that he recognized the text as not entirely clear and therefore agreed to its voluntary, but not forced interpretation, which was to follow only when fraternal unity took place. At the same time, he declared that he did not adhere to Apollinarianism and anathematizes it. This last made a favorable impression on some of the Easterners. The Easterners were generally of the opinion that two reasons made the restoration of church communion with the Alexandrian Church impossible: a) Heresy - the alleged Apollinarianism in 12 chapters of Cyril. How strong was the conviction of the eastern bishops that the 12 chapters contained Apollinarianism, this is clarified by the letter of Andrew of Samosata (the main polemicist (along with Theodoret) against Cyril) to one of his correspondents. There is no reason to admit that Andrey is making this up. It is a well-known psychological fact that a person has no control over his dreams; he cannot, by an effort of his will, see a famous face in the light he wants, but sees in accordance with his view of this person. When the question arose about communicating with Cyril, Andrei said that he dreamed the following: he saw that a decrepit old man was lying on his bed - Apollinaris of Laodicea; Eastern bishops approach him and he gives them eulogies (blessings); Andrei woke up in fear from what he saw. In this he saw that the restoration of peace with Cyril was a departure from the faith, and he was so convinced of Cyril’s Apollinarianism that he considered communication with him the same as communication with Apollinaris. b) Murder, homicidium, i.e., the unjust deposition of Nestorius of Constantinople, aggravated by the subsequent deposition of four metropolitans. The expression "homicidium", understood in the sense of the terminology of the 4th century, was used in the case when a bishop was deposed unjustly. The basis for such a strong term is not only the severity of the sentence itself, but also the consequences of it. The consecration is not repeated; consequently, once a bishop is deposed, he remains in communion with the Catholic Church only as a layman; but having become a layman, this bishop cannot regain his rank. The only thing he can do is to prove that the council sentenced him to deposition illegally; but it was difficult to prove this, because then the council itself, which condemned him, would have to admit that it had acted unjustly. Thus the deposed bishop was a dead man; forgiveness did not restore his rank, just as life is not returned to a dead person by pardon. To the moderates, Cyril's message to Akaki seemed to be a ray of hope for eliminating the first cause. It was decided to send Paul, Bishop of Emesa, for personal negotiations to Alexandria (at the end of 432). The result of this embassy was the conciliatory letter (κοινωνικὸν, ἑνωτικὸν, εἰρηνικὸν) of Cyril to John “Εὐφραινέσθωσαν”, in which he textually repeated the statement of faith sent by the Easterners 53 and then added his own explanations to it. Through this, formal communion between the Antiochian and Alexandrian churches was restored. But in reality there were many difficulties to be overcome. To the solemn notification of John of Antioch about the reconciliation, Theodoret answered him with a cooling question: what will happen to those deposed (Nestorius and the four metropolitans)? – John, already in his letter to Cyril “Πρώην ἐκ θεσπίσματος” agreed “to have Nestorius, once the former bishop of Constantinople, deposed” and anathematized “his evil and filthy idle talk,” and recognized Maximian as the legitimate bishop of Constantinople. Paul of Emesa could not persuade Cyril to cancel the deposition of even four metropolitans. Therefore, both Cilicia, and then Euphratisia, responded by breaking church communion with John of Antioch. But, in any case, the message “Εὐφραινέσθωσαν” divided the Easterners into two parties: strict (irreconcilable) and moderate. The strict ones argued that both reasons for the division remained in full force, since Cyril did not change his convictions and gave his own meaning to the eastern religion with his interpretation. Nestorius and especially Euphyrius of Tyana mercilessly smashed the illusion of “the repentance of the Egyptian” 54, with which John tried to mask the true state of affairs in the eyes of the East 55. At the head of this party in the east were Alexander, Metropolitan of Hierapolis, Meletius, Bishop. Mopsuestian, and Euthyrios, Metropolitan of Tian. Moderates, on the contrary, were convinced that the entire message “Εὐφραινέσθωσαν” was completely Orthodox and “diametrically opposed to the 12 chapters”; As Kirill agrees with these two documents, this is his business and does not concern the eastern ones. At the head of these moderates were Theodoret, bishop. Kirsky, and Andrey, bishop. Samosata, that is, the two most prominent dogmatic celebrities of the East, whose authority on the issue of the alleged “heresy” was of no small importance. But the question of “homicide” remained in full force, in the opinion of both the strict and the moderate. In view of this state of affairs, John of Antioch decided on two practical measures. α) Recognizing that Theodoret’s ultimate goal was the pacification of the church, he granted him the right of “oikonomia” in the broadest sense, that is, he authorized Theodoret (in a confidential message) to even agitate against him, the Bishop of Antioch, if this could be expected to benefit the cause. β) Even more important was that John decided to separate the question of “heresy” from the question of “murder,” that is, from those who wanted to enter into communion with the Antiochian (and through that with the Alexandrian Church), began to demand only a signature under “Εὐφραινέσθωσαν,” keeping silent about the anathema of Nestorius and his deposition. This half-measure had its effect. The flock, which did not see any point in breaking with Antioch, and felt the everyday inconvenience of this discord, tried to influence its bishops in the sense of unity. Theodoret also acted not without success, explaining the convenience of this method of communication. But all his efforts to influence his Metropolitan (Euphratisian) Alexander, Bishop. Hierapolis, were in vain. The end result was that little by little all the dioceses of the eastern diocese entered into communion with John of Antioch. The stubborn ones, Meletius of Mopsuestia and Alexander of Hierapolis, were exiled in 435 (the first to Armenia, the second to Egypt). The elderly Metropolitan of Hierapolis, before whose eyes his entire flock grew up, was loved by them no less than by the bishops under his control. He was so poor that only with the money given to him by his personal friends could he hire a carriage. The people of Hierapolis saw him off with bitter tears, locked their churches and wanted to stop worshiping until their bishop was returned to them. Only by the force of secular power was the normal course of church life restored. Their request was not respected. Even earlier, apparently, Nestorius from the monastery of Euprepius near Antioch was sent into exile, first to Petra, then to an oasis in Egypt, experienced many vicissitudes (he was captured by the Vlemmians and was released by them) and died near Panopolis (in Psumveldzh), apparently in 450, having described his life in an essay entitled "Τραγῳδία." Between those who in 431 were on the side of St. Cyril and the Council of Ephesus, also turned out to be extreme. Cyril began to be blamed for entering into communication with the Easterners, who recognize two natures. Even in the fact that he accepted the Eastern creed in his message, they saw an attempt to compose a new symbol of faith, condemned by the Council of Ephesus. In his letters (to Acacius of Melitene, Valerian of Iconium, Succenus of Diocaesarea and Presbyter Eulogius), Cyril explained to his immoderate followers that recognizing two natures in Christ does not mean dissolving His personal unity. Akaki Melitinsky quite transparently made it clear to Cyril that by entering into communication with the Nestorian Easterners, he violated the decree of the Council of Ephesus - not to allow any other presentation of faith other than the Nicene symbol - and then began to contradict his own teaching, expressed in 12 anathematisms. Kirill replied that he had not introduced any new symbol; but the Easterners needed to clear themselves of suspicion of Nestorianism; that he did not retreat one iota from his teaching, because the dogma of John of Antioch, while similar in letter, differs significantly from Nestorian in meaning, that, for example, Nestorius taught about two sons, and the Eastern ones preach one, that Nestorius attributed the famous Gospel sayings separately to God and separately to man, against which one of Cyril’s anathematisms is directed; Cyril forbade dividing these sayings into two persons or hypostases, but Cyril never thought of rejecting the differences in the qualitative definitions of the Divinity and humanity of the same Christ, and in the exposition of the faith of John of Antioch only the latter difference is spoken of. But it is already very characteristic that one of Cyril’s most famous associates at the Council of Ephesus understood so little the true meaning of his theological opposition to Nestorius that he could reproach Cyril for his attitude towards the Eastern. Akaki was right in that reunification with the Easterners through the signing of their creed was not envisaged at the council and brought the well-known resolution on the Nicene symbol to a crisis, proving the impracticality of such a measure. In a letter to his Apocrisiary of Constantinople, Presbyter Eulogius (44, ol. 37: δύο φύσεις), to Sukkens of Diocaesarea in Isauria (45/38: Ἐνέτυχον μὲν τῷ ὑπομνηστικῷ, 46/39: Cyril explained his attitude towards the Eastern and Nestorianism. He vehemently protested, on the one hand, against the directly Monophysite conclusions from his teaching - such as the view that after the resurrection the flesh turned into the Divine, on the other hand, he declared that the Eastern teaching: δύο φύσεις ἀδιαιρέτως, does not contain anything more than what is given in the formula: μία φύσις τοῦ ϴεοῦ Λόγου σεσαρκωμένη. This last one always seemed to Kirill to be the best, and the first one was only permitted. His explanations reveal his desire to present this duality of natures as less real, their difference as less complete, than is conceivable in the East. There, some allowed themselves to talk about the διαίρεσις of these (τῶν) natures, although united ἀδιαιρέτως in the person of the God-Man; Cyril always puts the last limit of duality only διαφορά, their difference (like Theodoret). In the East, they said with special emphasis that this difference between two natures exists, really exists; Kirill prefers to say that this difference is conceivable. He would like that, thinking about the image of the unity of two natures, the theologian would abstract his idea from the living historical face of Christ, place himself in the subtlest abstraction before the moment of their unity, before him - and here he thought of them in their natural isolation, in all the difference in their qualitative definitions, ᾽εν ποιότητι φυσικῇ (ad Acacium). But since this unity is considered accomplished, then we should speak about one nature of God the Word incarnate, about one Christ. This does not mean that this difference has now ceased, but the right to observe this duality of natures, ὡς ἀνῃρημένης ἤδη τῆς εἰς δύο διατομῆς, has ceased. Cyril wants this duality of natures to be cognized in abstracto, in the abstract, and not contemplated in concreto, in its implementation in the living face of the God-Man. This difference must be comprehended philosophically, and not observed historically. For him, as for his opponents, φύσις was something very real; it turned into ὑπόστασις. That is why he speaks of the difference of natures or hypostases, ἡ τῶν φύσεων ἤγουν ὑποστάσεων διαφορά, conceivable before the incarnation; that is why he ἕνωσιν καθ᾽ ὑπόστασιν comments as ἕνωσις φυσική. That is why, on the other hand, the eastern, armed with all their might against the ἕνωσις φυσική, refuse to recognize the ἕνωσιν καθ᾽ ὑπόστασιν (Theodoret). Cyril (ad Valer.) treated Nestorius’ expression with complete distrust: “διαιροῦντες γὰρ τὰς ὑποστάσεις ἑνοῦμεν τὸ πρόσωπον,” convinced that any consistent division of hypostases will in fact certainly be resolved by the doctrine of two persons. But the main element in the concept of ὑπόστασις, its most fundamental sign, is τὸ ὑφεστᾶναι, being, real existence. Therefore, to say with special emphasis that in Christ two truly existing natures were united meant to call these natures φύσεις ὑφεστῶσαι, to admit that δύο φύσεις ὑφίστανται, that humanity is consubstantial with us in Christ ὑφέστηκεν, i.e. implicite admit two natures with hypostases. This is where the feature of some docetism or nominalism is rooted in Cyril’s theology, why he gives the idea of ​​​​the actual existence of two natures in the form of premises, but does not want to put it in the form of a categorical conclusion from them. Easterners, on the contrary, convinced that to philosophize about two natures means to think piously, and to talk about two hypostases means to think completely consistently, did not encounter the same difficulties for the doctrine of the real existence of two natures in Christ that hampered the theological thought of Cyril. They very willingly illustrated this idea with a number of facts from the earthly life of Christ. Cyril allowed such an illustration to be true with extreme reluctance, believing that the truth that God the Word suffered in the flesh, hungered, and thirsted for humanity was of course self-evident. To say that man suffered on the cross and God darkened the sun with his passion, man was tired, hungry, God (miraculously) satisfied (those hungry in the desert), and to dwell too long on these distinctions and contrasts of theanthropic life is not safe for the living consciousness of the unity of the person and hypostasis of the incarnate God the Word. The vacillating position, the seemingly unimportant difference in their understanding of the word ὑπόστασις constituted that irremovable harmful environment that made itself felt as soon as they began to reveal in detail the idea of ​​​​the incarnation of the God-man. They spoke from the East, and Cyril suspected Nestorian leaven in their historical illustrations; Cyril spoke, and the eastern heard echoes of the 12 chapters and imagined all sorts of horrors from the approaching Apollinarianism. In at least one point of this detailed disclosure the difference was quite tangible: this is the question of the mental development of Christ’s humanity, of the human knowledge of the incarnate God of the Word. Cyril, having very solid precedents for himself in paternal writing, was an extreme “iconomist”: he held to the conviction that the knowledge of the God-man is one - divine, the boundary of His human spirit in this case coincides with infinity, and if He - according to the Gospel - sometimes did not know something, then this means that He seemed not to know κατ᾽ οἰκονομίαν. If He – still a child – “grew and became strengthened in spirit, filled with wisdom” (Luke 2:40), in other words: developed mentally, then this means that He gradually hid His divine wisdom less and less as Λόγος’a, His divine knowledge. A dumb baby, He was omniscient and only omniscient, and only in order not to violate His likeness to people, He took upon Himself various forms of ignorance and limitations that characterize different ages of natural man. Here the docetic shade of Cyril’s theology reaches its most acute conclusion and becomes logically tangible. The Easterners were in this case “agnoites”. They remembered well the theological writings of Eustathius of Antioch and other representatives of the Antiochian school and in their thinking they started from the fact that Christ is a true man. His human ignorance, His human limited horizons, His gradual development - in contrast to His divine omniscience, boundless wisdom, perfect immutability - were for the Easterners an indisputable reality, a historical fact, proving the true, unfused and unchangeable difference in Christ of two natures. This last difference between Cyril and the “Easterns” shows the high importance of the Antiochian trend: it opened the way to the extremes of Theodore of Mopsuestia and Nestorius and the errors of Nestorianism, but, despite this, it had a great mission, clarified the historical face of Christ more than the extremely dogmatizing Alexandrians. The Antiochian school was the bearer of such a truth, such an idea, without the disclosure of which Christian theology would have been incomplete and incomplete. The question of the condemnation of Theodore of Mopsuestia Thus, not without severe moral losses for the Easterners, church unity was restored, but only in order to open the way for new unrest. Events with inexorable logic destroyed the incorrect formulation of the question of Nestorianism at the Council of Ephesus. Led by Cyril, he looked at the case of Nestorius as his own, ignoring the point of view of the East. Now we had to make sure - in the unfair but apt expression of Dioscorus - that “Nestorius is not alone, there are many Nestories.” It was not necessary to be too perceptive to see that Nestorianism, in its true expression, has very much in common with the teachings of Theodore of Mopsuestia. This teaching had a direct connection with the teaching of Diodorus of Tarsus. Diodorus was recognized as a student of Meletius of Antioch and had no difficulty in finding parallels to his views in the writings of Eustathius of Antioch. Thus, Nestorianism touched upon a vital issue for the churches of the East - not only their present, but also their distant, glorious past. Nestorius is anathematized; How should one relate to those points of the teaching of the luminaries of Antiochene theology in which it comes into contact with the doctrines of Nestorius? In the east they were disposed to answer this as follows: “Nestorius was condemned unjustly for what he did not teach; therefore, anathema against Nestorius to those fathers of the Antiochian school, the firstborn children of Orthodoxy (Theodoret, Ἄτρεπτος, 77: τῶν πρωτοτόκων τῆς εὐσεβείας παίδων), has no relation." But the zealous zealots who sided with Cyril answered differently: “Nestorius is a heretic, and everything that resembles his teaching is heresy, and therefore subject to anathema.” The question of the historical past of the East would have been easier to resolve until the condemnation of Nestorius cast its ominous shadow over it. What would have been a mitigating factor in favor of Nestorius now became an indictment against his predecessors. This question “about the roots of Nestorianism” was raised very quickly and brought to an explosion thanks to the concerted efforts of people of various shades. Adherents of Nestorius, on the one hand, pointed out this attitude and spread the teachings of Theodore in the form of defending their cause. People who were only involved in the feud between Cyril and the Eastern, but indifferent to the personality of Nestorius, also turned to Theodore, because in his writings they saw the last word of theological science; they were looking here for the royal path between the extremes of Nestorianism and Apollinarianism. Scientists living on the outskirts of the Greco-Roman east began to translate Theodore's works into Syriac, Persian and Armenian. (Syrian is the language of the mass of the population of the eastern diocese; Persian Christians were in close connection with Syrian Christians; Armenia (Malaya), at the head of the church administration of which was the more than once mentioned Akaki of Melitene, was rightly considered one of the main centers of the anti-Antiochian movement). Among the figures on this field is Iva (Ihiba, Hiba) (Ἴβας, Hîbô (in Jacobite pronunciation, in Nestorian - Hîbâ)), a presbyter of Edessa. He accompanied his metropolitan Ravbula (Ραββοὑλας, Rabûlô) to Ephesus, and, like all the easterners, found himself on the side of John. In his famous letter to the Ardashir bishop Mara (Marî men beit Hardaschîr, Assem. V.O. 1:353), written under the fresh impression of the peace between Cyril and John, Iva expresses his sincere joy about this event; and as for the past, he suspects Cyril of Apollinarianism, but is not sure of Nestorius’s Orthodoxy. It is clear that Iva did not belong to the pure Nestorians. Standing in Edessa, apparently at the head of the theological school, he; together with his other associates, he studied the “teacher of teachers and interpreter of interpreters” Theodore and took part in Syriac translations. It was against this society that the first blow struck. The Metropolitan of Edessa stood in Ephesus on the side of John, although he did not stand out with particular energy. In Edessa, even before negotiations began between Cyril and John, a change occurred with Ravbula. A stern, blind old man, with his characteristic steep manners, discovered the root of evil in the writings of the “Bishop of Cilicia”, notified Cyril about this, and suddenly in the church he himself anathematized Theodore and those who write like him and who read his works, and those who do not bring these books to be burned. Following this, Ravbula launched a persecution against the dogmatic opponents of Cyril and, according to not entirely stable Eastern news, destroyed the Edessa school, so that both the teachers, with their science and the writings of Theodore, and the students fled, some even to Persia. In Edessa they thought (Iva) that the elderly metropolitan, who had previously himself read the works of Theodore, now decided to settle his personal scores with the Mopsuestian bishop, who had once cut him off at one cathedral. In Antioch they thought with horror whether Constantinople trends were affecting them. Events of peace between the East and Egypt diverted attention from this incident. But the question of Theodore had already been raised, and Iva, now (from August 8, 435) Metropolitan of Edessa, with his zeal for disseminating Theodore’s writings, again fanned the spark into a bright flame. In Armenia, where there were many Apollinarian-minded monks, they saw an outrageous heresy in Theodore’s writings, made a selection from the most caustic places and sent a deputation (two presbyters) from one council to Constantinople to Proclus, asking him to decide whose teaching was correct: Acacius of Melitene or Theodore. Proclus was invited to pronounce an explicit anathema against the teachings of Theodore and his personality, already implicitly condemned in Ephesus, and to stop evil, for in Cilicia and Syria there are many who philosophize like Theodore. Proclus did not accept the question in such a decisive formulation, but issued his famous τόμος πρὸς ἀρμενίους περὶ πίστεως. Here he expounded the Orthodox teaching and refuted some of the objections of the Nestorians, which could have pushed weak dogmatists towards an Apollinarian solution. “Necessarily there is one and the same God and man, not divided into two, but remaining one.” This expresses “the immutability of the Divinity and the indivisibility of the sacrament.” There really is flesh in Christ that is consubstantial with us, and His sufferings actually relate to it. “I am piously taught and know the one Son, I confess one hypostasis of God the Word incarnate ὑπόστασιν), because the same one endured suffering and performed miracles. – Without any change that would offend the mystery of the incarnation, the same one works miracles and suffers, through miracles making it clear that He is what He was, and through suffering certifying that He has truly become what He created (ὃ ἔπλασε). Thus we confess one and the same, both from eternity and in the last days, one Son.” But they object: “God the Word is one from the Holy Trinity; and the Holy Trinity is impassive; therefore, the crucified one is another, and not God the Word, ἕτερός παρὰ τὸν Θεὸν Λόγον.” “But,” answers Proclus, we confess that God the Word, one of the Trinity, became incarnate. But when we say that He suffered, we do not say that He suffered according to the Divinity itself, τῷ λόγῳ τῆς θεότητος, since the divine nature is not subject to any suffering.” Thus, Proclus holds the doctrine of the personal identity of God and man in Christ very firmly; but he insists on the non-fusion and immutability of both natures, and clearly distributes the Gospel sayings between them, without confusing them. He is not content with simple unity of face, πρόσωπον, on which the eastern ones stood, but he does not bring this unity to ἕνωσις φυσική. We do not find in Proclus the expression: “μία φύσις τοῦ Λόγου σεσαρκωμένη,” which Cyril only kept silent about in his message “Let the heavens rejoice,” without ceasing to consider it the most perfect. Proclus preaches the unity of the hypostasis, “μίαν τὴν τοῦ σαρκωθέντος τοῦ Θεοῦ Λόγου ὑπόστασιν.” Cyril, like the eastern ones, considered this expression to be at least similar to the formula: “μία φύσις.” But even for the eastern ones, “μία ὑπόστασις” was not as suspicious as μία φύσις. The Eastern ones, such as Theodoret (in Ἐρανίστης), still avoided the expression μία ὑπόστασις (never in Ἀσύγχυτος and Ἄτρεπτος), but from the days of Chalcedon Council, it was recognized as the most accurate expression of universal truth. This shows the importance of Proclus’s τόμος (437, according to Tillemont) in the history of dogma. This document generally fully corresponds to its purpose - to mediate between theologians of two shades. Kirill spoke of him with high praise. Proclus sent this tomos, along with excerpts from Theodore, to John of Antioch, asking him to confirm with his consent the former, condemn the latter (without the name of the author) and bring some sense to the Edessa Metropolitan under his charge. The Council of the “Easterns” in Antioch willingly signed the τόμος, but to the proposal to condemn the excerpts, in the title of which the deputies of Proclus also directly put the name of Theodore, the Easterners responded with a cry, supported by their flock: “May Theodore’s faith increase!” “We believe as much as Theodore” (Cyril, ep. 69). In its messages to Cyril and Proclus, the council responded that anathema against Theodore would mean a complete break with church tradition, since expressions similar to those for which the memory of Theodore is criticized are found not only in the Eastern fathers, but also in the Western ones (Ambrose), and in Athanasius, Basil V., both Gregori, even in Theophilus and Cyril himself; that, finally, they would rather agree to let themselves be burned alive than to do anything against the memory of Theodore (Cyril. ep. 72 ad Procl.) 56. Cyril, whose character did not have the delicacy that distinguished his great predecessor Athanasius, in the depths of his soul was not inclined to spare those whose memory was sacred to others. Athanasius looked with a reconciling glance at the differences in the dogma of Dionysius of Alexandria, the fathers of the Council of Antioch in 268 and the Council of Nicaea in 325, assessing the difference in their polemical points of view. “All are fathers,” he said, “and all have fallen asleep in Christ.” Like Peter of Alexandria, who once for Meletius of Antioch and Eusebius of Samosata did not find a softer name, like “Arians,” and Cyril, with his dogmatic insight, generalized the case of Theodore with the case of Diodorus and answered the Easterners that it would be better for them not to remember Diodorus and Theodore, that Athanasius, Basil and others have nothing similar to Nestorianism. In his other letters, he directly said that Theodore had blasphemous lips and a pen - worthy to serve as their spokesman (ep. 69), that his dogmatic abominations would be worse than Nestorian’s (ep. 70), that Theodore was not a student of Nestorius, but his teacher (ep. 70:69). Naturally, Cyril found that Theodore’s memory deserved the loudest anathema. But Cyril understood that persistence in such a case could raise such a storm in the east, the outcome of which cannot be guaranteed in the near future, so he curbed his overzealous allies among the presbyters and deacons, did not insist on anathema himself, and recommended the same moderation to Proclus. The latter answered John that by offering him well-known excerpts for discussion, he only wanted the Easterners to speak out against what was wrong in the teaching itself, and never thought of insulting the memory of a bishop who had died in communion with the church with an anathema against a person. The main figures fell silent, but the smaller businessmen did not want to calm down. Several monks went from monastery to monastery and from city to city and sowed trouble everywhere, presenting excerpts from the writings of Theodore, and - hiding behind the authority of Cyril - they demanded a vowel and name anathema against the bishop of Mopsuestia, just as Aria and Nestoria were anathematized. John, however, managed to obtain an imperial decree prohibiting this agitation against Theodore. History of the dispute before the fourth ecumenical council From the ruins of Nestorianism, therefore, arose an even more dangerous movement - Monophysitism. The reasons for this greater danger were: a) external and b) internal. a) If the Nestorian trend found some support in the east, it cannot be said that the opponents of this teaching represented a force of lesser significance. On the contrary, Monophysitism appeared in history under the auspices of the dominant church and political party, while its natural and consistent opponents, the “eastern” ones, had already undermined their strength during the Nestorian turmoil. They found themselves in the position of persons “left in suspicion,” and this lack of universal trust in them made itself painfully felt in the course of local church life. From the above it can be understood that the position of the eastern ones was very difficult. Having entered into church communion with Kirill, they did not find peace and quiet for themselves. Officially considered beloved brothers and most God-loving co-servants, they felt that Cyril and all his original companions had little faith in their Orthodoxy, but they were not shy about letting them know this. In relations with them, half-hidden reproaches were heard, and there was no shortage of small but painful pricks. The lack of this universal trust greatly shook the authority of the Easterners at home. Pagans, Jews, heretics raised their heads proudly, and it came to open violence against the Orthodox. Monks, zealous presbyters and deacons allowed themselves to take their bishops under abusive guardianship. It was enough for some personal trouble, and some most reverent cleric, who in good times considered himself happy that he was allowed to remain unnoticed, went to Constantinople or Alexandria - to groan before the mighty of the world and the church that Orthodoxy was oppressed in the east, that there was no more pious boldness at all, that bishop such and such was wisely philosophizing. And such complaints easily found attentive listeners and a good dose of trust, and then - unpleasant correspondence, and not even an explanation of the symbol, clearly intended for the teaching of the Eastern, who do not know how the saints philosophized. 318 fathers, and then a request to the emperor that the eastern ones be ordered to philosophize like St. fathers of Nicene, and turn away from the unhealthy teachings of Theodore and Diodorus. In general, these wandering clergy and monks were a real pestilence for the eastern bishops, and it is not surprising that the Council of Chalcedon fixed them in place, subordinating (pr. 4) the monasteries to the supervision of bishops and entrusting (pr. 23) for the ecdics of Constantinople to expel clerics from the capital who are not there with the permission of the bishop, and to stir up trouble. But some bishops did not lag behind the clergy. A certain Athanasius of Perres adopted the habit of not appearing in court without any legal excuse when summoned. When he was invited for the third time, instead of appearing, he resigned from the chair, expressing a desire to love peace. And then he went to Constantinople and told there the indescribable horrors that he had to endure from his willful clergy. Apparently, ad captandam benevolentiam, the same bishop allowed himself to talk to the ministers about the welfare of one province, after which there followed an excessive burden of taxes on it. In the end, the bishop received two letters of recommendation from Proclus with the council and from Cyril, which responded somewhat with interference in the internal diocesan administration of the bishop of Antioch. While John was alive, relations with the Easterners were even milder. But John’s successor, Domnus, did not enjoy even this amount of authority with Cyril. It was Domnus who addressed both messages in defense of Athanasius of Perr. Another message from Cyril, apparently to Domnus, was already quite sharp... In the east they knew that Cyril was writing against Diodorus and Theodore, and with fear they expected that they were about to be required to anathematize against these teachers of Nestorius... Relations were so strained that it does not seem completely incredible that to the news of Cyril’s death in 444 in the east they responded with a relieved heart: “finally!” in other words, the famous message attributed to Theodoret in the acts of the V Council is probably genuine. However, this non-Christian joy that burst out in this intimate correspondence very soon turned out to be premature. Cyril's authority was undoubtedly a strong bulwark against various dark zealots. He covered the eastern ones with his connecting message “Let the heavens rejoice,” and with a powerful hand he curbed those who were too zealous and with a strong word he instructed those who were mistaken and who perverted his own teaching. He demanded a lot from the Easterners, but he also agreed to turn a blind eye to many things. It was already a lot that he looked with a condescending smile at the efforts of the Easterners to prove that they were never mistaken in the Nestorian way, but were always completely Orthodox, and ignored them. The position of the eastern ones became incomparably more difficult when his archdeacon Dioscorus took over the see of Cyril. Cyril, with his powerful words, restrained the immoderate jealousy of his admirers; Dioscorus himself became the head of these latter and wanted to honestly and menacingly maintain the church glory of his predecessor and the authority of his name. And the fact that he initiated persecution against Cyril’s relatives depended on the structure of the Byzantine Empire. In Byzantium, each praetorian prefect was considered such an authority that there could be no appeal against his decisions. This could be done only 2 years after the death or resignation of the prefect. When, after the death of Cyril, his enemies began to file complaints against his relatives, and the prefect expressed his judgment about them, then Dioscorus - due to the above order - could not do anything in favor of Cyril's relatives for 2 years. It was this inactivity that was explained in the sense of persecution. Strong during Cyril’s life, the charm of his name became almost greater after his death. For every disrespectful review of Kirill personally, which he would have ignored, one could now demand satisfaction for the memory of the deceased. Every shade of thought that did not correspond to the extreme expression of it in Cyril, every manifestation of its independent direction, which Cyril could agree with his dogmatic view, could now be considered as a deviation from Orthodoxy. In his views, Dioscorus belonged to those extreme followers of Cyril, whom the latter had to work hard to restrain. A deeply convinced Monophysite, Dioscorus saw one meaning in Cyril’s activity: the approval of the formula “μία φύσις τοῦ Θεοῦ Λόγου σεσαρκωμένη.” He did not want to know what was in Cyril’s views, so to speak, pedagogical, disciplining theological thought, and rejected everything that was not directly expressed there. The most extreme expressions of dogma, resulting in polemical enthusiasm, were the best for Dioscorus. One can understand how inconvenient such a “beloved brother and fellow servant” in the see of Alexandria was for the bishop of Antioch and all the East. The muddy ingredient of this dogmatic struggle, Alexander's rivalry with the see of Constantinople, was renewed in the first years of Dioscorus's episcopate and found food for itself in some unknown document issued by Proclus and signed by Domnus. Dioscorus was angry with the Bishop of Antioch for this. Several times Dioscorus (ἅπαξ καὶ δίς, episode 86) sent Domna reproaches for this act: “you are betraying the rights of both the Antiochian and Alexandrian churches.” He never gave Flavian of Constantinople the honor of writing to him. It does not follow from this that Dioscorus did not recognize Flavian as Orthodox; the reason for this was that Dioscorus did not want to recognize the decisions of the Second Ecumenical Council, which, having placed the bishop of Constantinople in second place, directed its decision not so much against the Roman bishop as against the Alexandrian one, who was deprived of second place. Therefore, not wanting to write to Flavian, he did not want to recognize him as an independent bishop, but simply as a suffragan of the Heraklian metropolitan. In Constantinople, influential persons of the eastern empire (the powerful temporary worker Chrysaphios) were on the side of the Monophysites. The Monophysite ferment received new strength. The bad elements that had come under the banner of Kirillovo were now completely unbridled. Those “moaning” about the decline of Orthodoxy in the East found in Alexandria honor and affection, and complete satisfaction for their dark convictions. People who were offended by Theodoret’s sermons about the need to maintain the two natures in Christ unconfused, who were indignant, for example, at this expression: “Thomas touched man and worshiped God,” could listen with joy and rapture in the presence of Dioscorus to the exclamations of the monks: “yes, whether you like it or not, but God is dead.” The authority of the Antiochian theologians fell even lower: they were discredited in their past, they were suspected in the present. At home, the eastern bishops had to see how the cohorts of their opponents were replenished from their flocks. And no wonder. Only a well-disciplined force is capable of retreating firmly step by step. Everything irregular, if it doesn’t win, then gives back. We have already seen the volte face that Ravvula showed. The fundamental theologians of the “East” gave up their extremes, such as the doctrine of the conceivability of two perfect hypostases in Christ, reconciled with the formula ἕνωσις καθ᾽ ὑπόστασιν, but remained firm defenders of two perfect natures - Orthodox difisites. But smaller people, shocked in their scientific foundations, simply fled to the Monophysite camp. In the poetic dogma of Ephraim the Syrian, in the lofty flight of the ancient Syrian writers, the predisposition of the Syrian race to Monophysitism is outlined. b) And this doctrine itself had every chance of becoming popular. Nestorianizing theology could only attract people with its rational clarity and distinct definiteness of its constructions. Monophysitism attacked the predominance of piety in him. How many people were capable of taking the first bait and how many were capable of being carried away by the second? Nestorianism is, so to speak, a cold compress of dogmatic prose on living Christian feelings. Through the mouths of the Monophysites, Christian poetry itself seemed to speak, with all the richness of its contrasting tones, with all the warmth of its color. A religious, warm feeling, unrefined, unbalanced, could lead to Monophysitism, not to Nestorianism. The first was perfectly suitable for agitation among the masses. Nestorianizing theology has always found a healthy corrective for itself in simple Christian feeling, and the most notorious adherents of Nestorius spoke in a different language when they did not dogma, but recalled the Gospel events from the church pulpit, πανηγυρίζοντες, οὐ δογματίζοντες (Theodorite). Where what is needed is not dry dogmatic science, but praises, hymns of thanksgiving, the jubilant joy of Christian feeling, these Easterners knew how to ornate no worse than the Alexandrians; in the solemn church word on holidays, they knew how to weave wreaths in honor of the incarnate Christ and the Blessed Virgin from the most poetic flowers of the eastern language. Consequently, “Eastern” theology regulated itself. Monophysitism lacked this regulator. Against the non plus ultra of Monophysitism, theopaschytism, only theological thought, and not religious feeling, could fight back. Nestorianism was the same (mutatis mutandis) in Christology in relation to Monophysitism as dynamic monarchianism, or Arianism, in the history of the dogma of the Holy Trinity in relation to Sabellianism. From this we can partly understand the fundamental difference in the outcome of both movements. That Monophysitism was indeed more dangerous than Nestorianism both in the state and in the church sense, this was testified by both history and statistics. Nestorianism infected dozens, Monophysitism embraced thousands. The serious church struggle with the former did not last even 20 years, and at the Council of Chalcedon on October 26, 451, Antiochene theology broke its traditional ties with the person of Nestorius, when Theodoret pronounced anathema on Nestorius. On the contrary, a serious and persistent struggle against Monophysitism filled more than 200 years (451–680). Not a single serious measure of Byzantine church policy has the character of a concession to Nestorianism; the history of the 5th, 6th and 7th centuries is full of news of shameful compromises with Monophysitism. This was already a mercy if they did not act offensively against the supposed Nestorians and did not present new demands to them. On the contrary, they considered it a clever church-diplomatic victory, a brilliant economy, if they managed to disguise their concession to the Monophysites, take back one step rather than two, or maintain their previous historical position. Nestorianism carried away with it some hundreds of thousands from the bosom of the church and the Greco-Roman empire; Monophysitism tore millions away from both, injected new life into the foreign, multilingual composition of the Eastern Roman Empire, brought to the highest degree of tension those weak ties that connected the eastern outskirts with Byzantium, alienated Syria, Armenians, Copts and Ethiopians from Constantinople, and, having weakened the empire, tore apart the multi-seamed tunic of the nationalities that were part of this powers, making them easy prey for the advancing Arab conquest. Thus, on the ruins of Nestorianism, a much more formidable movement was raising its head. But the empire did not understand the meaning of the emerging events. The casus belli seems to have been served by Domnus's message (at the beginning of 448) to the emperor, in which he accused the Constantinople archimandrite Eutyches 57 (godfather of Chrysaphios) of Apollinarianism; The motivating reason for Domnus to take such a step was probably the close connection between the Antiochian antidiphysites and Eutyches. But the ruling party decided to give a lesson to the Eastern Disfisites. In 446 or 447, Domnus of Antioch ordained Irenaeus, a personal friend of Nestorius (in 431), who was later in exile for his Nestorianism, as bishop of Tire. Irenaeus was bigamous. Proclus of Constantinople recognized, however, this consecration as valid. The emperor's decree of February 17 (executed on April 18), 448, declared Irenaeus deposed. Domna's position turned out to be very delicate. Irenaeus was deposed by decree of the king. It was impossible to come to terms with this, but it was also very inconvenient to protest. The blow also befell Theodoret of Cyrus, who was the soul of all movements in Antioch. A decree was issued against him, ordering him to sign a subscription not to leave his diocese, to retire to Cyrus and do his own business there. The accusation against him was that he lived in Antioch for a long time, convened councils there, and meanwhile abandoned his affairs. Then a correspondence began between Dioscorus and Domnus. The first demanded that the Easterners recognize as the normal statement of faith “Τοῦ Σωτῆρος” with 12 anathematisms; Domnus responded by stating the constant determination of the Easterners to recognize “Εὐφραινέσθωσαν” as such a presentation. A series of successive successes for the Monophysites marked the spring and summer of 448. But in November a change occurred that was unforeseen by the triumphant party. On November 8, 448, a local council was convened in Constantinople - σύνοδος ἐνδημοῦσα - by Flavian of Constantinople. The name “σύνοδος ἐνδημοῦσα” is characteristic for understanding the state of church affairs in Constantinople. Constantinople was an episcopal city without any departments subordinate to it. Therefore, there could be no talk of proper councils here. The bishops of the province were headed by the Metropolitan of Irakli, so that diocesan councils had to be convened in Irakli. Councils of the Thracian diocese were also supposed to be convened in Heraclius, but were usually convened in Constantinople. And since the bishop of Constantinople did not have a certain circle of subordinate bishops who were obliged to appear at these councils, all the bishops who were at that time in Constantinople were invited to them. Bishops of all Christian countries were present at these councils, so the range of matters over which the competence of the council extended was very large: issues were resolved here on a wide variety of matters and for the most diverse parts of the Christian world. At such and such a council in 448, when the meeting had already ended, unexpectedly for Flavian, Eusebius, Bishop of Doryleia (from Phrygia salutaris, suffragan of the Metropolitan of Sinnad), filed a written accusation against Eutyches of heresy. Eusebius of Doryleum is one of the characteristic personalities of his time. He remained a baby until his gray hair, although fate forced him to occupy positions in which he could gain enough experience. He was the official of special assignments (agens in rebus) who declared unbridled jealousy against Nestorius. So, he stopped the latter’s sermon in church with a shout, so that the further part of the sermon consisted of his refutation. As a reward for his diligence, he was promoted to bishop. But even here he did not abandon his ardent jealousy and remained adamant to all Flavian’s arguments - to take back his accusation and wait for the historical resolution of the Eutyches case. Thus began the case of Eutyches. But it could not be resolved in one meeting due to the absence of the accused. Therefore, it was decided to call Eutyches the next day. Flavian did everything in his power to make Eutyches repent of his errors and reconcile with the church, promising him complete forgiveness. Eusebius of Doryleia, fearing that he would not be considered a slanderer (influential friends of Eutyches had already described the oasis as the place of future exile of the daring accuser), stood on the fact that he would prove that in the past, Eutyches, in any case, adhered to heretical wisdom, and kept a vigilant eye on all sorts of dark moves of the accused. Eutyches at first refused to appear at the council, because he had made a vow, while alive, not to leave the monastery, but “to remain in it as if in a tomb,” then he referred to the illness that had befallen him. He was given a reprieve until November 22. Meanwhile, staying in the monastery as if in a tomb, Eutyches began to sow confusion: his monks began to agitate among the rest of the Constantinople monasticism against Flavian, presenting the case of Eutyches as only the beginning of the persecution of all monks. This circumstance, stated by Eusebius at the council (November 15 and 17), made, of course, a grave impression on Flavian. At the meeting on November 12, the fathers tentatively decided to accurately express in brief words the Orthodox teaching about the face of the God-man. “Καταφλυαροῦσι” and “Εὐφραινέσθωσαν” were read as samples. Then the fathers of the Council cast their votes. Flavian expressed the Orthodox doctrine of two natures in a softer formula; Basil, Metropolitan of Seleucia of Isauria, and Seleucus, Metropolitan of Amasia, expressed themselves with greater energy 58. On November 22, Eutyches finally appeared at the council. The secular authorities took all measures to protect it. a) Consular Patrician Florentius arrived at the council as the emperor’s representative; in the emperor's letter about this, one could hear a dull distrust of the Orthodoxy of the fathers of the cathedral, b) Eutyches appeared under the cover of not only his monks, but also soldiers and police officials (praefectiani), c) who did not first release the archimandrite to the council, but after taking from the fathers a formal promise to release Eutyches, no matter how the council trial ended. The teaching of Eutyches represented a strange mixture of bright views and obscurantism. It is curious that he was the first (at the councils) to concisely formulate the position of St. Scriptures to St. Tradition: “I follow the accounts of St. fathers and councils - Nicaea and Ephesus and is ready to subscribe to them; If I happen to come across some slip of the tongue (διασφαλθὲν) or erroneous opinion (διαπλανηθὲν) in the sayings of my fathers, then I do not condemn (μηδὲ διαβάλλειν) it and do not accept it, but examine it (ἐρευνᾷν) one St. Scripture, as more solid (ἀμείνονας, βεβαιοτέρας) than the exposition of the fathers” (Mansi, VI, 700 V). Obviously, the idea is correct, but this is nothing more than a reserve, a fence behind which you can hide with your favorite views. Here, for example, is how Eutyches uses the Nicene symbol. “Do you confess that Christ is consubstantial with the Father in divinity and consubstantial with us in humanity?” one delegate of the council (John) asked Eutyches. - “What does the symbol say? How does it read there? – answered Eutychius. He, of course, said that the symbol only says: “consubstantial with the Father.” - “That’s how I believe; so believe too,” Eutyches concluded. And to St. He turned to Scripture in order to confuse his opponents with the question: “Where in Scripture does it say: “two natures”?” But his interlocutor, posing the opposite question: “Where in Scripture does it say: “consubstantial”?”, forced him to descend onto the soil of paternal expositions (788C). Before Eutyches appeared at the council, the following was clarified: α) Some suspected Eutyches that he thought that the flesh of Christ was not borrowed from the Virgin, but brought from heaven. At the Council of Ephesus in 449, he anathematized this opinion and at the Council of 448 (at trial) he declared such suspicion to be slander against him (700C). However, in Ephesus in 449 they could not get a categorical answer from Eutyches, where did the flesh of Christ come from? does he admit that God the Word became man through perception? β) The delegate of the council brought Eutyches to the point where he admitted that Christ is consubstantial with His Mother, but could not bring him to admit that Christ is consubstantial with us. Apparently, Eutychius even directly formulated his final judgment as follows: “I. Christ is consubstantial with the Mother, but does not have flesh that is consubstantial with us” (785C). γ) He admitted that “I. Christ is perfect God and perfect man." But it seems that this last expression with him meant nothing more than that he did not adhere to the Apollinarian opinion that the Word received animate flesh, but without a human mind. In any case, Eutyches stated directly: “he did not encounter the opinion that I. Christ is or was composed (γεγενῆσθαι) of two natures united by hypostasis in the writings of the fathers and will not accept it if something similar is pointed out to him, since he follows St. Scripture as the best source of doctrine" (784CD). From the last words it is clear why Eutyches needs the principle of the superiority of St. Scriptures over St. Tradition. Putting forward the beginning of the superiority of St. Scripture, he provided himself with a retreat if he were presented with passages from “Καταφλυαροῦσι” or “Εὐφραινέσθωσαν”. Thus, Eutyches is a Monophysite, and spoke out for Monophysitism on all points of its dialectical development. He worships, after the birth of I. Christ, one nature, and precisely the nature of God the Word, incarnate and made man. Eutyches denies the duality of natures both in the formal and material sense. 1) In the formal, when he expresses a decisive aversion to the counting of natures, so to speak, to the number “2” itself, and does not even accept the weakly diphysite (1. II b) formula: “of two natures united by hypostasis” 59. Thus, Eutyches is an opponent of the quantitative difference of natures. 2) In the material sense, when he says that the flesh of Christ is not consubstantial with us. This establishes a qualitative difference between the humanity of Christ and ours, presupposed by their difference in source, since Eutyches, not admitting that the flesh of Christ was brought from heaven, was very reluctant to admit that it was received from the Virgin. Eutyches's explanations with the fathers of the Council of Constantinople partly clarified the hidden motives of his aspirations and fears, and partly shaded his theology with several subtle strokes. When Eutychius appeared at the council, they began reading the act of November 12. When they came to the words “Εὐφραινέσθωσαν,” which contained the Antiochene creed, Eusebius declared that Eutyches did not recognize precisely these words. Flavian asked Eutyches: “Tell me, do you recognize the unity of two natures?” “Ναὶ, ἐκ δύο φύσεων,” answered Eutyches. But Eusebius immediately posed the question bluntly: “Do you, Mr. Archimandrite, recognize two natures by union, do you call Christ consubstantial with us in the flesh, or not?” – Eutychius immediately began to maneuver. He testified to his faith in the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, that Christ came down for our salvation, and declared that he should not be asked about anything else. Of course, they were not satisfied with this explanation. Then Flavian, Archbishop of Constantinople, began again: “Now do you confess which of the two?” Eutyches the presbyter said: “Since I confess Him as my God, the Lord of heaven and earth, until this day I have not allowed myself to investigate His nature (φυσιολογεῖν). I confess that until now I have not called Him consubstantial with us.” – Flavian: “You don’t say that He is consubstantial with the Father in divinity and consubstantial with us in humanity?” – Eutyches: “Until this day I have not said that the body of our Lord and God is of one substance with us; but I acknowledge that the Holy Virgin is consubstantial with us and that from Her our God was incarnate.” – Flavian: “So, the Virgin, from whom I. Christ was incarnate, is consubstantial with us?” – Eutyches: “I said that the Virgin is consubstantial with us.” – Basil, Metropolitan of Seleucia: “If the Mother is consubstantial, then He is also consubstantial. After all, He called Himself the Son of man (υἱὸς γὰρ ἀνθρώπου ἐκλήθη). Therefore, if the Mother is consubstantial with us, then He is consubstantial with us in the flesh?” – Eutyches: “Since you say this, I agree with everything.” – Florentius Patricius: “Since the Mother is consubstantial with us, then, of course (πάντως), the Son is consubstantial with us.” – Eutyches: “Until now I have not said this. Since I recognize it (the body of Christ) as the body of God - do you understand (what I want to say by this)? – I did not call the body of God the body of man, but I recognized that the body is something human and that the Lord became incarnate from the Virgin 60. If it must be said that He is from the Virgin and consubstantial with us, then I say this too, my lord (κύρι). However (πλὴν), the only begotten Son of God, the Lord of heaven and earth, co-reigns with the Father and is glorified with Him. For I do not call Him consubstantial with us in the sense that I deny that He is the Son of God. I didn't say this before. Until now I was afraid to say this. But since your Holiness has now said this, I say it too.” Eutyches establishes a distinction between the concepts: “human body” and “human body”. This shade is felt e.g. in Russian in the words: “this is the color of pink” and “this is the color of a rose”. When we say: “this is the color pink,” we only express that our eye perceives a certain number of vibrations of the ether (scientifically speaking); with the expression: “this is the color of a rose,” we also assume that the object we see is a rose flower. The expression: “the body of Christ is the body of man” indicates not only the quality of nature, but also predicates its bearer: the basis is laid for the conclusion that Christ is a man. But since Eutyches always thought that Christ was God of one essence with the Father, the Lord of heaven and earth, he felt fear at the thought that Christ was a man; this seemed to Eutyches humiliating the Divinity of Christ. Thus, Eutyches did not dispute that the body of Christ, taken abstractly, is something human, but was afraid to admit that Christ is a man, and defined Him as God. Now Eutyches gave in. Clarifying his innermost motives before the fathers of the council, he declared that if from the fact that Christ was born of the Virgin it follows that He is consubstantial with us in humanity, and such a conclusion does not contradict the fact that Christ is the Lord of heaven and earth, then he agrees with them, accepts the expressions that they used, under the condition that they accept it on their conscience. The real side of Monophysitism was over. Eutyches admitted, albeit with deviations, that Christ is consubstantial with us in humanity, but regarding the formal side he was intractable. He remained convinced that Christ before the union was of two natures, and after the union he recognizes in Him one nature. True, the question of renouncing errors was raised very sharply at the council. Eutyches was invited not only to confess the two natures by union, but also to anathematize his error and everything that disagreed with the religious monuments read at the second act of the council. Since the expression μία φύσις by letter appears more than once in Cyril of Alexandria and in the work that was then attributed to Athanasius V., Eutyches, naturally, expressed fear that such an anathema could also affect St. fathers, and flatly refused to pronounce it. "Ἐὰν δὲ ἀναθεματίσω, οὐαί μοί ᾽εστιν, ὅτι τοὺς πατέρας μου ἀναθεματίζω.” He agreed to recognize the doctrine of two natures, relying on the word of the bishops, but with such an energetic reservation that it undermined the meaning of his consent. Eutychius directly stated at the same time that St. fathers there is not only a universal, but even simply a clear teaching about two natures, and made it clear that this formula contradicts Cyril and Athanasius V. Eutyches apparently gave consent to the acceptance of this teaching only conditionally, surrounding it with more solid guarantees. Eutyches agreed to recognize the doctrine of the consubstantiality of Christ among us as human beings, being content with the authority of Flavian and the bishops present. Eutyches promised to agree that in Christ there are two natures by union only when the Archbishops of Rome and Alexandria demanded it of him. The result was the statement of Eutyches: “I confess that our Lord consisted of two natures before the union, and after the union I confess one nature” (ὁμολογῶ ἐκ δύο φύσεων γεγενῆσθαι τὸν Κύριον ἡμῶν πρὸ τῆς ἑνώσεως μετὰ δὲ τὴν ἕνωσιν, μίαν φύσιν ὁμολογῶ). The meeting became stormy. Many judges rose from their seats. Both the bishops and Florentius turned to Eutyches with questions and admonitions. Others exchanged glances with each other. “Anathema” was already heard. Because of the noise of different voices, the notaries could not record every word of the bishop's conversations. In this onset of confusion, Eutyches’s very serious and thorough desire for the council to listen to those passages from Cyril and Athanasius that troubled his conscience remained unsatisfied—perhaps the only point at which the council deviates from the ideal of an unconditionally just court, attentive to any somewhat substantial statement of the defendant. It ended with the fact that the council recognized the similarity of Eutyches’ teaching with the Apollinarian teaching as proven and sentenced him to deprivation of the priesthood and archimandriteship. The council was already dispersed when Eutyches filed not with Flavian, but with Florence, an appeal from the council’s verdict to the court of the bishops of Rome, Alexandria, Jerusalem and Thessalonica. Eutyches had serious reasons not to count on Domnus of Antioch. Florentius informed Flavian about this appeal already in his chambers. Flavian was convinced of Eutyches' error and, considering the council's verdict quite fair, published it in the churches. Eutyches addressed in writing to Leo and Dioscorus - and to the court of Constantinople public opinion, hanging posters along the streets (ep. Leon. 23 ad Flav.). The decision of the Council of Constantinople caused great joy in the east. “The Lord came down from heaven and Himself exposed those who were weaving slander against us, and revealed their wicked wisdom,” wrote Theodoret to Eusebius of Ancyra. The acts of the Council of Constantinople are accepted in the East as an exemplary statement of faith. This impression of the Council of Constantinople was even more clear in the case of Willow. Such charges were brought against him that it was difficult to expect his acquittal; he was credited with the expression: “I do not envy Christ who became God, because to the extent that He became God, so did I.” Under the influence of the Council of Constantinople, the commission in Tire, Virite, then again in Tire, ended its meetings in peace: the judges themselves became mediators in the reconciliation of Iva with his accusers. But this was only a temporary ray of light among the dark looming circumstances. Eutyches represented power; he was supported in Alexandria. Perplexity arose between Constantinople and Rome, since the acts of the council were not sent to Rome in a timely manner, and Pope Leo urgently demanded them. Flavian's Orthodoxy was suspected at court, and the emperor humiliated the archbishop at the beginning of 449, demanding that he state his faith in order to justify himself in the suspicion that he taught in the same way as Nestorius. Here Flavian did not at all renounce the positions he expressed at the council. He wrote: “By confessing Christ in two natures, after His incarnation from the Holy Virgin and becoming man, we confess in one hypostasis and one person one Christ, one Son, one Lord. And we do not deny that the one nature of God the Word is incarnate and made man, because of the two natures one and the same is our Lord I. Christ. And those who proclaim either two Sons, or two hypostases, or two persons, and do not preach one and the same Lord I. Christ, the Son of the living God, we anathematize and recognize as alien to the church; and first of all we anathematize the wicked Nestorius. I wrote this with my own hand to certify your Majesty and so that those who slander our good and simple stay in Christ will be brought down.” On March 30, 449, Theodosius signed a decree convening an ecumenical council. His goal was to uproot the heresy of Nestorius. At the same time, an order was made that Theodoret should not be present at the council; he could appear at the council only when the bishops demanded him. This order was met with ridicule, for Theodoret could not appear at the council soon, since he was far away. Meanwhile, in Constantinople, under the chairmanship of Thalassius of Caesarea, a revision of the acts of the council that condemned Eutyches took place. The review lasted from April 8 to April 27 and was carried out in the presence of representatives of Eutyches. There were no serious disagreements, but it turned out that Eutyches was not without friends. One of Flavian's notaries provided Eutyches with a copy of the original draft record, and Eutyches became suspicious of the accuracy of the promulgated acts. The bishops felt that some kind of storm was gathering over them. Patrick Florentius now trembled for every word he said at the council. If his expression smacked of dogma, he either suspected its authenticity or denied its dogmatic character. When nothing favorable for Eutyches emerged here, a special document was created: on April 27, a protocol was drawn up before the magister officiorum stating that one official had heard that the acts against Eutyches had been damaged by notaries and the verdict against him had been prepared even before Eutyches appeared for trial. There was probably a grain of truth in this. Naturally, every official document is written according to form. Now there are printed forms, but then there were none, and it is possible that this clerical work was prepared before the last meeting of the council. But a document that is not signed is not yet a document. In Edessa, a new storm arose against Willow of Edessa: the people demanded his overthrow. After such omens, the Second Council of Ephesus finally took place, leaving behind the memory of the “robber” (σύνοδος ληστρική, latrocinium Ephesinum). The council was appointed in Ephesus on August 1. The emperor appointed Dioscorus as the main chairman, but Dioscorus had to form a special commission, the chairmen of which included: Juvenal of Jerusalem, Thalassius of Caesarea, Basil of Seleucia, Eustathius of Virite and Eusebius of Ancyra. Leo V. sent delegates to the council, but, not understanding the terrible importance of the historical moment that had come, he sent people who did not support the glory of Rome. At the head of the legates of the apostolic see was Julius, Bishop of Puteoli. He was a man, perhaps respectable, but decrepit and without any energy. Presbyter Renatus was sent with him, but he died on the road, so that the third legate remained near Julius, the young deacon Hilarus - the future pope (November 12, 461, † February 21, 468). If Ilar had appeared alone at the council as a representative of the Roman throne, he would have done, perhaps, more than now, when he occupied a secondary position under Julius; it is very possible that there would have been nothing in history similar to the robber council. The Roman legates, received by Flavian and having become acquainted with the matter, decisively took his side. This hospitality gave Eutyches reason to suspect their Orthodoxy. They are capable, he said, of selling dogma for a piece of bread. At the council these legates were separated. Usually those present at the council were arranged according to the degree of importance of the departments they occupied. But in this case it was done differently: the bishops sat in first place, then, far from them, the presbyters and deacons, even though they were representatives of important departments. Therefore, Ilar was not near Julius. A Latin by birth, Julius could not navigate the course of the case and used the services of Florentius of Lydia, who was sitting next to him (translating for him from Greek to Latin). Therefore, Julius often drowned Flavian with his inappropriate expressions. Instead of August 1, the cathedral was opened only on the 8th in the Church of St. Mother of God (where the Third Ecumenical Council also met). The most important act about Eutyches was completed in one day. The following irregularities helped this meeting turn into an act of robbery. a) The emperor’s commissioner (comite Elpidius) tried to intimidate the fathers with a heavy responsibility before God and the emperor for dithysite expressions. b) Dioscorus himself appeared at the council surrounded by a retinue of paravalans. A crowd of monks brought from Syria by Barsuma (Bar-Saumo) was ready to provide Dioscorus with all possible support. And the emperor, in addition, ordered that soldiers be placed at the disposal of the fathers of the cathedral, so the church was cordoned off by soldiers. The paravalans and monks terrorized the fathers, covering (when reading the Acts of Constantinople) every dithysite expression with cries: “cut in two those who divide the nature of Christ into two.” c) Flavian declared to the council that it was not he who accused Eutyches, but Eusebius, and asked that the latter be admitted to the council. But Eusebius was under strong arrest, and he was not allowed to appear at the council, and Flavian was noted that now he, as a defendant, did not have a decisive vote. And Flavian, realizing that in such a mood statements were useless, said very little. d) In a skillful manner, it was not allowed to read at the council Leo V.’s message to the council, which was composed in such a way that it would certainly have led to the reading of the famous “tomos” to Flavian. Every time the legates asked to read Leo V.’s message, it turned out that they had either the imperial sacra or another document of urgent need at hand. When the acts of the Council of Constantinople were read, the council found Eutyches innocent and restored him to the priesthood and archimandriteship. Then the 7th rule of the First Council of Ephesus was read, which stated that no one can compose a new faith except that which was compiled by the fathers of the Council of Nicea with the Holy Spirit, and whoever decided to compose it, then, if he is a bishop, is subject to deprivation of his dignity, and a layman is subject to anathema. After reading this rule, Dioscorus asked: does everyone agree with this? Is it possible to raise any questions in a matter of faith and investigate it anew? The Council determined that one Nicene definition should remain in force, and whoever philosophizes will be subject to the above condemnation. Based on this principle, Dioscorus immediately formulated a sentence against Flavian and Eusebius to deprive them of their dignity, since they decided to re-decide everything anew and raised new questions about the Faith. Flavian protested against this verdict (“παραιτούμαι σε” - I reject your judgment, I appeal from you) and through the Roman see appealed to the future ecumenical council. Deacon Ilar also protested against this sentence with the Latin “contradicitur” (“κοντραοίκιτουρ” in the Greek acts). Dioscorus insisted on his verdict, although Metropolitans Onesiphorus of Iconium, Marinian of Sinnad and Epiphanius of Perga, hugging his knees, begged him to be lenient. Their reasoning: do not allow a bishop to be defrocked because of his presbyter. With a menacing shout: “Are you starting a rebellion against me? bring the guard here!” he threw the petitioners into confusion, and the soldiers who burst into the church completely terrorized the fathers, so that some of them began to hide under the benches. Thus, the vote ended in the condemnation of Flavian and Eusebius. This sentence was, at the insistence of Dioscorus, forcedly signed on the same day. They signed on white sheets of paper, on which it was unknown what could be written. There is some exaggeration in this news. The mass of signatures could not fit on one sheet, and therefore several were required. In general, the cathedral cannot be painted in such black colors as Byzantine historians do. Thus, it is unfair that Dioscorus jumped up from his seat and beat Flavian, who allegedly died from torture on the third day. A protest from Flavian himself was found, where he says that he was indeed in danger, but that was when the soldiers broke into the church and he fell into the crowd. But then the clerics took him aside. After the first meeting of the robber council there was a break. News of the following meetings was not preserved in the Greek text. Only the Syriac translation has survived, which was published in English, French and German. Particularly important is the German edition of Hoffmann, which is annotated with solid scholarship 61 . In one of the following meetings, Iva was deposed. A large place is occupied by the acts of Theodoret, who was also deposed. The unfortunate Bishop of Antioch Domnus, seeing the insignificance of his influence on affairs and the futility of protest, tried to evade and signed everything that was offered to him. However, he was unable to save his position. Since Iva and Theodoret were close to him, he too was deposed and sent to a monastery. Dioscorus conducted the business very skillfully. He tried to confuse his deputies in the chairmanship and reached the point where everyone had to answer. At the end of the council, Emperor Theodosius not only approved the acts, but also fully believed in their canonical goodness. He was pleased that Nestorianism had been uprooted and peace and harmony had been established everywhere. Measures were taken to ensure that no new questions were raised in the future. Receipts to this effect were taken from the bishops. But Dioscorus could, without raising new questions, delve into dogmas and subject them to discussion. When others did this, they fell under all kinds of persecution. The Roman Council, based on the story of what happened in Ephesus, declared the Ephesian decrees deprived of all force. Flavian, Eusebius of Doryleia and Theodoret filed a protest with Leo V. The appeal of Flavian and the appeal of Eusebius to the pope were discovered in 1874 and published for the first time in 1882. 62 This discovery created a sensation in the scientific world. Roman canonists attributed especially great importance to Flavian's appeal. They placed logical emphasis on the legal title of the document (appellatio), which indicated Flavian's relationship with Leo. But these trends are incorrect, and moreover, the text of the appeal (in the manuscript) is greatly distorted. The content of the appeal is especially characteristic for determining the identity of Flavian. “To the most pious and blessed Father and Archbishop Leo Flavian, rejoice in the Lord. It is appropriate at this time to calmly convey 63 and take advantage of the apostolic appeal to your holiness, so that, speaking in the east, it will benefit the distressed faith of the holy fathers, which was betrayed to terrible humiliation 64. For now everything is confused, church decrees are destroyed, and as a result of disagreement, the definitions of faith are perishing. Pious souls are in confusion 65, and the faith of the fathers is no longer called, but imposed by Dioscorus, the bishop of Alexandria, and those who share the same wisdom with him, is already preached and called the faith of Eutyches. For he confirmed it with his sentence and those bishops who were forced to agree with him by violence. At present, it does not seem possible for us (concessum) to convey this in detail to your beatitude; Therefore, we will outline in general terms what happened. We arrived in the city of Ephesus, according to the pious royal rescript, which applied equally to everyone. Those sent by your Holiness also arrived - the most God-loving Bishop Julius, and our most pious son Deacon Ilar, and our dear son Dulcitius the notary. We spent 10 days in Ephesus, and almost all the bishops who came together agreed with us on everything, except for the bishop of Alexandria and those who were with him. From the day I was appointed bishop, he has, without any reason, harbored an indomitable enmity towards me. He did not consider it necessary to make me happy with his letters (nunquam me suis litteris dignum judicavit) and did not have for me the love that the Lord commanded. I obeyed him in everything until this day, when 66 suddenly on Monday, the 8th Ides of August, without general agreement or preliminary reasoning, they convened a council and at dawn they called me 67 on behalf of the majority. Then, when we sat down in the church, Dioscorus ordered the rescript of the most pious emperors to be read, and after the reading, interrupting all the bishops who said that one should first have a discussion about the right faith and first read the confession (fidem) of the 318 fathers and what had previously been decreed (habita est) in Ephesus, this venerable bishop Dioscorus, mentioned above, forbade it. Having anticipated me and those bishops who agreed with me, and my clergy, who did not want to hear about allowing us to speak and defend ourselves, he threatened - with one deposition, another with prison, and a third with other various punishments. Then he ordered the acts against Eutyches 68 to be read in my presence. After this, it was ordered that Eutyches’ complaint against me be read; After reading, he did not pay attention to me and did not deign to ask a question, but, rising, he proclaimed him (Eutichius) a Catholic and returned him the presbytery. He also forced some bishops against their will to immediately declare the same thing and speak before the holy council in this way: “Eutyches believes well; он кафолик; we believe as Eutyches believes; let us hold fast, brothers, to the faith of Eutyches”; “Whoever does not agree with this, let him be anathema”; “Whoever does not confess two natures in Christ before the union, and one after the union, let him be anathema”; “Whoever asks or asserts anything beyond this, that the Lord had flesh from one who is of one essence with us, 69 let him be anathema.” And thus he decided the matter, and what he himself wanted 70, he forced the other bishops who were crying to do. A little later, he promised 71 to read the canons established in Ephesus, which stated that whoever dares to shake what was decreed by the fathers there, if he is a bishop, is subject to deposition, etc. Such a decree was valid in relation to Eutyches, who considered it necessary to so clearly and openly introduce the teachings of Apollinaris. But Dioscorus not only did not do this, but proclaimed the condemnation of me and Eusebius. All the bishops cried and asked to postpone the matter for a while (dilationem vel unius diei postulantibus), but he did not agree, and prejudging the matter, forced some other bishops to join this shameful condemnation, and drawn swords were pointed at those who demanded a postponement. He did not allow your Holiness’s message to be read, which could serve to confirm the faith of the fathers (cum sufficiat ad confirmationem patrum fidei).” All this, according to Flavian, can show how things happened at the council. Everyone suddenly gathered on one day, and there was confusion. They acquitted the guilty, condemned the innocent, who had not sinned in any way against the authority of St. fathers. After an unjust condemnation, “when I appealed to the throne of the apostolic see of the Prince of the Apostles, St. Peter, and to everything under the jurisdiction of your holiness, the blessed cathedral, I was immediately surrounded by many soldiers, and when I wanted to resort to the holy altar, they did not allow me, but tried to take me out of the church; there was a very loud noise, and I could barely run to one place in the church and hide there with those who were with me; but I was surrounded by guards so that I could not inform you about all the insults caused to me. So, I ask your Holiness not to rest in the fact that it was decided regarding me by an unreasonable and evil plan, 72 since no circumstances preceded that could bring me to the dock, but I ask you to rise up in defense of the Orthodox faith, which is in danger from strange-minded people (quae quadam libidine deperiit); then, due to the perversion of church decrees, write messages to the people, who outnumber 73, the Christ-loving emperor, the clergy of the holy church of Constantinople and the most pious monks, as well as Juvenal, bishop of Jerusalem, and Thalassia of Caesarea, also Stephen of Ephesus, and Eusebius of Ancyra, and Cyrus of Afroside, and other saints to the bishops who agreed to the unjust sentence against me to Dioscorus, who seemed to hold the primacy of power at the holy council in Ephesus; in the same way, write the definition that God puts on your soul, so that a united council of the fathers of both the West and the East is formed, and the same faith is preached everywhere, which is confirmed by the decrees of St. fathers, and so that everything that was done badly and in the dark, as if for fun, would be destroyed and undone, and thus bring healing to this terrible wound, which has slowly spread throughout almost the entire universe. The bishops who signed an unjust verdict, being forced by great violence, are very few; there are many more bishops who did not agree with this unjust deed, as can be seen from the message to your beatitude.” “To the Holy and Most Blessed Father and Archbishop Leo Eusebius the Lesser. From the very beginning, the apostolic throne has been in the habit 74 of protecting the wronged and helping those who fall into inevitable mischief, and raising up those who are lying down, as far as possible, for you have compassion for all people 75 . The reason for this is that you have common sense, unshakable faith in our Lord Jesus Christ and unfeigned love for all the brethren and for all Christians 76 . I, oppressed, resort to you, seeking relief from the evils to which I have been subjected. A few months ago, a presbyter and archimandrite of the Constantinople monastery appeared, who philosophizes against church dogmas and turns many brothers away from the Orthodox faith, and I thought that I might be in danger if I turned a blind eye to this. I submitted a statement to Flavian and the other pious bishops who were in Constantinople. Here I accused Eutyches of turning away from the institution and teachings of St. he accused fathers and everyone of falling away from the right faith and taught teachings that disagreed with the canons; and I asked Eutyches to answer my accusation. When Eutyches appeared at the council, he outlined his teaching to the bishops. The latter found him unjust and deprived him of his rank and dignity. This, I think, is known to your Holiness, as can be seen from your message to the most pious bishop. Flavian. When this was done with Eutyches, it suddenly turned out that, by order of the most pious emperors, as your beatitude knows, a council was to meet in the Ephesian metropolis. Upon the arrival of your legates there, they awaited the arrival of the aforementioned Eutyches. Eutyches blamed the most pious Flavian for his petition, whatever he pleased. When Flavian asked to admit me to the council, which was necessary for the above-mentioned reason, Dioscorus, always acting in accordance with Eutyches, refused this, having on his side messengers from the emperor, who ordered me to be imprisoned in the church where the council was taking place. They had many soldiers who were brought in with swords drawn, threatening the bishops who reasoned orthodoxly. The aforementioned Dioscorus ordered the introduction of many inexperienced laymen who prevented the Orthodox bishops from speaking; and he threatened some Orthodox bishops that he would throw them into the sea if they contradicted his ungodly decrees. I was not allowed to stand at the door where the council was taking place. So, consider, most just fathers, what was done against me 77. I was not only not allowed to attend the council and was forbidden to answer, but was taken into custody, me, who exposed Nestorius as wrong-thinking, me, who guarded the faith of the 318 fathers and followed in the footsteps of the ecumenical council, which was recently held in Ephesus, and was faithful to all the decrees (praeceptis) of the blessed memory of Bishop Cyril. By submitting this petition, I beg, touching your knees, the unjust condemnation of me by the most pious Bishop Dioscorus and the decision of those who were forced to agree with his desire to declare it irrelevant and return me to the episcopal rank and communion with you. Having received this, I will thank the Lord our Ruler and Savior Christ for you, most pious fathers.” And with the other hand: “Eusebius the minor, bishop of Doryleia, sent a petition (libellos) through the most pious presbyter Chrysippus and deacon Constantine, signing with his own hand.” Eusebius remains as vigorous in the pursuit of his goals as he was when he stopped Nestorius in the church. He insists that his episcopal rank be returned to him. In Flavian's personality, on the contrary, the personal element recedes into the background. Lev V. made every possible effort to change the course of affairs in the east. He understood that direct protest would not be valid, that Theodosius could only be acted upon through the Western emperor. Therefore, meeting the latter in the basilica, he begged him on his knees to take part in church affairs in the east. However, the authority of the emperor did not help. Theodosius insisted that things were perfectly arranged. It is unknown how long this uncertain situation would last. But an unforeseen circumstance intervened. Theodosius fell from his horse while hunting and died. His sister and heiress Pulcheria, who had a strained relationship with him, chose Marcian as her wife. The new reign brought favorable changes for the church. Reverent respect for the memory of Flavian, who died in exile, was expressed by the transfer of his remains to Constantinople to the Church of St. apostles Relations with Rome soon began. The bishops, who condemned the acts of Ephesus, began to enter into communication with the pope. Dioscorus tried to raise Alexandria against the emperor, but was unsuccessful, so the government did not consider it necessary to make him a political martyr. At this time, the “τόμος” of Leo V., the letter to Flavian (ep. 28), beginning with the words: “Lectis dilectionis tuae litteris,” was of particular importance. This message became the banner of Orthodoxy in the east, and was no less highly appreciated in the west (Gallic bishops sent the pope a copy of this message with a request to compare the copy with the original); and for the Monophysites, “tomos” became an object of hatred forever. The most important places in this monument are the following 78. 1 Cap. 5. It is not useful for salvation and equally dangerous to recognize in Christ Jesus either only God without man, or only man without God. 2. To deny the true flesh means to deny suffering in the flesh. (And this means denying the reality of our salvation). 3. The Catholic Church lives by that faith, its success rests on the conviction that in Christ Jesus it is impossible to confess either humanity without true divinity, or divinity without true humanity. Quia catholica ecclesia hac fide vivit, hac proficit, ut in Christo Jesu nec sine vera divinitate humanitas nec sine vera credatur humanitate divinitas. 4. Cap. 3. Thus, with the preservation of the properties of one and the other nature and essence and when they are combined into one person, the humiliated with greatness, the weak with power, and the mortal with eternity are perceived. Salva igitur proprietate utriusque naturae et substantiae, et in unam coeunte personam, suscepta est a majestate humilitas, a virtute infirmitas, ab aeternitate mortalitas. Σωζομένης τοίνυν τής ίδιότητος έκατερας φύσεως, και είς έν ?? υπό δέ τής δυνάμεως το αδυνάτον, ύπό του αθανάτου το θνητόν. 5. For our redemption it was required (congruebat, ύπαρχον άρμόδιον) (as highly expedient) that the same mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus, could die on one side and could not die on the other side. Ut – – et mori posset ex uno et mori non posset ex altero. 6. So, in the integral and perfect nature of true man, the true God was born, all in His, all in ours. In integra (κεραία) ergo veri hominis perfectaque natura verus natus est Deus, totus in suis, totus in nostris (ολος εν τοίς έαυτού καί ολος έν τοίς ήμών). 7. He took on the image of a slave without the taint of sin, elevating the human without diminishing the divine. Assumpsit formam servi sine sorde peccati, humana augens, divina non minuens 8. (Cap. 2). Wisdom created a home for herself, the Word became flesh and dwelt among us. Et aedificante sibi sapientia domum, Verbum caro factum est. 9 . So, He who, being in the form of God, created man, He Himself in the form of a servant became man. Proinde qui manens in forma Dei fecit hominem, idem in forma servi factus est homo. For both natures retain their properties without any damage. Tenet enim sine defectu proprietatem suam utraque natura. 10. Cap. 4. Thus, the Son of God comes to this earthly world, descending from the heavenly throne, without being separated from the glory of the Father, and is born in a new way, by a new birth. 11. In a new way, because the invisible in His became visible in ours, the incontainable deigned to be contained, the existing before time began to be in time - the impassive God did not disdain to become capable of suffering as a person, the immortal to be subject to the law of death. 12. For He who is true God is also true man. Qui enim verus est Deus, idem verus est homo. 13. And there is not the slightest untruth in this unity, since both the humility of man and the greatness of the Divine exist together. Et nullum est in hac unitate mendacium, dum invicem sunt et humilitas hominis et altitudo deitatis. Καί ψεύδος ουδέν έν ταύτη ενώσει τυγχάνει, έν όσω τα συναμφότερα μετ' άλλήλων εστι, καί τού άνθρώπου το ταπεινόν καί τής θεότητος το μέγεθος. 14. One and the other form acts in communication with the other in the way that is characteristic of it - namely, the Word produces what is characteristic of the Word, and the flesh does what is characteristic of the flesh. Agit (ενεργεί) enim utraque forma (μορφή) cum alterius communione quod proprium est; Verbo scilicet operante (χατεργαζομένου) quod Verbi est, et carne exsequente (έκτελουντος) quod carnis est. 15. One of them shines with miracles, the other is humiliated. Unum horum coruscat miraculis, aliud succumbit injuriis. 16. But - I repeat again and again - one and the same is truly the Son of God and truly the Son of man. 17. That flesh is born is a revelation of human nature; that the Virgin gives birth proves divine power. Nativitas carnis manifestatio est humanae naturae; partus virginis divinae est virtutis indicium. 18. Humble swaddling clothes show the infancy of the child; the faces of angels proclaim the greatness of the Most High. Infantia parvuli ostenditur humilitate cunarum; magnitudo Altissimi declaratur vocibus angelorum. 19. Hungering, thirsting, getting tired and sleeping is obviously human nature. Esurire, sitire, lassescere atque dormire evidenter humanum est. But to feed five thousand people with five loaves, but to give living water to the Samaritan woman, but to walk with non-submerging feet on the surface (supra dorsum) of the sea, but to cause the surging waves to subside, to rebuke the storm, is, without a doubt, characteristic of God (sine ambiguitate divinum est). 20. And not to say much, just as it is not natural for the same nature to cry with a feeling of pity for a dead friend and with a powerful word to call him back to life from a four-day grave; or hang on a tree and, turning the light into the night, make all the elements tremble, 21. so it is not characteristic of the same nature to say: “I and the Father are one,” and to say: “My Father is greater than Me” (John 10:30, 14:28). 22. For although in the Lord I. Christ there is one face of the God-man, yet another in Him is the source of humiliation common to both, and another is the source of glory common to both. Quamvis enim in Domino Jesu Christo Dei et hominis una persona sit, aliud tamen est unde in utroque communis est contumelia, aliud unde communis est gloria. 23. From our (in Him nature) humanity is less than the Father; from the Father He has a deity equal with the Father. De nostro enim illi est minor Patre humanitas; de Patre illi est aequalis cum Patre divinitas. 24. Cap. 5. As a result of this unity of person, conceivable in one and the other nature (propter hanc ergo unitatem personae in utraque natura intelligendam), it is said, on the one hand, that the Son of Man came down from heaven, while (actually) the Son of God took flesh from that Virgin from whom He was born; and on the other hand, we can say that the Son of God was crucified and buried, although He endured crucifixion and burial not in divinity, according to which the Only Begotten is co-eternal with the Father and consubstantial, but in the weakness of our nature. 25. (Having touched on the miracles of Christ after the resurrection and His appearance to the disciples, Leo indicates their purpose): so that we would know that in Him the properties of the divine nature and the human nature abides inseparably. Ut agnosceretur in eo proprietas divinae humanaeque naturae individua permanere. Leo had a strong oratorical talent, formed under the influence of reading Augustine and Ambrose of Milan, who is recognized as a first-class orator. One of the highest advantages of this monument lies in the oratorical presentation of the dogma. Lev V. successfully uses the effects of Latin speech, skillfully selects from homogeneous words the most accurate and appropriate thoughts of a given place, and with extreme sensitivity distributes logical stress evenly between the various sides of the dogma 79. This was of great importance, especially in an era when any one-sidedness in indicating the Gospel facts aroused suspicions of unorthodoxy. The Antiochian exposition of the faith and Leo V.’s “τόμος” relate to each other like a normal plan and its artistic execution. Leo V. is a mediator between Antiochene and Alexandrian theology, and gives a harmonious combination of the best results of both. In Antioch, the activity of humanity was brought forward too energetically; in Alexandria, on the contrary, this side was left in the background. Leo explains that human nature in Christ is real, living with all its properties; that humanity remains unchanged in Him until death, and after the resurrection Christ appears with human flesh. Humanity not only exists in Him: it lives, acts (§ 9:14), Christ is a perfect man (§ 5) with a truly personal fullness of life. Alexandrian theology emphasized with particular force the unity of the face of Christ and the fact that divinity is the most effective, predominant side in the God-man. Leo V. states that both natures were active in Christ, but the predominant activity belonged to the deity (§ 14). And every effort must be made to present the unity of His face and the duality of His natures as something highly truthful. By breaking this unity, or by exaggerating the extent of the action of one or another nature, we obtain untruth: Christ could not have said about Himself in that case all that He said. – This insistent demand for the highest truthfulness of all the sayings of Christ represents a pertinent objection to the extreme theory of “economy”, which some exegetes have used immoderately. Having established that both the divine and human nature in Christ retain the fullness of their properties and express themselves in corresponding actions, Leo V., using the facts of the gospel history, shows how “one of the sides of Christ shone with miracles, while the other was subject to humiliation.” With the understanding of a true theologian, he follows the discovery of this duality of natures throughout the entire gospel history, showing how human nature in Christ more and more intensely and more fully assures itself in Christ. From purely external facts (objective witnessing) (§ 18), Lev V. introduces us to the sphere of the subjective, and here from the realm of organic discoveries (§ 19) he moves to the very center of subjectivity, to the life of feeling (§ 20), and, finally, shows that in the very recesses of personal life - in self-consciousness, the humanity of Christ is attested (§ 21). From the dryly dogmatic side, of course, Leo's message is in no way new. The true unity of person - personae - is what, according to Leo, unites His two sides in Christ. In the east, in addition to “προσωπον,” they also knew the unity “ὑπόστασις” - a more energetic concept than προσωπον (subsistentia was not used in the west). The expressions: unus et idem, unum et aliud, were already used in the east (Gregory the Theologian: άλλο μέν και άλλο τά έξ ών Σωτήρ, ουκ άλλος δέ καί άλλος). In the West, next to “natura et substantia” there is still only an oratorical, and not a philosophical “forma”. But a dogmatically broad presentation is not composed of logical quantities alone, just as a picture is composed not of regular contours alone, but also of a harmonious combination of light and shadows. History knows that non-Orthodox flavor was accepted (sometimes dogmatic formulas) simply because Orthodox thoughts in the being were given predominance over their complementary ones, behind which the back thoughts of heretics were hidden. In Leo, both the idea of ​​unity and the idea of ​​duality are expressed with remarkable harmony. Definitions of Christ as God and as man replace each other in orderly succession. In this era, theological suspiciousness was aroused to such a painful tension that it was possible, by expressing completely Orthodox thoughts, to incur suspicion of non-Orthodoxy on the part of completely Orthodox people. Born in the flesh as a man, born of a virgin as God; baptized by John according to humanity, testified by the Father as God; hungered in the desert, like a man, like God, defeated the devil; died on the cross as a man, raised the dead saints as God. This energetic and constant mention of two natures seemed to many to be their dissection, μερίζειν: this means to posit God separately and man separately. Therefore, at this time it was very expedient to sometimes remain silent about this difference in natures. Leo V. in the words: “in the whole and perfect nature of man the true God was born, all in His and all in ours,” gave a very happy expression of the thought that constitutes the best asset of the theological school of Antioch. The high significance of this integrity of humanity in Christ, with His unity as a single Person - the God-Man, not only in the sense of expediency in accordance with the conditions of our redemption, but also on the purely Christological, purely theological side, is indicated very energetically. “He who is true God is also true man; and there is not the slightest lie in this unity, nullum est in hac unitate mendacium, since both the humility of man and the greatness of the Divine exist together.” In fact, according to the fundamental and most primary idea of ​​Christ as the true God, we must imagine this unity as the highest truth. There cannot be the slightest falsehood, mendacium, in this theanthropic life; we must understand every word of Christ as perfect truth, and every spiritual revelation of Him as pure truth. But break this personal unity, and in this combination of the two halves of Christ’s personal experiences, as soon as the unity of His “I” is weakened, there will be untruth. But on the other hand, exaggerate this unity, reduce humanity to its minimum, as Eutyches does, and the result will again be a lie. This protest against mendacium constitutes a holy, highly moral feature in the message of Leo V.; carefully, with a soft hand, but firmly, he makes a correction against the theory of oikonomia, which in the East was used too often, almost abusing it, and which even wanted to explain the humility of man from the point of view of the greatness of the Divine. A whole half of Christ's expressions about Himself depict Him as a man. But every word of His is high, absolute truth. Therefore, His human nature, complete, whole, must always exist. Every humble utterance or revelation of the life of Christ comes precisely from this side of His being, belongs precisely to it and characterizes it. “One of His sides shines with miracles, the other is humiliated. Although there is one person in Christ, yet one of His sides is the source of humiliation common to both, the other is the source of glory common to both.” Lev V. firmly distinguishes between these two sides; he sees in a whole series of facts throughout the Gospel history the discovery of this duality of natures; he points out these facts with the flair of a high dogmatist and artist. Their chronological sequence in the space from Christmas to Resurrection corresponds to the gradual rise of their dogmatic significance, as evidence of the duality of natures in their personal unity: His humanity assures itself more and more intensely in Christ, and its unity with the deity is more and more deeply reflected. Children's swaddling clothes and the voices of angels, baptism in the Jordan and the testimony of the Father - this testimony is purely objective, purely external. The mystery of the personal consciousness of Christ is still closed to us. We come closer to it, enter the sphere of the subjective, when He is outlined before us on the one hand - as a hungry, thirsty one, on the other hand - as a miracle worker. This subjective element reaches its highest manifestation when we see Him weeping with pity for a dead friend and then bringing him back to life with a commanding word. It is here that the touchstone for interpretation in the sense of oikonomia lies. Here pure κατ᾽ οἰκονομίαν would sound false. The area of ​​our knowledge, our thought, the objective area. We may not express their full volume without contradicting the moral side of our character. But the sphere of feeling is the most subjective, innermost area of ​​discovery of our spirit; it is, so to speak, a shrine of sincerity. Our moral motives sometimes impose on us the obligation not to reveal our real feeling, but they can never oblige us to detect a non-existent feeling. The tears at the tomb of Lazarus therefore have a high evidentiary value. If in a more objective area of ​​thinking, economic adaptation can be allowed without difficulty (John 5:5–6, 11:3–4), then the highly subjective nature of feeling is certainly distinguished by sincerity: any positive accommodation in this area would be untrue. Insincere emotion, a feigned manifestation of feeling, is repulsive like the kiss of Judas. Christ, crying before the tomb of Lazarus, showed His feeling; He was so human at that moment that it evokes the remark: “Look how He loved him!” . “Ἐδάκρυσεν ὁ Ἰησοῦς” (John 11:35). This shortest verse of the New Testament is so meaningfully categorical that, obviously, here - even if it were not surrounded by such significant words as “Jesus was grieved in spirit and was indignant” (33: "Jesus, again grieving inwardly, comes to the tomb" (38: fact, and not about oikonomiya. The discovery of the deity, moreover, follows this human manifestation so quickly that the purpose of such oikonomia, this conflict with the moral requirement of sincerity of feeling, is absolutely incomprehensible. This series of facts, interrupted for a moment by the manifestations of divinity and humanity in the events surrounding the crucifixion of Christ, ends with two sayings of Christ, which fully express the essence of His self-consciousness: “I and the Father are one” (John 10:30), and “My Father is greater than Me” (John 14:28). Here we are placed before the most central point of all spiritual life - and here, in the depths of self-consciousness, we find the humanity of Christ attested. So - it is a highly historical fact, but a fact that constantly declares itself together with the personal unity of the God-man, because the same chain of facts, which the further, the more strongly declares the reality of humanity, in the same crescendo testifies to the depth of its unity with the deity. The feeling of fatigue stands in relation to the one divine Person in a relationship closer than the swaddling clothes of a child. And this inner emotion at the tomb of Lazarus, this consciousness: “My Father is greater than Me,” shows how fully the humanity of Christ can determine His entire personal life, how deeply it is imprinted on His self-awareness. If hypostasis or person is the form of the spiritual life of the God-man, His self-consciousness, His “I”, then His natures give the content of this life, constitute His consciousness, and we see that this self-consciousness is harmoniously determined by the content of both halves of consciousness, not only divine, but also human. We see that deity and humanity with their properties are not inert quantities, isolated from each other, living in their own particularity, or touching each other at one point; divine life and human life in Christ are not two lines running separately and crossing only somewhere at the top, at the point of the face; these are lines intertwined into one life; these are quantities that constantly interact, perhaps in the same way as various elements of ordinary human consciousness react to each other and together determine a person’s personal self-awareness. Agit utraque forma, says Lev V., cum alterius communione quod proprium est. “In producing what is proper to it, each nature acts, however, in communion with the other.” In the one person of the God-man, the humility of man and the greatness of the deity exist together, invicem sunt - or, as the Greek translation expresses here, in the only place more picturesque than the original: τὰ συναμφότερα μετ᾽ ἀλλήλων, i.e., to the letter: "at par with each other." These words indicate the highest goal of any reproduction of the personal life of Christ, Orthodox-dogmatic, truly historical, highly artistic. It is precisely this personal interaction of two natures that must be grasped. It is necessary to show God in the crown of thorns, and in the light of Tabor, and in the glory of the resurrection - to see man. It is necessary, so to speak, to think of Christ’s very humanity as truly divine, thoroughly enlightened by His deity; and on the other hand, to represent His very divinity as deeply human, in the matte tones of truly human nature, as the quiet light of the holy glory of the Father, as φῶς ἱλαρόν. That there is nothing strange in this last postulate, it is enough to point only to the words of Christ Himself (John 5:22,27): “For the Father judges no one; but he gave all judgment to the Son. “And He gave Him authority to execute judgment, because He is the Son of man.” Thus, Leo V. represents the personal life of the God-man like a harmoniously tuned instrument. Each string has its own specific tone, peculiar to it; when we hear it, it comes from her, we feel its vibrations. But, at the same time, we do not hear a single tone of a string in isolation, like a pure solo, in its complete solitude, because to each sound of each string and all other strings respond with a whole chord of partial vibrations characteristic of them, a whole assonance of their tones, consonant, sympathetic to the main tone. Thus, harmony, without absorbing individual tones, smoothes out what would be harsh in them, and completes what is characteristically graceful in them. Thus, in Christ, the deity sanctified and shone with its rays the pure movement of undamaged, integral human nature, and our pure nature responded with everything that was bright, moral, deep in it, to every wave of divine thought, will and feeling. This, then, is the content of that τόμος Λέοντος, that dogmatic message Lectis dilectionis tuae litteris, which remained forever in the memory of the church and was a living factor in its history for so long. Protestants object to this message; but what they say against him also applies to the Council of Chalcedon. In Leo's message they see concepts that connect the incompatible. But Lev V. did not stand above human weaknesses: he reasoned in a way that was accessible to human thought. The Monophysite world, criticizing the message, paid special attention to the Antiochian element of the tomos and, wanting to restore the truth, assumed that Leo’s presentation was corrupted by Theodoret. This blow can be explained by the fact that the objectors themselves did not stand at the height at which they should stand. But we must admit that Lev V.’s message has its shortcomings. The significance of the message was extremely high: however, only a zealous Catholic would claim that Leo V. saved the entire Eastern Church with him, even against its will 80 . Undoubtedly, the message is not as high as the pope himself thought about it. There was no high theology in the West. At the same time, the pope himself did not even consider it necessary to familiarize himself with the history of disputes in the east. When a dispute flares up between mathematicians, a person in the position of an arbitrator, in order to ensure that the agreement achieves successful results, must reconcile only with what can serve for reconciliation, must use provisions common to both parties, must take into account, for example, the terms and signs of addition or multiplication that express the concept of increase. If, in trying to replace these terms with other expressions, he introduced only the term of increase, and it would remain unknown whether this increase would be addition or multiplication, then the dispute would be difficult. But Lev did just that. He stood on the ground of the Word of God, where (later established) human terms are unknown. In addition, not having a thorough acquaintance with the Greek language, he found it difficult to replace Greek terms with the corresponding Latin ones. He uses the term "una persona"; but whether this term was considered equivalent to the Greek "ἓν πρόσωπον" is unknown. In any case, both sides did not attach any value to the use of these expressions, and both of them were in use in the sense that there are not two persons in Christ. It was necessary that the disputants agreed to understand it in the sense of μία ὑπόστασις. But it should be remembered that Leo V. knows two more natures: “in duabus naturis unus.” This could be a source of misunderstanding. He uses the expression forma (image, μορφή, Phil. 2:6–7): “both forms act.” Since the word “forma” is a term in itself that is not sufficiently defined, theologians had to take responsibility for its meaning in the epistle, and just as in mathematics increase can be understood either through addition or through multiplication, so here: if the Monophysites read the epistle, then the word utraque forma will be understood as persons; Orthodox Christians will understand it in their own way. The situation was uncertain, but it was obvious that everyone would read only according to their own understanding, and this would intensify the dispute even more. In this respect, the message is like frosted translucent glass, taking on color from the object on which it is placed. When an Orthodox read it, it took on an Orthodox character, but a prejudiced Monophysite saw in it Nestorianism. This depended on the fact that Leo tried to avoid controversial terms. What came out was something similar to a mathematician who would decide to solve and explain a complex theorem without using special terms - subtraction and division, root extraction, etc., but at the same time would propose the correct solution. It is clear that it would be difficult for him to distinguish division from subtraction, etc., and there would be scope for reinterpretation of his actions. The same thing happened in Leo’s message. Most importantly, the true dignity and meaning of the message depended on the face of Leo himself; the same message, but written by another person, would not have had such success, even with all the great talents. Leo's ecclesiastical position was very important. The Roman Empire, although it was considered unified, was, in essence, divided into two halves - western and eastern. For this latter, Theodosius II was a true visitation from God and a mystery for history 81. This creature, endowed with meager spiritual gifts, did a lot of evil to the empire: having begun his reign with the weak support of Nestorius, he ends up defending the robber council, believes in Dioscorus as the greatest theological authority, and gives a free hand to manage the Monophysites. Everyone who supported the Orthodox begins to feel that, by the mercy of the emperor, they are on a crater, the new patriarch has no ground under him and is trembling, and the patrician Florentius and the theologians (in 449) expect that every word of truth they proclaim will have to be taken into account, and are always afraid to speak frankly. Flavian was a man of weak energy and could not complete things. Let us recall Flavian’s position: there could be no doubt about his actual Orthodoxy, but by his position at the Council of Constantinople he was forced, as a defender of Orthodoxy, to affirm “μία φύσις τοῦ Θεοῦ Λόγου “σεσαρκωμένη” is an unfortunate expression. The beautiful side of Leo’s tomos is that it is expressed in a strictly Orthodox way. Feeling firm, he cuts words straight, does not hesitate in the most energetic expressions, for example: “wholly in His, wholly in ours.” He lived in an era when entire councils recognized that to speak of two natures in Christ was to believe that in Christ humanity was separated from divinity. Despite this, he had the courage to declare that it is impossible to confess in Christ either humanity without true deity, or deity without true humanity. Fourth Ecumenical Council When Leo V.’s message in the east became known, everything that was drooping was revived, feeling a new wind, and, therefore, the high position of this “tomos” is well deserved. But this aspect of the matter was not without negative results: the importance of Leo’s message raised his own well-being. Leo had previously petitioned for the convening of an ecumenical council in Italy. But when the emperor decided to convene this ecumenical council in the east, Leo reacted to this with displeasure. He found that convening an ecumenical council at this time was difficult 82 and did not represent a particular need, since the signing of the tomos had sufficiently confirmed the Orthodoxy of the eastern bishops. Nevertheless, the council took place, and the pope sent his legates to it. Representatives of the Italian fathers were: Paskhasin, bishop. Lilybaean in Sicily, and Lucentius, bishop. Asculian in Picenum, the representative of the pope himself is Presbyter Bonifatius. The council was scheduled for September 1 in Nicaea, but was moved to Chalcedon, closer to Constantinople, and was opened on Monday, October 8. The Roman legates, fearing unrest among the Monophysites, did not want to go to the council if the emperor was not there. Since the emperor could not go far from Constantinople, due to military operations against the Huns, the fathers were asked to move to Chalcedon. The same military complications prevented the opening of the cathedral on September 1. The person of the emperor (who was personally present only at the VI meeting on October 25) was represented by his representatives from the ministry (judices, οἱ ἄρχοντες) and the Senate. They were the external leaders of the course of the council meetings; they observed the order of questions and the progress of answers, and performed their duties with honor for secular persons. They were not interested in either party; thanks to them, the attempt to end the matter with half-measures was rejected: their persistence forced the fathers to accurately and clearly present the Christological teaching. Their presence was also necessary because they untied some fearful consciences and calmed those fathers who were intimidated. The Ecumenical Council held its meetings in the Church of St. Euphemia, precisely in ἐκκλησία (i.e. in the church itself), while the shrine of St. Euphemia was located in a separate building (τὸ εὐκτήριον, oratorium, a small church, or chapel). In the middle, in front of the solea, the representatives of the emperor sat; to the right and left of them sat the fathers of the cathedral along the walls. The left side was occupied by the legates of the Roman bishop, followed by Anatoly of Constantinople, Maximus of Antioch, Thalassius of Caesarea in Cappadocia, Stephen of Ephesus, i.e., the bishops of the east (except Palestine), Asia, Pontus and Thrace. On the right side sat: Dioscorus of Alexandria, Juvenalius of Jerusalem, the representative of Anastasius of Thessalonica - Quintillus of Herakleia, i.e., the bishops of Egypt, Palestine and eastern Illyricum. Dioscorus could not expect anything favorable for himself from the council. He understood well that the course of political affairs had changed, that Emperor Marcian was not Theodosius II. He feared an unfavorable outcome for himself, especially because he tried to create indignation against Marcian in Alexandria, and this attempt failed. Dioscorus, however, understood perfectly well that if salvation was possible for him, it would only be from secular power. He thought that, at least in the name of Emperor Theodosius, they would treat better what was decreed under him. What happened, however, is far from what happened. As soon as the council was opened, the Roman legates openly declared that they would not sit down until Dioscorus was removed; otherwise, let the letters be returned to them, and they will go back to Rome. Thus, the pope's legates acted harshly and unfairly - they demanded the condemnation of Dioscorus before his trial. Secular dignitaries could not agree with such a demand of the legates and began to defend Dioscorus. Therefore, the legates had to point out the actual faults of Dioscorus, and then they came up with purely Roman claims: they declared that Dioscorus had anticipated his power by convening a council without the permission of the pope and taking the presiding position at it, which should not have happened. But these statements were obviously unfair, since it is known that Pope Leo himself agreed to the convening of a council in Ephesus (449). The guilt of Dioscorus in the acts of Ephesus, however, clearly placed him in the position of a defendant; and since the position of the defendant and the judge in one person is not compatible, the archons agreed with the demand of the legates and asked Dioscorus to leave his place and move to the middle. Since Dioscorus was accused (of forgiving Eusebius of Dorylaeum) for everything that happened at the Council of Ephesus, therefore they began to read the acts of this council. These acts represented a huge scroll, for they included the acts of the Flavian Council of Constantinople, the protest on the part of Eutyches and his adherents, the verification of their testimony and their analysis in a secular court. The reading of these acts was the subject of the first meeting of the Council of Chalcedon, which dragged on for a very long time and ended by candlelight. Dioscorus played his role with great skill. He understood where the strengths and where the weaknesses were. That's why he didn't defend himself on weak points. He defeated all his enemies, defending himself on two points: a) that he acted in accordance with the will of Emperor Theodosius, and b) he did not preside at the council alone. This circumstance also implicated other bishops, especially Thalassius of Caesarea-Cappadocia, whose role in this matter turned out to be not brilliant: he was an instrument of Dioscorus and condoned him. During interrogations, he replied that he did not act of his own free will. Thus, there was collective responsibility: in general, everyone was to blame, and no one in particular. When the bishops, participants in the robber council, denounced Dioscorus, he pointed out the weaknesses of their own behavior. So, he told one of the bishops that he could present his cursive writer as proof that this bishop really asked him (the cursive writer) to change his testimony. He said to another: “Better tell me that you weren’t even at the council.” The acts of the Flavian Council of Constantinople also included a normal statement of faith; After reading the two epistles of Cyril of Alexandria, Flavian outlined his beliefs about the Incarnation. The dignitaries now asked the fathers of the council whether Flavian's account was Orthodox? On the right side they began to speak out in the sense that Flavian was Orthodox. Then the Illyrian, Palestinian and part of the Egyptian bishops went over to the left side, so that a minority was on the side of Dioscorus. It was already dark when the reading of the acts was completed; Therefore, when the dignitaries asked what Dioscorus would say in his defense, he replied that he would give explanations willingly, but would give them another time, because now their dignitaries were tired. The dignitaries formulated that since the other five, along with Dioscorus, were also responsible for the acts of the Council of Ephesus, then all of them should be taken under arrest. The meeting ended, and the fathers exclaimed: “This is a fair trial! Holy God, Holy Mighty, Holy Immortal, have mercy on us!” In fact, this responsibility of all six presidents (πρόεδροί) of the Council of Ephesus did not actually take place. At a meeting on October 13, Dioscorus was deposed and taken into custody. There were no dignitaries here, but Eusebius of Doryleia came forward and, defending himself and Flavian, demanded that Dioscorus be accused. In addition, at this time complaints were received from the clergy and laity of the Alexandrian church against Dioscorus. From these complaints, many dark sides became clear in the behavior of Dioscorus as an Alexandrian bishop; and now his position was clearly outlined. He was summoned to court three times, but he did not obey, first on the pretext that he was arrested and therefore could not appear, and then, when the ambassadors of the council sent an official who had the power to free Dioscorus, he again did not appear, saying that there were no state dignitaries at the meeting. Thus, the council had to decide the case “in contumaciam” - for disobedience (this is a form of process when the guilty person did not appear in court and ipso facto did not consider himself guilty, but proceeded to conduct the case in absentia, and this court had some features). In this case, such legal proceedings were inconvenient, since in order to be convicted for opinions, there was a moral requirement that these opinions be expressed by the defendant freely, and Dioscorus, who was absent at the trial, although he had previously expressed himself in agreement with Eutyches, could subsequently refuse this; therefore, the charge of heresy was not raised at the trial. But his canonical crimes alone were enough to deprive him of his rank. On October 13, when votes were being collected, only Amphilochius of Side, from Pamphylia, asked to wait 2-3 days for the decision, but he, too, spoke out against Dioscorus in the final vote (ob contumaciam). Dioscorus was defrocked; the fathers petitioned for the remaining five arrested bishops to be returned to the council without trial, which was done on October 17. The main task of the council was not to try Dioscorus, but to explain the Orthodox faith to the Orthodox world. Meetings on October 10, 17 and 22 were devoted to dogmatic issues. Even at the first meeting, the dignitaries asked the fathers to state in writing how someone believes, having only the fear of God before their eyes, without any fear, on October 10, the dignitaries repeated their request, which had inconvenient sides, and found out the importance of an accurate presentation of the Orthodox faith. This request by the fathers, who had to take into account history and traditions, was not respected on the grounds that the rules required adherence to what had already been stated, and even after the explanations of Cyril and Leo, a new presentation was unnecessary. Then the imperial dignitaries invited the patriarchs to choose two representatives from each diocese, who would compose an accurate statement; but this proposal was also rejected. Florentius, Metropolitan of Sardis, asked for a respite for reflection, and Cecropius of Sevastopol proposed to begin reading the existing expositions of the faith, which represented a convenient way out: the dignitaries, perhaps, would recognize these expositions as sufficient, and the fathers would need to clarify only some points. Cecropius's proposal was accepted, and the following were read: the Nicene and Constantinople symbols, 2 epistles of Cyril of Alexandria, one (Καταφλυαροῦσι) to Nestorius, where the presentation is alien to polemics, purely dogmatic in nature, and the other (Εὐφραινέσθωσαν) - on its basis the union of the churches of Alexandria and Antioch took place, of which Cyril and John were representatives. The Nicene symbol was read by Metropolitan Eunomius of Nicomedia, and the rest was read by Archdeacon Aetius of Constantinople. This order of reading was adopted in accordance with church traditions, according to which the Nicene symbol is the primary source of faith par excellence. Then, the message (τόμος) of Leo was read (by the secretary of the imperial consistory, Veronician). After reading Leo’s message, most of the bishops exclaimed: “Peter speaks through the mouth of Leo, Cyril taught so!” But the Illyrian and Palestinian bishops expressed doubts about the orthodoxy of the three points of the epistle's teaching on the two natures. This circumstance is very important for us because of its principled side. The Palestinian and Illyrian bishops objected by going over to the side opposite to Dioscorus, showing that they considered Flavian’s presentation to be Orthodox, and, nevertheless, they doubted recognizing Leo V., to whose church the Illyrian bishops meanwhile belonged, as the same message. Obviously, the dependence of these last bishops on Rome in ecclesiastical matters did not interfere with the independence of their judgments on dogmatic issues, i.e., ecclesiastical dependence was not combined for them with the recognition of the infallibility of the Roman bishop in dogmatic matters. They formulated their thought as follows: “we doubt that the teaching of Leo of Rome is Orthodox.” This is what is important. The fact is that Leo’s message was supposed to be read at an ecumenical council, therefore, here Leo V. expounds dogmatic teaching according to the duty of his rank. However, it never occurred to anyone to say that by saying this, the Illyrian bishops fall into a logical contradiction, since there is an opinion that a Roman bishop, acting in accordance with the duty of his office, cannot be mistaken. On the contrary, the doubts of the Illyrian bishops were taken into the most serious discussion, and the misunderstanding was eliminated by references to similar expressions of Cyril of Alexandria. Thus, the bishop of Alexandria is a higher authority than the bishop of Rome, and such he was, in essence, for all the fathers of the council. The places to which the Illyrian bishops paid attention were the following. First: “for our salvation it was required that the same mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus, could die on one side and could not die on the other side.” Obviously, the Illyrian bishops themselves thought that here the expression of the unfusion of natures was posed so energetically that the question of the unity of personality in the Nestorian sense was already raised. Second place: “both forms (μορφή) act in communication with the other, as is characteristic of each: the Word, as is characteristic of the Word, flesh, as is characteristic of the flesh.” Here it was difficult to admit the actions inherent in each individual nature. Third place: “for although in the Lord Jesus Christ there is one divine-human person, yet another in Him serves as a source of humiliation common to both, and another as a source of glory common to both.” This passage is, in essence, just a repetition of what was said in the previous one. Only there the properties of each nature are considered as actions, but here as detections. So, it was necessary to explain that there is no contradiction between the teachings of Leo and Cyril of Alexandria. Despite the fact that explanations had already been given by the Constantinople archdeacon Aetius and Theodoret of Cyrus, and the majority exclaimed that “now no one doubts the orthodoxy of the epistle,” however, Metropolitan Atticus of Nicopolis (Illyria) asked for a delay in order to compare the epistle of Leo V. with the third epistle of Cyril to Nestorius (Τοῦ Σωτῆρος), which contains 12 anathematisms. This remark is very important and characteristic. Each ecumenical council is not only a dogmatic fact, as an organ through which a certain dogmatic truth is proclaimed, but also a historical fact, with known human properties and actions. If Atticus’s opinion had been accepted, then perhaps the truth would have been revealed sooner and the destinies of the church would have been different. The essence of the question was this. The authority of St. Cyril of Alexandria was indisputable. The tyranny of Dioscorus meant that he was terrible even for those who at least verbally disagreed with him. Now it is seen that Leo is at odds with Kirill. If the question had been posed openly, as Atticus proposed, then it would have been necessary to reconsider the entire dogmatic activity of Cyril, and then it would have been revealed that not every line from Cyril’s writings should be taken into account by the church, much less for dogmatic leadership. It would be worth stating why his two epistles “Καταφλυαροῦσι” and “Εὐφραινέσθωσαν” should be considered a normal expression of his teaching. St. Cyril, in his polemics with Nestorius, went to extremes, so that they could only be tolerated with limitations. Thus, he would not want to allow Nestorius to divide the Gospel sayings into humble and lofty and attribute the former to the humanity of Christ, and the latter to His divinity, while he himself in the letter “Εὐφραινέσθωσαν” recognizes such a division. It was inconvenient to reason on this basis, and so, at the suggestion of Atticus, the dignitaries postponed the meeting on this issue for five days, recommending that those in doubt turn to Anatoly of Constantinople or to the persons whom he would indicate for clarification of their bewilderments. These meetings were supposed to be private, so the moral pressure that the majority could exert on the beliefs of the minority was also removed. Thus, in the meetings with Anatoly, the most important moment was reached, namely the psychological one, that is, a change in convictions, and those who doubted came to the next meeting prepared. The next meeting was only on October 17. Now both the Illyrian and Palestinian bishops declared that, after a conference with the Roman legates and Anatoly, they no longer doubt the Orthodoxy of the “tomos,” which was approved by everyone. By October 22, the commission meeting at Anatoly’s had already written a draft statement of faith. The bishops got to know him privately on October 21, and “everyone liked him.” This project has not survived to us; we only know that it said that Christ was “of two natures” (ἐκ δύο φύσεων). Another cry was heard: “ἡ Θεοτόκος Μαρία τῷ ὅρῳ προστεθῇ!” "ἡ ἁγια Μαρία Θεοτόκος γραφῇ ἐν τῷ συμβόλῳ οὕτω προστεθῇ." This literally says that in the project St. The Virgin was not called the Mother of God; but this seems completely incredible. Didn’t those who exclaimed assume that Bp. does the Germanician want to exclude this word from the definition of religion, which, according to the conviction of the fathers, should even be included in the symbol? But when the draft was read at an open meeting on October 22, John, Bishop. Germanicia (in Euphratesia), stated: “the definition is not good, and must be corrected.” Germanicia is the birthplace of Nestorius; It is clear what memories this protest of the Bishop of Germanicia evoked. And to the cry of the majority (the minority was represented by the bishops of the east and the legates of the pope): “οὗτος ὁ ὅρος πᾶσιν ἀρέσκει,” was mixed the demand: “τοὺς νεστοριανοὺς ἔξω βάλε (Nestorian out)!” But the Roman legates supported the suspected Nestorians, demanding either precise coordination of the project with the tomos of Leo, or their credentials to return to Italy. The archons (there were no representatives from the Senate at this meeting) proposed to review the project in a new commission. John of Germany, who approached them at this time, probably made some dogmatic explanations regarding the meaning of his request. But the majority did not want to hear about the revision. There is no shortage of writing: the project confirms Leo's message. "Λέων εἶπε τὰ Κυρίλλου." Even Eusebius of Doryleia declared: “there will be no new definition!” In view of this disagreement, the archons sent a report to the emperor, from whom the following response was soon received. A) Or the fathers will form a new commission, which will include the Roman legates, Anatolius, six bishops of the eastern diocese and three bishops each from the dioceses of Pontus, Asia, Thrace and Illyricum (23 members); the commission will immediately go to τὸ εὐκτήριον St. Euphemia, will review the draft and correct it so that it is accepted by everyone. B) Or the Council of Chalcedon is dissolved, and the fathers are given two alternatives to choose from: a) either each bishop will declare his faith in writing through his metropolitan, b) or a new council will be convened in the west. The last two alternatives were not attractive to most bishops. The voices of even the Illyrian bishops were heard: “Let the Nestorians go to Rome!” Again a remarkable phenomenon: those bishops who should be closest to it are at odds with Rome. But the archons put the question point blank: “Dioscorus said (October 8): “τὸ ἐκ δύο δέχομαι, τὸ δύο οὐ δέχομαι.” Leo says: “δύο φύσεις.” (The draft read ἐκ δύο φύσεων). Who do you follow: Holy Leo or Dioscorus? “Like Leo, so we believe,” was the answer: “those who contradict are Eutychianists.” “And in the definition of faith it is necessary to put “δύο φύσεις,” answered the archons. And at the request of everyone, the archons with a commission of 23 members formed for this purpose went to εὐκτήριον, again edited the draft definition of faith and, returning to the church, instructed (Archdeacon Aetius) to read it to the fathers. The project was accepted with general joy 84 . “This is fatherly faith! This is the apostolic faith! We are all so wise! Let the metropolitans sign the ὅρος immediately, without any delay.” – But the signing was postponed until the ceremonial (VI) meeting on October 25, which was attended by the emperor himself. This creed, ὅρος, constitutes the main result of the activity of the fathers gathered at Chalcedon. The confession begins with the words: “Our Lord and Savior I. Christ, confirming the knowledge of faith in His disciples, said.” – First of all, in the text of the definition of faith there is one reading that raises doubts. The fathers did not accept the previous project because of the reading: “of two natures.” But in the existing Greek text in the Chalcedonian definition of faith the words “ἐκ δύο φύσεων” are read. Should this reading be considered authentic? The most prominent representatives of theological science answer negatively 85. The reading of the Greek text should be corrected to ἐν δύο φύσεσι. The content of the definition of religion is as follows. In view of two completely authoritative statements of faith, Nicene and Constantinople, the fathers would have considered it unnecessary to compile another definition of faith, but the emergence of new heresies forces them to do so. Having chosen as normal expositions the two epistles of Cyril, “Καταφλυαροῦσι” and “Εὐφραινέσθωσαν,” and the epistle of Leo V., the fathers speak out against the following types of error: 1) against dividing the one person into a duality of Sons, 2) against recognizing The Divinity is subject to suffering, 3) against those who allow the fusion and confusion of two natures, 4) against those who believe that in Christ there was a heavenly or some other nature that is not consubstantial with us, and finally 5) against those who recognize two natures before the union, and after the union, one. While the fathers “reject”, “refute”, “expel” the first four errors, they “anathematize” the last one. Positive church teaching in the definition of faith is stated as follows 86. “So, following St. Fathers, we all teach in agreement to confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, perfect in divinity and perfect in humanity, truly God and truly man, the same from the rational soul and body, consubstantial with the Father in divinity and the same consubstantial with us in humanity, in everything SIMILAR TO US EXCEPT SIN, born before the ages from the Father in divinity, and in the last days for our sake and for the sake of our salvation from Mary the Virgin Mother of God according to humanity, one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, only begotten, in two natures unfused, unchangeable, inseparably, inseparably cognizable - so that by the union the difference of the two natures is not at all violated, but even more so the PROPERTY OF EACH NATURE IS PRESERVED AND UNITED INTO ONE PERSON AND ONE hypostasis, - not into two persons, cut or divided, but one and the same Son and only begotten God the Word, the Lord I. Christ, as in ancient times the prophets (taught) about Him, and (as) the Lord I. himself. Christ taught us, and (how) gave us the symbol of the fathers” 87. After this definition of faith was set out with accuracy and thoroughness, the cathedral determined that it would not be allowed to constitute another faith, and those who dared to do so were deprived of their rank if they were hierarchical persons, or anathematized if they were monks or laymen. According to its constituent elements, this definition of faith is a new edition of the Antiochian creed, supplemented partly from the “Καταφλυαροῦσι”, partly from the “Lectis dilectionis”, partly from the fathers of the council. The first two sources of additions are shaded in the above text of the definition of faith. It remains to note the clarifications made by the council. Bo-1, instead of the rather vague: “for there was a union of two natures,” now it is introduced: “in two natures of the knowable,” since the Antiochian edition was also acceptable for those Monophysites who, according to Dioscorus, recognized in Christ two natures before the union, and one after the union. Bo-2, the terminological meaning of the words “φύσις” and “ὑπόστασις” is firmly established. This is the last one, which both the Eastern and St. Cyril was used for the most part as similar in meaning to φύσις; the Council of Chalcedon accepts (following Proclus and the fathers of the Council of Constantinople in 448) as equivalent to “πρόσωπον”. The dogmatic content of ὅρος comes down to two provisions: a) in Christ there are two natures, b) but one person or one hypostasis. Since this single hypostasis of the God-man is defined as the hypostasis of God the Word, Who is the subject (ὑποκέιμενον) of the entire personal life of the God-man, all the actions and states of Christ, the question arises: how to represent Christ as a perfect man? After all, whole, complete human nature postulates a complete self-knowing personality. In response to this, it should be noted that the fathers spoke the language of their time; that personal self-consciousness in the psychology of that era was not such an essential determinant of the independence of spiritual being; that in “ὑπόστασίς” the moment of “being in itself”, “being for oneself” is in the foreground, and not a sign of self-consciousness. Naturally, the fathers did not envisage those points of view that our contemporary thinker primarily adopts. The fathers only outlined the foundations, which subsequent polemicists and dogmatists successfully clarified (the works of John of Damascus represent an authoritative generalization of what they did). Consequently, without prejudging all the details, the Council of Chalcedon established a fundamental point of view on the person of the God-Man, obligatory for everyone, eliminating any dogmatic construction that would lead to the recognition of two Sons, two hypostases. And if we understand “hypostasis” in the sense of independent spiritual existence as a person, as a self-conscious “I,” then, consequently, the Chalcedonian definition obliges us to consider the person of the God-man as a single “I” with a single self-consciousness. On the question of the boundaries within which we must keep, presenting Christ as a “perfect man,” there is an important indication in the acts of the council. Whether it is possible to imagine in Christ a union “of two hypostases” (as previous theologians assumed in their imprecise terminology), this question was not explicitly posed. But it is resolved negatively, firstly, by the fact that human properties are preserved in Christ, which would lead to the recognition of two hypostases, and secondly, by the fact that at the council the amendment of Eustathius of Virites to the words of Eudoxius of Bosporus, who in 448 said: “God accepted the word of a perfect man” (ὁ Θεὸς ἄνθρωπον (NB: not τὸν ἄνθρωπον] τέλειον ἀνέλαβε) Against this, Eustathius remarked: “He did not take on man, but became man; - This fully corresponds to the clear position of St. Augustine: “Deus Verbum non accepit personam hominis, sed naturam, et in aeternam personam divinitatis accepit temporalem substantiam carnis.” This dogma has 1) deep soteriological significance. Christ is the Savior of all mankind; but personality individualizes a person, divides humanity into many independent “I”. All people participate in one human nature, in which, as a postulate, personal existence is also given; but personality is the property, τὸ ἴδιον, of each individual person, and if Christ had assumed the personality of a person, then this would be, as it were, a symbol that He saved this particular person, and it would not be indicated that all of humanity was saved by Him. In the dogma, then, indication 2) is also given on the Christological side of the sacrament of incarnation. True humanity in Christ must think at the moment of the incarnation as undisclosed, undeveloped. Christ accepted individual, individual, i.e., not abstract, not generic human nature. This nature is perfect (τέλειος ἄνθρωπος) in the sense that if it had not been received into personal unity by God the Word, then Jesus would have been an independent human person. But Christ’s humanity did not live an independent life at one moment, did not have existence for itself, did not have a hypostasis: “ἅμα σάρξ, ἅμα Λόγου σάρξ” (at the same moment both flesh and the flesh of the Word). At the absolutely primary moment of its existence, humanity was perceived by a personal Λόγος’, whose personal divine life was never interrupted and never began - and on the basis of His divine self-consciousness the human consciousness of Christ was to ascend, shine; The “I” of humanity is identical with the “I” of God the Word. The life of a natural person begins precisely with the postulate for personal existence, with the simple possibility of self-consciousness, because in the first days of a person’s embryonic life there can be no talk of either his personality or his self-consciousness. In Christ this postulate found its fulfillment in union with a personal God. Consequently, through this union the personality of man in actu was not suppressed (and this is perfection on the negative side), but only a supernatural foundation was laid for the development of this personal life, given only in potentia. Human life in Christ is in any case a complete, personal life (totus in nostris). Therefore, it is impossible to talk about “ἀνυποστασία”, the non-hypostatic nature of Christ’s humanity in the strict sense: it is ἐνυπόστατον, because it is illuminated by self-consciousness, the center of which lies in the deity of the Logos. The humanity of Christ is not a hypostasis only in the sense that it has never been ἰδιόστατον. The doctrine of the Council of Chalcedon is of great interest even for the unlearned theologian, especially for those interested in the question of the development of dogmas. Anyone interested in the latter question should certainly become acquainted with the Chalcedonian creed, and especially with the first part of it. Presenting great interest to everyone due to the considerations already expressed, the Chalcedonian creed deserves all the more attention because it is the voice of the universal church, the voice of a whole host of fathers. and that Vikenty Lirinsky, being weak in his acquaintance with historical facts, in his essay on the above issue gave us an example of a very weak deduction. And in Russian literature, the question of the development of dogmas has a strange formulation: here they talk about “b” without agreeing on “a”, they solve the question of the development of dogmas without establishing the concept of “development”. Of other decisions of the council, the justification of Theodoret and Iva, and the canonical approval of the patriarchates of Jerusalem and Constantinople are important for further history. It should be noted that a significant part of the council meetings was devoted specifically to judicial and canonical activities, in particular, for example, questions about Athanasius of Perga, the delimitation of Nicomedia and Nicaea, etc. The fathers of the council were forced to deal with all sorts of issues because the emperor transferred the requests of many who turned to him for resolution of various perplexities to the court of the council, which had the highest authority in this matter. The acquittal of Theodoret and Iva is significant because both one and the other were accused and deposed for dogmatic errors, therefore, their acquittal should inevitably lead to an explanation of the very state of the matter. But the justification was carried out in such a way that, in essence, it contributed nothing to clarify the matter. The misfortune was that Theodoret was heard at a time when the fathers of the council were significantly tired and tried to resolve the matter as quickly as possible. If it became more complicated, then they gave it a direction that led to a quick end. Theodoret, this longtime fighter against the Monophysites, appeared at the Council of Chalcedon as a venerable old man; he had little time left to live, and therefore he valued his past more than his future. He stated that he came to the council not to seek restoration to the department, but in order to justify his religious beliefs and all his past activities. Unfortunately, the fathers of the council, tired of a whole month of aimless waiting, after the question of faith had been considered with all caution, apparently wanted to end their meetings as quickly as possible and did not want things to drag on. Therefore, to Theodoret’s request to review his writings and evaluate his past activities, the bishops responded: “We do not want any reading; anathematize Nestorius." Theodoret replied: “I will not anathematize until I prove that I am Orthodox.” But a cry was heard: “He is a Nestorian; there’s the heretic!” Others repeated: “Say clearly: St. Virgin – Mother of God; anathema to Nestorius! After this, Theodoret obeyed, and the bishops exclaimed: “Theodoret is worthy of the see; Orthodox - the church! Thus, the Ecumenical Council did not categorically clarify a question of great importance for the history of Syria: what was undoubtedly correct in the activities of the antagonists of Monophysitism, what can be excused for them in view of the circumstances of the time, and what, in any case, deserves condemnation. The shadow of mistrust was not completely removed from Theodoret: he wanted to be recognized as Orthodox, he was accepted in the same way as a heretic could be accepted. If he had been completely mistaken, if his whole life had been a complete mistake, then even then he could have returned to the church in this way. This created an important difficulty for the subsequent polemics with the Monophysites; The Monophysites could reject well-known arguments of the Orthodox with the statement: “That’s what Theodoret said.” What the council did not do, individual (weak) theologians were forced to take upon themselves, who had to prove that not everything that Theodoret said was wrong. Regarding Theodoret’s behavior at the council, a few words can be added. The fact that Theodoret lived friendly with Nestorius is indisputable; but when the council demanded that Nestorius be anathematized, he refused simply because he wanted to know how the fathers of the council would evaluate Nestorius. Theodoret valued Nestorius and it was important for him to present his views on Nestorius before the council; it was important to show that he respected Nestorius as a person, and not as a dogmatist who, through rational analysis, had acquired a unique view of the incarnation of the Son of God. But since Theodoret was called a Nestorian, without discussing the meaning of this word, he had no choice but to anathematize Nestorius. The Willow of Edessa case was a new complication. Iva was acquitted. The most serious accusation against Iva (as if he said: “οὐ φθονῶ τῷ Χριστῷ γενομένῳ Θεῷ· ἐφ᾽ ὅσον γὰρ αὐτὸς “I do not envy Christ for becoming God, because as much as He became God, so do I”) remained unproven. Iva responded to this accusation that even from the demon himself he had never heard such an accusation as was leveled against him. They tried to prove that Iva was an opponent of the third ecumenical council. The fact is that several years before the Council of Chalcedon, an accusation was brought against Iva that even after the death of Cyril of Alexandria he considered him erroneous. But Iva replied that he considered Cyril as such only until 433. Other accusations were of a canonical nature, such as embezzlement of church funds, careless attitude to divine services, etc. At the same time, a very important fact was discovered in the matter of polemics with Catholics on the issue of communion under both types, namely, that in the ancient church they communed with both Body and Blood, and not with Blood alone. Thus, Iva, by the way, was accused of having expensive grape wine in his cellars and not giving it for the celebration of the Eucharist. Once we bought wine from a shop for worship, but there was not enough for communion, and the latter was discontinued. It should be noted that in the ancient church, communion was performed like this: the bishop or priests carried the Body of Christ, and the deacons carried the Blood. When in the above case the Body was still there, the Blood was no longer there. Iva, who was here, ordered to stop communion; he, as we see, was completely alien to the idea that where there is a Body, there is also Blood, on which the Latins mainly base their practice - to receive communion with the Body alone. “But all of Iva’s canonical accusations were of little importance when compared with the dogmatic accusations. The latter were put forward especially on the basis of Iva's message to Marius the Persian. Of the 26 fathers who cast votes in the case of Iva, only 4 recognized Iva as Orthodox (in the letter to Mary, they, taking the point of view of the moment when Iva wrote, did not see heresy); 2 – to justify Willow, they pointed out the fact that the Council of Ephesus II condemned him in absentia; 2 – that he signed the Chalcedonian decrees; 11 - that he anathematized Nestorius; finally, 1 (Juvenal of Jerusalem) threw his acquittal vote to Iva like alms to a beggar: he motivated his votum by the fact that Iva was already an old man; 6 bishops simply agreed with the majority. They decided to restore Willow to the church pulpit; but the fathers of the Council of Robbers not only deposed Iva, but also installed a successor in the person of Bishop Nonnus, as a result of which the fathers of the Council of Chalcedon limited themselves to only restoring Iva to the rank. Thus, the dogmatic side of the accusations was dropped from Iva due to lack of evidence, and the canonical side - due to its unimportance. In general, it can be said that an analysis of Iva’s case should have given a lot to clarify theological issues, but the accusation was expressed in such a crude form that Iva did not recognize the opinion attributed to him as his own; Moreover, the presentation of the Willow case at the Council of Chalcedon even served to harm the further activities of the Orthodox. If Theodorit and Iva were suspected of Nestorianism, then Amphilochius of Side was suspected of Eutychianism. Therefore, the fathers did the same with him as with Theodoret, forcing him to pronounce an anathema on Eutyches. – Thus, the old fighters were deceived in their expectations and had to return with morally broken forces. The case of 13 Egyptian bishops had the same result. At the first council meeting, a division occurred between the bishops who arrived with Dioscorus (19), as a result of which some of them went over to the side of the fathers of the council. But the arrest of Dioscorus forced them to unite again and stop participating in council meetings. These 13 bishops presented to the council a statement of their own confession of religion, which was characterized by extreme vagueness and darkness. They recognized the confession of faith of the 318 fathers, the anathema against Nestorius, but did not say a word about Eutyches. The fathers demanded that they pronounce anathema on Eutyches, or follow the example of other bishops and sign the tomos of Leo. They refused, citing the fact that they could be killed for signing the tomos. At the same time, they declared that they were not opposed to the council and would sign the tomos if it was signed by the newly elected archbishop, without whose will, according to them, they could not do anything. This Egyptian point of view was completely incomprehensible to the other council fathers, who were unfamiliar with the organization of the Alexandrian patriarchate. Eusebius of Dorilee directly stated that they could do this, but they referred to Anatoly of Constantinople as a man who came from the Alexandrian clergy. At the last meeting, it was decided to release them from signing the tomos until the time of the election of the archbishop. But this only complicated the matter; a false circle resulted, because the question arose of how they, not knowing Orthodox teaching, could elect an Orthodox bishop for themselves. On October 17, the work of the Archimandrites of Constantinople was begun, and on October 20, it was completed. The essence of the matter was as follows. Even before the convening of the council, several archimandrites were offended by the fact that in order to prove their Orthodoxy, they were required to sign some documents (i.e., the tomos of Leo V.). They turned to the emperor with a request to convene a council, at which Dioscorus and the emperor would be present. These were obvious supporters of Eutyches; They came to the council, led by Karos, Dorotheus and Barsuma. They insisted that Dioscorus be restored to his rank. When the fathers of the council invited them to sign the letter of Leo, they refused. Dorotheos said: “I believe in baptism, but I don’t sign the tomos.” Karos said: “I believe as 318 fathers believe.” To the question: do they recognize the flesh of Jesus Christ as consubstantial with our humanity? They answered: “We believe in the One who suffered from the Holy Trinity.” All these archimandrites behaved with amazingly defiant impudence. To all proposals for a deferment for reflection, they responded very brazenly: “Why do we need 30 days, when we don’t even need 3 days. We stand before you: you can defrock us, you can exile us... Do what you want...! However, the council appointed them 30 days for reflection. Another part of the Constantinople archimandrites protested against them. This matter was of a dogmatic nature, but the fathers of the council also had to deal with canonical issues. On the same October 20, a case was decided, simple in its essence, but characteristic in its consequences, namely, the case of Photius, Metropolitan of Tire, and Eustathius, Bishop of Virita 88. Eustathius was innocent, but ended up convicted. The point was as follows. For a long time, the Roman Empire counted two Phenicias among its provinces: the coastal one, with the main city of Tyre, and the Lebanese one, with Damascus. Emperor Theodosius divided coastal Phenicia into two halves. The city of Virit was chosen as the center of the other half. Several other cities were included in it. But Eustathius himself took a further step. Whether to make the new civil province an ecclesiastical metropolis was the question that was proposed at the council, which had Anatoly as its chairman. The Council of Constantinople recognized Eustathius as metropolitan of the new province. When this deed was sent to Maxim of Antioch, who was at that time in Constantinople, but was not present at the council, he signed it. Canonically, the matter was decided correctly. But Photius of Tire did not want to agree with this, whose metropolis was curtailed in favor of a new one, and he still continued to install bishops in the cities that were transferred to the new province. Eustathius did not recognize them and excommunicated them. The Ecumenical Council took the view that the church should decide the matter according to its canons, without paying attention to the emperor. Primacy was still reserved for the Tyrian pulpit. This case served as a signal for the settlement of relations between the Jerusalem department adjacent to Tire. As you know, Constantinople and Jerusalem have historical similarities. Aelia Capitolina rose in the 4th century. due to the discovery of holy places and pilgrimages. She was under the authority of the Metropolitan of Caesarea, who at that time was Eusebius, the church historian, persona gratissima in the eyes of the emperor. Consequently, there could be no talk of any change in church relations. At the first ecumenical council everything was left as before, although the bishop of Jerusalem was recognized as second after that of Caesarea. But this did not correspond to the general Christian view of Jerusalem, and the bishops of Jerusalem began to gradually acquire the rights of a metropolitan. Despite the fact that the second ecumenical council emphasized the importance of Jerusalem as the mother of churches, there were no changes in relations, and the Metropolitan of Caesarea continued to preside over the Palestinian councils. But Juvenal of Jerusalem knew how to take advantage of circumstances. In the absence of the Caesarea metropolitan, he appeared at the Council of Ephesus as a representative of three Palestines and took second place after Cyril of Alexandria. Upon returning to Palestine, Juvenaly felt himself master of his position and hastened to reward himself for the triumph of Orthodoxy. He extremely expanded his canonical rights and began to ordain within limits that were completely beyond his control. Cyril of Alexandria, having learned about this, was seriously indignant and wrote to Archdeacon Leo (the future pope) to determine the canonical rights of Juvenal, because the authority of the first ecumenical council was suffering from his actions. But there was no serious resistance to Juvenal. Juvenaly considered himself metropolitan ex usu not only of three Palestines, but also of two Phenicia and Arabia. At the council of robbers, the alliance with Dioscorus cast a dark stain on Juvenal, and at the Council of Chalcedon he turned out to be only the forgiven co-chair of Dioscorus. The situation is completely unenviable. He understood the threat of capturing the three provinces. But the position of Maximus of Antioch was also not good, since he was a protege of the robber council, and Domnus, his legal predecessor, was still alive. As soon as Domna’s supporters submitted a note to the cathedral about his return, Maxim would have been deprived of his chair. Both disputing parties found that a bad peace is better than a good quarrel. The fathers of the council on October 26 were pleasantly surprised when Maximus and Juvenaly entered the council with a statement about the amicable division of the provinces. Apostolic Church of St. Peter, i.e. Antioch, it was approved to ordain bishops for two Phenicia and Arabia, and the Church of the Resurrection for three Palestines. The fathers of the cathedral thanked them. On October 27, Maxim, wanting to secure his future fate, turned to the council with a proposal that since Domnus did not aspire to the see, give him 250 solidi from the income of the Antiochian church. Thus the matter of Antioch and Jerusalem was settled. Maxim waited until the end of the council meetings, waited until the resolution on the elevation of the see of Constantinople and learned that Leo opposed any changes in the canonical relations approved by the first ecumenical council. He tried to establish written relations with Leo, namely, he sent extracts from the “epistle to Leo of Cyril of Alexandria,” but Leo replied that he did not need these extracts, since he had the original in the archive; however, he noted that if his statements are justified by history, then he is ready to support him. Thus, at the Council of Chalcedon, the formation of the Jerusalem Patriarchate was completed. A no less characteristic event took place on October 29–30. This time, the Metropolitan of Ephesus, Vassian, addressed the council with a petition. The affair between Vassian and Stephen of Ephesus revealed to historians the nature of the previous historical relations of the departments. The essence of this whole story is that Stephen of Ephesus was deprived of his pulpit completely unexpectedly. He was right, but he could not justify himself, because the case took him by surprise. He did not prepare any means of protection. Some saw in this just retribution for the fact that he allowed Flavian to be deposed in his church, and they said: “Flavian has power even after death.” Ephesus was at the head of Asia. Proconsuls were sent there, since it was the main city of the diocese. A number of other metropolitans depended on the Metropolitan of Ephesus. For Ephesus, the proximity of Constantinople was inconvenient. The Second Ecumenical Council recognized the right of honor for the Bishop of Constantinople, but still left him under the authority of the Metropolitan of Irakli. But this did not correspond to its significance in the course of historical life, and the rights of honor are gradually turning into rights of power. Already St. John Chrysostom went to Ephesus and deposed Metropolitan Antonin there and installed his follower Iraklid. This trial of Chrysostom over Antoninus represents a brilliant case of manifestation of the advantage of the See of Constantinople. This case shows that all episcopal consecrations had to be based on the approval of the See of Constantinople. Atticus continued the matter in the same direction: he formalized this in the sense of a law, procuring an imperial decree according to which the bishop of Constantinople had the right to consecrate in Ephesus. But the implementation of this law met with opposition in Illyricum and in the east. It also affected the previous hierarchical relations and the rights of the laity who participated in the election of the bishop. Naturally, people in the east began to openly oppose this order. This is illustrated by the following facts. When the see of Cyzicus, one of the closest to Constantinople, became vacant, Sisinnius, bishop of Constantinople, successor of Atticus, ordained Proclus there. But the citizens of Cyzicus opposed this and elected Dalmatius, so Proclus had to live in Constantinople. Obviously, this set an example of how one can resist the decree of the See of Constantinople. But the influence of Constantinople on Ephesus grew little by little, in the sense of attracting candidates for the Ephesian see in the “σύνοδος ἐνδημοῦσα”. Ephesus did not like such claims of Constantinople. Basil, Memnon's successor, was ordained in Constantinople, but there were even murders in Ephesus on this occasion. When Basil died, the following happened in Ephesus. Under Memnon, a certain presbyter, Vassian, was distinguished in Ephesus, distinguished by his charity. It was clear where he was aiming, and therefore he seemed like an “eyesore” to Memnon. A similar case occurred in Constantinople. Nektarios of Constantinople ordained his brother Arsakias as a presbyter, with the aim of placing him in some open department. But no matter how many times he offered him the bishopric, he refused and lived in Constantinople. “Why do you live here? - Nectarius remarked to his brother, - as if you were expecting my death. Go to some department!” But Arsakios resolutely refused the bishopric. It is clear that Vassian was unpleasant to Memnon, and the latter invited him to retire to the see of Evaz. When Vassian refused, they resorted to coercive means. According to his own words, he was beaten for three to six hours so that the gospel and the throne were stained with his blood. Vassian, of course, was installed as bishop of Evasia, but he resisted and remained in Ephesus, awaiting the death of Memnon. Memnon's successor, Basil, whose position was delicate, convened a council to consider the case of Vassian, at which it was decided not to force Vassian, but to install another bishop in Evaza, without depriving Vassian of his episcopal honor. Vasily died. The recently ordained Olympius of Theodosiopolis was invited to ordain Basil's successor. The latter stayed at a hotel, awaiting the arrival of other bishops: as a newly installed bishop, he had to show diligence. But other bishops were cautious. Three days passed and none of the bishops appeared. Then some Ephesian clergy appeared and told Olympius that the Ephesian see needed to be replaced. Olympius objected: “What can I do alone for such an important city as Ephesus.” The crowd surrounded the hotel, took Olympius and forced him to appoint Vassian as bishop of Ephesus. A decent document was drawn up and sent to Constantinople. The moment was good. At this time, Proclus was the bishop of Constantinople. The latter could not help but realize that his presence at the See of Constantinople was not entirely canonical. Proclus was ordained at Cyzicus and volens-nolens was associated with this see. Proclus was appointed to the see in Constantinople by Emperor Theodosius. Thus, the analogy between the position of Proclus and Vassian is close. Insisting on the right to confirm bishops for Proclus, therefore, was inconvenient. Emperor Theodosius tried to make Proclus and Vassian friends. When Vassian was in Constantinople, he participated in the service with Proclus and his name was included in the Constantinople diptychs. Thus, Vassian achieved his goal. But all such “merciful people” and favorites of the people very often turn out to be terrible despots. So was Vassian. During his short reign, he incited the clergy, the people and the poor against him. The party hostile to him, taking advantage of the non-canonical nature of his position, noted the complexity of economic affairs and achieved that an official, the Silentiary Eustathius, arrived from the emperor, who considered Vassian’s case for three months. At this time, Flavian was the bishop of Constantinople, whose position was difficult, since he did not enjoy authority; Dioscorus of Alexandria did not honor him with his “social” letters. The party hostile to Vassian turned to this Dioscorus with the question: “Does Vassian legitimately occupy the Ephesian see if he is ordained Evaza?” The See of Alexandria was against the movement of bishops, as was the See of Rome. In the latter there was no case when a bishop from another see was taken to the episcopal see of Rome. Under the influence of such forces, Flavian felt weak. Vassian was overthrown, and Stephen was ordained in his place, recognized both in Rome and Constantinople. Such was the confusion of church affairs that the fathers of the Council of Chalcedon had to consider. The fathers of the cathedral examined this matter for quite some time. The illegality of both bishops was obvious, and the fathers decided to install a new bishop for Ephesus. The question arose as to where to ordain him. The canons demanded the installation of a bishop ἐν τῇ ἐπαρχίᾳ. The uncertainty of the canonical instructions gave rise to great controversy among the fathers of the council. An uprising was expected in Ephesus if the see was replaced from Constantinople. Representatives of the secular authorities brought this fact to the attention of the fathers of the cathedral. Dalmatius’ successor, Diogenes of Cyzicus, said that “the custom allows for supply here, that is, in Ephesus, for there (in Constantinople) they place the salgamarii” (σαλγαμαρίους) 89 . The wrangling of the fathers came down to purely practical grounds. Persons under the jurisdiction of the Ephesian see stated that 27 Ephesian bishops, starting with Timothy, appointed by Paul, and ending with Stephen, were ordained in Ephesus. Basil alone was installed in Constantinople, but murders occurred on this occasion. The clergy of Constantinople insisted that St. John Chrysostom ordained 15 bishops to different sees in Asia, and that Memnon was established in Constantinople. At the same time, they also pointed to the decree of 150 fathers on the advantages of the See of Constantinople (3 pr.). The dignitaries decided that the council fathers should seriously consider this issue. At the next meeting, it was indeed considered, and it was decided that both Vassian and Stefan were both illegally occupying the department. They were retired with a decent pension from the income of the Ephesian church 90, but they were not defrocked. They decided to install a new bishop “according to the canons” in their place. The clergy of Constantinople understood the 3rd rule of the Second Ecumenical Council, but many bishops received consecration in Ephesus itself. The uncertainty of this canon has been eliminated and clarified by the 28th rule of the Council of Chalcedon. The deposition of Stephen of Ephesus was a precedent for the publication of canon 28, which was of great importance in the history of not only canonical, but also dogmatic relations. This rule interprets Rule 3 of the Second Ecumenical Council, but interprets it in the sense of not only the advantage of honor, but also of power. The fathers of the Council of Chalcedon saw that Constantinople, as the new Rome, should have advantages equal to those that the Roman see has. All metropolitans of the Thracian, Asian and Pontic dioceses must be confirmed in Constantinople, with the exception of exarchs, i.e., bishops of the main cities of the dioceses. But these exarchs were in fact consigned to the archives: they could not defend their rights under pressure from Constantinople. One cannot in any way think that the power of the exarchs was unconditionally strong. According to theory, the replacement of the sees of Nicaea and Nicomedia depended on the bishop of Caesarea, but in practice it was that the Nicomedia bishop received ordination from the neighboring Galatian one. The Metropolitan of Gangra (in Paphlagonia) also received consecration from the Metropolitan of Ancyra. Before the time of the Council of Chalcedon, thus, the ambiguity of canonical relations was visible. The Metropolitan Council decided all matters of the famous diocese. If cases of disagreement occurred at this council, a larger council was proposed to resolve the latter - with the participation of neighboring bishops. When the Metropolitan of Paphlagon died, the neighboring Bishop of Ancyra was invited. Instead of a larger cathedral, practice began to put forward a diocesal cathedral. By this time, the so-called “customs” had become established in Constantinople, namely, that the ordained person made offerings in favor of the Constantinople clergy. This was stated at the Council of Chalcedon. Although the clergy declared that the situation was “pure,” in reality it was hardly “pure,” since Gennady convened a council in 459, at which he spoke out against simony. At the Council of Chalcedon, rule 28, the see of Constantinople was installed first after the Roman one. Wanting to slow down the matter, the pope's legates protested, declaring that Leo's will was that dogmatic issues be dealt with at the council. They solemnly left the meeting, thinking that without them the matter would not take place. But they were wrong in their calculations. The rule was signed and approved, so that at the next meeting the legates appeared as petitioners. They referred to the rules of the council of 325. But their arguments, of course, only caused a smile: it was ridiculous to touch upon the decrees of 325 when it came to the rights of a city that was founded in 330! All the metropolitans who signed the definition were interrogated, and the latter stated that “all signed voluntarily.” At the first meeting, the Bishop of Caesarea of ​​Cappadocia, Thalassius, refused to sign; the Exarch of Irakli was absent. The only bishop whose rights were affected by this rule was Thalassius, who delayed his consent, expressing hope for a more favorable future. He said somehow vaguely: “We’ll go to Anatoly and, perhaps, we’ll arrange things there.” To implement canon 28 into church life, it was necessary after the council to end the matter of the protest of Leo’s legates against this decree. If history presented an ideal image of church life, then this circumstance would be dealt with extremely simply. Rule 28 settled the mutual relations of the eastern bishops and concerned them; therefore, if the persons in charge of the matter at that time had a clear understanding and strength of character, they would only have had to state this fact to Leo. But the matter was spoiled by the fact that Anatoly considered it possible to make an outlandish compromise and, with such a great character as Leo, thought to end with the flowers of eloquence. They pretended that the legates were not sufficiently initiated into the mutual relations of the churches, they presented the 28th rule as a special honor for the pope, they said that by this the council wanted to spread the radiance of the glory of the Roman Church to the Church of Constantinople, they pointed out that the fathers of the council agreed with Leo, and asked Leo to agree with them. The agreement of the pope's ambassadors with the dogmatic definition of the council made one expect extremely much. In reality, there can be no concessions on the issue of dogma, and since the ambassadors accepted the expression of the Orthodox faith determined by the Council of Chalcedon, Leo had to agree with this decree. Meanwhile, the question of the advantages of cities had a different basis - canonical; and since the matter was put in this way, Leo refused to give consent. Anatoly wrote that the see of Constantinople now does not gain anything, because the bishop of Constantinople had previously, over the previous 60 years, performed consecrations on a larger scale than provided to him by the 28th rule. This is undeniable. But Leo could rightly remark on this: if the rule does not give anything new, then why was it established? In the messages of Leo himself, however, more errors were made in this case than in the polite petitions to him of the Bishop of Constantinople. He saw here a contradiction with the advantages of the Roman see and said that he defended the rights of bishops of the entire Christian world. Because of these disputes, considerable harm could have come out for Christians, because all the Monophysites dissatisfied with the Council of Chalcedon immediately spread the rumor that Leo did not agree with the Nestorian decrees of the council. Emperor Marcian intervened and energetically demanded a definite answer from the pope, whether he agreed with the dogmatic definitions of the council or not? The Pope agreed, and at the same time noted that he had never thought of expressing hesitation, and - thus - the Bishop of Rome, volens-nolens, had to limit himself to one protest; the rule came into effect, and things went on as usual. Rule 28 was of no small importance in the history of the dogmatic authority of the council. The important fact is that, while creating the advantages of the See of Constantinople, this rule created obligatory adherents of the authority of the Council of Chalcedon in the influential bishops of the capital, no matter what. The fact is that not all of Anatoly’s successors were so firm in Orthodoxy as to understand the meaning of the Chalcedonian ὅρος. His opponents, the Monophysites, were essentially forced to conduct matters in such a way that they had to challenge the nature of the council as an ecumenical one. But the bishops of Constantinople could never agree to this, for this led to a diminishment of their hierarchical significance. Both sides understood the place of Rule 28 in the future struggle between the bishops of Constantinople and others. Here is evidence that the 28th rule of the Council of Chalcedon had a close connection with the history of the struggle between Orthodoxy and Monophysitism in the east. a) They say (the Monophysite Zechariah, later the Orthodox Metropolitan of Mytilene) that even Timothy Salofakiol of Alexandria, a man of such impartiality and piety that he was able to reconcile even the zealous Monophysites with his personality, - even such a man, in the presence of Emperor Leo, said to Gennady of Constantinople (458-471): “I do not accept this council, which is yours.” I made the pulpit second to the Roman one and despised my rights.” b) When Timothy Elur returned from his exile to Alexandria (476), he took advantage of the antagonism of the Ephesian and Constantinople churches. The Ephesians hated their Orthodox bishop John, Stephen's successor, and protesting against canon 28, they called him a traitor, as a person who agreed to receive consecration from Anatolius and thereby betrayed the historical rights of the Ephesian church to Constantinople. Timothy (on the basis of ἐγκύκλιον’a) returned the rights of the patriarch to the Ephesian Bishop Paul, a Monophysite. c) When Acacius ascended the see of Constantinople, it was impossible to expect that he would be an adherent of the Council of Chalcedon - pure blood. Akaki's past is questionable. While still a presbyter, he maintained relations with the Monophysites, and things went so far that they even threatened to break the bench on which he sat during worship if he did not stop his relations with the heretics. Its construction was favorable for the enemies of the church, and they were right. Akakiy was not averse to going to war. No wonder the Monophysites considered him one of their own. However, when Basilisk in 476 or 477 issued his ἐγκύκλιον in the name of Timothy Aelur: “Ὁπόσους μὲν ὑπὲρ ὀρθῆς”, with which he canceled “decisively everything done in Chalcedon” (ἅπαν τὸ γενόμενον), anathematized and under terrible threats forbade teaching in accordance with the tomos of Leo and the Chalcedonian creed, or even just mentioning these two monuments, because of which such confusion and disorder occurred in the holy churches of God - then the Patriarch of Constantinople Acacius not only did not accept this district prescription, but in alliance with Daniel the Stylite and other zealots, he came to the defense of the Council of Chalcedon, dressed the altars in the churches with black fabrics, and made such an impression on the minds that a disturbance arose in Constantinople that cost Basilisk the throne. In vain did this usurper think to correct his false step by publishing ἀντεγκύκλιον’a: “Τὴν ἄνωθεν καὶ ἐξ ἀρχῆς.” It was already late. Nevertheless, the content of this “anti-district injunction” is very characteristic: the meaning of the tomos of Leo and the Chalcedonian creed is restored somewhat dully (the emperor declares that the ancient Apostolic Orthodox faith has to remain unshakable and in full force, all orders of the emperor regarding faith in ἐγκύκλιον or other documents are canceled), the authority The Council of Chalcedon is clearer (Nestorius and Eutyches are anathema, and there will not be another council on the issue of these heresies), and the meaning of Canon 28 is already quite explicit (“the most reverent and holy Patriarch and Archbishop Acacius are given back the dioceses in which the throne of the reigning city has the right of consecration”). This shows how Basilisk hoped to influence Akaki. In turn, Akaki himself was almost the compiler of the “conjunctive letter” (ἐνωτικὸν) of Zeno (482) to the Egyptian bishops: “Ἀρχὴν καὶ σύστασιν”, which only kept silent about the Council of Chalcedon, but by no means canceled. And Akakios, supporting the “enoticon,” vigilantly ensured that Peter Mong of Alexandria did not start anything against the Council of Chalcedon. The dispute about the dogmatic authority of the fourth ecumenical council and the attitude towards Orthodoxy and the Monophysitism of the emperors before Justin I The history of relations with the Council of Chalcedon is, apparently, a complete surprise. The council, larger than any of its predecessors, unanimously accepted the dogmatic definition. This whole business was carried out in compliance with all legal desiderata that could be put in place for such an important matter. The emperor wanted a free council, and his representatives at the council did everything in their power to ensure that the good intentions of the sovereign were fulfilled. Let me remind you of the most important points. On October 8, it was announced that the next meeting would be devoted to a dogmatic issue. The fathers were invited to present the teaching of the church in all its purity, having only the fear of God before their eyes. The second meeting was only on the 10th. Consequently, the opportunity was given to think about it, consult, and prepare to discuss the issue, although even before the council the fathers had to make all the necessary inquiries. On October 10, most fathers accept Leo's message as Orthodox. However, a minority expresses their misunderstanding regarding his three seats. This misunderstanding is clarified and eliminated. However, a minority asks for time for discussion and reflection. They are given this period. Archbishop Anatoly was asked to form a commission of the most experienced theologians, with which all doubters should consult. The dignitaries demand that these meetings be held privately, and not at open meetings of the council. Thus, not only is there no gross violence against the religious conscience, but even that irresistible moral pressure that the consent of the vast majority can exert on weak natures is carefully removed. Only on October 17, 6 days later, did the second reading of Leo’s message follow. Everyone agreed. Even the doubters collectively declared that their misunderstandings were now completely eliminated. But the commission's activities continue. Only 4 days later, on October 22, the draft ὅρος'a, the definition of religion, was read, a draft that had been discussed in advance and apparently met with general agreement. But there are objectors, and they express (their objections) completely freely. No pressure has been placed on the conscience of this minority. The majority does not agree to satisfy these statements, but the emperor insists that the text of the religious definition be discussed once again. This is unpleasant for many, but this is obviously only a delicate precaution, and not violence, not even pressure on the majority, because the emperor chose three alternatives, which were inevitable if they wanted to reach the goal. Finally, the revised text was read that same day, and did not meet with a single objection. There was general agreement. History has no evidence of a single council where business was conducted with such prudence, where so much care was taken to ensure that every statement was respected, so that everything was built on the strong foundation of a free, reasonable religious conviction. The emperor had, therefore, the right to look with the brightest hopes at the consequences of the council. “Let all ignorant (profana) competitions now fall silent. Only the completely wicked can reserve the right of personal opinion on a question on which so many priests have unanimously given their votes; only the completely insane can, in the middle of a clear, broad day, seek artificial deceptive light; and whoever raises any further questions after the truth has been found, seeks error (mendacium).” History, however, has shown a completely opposite experience. The Council of Chalcedon became a controversial sign. No council, not excluding, it seems, the Nicene council, has been discussed for so long and so much as about our fourth ecumenical council, so numerous in its composition, so free in its jurisdiction. For more than a century, the church policy of the emperors and the internal relations of the church revolved around one question: to accept or not to accept the Council of Chalcedon? These debates revealed such importance of the Council of Chalcedon for the church that Monophysites of all shades indicate the religious difference from them in Orthodoxy precisely by this attitude to the Council of Chalcedon. Next to the contemptuous “Melchites,” they usually call us sûnhodójê, συνοδῖται, “conciliators,” khalqidûnójê, “Chalcedonians,” and the Orthodox themselves saw no reason to abandon the last two names, in which there is nothing offensive. The words συνοδῖται, khalqidûnójê designate as precisely the historical position of Orthodoxy against the Monophysites as the name διφυσῖται its dogmatic content. On the other hand, it turned out that the question of the Council of Chalcedon was complicated by such national and political elements that it was of the highest importance for the Roman state. Emperors during the era of the Arian disputes intervened in dogmatic disputes at will. In the 5th–6th centuries, emperors intervened in disputes about the Council of Chalcedon almost out of regrettable necessity. At this moment, to recognize or not to recognize the Council of Chalcedon - this meant for the sovereign, in essence, whether the diadem rests firmly on his head, whether he firmly holds the throne against internal enemies, and how powerful forces he can oppose to an external enemy. The very fact of these disputes about the Council of Chalcedon, and precisely about its definition of faith, speaks of its high dogmatic dignity. In its indisputable certainty, the Chalcedonian ὅρος is equivalent to the Nicene symbol. The dogmatic doctrine was expressed in Chalcedon with such clarity that this council could not be recognized, in fact denying it. With the three short words of this ὅρος: “ἐν δύο φύσεσιν” no Monophysite conviction, from its most extreme to its mildest shade, could get along, just as no Arian, of any color, could agree with the Nicene ὁμοούσιον with your beliefs. There was no way to interpret the Council of Chalcedon in a Monophysite spirit. There remained one of two things: either accept him sincerely, or become in opposition to him - deaf (i.e., deliberately ignoring him, keeping silent about him), or open (i.e., directly rejecting him). Given the existence of the Monophysites, bickering over the Council of Chalcedon was therefore logically inevitable. But the question is why the Council of Chalcedon could not put an end to this trend, why Monophysitism not only survived in history, but also had quite significant successes, even capturing the territory of the Antiochian Patriarchate, the post in which we are accustomed to seeing its most consistent and merciless opponents - this question needs at least some clarification. Some indications in this sense can be given by a detailed study of the acts of the Council of Chalcedon. Councils were held in 448, 449 and 451, and this makes it possible to become familiar with the composition and character of the then episcopate better than in any other era. For some clarification of the question posed, you need to pay attention to the following. a) That in our question the composition of the episcopate is of particular importance is clear from the content of the very dogma about which they were arguing. The dogmatic opponents stood so close to each other that only thought that had gone through the theological school could consciously relate to the difference between the two religious views, while the ordinary mass in this case, more than ever, could rely on the authority and word of their spiritual leaders, and obediently follow them. The question over which there was a struggle between Orthodoxy and Arianism is also not easy to comprehend, even if approximately. But he, at least, allows for a statement that is not entirely accurate, but clear and understandable for the masses: Is Christ God or a creature? But how can we bring closer to popular understanding the difference between φύσις and ὑπόστασις, which even more educated people rather instinctively understood? How to formulate in a public sense such a dilemma: the true God and the true man Christ are one hypostasis and two natures, or one hypostasis and one nature from two unfused natures? - In a word, only highly enlightened thought could follow with conscious interest the development of the dispute we are considering about two natures; bishops and clergy were to be not only leaders, but also its only representatives. b) What is the episcopate of the half of the 5th century? For the most part, it does not consist of heroes of strong will and strong religious conviction. Part of him in 448 cast his vote with Flavian against Eutyches, in 449 - for Eutyches against Flavian, and in 451 - for Flavian against Eutyches. At 4 years old - 3 dogmatists. The fact that the Second Council of Ephesus was a scene of violence unparalleled in history and is not without reason called “robbery”; but, probably, it is more than an assumption that a type like Athanasius V. would not have given way in Ephesus, just as Flavian did not break here, and the voice of Deacon Ilarus did not tremble. Flavian said his “παραιτοῦμαί σε”, Ilar his “contradicitur!” so firmly that even the notaries of Dioscorus wrote down their words. And of course, of the 135 bishops, not all went under the yoke of Dioscorus out of fear for the sake of Egypt; many people took his side voluntarily. Juvenal of Jerusalem is an old man of strong spirit, and he was with Dioscorus. Even Thalassius did not complain about violence against himself. Hence the especially important importance for this era of bishops who were influential in the character or significance of their see. They can leave their mark on the course of affairs in entire areas. The instability of the will of the bishops testifies to itself not only in Ephesus. Both in Constantinople and Chalcedon we encounter sad discoveries of this kind: they declare their convictions too timidly, and here in matters of faith they willingly submit to the leadership of others. A fear creeps in lest I express my faith too loudly. Here are the facts. Of the 186 votes cast against Dioscorus, 147 contained only a simple statement of agreement with the council, that is, in essence, with its chairmen. No reasons are given for why Dioscorus is being deposed. In each individual case, this does not, of course, speak against the independence of those who remain silent about their motives. But in the mass, like 147 out of 186, this cannot but be significant. At the second meeting of the council in 448, Flavian invited the fathers to express Orthodox teaching. Of the 18 voices, 10–11 are completely colorless; to the question: how do they teach about the incarnation of St. Fathers, these 10-11 bishops declare: we agree with the teachings of St. fathers. With such a development of moral character, many bishops could be good assistants to their metropolitans or patriarchs, but the energy of initiative, even active resistance, was not characteristic of them; Therefore, every change in the main department was a matter of high importance, because it gave color to the church life of the entire province. With such a development of centralization, the personality of the patriarchs meant a lot. c) What was the attitude of the main figures of the Council of Chalcedon to the dogmatic question? And here we come across the facts that many of the bishops are not free, if not from sympathy, then at least from an indifferent, calm attitude towards the emerging Monophysitism. We already know that 5 prominent bishops left the ranks of Dioscorianism, that they were even in danger of being overthrown for their too close alliance with Dioscorus in Ephesus. Behind these leaders stood many bishops under their command. At Chalcedon they moved from the right side to the left; but the process of formation of moral will, moral, so to speak, rebirth, would be too easy if one energetic step smoothed out the entire past so that no Monophysite remnants remained in the soul. If we now consider the voices of the bishops, we will see that until the very last minute they treated the teachings of Dioscorus very softly. The Council of Chalcedon met mainly against Eutychianism and most decisively (“ἀναθεματίζομεν” in ὅρος) condemned this doctrine on its dogmatic side. But the participants in the council did not take their position towards Eutychianism as firmly as a historical fact. Apparently the prevailing opinion was that Nestorianism still represents a force more dangerous for church life than Monophysitism. Undoubtedly, bishops in contact with Nestorianism were present at the council, but it is equally certain that among those present there were many who had stained themselves by communication with the Monophysites. However, anathema was demanded at the council from one bishop (Amphilochius, Metropolitan of Side) against Eutyches, and from four (Theodoret of Cyrus, Sophronius of Constantine, John of Germanicia and Willow of Edessa) against Nestorius. – 186 votes were cast against Dioscorus (October 13); of these, 147 boil down to a simple “I agree,” 29 focus on “contumacia,” 15 on his various iniquities, and only 8 on his attitude towards Eutyches and Flavian (and of these eight, only 2–3 directly raise the question of dogma). Even on October 22, Anatoly rejected the reference to the fact that “ἐκ δύο φύσεων” is the teaching of Dioscorus, therefore a dubious formula, with the statement: “Dioscorus was not deposed for faith.” – When the question was finally raised about the significance of the Second Council of Ephesus, out of 18 who cast votes, 10 (4 Roman and 6 other bishops) did not recognize any significance for this council, 4 (Juvenal of Jerusalem, Thalassius of Caesarea, Eusebius of Ancyra - former πρόεδροι, and John of Sebaste in Armenia) referred the question to the discretion of the emperor and 4 responded with an evasive “I agree with the council.” – Thus, Leo V.’s view that Eutychianism is no less harmful than Nestorianism (§ 1) has not yet entered into the flesh and blood of all the bishops who sat at the council 91. d) Eastern fighters against Monophysitism, Theodoret of Cyrus and Ivan of Edessa, suspected of Nestorianism, were restored to their cathedras, but this was not a complete restoration of their moral reputation. e) Monophysitism found support for itself in national strife, which neither Greek culture nor Roman rule could overcome. Nestorianism seemed statistically insignificant, because it embraced one nationality, and in the end the Nestorians themselves recognized this fact when they called themselves Chaldean Christians. And Chaldeans were the people of the Eastern Syriac language. Monophysitism embraced several nationalities: Syrians, Copts, Armenians. Dogmatic disputes were complicated here by interweaving with purely national soil. Some national leaders took advantage of the dispute in order to create support for national independence out of dogmatic discord. The unified Roman Empire, which owned the peoples, was an empirical fact. That this (unification under Roman rule) was unpleasant for the peoples and was not a manifestation of their spirit and strength, there is no doubt about it. But this all-encompassing empire lacked a (strongly unifying) factor - the unity of language. The western half of the empire was Latin, the eastern half Greek, and in this difference lay an element of its dissolution. In the end, church unity began to feel weaker and weaker: the Greek East did not understand the Latin West and could not follow its church life, and the West had to translate writings from the East into Latin. Hellenization and Greek culture were the basis of the political life of the East, however, the work of Alexander the Great cannot be considered completed. In the area of ​​Greek culture, especially within the Syriac language, the Semitic people resisted Hellenization. If the cities of Seleucia, Antioch and Laodicea reached such a degree of Greek culture that they received Greek names, and Antioch was so proud of Greek culture that the Empress Eudoxia, wife of Theodosius, could not say anything more flattering for Antioch than that “I am proud to belong to your city and your blood,” and she was a purebred Athenian, then in the vicinity of Antioch there was far not like that. At St. Flavians, when Chrysostom preached as a presbyter, he had to speak Syriac. Syrian speech was heard in Antioch itself; and in the villages and hamlets directly dependent on the Bishop of Antioch, not only the people, but also the presbyters during Chrysostom did not understand any other language other than Syriac. From the definitions of the Council of Chalcedon it is clear that many clergy did not understand the Greek language, and even one bishop, Uranius of Imeria, did not know any language other than Syriac. While the big cities embraced the brilliant Greek culture, in smaller villages Greek was the language of fashion and etiquette. True, many Greek inscriptions have been preserved in Syria, but this does not particularly indicate the pure Hellenization of the Syrian region, just as the inscription on the monument “Petro Primo Catharina Secunda” does not indicate that the St. Petersburg townspeople know Latin. Thus, Syria remained the country of the Syriac language, and if the Syriac language subsequently dissolved, it was only in the related elements of the Arabic language. Thus, on the eastern outskirts, Greek influence was fragile. Roman influence could not enjoy sympathy, especially since the Roman government treated this region rather exploitatively, and the word “Rhûmójê” οἱ Ῥωμαῖοι in Syriac actually meant “soldiers”. And how the Christ-loving army treated the outskirts is clear from the fact that the common people treated the soldiers with hatred. From the reign of Anastasius it is known, as the chronicle of Yeshu the Stylite shows, that during the Persian conquest the city of Edessa firmly repelled all the attacks of the Persians. When the Roman soldiers arrived here to billet, they caused an uprising here with their management. But this is understandable, since the Roman army, according to Mommsen, was recruited from various nations, and it was all the more valued militarily, the more different nationalities it included: these semi-savage barbarians easily caused uprisings. If anything could unite the outskirts with the center, it was the unity of religion, and since it was shaken by differences of opinion, then the connection with the center was inevitably broken. Some politicians seized on the difference of opinion in order to, by separating from Byzantium in dogmatic terms, create a basis for national life. The same phenomenon was repeated in Egypt. There the Greek element apparently took root sufficiently, but, nevertheless, the national population represented a huge force. According to the news of the martyrdom, those living near Alexandria knew only a few phrases in Greek, and at the trial it was necessary to negotiate with them through an interpreter. The purely ethnographic question was combined with a political question, and especially with the peculiar exploitation of Egypt by the Roman emperors. Egypt represented the appanage department of the Roman emperors from the house of Augustus, and they took care that Egypt was not included in the general administration and that none of the senators came to Egypt without the permission of the emperor. The benefits of Roman citizenship were not extended to Egypt, and some phenomena were completely unique here. One cannot read without smiling that the punishments here were different than in other places. The Egyptian was proud that if he did something wrong, his spine would suffer the blows of the phallus (these are the branches of the palm tree that come out from the very core and are therefore softer); meanwhile, if someone else, for example a Jew, had committed a crime, they would beat him with a simple beater or a whip. Thus, beating with phallus was considered a less humiliating punishment than any other. Due to differences in administration, Egypt was separated from a number of other provinces. This was a mistake on the part of the government: the national element in Egypt was strong, and it is not surprising that the Egyptians looked at Byzantium as something completely foreign. In ecclesiastical terms, a mistake was made, as history shows, that the opportunity was given to the Alexandrian bishop to develop centralization throughout Egypt. He achieved what for others was an ideal goal: the Alexandrian pope was the metropolitan of all Egypt, and all bishops were ordained either by himself or by a bishop with the right of delegate, that is, who received from him special powers for ordination. All the threads of church life were drawn to the pulpit of St. Mark, and the Egyptian was accustomed to look at his bishop with the greatest reverence. Politically, the expulsion of St. by Constantius was disastrous. Afanasia; this surrounded him with an aura of special holiness; being persecuted has become synonymous with being Orthodox; and as a result, the authority of Constantinople in dogmatic terms for Egypt was zero. When the persecution also affected Cyril of Alexandria, behind whom the Egyptian seemed to instinctively feel that he was right, and when he actually turned out to be right, the Egyptians began to look at the successors of St. Mark in general, as infallible in dogmatic matters. Dioscorus took advantage of the glory of his predecessors and suddenly - he was condemned, deposed: his authority only increased from this, and just as the persecution of Athanasius and Cyril did not impose anything bad on them, but only elevated them, so the Egyptians did not see anything reprehensible in the persecuted Dioscorus. His closest successor, Timothy Elur, followed in the footsteps of Dioscorus, but he too was expelled. Peter Mong suffered the same fate; but all this meant nothing in the eyes of the Egyptians. Thus, due to the force of historical complications, Egypt was increasingly led to an isolated position from Byzantium. Egypt followed a treacherous policy in the fight against Muslims. The religious difference was so great that it paralyzed the efforts of Byzantium to retain Egypt. And when Egypt was conquered by the Arabs, the population joyfully welcomed them as liberators; and only the stupid policy of the Arabs made him feel that it had exchanged the former, freer slavery for a new, more difficult one. The promises made by the Arabs at the beginning were not fulfilled: taxes were increased, the system of extortion began to be applied to the first generations. Monophysitism appeared in Armenia due to a misunderstanding. Already before the time of the Council of Nicaea, Armenia was enlightened by Christianity; here the Christian religion became the state religion earlier than in the Greco-Roman world. Constantine V. achieved that they tried to attract Armenians to participate in church affairs; so, for example, the son of Gregory the Illuminator Aristakes was at the First Ecumenical Council. But then political unrest began. The wretched Byzantine emperors were fickle in their relations with the Armenians; they either entered into an alliance with them, or left them to the mercy of the Persians. The strained political relations also had a bad effect on church life: Armenians no longer participated in the second ecumenical council. Communication between the Armenians and Byzantium became weak, and the Armenians achieved autocephaly; Previously, their bishops received consecration from the bishops of Caesarea in Cappadocia. But their absence at the Second Ecumenical Council would not have been so noticeable if the representatives of the Armenians at the Council of Ephesus had been only associates of Cyril, and had not gone further than him in their dogmatic views and, in the person of Akakius of Melitene, had not come into contact with the boundaries of Monophysitism, so that St. Kirill had to restrain him. Border Armenia became the arena of agitation and struggle between the Monophysites and propagandists of the works of Theodore of Mopsuestia, coming out of Edessa, which was the cultural center for Armenia. Many enlightened Christians of Armenia came to the conclusion that Theodore of Mopsuestia is an erring person, and the direction directly opposite to him is Orthodox. The rupture occurred due to the Council of Chalcedon, but not because the Armenians were absent from it, but because it was convened by Emperor Marcian. The Armenians, for religious reasons, were forced to start a war with the Persians, remaining in full confidence that they would receive help from Byzantium. Ambassadors were sent to Constantinople and stayed there for quite some time. Then Theodosius II died and Marcian took his place. Theodosius could have rushed headlong into the fight against the Persians, but Marcian turned out to be truly a statesman and took this matter seriously. Then the magister militum (like our minister of war) was Anatoly, who was familiar with the actual state of affairs in the east, since he had previously been a military leader there. Anatoly tried to influence Marcian in the sense of refusing the Armenians their request. Be that as it may, the Armenians did not receive help and were defeated, as a result of which the name of Marcian and Anatoly became hated among them. In 451, the Armenians had no incentive to take an interest in what was happening in Chalcedon. Meanwhile, in Constantinople, under the emperors Zenon and Anastasia, the Council of Chalcedon began to be considered heretical. The Armenians adopted this view of the Council of Chalcedon and began to see signs of heresy in its definitions. In essence, not only dogmatic questions constituted the physiognomy of the Armenian church, but also ritual differences, for which even the Syrian Monophysites denounced them. But the Armenians valued their characteristics no less than the doctrine of the unity of nature. Therefore, in every attempt at union, they emphasized their own characteristics. Armenian fanaticism is noticeable even to this day. One dissertation by an Armenian monk states that the features of the Armenian church have been preserved since the time of Gregory the Illuminator and will remain unshakable forever 92. Thus, the existing Monophysites are the result of not only church history, but also political history. Political and religious factors are closely connected with each other. Marcian (450–457) was fully confident that after the Council of Chalcedon all disputes would cease, and people would stop looking for deceptive and artificial light in broad daylight. But it turned out that the truth was not so easy to reign, and he had to reckon with various uprisings. It is remarkable that Nemesis struck the perpetrators of the robber council. Juvenal's friendship with Dioscorus was not in vain. Let us remember that in the previous period of time before the Council of Chalcedon (431–451), Juvenal, by his hierarchical rights, occupied a very prominent place among the hierarchs. These rights were finally formalized and legalized at the Council of Chalcedon. Therefore, when Dioscorus was condemned by the fathers of the council, including Juvenal, among those accompanying Juvenal there were people who began to divulge that Juvenal had sold his faith for the patriarchate. The monk Theodosius, whom Juvenal had the imprudence to take with him to the council and who had previously lived with Dioscorus, a zealous Monophysite who had gone through fire and water, fled from Chalcedon to Palestine and here, even before Juvenal’s arrival, he shouted a cry to stand up for the faith, divulging to everyone about Juvenal’s heresy. There was great excitement. Numerous (about 10,000) Palestinian monks took Theodosius’ side and installed him as Patriarch of Jerusalem. The benefactor of Palestine, the Dowager Empress Eudoxia, was also on his side. In Jerusalem, the Monophysites broke down the prison gates and released prisoners to defend the faith, who increased their hordes. The robbery of the rich Difisites began, and the three Palestines became an arena of violence and murder for 18 months. The attitude of the Monophysites towards Abba Gelasius, who lived near Bethlehem and enjoyed the greatest authority, is curious. The Monophysites tried to win Gelasius over to their side, but he said that he did not want to know Theodosius and his supporters, but only Juvenal. When a deputation was sent to Gelasius from the Monophysites to talk about faith, he refused - and sent them to his servant boy, saying that he would chat with them as far as his common sense would allow him. Gelasius irritated the Monophysites so much that they wanted to burn him, but then realized that by doing so they would burn themselves. Juvenal, upon his return, was not accepted and was forced to flee to Byzantium. He took his chair only with the help of military force. Theodosius apparently fell into the hands of the government and died either in a Sidonian prison or on the road to Constantinople under Emperor Leo. The pacification of the unrest was not without bloodshed and deaths. The murdered were surrounded by the people with an aura of holiness, and his opponents did not cease to harm Juvenal in every way. They say that one monk Solomon, carrying a basket, when meeting with Juvenal, pretended that he wanted to come up to receive the blessing. When Juvenal bent down to give the blessing, this Solomon showered the patriarch from head to toe with the rubbish in the basket and at the same time said: “This is how they deal with those who sell faith for a temporary fortune.” The monk was arrested, but Juvenaly released him and even offered him a financial allowance, which, however, the latter refused due to his fanaticism. Thalassius of Caesarea also paid the price. Some monk George caused a disturbance in Cappadocia, and Thalassius was forced to flee. In view of the unrest caused by the monks, there was a desire among the bishops to weaken the influence of the monks; Thus, in the correspondence of Theodoret of Cyrus with Pope Leo, the idea of ​​​​prohibiting monks from teaching is introduced. The Emperor and Empress, realizing how difficult it was to fight such influential people among the people as monks, were forced to write petitionary messages to the latter. But the situation in Egypt was most difficult. When electing a successor to Dioscorus, difficulties apparently occurred in Alexandria itself, so Proterius was elected after rather long delays (at the end of 452 or the beginning of 453). But his position was very precarious: he stayed in Alexandria only thanks to soldiers sent from Constantinople. While Marcian, a man of strong character and a famous defender of Orthodoxy, sat on the Byzantine throne, Proterius could still consider himself safe. But as soon as the death of Marcian became known (between January 26 - February 7, 457), an uprising arose against Proterius. The Monophysites appointed Timothy Elur as their patriarch, and Proterius was killed on March 28, Maundy Thursday. They say that Elur ascended to the Alexandrian see not without fraud: as if he himself walked through the Monophysite cells and through a tube inspired the monks that he was an angel and sent from God with the command to elect Timothy Elur as patriarch. Be that as it may, with the death of Proterius, a vacant chair opened up in Alexandria and Timothy Elur took it. However, it turned out that the adherents of Elur were hasty in his election: the hopes they had for a change on the throne were not justified. The newly elected emperor, Leo I (457–474), was of the same ecclesiastical convictions as his predecessor. Upon his accession to the throne, Leo had to deal with the matter of church unrest in Egypt. He submitted this church issue to the judgment of the church itself, turning to the metropolitans and the most influential bishops with a circular message in which he posed three questions: a) how to look at Timothy Elur? b) Should we recognize the Council of Chalcedon, which the supporters of Elur reject? c) Is it not necessary to convene a new ecumenical council? From the answers of the bishops (metropolitan councils were convened to discuss the issue), sent in 458 and preserved in Latin translation only partially to this day in the Codex encyclius, it is clear that they do not recognize Timothy Elur as a bishop and consider him deserving, moreover, of deprivation of church communion (only some submit the question of this to the mercy of the highest archbishops and the emperor); a new cathedral is considered unnecessary (from a new discussion, as from an influx of fresh air, Monophysitism, which now produces only smoke, will flare up into a bright flame); the authority of the Council of Chalcedon is recognized on an equal basis with that of Nicaea. Only the councils of both Pamphylia expressed a special opinion on this last issue. The Council of Side (chaired by Metropolitan Amphilochius) in Pamphylia I spoke in favor of the abolition of the Council of Chalcedon. But subsequently Amphilochius (himself) renounced this opinion and joined the other bishops. The Council of Perga in Pamphylia II, recognizing the Chalcedonian creed (mathema) as a completely accurate expression of dogma, spoke out, however, that it should not be equated with the Nicene symbol: it, as an accurate expression of dogmatic teaching and as an excellent polemical tool, should be left only in the hands of bishops: “we do not betray it, like the Nicene symbol, at baptism.” The Council of Perga, however, leans more toward the formula “ex duabus naturis una natura Dei Verbi incarnata,” recognizing it as indistinguishable in meaning from the Chalcedonian definition of faith. Thus, a whole generation would grow up knowing nothing about the Council of Chalcedon, and then its decisions could be canceled as heretical. Leo took the side of the Orthodox and adhered to the decrees of the Council of Chalcedon until his death. Fluctuations in politics begin with the reign of Zeno (475 - † April 9, 491). The usurper Basilisk, who ousted him (in 476), decided to rely on the power of the Monophysites and published “ἐγκύκλιον”, but realizing his mistake, he canceled it in “ἀντεγκύκλιον”, but did not thereby correct his position. Zinon prevailed over Basilisk, but he himself took the side of the unionist policy and published “ἑνωτικόν”, recognized by the weaker Orthodox and Monophysites, and rejected by the strict Orthodox and Monophysites. Leo expelled Elur, and the Orthodox Timothy Salofakiol (460-482) was installed as Patriarch of Alexandria; but there was no change in the general direction of church affairs in Egypt. Timofey Salofakiol was a man of a gentle character and, in his convictions, rose high above the average level of his age. He well understood the difficulty of his position, he also knew that with the participation of military force it was impossible to calm the Alexandrian church, and in difficult cases he always resorted to moral influence on his flock. His own clergy were unhappy that he was too lenient towards the renegades and did not allow the Monophysites to be persecuted. They say that when they brought to him a woman who was carrying a child to be baptized into the church where the Monophysites were held, he treated her meekly, gave her a canvas for the child about to be baptized, and let her go. They say that the people greeted him on the streets of Alexandria with exclamations: “although we do not have church fellowship with you, we love you.” The question of a successor to Timothy Salofakiol was resolved by a break in communication between the Roman Church and the Eastern ones (484 - March 28, 519). After the death of Salofakiol, the Monophysites nominated Peter Mong as his successor. The Orthodox sent an embassy to Constantinople with John Talaya at its head (he was the archpresbyter of the Alexandrian church, therefore, the first hierarchical person in the clergy after the bishop). It turned out that at that time the overthrow of Zinon was being prepared in Constantinople, and the Alexandrian embassy fell under the influence of this revolutionary party. The matter ended with the fact that the embassy was released without positive results, and an oath was taken from Talaia that he himself would not ascend to the Alexandrian See. Meanwhile, the Orthodox chose Talaya as Salofakiol’s successor. He, of course, did not refuse. Soon an embassy was sent to Constantinople with a letter, where John Talaya justified his violation of the oath by the fact that he was elected by the people against his will and could not resist the people's will. Be that as it may, the former housekeeper of the Church of St. John of Alexandria, John Talaya, became pope of Alexandria. Of course, the notice of this event was compiled using well-known techniques. But it had to happen that the confidant of John Talaya, having appeared in Constantinople, made the most impossible mistake. The custom of that time required that new bishops in cities send out their synodics as messages of news of their installation. In these letters the bishops expressed their faith. They were called “synodics” because the council (σύνοδος), which elected a new bishop, signed them, thereby certifying its unanimity in faith with the newly elected bishop. According to existing custom, this letter was to be presented to Akakios, Patriarch of Constantinople. And although the bishops of Constantinople were the most unpleasant persons for Alexandria, the ceremony was observed. The secret instructions with which the ambassadors of the Alexandrian bishop were supplied stated that they should be guided by the instructions of the dignitary Illus, who was at the head of the conspiracy against Zinon. But when the ambassadors arrived in Constantinople, it turned out, to the detriment of John Talaya, that Ilus had received an appointment to the post of commander-in-chief in the east and was already in Antioch. Talaya's ambassadors were so stupid that, when they arrived in Constantinople, they did not present Acacius with letters, but went to Antioch for instructions from Illus. There was confusion - and what a comical position the Bishop of Constantinople found himself in! He was insulted: the ambassadors appeared and did not present the letter. Meanwhile, the Roman bishop, through the Bishop of Constantinople, also inquired about affairs in Egypt; this was the case now under Akaki. In Rome it was known about the death of Timothy Salofakiol, but his successor was not known. Akaki was placed in an impossible position. Knowing about the appointment of John Talaya, he could not officially report this, since he did not receive a synodik from the ambassadors - and, therefore, could not enter into communication with him, not being sure of his Orthodoxy. This irritated Akakia and he, of course, could not stand for the statement of John Talaya. Meanwhile, Peter Mong had a strong party in Constantinople, which spread rumors that Talaia was not up to the task of maintaining harmony in Alexandria and that his administration would be as ineffectual as Salofakiola, but it would be better to install a person like Peter Mong, beloved by the Alexandrians; he will be able to govern the Alexandrians for the good of the church. At the same time, they began to imagine that Peter Mong was not so black: he was not an opponent of the Council of Chalcedon and agreed to compromise. Peter Mong, with his qualities, seemed like a man deliberately created to maintain his position. Thus, Zeno’s “ἑνωτικὸν”, the “uniting letter” to Egypt, was published. It was not composed by Zinon, but most likely by Akaki, who was later blamed for the appearance of the enoticon. In the henotikon of Zenon, the Council of Chalcedon was not rejected, but the question about it was passed over in silence. This is a unionist attempt to circumvent the fact of the existence of the Council of Chalcedon and its ὅρος with exact theological expressions and the appearance of Monophysites with the same terminology. The following are recognized as normal statements of faith: the symbols of Nicea and Constantinople (the emperor does not even know that anyone adheres to another faith), the decrees of the First Council of Ephesus and the 12 chapters of St. Kirill. We anathematize Nestorius and Eutyches and their associates. The Son of God, truly the Lord I. Christ incarnate, is consubstantial with the Father in Divinity, and He Himself is consubstantial with us in humanity. He is one, not two (ἕνα τυγχάνειν καὶ οὐ δύο). For to one belong both the miracles and the sufferings which He voluntarily endured in the flesh. ἑκουσίως ὑπέμεινε σαρκί). (Cf. §§ 5. 15. 22 Tomos). We do not at all accept those who divide, or merge, or consider (the flesh of Christ) only a ghost. The sinless incarnation from the Mother of God did not introduce (do not add) another Son: the Trinity remains a Trinity even after the incarnation of the one from the Trinity, God the Word σαρκωθέντος τοῦ ἑνὸς τῆς Τριάδος Θεοῦ Λόγου). – The emperor writes this message “not renewing the faith, but confirming” the Egyptians (οὐ καινίζοντες πίστιν, ἀλλ᾽ ὑμᾶς πληροφοροῦντες). “And we anathematize everyone who has philosophized or is philosophizing anything else, now or ever (before, ἢ πώποτε), whether in Chalcedon or at some other council, especially the above-mentioned Nestorius and Eutyches and their like-minded people.” Since in the entire enoticon neither “φύσις”, nor “ὑπόστασις”, nor “πρόσωπον” are ever found, then “synodite” could ad libitum mean “πρόσωπον” or “δύο φύσεις" where the Monophysite read between the lines "μία φύσις". An extreme supporter of the Council of Chalcedon could reassure himself with the fact that, in any case, it is not clearly stated that in Chalcedon anyone actually thought anything different (especially since it is logically impossible to think in disagreement with a program so elastic); that this, therefore, is only a pure theoretical possibility that has not turned into a fact. People who stood on the right historical ground could admit that some individuals in Chalcedon really thought, for example, Eutychian; but for this they deserve anathema, which does not concern the cathedral, as a cathedral, as a whole. Finally, the Monophysites, convinced that the entire council, with few exceptions, adhered to the Nestorian way of thinking, applied the anathema directly to the “Synod of Chalcedon” that they hated. Peter Mong was sent to Alexandria, but the struggle here was beyond his strength, and the course of affairs in Alexandria worsened. Some limited themselves to anathema to those who thought differently and implicitly added that the Council of Chalcedon introduced something new, while the other party - the strict ones - directly demanded the condemnation of the Council of Chalcedon. Peter Mong struggled a lot with this latter trend. He addressed clarifications to the people, setting out the contents of the enoticon as contrary to the Council of Chalcedon, although he himself was of the opinion that the council did not introduce anything contrary to St. fathers. Opponents of the Council of Chalcedon insisted on rejecting the latter - and Peter Mong agreed with them, but wrote to Constantinople that he did not reject it, since nothing contrary to the teachings of St. was decreed in Chalcedon. fathers. In the same way, there was a misunderstanding with the transposition of the relics of his predecessors, which was seen as an insult to Orthodoxy. The most important way in which Peter Mong confused his relationship with Rome was that he entered into relations with the Patriarch of Antioch, Peter Gnatheus. When from Rome, where John Talaya fled following the example of Athanasius and complained that he was being oppressed for Orthodoxy, there was a request to Akakios about his attitude towards Peter Mong, Akakios said that his Orthodoxy was known in Rome and that he did not enter into communication with such heretics as Peter Gnatheus. Meanwhile, in Rome the following arguments were launched: “If we assume that the only Monophysite is Peter Gnatheus of Antioch, then Peter Mong, who has communication with him, has learned the ulcers of Monophysitism. Akaki, having no relations with Peter Gnafei, but being in communication with Peter Mong, is also a Monophysite.” This is how the “Akakian schism” appeared. This was an attempt by the bishop of Rome to judge the bishop of Constantinople. Zeno's successor, Anastasius (491 - † July 9, 518) found such disagreement between the churches that he decided to follow the policy of the status quo: he demanded that where the Council of Chalcedon is recognized, it should not be rejected, and where it is rejected, it should not be recognized there. But later in his reign, Anastasius also sided with the Monophysites and, under various pretexts, sent two Orthodox Patriarchs of Constantinople, Euthymius (in 496) and Macedonius II (in 511), into exile. Vitalian, who raised the banner of rebellion against Anastasius, demanded from the emperor, among other conditions, a peace treaty and the restoration of Orthodoxy. But only under Justin I the predominance of Monophysitism was put to an end. Disintegration of Monophysitism into talk Despite the fact that Monophysitism so stubbornly defends its existence and even reacts to the church itself, it is strong only in its negative side: it decisively rejects the Council of Chalcedon with its formula ᾽εν δύο φύσεσι, but, in essence, does not have a firm dogma of its own, established in all details. Therefore, the history of the existence of Monophysitism is a process of its fragmentation into small factions. In the interval between the Council of Chalcedon and the Third Council of Constantinople, already by the first quarter of the 7th century, in less than two centuries, the Monophysites managed to split into 12–13 sects, on grounds partly dogmatic, partly canonical. Some of these factions owe their existence less to dogma than to various historical complications. For example, the Dioscorians in the strict sense stood out simply because Timothy Elur accepted former Proterians into fellowship. The Acephalians separated from Peter Mong because he accepted the ἑνωτικὸν of Zeno, who did not clearly reject the Council of Chalcedon. Left without a head, without a bishop, this sect prepared for itself a miserable existence: their presbyters soon died out, there was nowhere to find a new hierarchy, and the acephals resolved themselves into priestlessness. They did not have canonically correct baptism: they used Epiphany water for this. Correct communion was even less conceivable: they took care of St. communion from ancient times and received communion only once a year, on Easter day, a tiny piece at a time. But most of the sects emerged for completely dogmatic reasons. Dogmatic differences in the bosom of Monophysitism existed and matured in the period we have already discussed, pre-Justinian; the reign of Justinian saw only a massive revelation of this difference in the unusually rapid development of Monophysite sectarianism 93 . Monophysitism, as a doctrine, is composed of two aspects: material and formal. The first solves the question of character, the quality of human nature in Christ; the second deals with the quantitative side, affirms in Christ the existence of one nature, and not two. Both aspects are already given in full in the teaching of Eutyches. On the formal side, he believed that one can speak of two natures in Christ only before His incarnation (ἐκ δύο φύσεων), and after unity in Christ there is already one nature, μία φύσις, and not δύο φύσεις or ἐν δύο φύσεσιν. On the material side, he held onto the thought of the foreignness of the body of Christ to ours. He rejected as slander the idea that I. Christ brought His human nature from heaven; he admitted, if not openly taught, that God the Word borrowed human nature from St. Virgo; but he found it difficult to recognize Christ as consubstantial with us in humanity. Human nature was presented to the thoughts of Eutyches as something discolored, capable of taking on the essence of the one who wears it, just as the color of the object on which it is placed shines through transparent glass. Therefore, in St. The Virgin, who is a man and is of one essence with us, and human nature is of one essence with us. But human nature, received from her, in Christ, consubstantial with the Father God the Word, is not consubstantial with us. To admit this (consubstantiality), according to Eutyches, meant to predicate Christ Himself not as God, but as a man - to cast doubt, as it were, on the very divinity of Christ. Eutyches Dioscorus of Alexandria joined this doctrine more closely than many others. At the council, he openly recognized the formal side of Eutychianism as absolutely correct. Apparently, he took the same point of view on the question of the essence of Christ’s humanity. “If,” he reasoned, the blood of Christ, κατὰ φύσιν, by nature, is not the blood of God, but of man, then how does it differ from the blood of goats and calves and from the ashes of a red heifer? And it will be earthly and perishable blood, and human blood is essentially earthly and perishable blood. But let us not call the blood of Christ consubstantial with the blood of one of us by nature!” However, Dioscorus was not consistent on this point. “The Fathers,” he wrote, anathematize those who do not recognize God the Word as consubstantial with the Father on the grounds that He, having assumed flesh, became consubstantial with man, although He remained unchanged what He was.” He did not thus reject consubstantiality in principle, but refused to pursue it in particulars. It is not superfluous to note here that the usual view that, according to the Monophysite teaching, humanity in Christ was absorbed by the deity, merged with the deity, turned into a deity, is based on accusations of the Monophysites by Orthodox polemicists, and not on the teachings of them themselves. The Monophysites usually avoided and rejected the expressions σύγχυσις μίξις, τροπὴ, etc. Dioscorus himself declared this at the council. In principle, Dioscorus had nothing against dividing the facts from the earthly life of I. Christ into two categories: people saw in Him a man living on earth, and they saw in Him God, the Creator of the heavenly armies; they saw that He slept on the ship like a man, and saw that He walked on the water like God, etc. Of course, Dioscorus would refuse to call these two sides two natures. Close to Dioscorus, but further deviating from the original Eutychianism, Timothy Elur is the successor of his work. “One nature in Christ is His only deity, although He was immutably incarnate, σεσάρκωται ἀτρέπτως.” As for the humanity of Christ, Elur, continuing Dioscorus here too, refuses to call it a nature or being; this is not οὐσία and not φύσις, but νόμος οἰκονομίας. This economy was accomplished not by nature, but supernaturally, and therefore the most pure body of the God-man, although it was borrowed from the human nature and being common to us, and therefore consubstantial with us and homogeneous - καὶ ὁμοφυὴς καὶ ὁμογενὴς καὶ ὁμοούσιος, - is neither φύσις nor οὐσία of a person similar to us. That it is not human nature is proved by Elur by the supernatural nature of its birth. If it were human nature, St. The Virgin would not have remained a Virgin at Christmas. This strong emphasis on the moment of the consubstantiality of humanity constitutes a characteristic feature in the teachings of Elur. True, he affirms this consubstantiality only on the basis of the community of Christ with us at His beginning, and perhaps from the very moment of conception he assumes the already known assimilation of Christ’s humanity with His deity (but we know nothing about this due to insufficient data), but, in any case, Elur already marks that stage of Monophysitism when it breaks its original, supported by Dioscorus, union with the Eutychians. Already Theodosius, the antipatriarch of Jerusalem, almost took it as an insult when the Eutychians decided to consider him their supporter, and debated with them in the same way as with the synodites. Likewise, Elur, when in 476 the Eutychians of Constantinople ran to him as an ally, declared to them that God the Word is consubstantial with us in the flesh, and sent them back. In general, the Monophysites see in this doctrine of the consubstantiality of God the Word with us in humanity such a significant difference from Eutychianism that they do not skimp on anathemas of Eutyches and his followers. The attitude of Elur towards Cyril of Alexandria is also remarkable. He realized the impossibility of justifying the Monophysite doctrine from the writings of Cyril and accuses him of internal contradiction. Having recognized the one nature of God the Word incarnate, in other places Cyril teaches about two natures; Having declared that God the Word Himself suffered for us in the flesh, he in other places assures that suffering cannot in any way be attributed to His deity. Thus, by renouncing Eutyches, Timothy also renounces his claim to be the exclusive successor of Cyril’s work. Known for his struggle with Flavian of Antioch, Xenaia (Philoxenus), Bishop of Hierapolis (Mabbug), is remarkable in the history of the development of Monophysite doctrine in that he was the first to introduce the formula: “one nature is complex, dual, μία φύσις σύνθετος, μία φύσις διττή.” It seems that the most remarkable dogmatist of Monophysitism, Sevir (Σευῆρος), Patriarch of Antioch, took advantage of it in the Monophysite sense. For 26 years (512 - February 8, 538) 94 he stood at the head of his party. Having fled to Alexandria after the accession of Justin, he entered into a dogmatic dispute with Julian, Bishop of Halicarnassus, most remarkable in its content. Both of these parties put forward their contenders for the Alexandrian see in 535: Sevier - Theodosius, Julian - Gayana. The former was supported by a significant part of the clergy and secular authorities, the latter by the monks and the local population from the upper to the lower strata - a fact characteristic of the mood of the Egyptians. Nevertheless, Theodosius had a more significant role, and he and Sevier became the hierarchical founder of the Jacobite Monophysite church. Sevier wrote a lot, but none of his works have been published in full. According to those passages in which his teaching was preserved by Orthodox polemicists, it is not free from contradictions, which, however, cannot obscure its dogmatic significance. By this time it became clear that if all the disputes are transferred to a logical point of view, then it turns out that they all depend on the solution of the question: can nature exist without its own special hypostasis or not? And if there had been a metaphysician who would have resolved this one way or another, then he would have given the first premise, but in reality this was not the case, and this premise still remained a question. According to the Monophysites, nature cannot exist without such a hypostasis, but according to the Orthodox, it had for itself in Christ the hypostasis of the Logos. The second form of this dispute consisted of references to the sayings of St. fathers. But both the Orthodox and Sevier in this regard came to the conclusion that St. Fathers in this case there are terminological fluctuations, and the attitude of the Orthodox and Monophysites towards them was such that the former did not attach importance to those expressions that spoke of one nature, and the latter considered the patristic expressions about two natures inaccurate. Sevirus was (at first) hostile to the enoticon of Zenon, for the fact that there was no anathema to the Council of Chalcedon, like none of the Monophysites, and, however, not a single one of the Monophysites came close to the Chalcedonian dogma to the same extent as Sevirus. He called ἑνωτικὸν - διαιρετικὸν and κενωτικὸν (not a connecting, but a dividing message, emptying the faith, destroying, bringing Orthodoxy to zero, i.e. the Monophysite teaching). He anathematized the Council of Chalcedon, but not because the council, when discussing unity, spoke of two natures: “no one brought such a senseless accusation against him, and we ourselves recognize two natures in Christ - created and uncreated.” The Council of Chalcedon is subject to anathema because it did not follow the teachings of St. Cyril, did not say: Christ ἐκ δύο φύσεων, that of both there is one Christ, abandoned the expressions μία φύσις τοῦ Θεοῦ Λόγου σεσαρκωμένη, ἕνωσις καθ᾽ ὑπόστασιν, σύνοδος φυσική. Thus, Sevier looks at the teaching of the Council of Chalcedon much more softly than other Monophysites, than, for example, Dioscorus. Those see in the teaching about δύο φύσεις, ἐν δύο φύσεσι, a direct error, a heresy condemned by the fathers, while Sevier - only incompleteness, one-sidedness, an inept choice of dogmatic words that are less successful, instead of the most characteristic ones. Sevier does not hide the fact that the Orthodox can bring in their favor more than one place from paternal literature - he looked at things more directly than, for example, Elur, who triumphantly exclaimed: let the Difisites show us the difference between the two natures, if they can. But Sevier rejected all such passages by the same method in which Orthodox theologians eliminate patristic passages favorable to the doctrine of one nature. Sevier argued that such passages should not be taken into account, because the fathers expressed themselves in them inaccurately, as is natural among writers who lived before the advent of Nestorianism, or by two natures they mean actually different moments of the existence of the Word, considering the Word in the moment before His union. “And we,” he says, recognize the essential difference between the two natures combined into one; we know that there is another nature of the Word, and another of the flesh.” In the subtlest abstraction, within the limits of purely theoretical thinking, the human mind can place before itself the natures in Christ as they were before unity. Then he represents each of them not only in its characteristics, in its difference and otherness in its physical quality, which distinguishes it from a number of other natures but also think of it as existing for itself, as a ὑπόστασις, even as a person, πρόσωπον. But when the mind imagines that these natures were combined with each other and, moreover, so closely that one hypostasis was obtained, then it has no right to believe that in all reality, ταῖς ὑποστάσεσι, these natures, which it thinks of as two τῇ ἐπινοίᾳ, are two. When, as a result of the combination, the result is μία φύσις τοῦ Θεοῦ Λόγου σεσαρκωμένη, then the right for thought to visualize the qualitative difference of the combined natures, to arrange them, to consider them as existing hypostases that are special to oneself ends. (διιστῶσι δὲ οὐδαμῶς). Thus, a single nature is obtained. But Sevier calls this same single nature both hypostasis and person. He does not allow that the natures from which (Christ was composed), τὰ ἐξ ὧν, could be counted even after the union, called them δύο φύσεις or δυάς. Only that which has its own identity can be counted; to consider means to posit nature, as ὑπόστασις, or, what Sevier understands as the highest expression of particularity, as a person, πρόσωπον. Δύο φύσεις - this would be the same as δύο πρόσωπα. Δυὰς - this shows not a simple difference, διαφορά, but διαίρεσις. After the connection διαιρεῖν (to separate) and even only σκοπεῖν (to perceive) two natures can only be μόνῃ θεωρίᾳ, τῇ φαντασίᾳ νοῦ, because to distinguish between natures Sevira is the same as distinguishing hypostases. In this aversion to numbers, to duality, in this position: μία φύσις, the formal side of Sevier’s Monophysitism is expressed. However, this μία φύσις is φύσις σύνθετος, and Sevier looks at this addition very seriously. He doesn’t want to hear about any merging, mixing, or changing natures. “I am amazed,” he writes to one of his opponents (the Monophysites), “how can you call incarnation a addition, σύνθεσιν, when at the same time you say: “so that at once there became one being and one quality.” Thus, your unity began by merging, and addition lost its meaning, because it turned into one essence (εἰς μίαν οὐσίαν μετεχώρησεν).” Unity, according to Sevier, did not produce any change in the essence of Christ’s humanity, which is consubstantial with us: it did not change from this either quantitatively or qualitatively. It remained the same as it was, and did not become only apparent: Christ both appeared and was a man. The difference of natures is perceived only mentally; but, nevertheless, they exist, ὑφεστῶσαι, ὑφιστάμεναι only ἐν συνθέσει, they have not lost their reality, they only do not have originality, existence for themselves, they do not represent two special units living separately from each other by their own life. Humanity does not represent a special focus that sheds the light of spiritual life apart from God the Word, apart from Him. He does not even allow the thought that these natures, combined into one, constituted not only one nature, but also one essence, οὐσία, and one property, ἰδιότης. And after the connection he continues to talk about “natures”, about “every nature”, about “τὰ ἐξ ὧν”. He doesn't just want to count them 95. That Sevier very seriously taught about the consubstantiality of Christ's humanity with ours is considered generally accepted. But very weighty scientific authorities believe that the same cannot be said about the consubstantiality of Christ’s humanity with ours. That is, they think that Sevier really thought of Christ’s humanity as the totality of all qualitative determinations from which our humanity is composed; but in Christ these qualities lacked what makes them nature, they lacked substance, a substratum. It was a complex of human properties without a supporting substrate, human accidents - without a corresponding substance; they all grouped around a center that was essentially alien to them, around the being of God the Word, so that Christ at a certain time acted like a human being, spoke like a human being, but in essence He was always God and never a man. And about human nature in Christ by union, as about nature, Sevier could speak with the same right with which, for example, we can speak about the nature of feeling, about the nature of beauty, about the nature of light. Strictly speaking, it was not nature, but only two sides of the same nature 96. This presentation is captivating in its favor with its enchanting clarity - it brings so much light into the fragmentary teaching of Sevier. But I think that this presentation is unfair to Sevier, and presents his dogma in a worse form than it should. The Monophysite, of course, could not, without falling into a contradictio in adjecto, speak of two natures by union. He had to think of them as two sides of one hypostasis. And Severus loved the indefinite τὰ ἐξ ὧν; but he often spoke about φύσεις. What about their reality? He rejects this reality, but only to the extent of its development in which it would be the same as what we imagine the hypostasis to be. Humanity in Christ did not live its own independent life, it was not ἰδιοσύστατος. But then, we must say from our point of view, it would not only be a nature, but also a hypostasis. In the integral image of the God-man, humanity appears as a certain plus to His deity, as one of the incoming moments; his subordinate position is indicated only by an additional ἐν συνθέσει. But Orthodox dogma cannot support the complete coordination of deity and humanity in Christ: and to a certain extent it cannot but subordinate humanity. Despite these limitations, humanity is ὑφεστῶσα, ὑφισταμένη φύσις; to distinguish him from the deity, Sevier means him not only ἰδιότης, but also οὐσία, - one of the terms that the Monophysites consider equivalent to ἄτομον, πρόσωπον, ὑπόστασις, φύσις. Finally, Sevier knows not only the natural laws of the body of Christ, but also this body governed by its inherent laws. Thus, the reality of the existence of the nature of Christ is declared too seriously, too energetically for the question of its non-substratity, its non-substantiality, given the state of our information about Sevier, to be considered finally resolved. Different natures are seen not only mentally, but they exist in synthesis, they have not lost their originality, reality. Thus, Sevier recognized the real existence of qualitative features of human nature very decisively. He insisted on this existence so seriously that it is difficult to admit that he recognized in Christ only the essence of human nature without any substratum (without essence). In any case, although he placed humanity in subordination to the Divine, his “οὐσία” contains somewhat more than just “essence” or “quality”; there is also a certain moment of existence in it. Sevier thus establishes in Monophysite doctrine the distinction between φύσις and οὐσία. He identifies Φύσις with ὑπόστασις and πρόσωπον, and brings οὐσία closer to ἰδιότης; but οὐσία contains a more energetic meaning than ἰδιότης. Sevier illustrated the existence of a single nature in Christ with the doctrine of the unity of energy in Christ. Demanding the unity of nature on those grounds on which one can demand the actual unity of the hypostasis-person, Sevier explains and supplements his dogmatics with the demand for unity of action, μία ἐνέργεια θεανδρική. Divinity and humanity in Christ became an absolutely new, unique relationship in the history of mankind; this should be reflected in the new staging of the performance itself. God and man became one in Christ and do not represent two separate units. There is only one center of spiritual life in Christ: one and His ἐνέργεια, because the non-hypostatic nature cannot act, and His action is a single godly action, μία ἐνέργεια. In contrast to μία ἐνέργεια, Sevier recognizes πολλὰ ἐνέργήματα, to which the first refers as a modus agendi to private actions, actus, actiones. He does not want to distribute the latter between both sides of the divine-human nature, so that each characterizes only one side separately. He polemicizes against the tomos of Leo with his “agit utraque forma quod proprium est”, but loses sight of the explanation found here: “cum alterius communione). Sevier liked to explain the single modus agendi in Christ, the single energy, by reference to the fact of Jesus Christ walking on the waters. He saw this as an excellent example of a unified Godly energy. “What nature is it that walks on water? let those who introduce two natures by union answer us. Divine? But is it natural for the Divine to walk with bodily feet? Human? But isn’t it alien to a person to walk through the wet elements? As we see, your two natures have disappeared! But for anyone who deliberately does not close his eyes, it is clear and indisputable that just as God the Word, who became incarnate for our sake, is one and indivisible, so His energy is inseparable, and it is characteristic of Him to walk on water, and in this lies both the divine and human side.” Thus, Sevier understood the fact of walking on water as elementarily simple and indecomposable into further component parts, and after this he had the right to draw the conclusion that, spatially - step by step - moving is as unusual for God as staying on water without immersing is unusual for man. From the Orthodox point of view, this fact is a composite value - from the simple fact of movement step by step and the miracle that this movement does not take place on land. However, in polemics with the Julianists, Sevier made some concessions in a direction that brought him closer to Orthodoxy. Previously, for example, he saw only a godly action in the fact that blood and water flowed out of the Savior’s pierced rib; now he sees a natural human phenomenon in the fact that a spear could pierce his very ribs. The dispute between Sevier and Julian of Halicarnassus arose on a private occasion. One monk in Alexandria asked Sevier whether the body of Christ should be considered corruptible or incorruptible. The ex-patriarch of Antioch replied: “according to the teaching of the holy fathers, it is perishable.” But when this question was asked to Julian, he replied: “according to the teaching of the holy fathers, it is incorruptible.” This was the reason for the literary controversy between both camps. The Sevirians called the Julians "affartodocetes"; these, for their part, answered them with the nickname “ffartolatra”. The first found that the Julians, with their doctrine of incorruptibility, were restoring ancient Docetism; the latter believed that Sevier's point of view leads to such an absurdity as the worship of perishable matter. The combustible material for this polemic has, of course, been accumulating for a long time; its basis was the dissatisfaction of the strict Monophysites with the doctrine of Sevier: they found that he was already making too many concessions to the synodites. His doctrine of a single complex nature was recognized, but the idea that even after the union the difference (διαφορὰ) between deity and humanity was preserved, that two natures were combined into one nature - hypostasis-face, but with a difference in essence (οὐσία), with the retention of their qualitative characteristics (ἰδιότητες) - this idea was very important for the Monophysites a bold and dangerous innovation. The dispute about the perishability of the body of Christ was only a partial manifestation of this distrust of Sevirianism. “If,” Julian reasoned, the body of Christ is φθαρτὸν, perishable, then we introduce a distinction into the Word of God. And once the distinction is introduced, then there will be two natures in Christ, and then why are we fighting against the council to no avail? From the Orthodox polemical point of view, in this case coinciding with the Sevirian one, the meaning of Julian’s teaching is assessed in this way. If the body of Christ is incorruptible, then it is not consubstantial with us, and then only imaginary (δοκήσει), and not in truth (ἀληθείᾳ), He experienced everything that the Gospel says: hunger, thirst, crucifixion and death. And if all this was imaginary, then the sacrament of the economy is φενακισμὸς καὶ σκήνη, a deception and a theatrical farce, and only imaginary, and not truly, He became man, and we are saved only imaginary, δοκήσει καὶ οὐκ ἀληθείᾳ σεσώσμεθα. Julian himself, however, did not want to introduce docetism or renounce the doctrine of the consubstantiality of Christ with us in humanity. The debate about the corruption or incorruptibility of the body of Christ had the following meaning for him. The Body of Christ did not undergo decomposition after death - its incorruptibility in this sense is a fact attested to by Acts 2:31, and equally recognized by both Sevirians and Orthodox. But what was incorruptible in actu, was it not corruptible in potentia? For a natural person, the final decomposition of the organism after death is preceded by its partial decomposition during life. Suffering, illness, fatigue, the very need for nutrition - all this declares its perishability and is based on the partial decomposition of the body. Did these states, these, as they expressed then, πάθη ἀδιάβλητα - sinless passions, take place in the human nature of the God-man? No! answered Julian. But didn’t Christ suffer on the cross, hunger, thirst? Was it all δόκησις? illusion? No! answered Julian: all this was pure reality, and His humanity was consubstantial with our humanity. This already proves that Julian’s views were based on unique views on human nature in general. According to universal dogmatic teaching, Christ accepted everything human, except sin. The Julianists formulated this position more precisely this way. Christ is the second Adam; therefore, He must perceive humanity in the form in which it came from the hands of God - the humanity of the primordial Adam before his fall. We are the sons of Adam who sinned; Christ, the Son of man, is the son of the primordial Adam, the son of the new, newly created man. Our humanity is composed of three elements: from nature (i.e., the rational soul and body), from sin, and from the punishment for sin (such as suffering and death). Christ accepted human nature truly and truly; He was certainly a stranger to sin; He accepted the punishment for sin, but voluntarily, for our sake, according to His infinite mercy. The true essence of humanity is expressed only by the first moment, and therefore Christ is truly consubstantial with us. Τιμωρία, punishment, acts in us with natural compulsory necessity, because we are also involved in the natural cause of this execution, sin. Christ is not involved in sin, therefore, in His humanity there could be no place for this coercive force, for this physical necessity of suffering. He suffered not δοκήσει, but in reality (and Sevier himself admitted that, as an impassive God, Christ suffered only δοκήσει); but He suffered not out of physical necessity, not ἐξ ἀνάγκης φυσικῆς, but voluntarily (ἑκουσίως). On this last point, Sevier also agreed with Julian: and he taught that God the Word voluntarily allowed His flesh to experience suffering. Thus, both Sevier and Julian believed that at every single moment the suffering of the God-Man was a consequence of His will, His consent given at every moment. But the difference between them was that Julian looked, so to speak, from top to bottom, from deity to humanity, Sevier from bottom to top, from humanity to deity. For Sevier, suffering was already given in the very nature of humanity, it suffered κατὰ φύσιν; Julian did not recognize this physicality. It was quite natural for Julian to say that God the Word voluntarily allows His body to experience suffering; from the point of view of Sevier, it was more natural to say that God the Word voluntarily elevates His body above the natural laws of corporeality, and when He takes back, so to speak, this suspensio, the body falls to the level of its laws and suffers. For Julian, consent had a completely active meaning; Sevier had to believe in him moments of passivity, inertia: and, to put it figuratively, this condescension of the humanity of Christ to suffering and death for Julian was a bémol, lowering his natural tone, for Sevier it was only a bécarre, destroying the effect of the previous dièse. Julian drew new arguments in favor of his theory from the concept of the suffering of Christ as redemptive. It seemed absurd to him to consider, as something perishable, as a manifestation of φθορᾶς, that very suffering, that very death, which for all of us became the source of life, incorruption, and salvation. The suffering of Christ is salvific, therefore, it is incorruptible. In the end, the Julianists came to the conclusion that the flesh of Christ from the very first moment was the same as it became after the resurrection; that the unity of natures in Christ is so close that we need to talk about not only a single nature - hypostasis, but a single essence and a single property, and therefore the very tear of Christ should be called incorruptible and divine, and His spitting - divine. And whoever, after an ineffable and inexplicable unity, dares to speak of two natures, or two essences, or two properties, or two actions, let him be anathema as one who speaks of two hypostases and two persons. The relationship of this dispute between the Monophysites to Orthodox teaching is not difficult to clarify. In addition to his purely Monophysite goals, Julian proceeded from such views on the nature of man, which are not shared by either the church or Sevirian Monophysitism: it cannot be said about primordial man that he did not need nutrition and was not subject to fatigue; so that the moment which the Julianists, following Philoxenus, understand as the punishment for sin, has the meaning of only a quantitative, and not a qualitative difference. Therefore, we can without difficulty recognize the naturalness of these πάθη ἀδιάβλητα in the humanity of Christ. At this point Sevier is on our side; but he goes over to Julian’s side on the issue of the voluntariness of Christ’s suffering, πάθη ἑκούσια. The Church recognizes the suffering of Christ as free, ἑκούσια. Not by force of physical coercion, but by His infinite mercy, voluntarily, God the Word became incarnate, entered into the circle and under the influence of given historical conditions, which were ultimately to lead Him to the cross. But the Church also recognizes that at every single moment of His earthly life He had the power to remove Himself from the influence of this historical or natural causality: He could not fast, and then He would not have been hungry, - not go at midday, and then He would not have become tired to the point of exhaustion, - not go to Jerusalem for a free passion, present more than 12 legions of angels, descend from the cross, etc. But at the same time, with this voluntariness, we also recognize the natural necessity of these sufferings: Christ could not have fasted, but after a 40-day fast He could not help but become hungry; having passed a certain distance under the midday sun, He must have experienced fatigue from the journey; having deigned to be nailed to the cross, He had to experience terrible pain from piercing his hands with nails; these two phenomena constitute only two sides of one fact, just like sound and vibration of the air, light and vibration of the ether. To be willing to be crucified means to voluntarily agree to experience the suffering that is the natural and inevitable result of crucifixion. At this point the Monophysites differ from us. In the fact of walking on water, Sevier analyzes less than we do: for him this fact is simple where we still consider it as complex. In the fact of the crucifixion, Sevier analyzes more than we do, and decomposes it into further component parts: having deigned to be crucified, Christ, according to Sevier and Julian, agreed that His hands would be pierced with nails, and one must also think of a special moment of His consent so that this piercing would produce, according to Sevier - its natural, and according to Julian - not even given in the nature of Christ, action, i.e., the sensation of pain. At this point the Monophysite view is not without its dogmatic value. He apparently has a tendency to present in full light the great mystery of God’s love, to outline in the smallest strokes the highest moral value of the suffering of Christ, as full of consciousness and freedom in every smallest moment. Only insofar as this view casts doubt on the naturalness and, therefore, the reality of the incarnation, only insofar as this thought does not clearly enough express the divine immutability of the will of Christ, is it deservedly subject to criticism. But we cannot hide the fact that this teaching is capable of expressing another side of dogmatic truth, namely, that the will of the eternally existing God should be thought of not only as immutably eternal, but also as always real. And in this case, the Monophysite view may not be in conflict with Orthodox teaching, but enter into it as one of the small, complementary details. The doctrine of the birth of the Word from the Father according to divinity, as is known, also consists of two points: the Son of God, firstly, was born before all ages, from eternity, γεγεννημένος πρὸ πάντων τῶν αἰώνων; secondly, He is always born, ἀεὶ γεννώμενος. Consequently, the act of birth, on the one hand, is pre-eternal, on the other, always real. If we allowed only the last moment - γεννώμενος, we would not express the great truth that the birth of the Son is not a process that continues in time, therefore, incomplete internally, imperfect. If we left in force only the first moment - γεννηθείς, we would not clearly express that the birth of the Son is the mystery of the innermost life of the Trinity God, that for the first Person to be is to be the Father, and to be the Father means to give birth to the Son, and that the life of God is most accurately expressed in human language by the formula “I am.” The Orthodox teaching about the voluntariness of Christ’s suffering reproduces a moment similar to that which is expressed in dogmatics in the doctrine of the Trinity with the word “γεννηθείς”; the Monophysite doctrine allows for an analogy with the second moment - “γεννώμενος”. It should be noted that the dispute between Julian and Sevier gave two reflections, and after them the Monophysite teaching continued to develop and be clarified in both directions. The followers of Julian recognize the body of Christ as incorruptible. One could pose the question: was humanity created by Christ or not? Some of Julian's disciples accepted that Christ's humanity was not created. The disciples of Sevier believed that if humanity in Christ is perishable, then shouldn’t we recognize further differences between humanity and deity? How, for example, can we look at Christ’s knowledge that He did not know the burial place of Lazarus, the day and hour of His second coming? If in the Gospel the word “hungry” is given a completely real meaning, then is it not possible to give a real meaning to those expressions that the Lord accepted our ignorance? Some of Sevier's disciples answered this question in a positive sense: Christ, according to humanity, did not know something. It should be noted that the Julianists, in order to inflame the popular masses, resorted to means that were impossible for the refined dogmatics of the Sevirians. The Sevirians called the Julianists “affartodocetes,” ghostly incorruptibles. On the contrary, the Julianists called them “ffartodatras,” that is, perishable worshipers, which had a great effect on the people’s religious feeling. The same exchange of blows occurred when the dispute about the uncreated or created nature of the body of Christ began. The mentioned Julianists were opponents, they were called “actistites”, uncreated, and they called them “ktistolatras”, i.e. worshipers of the creature. On the issue of the knowledge of Christ, these supporters of Sevier began to be called “agnoites,” that is, those who preach ignorance of Christ. This moment of controversy was reflected in Orthodox dogma. By this time, a sad custom had been established - to be afraid of Monophysitism, and questions about the corruption or incorruptibility of the body of Christ, its creation or uncreation, about knowledge or ignorance, as arising among heretics, were considered heretical. Some of the Orthodox took the side of the Agnoites. Even such a brave and remarkable mind as Leontius of Byzantium believed that this question was considered intractable by the ancient fathers and could not be resolved in strictly Orthodox dogma. Others took the side of the opponents of the Agnoites (for example, Eulogius of Alexandria, Pope Gregory V.). Sophronius of Jerusalem considered the Agnoites to be heretics. And this is quite natural. Psychology was not as developed at that time as it is now. Knowledge was confused with the concept of consciousness. In Christ there is recognized the unity of self-consciousness, the unification in one center of “I” of everything that happens in His divine spirit and human soul; beyond this point we are not obliged to assume anything else. But if we reject limited human knowledge, then this will be a precedent for the rejection of human will. The question of human knowledge in Christ in the era of Monophysite disputes was posed incorrectly. It is presented in this form: if the question of Jesus Christ: “where will you lay him” (John 11:34, about Lazarus), as well as the words: “about that day or about that hour, no one knows, neither the angels who are in heaven, nor the Son, only the Father” (Mark 13:32, cf. Matt. 24:36), attach the meaning of indicating real ignorance, then this will lead to the denial of deity in Christ; Therefore, the Agnoites were classified as heretics. The ancient church fathers pointed out the right way to resolve this issue through analogies. They brought up for reference, for example, the expression: “now I know that the Lord has saved His Christ” (Ps. 19:7), from which it is clear that the concept of knowledge (sometimes) has a directly empirical meaning, it presupposes knowledge of what has been experienced - and this concept turns out to be applicable to explain the mental life of the incarnate Christ. Of course, there is an analogy here, although this technique seems somewhat artificial. There is no other hypostasis in the empirical world that has two natures united in such a way as in Christ. The analogy is therefore incomplete. We can understand approximately two different knowledge in Christ, that is, according to divinity and humanity, from various sources of human knowledge. In mathematics, although knowledge is limited to numbers alone, it can be different. It is another matter to determine how many units are in a cube through arithmetic calculations and logarithms, and another matter through empirical counting of units. The knowledge of the quantity of bricks of an engineer who, purely mathematically, knowing the dimensions of the edges of the bricks, determines their number in a cube, is different from the knowledge of a worker who folded this cube with his own hands. Some elements of knowledge are acquired through observation, others through study or reading. For example, you can know a city without having been there; but this knowledge will be different from knowledge acquired through practical means (walking and observation). One can gain knowledge about the same object both through sight and through hearing, for example, about an approaching train; To acquire knowledge about extraordinary phenomena and unfamiliar objects, we are not content with auditory impressions alone, but receive the need to be convinced through vision, which we trust more. Christ the God-Man contained two knowledges, divine and human. But the form of divine omniscience cannot coincide to the point of indifference even with the brilliant human knowledge in Christ. It may very well be that Christ, by human nature, could not give an answer about the end of the world otherwise. A theoretical idea of ​​the force of explosives can be established by a chemist or other person by numerical calculations and can even calculate the volume of the explosion; very strong substances, never tested, cannot be tested empirically, because the explosion would have to destroy the experimenter, no matter how far away he may be. As for the picture of the Last Judgment and the end of the world, the human mind cannot withstand it without self-destruction in the continuity of events as they will take place at the end of the world. If human nature in Christ could present a picture of the Last Judgment, then in any case the conditions of human existence, according to the instinct of self-preservation naturally inherent in this nature, should have kept it from this knowledge, and therefore it remained a secret 97. The next dispute in the bosom of the Monophysites was the so-called Tritheite dispute. This was simply the impact of Monophysite Christology on triadology. For their sectarian purposes, the Monophysites identified the terms οὐσία, φύσις, πρόσωπον, ὑπόστασις in the question of incarnation; but in the doctrine of the Trinity these terms had different meanings. Thus, the result was a rather major disagreement in Monophysite dogmatics: its end did not coincide with its beginning. To establish this harmony, it was necessary to correct either Monophysite Christology or the doctrine of the Trinity. But the first is connected with the very existence of Monophysitism; It was natural, therefore, for the Monophysites, having held the end of dogma, to make amendments to its beginning. But the conservative forces of Monophysitism triumphed over dialectical needs. The mass of the Monophysites wanted to put up with contradictions better than with innovations, and the tritheites (τριθεΐται) ended up standing out as an ephemeral sect from the mass of the Sevirians. One Orthodox polemicist (Leontius of Byzantium) believes the following case to be the reason for the emergence of triteite disputes. - In a debate with the Orthodox, the Monophysites put forward their favorite objection: “If in Christ there are two natures by union, then in Him there are two persons, two hypostases.” Your remark, they answered, would be fair if φύσις were the same as ὑπόστασις. “But these words mean the same thing.” But, they objected, there are three Persons in the Holy Trinity, but it cannot be said that there are three natures, three beings in It. Therefore, φύσις is not the same as ὑπόστασις. – In the interests of self-defense, the Monophysites were forced to admit that in a certain sense it can be said that in God there are three natures and three beings. The Sevirian bishops, Conon, Metropolitan of Tarsus of Cilicia, and Eugene, Metropolitan of Seleucia of Isauria, became the head of this party and tried to provide patristic foundations for their doctrine. The grandson of Empress Theodora Athanasius supported her financially with generous benefits, and the gifted Alexandrian grammarian John Philoponus, who joined the sect, tried to substantiate this teaching with philosophical arguments. The Sevirians, led by Theodosius of Alexandria, fought courageously against this new party. Theodosius in 549 issued a speech (oratio) against the Tritheites. In 566 or 567, an agreement took place in Constantinople (συνδοκτικόν), which was later destroyed by protest (διαμαρτυρίαι); then an invitation was issued, “προσφώνησις.” The main patristic argument of the Tritheites was one place in John Chrysostom, that the Son is a certain being, οὐσία τις. If He is a being, then there must be other beings. In the same sense, they explained the expressions ἰδία φύσις or φύσις αὐτοῦ, and deduced from this that φύσις is absolutely the same as πρόσωπον, ὑπόστασις, and that, therefore, in God τρία πρόσωπα, τρεῖς ὑποστάσεις, τρεῖς φύσεις, τρεῖς οὐσίαι, although it is impossible to believe that τρεῖς θεότητες, and therefore not three Gods, but one God. Thus, “Triteites” was the nickname given to them by their opponents. The foundations of this whole doctrine are well explained by John Philoponus. From his words it is obvious that, along with church Monophysite factors, this dispute was influenced by a common reason, cultural and historical, namely, the turn from the philosophy of Plato, which had until now prevailed, to the philosophy of Aristotle, and this whole dispute was an anticipatio of the struggle between realists and nominalists in the West in the 11th century. As is known, according to Plato, reality is predominantly general, while according to Aristotle, it is particular. According to Aristotle, this table is reality, and the general idea of ​​the table, “capacity”, τραπεζότης, is only an abstraction; according to Plato, on the contrary, τραπεζότης is reality. Philoponus, from the point of view of Aristotle, also looked at the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. Φύσις or οὐσία is only a general concept, or κοινὸς λόγος, modus existendi, a mode of existence, actually non-existent in itself, but actually existing in a multitude of individuals, ἄτομα ὑποκείμενα, in individual subjects who are involved in it and wholly in their private existence express this image of being common to all of them. Man in general, ἄνθρωπος or ἀνθρωπότης, does not exist; but there really is a ἄνθρωπος τις, a multitude of individual people who are identical with each other in their way of being. And the one nature of the Divine, what is it if not the general form of the divine nature, ὁ κοινὸς τῆς θείας φύσεως λόγος, conceived in itself, separately from the individual traits of each Hypostasis? Thus, φύσις in abstracto is only an abstract generic concept, while in reality there are only ἄτομα ὑποκείμενα, ὑποστάσεις, which philosophical thought considers as a synthesis of generic characteristics (i.e., common to all of them) φύσις – οὐσία) and individual differences or ἰδιότητες. This is φύσις in concreto, it really exists, but in this case it absolutely coincides with the concept of ὑπόστασις - πρόσωπον. Thus, Philoponus, both in people and in God, as the first given, considered hypostases, atoms, individualities, and thought of οὐσία - φύσις only as an abstraction. He believed in God the quantities a + b + c. Further philosophical analysis of these quantities revealed that a = f × n, b = g × n and c = h × n. To simplify matters, the thought takes this n out of brackets and assumes that a + b + c = (f + g + h) n. But this n therefore does not become a reality, but remains as before an abstraction, concretely existing only in a, b, c. Thus, the unity of the Divine among the Tritheites lost its real basis. We, they said, confess to St. consubstantial Trinity, Τριὰς ὁμούσιος and ὁμοφυὴς, one God, truly one Divinity, μίαν οὐσίαν ἤγουν φύσιν. But she is θεότητος ταυτότητι; In terms of number, in God there are some three beings and natures, equal to the point of indifference in divinity. T. That is, the Tritheites understood the unity of God as unitas specifica, and not as unitas numerica, as a conceivable unity of the genus, and not as a real unity of the concrete, as a perfect identity of qualitative determinations common to the three Persons, and not as a single substratum of the three Persons. Thus, only unity, or rather equality of essence, was obtained in God, but not unity or identity of being. The difference between their triadology and the Orthodox one is self-evident. They adhered to the church view that οὐσία in God is general, τὸ κοινόν, and ὑπόστασις is special, τὸ ἰδιάζον, just as man is general, and Peter and Andrew are special. But they did not pay attention to another remark of the father of the church (Gregory Bog.), that in terms of the degree of their reality, the “general” and the “particular” in God and man are inversely proportional, that is, in man, difference prevails over identity, so that individuals are a fact, and man in genere is only an abstract conceivable thing; and in God, on the contrary, οὐσία should be thought of, so to speak, more real than hypostasis, God εἶς ἐστὶν ἐν Τριάδι γνωριζόμενος, God is one, cognizable in the Trinity. For Philoponus, the vivus nervus of all these Aristotelian definitions was, however, the Monophysite doctrine; he comes from her, argues in her interest, and returns to her. If, he reasoned, φύσις in dogmatics should be thought of as τὸ κοινὸν, and not as a concrete, identical with ὑπόστασις, then Christology, the doctrine of μία φύσις τοῦ Θεοῦ Λόγου σεσαρκωμένη, about ἕνωσις ἐκ δύο φύσεων contains two absurdities: theopaschism and a kind of pantheism. Theopaschity, because as soon as the nature of the Divinity, common to all Hypostases, was incarnated, then both the Father and the Holy Spirit were incarnated; pantheism, because having accepted human nature into personal unity with Himself, Christ would not have become a specific person, but would have united with Himself personally all of humanity, all people of the present, past and future time, from Adam to the last human being before the end of the world. The dispute with the Tritheites gave rise to a new dispute about the Trinity in the bosom of Sevirian Monophysitism, between Damian of Alexandria (from 578) and Peter of Callinicus, Patriarch of Antioch (from 578 or 580-581 to 591). In his dispute with the Philoponians, Damiacus insisted on two points. a) The common οὐσία in the Holy Trinity is a perfect reality; this οὐσία is God, so that in a strict sense, each of the Hypostases of the Holy Trinity is not God in itself by nature; but they have a God common to all of them - in them the being, as an integral ingredient, is their divinity; and since all three Hypostases are inseparably involved in this nature, then each of the Persons is God φύσει, ἀλλ᾽ ἔχειν κοινὸν Θεὸν ἤγουν ἐνύπαρκτον θεότητα, καὶ ταύτης μετέχοντα ἀδιαιρέτως εἶναι Θεὸν ἕκαστον). Then b) Damian argued that in God ἰδιότης (property) is the same as πρόσωπον, ὑπόστασις, i.e. the characterizing attribute is identical with the concept of hypostasis itself. The purpose and meaning of this provision in the polemic with the Philoponians is clear. Philoponus considered hypostasis – atom – person (p(ersona)) as p = a × n (meaning by a ἰδιότης, a characteristic feature, and by n – φύσις, a generic feature, really existing only in the person, in the atom and nowhere else). But Damian identified hypostasis with a, i.e. p = a; for the multiplier, it was necessary to look for a new real foundation, to posit it outside the hypostasis, therefore, to allow the real existence of τῆς οὐσίας not only as an essence, but also as a being. Peter of Antioch saw heresy in this teaching. He admitted that the fathers actually sometimes used “ἰδιότης” instead of “ὑπόστασις”, but did not want to recognize complete identity between these words, on the basis that each Person of the Holy Trinity has not one characterizing feature, but several: the Father, for example, is the unborn parent of the Son and the creator of the Spirit, therefore, He would be, in the case of this identity, three hypostases. Christ was born from the Father according to divinity and from the mother according to humanity. These two signs would lead to the recognition of two persons and two Sons. – And in the first half of Damian’s teaching, he saw both Sabellianism and tetradism at the same time. If each Person is God only because in him there is a common being, then, like Sabellius, he recognizes the Persons only as modi of the Divinity. And introducing the concept of “κοινὸς Θεὸς” next to the three “Θεὸς ἕκαστος”, he introduces four Gods - τετράς. Since Damian's teaching was rather clumsily expressed than full of errors, the Monophysites themselves, apparently, did not decide which of the disputants was right and who was wrong. In addition, the dispute between the Sevirians and the Julianists gave one reflection towards anthropology, raising a question that divided the Tritheites into two camps: the Cononites and the Philoponians. The Sevirians defended the doctrine of the perishability of the body of Christ on the basis that the human body is also perishable. But Philoponus raised the question: what is this corruption? The body is composed of matter and form; It goes without saying that corruption extends first of all to the form, it decomposes it into its component parts; but is it limited only to this destruction of form? The Kononites answered: “Yes!” Philoponus: “no, it is not limited.” If man is essentially corruptible, then matter itself must be subject to corruption: and, consequently, people will be resurrected in completely new bodies. Thus, in its final development, Monophysitism is presented in the form of such a family tree: A. 1) Eutychianism, which doubts the consubstantiality of Christ’s flesh with ours. B. 2) Monophysitism as a whole, which recognizes this consubstantiality. C. 3) Deviation from Monophysitism towards Eutychianism - with a pantheistic connotation, in the person of Bar-Sudaili (his position: “all nature is consubstantial with God”), which had no followers. D. The division of Monophysitism into two main streams - 4) Sevirians and 5) Julianists, due to the particular question - about the corruption of the body of Christ, but with a general background in the form of the question of whether there is a difference in unity in Christ or not. D. 6) Deviation from Sevirian Monophysitism 99 towards the Julianists in the person of Stefan Niov, who rejected the difference in connection. E. 7) Deviation from the Julianists towards the Sevirians, when some of the first recognized the potential perishability of the body of Christ, with its incorruptibility being actual. G. 8) Consistent development of Sevirian Monophysitism: agnoites, followers of the deacon of Alexandria Themistius, who argued: since the humanity of Christ in everything except sin is similar to ours, and ignorance (ἄγνοια) is not a sin, but is a property of human limited nature, then Christ really did not know by humanity (and did not seem only ignorant) of what it is unusual for a person to know (John 11:34, Mark 13:32 - indicate real ignorance). Z. 9) Consistent development of Julian Monophysitism: activists. Since διαφορὰ remains even when the flesh of Christ is confessed to be incorruptible (ἄφθαρτον), if we recognize it as created, then these Julianists recognized it as ἄκτιστον, uncreated. This was consistent in principle (in the sense of abolishing any “difference”), but inconsistent from the point of view of Julian’s main position: the humanity of Christ is like the humanity of the primordial Adam; therefore, the flesh of Christ must be incorruptible, ἄφθαρτον, but not “ἄκτιστον.” In the Aktistite sect, therefore, a contradiction arose between the conclusion and the foundation of Julian Monophysitism. Reflection of the doctrine of Monophysitism on areas adjacent to the dogma of the God-man: I. Isolation from orthodox Sevirianism - 10) Theodosians (actually Sevirians) and 11) Cononites or Tritheites, on the issue of the Trinity. I. The division of the Tritheites into 12) Kononites and 13) Philoponians, on the question of the resurrection of the dead. K. During the era of the dispute with the Tritheites, the separation from the mass of Theodosians, apparently, of the extreme orthodoxies of the party - 14) Kondovadites. L. Dispute between orthodox Theodosians over terminology in the doctrine of the Trinity: on the one hand, 15) Petrites (whom their opponents called Tritheites), on the other hand, 16) Damianites (Sabellians and Tetradites). The triumph of Orthodoxy under Justin I and the complications caused by the papistic claims of Rome. Dispute about the expression: “One of the Holy Trinity suffered” Revolting against Acacius of Constantinople, the Roman bishops, as is known, took credit for the fact that they stood on the basis of Chalcedonian Orthodoxy and the “tomos” of Leo V. They did not want to maintain communication with Constantinople, which, in their opinion, had fallen into Monophysitism. The events that took place during the reign of Zinon and Anastasius could only strengthen their views. At this time, there were disguised persecutions of Orthodox bishops. Thus, when the Illus uprising arose, Emperor Zinon accused the bishops of political treason, as a result of which many were exiled. Zinon's successor, Anastasius, belonged to a more moderate party. He was smarter than his predecessor and felt that he could not cope with such a force as a religious movement, and only wanted to maintain the status quo. The bishops at this time were divided into three camps: some accepted the Council of Chalcedon, others rejected it explicite, and others finally recognized the enoticon of Zeno. Anastasius wanted everyone to remain with their own opinion, i.e. so that where the Council of Chalcedon is recognized, it is no longer rejected, and where it is rejected, it is no longer recognized. When Anastasius felt freedom, he openly began to assist the Monophysites. But such a policy provoked a reaction from the Orthodox. The leader of the dissatisfied was the commander Vitalian, who instilled fear in Byzantium with his exploits. Having raised the banner of rebellion against Anastasius, he demanded from the emperor, among other conditions, a peace treaty and the restoration of Orthodoxy. But at the same time, relations with Rome did not lead to any serious results. Finally, Anastasia’s sudden death followed. Justin was elected in his place (518–527). He was a military general, not very far advanced in education. He was hardly able to introduce any major changes to the government structure. The Orthodoxy of Constantinople was proven by its population itself. The people showed that Monophysitism in the spirit of Zenon’s enoticon cannot exist. The stenographic records preserved all the exclamations of the people that were heard in the church. These acts show what the church was for Christians in the 6th century. The concept of church propriety was completely different from the one that exists among us. The change on the Byzantine throne, the accession of Justin I, was celebrated on July 9, 518. July 15 was Sunday. The Patriarch appeared for the service. When he entered the church, the people greeted him with exclamations: “Many years to the patriarch, many years to the sovereign, many years to August!” There's Sevira, there's Amantia! You are quite Orthodox. Proclaim an anathema against the Sevirians, proclaim the Council of Chalcedon! What do you have to fear? Justin reigns. If you love the faith, anathematize Sevier and proclaim a council! Otherwise, the doors are locked and we won’t let you out.” “Wait, brothers, let us bow to the altar,” said the patriarch. “You know my works on Orthodoxy back in the days of my presbyteral ministry.” But everyone present shouted: “Anathema to Sevier! Proclaim anathema! We won't let you out. Announce it now!” The Patriarch said that he accepts the Council of Chalcedon and will always stand for Orthodoxy. But the people demanded anathema to Sevier and the “synaxis” of the fathers of the Council of Chalcedon. Then Deacon Samuel came out and said that tomorrow the memory of St. the fathers of the Council of Chalcedon, who, together with the fathers who gathered in Constantinople and Ephesus, approved the symbol of the 318 fathers. But the people immediately demanded anathema to Sevier. Then the patriarch and with him three metropolitans and several bishops ascended to the pulpit and anathematized Sevier. The next day, the people gathered again shouted: “Get out the Manichaeans, anathema to Sevirus! Send a sociable letter to Rome! Establish a festival in honor of Euthymius and Macedonius! Include four cathedrals in diptychs!” The Patriarch stated that all this must be done canonically, waiting for the council and the consent of the emperor. But the people shouted: “the doors are locked, write the fathers of the four ecumenical councils into the diptychs!” The people began the service by singing: “Blessed is the Lord God of Israel, for He has visited and brought deliverance to His people.” When the singing of the psalm ended, they began to sing the Trisagion, without the addition of “crucified for us.” The people listened to this Arkhangelsk song with attention and reverence. This was followed by the celebration of the liturgy. Following the exclamation: “doors, doors,” the creed was read. Then everyone began to move closer to the pulpit in strict order and heard, after the commemoration of the Council of Nicaea, the Council of Constantinople, Ephesus, and Chalcedon, and the names of the venerable archbishops Euthymius, Macedonius and Leo. The entire crowd exclaimed: “Glory to you, Lord!”, and fled from the pulpit. This is how the memory of the fathers of the four ecumenical councils, Patriarchs Euthymius and Macedonius and Pope Leo was accomplished. All that remains is to file the case. A council was drawn up in Constantinople, which was supposed to consider a number of points. The 1st point concerned the request for the restoration of the names of Euthymius and Macedonius in the diptychs and the transfer of their remains to Constantinople, the 2nd - for the return to the pulpits of those exiled in the case of Euthymius and Macedonius, the 3rd - for the inclusion of the fathers of the four councils in the diptychs, the 4th - for the inclusion of Leo V. in the diptychs, and the 5th - about tradition anathema to Sevier. All points were recognized by the council as legal and approved. The matter with Monophysitism could be considered over. Sevier himself was forced to flee to Alexandria. But Rome intervened in the matter, which wanted to take part in the triumph of Orthodoxy, and this intervention rather served to the benefit of the Monophysites. No Orthodox belief was important from the point of view of Rome unless it was imprinted by communication with Rome. Thus, there was a point that the Constantinople government alone could not solve. While the gap between the churches continued, not a single bishop dared to accept the decision of the council. Then the emperor himself undertook to level the path for communication. He sent envoys of dignitaries to prepare the ground for reconciliation. But Rome did not want communication, but wanted victory and domination; it wanted to play the role of a zealot of Orthodoxy and an executioner of heretics. Rome responded to the embassy's statements that measures would be taken on its part to restore communication. Namely, at the beginning of 519, a deputation was sent from Rome to the east to receive those who had fallen away into communion. This deputation was prescribed a complete route, what to do, how to act, where to stop. In the east there were many such persons who, so to speak, breathed Roman holiness. They doubted the Orthodoxy of their local bishops and had no communication with them. It was with these persons that the pope ordered the legates to stop. The procession moved east with great ceremony. All this smacked of terrible hypocrisy. It is not difficult to judge what impression the procession made on local residents. This isolation of the legates from the desecrated persons, of course, aroused the displeasure of the inhabitants. The displeasure was further increased by the fact that the legates were given a libellus, requiring the signature of all eastern bishops. Without the signature of this document, the bishop was not accepted into communion with Rome. So the procession took place until Thessalonica. The Bishop of Thessalonica at first agreed to satisfy all the requirements of the formula, but then delayed the signature for some time, and thereby delayed his communication with Rome. Finally, the procession reached Constantinople. Here it was received with due honor. Here the legates did not want to enter into communication with the patriarch, insisting that the demands of their bishop be fulfilled. They said that if the Patriarch and Justin did not agree to condemn those who did not accept the Council of Chalcedon, then they could not be called Orthodox. The position of the Patriarch of Constantinople was unhappy. Pressure from the court and dignitaries forced him to sign the libellum with his own hand and thereby acknowledge his submission to the Bishop of Rome. Thus, the patriarch bowed his head, and with it the head of the entire Church of Constantinople, under the authority of the Pope. In vain did the patriarch turn to the legates with a request to present the libellum in a different form, not so offensive to the patriarch (Cyril of Alexandria once bowed to submission); the legates were inexorable. John of Constantinople had no choice but to sign the libellum. “The first condition of salvation, stated in formula 100, is to observe the rules of the Orthodox faith and not deviate from the traditions of our fathers. since the saying of the Savior cannot be canceled: “You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church” (Matthew 16:18), what is said is confirmed by the very fact: on the apostolic throne the Orthodox faith is always preserved unharmed. Not wishing, therefore, to fall away from this faith, and following in everything the institutions of the fathers, we anathematize Nestorius - Eutyches and Dioscorus - Timothy Elur - Peter of Alexandria - in the same way Acacius, the former bishop of the city of Constantinople, who became an accomplice and follower of them, as well as those who persist in communication and complicity with them. Therefore, as we said above, following the apostolic see in everything, we preach everything that is determined by it, promising in the future the names of those excommunicated from the communion of the Catholic Church, that is, those who do not agree in everything with the apostolic see, not to be remembered during the celebration of St. secret If I allow myself to take any reverse step from this confession, then I myself become a participant in the condemnation of those whom I myself have condemned.” This document was addressed on behalf of John fratri to Pope... Thus, the ambassadors insisted that Akakios of Constantinople and his successors be deleted from church diptychs. In Constantinople they had the weakness to give in to this demand, and the disgusting ceremony took place on March 28, 519. The ambassadors solemnly entered the St. Sophia Cathedral and on the throne themselves crossed out the names of the previously deceased patriarchs. Bishop John of Constantinople, so to speak, was forced into signing a subscription to communicate with Rome. The Patriarch of Constantinople at that time had so little authority that he could not even give the document on the agreement the form of a sociable message and was forced to sign the imported formula drawn up in Rome, adding only an introduction to it. Thus, communication between Constantinople and Rome was resumed. Those persons whom the people of Constantinople, with good reason, considered to be the lights of Orthodoxy, were removed from communion by the legates. This order of things, of course, was forced by circumstances, and therefore, when more favorable times came, their names were again included in the diptychs, and Euthymius and Macedonius were recognized as saints. Meanwhile, the pope thought that his decisions would be carried out immediately, and was surprised to receive no comforting news from the legates. But the Roman legates could not please him, because the provinces, free from the pressure of power, resolutely refused to comply with the demands of the papal court. They acted completely independently. They did not cross out persons excluded from communion by the Roman legates and did not sign the libellum. The main obstacle to the restoration of communication between Rome and Constantinople was discovered in Thessalonica, in the middle of the route from Rome to Constantinople through the Balkans. Bishop Dorotheos of Thessalonica delayed signing the libelli until it was signed by the Patriarch of Constantinople. When it became clear in Constantinople that some provinces did not want to delete the names of the Patriarchs of Constantinople from the diptychs, then an attempt was made to connect Thessalonica with Rome. In September or October 519, legate John arrived here on the matter of unification (already in his message to the legates dated October 13, 519, Gormisda informed them that he had heard rumors about what had happened in Thessalonica). Back in the summer there was a cathedral in Macedonia, where the committee Licinius worked for reunification. Now this Licinius was appointed to Thessalonica as a representative of the civil authority. The participation of a civil official had unfavorable consequences in the Thessalonica case. Two weeks before the arrival of the legates, Dorotheus convened a council, at which he decided that worship should be stopped in the vicinity of Thessalonica. Such a measure was not new. Even the Council of Zaragoza (380), suspecting the people of being carried away by heresy, decreed that from December 17 to January 6, services in parish churches should be stopped, and that people would gather for prayers only in one main church. But this measure was not permanent and therefore created a sensation among the people. People rushed into the city in droves and strengthened the mob elements there. A rumor was spread that one could fear persecution for one's faith. It was announced that those who had babies should hasten to baptize them. And so Dorofey at one time baptized more than 2000 babies. In view of the possibility of persecution, they began to stock up on holy gifts. In the cathedral church they were distributed in whole baskets. The people were waiting to see who would be the persecutor. And then the committee Licinius and the legate Bishop John appeared in Thessalonica, who announced that those who wished to unite with Rome must sign a libellum from Dorotheus. The Roman legate in the assembly was asked to correct some points of libelli, but he refused, saying that the pope's permission had not been obtained for this. The same thing was repeated at another meeting. The people were indignant and gathered at the house of the “Catholic” John, because the legates and Licinius, the alleged persecutor of the faith, were staying here. This Catholic John, “always separated from communion with Dorotheus because of the Council of Chalcedon” and therefore incurring general enmity, was killed along with his slaves. Legate John's head was pierced in two places, and he was forced to take refuge in the basilica. There the ambassadors were advised to leave Thessalonica at night, but they refused, fearing to be thrown into the sea, and asked for protection from the civil authorities. The next day, despite the fact that the uprising was in full swing, they managed to safely get out of the city. When Licinius announced that the inhabitants of Thessalonica would be punished by the emperor for the disturbance caused, a new explosion of baptisms followed. The legates and the pope demanded that Dorotheus be deposed and sent to Rome for trial. They also demanded the presbyter Aristides (who declared himself a zealous opponent of libelli), fearing that he would take the place of Dorotheus. Thessalonians were treated as heretics by the legates. “How are they not heretics,” they said, when they handed out whole baskets of St. bread, when were so many babies baptized in one day?” However, the legates were denied their demand. The emperor replied that there was no sufficient reason for Dorotheus's challenge; that he will be tried where there are more witnesses. On January 19, 520, the legates notified the pope that a trial had taken place over Dorotheus in Heraclius, in which he was acquitted. In August 520, Dorotheos sent a letter to Pope Gormisda, in which the latter said that he was not guilty of what had happened, that he respected Pope Gormisda and welcomed the church, which had such a worthy man among its saints. But dad answered him with a sharp letter. He subsequently insisted that he reserved the right to judge the Thessalonian case. However, despite the opposition of Rome, Aristides was Dorotheus's successor. Thus, attempts at reunification led only to social unrest and unrest. This happened because in his libello the Pope exaggerated himself too much and made claims to a supremacy that the Eastern Church could not recognize. Fate seemed to have prepared for Gormisda a position in which he had to learn that it is easier to be proud of his Orthodoxy than to stand at the height of Orthodox teaching. In 519, Scythian monks arrived in Rome to Gormisda, that is, from the province of Scythia, although they were probably of Gothic origin. Even before the arrival of the monks, the patrician Justinian, Justin's nephew, sent Gormisda a letter against these monks, which stated that they were stirring up some new disputes, instead of the Eutychian ones, and were opponents of peace. Another accusation against the monks was sent by Deacon Dioscorus, who was the pope's legate in Constantinople. This Dioscorus, a Greek, originally from Alexandria, understood well the course of affairs in the east, better than the Latin legates. Justinian soon wrote that the monks were sent back to Constantinople, from where they had fled. But the monks resolutely declared that they would remain in Rome, since they were not sure that an ambush and even an attempt on their life would not await them along the way. Gormisda decided that the monks should remain in Rome until the arrival of the legates, before whom the matter would be sorted out. In this sense, he answered Justinian. Justinian again demanded that the monks be returned to Constantinople, and he vouched for their safety. But Gormisda again refused. When the dogmatic wind changed, Justinian, who had already changed his attitude towards the opinion of the Scythian monks, demanded an answer from the pope whether it could be said that “only the Holy Trinity was crucified.” It was this formula that the monks who arrived in Rome stood for. They gave the pope no rest; they called Dioscorus a heretic and a Nestorian; Meanwhile, the legates from the east did not return. For the pope, a situation arose from which only Leo could emerge with honor, but Gormisda was forced to drag out this matter, and instead of giving a categorical answer to the proposed question, he went into resolving issues that no one doubted. In a letter to the African Bishop Possessor, who was in Constantinople, the pope expressed grief and indignation at the monks who were dissatisfied with what was written in the word of God and raising new questions. But this message did not remain unknown to the monks, and their leader, John Maxentius, wrote a response to it, where he expressed that he doubted the authorship of the pope, because the message was saturated with a heretical spirit. Gormisda is supposed to be a teacher, to resolve theological issues, and the author of the letter reviles monks who are interested in these issues. The Pope is only a critic, not the ruler of the world. The Pope did not respond to these objections. He then touched on the controversial issue in a letter to Emperor Justin, but even here he did not speak out quite definitely. As for the internal side of the dispute about the words of the Scythian monks: “one of the Holy Trinity is crucified,” this dispute had an inconvenient side to the dispute between educated and uneducated people. Probably everyone is familiar with the type of Russian scribbler. An ordinary literate person, having read only one book, for example, the apocrypha about Adam, or, perhaps, having learned to solve riddles, for example: “whoever is born will not die and whoever is not born will die,” already thinks that he has comprehended all theological wisdom, and behaves intolerantly and arrogantly, due to the limitations of his horizon, in front of those who think differently from him, although there are differences there is no principle in the opinions. The Scythian monks were the same kind of readers. Knowing something, they branded everything else as heresy, and stood up for their “something.” The position of the church in 518 is already known to us. The impeccable clarity of the definitions of the Council of Chalcedon and the precise formulation of Orthodox teaching were the reasons why the Catholic Church recognized this council; but one part of the church did not recognize this council. If Emperor Marcian’s efforts to resolve the matter had been longer, then perhaps the Monophysites would not have existed. But in Byzantium there was noticeable hesitation. Because of the beautiful eyes of the Monophysites, the Byzantine emperors forced the Orthodox to agree to various kinds of half-measures, like the enoticon of Zeno. By 518 the futility of such a policy was revealed, because the church never acquired anything with it. This policy only oppressed the church. Hence the conclusion that the church had to put an end to such a policy, it was necessary to stand for categorical recognition of the Council of Chalcedon, since until now many did not recognize the Council of Chalcedon. This is how the matter was understood in Byzantium, and this is how Deacon Dioscorus, the most intelligent of the papal legates, understood it. He thought to strictly adhere to all the decrees of the Council of Chalcedon and not be embarrassed by any objections. Dioscorus looked at the matter sensibly, because any hesitation regarding this council gave rise to doubt. Even if St. The fathers found expressions that disagreed with the definitions of this council; nevertheless, one should not doubt it. Dioscorus looked at the matter positively. The hesitation that in the actions of this council much could have been expressed differently, better and more clearly, casts doubt on the authority of this council. Therefore, it is enough to support the Council of Chalcedon with all our might, and then Orthodoxy will be placed on solid ground, and relaxation should not be allowed. The Scythian monks did not want to take this point of view; their objections revealed them to be semi-literate people. It was necessary to decide from a political point of view where the Nestorians were in the 20s of the 6th century. If they were, it was not in the Byzantine Empire, but in the Persian state. Nestorianism appeared there, not organically connected with the previous Nestorianism, but created artificially. But what, in fact, were Persian Christians, essentially, for the Byzantine Empire? Was there a need to educate them? The government's patronizing attitude towards the Monophysites, not in favor of Orthodoxy, forced them to expect the usual compliance in the future. But the Scythian monks believed that now was the time to begin an energetic struggle against Nestorianism. When they were told that the Council of Chalcedon did not need to be changed, since it expressed the truth quite clearly, the Scythian monks replied that they accepted the Council of Chalcedon from the first to the last letter. But the truth is given more clearly in their own formula, which is a loud weapon against Nestorianism; and whoever does not accept their interpretation of the definitions of the Council of Chalcedon is a Nestorian heretic, that is, he does not accept that Christ is one in hypostasis and, therefore, recognizes in Him two persons, two sons. That is why they called Deacon Dioscorus a Nestorian. And dad agreed with his opinion. Thus, the point of view of the Scythian monks on this issue was false. The Scythian monks said: whoever does not recognize that “One of the Holy Trinity was crucified” is a Nestorian. Dioscorus said that this formula “was proposed at the Council of Chalcedon by the disciples of Eutyches.” Fulgentius Ferrand has a remark that it was proposed there by the “apocrisiary Eutyches.” In fact, it is found in Archimandrite Dorotheos, who spoke at the Council of Chalcedon as a supporter of Eutyches along with another archimandrite, Karos, and Karos, according to him, received baptism in Scythia from the bishop of the city of Tom, Theotimos. It also appears in the enoticon of Emperor Zinon. Obviously, this created a reason for defining, from a certain point of view, the relationship to the formula of the Scythian monks. It was necessary to treat it with caution, since it was put forward by the Eutychians. However, in addition, there was also a logic of justice: the instruction of Dioscorus did not matter, firstly, because the fathers of the Council of Chalcedon did not object to Dorotheus and Karos, and secondly, not every heretic always speaks heresy. The monks could take the Orthodox point of view. Dioscorus missed what St. Proclus, in his letter to the Armenians, used this expression: “One of the Holy Trinity was crucified - he suffered.” Dorotheos and Karos could repeat with a certain nuance the expression of St. father. What is practically important is that they, who stood on the point of view of Eutyches, and having appeared at the council, did not want to renounce the views of Eutyches, and with this formula - “One suffered from the Holy Trinity,” contradicted the teaching of the fathers of the Council of Chalcedon. This formula in their mouths was the antithesis of the Chalcedonian teaching. This is how Eutyches and subsequent Monophysites understood it. From the point of view of church politics, it seemed strange that after standing firmly for two years for the Council of Chalcedon, the Byzantine government began to adhere to a union policy. Thus, there was reason to oppose this formula for reasons of historical justice. The formula seemed unacceptable, especially since the Scythian monks adopted it against the Nestorians. Not a single person stood (openly) for Nestorianism 101. In itself, this formula did not contain anything new. If we say: “God suffered,” then we will not add anything if we express this thought in the following formula: “One suffered from the Holy Trinity.” This descriptive expression somehow seemed dubious to people known to him. But there was also a serious polemical side directed against the Monophysites, and this side of the formula may have given it victory in history. The fact is that the Monophysite polemicists came out with lies against the Council of Chalcedon. Firstly, they defended the position: “there is no non-hypostatic nature.” If there are two natures, therefore, there are two hypostases, two persons, and therefore the Council of Chalcedon, without suspecting it, introduces Nestorianism when it teaches that Christ is in two natures. The further conclusion was caustic: Christians turned the Trinity into a quaternity, introducing the quaternity of the Trinity, and meanwhile the doctrine of the Trinity is a dogma accepted by all, forever approved by history, inherited from previous history. It is obvious how offensive this nickname of “quaternaries” was for the Orthodox. The Scythian monks thought that their formula was against this and was more convenient for fighting the Monophysites. “No, we do not turn the Trinity into a quaternity,” they said: “it was not the fourth hypostasis that suffered, but we, just like you, recognize that One of the Holy Trinity was crucified.” The Scythian monks extolled this expression as their triumph, and said that the Council of Chalcedon did not express everything. Thus, the polemical side of this formula is clear. But the main interest is not what happened in the east and in Constantinople; the Eastern Church accepted the formula. But Justinian first gave a bad assessment to the Scythian monks. First, he demanded that Pope Gormisda categorically accept or reject this formula. But then he himself admitted that there was nothing bad in her. Gormisda maneuvered until the end of his days, but his heart was against this formula, so he did not give it categorical sanction. If the hierarch of the Western Church hesitated, then it is easy to imagine what impression this made on the mediocre Latin theologians, what fear they had because this formula came from among the Monophysites. The position of the Latin theologians turned out to be unfortunate: they saw the formula, but could not indicate its harm. They were overcome by fear that these were new invisible feats against the church. Their task in this regard was to find out what the approach was here, where to see the trap with which they thought to catch the Orthodox Church. According to some, this formula will be understood in the sense that in these words we affirm that Christ suffered according to divinity, and thus there will be theopaschity in Orthodox teaching. But such an interpretation of the formula was too simple and elementary, because in fact not a single monk would dare to assert that Jesus Christ, as a deity, essentially tasted death on the cross and suffering. This explanation also seemed unsuitable to theologians of the Western Church. Others saw great danger in the very expression of this formula: “unus de Trinitate crucifixus est.” We say of a man that he is "de civitate"; here we contrast this famous person with this famous city and thereby establish the difference between them. If there is “de”, then a person and civitas are two different things. Didn’t the Monophysites plunge Orthodox teaching into the abyss of various heresies, admitting the idea that Christ “suffered alone from the Holy Trinity,” and wouldn’t Arianism and Nestorianism be resurrected through this? But that was not the end of the matter. There were cunning people who, regarding the expression “unus de Trinitate,” said that “unus” is an adjective and not a noun: and who is “One”? How to answer this question? One Son? Therefore, three Sons are then assumed. One God? Then there will be three Gods at one time. The vagueness of expressions contains deceit. True, we have every reason to say that with “unus” we mean “persona”, but the gender does not match grammatically; it would be necessary to replace “unus” with “una persona”. Orthodoxy was endangered by this deceit of expression. But even here the volume of fright did not reach its final outline. We receive full information about the fear of the Latin world from the lively correspondence between Western Christians. In the west shone the lamp of theology, the Carthaginian deacon Fulgentius Ferrand, the first of the theologians of the Western world. It was to him that Latin theologians turned for explanations of misunderstandings in the thirties. Deacon of the Roman Church Anatoly also turned to him. Although he was near the lamp of the Roman church, its bishop, he sought theological clarification from the deacon of the Carthaginian church. The Constantinople scholastic Sever turned to him. From the answer of Fulgentius Ferrand to this Severus it is clear that there were still sages who said: we only go against the expression “unus de Trinitate”, but accept “unus ex Trinitate”. "De" is an ambiguous expression, in their opinion. It seemed to interpreters that “de” lowers the One before the Holy Trinity; With this formula we recognize that Christ is lower than the Holy Trinity. To this Fulgentius Ferrand gave an explanation that such reasoning is wild. All creatures can be said to be ex Deo, not de Deo. One Christ Deus de Deo. Thus, the particle “de” in the West is used in this case because it contains a more sublime meaning than the particle “ex”. What is the funny side of fear? It is known how the hymn introduced by Justinian is sung, “The only begotten Son and Word of God, immortal”: “One of the Holy Trinity, εἷς ὢν τῆς ἁγίας Τριάδος.” There was no particle corresponding to the Latin “de” in the Greek church, but the Latins introduced this “de” due to the nature of their language, which means they deviated from the purity of expression of the Greek language. A distinctive tendency of the Romance peoples is a love of prepositions, and that is why the Latins added the particle. Fear had no basis. If these gentlemen had been more enlightened, if the unity between the churches had been more vibrant, then they would have understood that the formula put forward in the Greek world did not have this particle, and therefore there was no reason to feel fear. Fulgentius Ferrand, a Carthaginian deacon, found himself here at the height of theological glory. He treated the matter extremely simply and explained to the theologians that they should not be afraid of fear even without fear. If we say that God suffered, we are using a vague formula that can be expanded to the point of absurdity. No one, however, will imagine that if God suffered, then it follows that the entire Holy Trinity suffered: Father, Son and Holy Spirit. When we say: “God suffered,” and do not add “in the flesh,” no one will suspect that Christ suffered by human nature. The formula may not be clear, but we know that there is no Trinity of Sons, but in the Trinity there is the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. If we say “unus de Trinitate,” then no one will suspect that there are three Sons in the Trinity. The hypostasis of God the Word was accepted by humanity – and that’s all. Therefore, the formula is completely acceptable to the Catholic Church. Gormisda did not resolve this issue. The Roman bishops who followed him stood for the expression “One of the Holy Trinity was crucified.” From one of them, John II, a message has been preserved on March 24, 534 to the east, written in response to the edict of Justinian sent to him in 533, by which the emperor legitimized the indicated formula. The Akimite monastery near Constantinople once took the side of the Roman bishop. His monks followed the bishop of Constantinople and were generally in communication with Rome. When Felix, the Roman bishop, sent an excommunication to Acacius of Constantinople and he did not accept it, one of the monks pinned it to Acacius's mantle. Consequently, the Roman Church had an outpost against the Bishop of Constantinople near Constantinople itself in the Akimite monastery. At present, it turned out that both the abbot and the monks of the monastery adhered to the point of view of the Roman deacon Dioscorus. The Roman Bishop John sent an excommunication to these monks, in which, excommunicating them from the church, he declared them Nestorians and recommended that everyone not have any communication with them at all. This was truly Roman gratitude for the service of the east. Justinian I and his union policy. We have already seen that Justin was an Orthodox and pious layman, but his insufficient education did not allow him to independently conduct church politics. He had a nephew, Justinian, who received a more extensive theological education than that received by those who are destined for a military career. Therefore, he could be useful, but also not safe for the church due to his despotic nature. Naturally, if Justinian declared himself knowledgeable on any issue, he did not concede, and it was not easy to influence him. Undoubtedly, he was Orthodox in the sense that he was not a student of Severus of Antioch; but he was a unionist, and his policy boiled down to uniting the Monophysites with the Orthodox. However, Justinian did not go so far in his plans as to accept the union formula ipso facto - he considered the Council of Chalcedon as the basis for his union aspirations. The Orthodox Church was threatened with significant disasters, but circumstances were favorable to it. In essence, the church owed a certain amount of its peace to Severus of Antioch. In terms of his moral influence, he was the center of Monophysitism, and any Monophysit movement had to receive his sanction. As a result of this, relations with Sevier were often established from Constantinople: declared exiled, he was received in Constantinople with great honor. Fortunately, Sevier turned out to be an honest Monophysite: he noticed that nothing serious could be expected from Justinian, so he resolutely avoided his ingratiations. But if this person were inclined to play any kind of game in the hope of obtaining any benefits, then one might fear that the position of Orthodoxy would be more difficult than it actually was under Justinian. The dispute over the expression: “The Holy Trinity alone suffered” ended when Justinian was an autocratic emperor. The direction of his church policy had been determined by this time. He declared himself to be extremely sensitive to what promised support to the interests of the cause of union. The independent steps of the autocratic emperor were expressed in the fact that he tried to settle the matter through dogmatic disputes. From existing fragments of Eastern literature we can conclude that these disputes were repeated several times. The best known of these interviews is the Collatio Constantinopolitana. Unfortunately, the exact date of this dispute is not clear. The years 533, 532 and 531 are indicated. But there are no stable grounds for one year or another. It is usually attributed to 533, but it is quite possible that it was in 531. Perhaps it is not the same as the one mentioned in the biography of John, Bishop of Tell. Its content is known from the letter of one of the participants in the dispute, Innocent of Maronia, to Presbyter Thomas. The Emperor ordered that trained forces be selected from the Monophysite side and outstanding representatives of theology be selected from the Orthodox, with 6 bishops on each side. On the part of the Orthodox, Demetrius of Philippians could not participate in the dispute due to illness. Innocent of Maronia took part, but Hypatius of Ephesus was at the head. Why the Patriarch of Constantinople did not take part remains unknown. After the opening speech of the representative of the civil authority, it was stated that the Eastern (Monophysites) had already submitted their statement of faith to the emperor. “Yes,” said Hypatius, this confession of faith is filled with censures and accusations against the Council of Chalcedon, convened against Eutyches; but is it sustainable? What is your opinion about Eutyches? - The Easterners responded that he was a heretic and even a heresiarch. - “What is your opinion about Dioscorus?” - He is Orthodox. - “How did Dioscorus receive Eutyches?” - Eutyches brought repentance. “But Eutyches did not even think of bringing any repentance; consequently, he was accepted unrepentant. It must be accepted in compliance with all formalities. Dioscorus received Eutyches and condemned Flavian. What do you think about this? “Yes, that’s true,” answered the Easterners, but it was his temporary blindness. - “If Eutyches was a heretic, asked Hypatius, then Flavian rightly condemned him?” - Right. - “Was Dioscorus right to acquit him?” - Wrong. “And if so, then an ecumenical council was necessary to correct the wrong done at the Council of Dioscorus.” – The Easterners agreed with this. It should be noted that true Monophysites - Egyptian - did not recognize the Council of Chalcedon in principle. This is because at the robber council it was decided that whoever gathers for a new ecumenical council is anathema. Thus, this point prompted the Orthodox to prove to the Monophysites that the Council of Chalcedon had the right to meet in 451 - “In this case, asked Hypatius, why do you condemn the Council of Chalcedon?” - The convening of the council was legal, answered the eastern ones; but he started well and ended badly. “That’s how the first day ended.” On the second day, Hypatius of Ephesus repeated the conclusion of the first meeting. Monophysites and Orthodox continued to argue. “What bad do you find in the definition of the Council of Chalcedon?” the Chalcedonites asked the Monophysites. The Monophysites indicated three points to which they objected. The Council of Chalcedon, they said, introduces an innovation - the doctrine of two natures, speaking of Christ: “in two natures.” After all, Cyril said: “from two natures,” and not “in two natures.” – “In every innovation, noted Hypatius, there is an element of strangeness (peregrinum, ξενόν τι), but not every innovation is harmful. What innovation do you see in the doctrine of two natures? Is it new, or is it also harmful? “Both,” answered the eastern ones, because it disagrees with the teachings of the ancient fathers, first of all Cyril of Alexandria, then Athanasius V., Felix, Julius, Gregory the Wonderworker and Dionysius the Areopagite. - Hypatius responded with a long argument that those works of the latter, which the Monophysites have in mind, are forged. – The Easterners adopted a tone of offended innocence, indicating that they were accused of forgery and forgery. - Hypatius answered: “not you, but your predecessors - the Apollinarians.” Thus, all the more ancient authorities cited from the East were rejected. Here for the first time the works of Dionysius the Areopagite are directly mentioned. The best representatives on behalf of the entire church spoke out against them 102. Then the Easterners objected: if the writings of other fathers seem to you to be forged, then at least you cannot suspect the statements of Cyril himself; Why, they said, were its 12 chapters not accepted by the Council of Chalcedon? Hypatius answered them that if they were not accepted explicitlye, then they were accepted implicite. But the eastern ones continued to stand their ground and again asked: why is the epistle with 12 chapters, in which Cyril uses ὑπόστασις as equivalent to φύσις, not laid down as a cornerstone? To this Hypatius answered them that Cyril, in his doctrine of the Holy Trinity, everywhere distinguishes πρόσωπον or ὑπόστασις from φύσις. As for the expression “of two natures,” the council does not deny this expression; Flavian also used this expression, but Dioscorus, however, condemned him. The Easterners continued to insist that they could present other writings of Cyril, in which he speaks of the union in Christ of divinity and humanity into one nature. Hypatius answered them: “We accept that from the writings of Cyril that is in accordance with his synodics; and what disagrees, we do not condemn, but we do not follow the church laws.” Then, they moved on to another objection to the Council of Chalcedon. Since 518, the custom of commemoration in diptychs of ecumenical councils arose; Among them, the Council of Chalcedon was also commemorated. Why is this being done, the Easterners asked, for unification or greater separation? “This is not news,” Hypatius answered them, all the fathers, he said, were first commemorated separately, each in his own church, but now a general commemoration is being made.” “But at this council there were wrong-thinkers; the eastern ones continued to object. “This is so,” Hypatius answered them, but even at the first ecumenical council, as is known, among the 318 fathers there were heretics, however, it does not follow from this that for their sake the holy Council of Nicaea should not be commemorated in diptychs.” If the eastern ones point to Willow of Edessa and Theodoret of Cyrus, then this does not yet give grounds to deny the council, since the accusation against them is unfair, because Willow and Theodoret anathematized Nestorius. The council was even stricter towards Theodoret than Cyril himself. In the end, the meeting of the second day ended with a statement from the Easterners that the issue had been settled, and they were convinced (by the explanations given to them). The third meeting was attended by the emperor and Patriarch Epiphanius of Constantinople. There was something else on it. The Easterners, as it turned out, found access to the emperor's palace. The meeting was opened by a speech from the emperor. Easterners complained that the Orthodox do not recognize the formula: “One of the Holy Trinity suffered in the flesh, and miracles and suffering belong to one and the same.” Epiphanius, who was leaving the meeting, came again by this time. Hypatiy answered: “Sire! We, or, better to say, your mother, the Catholic and Apostolic Holy Church, confesses that Christ, One of the Holy Trinity, suffered, and that suffering and miracles belong to the same thing, but one in the sense of person, and not nature, since He suffered according to humanity, and worked miracles according to divine nature.” The meeting, which began on the third day, was continued on the fourth. The emperor had hope and expected that this dispute would end with the Monophysites joining the Orthodox Church. But they refused this, and only one bishop, Philoxenus of Dolichi, and a few monks and clergy joined. In the autumn of 533, a circumstance occurred that was very characteristic of the current direction of church affairs. In November, an earthquake occurred, although not strong, but it frightened the inhabitants of Byzantium. They all came out of their homes and began to sing the Trisagion with the Monophysite addition “crucified for us.” Moreover, a statement of this kind followed: “Justinian Augustus! take and burn the tomos laid down at the Council of Chalcedon.” Justinian, however, did not fulfill this demand, but then, in the month of November, a decree followed in which the emperor set out the Orthodox faith. This decree is quite long, but we can judge its content on the basis of Justinian’s song “The Only Begotten Son and Word of God.” This decree states that miracles and suffering belong to the same Christ. But saying “One of the Holy Trinity,” the emperor, to please the Monophysites, does not say a single word about the two natures in Christ. Thus, although the tomos was not burned, the doctrine of the Council of Chalcedon was not proclaimed in its entirety. History shows that Emperor Justinian and his wife Theodora, taking an active part in the church disputes of this time, adhered to the opposite policy. This fact is beyond doubt; but it may seem strange how could Theodora be interested in theological disputes and take such an active part in them? After all, her past was not conducive to this. In her youth, she had neither the time nor the desire for this. And it would be most natural to assume that, having become empress, she would accept Justinian’s dogma without further reflection. It is, of course, a fact that as a woman who had something to repent of, she could impulsively devote herself to matters of piety. It is possible that in her old age she could repent and could become carried away by the Monophysite trend. But Orthodoxy opened up a place for penitential deeds just as much as Monophysitism. The best explanation seems to be the one that was known to Evagrius and which Procopius defends in Historia arcana. It was an amicable division of dogmatic roles between married spouses in order to avert the eyes of their subjects. In political matters, it was extremely desirable for someone to patronize dissidents - without the danger that the Orthodox Church would strictly impute such patronage. It was inconvenient for the emperor himself to do this, and Theodora was the most suitable person for such a political maneuver. The calculation is very clear: there were too many Monophysites in the state not to be considered as a political force; it was necessary not to undermine their loyalty, if not to the Orthodox regime of Justinian, then to his dynasty. There was no way to guarantee that at a certain moment the Monophysites would not gain the upper hand, would not win a temporary victory - and it was important to instill in them the habit of turning their gaze with hope to the throne. Otherwise, having won, they could overthrow Justinian from the throne; with such a division of roles, the enemies of Justinian, but the devoted admirers of Theodora, could prevail. And we must admit that this political role was played very well. At the moments when the government made concessions to the Monophysites, the zealots of Orthodoxy, dissatisfied with such a lack of energy, laid all the blame on the insidious influence of Theodora and could only wish that the Lord would open the eyes of the emperor and deliver him from his wife’s snares. On the other hand, the Monophysite Syrian monks, expelled from the monasteries, cursed the Council of Chalcedon, and the tomos of Leo, and the patriarchs, and the emperor, against his sacred images they allowed themselves the most daring antics - but at the same time they sincerely prayed to God for the power and stay of the most pious empress, this high patroness and unshakable support of their orthodoxy, and wanted only one thing: her victory over Nestorian synodite - her husband. So what was happening in the Byzantine Empire was a division of roles between Justinian and his wife. Justinian himself never acted as the official patron of the Monophysites, and this was impossible due to his position as a sovereign and theologian. Despite the eutychianizing tendency of his theology, he was not at all favorable to Sevier of Antioch. Under him, as under Justin, the Monophysites were even subjected to persecution, and above all in Syria, where they could be opposed by the Orthodox population, apparently no less numerous. When, under Justin, Bishop Paul of Antioch, known among the Monophysites embittered by him under the nickname “Jew” (Jew), arrived in Antioch and began to convert the Monophysites to Orthodoxy, even sick monks were not spared. The Sevirians, who had spoken with the Orthodox, were released in 531, for they had the prudence to secure in advance the royal word of Justinian that they would be released if they did not agree with the synodites. Sevier himself understood perfectly well that Justinian could not do anything for the Monophysites, and therefore refused his invitation. Justinian, by the way, took one extremely important measure. He wanted to starve the Monophysites to death, so to speak. He did not persecute the Monophysite bishops, but stated that they must refrain from any hierarchical actions, that is, they only had the right to liturgize, but not to ordain to hierarchical degrees. It is easy to understand what this measure led to. Not only bishops, but even presbyters died, and the Monophysites had to either turn into non-priests or join the Orthodox Church. But this measure for Syria was crossed out by the bold activity of Bishop John of Tell. At first, at the request of Justinian, he abandoned hierarchical actions and returned to the monastery from which he was taken into the flock. But here it occurred to him to flee to Persia, and from here he opened campaigning in favor of the Monophysites. It became known among the Monophysites that he would appear at the border at a certain time, and proteges usually flocked there. He ordained them in great numbers and performed (according to John of Ephesus, supposedly) 170,000 ordinations. But in 537 Relations began because of his personality between the Constantinople and Persian courts. The Persian commander Marzban arrested John; the latter did not give the ransom and therefore was handed over to the authorities. The authorities imprisoned him in the Antioch monastery, where he died on February 6, 538. But the Orthodox, before finishing with John, had to first endure one more alarm. When the persecution of the Monophysites was launched in Syria, the Syrian elders were not afraid to flee to Constantinople. They didn't live in poverty here. Up to 500 Monophysite elders lived in the palace of Gormisda, which belonged to Theodora, and were held in high esteem. Theodora herself received their blessing. There was also a special monastery of Syrians in Constantinople. How Justinian himself treated the Monophysites can be judged by the fact that when the Constantinople clergy refused to mission among the pagans, Justinian entrusted this task to the Monophysite bishop John of Ephesus. According to him, he converted up to 70,000 people, and 96 or 99 churches were built for them. Thus, the Monophysites had enough freedom in Constantinople. The famous palace was a place of liturgical meetings; there was also an altar where the Monophysites performed sacred services. On Easter they baptized no less than in the great church of Constantinople. The court sphere, which perfectly understood which party was on the predominant side, preferred to baptize their children from the Monophysites. Thus, in Constantinople they were given such freedom that they had to fear the worst. In the fall of 535, Sevier came to Constantinople. Since Epiphanius of Constantinople died in 535, his place was taken by the Bishop of Trebizond Anthimus. Theodosius, Patriarch of Alexandria, a Monophysite, had to leave Alexandria due to the sympathy of the Alexandrians for his opponent Gayan, and he was also invited to Constantinople. Thus, Sevier and Theodosius, two notorious Monophysites, and Anthimus, who sympathized with them, ended up in Constantinople at the same time. But it turned out that Patriarch Ephraim, a remarkable personality, was watching this state of affairs with an eagle eye from Antioch. In Antioch under Justin there were more than once riots: the “blues” committed outrages here too. A firm hand was needed to restore order. The choice of the emperor fell on Ephraim of Amid, who was made governor-general of Syria, and he tamed the blues. But in 526 Antioch became a victim of an earthquake. Patriarch Euphrasius died, and Ephraim was elected in his place: a rather curious phenomenon - the transition from the highest civil post to a church one. Ephraim was an energetic man; he was not only an ascetic, but also established himself in the literary field. He is the only writer of his time who successfully polemicized with the Monophysites. When he toured the dioceses, some Monophysites said whether the time of the Antichrist had already come. He captured prominent Monophysites and forced them to conduct public debates with the Orthodox. In this way the people recognized the precariousness of the foundations of Monophysitism. Ephraim pointed out that in essence the difference between the Orthodox and the Monophysites is insignificant, that the Council of Chalcedon did not decide the horrors that the Monophysites talk about. And this Ephraim saw that Orthodoxy was in danger in Constantinople. And since there was a change in the department in Rome, Ephraim probably took advantage of the fact that the Roman Bishop Agapit sent him a message in which he expressed a desire to be in peace with him; Ephraim sent him a reply message. This message was sent through Sergius to Rome, as Zechariah of Mytilene says, with the aim of convincing the new Roman bishop to come to Constantinople to save Orthodoxy. The pope also had his own motivation to come to Constantinople. Theodagatus, king of the Goths, gave him a purely political commission. Thus, the pope himself unexpectedly appeared in Constantinople. He was greeted with respect, but his explanations with the emperor turned out to be steep in determining the nature of the actions of Sevier and Anfim. In the Liber pontificalis it is reported that he said to Justinian: “I thought that I was going to the most pious Emperor Justinian, but it turned out that I had come to the second Diocletian.” The pope called Sevirus a Eutychian, says Zechariah of Mytilene, and this is understandable, because the degree of enlightenment in the West was such that they could not understand the differences between Monophysitism and Eutychianism. He called Anthimus an adulterer because he moved from his pulpit to another. Naturally, the pope did not enter into communication with either Sevier or Anfim. Anthimus had to refuse the see, and instead of him, Agapit, on March 13, 536, ordained Mina (an Alexandrian), who was given the solution to the question of Anthimus, since Agapit soon died. A council in Constantinople in May-June excommunicated Anthimus; Justinian, by edict on August 6, approved the resolutions of the council. Sevier had to leave Constantinople, and Anfim was left out of business. Pope Agapit himself died in Constantinople even before the council. Pope Silverius was elected in his place (June 8); but the matter did not end there. Deacon Agapit Vigilius expressed a desire to be an obedient instrument in the hands of Theodora if she would help him become a Roman bishop. He went to Rome with Theodora's recommendation, but Pope Silverius was already there. However, Vigilius began to pester Belisarius, promising a reward if he helped him take the Roman throne. The ambitious wife of Belisarius agreed to this intrigue, and Silverius was accused of allegedly wanting to betray Rome to the Goths, he was deposed and sent to the city of Patara, and Vigilius became pope instead. The bishop of Patara learned that Silverius had become a victim of intrigue, and took upon himself the courage to persuade the emperor to consider this matter again. Then Vigilius began to ask Belisarius not to consider the case. Silverius, already summoned to Rome, was again sent into exile, and there he died. If Vigilius was elected, it was as an instrument for Theodora’s further affairs. As bishop of Rome, Vigilius had to write a communicative letter to Theodosius, Sevirus and Anthimus, and asked them to keep this letter secret. Attached to the message was a statement of faith, in which he stood on the point of view of the enoticon of Zeno. Thus Vigilius came into conflict with his predecessors. The document written by Vigilius was secret, but since there is nothing secret that would not be revealed, this document also became known. Two deacons, Liberat and Victor of Tunun, told us the text of this message. We don’t know where they got it from, but it is known that they were in Constantinople. This document is very unfavorable for Catholics, and even some Russians suspect the authenticity of the letter (among other things) on the grounds that it is addressed to three persons, as if they were together 103. But, of course, they could all be in Constantinople. Indeed, in 536, from May 2 to June 4, Anthimus was not found in his own house, and no one could say what happened to him. Therefore, at the council in Constantinople he was tried in absentia. But then it turned out that Anfim was hiding in Theodora’s apartment. Thus, there was every reason to take the document in question as addressed to these three persons. Vigilius understood that if his document were discovered, then it would turn out that the Roman Church was in communion with heretics, and therefore acted with great caution. However, he still had to pay for his imprudent step, which happened due to an unforeseen matter. When Theodosius had to be sent into exile, Justinian issued a decree to elevate Paul, an Orthodox figure, to the Alexandrian see. He was sent there with great powers. His task was to cleanse all of Egypt from Monophysitism. Therefore, Paul had to remove civil officials simply because their Orthodoxy was suspicious. When he instilled fear in many Monophysites with his orders, then he focused his attention on Elijah, the commander-in-chief of all the troops. But Elijah had a friend in Psoi, the deacon who was in charge of Paul’s office. When the sympathy of Psoi Elijah was discovered, then the patriarch demanded an account from him and put him in prison. Psoy was subjected to such torture that he died. They also wanted to take away his children, in order to hide this matter, but they managed to escape to Constantinople - and the matter was made public. Then the emperor ordered Paul to retire to Gaza. A special delegation arrived here to remove Paul’s omophorion and depose him. The head of this delegation was Pelagius, an apocrisiary and Roman deacon, a supporter of Theodora. Zoilus was elected as Paul's successor. Pelagius acted against Silverius in favor of Vigilius. Pelagius initiated cases that, perhaps, otherwise would not have surfaced in history. While in Palestine, he recommended that the Jerusalem monks, opponents of Origenism, bring their complaints to the attention of Justinian. This circumstance gave rise to the subsequent dispute about three chapters. Edicts of Justinian on three chapters From the point of view of historiography, the events of this dispute are a warning, on the one hand, for those who are accustomed to explain everything by external facts, understanding Justinian’s era extremely superficially. These events happened after the death of Theodora († 548 June 28), the famous patroness of Monophysitism (although the beginning of the dispute falls during her lifetime). Consequently, this death did not change Justinian at all. But on the other hand, they are almost a big warning for those who, with feigned profundity, try to explain everything by internal motives. In relation to this series of questions, the latter try to show that there was an internal necessity that caused these events. But it seems that it is impossible to discover internal reasons here. Personal factors matter much more than internal reasons. And it doesn’t hurt to remember that in raising a storm with his edict, Justinian, from his point of view, worked pro nihilo; the matter was already lost, because all his previous policies were accompanied by failure: the Monophysites had already established their own hierarchy. Therefore, everything must be explained by simple chance. For reasons unknown to us, they became interested in Palestinian monasteries at the beginning of the 6th century. the writings of Origen, and a movement began, which, however, cannot in the least be associated directly with Origen. This movement consisted not only in the scientific study of his works, but in the restoration of his entire system and in developing it to extremes. The dispute that was raised by the monks at that time has nothing to do with ancient Origenism. Then they rebelled against Origen because he was suspected of being an Arian, for his incorrect teaching about the Son of God, but they also brought in other incorrect views of Origen. Now no one adhered to ancient Origenism, and if his old imaginary Arianism was put forward, it was only in order to cast a shadow on other aspects of Origen’s teachings. The monks were fascinated by those aspects of Origen's teachings that expressed his eschatology. Even the glorious ascetics became carried away by the argument; Between the Origenist monks, two parties were formed, the Protoctists and the Isochrists. Origen preached ἀποκατάστασις τῶν ἀπάντων. Thus, his eschatology was reduced to the doctrine of the re-creation of everything that exists. He thought of God as absolute goodness, and therefore he thought of what He originally created as absolutely good, for only such can be a manifestation of an absolutely good will. All creatures were originally equally good, equally free. The world was a world of pure, free spirits (πνεύματα). But these πνεύματα received a gradational difference as they enjoyed their freedom. Some became closer to God and therefore more perfect, others, standing further from God, cooled in love for God and instead of πνεύματα became ψυχαί, and bodies were required for them. Thus, everything that exists must be morally purified, so that people and demons cease to be souls and demons, but turn back into absolutely pure spirits. The Isochrists understood this in their own way, and said that everything that exists must be equal to Christ, which can happen through the restoration of everything to its primitive state. Thus, the Origenists appeared, whom Origen would undoubtedly have renounced, but their opponents were not slow to appear, because scores due to theological convictions were associated with the question of the ownership of one or another of the monasteries. Thus, the Palestinian monks had to seek intercession. First, they put pressure on the Patriarch of Jerusalem, and then turned to the representative of the Roman Bishop Pelagius, who was going to remove the omophorion from the Alexandrian Bishop Paul. He was introduced to Origenism, which had been renewed in Palestine. He delved into this matter and interested Justinian in the same thing, who led a purely cavalry attack. An edict followed and was sent to everyone who needed it and did not need it. This matter was of a local nature, and he elevated it to the level of an event of significance for the entire Byzantine Empire. A persecution began against the Origenists, but they managed to get their adherents into church positions. Prominent Origenist monks occupied two episcopal sees: Theodore Askis in Caesarea Cappadocia and Domitian in Ancyra. These Origenists were dissatisfied with the new direction of affairs and, in order to distract Justinian from Origenism, they decided to create new troubles for him at the other end of dogmatics. Having learned that Justinian was rushing around with a draft essay against the Monophysites, and having had the opportunity to talk with Justinian, Askida tried to explain to him that it was not worth writing an essay against the Monophysites, because the matter could be settled with less effort. The Monophysites, said Askidas, do not recognize the Council of Chalcedon, because they think that it implicitly left Nestorianism unrejected, since Theodore of Mopsuestia was not condemned and Iva of Edessa and Theodoret of Cyrus were accepted. If the Orthodox condemn these three individuals or their writings, then the Monophysites will believe that the Council of Chalcedon is free from suspicions of Nestorianism. The logic of the evidence affected the emperor, and he, obeying Askida, followed the rails laid by him. Askida knew well the emperor's weakness to interfere in theological disputes. He thought that one only had to persuade the emperor to do a certain act, and then pride would not allow the emperor to refuse the role he had taken; The emperor, carried away in the fight against the Monophysites, will leave the Origenists alone, which is what Askida sought. Theodore of Mopsuestia was disgusted with Askida. The Origenist, who was keen on the deductive method of studying truths, was antipathetic to the exegetical method of Theodore of Mopsuestia, which, following philological methods, required first establishing the literal meaning, clarifying the historical course of events, and then only allowing for allegorical interpretation. Thus, there was a great difference between the minds, or better yet, between the mental inclinations of one and the other, as a result of which Askida was undesirable to spare Theodore of Mopsuestia. But as often happens in history that evil is caused more by people who are not evil, but only those who are narrow-minded, the same thing happened with Askida. He was horrified that the storm had risen above his head; Such confusion arose that Askida himself admitted that he, and also Pelagius, the Roman deacon, should have been burned alive. In 544, Justinian issued a decree based on Askida's design. Only three fragments from Facundus Hermian have survived, the contents of which are as follows. 1) Who calls the impious epistle to Mary, which is attributed to Iva (quae dicitur ab Iba esse facta), correct, or who supports it, and does not anathematize, as speaking ill of Cyril, who says that God the Word was made man, and condemning the 12 chapters of Cyril, attacking the first Council of Ephesus, and Nestorius defending and praising Theodore Mopsuestian - let him be anathema. 2) Who claims that we said this with the aim of destroying or eliminating St. fathers who were at the Council of Chalcedon, let him be anathema. 3) One has only to look at the Epistle to Mary to see how godless and impious it all is (omnia quidem sine Deo et impie dicentem), and why the entire Eastern Church anathematizes Theodore. Justinian allowed himself to say that Iva’s letter to Marius the Persian was written godlessly (sine Deo – ἀθέως). But that this matter seemed doubtful to Justinian is evident from the fact that while he anathematizes the defenders of Theodore, Iva and Theodoret, he at the same time anathematizes those who declare that all these disputes serve to the detriment of the Council of Chalcedon. The question of the time of the edict cannot be resolved satisfactorily, but with high probability one can think that the edict against the Origenists was issued in 543, and at the beginning of 544 the edict of Justinian was ready on the newly raised issue. The edict then began to circulate among the bishops. The Emperor fulfilled the principle of “divide et impera” here. After the decree was issued, the bishops were not invited to the conference, and the decree was first given to Mina of Constantinople directly for signature. He understood the danger for the church, but either due to weakness of character or lack of theological education, he could not refuse and signed, but with the understanding that if the Roman bishop did not agree, then give him back the signature. Ephraim of Antioch spoke out more energetically against the decree. In essence, if Justinian had the mind of a statesman, he would have to understand that his work, as a practical measure, is worthless, because he has against him such fighters of Orthodoxy as St. Ephraim, who expressed that such a document can only be expected to cause harm to the church. From the affairs of the Antiochian church, he understood all the machinations of the Monophysites. So they once turned to Flavian, asking him, in order to eliminate misunderstandings, not to mention the Council of Chalcedon. Flavian did not agree. Then they pointed to Nestorius; Flavian condemned this. But Nestorius is a disciple of Theodore of Mopsuestia, and this one has not yet been condemned. Flavian also condemned Theodore. But Theodore of Mopsuestia, the Monophysites noticed, was praised by Iva of Edessa. Flavian condemned this too. But along with Iva, Theodoret of Cyrus was an opponent of the 12 anathematisms of Cyril, the Monophysites said: condemn this too, and at the same time condemn the Council of Chalcedon, since, you see, nothing remains of it. All these three “chapters” in the Monophysite struggle thus had the meaning of three stages. Bearing in mind this historical example in the life of his Antiochian church, Ephraim could not hold a high opinion of the effect of the present imperial edict; on the contrary, he could expect only harm for the church if it was carried out. That's why he refused to sign it. With the knowledge of the emperor, he was threatened with deprivation of the throne and exile; the elder could not stand his decision and signed. The decree reached the Patriarch of Jerusalem Peter. The monastics, who knew the emperor's decree, gathered in church, and Patriarch Peter was forced to explain himself to the people, as they say, frankly; he declared that anyone who accepted the imperial edict would act to the detriment of the church, and refused to sign it. But under threats, he was forced to agree. The Alexandrian Patriarch Zoilus, after hesitation, gave his signature, at the same time sending an embassy to the Roman bishop with a plea not to consent to the edict and to stand up for the freedom of the church, declaring that he himself was under pressure. It is difficult to find out what happened. But Justinian did not hide the fact that he “asked” the bishops. How to understand this “interrogation”? Hefele (II, 813 3) notes that torture in ancient courts was called only biased “interrogation.” In a word, from the beginning of 544 and subsequently, the excitement of minds even in the Byzantine part of the empire assumed enormous proportions. The matter was further complicated by the presence in the east of persons arriving from the west. While the imperial edict was passing through the hands of the primates of the main eastern churches, Mina, the patriarch of Constantinople, was selecting, by order of the emperor, signatures from the bishops of the vast diocese of Constantinople under his jurisdiction, which included Asia, Pontus, Thrace and Illyricum. As soon as the patriarch's order regarding signatures became known, the Roman apocrisiary Deacon Stephen appeared to him, reproached him for his consent to the emperor and declared that he could not remain in church communion with him. At the same time, the bishops of the diocese turned to the apocrisiary with complaints against the patriarch that he was forcing their consent to the edict, and asked Stephen to convince Mina to withdraw her consent, and if this was unsuccessful, then to ask the Roman bishop to stand against the decree. Apocrisiary Stephen, having collected a large number of documents, went to meet the Roman bishop, who was traveling to Constantinople on imperial orders. Bishop Datius of Mediolan and Facundus of Hermian from Africa, who were in Constantinople, also broke off communication with Mina. When news of the new decree and the church unrest occurring in the east reached the west, the deacons of the Roman church Anatolius and Pelagius turned to the learned deacon of the Carthaginian church Fulgentius Ferrandus with a request to analyze the imperial decree in detail. Meanwhile, a highly comical thing happened with the imperial decree. Under its three “chapters” (κεφάλαια), which proclaimed anathema to all who would defend Theodore of Mopsuestia, the letter to Marius of Iva and the writings of Theodoret, directed in defense of Nestorius against Cyril, some began to understand three bishops - Theodore of Mopsuestia, Iva of Edessa and Theodoret of Cyrus. Thus, what happened was that someone who had previously been an enemy of the emperor now became his ardent associate, and vice versa. In this case, we have a rare phenomenon that within a short time, combat terms radically change their meaning. This dispute is known to us more from Latin sources: Facundus of Germian wrote the essay “pro defensione trium capitum”. (Justinian himself later, during the fifth ecumenical council, already spoke about “impia tria capitula”; the council is also expressed in this way: “praedicta igitur tria capitula anathematisamus, id est, Theodorum impium Mopsuestenum cum nefandis ejus conscriptis, et quae impie Theodoritus conscripsit, et impiam epistolam, quae dicitur Ibae"). Thus it appears that Theodore of Mopsuestia, Iva of Edessa, and Theodoret of Cyrus with their works were the “chiefs.” But in reality the dispute took place over three paragraphs of the edict. Whoever accepted them was a supporter of Justinian’s cause, and whoever did not accept them became his opponent. The content of Fulgentius Ferrand's reply message is remarkable in many ways. The intelligent deacon of the Carthaginian church saw through the course of historical events, and what he foresaw almost literally later happened. The condemnation of the three heads is an undertaking that, in the end, will only benefit the acephalous people. They will say: the Council of Chalcedon anathematized Nestorius and approved his teaching. Consideration of the issue of Willow is an intrusion into the sphere of competence of the Council of Chalcedon. This would be an indirect censure of its discussion, a revision of its trial, a change in its verdict, while the ecumenical council should retain unshakable power, eternal authority. The authority of ecumenical councils ranks first after the canonical books of Holy Scripture. By shaking the significance of one council, we will shake the authority of all of them. Chalcedon will waver: can the meaning of Nicene stand firm? But they will object: in dogmatic matters, we also recognize the unshakable authority of the Fathers of Chalcedon. They believed Orthodoxy, but without sufficient caution they accepted the message of Willow (bene crediderunt, sed Ibae venerabilis epistolam male susceperunt). But can one source produce sweet water and bitter water? No, a little leaven leaves the whole mixture (1 Cor. 5:6). The revision of the Council of Chalcedon cannot be allowed in any part of it: the entire Council of Chalcedon is true, because all of it is the Council of Chalcedon; not a single part in it is subject to blame, everything that was said, done, discussed and approved there, everything was accomplished by the ineffable mysterious power of the Holy Spirit. And in the ardent imagination of Fulgentius, a picture is drawn of how the Chalcedonian fathers rise from their tombs and before the throne of Christ demand from their successors an explanation of why their trial was declared incompetent and erroneous, why their successors trust more in their absentee trial than in their research in the presence of Willow. Why are they again shaking with internal disputes the work of peace that the fathers of Chalcedon accomplished? “And why is this war with the dead,” continues Fakund, why cause trouble in the church because of the dead? Anyone condemned by the church and dying without being reconciled with it cannot be resolved by any human court. Whoever was accused and, having been resolved, reposed in the Lord in peace with the church, cannot be condemned by human court. Whoever was finally accused, but died before the day of the church trial, should be looked upon as one who died in the womb of the mother of the church; The Lord preserved him for His judgment. To whom God has forgiven, our severity (severitas) is in no way harmful. And for whom God has prepared torment, our favor is completely useless. – Finally, Fulgentius condemns the very form of condemnation of the three chapters by collecting signatures under the imperial decree as despotic pressure on the conscience. He recognizes for every work of human pen the only path to authority and universal recognition: the persuasiveness of the evidence presented. Then the composition will, without any coercive measures, dominate the minds that voluntarily bow before its internal consistency. – Ferrand ends with three demands: 1) not to allow a revision of the Council of Chalcedon, but to preserve its decisions in full force; 2) do not cause temptations between the living because of dead brothers; 3) no one should, through forced signatures, claim such authority for his work as is due only to Holy Scripture, because it will be very useful for the welfare of the churches if no one begins to prescribe to the church what it should follow, but adheres to what it teaches. Thus, Italy and Africa became in opposition to Justinian's edict; it was not easy to break her. Since the time of the Arian disputes, the civil power had not given orders to the Italian bishops. The fact that Italy was under Gothic rule and in danger of persecution did not constitute a loss in the matter of moral education. The Gothic sovereigns were not persecutors of Catholicism, but the consciousness of living without protection forced the bishops to rally into a more solidary union, and in the end, under Gothic rule, the view developed that the Roman bishop could not be judged by anyone. The Italian episcopate was, therefore, brought up in the consciousness of its complete ecclesiastical independence. But the African opposition was much more formidable. The characters of the Africans, these Romanized Phoenicians, were ardent and powerful; The history of their church developed in such a way that, in the sense of understanding the practical church interests and their protection, the African episcopate, even in the West, was the chosen one among the chosen ones. Nowhere was opposition to papal encroachments on ecclesiastical independence conducted so intelligently and so consistently as in Africa. Staunch defenders of their freedom against its internal rebels, African bishops could stand up for it against external forces. The persecution of the Vandals only further strengthened the historical power of their characters. Laymen and clergy were sent into exile by the thousands, bishops by the hundreds (in 484: 302 + 47 people), the death penalty was resorted to, the churches were left without shepherds for decades - and the result for the propaganda of Arianism was quite insignificant: history knows by name only one bishop who was seduced into Arianism, Revocatus (ille infelix Revocatus, a fide catholica revocatus), although they were “multi lapsi”. While representing a well-disciplined ecclesiastical force, the African episcopate also had great prerogatives. It seems that nowhere did each individual bishop have so much legal, well-guaranteed freedom as in Africa. The cathedral beginning was here developed to full color. Centralization has been brought to its normal minimum. Among the African primates, only the bishop of Carthage occupied a place by virtue of his position in the Carthaginian see, yet the other primates of the provinces were not metropolitans, but senes, elders, who occupied their honorary post not because they were bishops of the most significant city, but because they were the oldest bishops of the region by ordination. For this purpose, special lists of those ordained were even kept in the provinces of Africa, and they were kept in the highest degree of conscientiousness. Bl. Augustine was once greatly indignant that his admirers wanted to promote him in the Numidian list in order for him to quickly take an important place. Thus, every bishop, even an insignificant town, almost a village, could become a primate here, senex. This naturally elevated the ecclesiastical self-awareness of each of them and gave them the opportunity to treat their influential brothers in a spirit of respectful, free equality. It is clear, therefore, what experienced fighters Justinian summoned against himself when the African episcopate found that the new edict affected both faith and freedom. Bishop Pontian sent a message to “the most merciful and pious son, Justinian the Emperor,” in which he declares to him that the writings of Theodore are unknown in Africa, but no matter what he wrote, one should not condemn the dead who eo ipso cannot correct their behavior. Only Eutychianism will benefit from all this. Why start a war with the dead, in which the battle does not lead to victory? They have already appeared before the true Judge, from whom there is no appeal (apud judicem verum jam tenentur, a quo nullus appellat). “For the sake of the Lord himself, do not disturb the peace of the church, so that you, having decided to condemn the dead, do not have to put to death many living people for disobedience (inobedientes).” – These are the prospects this message, written in a tone of restrained strength, already indicated to the emperor. To calm this storm, the distant roar of which was felt in Constantinople, Justinian decided to summon here the highest church authority in the West, Pope Vigilius. He should have kept at least part of the serious obligations under which he took his chair! In essence, Vigilius turned out to be an excellent speculator, because he made such a promise that could only be used if the Monophysite party triumphed. Perhaps he correctly observed the course of events and understood that this would never come true during his lifetime. In turn, the document was of such a kind that if, on the basis of it, Vigilius was considered a heretic, then the representative of state power should be recognized as the same heretic. Vigilius followed the imperial call very reluctantly, because he knew very well the situation in Constantinople of his predecessor, Pope Agapit. The point of view on Justinian's invitation could be different. One might think that the Monophysites, realizing their delusions and mistakes, themselves would like to turn to Orthodoxy. But in Rome there was a belief that agreeing to sign Justinian’s decree meant condemning the Council of Chalcedon. Since in the government spheres it was well understood that the Roman bishops had, as it were, a privilege not to appear at eastern councils, an order came from Justinian to arrest the Pope. A later legend (vita Vigilii Anastasii), somewhat legendary, but accurately depicting the mood of Rome, assures that the imperial official who arrived for Vigilius had orders, if necessary, to even forcibly seize him in any other church except the Basilica of St. Peter, and as if on November 22, 544, the pope was really captured in the church of St. Cecilia. (Probably here) Vigilius was met by a messenger from the emperor and announced to him Justinian's order. Dad could only obey. According to reliable news, Rome accompanied its bishop with a request not to agree to the condemnation of the three heads. Seeing him off from Rome was quite strange. On the one hand, he was conjured not to betray Orthodoxy and, in particular, the Council of Chalcedon, and on the other, the ship on which he was sailing was showered with stones with a cry: “Let your hunger be with you!” let your plague be with you!” (it should be noted that the bishopric of Vigilius was marked in Rome by various disasters, for example, famine). The extent to which Vigilius was reluctant to leave Rome can be seen from the way he took advantage of all possible stops to delay time. In Sicily, the pope was also met with a request not to agree to the condemnation of the three heads; Datius of Mediola arrived here and told him what was happening in Constantinople. Zoilus of Alexandria sent the embassy we know here. Having stayed in Sicily for about a year, the pope went through Hellas and Illyricum to Constantinople. While he was in Thessalonica, the Roman apocrisiary Stefan arrived here and presented all the documents to the pope. All along the way Vigilius to Constantinople, embassies came out with a request to cancel the condemnation of the three heads, so Vigilius, while still on the road, sent a message to the Patriarch of Constantinople Mina, in which he condemned Mina for signing the decree on the condemnation of the three heads, thus expressing his opinion on the controversial issue. The Hermian faculty sarcastically remarks about these events: an original way to ask the pope’s opinion when the matter has been decided in advance without him. Finally, on January 25, 547, Constantinople solemnly welcomed Vigilius. To Justinian's displeasure, the pope sided with the opposition and soon excommunicated Mina and all those who wrote the edict. The Patriarch of Constantinople responded, of course, by excluding the name Vigilius from the diptychs. Justinian and especially Theodora used all measures to win Vigilius over to their side. Vigilius' stay attracted many bishops to Constantinople. For the first time it was possible to threaten Vigilius; church communion took place, and on June 29, St. Peter and Paul, the restoration of Mina was celebrated after his four-month excommunication. Now Vigilius had no choice but to speak definitely on the controversial issue. Two letters were taken from him to the emperor and empress and a verbal promise, where he stated that he did not oppose the edict of the emperor, but considered it necessary to prepare more favorable conditions (for its implementation). Vigilius, therefore, had to prepare favorable soil. Conferences of bishops (about 70) were formed under the chairmanship of Vigilius. These conferences cannot be called councils, since they only prepared the ground; these were secret meetings aimed at clarifying the issue through debate. Vigilius, who presided over the conferences, is called by Facundus the word “judex”, and the conferences themselves are called “judicia” (judicial proceedings). Bound by a secret promise, dad, of course, tried in a certain way to direct, or at least slow down the matter. But at the third meeting, Fakund, already known to us, spoke up. “I humbly ask your Holiness,” he addressed Vigilius, “to investigate the question of whether the message of Willows, which the edict condemns as Nestorian, was really adopted at the Council of Chalcedon. As for me, I do not consider the condemnation of Theodore of Mopsuestia to be such an important matter that because of it I would have to break off church communion with Mina. This condemnation cannot, of course, be approved, but it can still be tolerated. I broke off communication with Mina simply because I think that this whole matter is going to the detriment of the Council of Chalcedon.” “But,” answered Vigilius, “I don’t know this; this is what I’m not sure about, that the so-called message of Willow was adopted at the Council of Chalcedon.” “In that case,” answered the merciless Fakund, “deign to order me to be the first to present evidence of this. I hope to find out that the fact of the adoption of this message at the council is completely in vain. Let me explain the secret side of these undertakings directed against the authority of the Council of Chalcedon." The excited dad couldn’t find what to answer. He stood up and declared the conference closed, asking all the bishops present to put their opinions in writing and submit them to him as soon as possible. Fakund himself was given a period of barely seven days, including two holidays. It is clear, Fakund comments, it is more convenient to handle paper than living people; it can be torn, burned, or replaced with another. Fakund had previously worked hard on this question and gave a fairly thorough answer. But the rule “divide et impera” had its effect on other bishops, and they gave written consent to the condemnation of the three heads. And before they had time to come to their senses, they learned that - against their wishes - the pope had conveyed their statements (vota) to the emperor. The crafty Vigilius, when they demanded an explanation for this, was found this time. “Really, like you, I am not in favor of this cause, which is contrary to the authority of the Council of Chalcedon, and I did not want to keep these incriminating papers. Perhaps they will also end up in the archives of our St. the Roman Church, and someone later will think that we really approved of the condemnation of the three heads. I took them to the palace, and let them do with them what they know.” It was definitely impossible to tear them up, burn them or return them to the authors! The observant Facundus saw with his own eyes what apparently remained unknown in the higher spheres - the insolent, open rejoicing of the Monophysites when the bishops referred their vota to Vigilius. This convinced Facund more and more that the movement against the three heads was the work of their dark hands, and, irritated against the benefactors of the heretics (fautores haereticorum), he decided to publish his work, from which his votum is only a brief extract. And so, in the words of Victor of Tununsky, his “12 books in defense of three chapters” (XII libri pro defensee trium capitum) “shone.” Their main idea is the following. One should not fight against simple inaccuracies; one must be extremely careful in judging human beliefs, and the assessment of individual opinions cannot be turned into an assessment of a person’s personality. After all, many inaccuracies can be found in Augustine. And some of these inaccuracies give the right to accuse Augustine of Nestorianism. Augustine expresses himself about Christ, for example, like this: “What merits did this man have in order to be the only begotten Son of God after he was received into the unity of person by the Word co-eternal with the Father?” (Ille homo, ut a Verbo Patri coaeterno in unitatem personae assumptus filius Dei unigenitus esset, unde hoc meruit? quod ejus bonum qualecunque praecessit)? Thus, Augustine seems to have two persons in mind. Let them dare, if they can, to call him a heretic, let them try, according to their custom, to condemn him. Then they will know what is the piety, what is the perseverance of the Latin Church, which God blessed (instituit atque firmavit) to have such a teacher. In an instant everyone will curse them and cut them off from the church like rotten, infected members. So, if they have the desire to tear open the graves of those who have died in the world and gnaw the bones of the dead, let them try their teeth on this man of adamantine fortress. Then they will be convinced that they will break in their mouths so cleanly that they will no longer have to bite anyone else under this form of piety (I. 9, cap. 5 fin.). Thus, the main point of view of Fakund is that if Theodore of Mopsuestia has inaccuracies, then they are of a purely historical nature; they were inevitable at that time; If the matter is to be discussed energetically, then the question must be expanded to include all the teachers of the church. He then argues that the imperial decree eo ipso should not be obeyed in matters of faith, because the emperor cannot be the teacher of bishops. The emperor must not exceed his power; any excess does not bring benefit in matters of religion; only harm can come out of it. The result of the conferences, which, as noted, had the character of a “judicium,” was a document that was handed over to the emperor by Vigilius on April 11, 548 and is called “judicatum.” Its original text has not survived, and only fragments have survived. But its content is clear. Vigilius here agrees to condemn Theodore of Mopsuestia for his wicked writings, the letter of Willow and the writings of Theodoret directed against Cyril, anathematizes both them and their defenders. But in the surviving 5 passages he makes the most energetic reservations that by this he does not affect the authority of the Council of Chalcedon; he, as the successor of Leo V., by revising the Council of Chalcedon should not undermine the authority of the latter. The document was long, to the displeasure of Justinian, who did not want any mention of the Council of Chalcedon. But despite its vastness, it is considered to be meaningless documents; Such documents appear when a person has not yet formed a definite opinion about the subject. Thus, in the tone of judicatum (sometimes) the thought was conveyed: we recognize one God, without denying His trinity. But this is a simple convolution of words that does not constitute serious theology. A serious theologian argues this way: God is one in essence and threefold in Persons. Now, if Vigilius had brought the controversial issue to such clarity (which is characteristic of this formula), then he would not need to assure that he does not affect the authority of the Council of Chalcedon. But obviously, there was no such clarity in Vigilius’s head, and he should have issued the document that he did. The essence of the matter was unclear to everyone, and perhaps the pope himself wrote the judicatum with embarrassment. However, when Vigilius showed his document to the learned deacons Rusticus and Sebastian, they were delighted. Rusticus was ready to admit that no such document had ever appeared by which the truth would be so protected and the heretics condemned. It is necessary to pay attention to the importance of the deacon in the ancient church. In terms of hierarchical position, he, of course, stood below the presbyter. But still bl. Jerome complains that in Rome circumstances were unfavorable for the Roman presbyters. The fact is that there were a great many elders, but there were only 7 deacons in each church, according to the model of the church of the apostolic times. Thus, the result was a digital discrepancy; and what is rarer is more valuable. As a result of this state of affairs, it was more difficult to become a deacon than a presbyter. Therefore, the most gifted and educated members of the Roman clergy became deacons. And from the diaconate the path opened to the archdeaconry, and from here to the Roman episcopal see. The archdeacon was of such magnitude that only the archpresbyter corresponded to him in position. Therefore, the judgment of the deacons about the Roman bishop was of no small importance. Vigilius did not want to distribute his document, but Rusticus made copies of it and, praising it, sent it to the west. But Rusticus became friends with the African abbot Felix, who explained the matter to him in African terms: the emperor disturbs the peace of the dead; Pope Vigilius did something contrary to the Council of Chalcedon. Felix made a complete revolution in the opinions of Rusticus and Sebastian, and the same young deacons began agitation against the pope. Messages flew to the west from Rusticus that the pope was at odds with the Council of Chalcedon. Theodora's death followed on June 28, 548. Regarding Theodora, there is a definite opinion that she was the patroness of the Monophysites. It was to be expected that Monophysitism would weaken, but Justinian took over the role of Theodora. Justinian insisted on condemning the three chapters without mentioning the Council of Chalcedon. Meanwhile, opposition to the pope continued to grow. Rusticus and Sebastian trumpeted throughout the West that the pope, with his writing, had done something harmful to the Council of Chalcedon, that he was pursuing imperial views. Phacundus Hermianus and Datius Mediolanus acted in the same direction. And so they began to say everywhere that the pope was proclaiming such a lie that it would harm the Council of Chalcedon. At the same time, the Illyrian bishops sent a message to the emperor in defense of the three chapters and excommunicated the supporter of papal opinions, the bishop of the first Justiniana, Benenatus, pending correction. Thus the spark was fanned, and the matter, which should have been resolved by reconciliation, ended in discord. No longer individuals, but entire regions began to separate over the issue of the three heads. Something had to be done. The actual starting point of the controversy was obscured to everyone; which of the three chapters was the most important remained unknown. It could be understood if the African bishops were calm about the matter; but it was painful for them that Theodore of Mopsuestia, who had not been judged by anyone, was condemned. Justinian energetically began preparing the condemnation of Theodore of Mopsuestia. On June 17, 550, a council was held in Mopsuestia to find out how the Mopsuestian church itself relates to Theodore of Mopsuestia, and therefore it has the character of an archaeological study. John from the city of Anazar presided at the council. In addition to the 9 bishops at the council there were presbyters, deacons and readers of the Mopsuestian church; Several representatives of secular authorities also took part in it. Many witnesses were called here from older people of spiritual and secular rank, who had to answer the questions: do they remember that the name of Theodore was read in church diptychs, and do they know when it was excluded from them? Some of these witnesses were 80 years old and therefore could be reporting information dating back to the distant past. So Presbyter Martyrius stated that he is about 80 years old, he has been in the clergy for 60 years. Martyrius testified: “I do not know and have not heard that Theodore, who was once the bishop of this city, was proclaimed in church diptychs; but I heard that St. Cyril, former bishop of the great city of Alexandria, is placed in place of Theodore in the diptychs in which deceased bishops are included, and even hitherto he is included and proclaimed with other bishops. For I do not know and have not heard that in our city there was a bishop named Cyril. And that Bishop Theodore, who is read in the diptychs, died three years ago,” and that means there was another Theodore, and not the one about whom the research was going on. Other clergy said the same thing. The testimony of secular witnesses was no different from the testimony of clergy. At the council, diptychs were examined in which the names of the bishops of the city of Mopsuestia, commemorated in this city, were recorded, and which were kept along with the sacred vessels in the sacristy; In addition to these diptychs, two other more ancient diptychs were brought to the cathedral, which were no longer in use and which were written on parchment. The diptychs, at the request of the cathedral, were read aloud to everyone; in them, in the place where, according to the order of time, the name of Theodore, which was discussed, should have been, the name of Cyril was placed. It turned out after investigation that the diptychs were not the most ancient; they belonged to the church library, and not to the church archive. It also turned out that Martyrius was born in 470, therefore, his very first memories date back to approximately 480. But it is precisely at this time that the persecution erected by the enoticon of Zinon against the Orthodox falls; Julian of Mopsuestia was also convicted, and the documents cited did not, indeed, contain Julian’s name. Obviously, the presented documents have undergone some editing. The Monophysite hand crossed out the name of Theodore of Mopsuestia and added the name of Cyril, unknown to the Mopsuestian diocese, but obviously the bishop of Alexandria. To understand the emperor's next steps, one must appreciate Vigilius's position in the west. Rumors spread there that he had done something unworthy, and written requests were sent to him. In addition, Vigil's judicatum met with direct opposition there. Gaul and Scythia showed resistance to him; in Dalmatia they did not directly accept it. The bishops of Illyria acted even more energetically, excommunicating the protege of Vigilius from their midst because he was a supporter of this latter. The African bishops in 550, meeting under the chairmanship of Bishop Reparatus of Carthage, decided to declare that Vigilius was deprived of church communion for his judicatum, and to bring this to the attention of Justinian. Justinian recognized the opposition in Illyria and Africa as serious and sent his rescript there. Despite the Mopsuestian Council, Vigilius did not feel good, since the whole West was against him. A new stage in the state of affairs was expressed in the fact that Vigilius began to beg the emperor to return the judicatum to him, since otherwise his influence would be reduced to zero and he would be unable to do anything to pacify the church. And he succeeded in 550; but still, on August 15 of the same year, a written oath was taken from him in the presence of Mina of Constantinople, Datius of Mediolan and many other Greeks and Latins to contribute to the condemnation of the three heads at the council. Thus, the pope and the emperor entered into an agreement: the pope promised to promote Justinian’s aspirations, but made him undertake that he would not do anything against the three heads without a council decision. Now Vigilius began his steps again. It was necessary to break the African opposition. Justinian summoned a deputation of bishops from Africa to Constantinople, headed by Reparatus of Carthage, then Firmus Numidian, Primasius and Verecundus of Byzacena. Bishops from Illyricum were also invited, but they refused to appear. The meetings of the deputies with Vigilius led to nothing. Africans defended their view, arguing that condemning the dead would be an injustice. Therefore, Justinian himself opposed Reparat and acted like Justinian. He recognized Reparatus as unworthy of the Carthaginian see, because it was allegedly through the fault of Reparatus that Justinian's relative Areobindus was killed. The fact is true, but it happened like this. In 545, Justinian appointed his relative Areobindus to Carthage as “magister militum”, but a certain Gontarite, as his name shows, of Germanic origin, rebelled against Areobindus, and the troops remained on the side of Gontarite. Areobind ran to the church. Gontarit meanwhile assured Reparat that Areobindus' identity was safe. Then Reparatus persuaded Areobindus to leave the church; the last one came out and was killed. Gontarit was soon killed as well. But all this was already old history for 550. The emperor could have taken care of the deposition of the Carthaginian bishop Reparatus earlier. In a word, the intrigue here was clear to everyone. The reparat was exiled. His apocrisiary Primasius was flattered by the high position of the Archbishop of Carthage, and in order to occupy this position, he agreed to the condemnation of three heads; but the African bishops opposed him. Numidian Firmus also succumbed to the condemnation of the three heads; but this last one, returning to his homeland, died. Of the other deputies, Bishop Primasius initially resisted, but then also agreed. Only Verekund turned out to be resistant. Thus, Pope Vigilius's first attempt to pacify Africa failed. The year 551 has arrived. Theodore Askida started a new intrigue. So that there was no doubt about the condemnation of the three heads, Theodore Askida invited Justinian to state his confession of faith, and the latter succumbed to the bait. He wrote "Ὁμολογία πίστεως" against three chapters, with 13 anathematisms. Justinian began to distribute this confession to churches, and those who agreed with this confession began to hang it on the walls of churches. The pope, protesting against this, achieved that he was allowed to arrange a new meeting. A new conference was formed, at which many bishops - Western and Eastern - were present. Pope Vigilius at this conference appealed to the bishops to ask Justinian to withdraw his confession and wait until the Latin bishops spoke at a council or through written statements. If he does not want this, they must not agree with him on pain of being deprived of communion with the apostolic see of Peter. The second to speak was Datius of Mediolan, repeating the same thing and declaring that Gaul, Burgundy, Spain, Liguria, Emilia and Venetia were in solidarity with him. But the conference ended in nothing. Immediately after the conference, the bishops, as if in defiance of the authority of the pope, went to the church on the walls of which Justinian’s confession of religion was posted, celebrated the liturgy and, crossing out the name of Zoilus, bishop of Alexandria, who protested against the condemnation of the three heads, replaced it with Apollinaris. Vigilius was deeply outraged by this course of affairs. In July 551, he announced to Theodore Askida that he was deprived of church communion. But this aroused the anger of Justinian, so that the bishops felt that they were not safe in Constantinople. On August 14, 551, Vigilius and Datius fled to the Church of Peter, which was a sacred refuge. Of course, such a phenomenon should have impressed the people of Constantinople. Now Vigilius wrote a document where he described what had happened and announced that he was deposing, on behalf of the Apostle Peter and in community with 13 Western bishops who were in the church, Theodore Askida, and excommunicating Mina of Constantinople. The document was placed in the hands of a trusted man in the expectation that the emperor would change his policy. If the emperor does not change his policy, Vigilius wrote, and if the pope (that is, he) is persecuted or dies, then the document should be published. Thus, this document remained a secret for now. As soon as it became known that Vigilius retired to the church of St. Peter, the Comite Diaspondarist came there to take the Pope. The clergy who were in the church with the pope were the first to be pulled out by their hair (as reported in a letter from Italian clergy to the Frankish legates). There was only dad left. The commander's voice rang out - drag him too! (They wanted to extract dad, some by the legs, others by the beard and hair). Vigilius grabbed the legs of the throne; Dad, it should be noted, was massive in height and therefore heavy. The throne suddenly shook. The upper marble plaque of the throne began to fall and would probably have killed the pope if it had not been supported by the police themselves (according to the pope himself, the clergy). Such an insult to Vigilius, the Pope, caused a popular murmur, forcing the Comite to leave. Suddenly a deputation of 6 people serving the aristocracy, led by Belisarius, appears to the pope. On behalf of the emperor, they declared that he should receive an oath of assurance of his safety and return to his palace. Vigilius replied that he personally had nothing against them, but the emperor himself must give him an oath promise, of whom he only fears. Soon a second deputation appears to him and declares that Justinian does not intend to give an oath promise, but let Vigilius take it from the deputies; and if he does not agree, he will suffer the worst. Vigilius was forced to agree and took an oath before the cross, which contained part of the life-giving tree, and part of the chain from the bonds (claves) of the apostle. Peter, and returned to the palace. But he soon saw that he had made a mistake, for new intrigues were again raised against him. Everything that was handed over to him in the palace turned out to be removed from him, and positive boors were assigned to him, who caused him constant insults. There was intrigue even in Italy itself. By spreading false rumors about Vigilius, they tried to achieve his overthrow in Italy. A useful man was found who could write superbly in Vigilius's handwriting. He began to write suspicious messages to Italy. But since Datius of Mediolan was his supporter there, all of Italy was on the side of Vigilius and they did not believe the intrigues. Things were going so badly in Constantinople that Vigilius decided to flee to the church again. Two days before the Nativity of Christ in 551, he, in disguise, crossed the Bosphorus and took refuge in the church of the Great Martyr Euphemia, glorified by the Council of Chalcedon. From here, in January 552, the pope published the condemnation of Theodore Askis and Mina of Constantinople, compiled earlier. A deputation again came to him at the church (January 28) for negotiations, inviting him to Constantinople under the condition of an oath from the emperor. Vigilius replied that no oath was needed, and that if Justinian continued the policy of his predecessor, the pious Justin, he would return to Constantinople. On January 31, a new deputation appears to Vigilius and proposes to accept a document, which, according to Vigilius himself, was filled with insults to him. The Pope refused, citing the absence of the Emperor's signature on it. On February 5, 552, Vigilius published a message about everything that happened, telling. that he was even subjected to physical violence. It was decided to do something to pacify the church. Now Theodore Askida, Menas of Constantinople and other bishops decided to present their confessions of faith to the pope in order to justify their Orthodoxy. Things took a different turn when Mina, an Alexandrian by birth, a man of gentle character who wanted to unite with the renegades, died in August 552. The question of electing a successor to Mine was opened; Election campaigning had already begun in Constantinople. But Justinian suddenly stopped it. He stated that during his stay at the summer residence he rested in the church of St. Peter and Paul; During his sleep, the ap appeared to him. Peter indicated a candidate for the See of Constantinople in the person of Eutyches. Justinian began to assure the truth of his words with such terrible oaths that the bishops did not consider it possible to argue with the emperor and proclaimed “ἄξιος, ἄξιος, ἄξιος!” But this election was not unusual even for ordinary human foreknowledge. Mina already said about Eutyches: “here is my successor.” Eutyches was the apocrisiary of the Amasian metropolitan and lived in Constantinople (the duties of an apocrisiary are similar to those of modern diplomatic representatives). He attracted the favorable attention of Justinian; namely, during one of the conferences of bishops on the issue of the three chapters, Eutyches cited a quotation from Holy Scripture, supposedly proving the possibility of posthumous condemnation of the three chapters. He pointed to the example of Josiah, king of Judah, who, having destroyed the altar of Baal, burned the bones of the dead priests of this god (2 Kings 23:16). Finding this quote, of course, was not difficult; and in itself it did not prove the possibility of condemning the three heads; the bishops could have explained it differently. The fact is that the priests did not belong to the Old Testament church during their lifetime, while Theodore of Mopsuestia was in unity with the church until his death. However, Justinian noted such zeal and appointed Eutyches bishop of Constantinople. But here it should be noted that Justinian himself was not embarrassed by the supernatural indication to him of Eutyches, as can be seen from the subsequent history. For twelve years Eutyches was a bishop. But when Eutyches refused to sign Justinian’s heretical statement of faith, which said that after the union of natures in Christ His body was incorruptible, Justinian deposed him. This deposition took place in a special way. On January 21, Eutyches performed divine services in the church of the Gormisda palace; At the same time, a search was carried out in the bishopric. Having learned about this, Eutyches did not leave the church until 3 o'clock in the morning, praying and not eating anything, because people devoted to him claimed that it was unsafe for him to go out into the street, where he would be killed by order of the emperor. Eutyches was in no hurry to enter into relations with Vigilius; Only at the beginning of 553, on January 6, he sent a message to Vigilius in which he spoke about his Orthodoxy, that he preserved the creeds of the four councils and was ready to settle controversial issues at a council presided over by the pope. The letter was also signed by Apollinaris of Alexandria, Domnus of Antioch and Elijah of Thessalonica. Vigilius wrote that he rejoiced at the end of the schism and was ready for his part to assist, but servata aequitate, with the observance of justice. When the terms of peace were established, Justinian wanted to convene a council. The text of the bishops' invitation to the council has not survived to this day. But Vigilius made a counterproposal. He declared that the Western bishops themselves were taking up arms against the condemnation of the three heads; therefore, so that they can become acquainted with this issue in detail, the cathedral should be in the west, in Sicily or in Italy. Justinian did not agree, but proposed to summon Western bishops to Constantinople. However, this did not happen. Vigilius did not want to take part in the council, where the majority would be Greeks. But Justinian was also afraid that the arriving bishops would form opposition to him; therefore, he suggested that Vigilius organize an arbitration court, or convene a small meeting of the same number of representatives from each region. Pope Vigilius agreed with great readiness, intending to appear with three Western bishops. But then a misunderstanding occurred. He understood his “servata aequitate” in such a way that just as he would appear with his bishops, representatives of the West (including four persons), so on behalf of the Eastern Church three patriarchs with one bishop would appear (hence, also among four persons), and that thus a commission of eight people would be formed. and Justinian, meanwhile, intended to arrange this matter completely differently: each eastern patriarch, according to his plan, was supposed to appear with 3-5 bishops under his command. When this difference of intentions was revealed, Vigilius, realizing that by accepting the emperor’s offer, he risked appearing with his three bishops against twenty eastern bishops, expressed his bewilderment and reluctance to such an arbitration court. But Justinian did not want to back down from the decision he had once made and convened a council, not paying attention to the pope and his reluctance and the protest that could follow. It is not known what Justinian hoped for by giving the matter such a sharp turn; he probably thought of gaining the upper hand by a fait accompli. Vigilius was counting on some happy changes in circumstances that might follow. Reasons for the disagreement between Eastern and Western theologians on the issue of the three chapters Now we come to the V Ecumenical Council. We have to pose the question: why was the dispute about the “three chapters” possible? What are the Protean features of these “three chapters”, that some could demand anathema against them, others could defend them? Some of the theologians said that it was possible to fulfill the emperor’s demand and that there was no danger in it for the church and Orthodoxy; others considered this demand highly suspicious and saw in its implementation a danger that threatened to shake the canonical foundations of the church. What is the root of this difference of opinion and how can it be explained? To explain this contradiction, we can turn to the events of church-historical life in the West in later times, in the 17th century, when there in the Catholic Church such a position from the field of jurisprudence was explained and scientifically formulated, with which we now must take into account when solving the question asked (and it is known that the papist technique in many ways undoubtedly represents perfection). At this time, there was a struggle in the Catholic Church against Jansenist views, and these views were condemned by the papal throne in 1653. But the Gallican theologians (Jansenists) led by Arnauld did not want to submit to the papal bull, but at the same time wanted to remain faithful Catholics; and so, under such circumstances, they created the famous theory of “quaestio juris et quaestio facti.” According to them, it turns out that it is necessary to distinguish a question of law from a question of fact, or, if we translate the reasoning on the basis of this issue, a question of dogma from a question of fact. Gallican theologians said that they - good Catholics - recognize the pope as infallible in “questions of dogma,” but do not recognize him as such in “questions of fact,” which every Christian must decide, guided by the voice of his own conscience, namely in relation to questions of time. The Pope condemned the provisions of Jansen, but they are not in his (Jansen) writings; Consequently, the pope based his condemnation on a false fact and erred in this “question of fact”: the fact was presented to him incorrectly and therefore it is quite possible for him to be mistaken, as for any ordinary scientist. The Pope could give an infallible solution to the question of the truth of something, that is, say “yes” or “no,” only when a certain question was presented to him already in one form or another. But whether this formulation was made correctly, he does not know; in this matter - a “question of fact” - he may be mistaken: Jansenius’s teaching was conveyed to the pope incorrectly, but the pope condemned him - and the condemnation does not extend to Jansenius. Ardent Catholics (ultramontanes), placed in such a vice, were forced to go to extremes and argued that there is no such difference, that the pope can always correctly judge a known fact, whether he read it in the correct or incorrect presentation, or did not read it at all - whether he knows this fact or does not know. From the point of view of the stated theory, it is possible to illuminate the issue we are considering regarding the “three chapters” and the fifth council. The defenders of the “three chapters” posed the question more or less historically, although they did not maintain this point of view consistently; opponents treated this issue dogmatically; As a result, they had a difference in their views on what is desirable and what is not desirable, for judgments about the same issue, but pronounced from different points of view, may not coincide. The subject of dogma is dogma in its pure form. Its goal is to find the most accurate expression of dogmatic truth possible in human language; Dogmatics matters not for time and history, but for eternity. In its subject it is not connected with history. Her judgments - if the dogmatist correctly understands his rights and his position - are always categorical. The dogmatist has reached the highest point in a given state - and looks at all objects from there. The dogmatist's gaze is directed from top to bottom, he looks from the present to the past and must express his views without any roundaboutness, without any partiality (in the good sense of the word). When a dogmatist is convinced that the exact expression of the relationship between the Father and the Son is given in the word “consubstantial,” he cannot recognize any other formula as equivalent to ὁμοούσιος, no matter who it appears. When precise dogmatics demands that we distinguish between οὐσία and ὑπόστασις, the dogmatist must treat with prejudice anyone who confuses these two concepts. A dogmatist should not hesitate to reject as incorrect the denial of the word ὁμοούσιος, no matter who it occurs, even if he knows, for example, that the Council of Antioch in 269 decided μὴ εἶναι ὁμοούσιον τὸν Υἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ τῷ Πατρί. His hesitation would be like uncertainty about the correctness of his judgment. Thus, the language of dogmatics must be absolutely categorical, like the language of the first premise in a syllogism - no relaxation or hesitation. To clarify this, you can point out the following. If a learned geographer dealing with questions of astronomical geography is confident that the well-known point of Alexandria is located at 29° a few minutes from Greenwich, then he should stand for this as a truth, not paying attention to Ptolemy, who said that Alexandria is located at 60° 20' east longitude from the Isles of the Blessed. Its hesitation would be like uncertainty that a given meridian is determined correctly. He doesn't care about Ptolemy. Those for whom Ptolemy is dear, historical geographers, are obliged to establish the relationship between the position of Ptolemy and the position of modern geographers. But establishing such a relationship is not the job of the modern astronomer. Likewise, a dogmatist must look at the present. The dogmatist supplies the first premise from which the conclusion is drawn. But between the first premise and the conclusion there is still a whole abyss. Infallible in itself, a dogmatic judgment can be very erroneous when applied to particular historical facts. These latter in their own element lie outside the realm of dogmatic judgments and, so to speak, beyond its competence. They constitute in themselves raw material, on which a lot of work needs to be done in order to turn it into a manufactured product capable of becoming the object of dogmatic judgment. These facts represent a collection of curved lines, which by this very reason do not lend themselves to the rectilinear scale that dogmatics alone has at its disposal. Consequently, these curves need to be straightened in order to bring them under dogmatic judgment. Each of these facts is, as it were, a text written in a foreign language, and it still needs to be translated into a language of dogmatic judgment understandable to a dogmatist. But only with this fabrication, only with this straightened curve, only with this translation can dogmatics deal. It accepts each historical fact for its discussion only in a certain, given dogmatic setting. This formulation is no longer the work of a dogmatist, but of a historian, or, what is the same thing, a dogmatist, in order to create a suitable object for his judgment from historical facts, must first turn himself into a historian. Only the dogmatist is responsible for the correctness of the judgment (for the first premise); for the correctness of the dogmatic statement of a known historical fact, that is, for the commensurability of the second premise with the first, responsibility lies on the conscience of the historian. And the conclusion itself develops with irresistible logical force from the simple combination of these two premises: no force in the world can delay or reject this conclusion. If, for example, a bona fide dogmatist, according to a clear Orthodox scientific conscience, decided that whoever denies the consubstantiality of the Son of God with the Father is unorthodox, if then the historian accepted on his conscience the responsibility for the fact that the Antiochian fathers of 269 had before them all those elements of the concept of ὁμοούσιος, which are given in this word by the fathers post-Nicene, and in their final decision all these elements were taken into account, so that the word ὁμοούσιος in them and in Damascus is completely interchangeable, then no logic, no sophistry would be able to evade the conclusion that the council of 269, which overthrew Paul of Samosata, was a non-Orthodox council. From this example it is clear what role the historian plays in historical-dogmatic judgment. His method, his point of view. diametrically opposed to the method and point of view of the dogmatist. Familiar with the last - therefore, the most accurate - word of dogmatic science, but only in order to appreciate its elements in the past, to be able to dogmatically analyze facts, the historian, looking, however, from the past to the present, from the seed to the branches of historical growth, goes from the relative twilight of the past to the clear light of the present. He evaluates each fact not in comparison with the result of the highest development of dogma, but with phenomena of the past, modern and near future. The fact that the council in the 5th–19th centuries, speaking in the same way as the Council of Antioch, we would suspect of Arianism. But the historian knows that the word ὁμοούσιος was not widespread in the first three centuries and could not be the slogan of Orthodoxy. The idea contained under it was expressed by other, more or less imperfect means; therefore, rejecting this word at that time did not mean rejecting its content. Thus, not a single historian in the world will accept the assurance that the concept of ὁμοούσιος in 269 and in 381 was completely identical. But everyone has the right to assert that the well-known expression of the Antiochian fathers cannot be the second premise in our syllogism, although this does not oblige dogmatists to change the formula of the first premise. To express the relationship between the dogmatist and the historian, let us recall the well-known question of the sophist that a heap of grains makes noise, but each grain separately does not make it. Going gradually from grain to grain, we will not decide which grain the noise begins with, where the boundary between the grains and the heap is unknown. This is the path of the historian. The dogmatist concludes, on the contrary, from the fact that the grains form a heap, and the heap makes noise. And in the controversial issue of the three chapters, different points of view were mixed - dogmatic and historical, that is, when applied to this issue, a difference in views is noticeable because some stood on the dogmatic point of view, and others on the historical. The whole matter, as we know, began from factual and even practical grounds. The emperor raised this question because he expected great benefit from it for the church. Almost all the hierarchs initially spoke out against him precisely because they did not expect anything other than harm from him for the church. Western, especially African, bishops stopped at this (practical) point of view, assuming that all this would only harm Orthodoxy, that there would be turmoil among the Orthodox, that the Monophysites would rejoice at this turmoil, etc., and this practical view determined their solution to the issue itself. But when it came to the question of whether Theodore of Mopsuestia could be condemned, they, in the person of Facundus of Hermian, Fulgentius Ferrandus and Rusticus, took a historical point of view from which the whole matter was presented as follows. Both Nestorius and Theodore of Mopsuestia were products of the peculiarities of the dogmatic Antiochene school. Their gradual deviation from the straight line was accomplished as imperceptibly as the red color in a rainbow turns purple. From Eustathius of Antioch through Meletius, without any perceptible differences, you pass to Diodorus. The tactile difference between them, which a person could observe in the 5th century, was only quantitative and concerned the completeness of their expressions: more remained of one wrong-mindedness, less of another. From Diodorus you also move to Theodore without a sharp change. From this latter there remain relatively many places in which the features of the Nestorian view are noticeable; by revealing these passages and developing them, it was easy to move into Nestorian dogmatics; you feel that you are standing on that volcanic soil that broke through with historical Nestorianism, and through the hardening of the latter - with dogmatic Nestorianism. Those elements on which Theodore operated are not at all identical with those on which the fathers were thinking already in the middle of the 5th century, and what seemed tolerable in Theodore’s teaching to his contemporaries was far from the same for the fathers of the 5th century. The special tones of Alexandrian dogmatics were given to the latter in the form of the Orthodox teaching of Cyril, to Theodore - in the form of the Apollinarian heresy. Diodorus polemicized with the Apollinarians and made some mistakes. Following Diodorus, Theodore was subject to great temptations to develop the thoughts of his teacher further than his basic views required, to reject more in the positions of his opponents than was necessary and should. A polemicist against Apollinarianism had to be either very experienced and subtle, or so persistent as not to accept (from opponents without verification) even such a position as “The Word became flesh”: Cyril did not understand anything by the perception of flesh except sincere communication in Christ of the deity with human flesh, soul and spirit: Apollinaris accepted flesh only as ἔμψυχος, but ἄλογος σάρξ, and on the basis of this he built a position on the union of deity and humanity into one nature. It is clear that contemporaries, standing from the point of view of the dogma of their time, generally treated Theodore’s harshness in his polemics condescendingly, assessed them from the point of view of their goal, and glorified him as a zealous fighter against the Apollinarians. It is from this point of view that the Hermian Fakund takes his stand. What confuses him is precisely the fact that, having condemned Theodore, it is tricky to formulate this condemnation in such a way that its shadow does not touch Diodorus, the father of the Second Ecumenical Council, and, moreover, the one whom the council pointed out as one of the centers of church communication, and does not affect Eustathius, the father of the First Ecumenical Council. And in fact, Cyril of Alexandria, assessing Theodore’s views only dogmatically, did not want to separate Diodorus from him. The Eastern Fathers agreed with Cyril's views, accepted Justinian's proposal and settled on the dogmatic point of view. Here they did the right thing, because if the works of Theodore of Mopsuestia had received a course in the middle of the 6th century, then how should the fathers of the 6th century look at them? After the Council of Chalcedon, the dogmatist possessed a theological language that was certainly accurate compared to Theodore of Mopsuestia, and would have been struck by the obscurity, imprecision and harshness of his expressions; who he refuted and what he eliminated are questions of indifference to a dogmatist of the 6th century. Theodore's very starting point was incorrect: he could not accept, for example, the position that the unity of divinity and humanity in Christ is essential, because he allowed essential unity only between consubstantial natures. In order not to introduce restrictions on the divine omnipresent nature, he came to the analogy of the unity of κατ᾽ εὐδοκίαν, although this contained an insoluble difficulty: why in others, in the prophets, κατ᾽ εὐδοκίαν God dwells as a trinity, in Christ, on the contrary, the closest does unity exist only between humanity and one of the Persons of the Trinity, the Son the Word? From the point of view of a dogmatist of the 6th century, Theodore of Mopsuestia turned out to be an undoubted Nestorian: he not only called the humanity of Christ a church, not only expressed himself so carelessly that one could see in him the doctrine of two sons, but he seemed unorthodox from the point of view of the 6th century and because his polemical views were opposite to the teaching of Cyril of Alexandria; St. Cyril found Theodore's teaching Nestorian and refuted it. When a reader of the 6th century, after viewing the works of Theodore and Cyril, asked the question of whose side is the truth, he could not take any side other than Cyril’s. If, having recognized Theodore’s teaching as non-Orthodox, we draw a conclusion from the teaching to the teacher, then we must recognize Theodore as a Nestorian, as a person who expressed Nestorian views. Theodore's only salvation from the curse lay in the assumption that it was probable that in his last days he repented and died in communion with the church. Facundus the Germanus also tried to establish this point of view. He pointed out, on the one hand, that Theodore was not considered a heretic by the fathers: Gregory of Nazianzus approved of him, and Proclus of Constantinople and even Cyril of Alexandria himself did not anathematize him. But besides, they could say that Gregory’s approval applied to another Theodore - the colonial, and not the Mopsuestian, and the approval itself did not mean much, since the assumption remained that the approval applied to Theodore when he was not yet the same as he appeared in the 5th century. After all, Athanasius V. and Basil V. spoke approvingly of Apollinaris, and in the 5th and 6th centuries he was considered an undoubted heretic, and the second ecumenical council included the Apollinarians in the class of heretics. In the end, Facundus of Germian also understood that Theodore could not be justified on the basis of the approval of the fathers. But he could not historically confirm the assumption of his repentance. Fakund only expressed that we do not know under what circumstances the death of Theodore of Mopsuestia occurred: after all, perhaps, with his last breath, he realized his mistakes and with sincere repentance atoned for all the mistakes of his life. But this humane assumption remained an assumption, and nothing reliable could be pointed out in Theodore’s defense. True, there was a fact that when, under John of Antioch, they thought to anathematize Theodore, all the bishops of the east passionately rebelled against this, and the agitation was stopped. The testimony from Cyril and Proclus is untenable, for Cyril and Proclus did not condemn Theodore dispensatively, not because they did not consider him worthy of condemnation, but due to the circumstances of the time, but in the middle of the 6th century. These circumstances did not exist, for the Mopsuestian church itself crossed out Theodore from its diptychs. The question was different regarding the bl. Theodorit. There was a fact that at the Council of Chalcedon he renounced his errors and anathematized Nestorius, and immediately after this, voices were raised at the council to recognize him as Orthodox and return the see to him. Even if we consider his writings as Nestorian, then even then the fact remains in favor of Theodoret that he solemnly renounced Nestorian views. For those who would like to anathematize him, it was necessary to prove that the renunciation was feigned and temporary, and that Bl. Theodoret subsequently philosophized and acted like a Nestorian. But there is no evidence of this, and for everyone who held a dogmatic point of view, the sacred authority of the Council of Chalcedon remained to judge Theodoret. The Monophysites attacked Theodoret for this purpose, in order to put the Orthodox in conflict with the Council of Chalcedon. But, nevertheless, the Orthodox of the 6th century, considering (some) works of Bl. Theodoret, came to the conclusion that it was impossible to teach and remain Orthodox. In these writings, Theodorit glorifies Theodore of Mopsuestia, supports Nestorius as Orthodox, stands in opposition to the Third Ecumenical Council, and these writings are non-Orthodox from a dogmatic point of view. The question of the message from Iva, Bishop, seemed especially difficult. of Edessa, to Marius of Ardashir. This message was read at the Council of Chalcedon and did not meet with objections, although in the edict of the emperor it was included with a peculiar clause: “the message that is attributed to Iva” - as if it did not belong to him. There can be no doubt about Iva's Orthodoxy, since he anathematized Nestorius; The question of his message remains open. Justinian's point of view on the letter differed from the views of the fathers. For Justinian, this message was all godless: it condemned Cyril. But for the fathers of the Fourth Ecumenical Council, contemporaries of Iva, it had its bright sides, since, while condemning the excesses of Cyril and Nestorianism, it praised the agreement between John and Cyril to the skies. In his judgment, both Cyril and Nestorius wrote harmful books that plunged the Orthodox Church into confusion. Only Justinian could have thought Iva’s comments about Cyril impious. From a historical point of view, in 434 or 435 Iva was no more mistaken than John of Antioch. Later, Iva allowed such opinions that in the 6th century could be recognized as Nestorian. Thus, he speaks with disapproval of the Third Ecumenical Council, praises Theodore of Mopsuestia, etc., therefore, the epistle is a monument to Nestorianism. Doubts about the authenticity of the message began from the time of Justinian's first edict and were completely unfounded. After all, the message was brought to trial not only by the enemies of Willow, but the Bishop of Edessa himself referred to it in his justification. When Iva was accused of Nestorianism and of calling Cyril a heretic, Iva said that he was in communication with Cyril, as a sign of which he received messages from him. They objected to him that last year he called Cyril a heretic. He answered: yes, but I thought that he had fallen into heresy, and after an explanation with John, Cyril corrected himself, and I began to call him Orthodox again; Last year I talked about the long past. To prove this, he referred to the letter to Mari. In it, Iva blesses the fact of unity between Cyril and John as beneficial for the church, which is why the council spoke out for the acquittal of Iva. The Greek Church thus took a dogmatic point of view. One cannot help but insist that she took this position not without a certain amount of external pressure. If Justinian's influence had not been here, the question of three chapters would not have been raised. But since it was set in the east, it had to be decided from a dogmatic point of view. This did not seem like a dogmatic maneuver. Bo-1, the state of education was such that in the east there were no people capable of resolving the issue from a factual point of view. Bo-2, the general and main reason for this, not recognized by the eastern bishops, just as we are not aware of the rotation of the earth, is the common nature of the Greeks. The latter were looking everywhere for dogmas. Even the purely practical question of the worship of icons was debated by them from a dogmatic point of view. Westerners, taking a historical point of view, found that it would be historically unfair to condemn any of the three heads. Then, as true practical people, they noticed that Justinian raised this matter with the express purpose of uniting the Monophysites with the church. They guessed that this goal undermined the authority of the Council of Chalcedon, and therefore they protested. In essence, the view of the eastern bishops was at first practical: they first adopted the point of view of the western ones. Reluctantly, most of them signed the edict; Peter of Jerusalem energetically spoke out against him, Ephraim of Antioch spoke out even more categorically, and Zoilus of Alexandria, the newly installed bishop, directly complained to Vigilius that he was forced to sign the edict. No one sympathized with this edict. But if later the eastern bishops ended up on Justinian’s side, it was because he was able to put the eastern ones on a completely different point of view. And it was here that the Western bishops spoiled the matter with their ardor. They directly stated that the church should not make judgments about persons who have previously died. But as soon as the reasoning moved onto theoretical ground, the Western ones immediately turned out to be weak. Here the Greek has long felt like a master, so it is not surprising if for the East this side of the issue suddenly acquired an irresistible attraction. In fact, the question of whether the church can have a judgment about persons who have previously died or not must have a theoretical formulation. In the West they judged things too lightly and moved into the realm of crude empiricism. Once a person has died, then all scores with him are over - de mortuis aut bene, aut nihil. Original lawyers, by nature, can reason like this. But the eastern ones said: “whoever dies in court before the trial begins remains without a criminal trial, but people who suffered from his atrocities will judge his actions.” The Westerners were drawn into a snare of a purely dogmatic nature, they fell into a deviation completely unusual for their nature, and reached the point where they had to interrupt church communion with the Easterners. By doing this they put themselves in a disadvantageous position. The weakness of the Western bishops was this. The bishop is strong when he is in union with his flock, and, conversely, he is powerless when he is separated from her. It was about the bishops of the east. What could the Western bishops say in defense of these bishops, whom the Western flock did not even know by name? She did not know who Theodore of Mopsuestia was, what he wrote, and yet the name of Theodore was brought to the fore and passions were inflamed by the fact that Theodore of Mopsuestia was raised as a martyr, whom they wanted to execute after death. When a schism occurred and something was felt wrong, the West African Church began to put pressure on its bishops and demand an explanation, which is why there was a division between the Orthodox East and the Western Church. It was necessary to prove that the East was Monophysite. But the Western bishops did not have the courage to call it by its true name. Therefore, they argued that the Monophysites were acting behind the backs of the eastern bishops. Justinian and the eastern bishops denied this. The Westerners needed to compose something based on the Eastern fathers. They were already so familiar with the Greek language that they could already compose a nickname in this language. The Germanic faculty, who had been rotating in the east for a long time, felt the need to take a dogmatic point of view. He accused the eastern bishops of heresy, calling them “necrodiocts” (νεκροδιῶκται) - persecutors of the dead. The easiest way to declare a heretic was someone who did not accept either the entire creed or any individual member of it. Fakund argued that the “necrodiocts” do not accept the 7th member of the creed: “and again the future will judge the living and the dead,” since they also judge the dead, whom the Lord left for his future judgment. This is how harmful it was to take a dogmatic point of view. But African bishops with great success incited a feeling of pity for the deceased, for the sake of which everything was forgiven him. Here, as it were, the grave rest of Theodore of Mopsuestia was touched upon. But was it possible to stay on this ground for long? For the opposition it was too fragile and ephemeral. And just as the Western Church could not prove that Theodore was a Mopsuestian Orthodox, there was no way to be sure that he was not subject to condemnation, even if some considered him a heretic. The question came down to whether to keep the name of Theodore in the diptychs or not. The Western Church stood for what must be kept; the eastern, and even the Mopsuestian, excluded him from the diptychs and were not at all embarrassed by this. But was it possible to stop at half measures, not to mention Theodore’s name in the diptychs - and not to condemn him after his death? To resolve this issue, we must keep in mind the living and close communication between the heavenly and earthly churches. After all, the deceased is alive (according to the teachings of the Orthodox Church) and even does good, although not with his own hand. Silence about him does not resolve anything and does not help anything. Even if the name of Theodore of Mopsuestia is crossed out from the diptychs, he will still be commemorated in the church along with all the saints. In the ancient liturgical prayer (in the liturgy of St. John Chrysostom) we read: “We again offer this verbal service to You, for those who have fallen asleep in the faith, forefathers, forefathers, patriarchs, prophets, apostles, preachers, evangelists, martyrs, confessors, abstinents, and for every righteous soul who has died in the faith. Much about the most holy, most pure, most blessed, most glorious of our Lady Theotokos and Ever-Virgin Mary.” Consequently, every believer is placed in commemoration along with the saints. One might think that this prayer received its final form only after Justinian. But that this cannot be admitted is evidenced by the interesting liturgy of Gregory the Theologian existing in Greek, preserved in the Monophysite Patriarchate of Alexandria and used on the greatest holidays (Christmas, Epiphany and Easter). It is not an invention of the Copts. This is proven by its Greek text, preserved from a time when Egypt’s connection with the Orthodox East had not yet been severed. This liturgy is still used today. It contains a prayer, which, with some modifications, found its place in the liturgies of other compositions. The content of the prayer is as follows. “Remember, O Lord, the peace of Thy One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, from end to end of the universe, and all the Orthodox bishops in it, who rightly ruled the word of truth. Much to our holiest and most blessed bishop Abba (name), pope and patriarch of the great city of Alexandria, and all living bishops, presbyters, deacons. Remember, Lord, those who bring these holy gifts and about them, for whose sake you brought them. Remember, Lord, my poor and accursed soul. - Remember, Lord, the air and the fruits of the earth. Remember, Lord, the measured rise of river waters. Remember, Lord, the rains and seeds of the earth, rejoice again and renew the face of the earth. Remember, Lord, this city and the Orthodox Christians living in it. Remember, Lord, the Orthodox bishops who preceded our venerable fathers, and all the holy fathers, patriarchs, apostles, and every righteous spirit who has died in the faith of Christ, who have been pleasing to You from time immemorial. The most holy, glorious, most pure, most blessed Lady Theotokos and Ever-Virgin Mary, the holy glorious prophet, forerunner, baptist and martyr John, Saint Stephen the chief deacon and first martyr, and our blessed father Mark the apostle and evangelist, and likewise among the saints our father Gregory, and whom we commemorate on this day, and every the face of Your saints, and through their prayers and intercession have mercy on us. - Remember, Lord, our fathers and brothers who have reposed in the Orthodox faith and rest their souls with the saints and righteous. (Diptychs). Remember, Lord, those who have been remembered and those who have not been remembered, the faithful and Orthodox, with them and to us, as you are good and a lover of mankind, weaken, leave, forgive.” The prayer ends with a general cry: “For let Your name be glorified.” The symmetry of the limbs in prayer is maintained with unusual precision. They commemorate the entire church and all those who ruled the word of truth and especially the local bishop, then the entire living hierarchy and all classes of the church with all their spiritual, sensory and physical, purely human needs, including, again, their city. Then they commemorate the saints who preceded us, especially St. Virgin, Forerunner, First Martyr Stephen, Chief of the Alexandrian Hierarchs Mark, Compiler of the Liturgy of St. Gregory and the daily saint. Finally, all previously deceased Orthodox Christians are remembered, especially those whose names are read in the diptych, and all “whom we remembered and whom we did not remember” 104. The idea that every believer, entering the church, enters into the spirits of the perfect righteous, enters into such a union that even death itself does not dissolve, is expressed here very clearly. And no one, not even the most perfect and glorified saints, is placed above the church, but they all stand in the church. The Holy Virgin is above the cherubim and seraphim, but She is not above the church. Consequently, to be recognized as deceased in an Orthodox manner means to have the high right to be remembered along with the saints. But if a well-known person is convinced that he did not die in an Orthodox manner, not in peace with the church, then what to do? And death did not place him either outside the church or above it. Should we remember him along with the saints? But even silence alone is not enough here: after all, the church prays - explicite or implicite, it is not so important - about “those who are remembered and those who are not remembered.” Therefore, if Theodore of Mopsuestia was not mentioned in the diptychs, but was recognized as having “deceased in the faith,” then he was no longer excluded from the number of those commemorated during the liturgy. But since Theodore was not Orthodox, since he was mistaken, eo ipso he could not be commemorated in church. The idea that every believer who ceases earthly existence enters into a union of “righteous and perfect spirits” has always been expressed in history. Anyone who was convinced that Theodore taught heretically had to admit not only his exclusion from the diptychs, but also accept his complete condemnation. All attempts by Vigilius to draw the Eastern Church into his plans along with the Western failed. Justinian still considered the pope as a fifth of the Christian world, while the pope considered himself as half. Vigilius decided not to deviate from his demands. Justinian decided to convene a council. The Fifth Ecumenical Council did not last long. The 1st meeting was on May 1, 553, and the 8th and last meeting was on June 2. Present at the council were: Eutychius, Archbishop of Constantinople, Apollinaris of Alexandria, Domnus of Antioch, three representatives of the Archbishop of Jerusalem, 6 Western bishops. At the first meeting of bishops there were 151, then their number increased to 164, including the western ones, there were no longer 6, but 8. Thus, the council was predominantly eastern. The council opened with a representative from the emperor appearing and delivering a message in which the emperor explained his steps and demanded the condemnation of the three heads. He presented the matter in such a way that it was as if the Nestorians were still carrying out agitation and, not daring to speak out directly, spread their views with the help of the writings of Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theodoret of Cyrus and Willow of Edessa. If you do not speak out against them, then you must consider them Orthodox. To denounce and condemn three chapters was the same as if at the present time it was proposed to some geographer to examine the geographical works of Ptolemy and expose him in lies (it is known that Ptolemy’s views deviate from the ideas of the present time). In the depths of his soul, a geographer would feel their inadequacy (even without this analysis). Why expose an ancient error that no one adheres to and which has only exclusively historical significance? Why not let the dead bury their dead? Without a doubt, this error is easy to expose, but the exposure itself is completely useless. But if the force presses, you must obey. The fathers of the council had to pay attention to the practical side of the matter, but this side remained unknown to them. Justinian took pains to clarify his demands in order to prevent all measures against the condemnation of the three heads. In the end, he directly stated that he demanded the condemnation of the three heads. Therefore, he invited the fathers of the council to consider the works of Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theodoret of Cyrus and Willow of Edessa and speak out for or against them. The emperor's messenger, who conveyed the demand, left the fathers of the council at their suggestion and was not present at the council. Therefore, there was no external pressure. The fact was stated that Vigilius was in Constantinople, but was not present at the council. Therefore, the fathers of the cathedral issued him an invitation to appear at the council. A delegation of 20 bishops was appointed (3 patriarchs among them), which immediately went with an invitation to the pope. Vigilius announced his illness and this motivated his refusal. He promised to express his opinion about the council the next day. On May 6, the fathers came to him again. He explained that he did not come to the council because there were few Western bishops, that there could be no agreement, because the emperor did not want to agree to the measures that he was proposing, namely, that he and the three Western bishops and the three Eastern patriarchs, with the addition of one more bishop, should come together for a joint discussion. He had already asked the emperor to wait 20 days, during which he would write his opinion in writing. The delegates announced that they were not authorized to accept written documents, but they asked the pope to welcome the council. There is no point in citing the fact that a small number of bishops are on his side, because this is a dogmatic issue, and in faith the Westerners agree with the Easterners; There were few Westerners at the previous ecumenical councils. In turn, the emperor sent (on the 7th) the highest dignitaries - judices, accompanied by several bishops. But Vigilius answered them the same way as the delegation from the council. On May 8, at the second meeting, the results of these embassies were reported. At the same time, an invitation was sent to the Western bishops who lived in Constantinople, but did not appear at the council. Of these, Primasius, from Africa, answered: “if the pope is not at the council, then I will not go to the council.” The Illyrian bishops were more evasive. They did not give a definite answer, making the excuse that they needed to consult their archbishop Benenat. At the third meeting, on May 9, the bishops' confession of faith was read. The fourth meeting on May 12 or 13 is important. We began to discuss the teachings of Theodore of Mopsuestia; 71 passages from his works and his symbol were read. Anathemas were heard about them even before the reading ended. The antithesis against St. Theodore was of serious importance. fathers, especially Cyril of Alexandria. Parts of them were read at the fifth meeting on May 17. This meeting was supposed to conclude the issue of Theodore of Mopsuestia. But for this it was necessary to eliminate some more difficulties. Some bishops were embarrassed by the expression about Theodore of Mopsuestia by Cyril of Alexandria, who called him “καλὸς Θεόδωρος”; they believed that Cyril thereby approved of Theodore's polemical activities against the Arians. However, Kirill immediately reproached him for his wrong-headedness. It was also pointed out that Gregory the Theologian wrote to Theodore of Mopsuestia. But the bishops of Euphrant of Tian and Theodosius of Justinianopolis confirmed that it was Theodore of Tian, ​​and not Mopsuestian. Following this, the question of the possibility of condemning heretics after their death was considered and the acts of the Mopsuestian Council of 550 were read. The turn then came to Theodoret of Cyrus. We read four chapters from his essay against Cyril’s anathematisms and excerpts from various further works. It turned out that he expressed himself heretically. This ended the fifth meeting on May 17. On May 19, the sixth meeting of the council was devoted to the consideration of Willow’s letter to Marius. There could be no doubt as to the result of the reasoning. The message was recognized as unorthodox, and this document was included in the 3 chapters subject to condemnation. Meanwhile, on May 14, 553, Pope Vigilius released a written statement of his opinion on the chapters, signed by 16 Western bishops and 3 Roman clergy, so-called. constitutum. An old researcher of the history of the fifth ecumenical council, the Catholic theologian Garnier, claims that there was no work in the church equal in stature to the constitutum of Pope Vigilius. In this document, the pope wants to show that he is not to blame for the absence of Western bishops at the council. Here he tells the history of the disputes about the three chapters that preceded the council, his relations with Justinian, explains the reason why he was not present at the council, points out that he asked for 20 days to cast his vote regarding the three chapters, then discusses the writings of Theodore. He analyzes and condemns up to 60 passages from these works, expressing his views so as not to incur suspicion of his Orthodoxy. Then, he turns to the history of how the church treated the person of Theodore, and demands that the latter remain inviolable. He does not defend Theodore as an Orthodox Christian, but he also does not condemn him as a heretic, and advises the council the same. There can be no question of condemning Theodoret, since he was acquitted by the Council of Chalcedon. The pope insists even more that Iva should be inviolable, since his letter testifies to his Orthodoxy. The pope tried to convey his constitutum to Justinian, but his messenger was not admitted. In response, the pope was told that if the constitutum contained the same thing that the pope had said before, that this document was superfluous, but if the contrary was contained, then the pope condemned himself. At the seventh meeting, on May 26, a delegate from the emperor appeared with an accusation against Vigilius and presented 7 documents: letters from Vigilius to Justinian and Theodora, his condemnation against Rusticus and Sebastian, letters to his bishops Valentinian of Scythia and Aurelian of Arles, an oath promise given by him to the emperor that he would contribute to the condemnation of the three heads, the sacra of Emperor Justin I dated August 7, 520. The last document spoke of the demonstration that took place at that time in Cyrus in honor of Theodoret, when his image on a chariot was brought into the city with singing, and Bishop Sergius of Cyrus organized a “meeting” in memory of Theodore, Diodorus, Theodoret and Nestorius; Justin ordered an investigation into this matter, and it ended with the deposition of Sergius. The document was supposed to prove that the Nestorian party was strong in the church, but the church was alien to the wickedness of the “leaders.” The emperor asked to consider Vigilius's modus operandi. The Council recognized Vigilius as deserving of deposition and decided to exclude his name from the diptychs. Justinian's plan was to use a conciliar decision to break the pope's stubbornness and force him to agree to the condemnation of the three heads. June 2 was the last meeting of the council; 14 canons or anathematisms were uttered against dogmatic errors, mostly similar literally to those found in Justinian’s Ὁμολογία πίστεως. Of these, the third says that “voluntary sufferings and miracles belong to one and the same Christ,” and in the fifth and tenth the incarnate Lord is called “the One of the Holy Trinity.” The sixth canon calls the Holy Virgin the Mother of God. The last three relate directly to the three “chapters”. Consequences of the Fifth Ecumenical Council. General results of Justinian's church policy. The policy of his immediate successors Thus, the fifth ecumenical council ended its meetings. The emperor notified about this with a sacred document confirming the resolutions of the council. But there were no appeals to the Orthodox Church. On the contrary, the Monophysites mocked Justinian's zeal. They answered the emperor with these words: “Iva of Edessa and Theodoret were either good or bad; if they are good, then why were they anathematized, and if they are bad, then the Council of Chalcedon was good, which recognized them as Orthodox.” The council did not provide any new polemical weapons for the Orthodox. The condemnation of the three heads was accepted in the east without strong protests. Only Alexander of Avila (in Palestine) did not sign the conciliar resolutions, for which he was deposed. But the Westerners directly stated that the fifth ecumenical council took place to the detriment and humiliation of the Council of Chalcedon. Rusticus, a Roman deacon, and the African abbot Felix, who published a protest against the decrees of the fifth council, were exiled to Thebaid. Probably, Western bishops who were in Constantinople who disagreed with the council were exiled. Fakundus the Hermian was also facing exile, but he disappeared even earlier and wrote a letter to Mocian (ad Mocianum). The clerics of Vigil were exiled to the mines (or perhaps they were only threatened with this). Vigilius also suffered a bitter fate: he was exiled to prison. As a result of the persecution, it turned out that the pope agreed to the condemnation of the three heads. On December 8, 553, the pope wrote a letter to Eutyches of Constantinople, in which he renounced his opinions. But dad's zeal went to the extreme. On February 23, 554, he issued a letter to the Western bishops in order to convince them that the condemnation of the three heads was legal. Here he declares that Iva’s message is not only doubtful, but even fraudulent. The comments of the fathers regarding the letter of Willow to Mari refer to a different document than this letter. Vigilius manages to say that the enemies attributed a lot of unnecessary things to Willow. Thus, by the way, the words were attributed to him: “I do not envy Christ at all, for if He became God, so did I.” When this saying of his was pointed out to Yves at the Council of Chalcedon, he replied that he had not even heard it from the demon himself. On these grounds, Vigilius argues that the very letter of Iva to Marius the Persian is forged. With such artificial interpretations, it was not difficult for Vigilius to agree with the decisions of the fifth ecumenical council. Dad got his way. From Rome, which at that time was taken by Narses, Justinian's general, a deputation came to the emperor to petition for Vigil. Vigilius was released, but he was no longer destined to see Rome. After sailing by sea, he stopped in Sicily, ill, suffering from stone disease, and here on July 7, 555 he died. The death of the pope caused great unrest in Rome. The selection of Vigilius's successor was a stormy affair. Pelagius was chosen. It is remarkable that there were not enough bishops to consecrate him. The consecration was performed by two bishops and a presbyter. Dissatisfaction with Vigilius spread to his successor. Pelagius was considered the culprit in the death of Vigilius: he was the cause of his suffering. Wanting to free himself from accusations, Pelagius in the church on the pulpit, holding the gospel and the cross above his head, swore that he was not guilty of the disasters and death of Vigilius. The Roman population somehow came to terms with the fact that Vigilius was succeeded by a person who condemned the three chapters. But it was not easy to persuade other Western churches to do this. There was a letter from the bishops of the west to Justinian, condemning the emperor's behavior. In relation to those who persisted, the emperor acted with his characteristic policy. In 555 the Africans were persecuted, and when, after exile from one place to another, the most energetic bishops were removed, in 559 the forces of this church were completely broken. Northern Italy turned out to be more resilient. A council was held in Aquileia in 555 to protest against the V Ecumenical Council, arguing that those who condemned the three heads were falling into Monophysitism. The bishops in Tuscia refused to communicate with the pope as a heretic. Pelagius found it necessary to write to the Frankish king Childebert a statement of his faith as proof of his Orthodoxy. In 568 the Longobards invaded Italy. Peacock of Aquileia was forced to flee to the city of Grado, which was under Greek rule. In 569, when Mediolan was taken, Bishop Honoratus of Mediolan fled to Genoa, where he died in 570. Many of his flock fled with him to Genoa, so that, as it were, two Mediolans were formed. After the death of Honoratus, the Mediolans who were in Genoa elected Lawrence as bishop, and those who lived in Mediolan elected Fronto. Obviously, Lavrenty was elected illegally. To find support for himself, he turned to the Bishop of Rome in 571 and entered into an agreement with him (cautio - guarantee). The agreement was unique. It said that Lawrence, if asked, should not swear that he did not anathematize the three heads. When, after the death of Fronto, he returned to Mediolan, he was accepted by the Mediolan flock. Despite the fact that Peacock of Aquileia moved to Grado under Byzantine rule, there was no pressure on him. His successor Elijah, although he was persecuted by Smaragd, Exarch of Ravenna, was left alone by order of the Emperor of Mauritius and died in 586 in his opposition to the V Ecumenical Council. His successor was the North. Smaragd raised a persecution against him, summoned him to Ravenna and demanded that he enter into communication with Archbishop John of Ravenna, who was in communication with Rome. When he returned to Grado, he was met here so unfriendly that he was forced to refuse communication with John. Gregory V. (590–604), a practical man, understood that the pacification of the church and the joining of opponents of the condemnation of the three chapters could be achieved only through gradual influence on the growing new generation. Meanwhile, the position of the northern Italian bishops was such that Gregory V.’s attitude towards them was not without ambiguity. When he was in Constantinople, he declared that he recognized the four councils as the four gospels, and the fifth as equal to them. Meanwhile, the pious Queen of the Longobards, Theodelinda, did not want to hear that the pope accepted the definitions of the V Ecumenical Council; and the pope himself found it quite reasonable that Constantine, Bishop of Mediola, did not want to open her eyes. As for the latter, thanks to his frequent communication with Rome, there were people who began to suspect him of having anathematized three chapters, and were ready to desert their bishop. With great difficulty, Bishop Constantine later managed to ward off this suspicion. If this was how things went in Mediolan, then the more complicated was the situation in Aquileia. The population there consisted of two different elements: the Longobards and the Byzantines. Upon his accession to the department in 590, Gregory tried to restore communication with the renegade Longobards. On this occasion, two councils were convened by the schismatics. The location of one of them is unknown; but his message to the Emperor Mauritius has been preserved. The fathers did not agree to the condemnation of the three heads and in this case referred to Pope Vigilius, although this reference did not have sufficient grounds, since Pope Vigilius subsequently nevertheless gave his consent to the condemnation of the three heads. At the same time, the fathers expressed considerable concern that the North might be inclined to condemn the leaders. Meanwhile, the North convened a council in Grado, but the acts of this council were not preserved. Be that as it may, Gregory V. failed to restore communication with the renegades in the eastern half of Italy. He died in 604, and soon after him, three years later, precisely in 607, the North also went to the grave. His successor was Bishop Candidian. He soon entered into ecclesiastical communion with Rome. But the renegade Longobards did not want to know this and proclaimed the Bishop of Aquileia patriarch. The city bishop was also given the title of patriarch. Thus, in the small region of Aquileia there were two patriarchs and the desire for church communion was not realized in practice. And only the Bishop of Rome Sergius I (687–701) managed to restore church unity. The main support in this important matter was provided by the decisions of the 6th Ecumenical Council. These definitions had such a clear anti-Monophysite character that the renegades themselves were ashamed to point out that the Orthodox Church had fallen into Monophysitism. And so, around the year 700, a council was held in Aquileia, and at this council church communion was restored. Disputes over the Fifth Ecumenical Council were reflected in Gaul and Spain, where, however, matters did not reach a complete break with Rome. And what was the attitude in these areas to the V Ecumenical Council can be seen from the remark of Isidore of Seville that “Justinian, to please the acephalians, condemned three chapters of the Council of Chalcedon.” In Spain, the cathedrals during the 6th and 7th centuries make mention of only four cathedrals, and are silent about the fifth. Thus, Justinian’s policy gave rise to nothing but unrest in the West. It did not give good results in the east either. He might, it seems, understand that his goal is unattainable, that his efforts are doomed to fruitlessness. In the first years of his reign, he did not have enough energy to fully implement Justin's policy towards the Monophysites. We know that Bishop John of Tellus tried to counteract Justinian’s intentions towards the Monophysites - to deprive them of the hierarchy; John was captured, and the Monophysites were in great danger. But they managed to find support in the person of one Arab prince, Harit bar-Gabala (Ghassan tribe). In the 16th year of Justinian's reign (542/3), this prince arrived in Constantinople and began to ask the empress to allow the installation of two or three bishops for the Monophysite Arabs. The Empress favorably accepted this request. It was decided to install two bishops. The choice fell on the monks James Burdeana (Baradei) and Theodore, whose consecration probably took place in 543. They received initiation (James to Edessa, Theodore to Bostra) from the Monophysite bishops located in the vicinity of Constantinople. Theodosius, Patriarch of Alexandria, gave Jacob secret permission to appoint not only presbyters, but also bishops. And so, in 543, Jacob, making the rounds of his vast region, wanted to ordain Konon and Eugene, from among those devoted to him, as bishops, and arrived with them in Constantinople. Theodosius, however, did not dare to ordain them, but advised him to turn to Egypt and there look for bishops to ordain the above-mentioned individuals. Indeed, upon arriving in Alexandria, Jacob found them. Conon was appointed bishop in Tarsus, Eugene - in Seleucia. Not content with these, James appointed bishops in other places. The most famous of them was John of Ephesus, a missionary who enjoyed the favor of Justinian; he was also the author of the first church history in Syriac. All the efforts of Jacob would have been incomplete if he had not installed Sergius as the head of the Monophysites (544), elevating him to the rank of Patriarch of Antioch. True, Sergius died in 547, and his department remained unoccupied for about three years. After a conference with Theodosius of Alexandria, James appointed Paul as the second patriarch of Antioch. Thus, the activities of Jacob were extremely important for the Monophysites. He produced something greater than the Monophysites themselves could have expected. The struggle that took place up to that time between the Orthodox and the Monophysites should not be represented as a struggle between two churches; it was rather a struggle between two theological trends or two philosophical theories. Each side assumed that the incorrect teaching would collapse on its own and that one true Catholic Church would remain. There was no division of churches at all. Jacob realized that in order to strengthen the existence of Monophysitism, it was necessary to create a special Monophysite hierarchy, separate from the Orthodox one. Previously, it was like this: if the Monophysites managed to get their like-minded person into the patriarchal chair, he remained the patriarch. The government did not even think of taking any measures to eliminate it. It was like this in Alexandria for a long time until Theodosius was able to be summoned to Constantinople, although the department remained unoccupied. In the same way, in other cities, the Orthodox did not take measures to ensure that an Orthodox Christian existed next to the Monophysite bishop. On the other hand, if Diphisite bishops were appointed in Antioch and other places, the Monophysites did not recognize them, but considered it a temporary misfortune, without losing hope of surviving it. The policy of Justin and Justinian gave such a result that the Monophysites became convinced that their dreams were unrealistic, and decided to create their own special hierarchy. This is what Jacob did († 578). He was the true founder of the Monophysite church. Thus, by the beginning of the reign of Justin II there was no longer any hope of unification. Justinian's attempt to do this was in vain. After the death of Theodora, Justinian did not stop relations with the Monophysites and treated Anthimus favorably. In the last year of his reign, he issued an edict that the flesh of Christ was incorruptible from birth. The doctrine of the incorruptibility of the flesh of Christ, which even moderate Monophysites (Theodosians-Sevirians) considered heresy, the emperor wanted to impose on the Orthodox Church as a dogma. But this could not lead to the unity of the Monophysites with the church. There is reason to suspect whether his mental abilities were damaged by this time. What he achieved with this edict is quite difficult to decide. Monophysites at that time constituted a minority of the Greek population. The emperor's edict, even if it had been accepted, could have given rise, first of all, to unrest in Monophysitism itself; but he did not promise anything to the Orthodox Church. The bitter fate, of course, primarily affected the Archbishop of Constantinople, Eutyches. He did not recognize the edict as Orthodox, since he found that, coming out of it, he must recognize the suffering and death of Christ as illusory. On January 22, 565, Eutyches was arrested for his resistance and was almost killed. The emperor then sent him into exile. It is reported that after this a council was held in Constantinople to condemn Eutyches in order to give this verdict ecclesiastical sanction. Information about him is found in the biographical records of his student Eustratius. The accusations brought against Eutyches were of the most petty and even somewhat comical nature. The most important of them was that Eutyches ate game, which was considered at that time a purely sybaritic delicacy (some monastic orders in the west, by the way, were distinguished by the fact that they allowed the eating of game on the grounds that the charter of Benedict of Nursia forbade eating the meat of only four-legged animals); another accusation was that Eutyches spent a long time on his knees praying to God γονυκλισίας ποιῶν ηὔχετο). After the council, an embassy of his own clergy was sent to Eutyches. Eutyches directly asked them: “to whom are you sent?” “To Mr. Patriarch, Bishop of Constantinople,” they answered. “You said it right; although I am in this position, I still remain a patriarch, and you believe so.” After this, he subjected them to excommunication with his authority. John Scholasticus was installed in his place († August 31, 577). It is difficult to say how John Scholasticus maneuvered, refusing to sign the edict and at the same time maintaining the emperor’s favor. Other bishops also refused to sign the emperor’s edict, citing their indecision by the fact that they wanted to know the judgment of other patriarchs on this dogmatic issue. Anastasius of Antioch spoke out decisively against the edict and, expecting expulsion for this, already wrote a farewell word to the flock; but Justinian died before this new measure (November 14, 565). Justinian's successor was his nephew Justin II († 4 October 578). The new emperor did not consider it convenient either to abandon Justinian's policy or to continue it energetically. What kind of policy he generally followed is shown by one anecdote: when there was a noise in the big circus, he sent to tell the blue ones that Justinian had died for them, and the green ones that for them he was alive. First of all, he ordered the expelled bishops to return to their places. This applied most of all to the Western bishops. To calm the unrest of the Monophysites in Egypt, the emperor sent Abba Photinus there with some special powers. Soon the emperor issued an edict, τὸ πρόγραμμα τῆς πίστεως, explaining his religious policy. By issuing this edict, the emperor did everything that could be done for them to please the Monophysites, without renouncing Orthodoxy. The edict repeated all the expressions tested during the period of union, pleasant for the Monophysites, although not entirely dogmatically accurate, and, as far as possible, precise and decisive Orthodox terms were bypassed. The emperor recognized in Christ not another or different, but one and the same, composed of both natures - divine and human - composed. Then come expressions that are pleasant for Monophysites: 1) One suffered from the Holy Trinity; 2) One miracle and suffering; 3) Ἐμμανουήλ; 4) ἐξ ἑκατέρας φύσεως, ἐξ ὧν συνετέθη (the strictly Chalcedonian preposition is not ἐξ, but ἐν); 5) μία φύσις τοῦ Θεοῦ Λόγου σεσαρκωμένη. On the other hand, one notices: 1) silence about the Council of Chalcedon (but also about others); 2) “νοουμένης” next to “ὑπαρχούσης” and “ἐν θεωρίᾳ” when talking about διαφορὰ τῶν φύσεων; 3) ἡ εκατέρα φύσις, preferred to Chalcedonian δύο φύσεις, two natures, which expression occurs only once. In conclusion, the emperor asks not to make a dispute over syllables, words and persons. He declared that the present form of doctrine must remain unbreakable for all time. The emperor, therefore, did not have any relationship with the Council of Chalcedon. This edict, unional in nature, was accepted by all Orthodox Christians, but the Monophysites did not join the Orthodox Church on the basis of it. They saw in the emperor a supporter of the “Chalcedonians” who did not live up to their expectations that they had for the new reign. It should be noted that Justin was married to Theodora’s niece, Sophia: there was a rumor about this latter among the Monophysites that until 562 she always received communion from the Monophysite presbyter. But the policy of peace, opened by Justin II, led to a peaceful relationship between the Orthodox and the Monophysites. In the first years of Justin's reign, the following extraordinary phenomenon took place. The Theodosians strongly pressed their opponents, the Tritheites; the latter obtained permission from the emperor to arrange a dispute, the arbitrator of which was John Scholasticus, Patriarch of Constantinople. The disputing parties were not allowed to refer to the writings of the Orthodox fathers, but were allowed to cite in their favor only passages from the works of their outstanding authorities: Anthima, Sevira, Theodosius. The dispute lasted 4 days, and in the end the Triteites were declared defeated. But in the sixth year of Justin's reign (570–571), a change occurred in the position of the Monophysites. At the insistence of John Scholasticus, the emperor decided to put pressure on the Monophysites of Constantinople. Their monasteries, male and female, were cordoned off by soldiers. After forced communion from the hands of Orthodox priests and the replacement of Monophysite icons with Orthodox ones (they previously used icons depicting Monophysite bishops and kings), communion between these monasteries and the Orthodox Church was declared complete. Monks and nuns who persisted were sent to prison. The monasteries thus converted were visited by the emperor and empress and the obedients were rewarded with gifts. Communication was also concluded with the Monophysite hierarchs. They raised hopes that the Council of Chalcedon would one way or another be cancelled. The bishops, presbyters and deacons of the Monophysites, apparently accepted “in their existing rank,” served 36 liturgies together with the Orthodox. But then the Patriarch of Constantinople made an attempt to recognize their consecration as invalid and ordain them again. The narrow-minded Monophysite Metropolitan of Caria, Aphrodisian Bishop Paul, allowed the Orthodox Metropolitan of Caria to ordain him Bishop of Antioch of Caria. But other Monophysite bishops, especially Stephen of Cyprus, most energetically opposed these again consecrations and demanded that if they did not recognize the validity of their consecration, they would not be recognized (according to Nicholas 19) as having valid baptism. John abandoned this idea of ​​​​reordinating them and explained that he only wanted to decorate the Monophysites with an episcopal omophorion. The attempt to find a dogmatic middle path for reconciliation was also fruitless. The dogmatic dispute that lasted 33 days only revealed that the question of the dogmatic meaning of the Council of Chalcedon remains significant, since the Orthodox cannot renounce this council, and the Monophysites make the abolition of this council a condition for their reunification with the Orthodox. And to the program of the union edict proposed to the Monophysites, they made several additions, which the Orthodox in their entirety could not accept, and when these additions were only partially included in the edict, the Monophysites refused to accept it. Justin acted with great success on the Monophysites who occupied court and government positions. He forbade them to greet him if they did not want to be with him in church communion. Fearing for their position and property, these Monophysites showered reproaches on their bishops and demanded that they agree to the union. The matter ended with several people outwardly converting to Orthodoxy, and the stubborn ones were expelled from the capital after imprisonment. Conferences with the Monophysite bishops were not successful under Justin either. Justin's successor, Tiberius († August 14, 582), removed himself from pressure on the Monophysites by government measures. To the Patriarch of Constantinople Eutychius, who was restored to the see after the death of John Scholasticus, the emperor replied that the fight against the Monophysites was a matter of church power, and not of the state, and that for the state the external struggle against enemies alone was sufficient. Left to his own devices, Patriarch Eutyches tried to influence the Monophysites with exhortations, but without success. Eutyches was informed that the Syrian nuns who had reunited with the church still use the Trisagion with the addition: “crucified for us.” Arriving at the monastery, the patriarch exhorted the nuns to leave these words introduced by the Monophysites. But the nuns replied that it was enough for them that they had abandoned their former faith and entered into communion with the synodites; but they will never agree to give up the conviction that Christ is the true God who suffered for us. After this, Eutyches sent them his theological and polemical work. But the nuns replied: “We are women and do not understand anything about theological subtleties; “We will never abandon the traditions of the Eastern fathers.” Eutyches' successor († April 6, 582), John the Faster, did not exert any external pressure on the Monophysites, and a period of 40 years of peace again began for them. John the Faster ended the politics of Eutyches on principle. When the Constantinople clergy suggested that he should persecute the Monophysites and referred to the fact that Eutyches had done so, John the Faster replied that it was Patriarch Eutyches, that they should go to him and ask him whether he would now allow them to persecute the Monophysites. The union attempts of John Scholasticus and Eutyches are interesting in the sense that in this case the initiative was taken by representatives of the church, and not by state power, as had been the case before. The Monophysite historian, Bishop John of Ephesus, who himself suffered imprisonment at that time, does not hide the fact that the Monophysites did not place martyrs in this “persecution”, that the whole matter was limited to taking them into custody, from which the champions of Monophysitism usually managed to escape. The weak participation of state power in these union experiments, in addition to the personal nature of the sovereigns and the pursuit of urgent state needs, is most likely explained, on the one hand, by the fact that experience showed the low success of union agreements, on the other, by the fact that the division of Monophysitism into groups made it impossible to reunite everyone; and the annexation of only a small part could not be of particular value for the state. The reasons for the dispute and its first stage: the dispute about actions in Christ If we were to consider monothelitism as a phenomenon in the history of dogma, then the problem would seem simpler than if we consider it as a historical phenomenon (in general). Once it has been proven that in Orthodox or Monophysite teaching there were internal theological data for raising the question of two wills and actions in Christ, then the genesis of Monothelitism is obvious, and its necessity as a historical-dogmatic phenomenon has already been explained. There is no doubt that, in the person of its prominent representatives, the Monophysite doctrine came unusually close to the Orthodox teaching, and the Orthodox themselves felt this closeness, but, nevertheless, there was a gulf between them that prevented their union. For the Orthodox, this phenomenon seemed inexplicable: how to profess Orthodox teaching and not be able to explain it. On the other hand, the Monophysites also experienced internal shocks that made them fear for their existence - Monophysitism split into rumors, between which there was constant polemics concerning all the essential aspects of this doctrine. Naturally, the Monophysites had to make an attempt to clarify their teaching. The result of this movement is monothelitism. Monothelitism is new in comparison with Monophysitism: while the latter is based in the field of metaphysics, Monothelitism, on the contrary, marks a transition to the field of psychology. It was impossible for the Monophysites to explain from the point of view of metaphysics some terms of their dogma, such as: οὐσία, φύσις, ἐνέργεια, πρόσωπον; Naturally, it was necessary to try to explain these terms psychologically. – For the history of the church, this internal necessity (the appearance of monothelitism) exists; but it is important to solve the question, why did this internal necessity appear at this particular time, and not before or after? There is enough evidence that says that under the Heraclids, monothelitism appeared as an uninvited guest. It was least expected that one of the smartest emperors could stir up such unrest, which politically did not promise anything good. Previous history has shown that both any attempts at state pressure and experiments in union with Monophysitism are only capable of increasing disputes and not producing peace. The new Heraclid dynasty, meanwhile, resumed experiments in the reunification of the Monophysites. The participation of spiritual authorities was passive. Church authorities were not at the forefront when questions were raised about the two wills and actions in Christ. Thus, a very serious question arises before us: how did Heraclius, this intelligent sovereign, take on such a task, the inconsistency of which had already been historically proven under his predecessors? But those who ask this question and do not find an answer to it lose sight of the general changes that took place in the position of the Byzantine state. In fact, political reasons prompted him to take up this matter. Emperor Heraclius was forced to do this, perhaps because his circumstances were more difficult than ever. The successor of Tiberius and the predecessor of Heraclius, Emperor Mauritius, managed to shelter the Persian sovereign Khosroes, who, due to the rebellion of his subjects, fled abroad to save his life. Mauritius thus began to have a patronizing attitude towards the Persian king; Eastern news says that Mauritius gave him his daughter Maria, who had a strong influence on him. But then there was a revolt in Byzantium against Mauritius; the troops rebelled and elected Phocas in his place; Mauritius was executed along with his children. This circumstance served as a reason for Khosroes to begin hostile actions against Byzantium. He sacrificed a lot for Mauritius; but now, being at the pinnacle of power, it was natural for him to profit at the expense of Byzantium. He hoped that not everyone in Byzantium would be indifferent to the change. When news of Phocas' accession was sent, Khosroes declared war on him. Meanwhile, Phocas proved unable to defend the empire. A riot broke out; General Heraclius raised an uprising, defeated Phocas, reigned in his place, and sent kind news about this to Khosroes. Phokas was executed. It seemed that after the death of Phocas, the reasons for war for Khosroes were ipso facto abolished. But Khosroes did not think about peace. The Persian troops had success after success. and affairs on the Danube were extremely doubtful: it was necessary to enter into dubious alliances with the Avar Khan, who violated them whenever it seemed convenient. Finally, a fact happened that was unprecedented in history. Heraclius, in despair, decided to flee from his kingdom, and only the intense requests of the patriarch held him back. Still, his position was difficult. All this naturally led to the idea that unanimity was necessary and that it was most important. And so the emperor, like a drowning man, jumped into negotiations with the Monophysites. But another consideration is also acceptable. The Byzantine Empire embraced both east and west. The population of the eastern half represented a wide variety of elements, only slightly Greekized; the west had the peoples of the Illyrian-Thracian tribe. Rome never placed the Illyrians and Thracians as statesmen. But soon, however, the most prominent role fell to the lot of this tribe. The Illyrian Diocletian paved the way for other Illyrians to the imperial throne. Konstantin V. was the son of an Illyrian and came from the city of Naissa; his dynasty ended on June 26, 363 with Julian the Apostate. Julian's successor was Jovian of Pannonia. Emperor Valentinian was also a Pannonian (from the city of Kival). In 379, on January 19, Theodosius the Great took the throne; The Theodosian dynasty of Spanish origin ended its existence on July 28, 450 in the person of Theodosius the Younger. His successor was Marcian of Illyria, followed by Leo I the Thracian, promoted by European forces, from the Bessian tribe in Illyria. He owes his rise to the Goth Asparic, who dominated Constantinople; over time, Leo dealt with the Gothic influence, but did not have a successor; he bequeathed the throne to his grandson, who also died, and the throne passed to the Isaurian Zinon (Isauria is a region of Asia Minor). "Zinon" was not the emperor's original name; in Isaurian it was called so intricately that Greek historians did not exactly preserve its name (Ταρασικοδισσα, Αρικμεσος, Τρασαλικαιος); He was called Zinon in honor of Zinon Stratilates, who under Theodosius II was magister equitum and at one time played a very prominent role. In the person of Zinon, therefore, the head of state was a man of an Asian tribe. That is why all the revolts against Zinon, with the exception of the uprising of the Isaurian Illus, had their basis not only in certain state conditions, but also in the struggle of European forces against the Asians. Naturally, the new sovereign could nominate new people regardless of their merits, and the question was who should dominate the empire. With the death of Zeno (April 9, 491), the Isaurian dynasty ended. During his lifetime, the late sovereign assigned the throne to his brother Longinus, but the latter, as he did not arouse anyone’s sympathy, did not take it, so that Zinon’s successor was the Thracian-Illyrian Anastasius (from the city of Dyrrachium in Illyria). His successor Justin I was also an Illyrian; his dynasty lasted from July 9, 518 to 578 and ended with Justin II, from whom power passed to Tiberius. The latter was a Thracian, and history destined him to be the last Thracian representative on the Byzantine throne. While still a young soldier, he left for military service in Asia; in Arzanin he was going to marry a rich girl, but it so happened that both she and her father died, and Tiberius married the remaining widow in order to inherit her entire fortune. Apparently he was strongly attached to his wife, because he subsequently did not give in to offers to divorce her. This is how the Asian empress appears in Byzantium. If she could exercise influence over her husband, then this influence could only be female, because she did not receive a court education, and could be reflected, for example, in patronage of fellow countrymen. Be that as it may, during the reign of Tiberius a turn took place in favor of the Asians. His successor was Mauritius from Araviss, magister equitum, who declared an unprecedented strength of family ties; most of his relatives end up in the capital. He was so popular among Armenians that even legends were formed about him. August 13, 582 he ascended the throne and married the daughter of Tiberius. But on November 23, 602, a rebellion occurred against Mauritius in the European army stationed on the Danube (who fought against the Avars), and he was deprived of the throne. The rebellious troops chose by lot a new emperor, the Cappadocian Phocas (an Asian), who, however, reigned briefly and ingloriously. The matter ended with the fact that even those closest to him (son-in-law Priscus) began to write rebellious letters that sparked an uprising in Constantinople. Phocas was deposed, and his successor was Heraclius, also a Cappadocian, from a family that had long been settled in the east. His father was an honored Byzantine general. For a long time he acted against the Persians with Mauritius and, before his rise, he held the rather difficult post of ruler of Byzantine Armenia. Thus, a revolution took place in favor of electing to the throne not Europeans, but Asians, who came from an area close to Armenia (Cappadocia), and naturally tried to draw their fellow countrymen into the capital and place them in prominent places. In the indicated origin of Heraclius, perhaps, lies the key to unraveling his union mission. All previous emperors, when trying to return the Monophysites to Orthodoxy, took a foothold in Syria (Antioch), where these opposing currents were concentrated. Behind Syria stood Egypt. It was necessary to strengthen the position in these two dioceses, since here lay the core around which a new church life was to be formed. Now this core is being transferred to Armenia. The progress of the union can be represented in this way. – Emperor Mauritius facilitated the return to the Persian throne of Khosroes (591), who fled from the rebels to Byzantium. In gratitude for this service, Khosroes made significant concessions to Mauritius in the disengagement. Some territories went to Byzantium, and they were inhabited by Armenians. First of all, Arzanina, where Tiberius’s wife was from, went to Byzantium. Then, the line reached Lake Tospian up to the city of Dvin, which was the capital of Persian Armenia, because the Persian officials who ruled Armenia lived here, and finally reached Tiflis. Mauritius, who spent part of his youth precisely in these regions of Armenia, knew well the state of affairs in this region, but to be its sovereign, as time has shown, was hardly a godsend for him. Armenia had a structure that was the most feudal of feudal ones, or, better, allodial. It was divided into huge estates, which were owned by certain specific families; each clan represented a fairly concentrated force. Of course, the subordination of the younger ones to the elders was established between them. But this country was located on the very border of Persia and Byzantium, and the satraps of the country had to maneuver between one and the other, move from one citizenship to another. Any complication with the Persians prompted the Armenians to seek help from Byzantium, and vice versa. But the Armenians dreamed of complete independence, and therefore did not particularly try to observe either the interests of Persia or the interests of Byzantium, and therefore, understandably, neither the Persians nor the Greeks trusted the Armenians. The Persians tried to educate the Armenians at their court, but the Christianity of the Armenians was a strong obstacle to such attempts. When the Armenians leaned toward Monophysitism, they pacified the Persian government. The Persians began to understand that, due to religious differences, the Armenians did not have particularly ardent love for Byzantium. On the other hand, the Byzantines also tried to bind the Armenians to themselves by the bonds of religion. Mauritius and wanted to really get a foothold here. But the mutual relations of the Armenian authorities promised so little loyalty to the state that Mauritius gave Khosroes advice of this kind: the Armenian nobles went further to the east, and I will settle them in Thrace; if an Armenian is killed, then the enemy will be killed, and if an Armenian kills someone there, then he will kill the enemy. How it would have ended is unknown. But Khosroes began to regret the concessions made; Taking advantage of the fact that Mauritius began to evict the Armenian nobles to Thrace, he began, on the contrary, to patronize the Armenians and assure that Mauritius was oppressing them. But the Persian sovereign had to pay for his troubles with unrest in Armenia. Things were not calm in Mauritius either, but it strictly suppressed all attempts at uprising. One Armenian nobleman. Smbat Bagratuni, of an extremely warlike character, incurred the particular indignation of Mauritius, and he was summoned to Byzantium. Smbat was distinguished by his athletic build and truly Herculean strength. They said that one day, when he was riding through a forest with a detachment of troops, he chose a branch, grabbed it and, wrapping his legs around the horse, rose up with it. In Byzantium they decided to release him to fight wild animals; Smbat showed miracles of courage. Armenian historians say that Smbat killed a bear in the kinigia, broke the horns of a bull and put him to flight, chasing him, he knocked off his hooves, strangled the lion, squeezing his throat; tired, he fell down to rest on the dead lion. The people begged him for pardon, but he still suffered exile. Now Mauritius tried to play on a different note. In order to tie the Armenians to Byzantium, he planned to give them a special church structure. All Armenians had a spiritual head in the person of the Catholicos, who lived in Persian Armenia (in Dvin). Mauritius decided that its Armenians should not be dependent on this Catholicos, and a special Catholicos, a certain John (in Feodosiopolis), was elected for the Greek Armenians. Obviously, this division of power was done in the form of separating the Byzantine Armenians from their Persian brethren. In fact, the Byzantine Catholicos should have been interested in this matter of division, for in the event of the unification of the Armenians, the Byzantine Catholicos would have been completely unnecessary. The question of the division of Armenia for him, therefore, was a question of his own existence. Another circumstance favored the emperor’s union attempt. The Armenians completely accidentally joined the Monophysites, and did not receive either honor or glory among the Monophysites; and in all subsequent times their position among the Monophysites was extremely pitiful. The Monophysites - Greek, Syrian, Egyptian - felt like members of the same church, but the Armenians, with their incomprehensible language, with their liturgical rite, represented something mysterious and incomprehensible to other Monophysites. The Syrian Monophysites tried to exert their influence on the Armenians, sending them their bishops; this contributed to a rapprochement between them, but still the Armenians did not enjoy the trust of the Syrians. Syrian Monophysite writers considered the Armenian people stupid, backward, and their rituals stupid. The Armenian, in a word, having broken away from his foundation, lived as a proletarian. The Armenians who accepted Monophysitism found themselves in the same position as the Slavs and Uniate Greeks who betrayed Orthodoxy and did not accept full Catholicism. Thus, the Armenians did not have solid grounds for persisting in Monophysitism. This inconvenient situation could serve as an indication that here the ties with Monophysitism could be broken sooner than in Syria and Egypt - and that is why an attempt was made to unite here. Mauritius gave orders to the troops that everyone should receive communion from Orthodox priests; some did not want to pay with external benefits and joined Chalcedonian Orthodoxy. Mauritius decided to act through persuasion, to convene a council and resolve all issues at it, but met resistance in the person of Catholicos Moses of Dvina, who declared that he would not cross the border separating the two empires - and the matter ended in nothing. Thus, from Mauritius, Emperor Heraclius inherited some special issues in the union sense. It was necessary to try to bring the Armenians to Orthodoxy; Union 105 was intended for them. Heraclius hoped to settle matters with the Persians very simply: he had sufficiently avenged the death of Mauritius by executing Phocas by death, and the Persian war had lost its raison d’être from the moment of his accession. But the Persians did not think of stopping the war and continued it with remarkable success. They took Syria and Egypt and reached Chalcedon. The emperor had to create an army, and Cappadocia was the place where he trained recruits. Having finally won the victory over the Persians, the emperor expanded the borders of the Byzantine Empire to the account of Armenia, which had previously depended on the Persians (alias: restored the Byzantine possessions within the borders to which they had reached under Mauritius). In order to keep new subjects under their rule, it was necessary to maintain good relations with the Armenians. Hence the appearance of Armenians in high positions in Byzantium. On the other hand, the experience from the times of Mauritius gave Heraclius reason to think that with the Armenians he would succeed in what failed with the other Monophysites. a) The Byzantine emperors had a strong means of influencing the Armenian church spheres: in the event of the Catholicos of Dvina (in Persian Armenia) refusing the union based on the recognition of the Council of Chalcedon, the emperor had the opportunity to install a special Catholicos in Armenia subject to him. This was already the case under Mauritius (c. 591). In Dvina, Moses and then Abraham were Catholicos, and in the Greek possessions - John. b) The last decade of the 6th century. marked by a movement to the north of Armenia, which apparently proved that the devotion of the Armenians to Monophysitism was not so deep that, under favorable conditions, they could not be persuaded to union. The Armenian Catholicoses managed to make Iviria dependent on them: they installed “Catholicoses of Iviria” (residence in Mtskheta). Moses appointed a certain Kiron or Kirion (Κύρων, Κυρίων) as “Catholicos of Ivir,” a man who received his education in Nicopolis and Colonia (in Byzantine possessions for a long time). Soon Moses began to doubt his Orthodoxy. Under his successor Abraham, Kirion maneuvered for some time, but then (for petty reasons, according to the assurances of Armenian writers) he declared himself a like-minded person of the Patriarchs of Constantinople and Jerusalem, who accepted the IV Ecumenical Council. By 606 this fall of the Ivirs was already an accomplished fact. – It is quite possible that Cyrus, Metropolitan of Fasis (now Poti), knew well the history of the “retreat” of Iviria, neighboring Lazika, and therefore did not consider the plan of Emperor Heraclius hopeless. But he doubted the possibility of reconciling the teaching of ὁ μία ἐνέργεια by connection, which (the teaching) Heraclius considered the basis of his union project, with the resolution of the Council of Chalcedon and the tomos of Leo V. Then the emperor suggested that Cyrus turn to the Patriarch of Constantinople Sergius for clarification; Sergius' answer was not in favor of δύο ἐνέργειαι. Regarding the conditions for the emergence of the Monothelite movement, there are two versions: official and unofficial. The official version is given to us as presented by Sergius, Patriarch of Constantinople. If you believe this source, then the Monothelite movement arose completely by accident, without any desire of the great Church of Constantinople. The matter is explained by the fact that Emperor Heraclius had to wage a war with the Persians, a desperate war that cost so many victims, like ours, for example, the invasion of the Poles or Napoleon. War was inevitable. The Persian king decided to take revenge not on Phocas, but on Heraclius for the death of Mauritius, the betrothed father of the Persian king. The war was fought on the borders of Armenia. On the occasion of this war, the emperor was in Armenia in 622, and here in the city of Theodosiopolis or Karin (Erzurum), meeting with the head of the Sevirians, Paul One-Eye, he had a conversation with him about faith. As a theologically educated person, the emperor, in refutation of the usual Monophysite assurances that two natures necessarily lead to the recognition of two hypostases in Christ, pointed out to Paul that with two natures in Christ there is only one energy, μία ἐνέργεια. Thus, the first word that gave rise to controversy was uttered by the emperor himself. From this message, borrowed from the letter of Sergius, Patriarch of Constantinople, to Honorius of Rome, it turns out that the word μία ἐνέργεια was proposed by the emperor himself, that the initiative in this matter belonged not to the church, but to the state, or even only to the emperor personally. It all happened somehow by accident. A chance conversation took place between the emperor and Paul, and this gave rise to the Monothelite movement. Another version - unofficial - is presented by the debate of Rev. Maximus the Confessor with Pyrrhus, ex-patriarch of Constantinople. From this source it is clear that the Monothelite movement was prepared and discussed in advance by Sergius. Maximus the Confessor, when in a conversation with him Pyrrhus noticed that the peace in the church was disturbed by Sophronius, replied: if the whole thing was because of Sophronius, then why did Monothelitism begin from where Sophronius had never set foot? Where was Sophronius when Sergius communicated with Theodore of Faran, sent him a letter from Mina and asked about the opinion contained in it about a single action and a single will? Where was Sophronius when Sergius turned to Paul One-Eye, sending him a letter from Mina and a statement of agreement with this letter of Theodore and about his own, or when Sergius asked, through a letter from George Arsu, a Paulianist (Monophysite), to send him the sayings of the fathers about a single action, declaring that on the basis of them he would organize unity between the church and the Monophysites? John, Bishop of Alexandria, took the message from the hands of George Arsa and wanted to depose him, but the Persian invasion of Egypt prevented him from doing so. The polemicist’s expression “depose him” is not clear: whom did John the Merciful want to depose—either George Arsu or Sergius. But judging by the fact that George Arsa did not belong to Orthodoxy, it is most likely that John intended to raise the question of Sergius’ Orthodoxy and conduct the matter in such a way as to depose Sergius. From a Syrian source attributed to Presbyter Thomas, it is clear that Alexandria was taken in July 619, and on November 12, Pope John of Alexandria died 106. Thus, even before 622, in a letter to the Faranian bishop Theodore, Patriarch Sergius asked him what he thought about the expression μία ἐνέργεια, and at the same time referred in favor of this expression to the letter of Mina of Constantinople to Pope Vigilius, which says that in Christ there is one will and one action. This message, together with the message of Mina and the response of Theodore of Faran, Sergius sent to Paul One-Eyed, with whom the emperor himself later negotiated. But Paul opposed unity and demanded patristic evidence in favor of the fact that in Christ there are two φύσεις ἓν θέλημα. Perhaps, before all this, Sergius wrote to the Monophysite George Arce (Ἀρσᾶς) and asked him to collect patristic evidence in favor of μία ἐνέργεια, since on the basis of this formula he, Sergius, hopes to arrange the reunification of the Sevirians with the church. But, reports Maximus the Confessor, the Patriarch of Alexandria John the Merciful, who became aware of Sergius’ letter to George, took it away and wanted to initiate proceedings for the deposition of Sergius. The Persian attack on Egypt, when Alexandria was taken, and the death of John prevented this. Since the invasion took place in the summer of 619, and John died on November 12 of the same year, then, obviously, the testimony of Maximus provides us with solid chronological data. It is clear that the meeting of the emperor with Pavel One-Eyed took place after Sergius’s preliminary steps. Sergius himself was a prominent figure in this entire union movement. In the person of Sergius, the emperor had such an ecumenical patriarch as could be desired for this union experience. A man who understood state needs, with a flexible character, incapable of stubborn “non possumus”, Sergius was ready to sacrifice church canons to please even the personal desires of the emperor. The flexibility of Sergius's character was clearly reflected in the issue of Heraclius's second marriage. The emperor's choice fell on his own niece, Martina. The marriage was illegal. In Byzantium, such marriages, in violation of canonical requirements, were treated much more intolerantly than our public opinion would be today. The patriarch confronted the emperor with the inconvenience of such a marriage, but the emperor objected: “Until now you acted like a bishop; and now, as a friend, do my will.” Sergius did not hesitate to do this, and did not create a conflict with the state authorities. That Sergius could go parallel with the emperor in establishing a union is clear from the fact that he was of East Syrian origin. He perfectly understood the difficult state of affairs in the east and found that certain concessions to the Monophysites were necessary to achieve favorable results. Thus, the case of 622 was prepared by Sergius in advance. His psychological make-up was such that he could resist such a movement. He was a good politician, but an unimportant theologian. This was a person like Eusebius of Caesarea, who was a great expert in the sense of erudition, his business was certificates and extracts, but drawing correct dogmatic conclusions of impeccable consistency, making broad generalizations, was not his type. That is why he was an Arian, despite his will and fundamental aspirations. And Sergius was a well-read man, but his head didn’t go further than that. If he did not see textual support for a thought, he was not able to obtain it through a combination of positions. This was his psychological strength. He did not hesitate to draw up a draft of such a union, since he did not see the weaknesses of some parties, which gave him confidence in his actions. It was enough that the fathers did not literally have the expression “δύο ἐνέργειαι”, and he considered himself right to assert that Christ had one. If Cyrus believed that from the position of Leo V.: “agit utraque forma quod proprium est,” the conclusion follows: “in Christ there are two natures, therefore, two actions,” then for Sergius such a conclusion seemed too bold. None of the theologians who defended the tomos against the Monophysites explicitly drew such a conclusion from Leo V.’s tomos; For example, Eulogius, Patriarch of Alexandria 107 did not do it; therefore, they, Sergius and Cyrus, should not draw this conclusion. Thus, the first stage of the Monothelite movement could seem at first glance an accident: a chance meeting of the emperor, a chance acquaintance with one of the Monophysite metropolitans. All this information is conveyed by Sergius himself in his letter to Honorius, Pope of Rome. But if you use other documents, you have to admit that much that is accidental is not entirely accidental. Paul One-Eye, except for two mentions - in Sergius and Maximus the Confessor, is unknown from other Greek sources. Meanwhile, from the Syriac manuscripts it is clear that Paul translated the works of Gregory the Theologian from Greek in Cyprus and completed the translation in 624. Undoubtedly, he was a man who had a fairly respectable theological education. He even translated the poetic works of Greek hymnographers. But it is especially important to note that he was the Bishop of Edessa. This circumstance makes it possible to illuminate somewhat his position before Heraclius. It is known that the Persians, when they took possession of the cities of Armenia, appointed persons from among their subjects who enjoyed their favor to the episcopal sees. It is quite possible that Paul was the bishop of Edessa, but was then superseded by the appointment of another bishop, Isaiah, - or perhaps he was still intended for this see, but his appointment was not approved 108. Heraclius, in his person, encountered a person offended by the Persian authorities. It was natural for him to assume that this person would try to take advantage of his patronage and agree to some concessions. There is no doubt, at least, that Paul sought refuge in Byzantium. It is clear, therefore, that the meeting between Heraclius and Paul was a sounding of the soil. After 622, the movement in favor of union continued quite consistently. (Some believe that already) around 622 a union with the Armenian Monophysites took place. Pavel One-Eye probably acted as her opponent, so the emperor issued a decree against him. In 626, the emperor, while in Lazika, entered into negotiations with Cyrus, Metropolitan of Fascism, about a single energy. Cyrus at first resisted and said that the Chalcedonian creed and the tomos of Leo contained premises for the doctrine of two energies. At the same time, the emperor presented Cyrus with a message from Sergius, which justified the expression μία ἐνέργεια, and made a promise from Cyrus to explain himself to Sergius. In his letter to Cyrus, Sergius wrote that the question of one or two energies has not yet received a conciliar-ecumenical solution, but in the writings of the fathers (Cyril, Mina) there is talk of a single energy and will. As for the words of Leo’s tomos: “agit utraque forma quod proprium est,” although many fathers who polemicized against the Monophysites wrote about tomos, none of them drew a conclusion about two energies from these words; it is enough to point to Eulogius, Patriarch of Alexandria († February 13, 607), who wrote an entire book in defense of the tomos. Cyrus was defeated. Cyrus of Fasis is one of the most interesting figures in history, and perhaps even mythological 109 . And in his meeting with the emperor, not everything is accidental. Shortly before the meeting with the emperor, Kirion’s movement took place, which ended with part of his flock separating from the power of the Armenian Catholicos. It was clear to Cyrus that, under certain conditions, a lot could be done from the Armenians and even be persuaded to unite with the Orthodox Church. But Cyrus was cautious and wanted to first communicate with Constantinople. This man had already been promoted by the very circumstances and gained the favor of Heraclius, and he then had the honor of occupying the Alexandrian see. There is no doubt that Heraclius, on the border with Armenia, tried to arrange the reunification of the Armenians with the Orthodox Church, but when this happened (carried out at the council) cannot be said with certainty. Some attribute this fact (namely, the convening of the council in Karina) to 622, others (to 628, others) to 629, (some to 632, and finally in modern times they stop at 633) 110. (One might think that Heraclius first of all tried to involve the head of the Armenian church, Ezra, who became Catholicos in the second half of 630, into the union). The state of affairs in Armenia was as follows: the Armenians elected a new Catholicos, and since Armenia was divided into allodial sections, each feudal lord represented his own bishop, who even bore the surname of his principal. Naturally, the feudal lords were inclined to bring St. to the see. Gregory of his acquaintances. The former Catholicos Christopher incurred the indignation of one of the influential feudal lords and therefore had to leave his see; the choice fell on Ezra. He naturally felt uneasy with his living predecessor. (Soon, probably, after his election, Ezra was demanded that he go to the emperor and enter into church communion with him, otherwise a new Catholicos would be installed for the part of Armenia subject to the emperor. At Ezra’s request, the emperor sent him a statement of faith; it contained anathemas against Nestorius and other heretics, but the Council of Chalcedon was not condemned. Ezr then went to Mesopotamia, where the emperor was, and there he took communion with him. As a reward, he was given, at his request, salt mines in Kulpi). The emperor moved his activities to Edessa. The bishop here was Isaiah, who was appointed by the Persians and whose position was problematic. The emperor, (having attracted the Armenian Catholicos to his side), thought to unite with the Syrian Monophysites (apparently) without any effort. When the emperor arrived here, he was given the most solemn welcome. Devotees from neighboring monasteries came out to meet the victorious emperor. The emperor treated them kindly, pointed out some differences, but at the same time noted that they should not separate themselves because of them. The feast of the Nativity of Christ arrived (630), and the emperor appeared at the cathedral where Isaiah was officiating, and then wished to receive holy communion with others. For Isaiah the question arose: what would be the meaning of communion? Strictly speaking, this circumstance should not have created any difficulties for Isaiah: to reunite with one or another church then nothing more was required than communion in it. A Monophysite, for example, entered into communion with the Orthodox Church ipso facto if he received communion in it; this meant that he renounced Monophysitism and accepted Orthodoxy. In principle, it turned out that once the emperor comes to the Monophysite church and communes with the Monophysite metropolitan, then he switches from Orthodoxy to Monophysiteism. The wrong conclusion was reached de facto. The lay emperor was, however, a representative of Orthodoxy so powerful that one might think that the metropolitan accepted the faith of the emperor, not vice versa. By agreeing to include Heraclius, the Metropolitan incurred the suspicion that he was accepting the Council of Chalcedon. Isaiah was not so blind as not to understand that the emperor was approaching St. secrets with a clear tendency. And he solemnly announced from the church pulpit to the emperor that he would commune him only if he solemnly renounced the Council of Chalcedon. The emperor turned his back on Isaiah and left the church. The service ended, the keys to the cathedral church were taken away from the Monophysites and handed over to the Orthodox. Isaiah went to the Monophysite Patriarch of Antioch, Athanasius. Until now, the Syrian Monophysites had paid very little attention to the Armenians, but now Athanasius decided to establish relations with Catholicos Christopher, who had been deprived of his see without trial. Thus, there was also agitation on the part of the Antiochian Monophysites in favor of Monophysite Orthodoxy among the Armenians. Meanwhile, the emperor advanced to Hierapolis. Here Athanasius himself was introduced to him (in 631) with 11–12 Monophysite bishops. A conversation ensued about uniting churches. The emperor promised Athanasius that he, too, would recognize him as Patriarch of Antioch if only he would unite with the Orthodox Church. Heraclius was handed a note that pursued union goals, but which amounted to a denial of the Council of Chalcedon. Orthodox theologians who examined this confession of faith did not recognize it as sufficient for entering into communion with Athanasius. The emperor not only did not fulfill the hopes that the Monophysites had placed on him, but even began to persecute the latter, banning them from holding higher positions. Until now, Sergius of Constantinople remains as if on the sidelines: (with Ezr) the union is arranged by the emperor himself, but the natural course of events forces him to arrive in Edessa, and no relations are made with the Patriarch of Constantinople. In fact, Sergius was the type of figure that was most convenient for the emperor. Sergius's distant ancestors came from Syria and were Monophysites. Therefore, one could assume that he had sympathy for Monophysitism, and he understood well what the Monophysites would want from the Orthodox Church. (At the same time) Sergius was one of the most accommodating natures. He was a man with state views, who understood that in certain cases it was possible to sacrifice the observance of church rules. One could count on the same agreement on the union issue. Now Cyrus of Fasis comes onto the stage. When the opportunity arose for the Greek authorities to rule in Alexandria, an order followed to move Cyrus to the Alexandrian see (around 630). His first task was to establish union relations with the local Monophysites. These relations were conducted so successfully that Cyrus could soon please Sergius with the reunion that had taken place. When all this happened is a question within a whole year. Indications have survived that the reunion followed on June 3; The sixth indictment also survived, which means that the reunion took place in 633. But since the indictment was written in (Alexandria), the reunion must be dated to 632 111. The Union Act consisted of 9 anathematisms. The main points of the reunion were as follows. In the 3rd paragraph it was said: “Whoever does not confess that miracles and suffering belong to one and the same Lord Jesus Christ, the true God, let him be anathema.” The defenders of Orthodoxy called this union written in water letters, painted in water color (ὑδροβαφής), and this is true. The Orthodox Church undoubtedly recognized that miracles and suffering belong to one and the same Jesus Christ; but the question arises in what sense to understand “one and the same.” We recognize this affiliation according to hypostasis, i.e., that miracles belong to Him according to divinity, and suffering belongs to Him according to humanity. Meanwhile, in the further 4th paragraph it was stated that Christ has flesh of one essence with us and animated by a rational soul “ἑνώσει φυσικῇ τε καὶ καθ᾽ ὑπόστασιν.” The question is which of these words the reader will pay attention to: the Monophysites could understand belonging not by hypostasis, but by nature. The remaining points of the agreement were of the same nature: apparently, they satisfied both parties, and, in essence, did not give anything. For example, the 6th paragraph read as follows: “whoever does not confess Christ as one of two natures, one incarnate nature of God the Word, one complex hypostasis, let him be anathema.” A lot has been said - and nothing has been said, because Christ from two single natures, a single complex hypostasis, was recognized by both the Orthodox and the Monophysites. The expression is “the one nature of God the Word incarnate” (μία φύσις τοῦ Θεοῦ Λόγου σεσαρκωμένη), although it is found in Cyril of Alexandria, but how to understand the word “φύσις” is not clear, and it was left to everyone to understand as they wished. Likewise, ἐκ δύο φύσεων was recognized by everyone equally, but it was also required to recognize ἐν δύο φύσεσιν, which was not said. The 7th paragraph says: “whoever, using the expression “one Lord is cognizable in two natures,” recognizes Him as ἕτερος καὶ ἕτερος, and does not confess that the same κατ᾽ ἄλλο suffered and κατ᾽ ἄλλο was impassive, and that the same one Christ and Son, by a single godly action, performed both divine and human actions, let him be anathema" (ἐνεργοῦντα τὰ θεοπρεπῆ καὶ ἀνθρώπινα μιᾷ θεανδρικῇ ἐνεργείᾳ). What was achieved by such union theses? Cyrus wrote triumphantly about this union to Sergius of Constantinople, saying that Alexandria and all of Egypt were now rejoicing, having entered into communion with the church. The Theodosians really rejoiced, because in this ἡ ὑδροβαφὴς (colorless, written with water) ἕνωσις they saw the great disgrace of the Council of Chalcedon. “We did not go to the Council of Chalcedon,” they said, but the Council of Chalcedon came to us.” This, of course, offended the Orthodox; but even for the Monophysites who accepted the union, the situation turned out to be difficult. (Perhaps this imaginary success achieved in Egypt prompted the emperor, at the end of 632 or beginning of 633, to demand that all the Armenian bishops and theologians, led by Ezr, as well as the Armenian nobles, gather in Karina (= Theodosiopolis, Erzurum) to negotiate the faith). The Armenian nobles found it impossible (to refuse the invitation). Ezr tried to strengthen himself with influential people. He turned to the learned elder Matusaga (Methuselah) of Siunia and John of Mairagom. But they both did not agree to go to the Greek possessions; Matusaga sent his disciple Theodore in his place. Thus, the Armenian theologians had to enter the fight with somewhat poor weapons. When they arrived at the emperor, he received them favorably and spoke kindly. First he asked why the Armenians did not agree with the Orthodox faith; at the same time, he handed Ezra the text of the Council of Chalcedon and asked him to show what he found wrong in this monument. The reception was masterful, brilliant! For the Orthodox Church, all sorts of disputes were inconvenient because in these disputes it was, as it were, a defendant. Usually the Monophysites began to sing their song that the Council of Chalcedon changed the faith and Orthodoxy, approved by three ecumenical councils. Here the situation changed completely. Armenian theologians deliberated for three days and could not discover any errors. When the emperor asked them to express their opinion, they replied that they could not point out mistakes. “Therefore, you agree with the Orthodox Church?” asked the emperor. “Partly,” they answered, “only now... the Greek clergy does not lead a moral life.” The emperor objected to this that this is not about life, but about faith, that the Armenians are not all moral, why should they deign to speak better about faith, - on exactly what basis do they disagree with the Council of Chalcedon. The Armenian nobles began to be indignant that Ezr did not know how to conduct business and did not support the Armenian church with glory. Ezr pleaded that he could not take with him the persons he wanted. But the nobles pointed him to Theodore. After this, Theodore appears on stage. Insulted by the fact that his authority was little respected, he began to prove that the Armenians had absolutely no solid grounds for not recognizing the dogmatic definitions of the Council of Chalcedon. His words had such an effect that the Armenian legates agreed to reunification. Ezr officiated with the Greek clergy; The legates were in the Orthodox Church and received Holy Communion from the Orthodox. This is how the union of the Armenian Monophysites with Orthodoxy took place. Soon Ezr and the Armenian legates returned to his see. He had a difficult task ahead of him - to attract other Armenians to Orthodoxy. But here cries were heard that Ezr had changed the faith of his fathers. The same John who had previously refused to go with Ezr now launched a philippic against the Catholicos. He said that his name and his life (“Ezr” in Armenian means “limit”, and this should mean that his Catholicism was the last limit to which the Orthodoxy of the Armenians went, and now it has turned onto the path of heresies). A message (which was compiled on behalf of Ezra) by Matusaga was sent to the emperor. It (the faith in the Trinity in the confession of Heraclius is approved, and the condemnation of Eutyches by the Council of Chalcedon is recognized as fair), but here a reservation is made that the council went too far (in its teaching about two natures), then follows a certificate from St. fathers, and the message ends with the statement that the Armenians do not agree with the definitions of the Council of Chalcedon. This is how the union with the Armenians ended unsuccessfully. In Egypt, the union was accepted by a minority, and the masses of the people remained pure Monophysites. The Palestinian monk Sophronius, who was in Alexandria at that time, begged Cyrus to throw out the expression μία ἐνέργεια from the union document, as disagreeing with Orthodox teaching. Cyrus, of course, did not agree to this proposal, which was tantamount to the destruction of the reunification itself, and sent Sophronius with a letter of recommendation to Sergius for an explanation on this issue. Sergius, who apparently stood completely aloof, had in fact long ago wanted to launch a union, wrote letters on this and collected suitable passages from St. fathers (with μία ἐνέργεια). Sergius first asked Sophrony to remain silent, so as not to disturb the accomplished church peace; but since Sophrony continued to insist on his own, Sergius demanded that he bring from St. fathers of a place where they would talk about two energies. But Sophrony could not present patristic quotations in this form, and therefore Sergius remained unconvinced and recommended that Sophrony not upset the church world because of one word: once the union took place, one should not talk about either one or two energies. Sergius made a promise to remain silent with Sophrony, and they parted in peace. But this situation changed thanks to the election of Sophronius to the free Jerusalem see (in 633 or 634). As soon as the news of the election of Sophronius reached Constantinople, Sergius became alarmed. The fact is that every newly elected bishop of an outstanding see considered the first act of his activity to be the drafting of a district message, with which he was supposed to declare to the Orthodox bishops that he was of one mind with them in the faith. It probably once happened that the council that delivered it also signed this letter, testifying to its agreement with the newly installed bishop, which is why this letter was called ἐπιστολὴ συνοδικὴ. Sergius understood that Sophronia’s συνοδικὴ, which in its content would not be very pleasant to him, would spread widely and, what was most dangerous, would end up in the Orthodox West. Until now, Sergius had conducted business only in the east, for example, in Armenia, but did not try to win over the West; he hid the true state of affairs, mentioning the Union of Alexandria, he presented it to the West only as the accession of many thousands to Orthodoxy, and Sophronius, of course, would inform the West about everything that was happening in the East. Sergius's task was to warn Pope Honorius, to prepare him so that he would treat Sophronius with distrust. Therefore, Sergius considered it necessary to turn to Honorius with a message in which he explains what happened in the east over the past years. He writes that he heard about the election of Sophronius, but has not yet received it. This is quite probable, for the συνοδικὴ, of course, was not compiled suddenly after the election and could have reached Constantinople many months after the election of Sophronius. Sergius talks about the circumstances of the Union of Alexandria from his point of view: how Emperor Heraclius talked with Paul in Armenia, how he negotiated with Cyrus, Bishop of Fascism, how Sophronius raised his voice against the union of the Monophysites with the Orthodox Church, on the basis of recognition of a single action in Christ, challenging the legality of the expression “single action”, how the latter arrived in Constantinople to Sergius, who made him promise not to raise a dispute over this expression. Regarding the controversial issue, Sergius expressed himself as follows: “according to the teaching of all ecumenical councils, one and the same Lord Jesus Christ performs all His actions; therefore, one should not talk about either one or two energies, and be content with recognizing “one will” (ἓν θέλημα) in Christ. The expression “μία ἐνέργεια,” although found among some fathers, produces a terrifying impression on the inexperienced (τὰς τινων ἀκοάς), since they believe that this expression denies the duality of nature in Christ. On the other hand, the expression “two actions” seduces many (πολλους σκανδαλίζειν), since it is not found in any father and leads to the conclusion of two wills opposing each other and through this introduces two willers, which is completely wicked.” Sergius asked Honorius for advice regarding a controversial issue. Sergius, it should be noted, perfectly understood his position in relation to Rome. People with well-known pretensions, but without a sufficient degree of intelligence and will, can always easily imagine an excellent and very dark case. Sergius knew how to play the papal string very well. He wrote to Honorius with the greatest outward respect, presenting the matter this way: he is always ready to consult with his Roman brother, but the distance prevents this; now even distance does not prevent him from seeking advice, since the matter is of the greatest importance and requires consultations. Honorius, as a learned man, naturally could not avoid solving the question proposed to him. In Rome, however, there were traditional methods of answering - speaking in general phrases, talking quite a lot about extraneous things, but saying absolutely nothing on the necessary issue. But Honorius, who considered himself a very learned man, did not want to resort to these methods, spoke extremely clearly, and fell into the net laid by Sergius. He responded to Sergius with a message, where he repeated the most significant expressions of Sergius, recognizing his point of view as completely fair: Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, “therefore we also confess one will of the Lord Jesus Christ,” recognizing Him as πολυτρόπως ἐνεργοῦντα, “acting in manifold ways.” A dispute about one or two energies in Christ is an empty, scholastic dispute; Honorius treats people who argue about this with disdain; they are traders in newly invented words, moving away from the simplicity of the apostolic teachings, sophists, luring the people with the lashing of new teachings. But the foundation of the apostolic teachings is strong; Rome will not succumb to error and will erase all dubious innovations with the simplicity of its teaching. Only after this correspondence did Sophronius’ “communicative message” become known. The teaching of the incarnation in this message is as follows. Jesus Christ is one and two, ἓν καὶ δύο, a single complex hypostasis, μία ὑπόστασις σύνθετος, which is called “the one incarnate nature of God the Word.” The unity in Him of divinity and humanity is ἕνωσις ὑποστατικὴ καὶ φυσική. He is cognized inseparably in two natures and acts naturally (φυσικῶς), according to his two natures (οὐσίας), according to the essential qualities inherent in each of these natures (οὐσιώδη ποιότητα ἢ καὶ φυσικὴν ἰδιότητα). This would be impossible if He had a single hypostasis, as a single and uncomplicated nature. One and the same Christ produces the divine and the human, but κατ᾽ ἄλλο καὶ ἄλλο. This means exactly what Leo said: “both of them act according to their nature.” From actions, and from actions alone, natures are known, and, according to the teaching of those who can know this, the difference in essences is always noticed from the difference in actions. We recognize in one and the other nature one and the other action, that is, essential and natural, as well as mutual, inseparably arising from both beings and natures due to the natural quality innate to it, and at the same time the inseparable and unfused interaction of both natures that accompanies it. This serves as the reason for the difference in actions in Christ, and also gives His natures the existence of natures. Christ, like us, is born; like us, it feeds on milk; like us, age passes; like us, he gets tired; He moves from one place to another; in His walk the same actual force is reflected, ἀνθρωπίνως ᾽ενεργουμένη, as in us. His humanity declares itself through unconstrained actions: He allowed His human nature to ἐνεργεῖν when He wanted and because He wanted; in Him, the infirmities (πάθη ἀδιάβλητα) of humanity that manifested themselves were not forced: He was the Lord of His human suffering. A significant part of Sophronius’s expressions turns out to be common with those union points that were proclaimed in Alexandria. Sophronius was afraid to miss something dogmatically indifferent, but dear to the Monophysites, for otherwise the Monophysites would cry out that he was violating the faith. Therefore, he could not do without such vague expressions as ἓν καὶ δύο, or κατ᾽ ἄλλο καὶ ἄλλο. But having satisfied the scrupulosity of his opponents, he clarified the indisputable question. The Monophysites did not want to recognize Christ ἐν δύο φύσεσι after the union, although they recognized ἐκ δύο φύσεων. The Orthodox spoke of two natures, while the Monophysites recognized one nature. Where, one might ask, has the other nature disappeared? The Monophysites declared that this was the inevitable result of the very union of natures. But since the realization of a single nature turned out to be completely impossible in view of the facts of the Gospel testifying to the human nature of Christ, the following usually happened. When the Orthodox proved to the Monophysites on the basis of the Gospel facts the reality of human nature in Christ, the Monophysites, without at all challenging the facts themselves, tried to prove to the Orthodox that it was by no means possible to draw any conclusions from this regarding the humanity of Christ. The point is that they accepted human nature in Christ not as a factor, but as pure potentiality. If Christ ate, was tired, suffered - this is a revelation of human nature. But, the Monophysites said, the theologian has no right to say that humanity is manifested here, and not divinity, for otherwise the division of natures would be affirmed. Consequently, it can be assumed that apparently human actions are actually manifestations of the deity. The theologian, the Monophysites argued, can and should know two natures, but he does not have the right to state human nature. The whole point, therefore, comes down to the fact that in Christ there is human φύσις, but without ἐνέργεια, that is, that in Christ there is only μία ἐνέργεια. To say that this human φύσις ἐνεργεῖ was completely impossible for the Monophysites. Thus, not recognizing that φύσις acts in Christ, the Monophysites concluded the opposite, i.e., that one cannot infer the essence from actions, and from facts showing human nature in Christ, one cannot infer the existence of human nature in him. Sophronius's district message rebels precisely against such a view, when it emphasizes with particular force the idea that essence can be cognized only in its manifestations and actions. Of the three individuals who acted during the era of union attempts between the Orthodox and Monophysites, each has its own specific physiognomy. The most outstanding fighter at this time was Sophronius of Jerusalem. Despite his extreme caution and the ensuing verbosity, completely indifferent, he gives monothelitism several blows so well-aimed that all the constructions of the opposing party fall apart. The Synod of Sophronius of Jerusalem was of great importance in the history of this dogmatic movement. It came from the pen of a man who understood the state of affairs. The Patriarch of Antioch was absent at this time; the other two - Constantinople and Alexandria - were against the Orthodox presentation of Sophronius. The slightest mistake on the part of Sophrony could lead to him being accused of non-Orthodoxy. Consequently, he had to conduct business in such a way that the most captious criticism could not find fault. As is known, the short story of King Justinian gave the unfavorable result for theology that those works of Cyril of Alexandria, which were not declared exemplary by the Council of Chalcedon, entered Christian dogmatics. For example, ἕνωσις (καθ᾽ ὑπόστασιν) was no longer the only expression, but was supplemented through ἕνωσις φυσική. Thus, under the exact dogma of two natures (united by hypostasis), one had to take into account such a formula as the one indicated. From this it is clear that the omission of any of these formulas, so pleasing to the Monophysites, could lead to accusations of unorthodoxy. Sophrony pointed out that in every nature there is a moment of activity, and deduced from this that every nature, by virtue of its nature, necessarily acts. Thus, the question of energies was firmly posed and all the dangerous points of the doctrine of two wills were avoided. Sergius could not stand on the dogmatic field against such an opponent as Sophrony, especially since Sophrony was soon elected to the Jerusalem see. But, in any case, as a politician, Sergius conducted his business excellently. Sophronius's message did not have the proper effect in the West precisely because Sergius knew how to take advantage of circumstances and conducted his business extremely skillfully. Sergius appears with a rather colorless physiognomy, but still definite: unproductive theologically, an adherent of paternal traditions, although it seemed, apparently, that he did not take part in the movement, he nevertheless understood perfectly well what he was going to. Taking the very step towards union with the Monophysites, he did it so skillfully that it seemed as if it was not Sergius who was doing this at all, but others; in fact, he constituted the hidden center around which the entire work of the union revolved. He appears to be maintaining a neutral position; he carefully keeps silent about his own steps in the dispute that has begun. According to his message, the question of one action arose in the conversation between the emperor and Paul completely by accident. Sergius himself not only does not introduce μία ἐνέργεια, but also does not give the appearance of prohibiting it. But it is easy to see that in reality he holds the dogmatic scales crookedly. He assumes as a matter of course that the unity of the will is the same as the unity of the actor. Thus, action, in his opinion, is associated not with the concept of nature, but with the concept of hypostasis. Sergius says about one action that it is mentioned by some fathers; the two actions are not mentioned in either of them. Further, “one action” sounds scary to some, but “two actions” tempts many. The first is inconvenient because it introduces the inexperienced into doubts that, in essence, according to Sergius, are unfounded; the second leads, as an inevitable consequence, to the recognition of two wills, which from his point of view is wicked. This is the dogmatic side of the matter. But next to it there is also a side - so to speak - a diplomatic one, an attitude towards Honorius as to the Bishop of Rome, and here Sergius showed himself to be an expert in the matter. He understood that it was very important for him to win over Honorius of Rome, eo ipso and all Western bishops. In this case, in Constantinople they knew how to be blind; they thought that if under a certain definition there is the signature of the Roman bishop, then the entire Western Church agrees; in reality it was not so. And Sergius won a brilliant victory on this basis. The most pathetic figure among the figures of this time is Honorius, the Pope. Due to the pitiful state of education in Rome, Honorius stood head and shoulders above his contemporaries in education, for which he enjoyed the greatest respect from them. In funeral orations he was sung with such praise that one could think that the Roman Church in his person had lost a universal luminary of no less magnitude than Athanasius. Meanwhile, Sergius managed to carry it out in such a way that he loudly proclaimed those subtle logical strokes and hints that were in Sergius’s message. But all those instructions and expressions that Sergius made in his message were appreciated not by Honorius himself, but thanks to the same Sergius. How little consciousness there was in his writing is evident from the attitude of the Roman clergy to the appearance there of ἔκθεσις, who presented only excerpts from the message of Sergius. The Roman clergy was strongly armed against this document, which represented only part of the message, which was entirely approved by Pope Honorius. Things got so weird that a person was shown who supposedly helped Honorius compose the message, which was hardly possible. How little consciousness there was in the actions of Honorius and therefore the right to leadership in the affairs of the Eastern Church is confirmed by the anathema imposed on him by the VI Ecumenical Council. Such a blunder on the part of Honorius, of course, is not favorable for the glory of Petrova’s department. Honorius's reply letter to Sergius is the subject of study for Catholic scholars of all times and nationalities. Cardinal Hergenröther, in his ecclesiastical history, on two pages of the dense Lexicon-Octavo corpus, listing only the most important on this issue, counts up to 16 scholars who decide the issue against it, and up to 82 who defend this message in more or less special works 112. Interest was especially revived by 1870, when the question of papal infallibility was being decided, and when it was natural to begin revising this letter, since it constituted thorns for the historical recognition of popes as infallible. Outstanding writers on this issue: for Honorius - the Italian Pennacchi, a Roman professor, against Honorius - the German Hefele, bishop. Rottenburg, followed by Ruckgaber. The research results were as follows. 1) Up to 14 scientists decided the matter in the most radical way: they assumed that the message of Honorius and the acts of the VI Ecumenical Council were interpolated. The view is definitely wrong. There is no doubt that the acts of the council were presented to the Roman legates, and if they checked the translations and found them correct, then there can be no question of fabricating them; and the message of Honorius was paid attention to regarding the case of Maximus the Confessor, so the legates had to appear at the council of 680–1 already prepared for this issue, and if in 680–1 there were no objections from the legates, then, consequently, at that time they were completely impossible. If we assume interpolation, then it is necessary to assume such in all monuments. Thus, one has to not deny the incriminating documents, but explain them somehow in order to apologize to the pope. The question of inauthenticity is a rusty weapon: both the message and the acts are undoubtedly authentic. In order to save the pope's cause, scientists, agreeing with the fact that Honorius was condemned by the VI Ecumenical Council, suggest that the council made an error facti here: the pope should have been condemned if he really said what was attributed to him, but the council misunderstood him. 2) To completely excuse the pope, many others say that Honorius, sending the message, like a wise shepherd, did so out of economic calculations, wanting to extinguish the dispute at the very beginning. But the economy, I must say, was bad! The point is that once the question has been posed, it cannot be considered not posed. And Honorius himself does not deny this; he gives his decision, taking the wrong side and, what’s more, he even ridicules the Orthodox side. But ridiculing those who are right is a poor means of appeasement. The conclusion from here is that dad was really mistaken. 3) But, others say, even if the pope was mistaken, he still did not write ex cathedra. In this case, of course, the fall of Honorius will not contradict Vatican dogma. But the question arises: when else could a pope write ex cathedra, if not in the case when half of the church turns to him for a solution to a question that is not personal, but dogmatic? 4) Feeling the weakness of this explanation, the fourth are trying to soften the harshness of the expressions of Honorius's message. They say: his second message does not contain such strong expressions as the first. But, after all, in the second message he does not renounce his previous opinions; and the only good thing about it is that there are quotes from the tomos of Leo. But the pope, of course, never denied the entire message of Leo, even when he wrote the first letter. 5) Fifth people say that Honorius took the question in the wrong formulation. It is true that Sergius posed the question slyly. But what was Honorius and the pope for if he could not distinguish between Orthodox or heretical teachings? Why didn't he give him the right lighting and then the same solution? 6) Suppose, say the defenders of Honorius, he allowed the heretical expression - ἓν θέλημα; but he connected the correct thought with this expression, for he recognized two natures in Christ. Honorius did not deny the two actions in Christ and did not refuse the expressions of Leo V. Thus, his whole fault is that he allowed the expression ἓν θέλημα. But once they admit that Honorius drew the wrong conclusion from correct premises, justification is impossible: both Sergius and Cyrus are no more heretics than the Pope, because every heresy is precisely an incorrect conclusion from some correct grounds, and a heresy with still false premises would be truly a miracle of miracles in history. It is pleasant to find Honorius’s sober view in resolving the issue of Orthodoxy in Catholic literature (Ruckgaber) 113. Pope Honorius did not renounce the tomos of Leo V., but did not follow it in its entirety; on the contrary, he wanted to correct him, as it were. He seems to deliberately avoid using the word “person” and substitute “conjunctio utriusque naturae,” so that a reader with a Monophysite tendency might be inclined to recognize only “a single complex nature.” While Leo V. recognizes that the God-man-Christ is one, but one side of Him shines with miracles, and the other is subject to humiliation, and thus distinguishes between one hypostasis and two natures, Honorius speaks of the unity of the divine-human life in Christ in such a way that God the Word is the bearer of all manifestations, both divine and human, not only as a principium quod - ὑπόστασις, but also as a principium quo – φύσις, that is, the divine hypostasis comes closer, according to Honorius, to the divine nature. Only by a special interpretation of the "ex cathedra", considered separately, does the Catholic scientist save his belief in papal infallibility. The Pope is infallible only when he says “ex cathedra”; and in all such cases, the entire universal church certainly agrees with his words. But the ecumenical council condemned Honorius; ergo Honorius did not speak ex cathedra. Honorius was a scientist and considered himself an astute dogmatist. Therefore, maintaining his learned authority, he did not limit himself to one colorless message, as sometimes happened before with Roman high priests; but he was not insightful enough to subject Sergius' message to thorough criticism. He further inflated the difference between the two wills, turning them into moral opposition. True, from Honorius there is also (in fragments) another message, more Orthodox, there are expressions of Leo V., such as: “both natures act”; but even here he tries to retain at least part of what he talked about earlier. Thus, the defenders of Honorius are right that Honorius is a little-conscious and independent Monothelite, but the fact remains: he confirmed the message of Sergius and joined the ranks of the Monothelites. This was the question in the first stage of its development. This question (about two energies in Christ) has been brewing for a long time, both in the dogmatic and historical sense. Only an accidental reason - the will of Justinian I, which forced theologians to deal with the question of three chapters instead of a purely dogmatic explanation of the doctrine of God-manhood, caused the fact that monothelitism did not appear a century earlier. The question of the three chapters, which filled most of Justinian’s reign, did not provide anything to clarify the dogma of the union of two natures in Christ; now theology has taken its direct path and set about revealing the truth expressed in the Chalcedonian creed. That this question is long overdue will become clear if we recall the history of Monophysitism. Already in the dispute between Sevier and Julian, the question of energy was clearly posed. Sevier came close to Orthodox teaching in that it recognized the difference and non-fusion in Christ of the definitions of His deity and humanity, His properties, ἰδιότητες. Only by posing the question: how these properties are revealed, it was possible to clarify the difference between Sevier’s point of view and the Orthodox one. Sevier did not deny, however, but he limited the relevance of these definitions. This limitation reflected the reserve of Monophysitism. These definitions were thought of as potential forces, eternally connected, simple possibilities without their detection. Human qualities were recognized, but human nature was denied, from which - according to Orthodox teaching - these qualities flow as actions, on which they depend as their cause. The impulse for these discoveries always comes only from the divine Word, human nature is not a factor. That is why the Monophysites did not want to recognize in Christ another, human nature (although they recognized human properties in Him), that the tomos of Leo V. and the Council of Chalcedon depict this nature with a strong moment of relevance, with a postulate for its inherent energy: “agit utraque forma quod proprium est.” By substituting ἰδιότης instead of φύσις, they wanted to replace the living factor with the abstract concept of form 114 . The question of one or two energies appears earlier in history than the question of one or two wills. This is explained by the fact that the latter contains more difficulties for human thought than the former. Ἐνέργεια is life in general; θέλησις (will) is the life of the spirit (energy in particular); θέλημα is the result of this energy (θελήσεως). Will is important in a person’s personal life next to his self-awareness. The will is the “I” addressed ad extra, while consciousness and self-consciousness are the “I” addressed to the inner man. The will, standing as the connecting link between our actions (multiplicity) and our “I” (unity), should have presented special difficulties for Christology due to the danger of its complete identification with self-consciousness, with personality. The question was asked about what will the will follow in the God-man: nature or hypostasis? Sergius and his like-minded people considered it beyond dispute that the will will follow the hypostasis, and from the point of view of “ἓν θέλημα”, as a ready-made given, they argued against “δύο ἐνέργειαι”, drawing from them a conclusion in the sense of δύο θελήσεις (or δύο θελήματα). Graphically, their method can be represented as follows. The wills in Christ are rooted in the single center of His divine-human self-consciousness (α') and in their difference are revealed only to the extent necessary for the unfused unity of two natures (difference with consent = bc). The monoficitists exaggerated this difference, bringing it to the point of contradiction (extending the lines to certain points - de, between which the distance was enormous (d opposite e - contradicts e), from these ends (from contradictory wills = θελήματα) they looked in the direction α' and bifurcated this center into β' and γ'), - from two wills they concluded to two willing = self-conscious persons. If we trace all previous attempts at unions with the Monophysites, we will have to divide them into sincere and mechanical attempts. A sincere attempt was made by Emperor Basilisk. He openly sided with the Monophysites and canceled the Council of Chalcedon. But this experience cost him his throne and his life. All subsequent union attempts were characterized by extreme mechanicalness: they were all aimed at luring the Monophysites into the fold of Orthodoxy. All of them were composed according to the same method, which consisted in hiding the real difference in views on one side and the other. The most famous of these experiments is the enoticon of Zeno. There are no exact dogmatic formulas here, neither Orthodox nor Monophysites, but only theological eloquent words that were not contrary to the Chalcedonian definition of faith, but seemed pleasant to the Monophysites, since they understood them as a hidden contradiction to the Fourth Ecumenical Council. Emperor Justinian moved along this line. In order to please the Monophysites, he willingly accepted into his dogmatic definitions expressions that were less precise, but which the Monophysites liked. Next to precise definitions, he placed less precise ones to obscure the meaning. From a theological point of view, such measures were illogical. This meant the same thing as if modern mathematicians, in relation to (more precise values ​​for) π, a quantity (not expressed in a finite number of signs), recognized a simpler, but less precise ratio 22:7. This would mean condemning the work of predecessors (who had already given more precise definitions). People who acted under Emperor Heraclius drew attention to the ambiguity of the doctrine of the two natures and tried to explain the two natures in application to more specific cases - will and action. They themselves made mistakes, but they gave a reason to speak out to people who were more gifted and who held Orthodox beliefs. The significance of the union attempt launched by Heraclius and Sergius lies in the fact that it promised to be non-mechanical. Sergius and his supporters did not hide the meaning of Orthodox teaching, but really wanted to clarify it, to show that the Chalcedonian teaching really does not contain what the Monophysites attributed to it: such two natures that are equivalent to two hypostases (two self-conscious wills). Second stage: dispute over wills While Sophronius of Jerusalem was alive, his protest against monothelitism did not allow Sergius to take advantage of the agreement reached with the bishop of Rome. But in 637 (638) Sophronius died. The See of Antioch was replaced by a fictitious Patriarch Macedonius, who lived in Constantinople. They decided to officially sum up everything done for the union, and in 638 the “statement of faith” (ἔκθεσις τῆς πίστεως) of Emperor Heraclius appeared. The text of this monument is extracted from the message of Sergius. “It is completely wicked,” it says, “to recognize in Christ two people who have opposite desires. If Nestorius did not dare to talk about two wills, but, on the contrary, pointed to the identity of the will, then how is it possible for the Orthodox to recognize two wills in Christ? One must strictly adhere to church teaching and recognize only one will in Christ incarnate.” With the appearance of this work, the question of monothelitism has already entered its second stage, from a monerergic dispute to a monothelitic dispute in the proper sense. Patriarch Sergius waited until the ekphesis was promulgated and died in the last month of 638. A little earlier (October 12, 638 sepelitur) Pope Honorius also died. Pyrrhus, the successor of Sergius, recognized the ekphesis and sent it to the Alexandrian patriarch Cyrus, who received this work with delight. This is not what happened in the West. In Rome the ekphesis was met with heated protest. At this time, there were disputes about the election of a pope. Despite pressure from the imperial governor (exarch), Severin was elected. On May 26, 640, he was recognized as the Roman bishop in Constantinople, and on August 2 of the same year he was no longer there. Severinus was succeeded by John IV. He ascended the papal throne on December 24 without the consent of the court of Constantinople. In 641, he convened a council, where it was decided to send a message to Constantinople, which said that there was no point in referring to the authority of Honorius, and insisted on the destruction of ekphesis. The elderly emperor completely despaired of pacifying the church and was even afraid of losing the west, where in 640 the following fact took place. A man from the east appeared in Gaul and began to preach the Monothelite teaching. A council was held in Orleans at which this teaching was condemned. Seeing the confusion of affairs in the church, Heraclius laid all the blame for the ecphesis on Sergius. He soon died on February 11, 641. After his death, troubles began. First, Heraclius’s son from his first wife, Constantine, ascended the throne; he lasted only 103 days on the throne and, as popular rumor suspected, was poisoned by Martina, Heraclius’s second wife. But Martina herself, who began to rule on behalf of her son Heraclius II (= Herakloni 115), suffered along with the latter 6 months after this death. Pyrrhus was deposed and exiled, and Paul took his place. The throne passed to the grandson of Heraclius, the son of his eldest son Constantine (= Constant). In Rome they began to hope that Heraclius' policies would be abandoned. Pope Theodore, the successor of John IV, began to demand that Paul abolish the ekphesis. But it turned out that Heraclius’s policy was supported in full force even under Constans. Relations between Rome and Constantinople became more and more strained. Paul clearly expressed his Monothelite convictions, for which Theodore declared him deposed. Meanwhile, in 643, a council of bishops was formed in the east who took the side of Rome. They wrote to the Bishop of Rome that they would have united with him long ago, but hoped that the troubles would be resolved by themselves; now they ask for the condemnation of monothelitism. At this time, the strongest opponent of monothelitism was Maximus the Confessor. Maximus the Confessor turns out to be a central figure in the history of the question of wills in Jesus Christ. Unfortunately, no accurate information about his life has been preserved. The existing Greek biographies of him are positively bad, since they were written at a later time by compilers. What was factual in the sources, they changed to their own eloquence. Even those facts that they proclaim as positive cause mistrust. So, for example, the assurance that Maximus the Confessor retired to a monastery due to the flourishing of the Monothelite heresy turns out to be so chronologically untenable that it shows a complete misunderstanding of the matter. (It is also reported) that Maxim was a monk of the Chrysopolis monastery or even its abbot. He was hardly an abbot, but he really was a monk of one Asia Minor monastery. In 615 or 626 he had to flee from Persian persecution. Perhaps he was also in the monasteries of Constantinople, and his cell was in (Βέσσαι) 116, but what kind of area it was is difficult to determine. In general, the first years of the monasticism of Maximus the Confessor remain, therefore, poorly illuminated. The most valuable are his own testimony at the trial, when he was a 75-year-old man (he was born in 580). Then one could see in him a man who had gone through more than one theological school. In this case, he turned out to be a practical lawyer: he showed a practical understanding of cases during legal proceedings. When, apparently, he was in danger, he felt calm, safe, because he felt legally right, and his premonitions were justified. As soon as he began to worry, then things turned out to be unfavorable for him. There is nothing more natural than to assume that with his legal education he occupied an outstanding social position; but he was not the leader of political affairs. He is called the first secretary of the emperor. In general, he was in the service of Emperor Heraclius and was in close relations with his family. Maybe it was a home service. At the trial, Emperor Constant treated him with restraint, seeing him as an old servant of his house. The first years of Maximus the Confessor were not marked by anything on the Monothelite issue. The Persian invasion forced him to retire to Africa; there he could have established relations with the Latin West. It's hard to determine how long he's been here. At the time of the announcement of the union of Cyrus, he was not in Alexandria, and Sophronius alone spoke out against the union. After this, he appears near Constantinople and represents a venerable theological power. Even Sergius previously sent him a draft ekphesis for consideration. Whether it was monastic humility or something else that guided Maximus, he did not treat ekphesis with such disapproval as he did towards typos. He calls Sergius (in a letter to Pyrrhus, who was then a presbyter and abbot) the second Moses, the visible organ of divine revelation, and humbly declares his unworthiness and incompetence. But in the end he spoke in such a way that Sergius could well understand that the essential point (μία ἐνέργεια) presented many difficulties. Sergius, however, did not foresee a future fighter in Maxim. When Heraclius and Sergius left the scene, Maximus had no relations with Pyrrhus until 645, when he met and had a dispute with him in Africa. Here Maximus is a defender of the Diphelitian teaching. This dispute between the ex-patriarch of Constantinople Pyrrhus and St. Maximus took place in the presence of the imperial governor Gregory, a completely Orthodox man, who at that time was preparing to resign from the Constantinople government. The anticipation of this political change probably influenced Pyrrhus in the sense that he decided to draw closer to Orthodoxy and surrender - after a rather weak defense - to his in all respects strongest enemy. The dispute revolved around the following points. 1) Both opponents recognized the qualitative difference of desires in Christ (as ἰδιότητες, as private manifestations). But Pyrrhus did not want to allow two wills for fear that this duality would dissolve the unity of deity and humanity in Christ. Maximus replied that if two natures cannot dissolve the unity in Christ, then two wills cannot do this either. 2) Pyrrhus argued that two wills must presuppose two willers, that is, two hypostases. Maxim objected that if two wills presuppose two willers, then vice versa - two willers must presuppose two wills. But such logic, applied consistently, leads to either Sabellianism or Arianism. According to the teachings of the church, in the Father, Son and Holy Spirit there is only one will. If we conclude from this that there is one willer in them, then we get Sabellianism. Or: Father, Son and Holy Spirit, according to the teachings of the church, are three hypostases. Should we conclude from this that in the Trinity there are both three wills and three wills? That would be Arianism. 3) Pyrrhus believed that two wills cast doubt even on the moral unity of the Person of Christ and could come into conflict with each other. Maxim noted to this that there can be no contradictions in the Person of Christ: if human nature inevitably led to this, then this would have to be attributed to the Creator of human nature himself - God; and God cannot contradict Himself. If this contradiction (as it happens in us) depends on sin, then in Christ, as sinless by nature, this contradiction is unacceptable. 4) Next, Pyrrhus began to dispute the theoretical foundation of diopheliteism: the will follows nature, and not the hypostasis. This, in his opinion, is impossible, since a) the will, by its very essence, is subject to change, but nature is unchangeable; b) if the will follows nature, then from the unity of the will it must also conclude to the unity of nature, and in this case it is necessary to recognize the saints as consubstantial with God, since their will is one with the will of God. Maximus responded to this by noticing that Pyrrhus confuses the object of desire with desire itself, or will, as an integral property of the human soul, human nature. The saints agree with God in the object of will, but do not have one will with God. Wants, in the sense of individual manifestations, are, of course, varied and changeable; but these are only different applications (modi) of the same faculty of will, as an inalienable (and therefore unchangeable) property of human nature. Pyrrhus continued to object: c) what is natural is necessary; if the will in Christ follows His nature, then it will not be free, and Christ will thus submit to the law of necessity. Maxim noted that this is an old song: the Arians also said that if God did not give birth to the Son by will, then He is subject to necessity. But it is known that they answered this sophism: He is good by nature; but does this mean that He is subject to the law of necessity? 5) Pyrrhus then made a proposal: instead of two wills, to recognize in Christ a single complex will (ἓν τὸ σύνθετον), just as the church confesses in Christ a single complex Person - the God-Man. Maxim objected that a complex will is metaphysically unacceptable. There are three categories of objects: some have existence for themselves (ὑποστάσεις); others - being in hypostasis (᾽ενυπόστατα, such as nature); third - being in nature (ἔμφυτα), to which category the will also belongs. Maximus allows the possibility of addition only between hypostases, but not between ἐνυπόστατα and ἔμφυτα; otherwise one would have to add infinity with finitude, mortal with immortal, which represents a metaphysical confusion. If the fathers spoke about the communion of divine and human definitions (hence about the communion of ἐμφύτων), such as, for example, glory and humiliation, then they allowed this only “per antidosin”: these are two definitions, and the common thing between them is that both belong to one; and if Pyrrhus wants to recognize the two as something common, κοινόν, in this sense, then he must first recognize the two wills in Christ as precisely two. 6) Against the recognition of a special human will in Christ, Pyrrhus pointed out that Christ’s humanity was subject to the beck of the deity. Maximus pointed out that David and Moses obeyed the beck of the Divine; that to take this point of view would mean dividing Christ in two. Orthodox teaching is that Christ, as God, wanted the divine, and as man, wanted the human; that just as everything that exists has its own δύναμις, so in humanity there is ὁρμή and ᾽αφορμή (natural attraction and natural desire for self-preservation), which were also manifested in Christ (fear of death). 7) Pyrrhus’s proposal: in the interests of the church world to be content with the recognition that Christ is true God and true man, and not to mention anything else, Maxim rejected by pointing to the dogmatic term: “κατ᾽ ἄλλο καὶ ἄλλο,” which requires a detailed explanation, and - 8) a reference to the fact that the councils do not speak about two wills, with the remark that (a) the councils do not speak about “μία φύσις τοῦ Θεοῦ Λόγου σεσαρκωμένη”, and (b) that the doctrine of two wills is contained implicite in the doctrine of the preservation of the actual properties of both natures, because the will is φυσικῶς ἐμπέφυκε to humanity. As a plant grows, so the rational wills (θέλει). 9) Pyrrhus proposed to allow in Christ a single will, the will of γνωμικήν; Maximus replied that this term was unclear because the word γνώμη has 28 meanings, and that if by γνώμη we mean τρόπος ζωῆς, then the way of life presupposes choice, and choice presupposes will. – 10) Hypostatic will, as Pyrrhus proposed, cannot be allowed either: in God there are three hypostases, therefore, it would turn out that there are three wills in him. – 11) A complex will is unacceptable (in addition to what was said ad 5) also because the complex presupposes the simple. The question of energies was already predetermined by the question of wills. The most interesting in this regard is Pyrrhus’s attempt to prove that in Christ there is one ἐνέργεια, because the action of His deity and humanity gives a single result, ἓν ἀποτέλεσμα; so the blow of a red-hot sword produces one effect. Maxim refuted this argument with the remark that a) ἀποτέλεσμα – ἔξω τοῦ Χριστοῦ, and when talking about energies and wills, we are talking about the fact that ἐν τῷ Χριστῷ. But b) he did not allow for real unity of the result: a red-hot sword produces two effects - it both burns and cuts. The dispute ended favorably for Maxim. Pyrrhus, defending himself delicately and weakly, expressed a desire to enter into communion with the Orthodox, only not in Africa, but in Rome, where he went and where he was actually accepted into communion by Pope Theodore I. Meanwhile, lively church activity was going on in Africa: councils were convened against the Monothelites in Byzacene, Numidia and proconsular Africa. The fathers energetically encouraged the pope to oppose the Patriarch of Constantinople. But Pyrrhus did not wear the mask for long: in 647 he arrived in Ravenna and here again accepted the Constantinople faith (Gregory’s attempt ended in his death). In Rome, Pyrrhus was anathematized for this, and the document about this was signed not in ink, but by St. blood from the cup. Patriarch Paul of Constantinople responded to the energy of the Pope with the following measures: a) he broke the throne on which the apocrisiaries of the pope performed divine services, and forbade them to perform the liturgy; b) secondly, he prompted the emperor to issue the so-called “τύπος περὶ τῆς πίστεως”, which differed from ἔκθεσις’a only in that it had the nature of an edict, while it was a dogmatic treatise. The emperor declared that he was aware of the unrest taking place in the church: some recognize a single will, claiming that one and the same performs both divine and human actions; others recognize two wills and two actions; the former proceed from the concept of Christ as one in hypostasis, the latter from the concept of two natures that invariably retain their properties. In view of these disputes, the emperor commanded that his subjects should not argue with each other about either one will or two: they must adhere to the status quo that existed in the church before. An amnesty was declared for those responsible for the disputes; it was forbidden to blame and condemn each other for the past; but for those who argue in the future, the edict threatens with deposition, resignation from office, confiscation, corporal punishment and exile. Typos, of course, could not reconcile the defenders of Orthodoxy with the Monophysites. They laughed at the edict that he recognizes I. Christ ἀκίνητον, like soulless idols. In comparison with ekphesis, typos represents a step back in the sense of monothelitism. By contrasting the doctrine of one and two energies in Christ, ekphesis places greater responsibility on the adherents of the latter doctrine; in the typos, the argumentation of both sides is truly reproduced objectively and equally conscientiously. In ekphesis, instead of the unpleasant δύο ἐνέργειαι, the Monothelites introduce ἓν θέλημα, sacrificing the beloved μία ἐνέργεια; Typos also refuses to use this favorite expression ἓν θέλημα, being content not to challenge it and not to replace it with the directly opposite - If we compare the attempts of the Monothelites with the attempts of the Monophysites, then ekphesis will be compared with ἐγκύκλιον Basiliscus, and typos - with the enoticon of Zeno. From this it becomes clear that the Monophysites entered life with more energy than the Monothelites: those (in ἐγκύκλιον’e) could dream of a complete victory over the Chalcedonian faith, these directly begin with concessions. Both typos and enoticon want to achieve unity by keeping silent about exact dogmatic formulas; but the typos is more moderate than the enoticon: it does not contain that hidden reproach to the Council of Chalcedon that is read between the lines in the edict of Zeno. Typos no longer found Pope Theodore alive. Martin was chosen as his successor (May 13, 649), who had previously been the Apocrisiary of Constantinople. His election took place without the consent of the Emperor of Constantinople. Martin did not accept the typos and convened the Lateran Council, which was attended by 105 bishops and which had 5 secretaries (meetings) from October 5 to October 31, 649. Most of the fathers were Western bishops. From the East there were: Stephen, Bishop of Dor, authorized by Patriarch Sophronius, and the abbots of the Greek monasteries in Rome. The meeting was opened by a speech by the pope, in which he outlined the course of affairs that had taken place in Constantinople. At the second meeting, Stefan Dorsky asked the pope to take up the restoration of Orthodoxy, which Sophronius defended. From the third meeting, the actual council investigation began about Sergius, Cyrus and Paul of Constantinople. At the fourth meeting, the view of Theodore of Faran was mainly considered. In his teaching about μία ἐνέργεια, ταύτης δὲ τεχνίτης καὶ δημιουργὸς ὁ Θεός, the pope saw Apollinarianism (usually recognized as the source of monothelitism) and Arianism (if God is the creator of energy, then this is operatio condita; and as energy is, such is nature; ergö Christ is a created being); and Theodore’s opinion that Christ ἀόγκως and, so to speak, ἀσωμάτως passed from the womb of St. Virgo, recognized as Docetic and Manichaean. The fifth meeting was especially important. In some places from the writings of heretics it was proven that they had already outlined Monothelite questions. In some places from St. Fathers proved that a) ἐνέργεια is σύνδρομος of nature, b) that in Christ both deity and humanity have a will, and c) that in Christ both deity and humanity act. Then the Chalcedonian definition of faith was read with the addition: “we confess both two unfused natures of one and the same, and two natural wills of divinity and humanity, in full assurance that one and the same Lord desires and brings about our divine and human salvation.” 20 canons contain anathematisms against the Monothelite teaching and its leaders. The pope tried, through the Frankish kings, to put pressure on the government of Constantinople, and he himself appointed John, Bishop of Philadelphia, as his legate to the east, to carry out the determination of the Lateran Council. But in the east, opposition to the council came primarily from the side from which one least expected. Paul of Thessalonica, who according to the traditions of his church should have been a preacher of Roman influence, as vicarius sedis apostolicae, turned out to be an opponent of the council. Even before the council, he expressed himself very vaguely in his sociable letter and shied away from signing the formula sent to him from Rome, and instead of signing it, he presented his new confession of faith, with some Monothelite expressions. For this, the pope pronounced deposition and anathema on him. Meanwhile, a thunderstorm was gathering over dad. Even during the conciliar meetings, the imperial legate Olympius arrived in Rome with instructions to capture Martin. But he entered into friendly relations with Martin and, having secret plans against Byzantium, went on a campaign against the Saracens, where he died of an ulcer. Friendship with the conspirator Olympius did a lot of damage to the pope. On Saturday, June 15, 653, a new imperial envoy, Calliope, appeared in Rome. Fearing popular indignation, he refrained from hostile actions against the pope on Sunday; but on Monday the pope was searched, citing the complicity of Martin with Olympius. The weapons they were looking for in the bishopric, of course, were not found. The Pope, who was ill at this time, sensing evil, decided to go to the Lateran Cathedral and placed his bed in front of the throne. But at midnight Calliope appeared at the church and arrested the pope, accused of being installed uncanonically and illegally - irregulariter et sine lege - that he was teaching incorrectly about St. Virgo and sends money to the Saracens. He then put the pope on a ship and sent him to Constantinople on June 19, where he arrived on September 17. That evening he was sent to prison, where he remained for 93 days. On December 20, he was demanded to appear in court. A sacellarius presided, who ordered the pope, as the accused, to stand, despite his illness. The prosecutors began directly with political treason, and they also produced witnesses. Martin began: “When the typos was sent to Rome ...”, but the chairman did not allow him to talk about faith and demanded an answer directly to the accusations that he did not restrain Olympius from his hostile plans. Martin replied: “You could not stop Valentine in Constantinople; how could I hold Olympius, who had an army and weapons? This was such an answer that the translator, who dared to convey it to the ears of the crowd, received a severe reprimand for it: Constant owed his throne precisely to this indignation of Valentine. Fearing answers that would be just as strong, Sacellarius stopped the investigation and went with a report to the emperor. Having received his answer, he ordered that the pope’s holy robes be torn off and exposed to the mockery of the crowd, who were forced to shout to him: anathema! Then they put him in prison, where they treated him extremely cruelly and rudely. Paul of Constantinople, who was lying dying and complained that the inhuman treatment of Martin would be imputed to him, the patriarch, at the judgment of Christ, appeared as an intercessor for him. Pyrrhus was chosen as Paul's successor. Martin was now demanded to admit that in Rome Pyrrhus had been treated cruelly and had been forced by force to renounce his monothelitism. But Martin, of course, refused such recognition. On March 26, 655, he was sent to Tauride Kherson, where he died on September 16 of the same year. Back in (August) 654, his successor was elected - Eugene I. An interesting question is: did the Constantinople government believe the accusations that were leveled against the pope? - Probably yes. In those troubled times, everyone saw in an important person a public figure with a political character. Pyrrhus himself was more of a political partisan than a church leader. His very relationship to Martin, his repentance for Monothelitism and a new appeal to Monothelitism are explained from political goals. Therefore, the suspicious Constantinople government did not trust the political trustworthiness of the pope, just as it looked at the activities of Maximus, whom they took after Martin, from a political point of view. In 655, Maxim was captured and brought to Constantinople along with his student Anastasius 117, and here he was accused of a political crime. They blamed him for the fact that the Saracens took Egypt, interpreting his friendly relations with the governor Gregory in the sense of political treason, that he loved only the Latins and did not love the Greeks. Regarding the last point, Maxim agreed, explaining that he loves Latins not for their nationality, but for their Orthodoxy. Then another semi-political accusation against Maximus was that he did not recognize the emperor and the high priest and even anathematized him. To the question: “Τί οὖν; " (Ergo non est omnis christianus imperator etiam sacerdos?) - Maxim answered decisively: “οὐκ ἕστιν” (non est!). But he just as firmly rejected the idea that the anathema with which he anathematized the typos also applied to the emperor: the typos, as an ecclesiastical document, lies outside the competence of state power, and was drawn up not by the emperor himself, but by other persons who misled the sovereign himself. Maximus proved that the emperor was not a sacerdos (among other things) by the fact that emperors are remembered at divine services (together with the laity, after persons of the sacred rank). And Maxim rejected the accusation of Origenism, pronouncing an anathema against Origen. During the interrogations, Maxim was treated gently - in the hope of inducing him to reconciliation: at that time a new union project, outlined earlier by Presbyter Peter, was being developed in Constantinople. Its essential difference from the typos was that while in the typos it was forbidden to speak of both one and two wills, here it was allowed to recognize in Christ both one will (hypostatic) and two wills (natural), and one action and two actions. They tried by all means to persuade Maximus to accept this project of three wills in Christ and to reconcile, on the basis of it, with the Church of Constantinople. It was argued that even Pope Eugene I himself was ready to make this compromise, and his apocrisiaries entered into communication with the Patriarch of Constantinople. Maxim did not agree to this compromise, although he was threatened with both anathema and the death penalty for his obstinacy; he argued that the apocrisiaries had exceeded their authority. Indeed, when they returned to Rome with the message of Peter, now the Patriarch of Constantinople, in which he quite secretly set out the doctrine of the three wills in Christ, the clergy and people did not release the pope from the church until he made a promise to reject Peter’s message. Maximus, meanwhile, was exiled to Visia (in Thracian Europe). Theodosius, Bishop of Caesarea in Bithynia, came to him here and persuaded him to enter into an agreement with Constantinople. But all attempts by Theodosius to reconcile Maximus with the Constantinople status quo were unsuccessful; he managed, however, to arouse in Maxim hope for the restoration of Orthodoxy in the east. Maxim willingly promised his assistance in this. But the hope was not fulfilled; Maximus was in fact taken into custody and kept in one monastery or another until a final decision was made in Constantinople in relation to the Diphelites. The council that was held there anathematized him along with Sophronius and Martin. Maxim and his two students were sentenced to have their tongues and hands cut and exiled to Lazika. Maxim died on August 13, 662. After these events there was a lull. Rome, taking advantage of the unrest, began a unique life. Since the time of Justinian, bishops have been installed in Rome with the consent of Byzantium. Now in Rome they began to do without this consent. Pope Eugene lived peacefully with Constantinople. His successors also maintained relations with Byzantium, and when Constant decided to move his capital to Rome, he was greeted there with great honor. Constant executed his brother, who had already been ordained a deacon, on charges of political treason. The Byzantine people did not silently endure such a great atrocity, and began to call the emperor Cain. The emperor was so upset by this that he began to imagine his dead brother holding a cup filled with his own blood. Under the influence of this, the emperor came to the idea that he needed to flee from Byzantium, and he went to Rome, from where he moved to Sicily, where he was killed by the conspirators. These latter appointed a certain Mzhezh as the successor to the murdered emperor. But Constant's son Constantine managed to triumph. He was called “Pogonat” because he went against Mzhezh without a beard and returned with a beard 118. Constantine was clearly aware of the need for communication between Rome and Constantinople. Although he did not officially reject the typos, he did not insist on it either. But while relations between Rome and Constantinople gradually improved, relations between the churches of Rome and Constantinople remained tense under Constantine Pogonatus and even threatened to worsen. For example, the Patriarch of Constantinople Theodore (from 678) did not consider it convenient to send his συνοδικὸν (communicative message) to Rome, fearing that he would not be received there, but sent only an admonishing message (προτρεπτικὴ ἐπιστολή), by which he invited the Roman Church to restore communion with the Church of Constantinople. And in Constantinople, together with Macarius of Antioch, Theodore in every possible way (and not without success) persuaded the emperor to delete from the church diptychs all the successors of Honorius in the Roman see. But the emperor wanted church peace, and therefore in 678, after concluding a peace treaty with the Avars, he turned to Pope Domnus with a request to send two or three Roman quirites and up to 12 Western bishops to Constantinople for a conference for a peaceful discussion of controversial dogmatic issues: the emperor considered the meeting of an ecumenical council not entirely convenient. The emperor's message was handed over to Domnus' successor Agathon, who took the sovereign's good undertaking with all seriousness. At the invitation of Agathon, bishops came to the Roman Council not only from Italy, but also from Gaul and Britain; Preliminary councils were held in Milan and Geathfield (in Britain). In Rome, around Easter 680, 125 bishops gathered under the chairmanship of Pope Agathon. The result of the council was an embassy of deputies to Constantinople with messages from the fathers of the council and from the pope himself. In his letter, the pope expounds the doctrine of two wills in Christ on the basis of the tradition of the Roman Church, which has never erred from the path of truth (nunquam a via veritatis in qualibet erroris parte defluxa est), the purity of whose teaching has always remained intact. Therefore, the predecessors of Agathon, when the Patriarchs of Constantinople introduced innovations, incessantly (indesinenter) defended Orthodoxy and exposed those who were in error: Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paul and Peter. And now the pope calls on everyone to return to the Orthodox teaching contained in the Church of Peter, which has not darkened the light of its teaching and is alien to the attack of any error - quae ejus (Christi)? gratia et praesidio ab omni errore illibata permanet. The letter of the Council Fathers is also filled with praise for the Orthodoxy of the Western Church. “The light of the teaching of our catholic and apostolic faith, proceeding from the source of all light - Christ, through the princes - the apostles Peter and Paul and their successors in the Roman see up to and including Agathon, shines to the whole world, and no heretical darkness will darken it (nulla haeretici erroris tetra caligine funebratum)." Then the fathers confessed that, due to unfavorable external circumstances, they did not possess deep theological learning, and therefore simply expounded the faithful doctrine of two wills and actions in Christ and condemned the leaders of the Monothelites: Theodore of Parano, Cyrus of Alexandria, and Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paul and Peter of Constantinople. The Roman delegates arrived in Constantinople on September 10, 680, where they were received with honor, and soon then took part in the solemn procession to the Blachernae Church of the Virgin Mary. The Patriarch of Constantinople at that time was no longer Theodore, a determined opponent of the Roman Church, but George, a Monothelite, but conciliatory. On the very day of the arrival of the delegates, the emperor gave a sacra to George of Constantinople, with which he instructed him to convene the metropolitans and bishops to an ecumenical council, and notify Macarius of Antioch, the titular patriarch who lived in Constantinople, about this. The sees of Alexandria and Jerusalem were widowed at this time (the first from 653, the second from (638), however, these sees also had their representatives at the council in the person of Presbyter Peter, locum tenens of the Alexandrian throne, and presbyter (apocrisiary of Presbyter Theodore, locum tenens of the Jerusalem throne) George. Thus, beyond the expectations of the emperor, the sixth ecumenical council was held, which had 18 meetings from November 7, 680 to September 16, 681 οὕτω λεγομένῳ Τρούλλῳ, or, as Anastasius the Librarian says) in basilica, quae Trullus appellatur, intra palatium. On November 7, the cathedral was opened under the chairmanship of the emperor. The Emperor was present at the 1st–11th and 18th sessions; At the 12th–17th meeting, the emperor, distracted by state affairs, sent representatives in his place. The number of fathers at all meetings of the council was not the same: at the 1st meeting there were 43 bishops; under the 18th, 174 signed, and Theophan brings their number even to 289. On the left side of the emperor sat the pope’s vicars, presbyters Theodore and George and Deacon John (who therefore signed above the Patriarch of Constantinople), then the delegates of the Roman Council and the Apocrisiary of Jerusalem (and a few more persons); on the right are the dignitaries and all the other fathers of the council. The VI Ecumenical Council is remarkable in that there could be no talk of pressure from state power on its fathers. The emperor declared that he was convening the council not for any ulterior political purposes, but solely to clarify the truth, and these words were spoken completely sincerely. How he understood his participation in the affairs of the cathedral, he expressed this in his signature under the cathedral ὅρος. The fathers of the cathedral signed in the usual form: “having determined, signed – ὁρίσας ὑπέγραψα”, and the emperor, after all of them, signed: “we have read and agreed to this – ἀνέγνωμεν καὶ συνῃνέσαμεν.” The fathers of the council were given complete freedom of speech, both Orthodox and defenders of monothelitism. The reasoning was carried out with all scientific caution: every step was verified by documents: the teachings of the ecumenical councils and patristic passages were compared against the best manuscripts of the Constantinople Chartophylakia. The main defenders of monothelitism were Macarius of Antioch and his disciple monk Stephen; they were supported by Peter of Nicomedia and Solomon of Clan from Galatia; Patriarch George of Constantinople also sympathized with them. The course of the council's actions was outlined clearly and logically. First of all, the Roman ambassadors addressed the emperor; pointing to the unrest caused by monothelitism in the church, which the bishops of Rome unsuccessfully opposed, they demanded an account from the eastern ones for the innovation that appeared to them 46 years ago. Macarius of Antioch said: “There are no innovations; we adhere to the same teaching of the holy fathers and ecumenical councils, which was followed by Sergius, Cyrus and Honorius, Paul and Peter.” Then they decided to read the acts of the Ecumenical Councils III, IV and V. They were read in full. In general, the reading did not provoke any polemical comments. The famous “Agit utraque forma” was read with great animation in the tomos of Leo V. (in the acts of the IV Ecumenical Council). At the same time, the papal legates noticed that two actions were spoken of here, and wanted to know what Macarius thought about this. This one noticed that the words “δύο ἐνέργειαι”, in any case, are not in the passage read. - “So, do you think that Lev V. is talking about μία ἐνέργεια here?” the legates objected. “I do not use numbers,” answered Macarius, “but I am talking with Dionysius the Areopagite about θεανδρικὴ ἐνέργεια.” - “What do you mean by it”? asked the emperor. “I don’t define this either,” said Macarius. – When the reading of the Acts of the Fifth Council began, they soon noticed that something dubious was being read. They began to examine the documents, and discovered a rather gross forgery of the Monothelites: a message from Mina to Vigilius was inserted with the doctrine of ἓν θέλημα; but it turned out that the three quaterniones (notebooks) on which this message was written in a different hand were unnumbered: the 4th quaternio was marked with the number α', the 5th with the number β' 119 . Act VII contained two forged messages from Vigilius: to Theodora and Justinian, which spoke of the same action. The legates said that this document was also forged, because if Vigilius had spoken about one action, then the same would have been repeated by the fathers of the council, who accepted this message from Vigilius. When the acts of all the councils were read, the question was raised: what teaching is contained in them regarding the controversial subject. The fathers of the council could not admit (as Macarius argued) that the ecumenical councils taught about a single action and a single will. Then Macarius promised to present patristic evidence in defense of Monothelitism, and presented two scrolls; he was allowed to present another one. Copies of the documents were distributed to the fathers of the cathedral for verification, and the originals were sealed and placed in the archives. The Roman legates presented evidence in defense of diphelitism. George, of Constantinople, declared his agreement with the teaching set forth in the epistles of Agathon and 125 Western fathers. On the contrary, Macarius of Antioch flatly refused to recognize dithelitism. The most important Monothelite document at the council was Macarius' confession of faith. In it, he especially emphasized the fact that in Christ two natures were preserved unchanged; but God the Word did nothing either divine, like God, or human, like man: ἀνθρώπινα,” - but produced some new “godly” and completely life-giving effect. He accomplished all of our salvation Himself, although through our entire nature: spirit, soul and body, for it is impossible for one and the same Christ to have two desires at the same time, either mutually opposite, or at least similar. His flesh never produced its natural movement separately and according to its own desire, but only when and how God the Word wanted. Patristic quotations (Macarius) spoke partly about the unity of will of God the Word with God the Father, partly about the hypostatic unity of the God-man; places from which it was necessary to conclude about natural human desire in Christ were missed by Macarius. To judge the nature of this patriotic argument, it is enough to point out how Macarius uses the expression of St. Cyril of Alexandria (from the interpretation of St. John): “Christ, through both, manifested a single related energy - μίαν συγγενῆ δἰ ἀμφοῖν ἐνέργειαν”; therefore He is ὁμοεργὴς with God the Father. These words mean in context that Christ, although he became man (hence, in two natures), but performed the same actions as God the Father (incorporeal); therefore, this passage speaks only about the consubstantiality of the Son with the Father in Divinity. Macarius understood him about the unity of action in two natures. When examining the patristic passages, it turned out that Macarius recognized in Christ the nature of the first man before the Fall, but at that moment he did not recognize natural will in Adam. The consideration of the places indicated by both Macarius and the legates ended with the deposition of Macarius. Representatives of government authorities expressed a desire for the fathers of the council to give Macarius time to think, with the hope of his restoration upon conversion. But the council did not hope for a sincere conversion of Macarius and therefore elected Theophan in his place. But after the council, Macarius and his disciple Stephen went to Rome to have an explanation with the pope. Having finished with the dogmatic question, the fathers of the council began to reason about the former bishops. Sophrony was recognized as completely Orthodox; Sergius, Theodore of Faran, Cyrus, Pyrrhus, Paul and Peter are anathematized. But the fathers ranked Honorius of Rome among this class (13th meeting on March 28, 681), and his writings, the authenticity of which the legates themselves were convinced of, as well as the works of Sergius and Cyrus, were recognized as completely alien to the apostolic dogmas and the teachings of St. fathers and councils and those who agree with the teachings of heretics. The Roman legates listened silently and signed an anathema against Honorius. One must think that the pope gave them secret instructions on this matter; for although the messages from the West contained traditional phrases about the unchanging Orthodoxy of the Roman high priests, they, of course, saw in advance that the work of Honorius was unclean and would not end without anathema. This is the main course of affairs at the council. Some episodes are woven into this main thread. 1) The first episode took place on March 7, 681 at the 8th meeting. Theodore, Bishop of Melisin, when submitting his opinions on the message of Pope Agathon, declared himself that he was a simple, rustic man and did not know how to speak well, and asked permission to submit his opinion in writing. He confessed that in Christ there is one hypostasis and two natures, and as for the will, this question was not resolved by the fathers, and it should not be resolved so as not to go beyond the eternal limits set by the fathers; Therefore, let no one be condemned because of this issue, except the heretics who have already been condemned. Thus, the Melitene bishop took the point of view of the typos. But it soon became clear that he simply served as a screen for other persons standing behind him, Peter of Nicomedia and Solomon of Clanaia, who, however, upon discovery of the case, submitted Orthodox statements. 2) On August 9, 681 (16th meeting), the Anamian presbyter (Syria II) Constantine came up with a proposal for a middle path that was supposed to satisfy everyone and lead to peace. Not particularly strong in theology himself, he relied on the competence of Macarius of Antioch, from whom he heard that there is one will in Christ. Constantine wrote some Syriac statement of faith, in which he stated “what God had given him,” and asked that this statement be translated into Greek. But since he himself still spoke Greek, the fathers of the council invited him to explain himself verbally. Konstantin's view was as follows. a) He, in accordance with the Council of Chalcedon, confesses in Christ one hypostasis and two natures, b) Admitting directly that “μία ὑπόστασις” is incomprehensible to him, he clarifies this term for himself by recognizing in God the Word one will, one even after the incarnation, for the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are one will. c) In two natures, he recognizes two properties, and if an action is the same as a property, then he agrees to recognize two actions in Christ - Since point (b) concealed an internal contradiction - Constantine α) considered “will” as an indicator of hypostasis; β) but recognizing in Christ with one hypostasis God the Word and one will, this unity of will was at the same time motivated by the fact that in the Holy Trinity there is one being of nature - then the fathers of the council asked: does the one will in Christ belong to His divine nature, or to His human? – d) “Deity,” answered Constantine. – Did the human nature of Christ have a will or not? - e) “Yes, it had a natural will from its mother’s womb to the cross, but I recognize this natural will as a property.” - How do you mean “to the cross?” But did Christ leave human nature after the cross? - f) “No human will remained with Him, but it remained with flesh and blood, because He has no need to eat, drink, sleep, or walk.” – Since Constantine recognized in Christ one hypostatic will (b) and one natural will (e), he was invited to explain how there is still one will in Christ. Constantine replied that “Christ abandoned the natural will and stripped it from Himself along with flesh and blood.” Thus, it turned out that Constantine extremely vaguely and incorrectly understands the very unity of the two natures in Christ. The council anathematized Constantine as a new Apollinaris and Manichaean. Constantine, unlike other Monothelites, was ready to recognize two actions in Christ; but in the doctrine of the will he stood on the shaky ground of the difference between “θέλησις ὑποστατικὴ” and “θελησις φυσική”, and naturally became confused, considering will both as an indicator of hypostasis, and as an indicator of nature as a property. But in his view, the characteristics of a person who thinks in Syriac and has not fully mastered the Greek language clearly appear. The Syrians convey the concept of “φύσις” with the word כּיׇנׇא kjōnô; for the concept “πρόσωπον – ὑπόστασις” they have two terms - foreign פַרְעוֹפׇא parsôpô πρόσωπον, and Syriac קנומָא qnûmô. This latter perfectly expresses the moment of self-awareness of the individual, and usually replaces the pronouns: himself, himself (he said to himself לַקנזמֶה la-qnûme-h; the energetic “sibimet ipsi” in Afraat is expressed לַקנזמ&#1462א דנַפשֶת la-qnûmô d-nafše-h τῇ ὑποστάσει ψυχῆς αὐτοῦ); but at the same time its content becomes very broad, vaguely general, like the very concept of “I”. And Konstantin came to the idea - to understand this concept for himself on a private mental fact, like “will”. – From the concept of “ἰδιότης” a natural Syrian very easily moves to the concept of “ἐνέργεια” already because the first (“property, quality”) in Syriac speech is very often conveyed by the word מַעבדָנוּתָא ma‘bdônûtô, which comes from the verb עבַד operare, and means actually ἐνέργεια. The strangest thing in Constantine’s view is the idea that Christ, after the resurrection, laid aside His natural human will. But with this error, Constantine emphasized the usual shortcoming in the theological and polemical literature of that time: the manner of proving the true and human nature in Christ by references to the discoveries of His human body and leaving without proper disclosure the manifestations of His human rational soul. Since the discovery of the bodily organism in Christ took place during earthly life, when imagining the glorified state of humanity in Christ, Constantine was left without guidance. 3) The third defender of monothelitism was the crazy elderly presbyter and monk Polychronius, who confused many simpletons with his decisive monothelitism and stories of supernatural visions of bright and formidable men who commanded him to defend this “old faith” against the “invented new one” (dithelitism). Bishop Dometius of Prusiad drew the attention of the fathers of the council to the temptation produced by the tales of Polychronius, and the council on April 26, 681 (15th meeting) interrogated Polychronius. He also told the cathedral about a vision he had “under the scorching sun” (at 1 o’clock in the afternoon), about how a formidable, shining man told him: “whoever does not profess one will and godly action is not a Christian.” And to prove the correctness of this Monothelite confession, Polychronius proposed to perform a miracle: placing a handwritten record of this confession on a dead person and resurrecting him. Since Polychronius himself went through such an experience, which was supposed to make his influence on the common people completely harmless, the council allowed him to begin performing a miracle to assure the Christ-loving people how “God will show the truth.” In the vast middle courtyard of the baths of Zeuxippus, a dead man was placed on a silver-plated funeral bier. In the presence of the council, the dignitaries and a great multitude of people, Polychronius laid his confession of faith on the dead man and from time to time whispered something in his ear. Several hours passed. Finally, Polychronius himself said: “I cannot raise the dead.” The people immediately shouted anathema to the “new Simon the Magician.” Despite the admonitions of the fathers of the cathedral to abandon Monotheliteism, Polychronius remained adamant, and the cathedral deprived him of the priesthood and anathematized him. The activities of the VI Ecumenical Council ended with the 18th meeting on September 16, at which, in the presence of the emperor, the definition (ὅρος) of the council, signed by all the fathers of the council, was read and signed, an anathema was proclaimed against the convicted heretics, and a welcoming speech (λόγος) was said to the emperor προσφωνητικός). The anathema was pronounced against Theodore, Sergius, Honorius, Pyrrhus, Paul, Cyrus, Peter, Macarius, Stephen and Polychronius. There was nothing unorthodox in the writings of the Patriarchs of Constantinople (Peter's successors): Thomas, John and Constantine, and their names were included in the diptychs. In their ὅρος, following the example of the Council of Chalcedon, the fathers repeated the Nicene and Constantinople symbols and an essential part of the Chalcedonian creed, supplementing the text in two places with insertions from the definitions of the V Ecumenical Council 120, and they themselves set out the Orthodox teaching about two wills and two actions in Christ in the following words: Of the events that accompanied the VI Ecumenical Council, the following are of interest: a) the adoption of anathema against Honorius by the popes, and b) an attempt to restore monothelitism under Philippi. a) In the epistle of the council to Agathon, the condemnation of Honorius is stated as mildly as possible for Roman sensitivity: αὐτοῖς (heresiarchs) προψηφισθεῖσαν ἀπόφασιν” the council anathematized the heretics, among whom Honorius was named. That is, the fathers of the council indicate that Pope Agathon, having condemned the Monothelites, eo ipso implicite in advance condemned the Monothelite Honorius. But in the emperor’s confirmation letter, Honorius is directly called “ὁ τῆς αἱρέσεως βεβαιωτὴς καὶ αὐτὸς ἑαυτῷ προσμαχόμενος, ὁ κατὰ πάντα τούτος (Monothelites) συναιρέτης καὶ σύνδρομος.” The letter of the fathers was delivered to the successor (from August 17, 682) of Agathon († January 10, 682) Leo II, who joined the anathema pronounced by the council on Honorius, and in his reply letter directly admitted that “Honorius - hanc (= Romanam) sedem non apostolicae traditionis doctrina lustravit, sed profana proditione immaculatam fidem subvertere conatus est (in Greek παρεχώρησε).” Sending the creed of the VI Ecumenical Council to the Spanish bishops for signing, Leo II informed them that the “ecumenical and holy sixth council” anathematized the heretics “cum Honorio, qui flammam haeretici dogmatis non, ut decuit apostolicam dignitatem, incipientem extinxit, sed negligendo confovit.” Finally, the anathema against Honorius was included in the Liber diurnus, according to which every new pope repeated it until the 11th century upon entering the department. But Adrian II (867–872) tried to interpret the condescendingly vague expressions of the council’s message to Agathon in favor of Roman claims to supremacy in the church and the immunity of popes from even ecumenical councils: without disputing the fact of Honorius’s condemnation and not at all justifying his erring predecessor, Adrian insists that - despite the fact that Honorius “fuerat super haeresi accusatus” - "et ibi nec patriarcharum, nec caeterorum antistitum cuipiam de eo fas fuerit proferendi sententiam, nisi ejusdem primae sedis pontificis consensus praecessisset auctoritas." Thus, the delicately proposed consent implicite turned into consent explicite, and, moreover, in the sense of a condicio sine qua non of the legality of the council’s trial over the pope itself. b) Monothelitism after the council did not have prominent and decisive defenders: but there were its dark supporters who argued, “ὅτι ἡ ἑχτὴ σύνοδος κακῶς ἐγένετο.” On the other hand, Orthodoxy received some of the character of the dynastic religion of the last (two) Heraclids. These two factors explain the ephemeral triumph of monothelitism under Philippicus Vardan. When in 711 the Heraclid dynasty in the person of Justinian II Rhinomitus (son of Constantine) was finally overthrown, the pet of Stephen (a student of Macarius of Antioch) Philippicus Vardan, on whom the Monothelites had long pinned their hopes (a certain ψευδοαββᾶς, a recluse in the monastery of τῶν) ascended the throne Καλλιστράτου, no later than 695, predicted a long and prosperous reign for Philippic - under the condition of restoring monothelitism, and took an oath from him in this sense). The new emperor in 712 convened a council (John of Constantinople and Herman of Cyzicus participated in it), which formally restored monothelitism and anathematized the VI Ecumenical Council. But in the next 713, Philippi was dethroned, and the false council of 712, not recognized in Rome, did not have convinced adherents in the east either: John himself wrote to Rome that the council only yielded to the emperor. And Germanus, the former Cyzicus, from 715 the successor of John at the see of Constantinople, at the Council of Constantinople in 715 or 716, restored Orthodoxy and anathematized the Monothelites. (The fate of Monothelitism in subsequent times is in connection with the history of the Maronite sect). Its existence (however) is mysterious 121. A solid point for the history of the Maronites is found in the news of the historian of the crusades, William of Tire: under 1182, he noted that the Maronite patriarch united with the holy church, turning to the Antiochian (Latin) patriarch Aimerich. Thus, the Maronite Church existed for 500 years as heretical. It received its name, according to Wilhelm, from a certain patriarch Maron. But, in any case, early writers also knew about its existence. For example, Eutyches, Patriarch of Alexandria (10th century), knows the Maronites as Monothelites heretics. But the earliest information about them is in the works of John of Damascus. In his essay “On the Trisagion” he has an expressive passage: “We will fall into Maroniteism if we attach the crucifix to the Trisagion.” Then, in the work of Presbyter Timothy, who wrote brief information about heretics and lived before the VI Ecumenical Council, there is a note (representing a later insertion) that the Maronites rejected the IV and V Ecumenical Councils, attached the crucifix to the Trisagion and professed one will and one action. The first report that the Maronites rejected the Fourth and Fifth Councils is mysterious; the second is undoubtedly borrowed from Damascus. The question arises: who was Maron and what kind of monastery was he? Eutyches in his history relates that in Syria, during the time of the Emperor Mauritius, there was a respected monk, Maro, who preached two natures in Christ and one will and one action. When he died, the inhabitants of the city of Hamâh built a monastery called the Monastery of Maron, and remained faithful to Maron (Assemani, Bibl. or. I, p. 498). Then, in the preface to the exposition of the faith of the Maronite patriarch John Maron (p. 503), it is said that he, the patriarch, forced by circumstances to emigrate from Antioch, arrived at a monastery lying in the region of the city of Apamia, on the banks of the river Nahr-Ъa'çî Ὀρόντης. The preface is Syrian. In the Syriac title of this statement of faith (p. 513) this monastery is called the monastery of the holy and God-bearing Maron. Its Arabic translation states that this monastery is located in the country of Hamaska ​​and Chomskaya. Here John composed his creed and sent it to Mount Lebanon; therefore, his followers received the name Maronites, and John himself received the name Maron. The Maronite legend about John says that when the monastery of Maron was destroyed by the troops of the Greek emperor, the patriarch built another monastery within the boundaries of Albatrun, east of the Kafarhai fortress, where he died on February 9. Thus, the testimony of the Maronites' own sources states that Maron is John (Johan), and that he was their patriarch. The very monastery he built he called the monastery of St. Marona in honor of the former, and the head of Marona was transferred here (p. 505). What monasteries are we talking about? The center of modern Maroniteism is determined by Canobius, Greek. Κοινόβιον – monastery of St. Virgin Mary, which serves as the seat of the Maronite patriarch during the summer months. Where the Maronites now live is also clear: in the mountains of Lebanon, but before they lived somewhat to the north. The question arises: is the monastery of Maron identical with the one built by the patriarch? Apparently, there was once another monastery of Maron (except for the one built by the patriarch), of which no traces remain. It is assumed that during the reign of Mauritius there lived a certain Maron, who preached the Monothelite teaching. But the Maronites themselves do not want to listen to this, saying that Maron was an ascetic. Theodoret of Cyrus, in his history of Syrian monasticism, mentions St. Maron, already dead when the story was written. Whether this monastery was founded in his honor is a big question. The Syriac name “Maron” is a diminutive of “mar” - Lord, master, like the Greek Κύριλλος - from κύριος. This name must have been very beloved in ancient Syria; it is possible that there were several Maron devotees. In the documents related to the council of 536 against Patriarch Anthimus, among the participants of the council there is a signature: “Paul, by the grace of God, deacon and apocrisiary of the monastery of Blessed. Marona, commanding (τῆς ἐξαρχούσης) over the monasteries of the second Syria,” signs for himself and for all the above-mentioned archimandrites and monks (Mansi, VIII, 890DE, cf. 882D). In one document from the history of Monophysitism during the time of Justin I, 518–9, a certain Alexander is mentioned, “presbyter and archimandrite of the monastery of Blessed. Marona", as a representative from the monastic communities of Apamia (1130A, 1135A). This indicates that the monastery of Marona had a primacy (ἐξάρχουσα) significance among other monasteries in its area, similar to the relation of the Dalmatian monastery to other Constantinople monasteries. These documents confirm the assumption that the monastery of Bl. Marona was in the second Syria. Is this really where the Maronites originate? Syrian manuscripts give reason to conclude that the monastery of Maron lay near the city of Apamia near the town of Armanaz. So, is our information accurate that he was located within Ham? Eutyches of Alexandria lived at a later time, when Apamia was in ruins, and it is possible that he identified Apamia with Ham. (But) one cannot rely on the information of the Maronites themselves. Why the Maronites could become the center of the movement against the Monophysites is difficult to say. In the church history of the Syrian Patriarch Bar-Evraia there is news that under Emperor Heraclius the monks of Maron and the population of Emesa were at enmity against the Monophysites. The monks of Maron, not particularly enlightened, maintained only antagonism against the Monophysites. According to Bar-Evraia, these monks were on the side of Heraclius. Taking advantage of the benefits of the Greek emperor, these monks could accept the ἔκθεσις of Heraclius, and among them could appear the epigones of the Monothelites, like Constantine the Apamian presbyter (Constantine was from Apamia, therefore this place was densely populated by Monothelites). In the era of the VI Ecumenical Council, the views of Heraclius seemed to all simpletons to be ancient teachings, and thus the Maronites could form a center against the Monophysites and (together) not accept the teachings of the VI Ecumenical Council. During the Crusades, the Maronites came into communion with the Roman Church. Having acquired the Maronite society, Rome appointed the Inquisition to rummage through its past and destroy everything unnecessary. Among the Maronites, everything turned out to be superfluous for the Romans. Therefore, the Maronites had to lie that they had never been Monothelites. To prove this, it was necessary to create the personality of the Patriarch of Antioch, Maron, from whom they allegedly descended. The life of this Maron bears traces of later origin, it is written in the Karshun script (Arabic speech in Syriac letters). This obviously happened during that transitional time when the Syrians learned Arabic and forgot the Syriac language, the memory of which was preserved only in the form of writing in Syriac letters. Secondary data from Maron's life do not inspire confidence. They present the matter this way. A certain John, who labored in the monastery of Maron, a Syrian by birth, attracted attention with his pious life and theological knowledge and was elevated to the rank of bishop of Votris, and then after the death of Theophan he was moved to the Antiochian see. The legend associates his confirmation with the name of Pope Honorius, although at that time only Sergius (687–701) could have been such. Then, John was forced to leave Antioch, under pressure from the Greeks, and move to the Lebanese Mountains. There are two attitudes towards this legend. Some are inclined to think that Maron did not exist at all and that the legend is of later origin (13th century); others that the name and existence of Maron must be retained as a historical figure with non-Orthodox views. If we weigh the data, then in detail the legend is indeed unreliable. But it is difficult to admit that the legend was solely a figment of fantasy. Why, then, did the legend call the founder of the Maronite sect John, and not (just) Maron, if there was (in reality) only a tabula rasa? Some John Maron (obviously) held fast to the tradition. Whether he was the bishop of Votris is a questionable matter. But there is no doubt that he was not the patriarch of Antioch, like the successor of Theophan. The fact is that after the conquest of Antioch by the Arabs, there were two kinds of patriarchs there: titular and actual. The starting point for the final establishment of the Maronite tradition should be the news of Theophanes' chronicle that on February 6, 743 (a. D. 6234) Caliph Gisham, successor of Omar (from February 9, 720), died. This caliph was the first to allow the replacement of a department that had been widowed for 40 years. He had one Syrian monk, Stephen, a man of little education but a pious life. Guicham proposed him as a candidate for the Antioch patriarchal see; The Christians of Antioch agreed. Unfortunately, Theophanes does not say how long Stefan ruled. In 6236, after the death of Stephen, Theophylact, an Edessa presbyter, was elected. And in 6242 = 751, on July 29, Theophylact also died. All this would not have presented any inconvenience if this caliph, like all the eastern caliphs, had reigned for a short time; but it was durable. We do not know what year the appointment of the Antiochian see falls. If we assume that she was replaced around 740, then her widowhood began in 700; and if it was soon after 720, then she had been a widow since 681. One can easily imagine the state of affairs that was created in the East by these events. The See of Antioch became a widow; civil authorities did not allow her to be replaced; Meanwhile, Christians existed, which means there was a need for a bishop. Therefore, it was quite natural if in some monastery the brethren had the idea of ​​having a patriarch behind the scenes. The choice could fall on one of the brethren, for example, Maron. Of course, all this was done in the greatest secrecy, because there was a danger of paying with their heads for it; nevertheless, such a patriarch could exist. What turn things took in Constantinople was of no concern to the Syrians. They considered themselves completely Orthodox, since they firmly adhered to the faith of Honorius of Rome, Sergius of Constantinople, Cyrus of Alexandria, etc. This is how it could happen that Pope Honorius was involved in this legend. So, the Maronites could be unknowingly Monothelites. The Easterners, put in a difficult position, decided to secretly have a patriarch. Several generations passed, and by the will of the caliph they were allowed to have a bishop, but it was already public, and the civil authority, along with permission, could indicate a certain person, namely Stephen. Naturally then, the people happily agreed to the proposal, and the Maronites were forced to retire to the Lebanese Mountains. Wed. V.V. Bolotov, Review of the work of A. Spassky: “The historical fate of the works of Apollinaris of Laodicea with a brief preliminary sketch of his life. Sergiev Posad 1895" (written in 1898), in "Christ. Thu." 1908, no. 8–9, 1253–1275, no. 10, 1400–1420. In Western literature there are works: G. Voisin, L’Apollinarisme. Étude historique, littéraire et dogmatique. Louvain–Paris 1901. H. Lietzmann, Apollinaris von Laodicea und seine Schule. Texte und Untersuchungen. I. Tübingen 1904. Regarding the Greek form of the name "Ἀπολίνάριος" (not "Ἀπολλίνάριος") cf. Th. Zahn, Forschungen zur Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons und der altkirchlichen Literatur. V. Erlangen u. Leipzig 1893, S. 99–109: "Apollinaris, Apollinarius, Apolinarius." A. B. Athanasius V. polemicized against Apollinaris without mentioning him by name, ca. 372 The title “κατὰ Ἀπολλιναρίου” (could have been) given to two books of Athanasius V. after his death (but the question of whether these books belonged to Athanasius raises very strong doubts and is usually resolved negatively). The ultimate goal of the Arians, who defend the “likeness” of the Son, according to Apollinaris, is to bring the concept of the Son closer to the concept of creatures. The German scholar Dräseke (J. Dräseke, in Zeitschrift für Kirchengoschichte, VII, 1885, and in Apollinarios von Laodicea, 1892, Texte und Untersuchungen hrsg. von Gebhardt und A. Harnack, VII, 3-4) discovered that the work attributed to Justin Philosopher under entitled “Admonition to the Pagans”, is no more and no less than the work “On the Truth” by Apollinaris, which Sozomen (h.e. V, 18) also knew as the work of Apollinaris (that he is also the author of books 4 and 5 of the “Refutation” of Eunomius of St. Basil V., which did not actually belong to Basil. But these discoveries met with refutation from other researchers. By the way, Prof. Moscow Theological Academy Spassky [Historical fate of the works of Apollinaris of Laodicea, 1895, pp. 362–373) and prof. University of Tübingen Funk (F. X. Funk, Die zwei letzten Bücher der Schrift Basilins’ des Grossen gegen Eunomius, in Kirehengeschichtliсhe Abbandlungen und Untersuchungen. II. Paderborn 1899, S. 291–329, cf. III, 1907, S. 311–323) found (independently of one another) that books 4 and 5 against Eunomius with the name of Basil constitute the works of Didymus of Alexandria. The city was called "Μόψου ἑστία". (Therefore, the often encountered name “Pugsuet” is incorrect). Wed. V.V. Bolotov, Lectures on the history of the ancient church. III. SPb. 1913, pp. 218–220. A.B. By the way, L. Duchesne, Histoire ancienne de l’Eglise. III 2. Paris 1910, p. 106, like E. Preuschen in Hauck’s RE 3 IV (1898), S. 101, notes that the name “Chrysostom” in the appendix to St. Ioannou is not found earlier than the 7th century. But Ch. Vaur. S. Jean Chrysostome et ses oeuvres dans l'histoire littéraire. Louvain-Paris 1907, p. 59, indicated that it can be found as early as the 6th century. among Latin authors - Facundus Hermian (c. 547, “os aureum”), Pope Vigilius (553, “Chrysostomus”) and Cassiodorius (563, “Chrysostomus”), following in this case, of course, the example of the Eastern ones. To this we can add that it also appears in a Greek work of the 6th century, which, without the name of the author, was published by Mai under the title “Panoplia dogmatica” and whose author was Diecamp, Theol. Revue, 1906, S. 157, recognized Pamphilus of Jerusalem, a friend of Cosmas Indicopleustos. A. Mai, Patrum nova bibliotheca. II. Rome 1844, p. 622. About Pamphilus cp. J. P. Jung1as, Leontius von Byzanz. Paderborn 1908, pp. 57–65. A. B. Wed. V.V. Bolotov, Archimandrite Victor of the Tabennisiots at the court of Constantinople, in 431, in “Christ. Thu." 1892, I, 336 (= From the Church History of Egypt. Issue III, 209). This date established by Baluz is also accepted by W. Schwartz, Zur Vorgeschichte des ephesinischen Konzils, in Historische Zeitschrift, 1914, B. 112, 2. Heft, S. 261–262. A. B. Excerpts from the works of Nestorius are now available in Loofs's edition: Nestoriana. Die Fragmente des Nestorius gesammelt, untersucht, und herausgegeben von F. Loofs. Mit Beiträgen von S. A. Cook und G. Kampfmeyer. Halle a. S. 1905. The “Book of Heraclide”, listed in Avdisho (Ebedjesu) among the works of Nestorius, was published in 1910 in Syriac by R. Bedjan, at the same time its French translation was published: Nestorius, Le livre d’Héraclide de Damas. Traduit en français par F. Nau. Paris 1910. Of the newest works on Nestoria, one can name: F. Loot’s, Art. "Nestorius" in Hauck's RE 3 XIII (1903), 736–749. J. F. Bethune-Baker, Nestorius and his Teaching. A fresh examination of the evidence with special reference to the newly recovered Apology of Nestorius. Cambridge 1908 (in defense of Nestorius and his teachings, based on the Book of Heraclids). M. Jugie, Nestorius et la controverse nestorienne. Paris 1912. J. P. Junglas, Die Irrlehre des Nestorius. Dogmengeschichtliche Untersuchung. Trier 1912. A. B. Migne, s. l. t. 48 (Marius Mercator), p. 201C: Savilius (1612) post Frontonem Ducaeum sensit quidem suppositum Chrysostomo (Vol. VII Operum Chrysost.), sed non aperuit cujus foret (sermo III against the heresy of Pelagius in Marius Mercator in the Garnier edition of 1673; in the works of Chrysostom - Migne, s. gr. t. 61, p. 683: ῞Ηλιοσ μὲν Cp. Loofs, S. 146 ff., 341–344). Homily in Hebrew III, 1: ῾Οσάκις ἂν. Ioannis Chrysostomi homiliae V. Ed. Becher. Lipsiae 1839, p. 63–84 (Migne, s. gr. t. 64, pp. 480–492). Its affiliation with Nestorius was established by Loofs, S. 107, and at the same time by S. Haidacher, in Zeitschrift für katholische Theologie. 1905, pp. 192–195. It is published again in Loofs, 230–242. A.B. In the forged letter of Philoxenus, Nestorius is called the cousin of Theodore of Mopsuestia. According to another Syrian Jacobite legend, from Dionysius bar-Salibi (12th century), he turns out to be the cousin of Theodoret of Cyrus. Wed. Jugue, b. 19. A. B. On the question of the difference in this case between Alexandrian and Antiochene theology, cf. V. V. Bolotov, Theodoretiana. Review of the essay by N. N. Glubokovsky “Bl. Theodorite. His life and literary activity (1890)", in "Christ. Readings" 1892, II, 93–96 (and separately). It should be noted that to demand recognition not only of the unity of hypostasis, but also of the unity of nature, of St. Cyril was prompted by his own trusting attitude, among other things, to such sayings that were only inscribed with the names of St. fathers, but in fact did not belong to them. About the life and work of St. Kirill in general cf. holy book T. Lyashchenko, St. Cyril, Archbishop of Alexandria. His life and work. Kyiv 1913. A. B. The extreme nature of this precaution is clarified from the following passage “Τοῦ Σωτῆρος”. “We do not divide the Gospel sayings (μερίζομεν) neither according to two hypostases, nor according to two persons: for the one and only Christ is not dual, although He is thought of from two and different objects (οὐδὲ - γάρ ἐστι διπλοῦς ὁ εἷς καὶ μόνος Χριστὸς, κἂν ἐν δύο νοῆται καὶ διαφόρων πραγμάτων), - just like a person is thought of from soul and body, and yet is not dual, but one of both (οὐ διπλοῦς μᾶλλον, ἀλλ᾽ εῖς ἐξ ἀμφοῖν)". – a) These words were not a direct answer to Nestorius, who spoke about the distribution of sayings according to two natures, φύσεις, or, what is the same for him, according to two hypostases, but there was no talk about persons; at the same time, he used διαιρῶ, and not μερίζω. Therefore, to Cyril’s anathema “to those who divide the sayings according to two persons or hypostases and attribute some of them to man, conceived separately from God the Word,” Nestorius responded with anathema “to those who understand the sayings about Christ, who is of two natures, as if they were spoken about one nature (tamquam de una natura), and ascribe to God the Word suffering both in humanity and in Divinity,” b) The expression οὐδὲ – – διπλοῦς – is inaccurate; church teaching: “εἶς ἐστιν ϒιὸς, διπλοῦς τὴν φύσιν, ἀλλ᾽ οὐ τὴν ὑπόστασιν”, “purely by nature, but not by hypostasis.” (In this case, when describing the circumstances of the clash between the Eastern and Cyril, from church historians) Tillémont (Tillemont, Mémoires pour servir à l'histoire ecclésiastique des six premiers siècles. T. XIV. Paris (1709) 1732 2) conducts the matter with a clear consciousness of the difficulties that it presents, nowhere does it slide over them with by easily ignoring them, he does not close the eyes of either himself or the reader. This whole story developed in such a way that impartiality was denied to the side of John of Antioch. Tillmon is a decisive opponent of Nestorius, and yet does not hide a single fact that can speak in his favor. And guided by the power of the factual data he collected, he modestly but mercilessly erases the exaggerations made by the Orthodox side and then by church historians. For example, from the pen of Baronius, the situation seems to be that Nestorius’s sermons so outraged his flock that almost the whole of Constantinople, both clergy and laity, broke off communication with him, and only a few, for whom the things of Caesar were higher than God, had not yet done so. Tillmon (b. 323) speaks sympathetically about those who have broken off communication - but the majority is always conservative - and for the existing government. Akaky the Berean writes to St. Cyril that many clergy and laity coming from Constantinople even excuse the antics of Dorotheus of Marcanople. Theodosius himself declares that the churches are in unity. When the deputies of the Council of Alexandria came to Constantinople to convey to Nestorius the messages of Celestine and Cyril, they found him in the church with all the clergy - these are their own words - and here almost all the first dignitaries of the court. Mari Mercator (one of the most ardent and notorious opponents of Nestorius) admits that the ignorant people supported their bishop, and called those who armed themselves against him slanderers and envious people. And Nestorius would not have said in one of his speeches, if there were no reason for it, that his listeners are crowding towards him and putting him in difficulty (s’incommodoient) by their very large numbers. On his pages, Tillmon includes accusations made not only by Orthodox Christians, but also by Nestorians. Before and after the arrival of John of Antioch (p. 386–9), Orthodox bishops asserted that he deliberately delayed his arrival so as not to take part in the inevitable condemnation of Nestorius. But on the other hand (Eutherius of Tyana) he was accused of deliberately being late in order, pretending to be a friend of Nestorius, to give his enemies (the opportunity) to condemn him and miss the deadline for his defense (but this (reproaches him) a biased Nestorian after the union). Others explain his slowdown by the fact that he wanted to give time to depose Nestorius, then, having become attached to some of the irregularities in his deposition, overthrow Cyril, and taking advantage of this general unrest in the church, achieve the honor of presiding over the ecumenical council. But I am afraid (says Tillmont) that such a criminal ambition has no other basis for itself, que la corruption de l’esprit of those who attribute it to John, without being able to rely on any ancient author. If this had been John's intention, he should have hastened quickly. They assured at the council that John did not want to come to Nestorius due to his inclination. But I don't see how this can be assumed. Both on the basis of facts and on the basis of simple considerations, John could not have done Nestorius greater courtesy than by appearing on time. (John himself referred to the fact that he could not arrive earlier, since some of his bishops lived at a distance of 12 or more days' journey from Antioch and could leave only 8 days after Easter (April 26). He could, therefore, gather them in Antioch only around May 10 or 12. In Antioch he was detained by various matters and left already on May 18. At the same time, John pointed out the particular difficulty of the journey). Evagrius, the enemy of Nestorius, seems to find this reason satisfactory. Garnier finds it significant. But since it is difficult to excuse John without at the same time admitting that the council was a little hasty, he prefers to say that John’s apology is n’estoit pas bonne. (There were, in fact, bishops more distant than John, who, however, arrived at the council before him, for example, Juvenal of Jerusalem). It is true that his slowdown led to great unrest in the church; but given the state of affairs at that time (à considerer la disposition), perhaps even greater troubles would have resulted if he had arrived before Nestorius’s condemnation. He would have made a terrible noise because of the anathematisms of St. Cyril, and since Nestorius still had influence, this party would have been very significant. And I don’t know if it’s possible to say (si l’on ne peut point dire) that foreseeing this evil and bickering over the right to preside, St. Cyril preferred to hurry and avoid what could happen rather than expose himself to a risky accident (s’exposer à un hazard), so unfortunate (fascheux) for him and for the church itself. Wed. V. V. Bolotov, Archimandrite Victor of the Tabennisiots at the court of Constantinople in 431 (According to The Church Quarterly Review 1891 October), in “Christ. Thu." 1892, I, 63–89, 335–361. II, 18–37 (= From the Church History of Egypt. Issue III). I, 70 (188), 350–1 (223–4). The story of the Coptic monument about the embassy of Cyril of Alexandria to Constantinople before the Ephesian Cathedral of Victor, Archimandrite of the Tabennisiots, and his activities there in favor of Cyril, V.V. Bolotov recognizes as a fiction, which is based on identification with the famous Tabennisiot Archimandrite Victor, mentioned by Cyril (in his apologetics to Emperor Theodosius) the Alexandrian monk Victor (perhaps who, under the guise of a beggar, delivered the message of Cyril to Constantinople from Ephesus, I, 356–8 = 229–231). The author of the monument, however, according to V.V. Bolotov, had various authentic documents at hand, and this gives it a certain historical significance. J. Chrystale, Authoritative Christianity reacted negatively to the story about Victor. The third World Council. Vol. I. New Jersey 1895, p. lxix–lxxxi, who also knew this story only in transmitting it to The Church Quarterly Review. The Coptic text with French translation was published by U. Bouriant, Actes du Concile d' Éphèse. Texte copte publié et traduit. (Mémoires publiés par les membres de la Mission archéologique française au Caire. T. VIII, fasc. 1, part. 2). Paris 1892. Burian's work was very sharply criticized by K. Piehl in the Uppsala journal on Egyptology "Sphinx" 1897, t. I, 122–154 (cp. Leclercq, 1310–1). A more correct translation of the Coptic text into German is W. Kraatz, Koptischen Acten zum Ephesinischen Konzil vom Jahre 431. Übersetzung und Untersuchungen. (Texte und Untersuchungen herausgeg. von O. Gebhardt und A. Harnack. N. F. XI, 2). Leipzig 1904. Corrections to the translation are given by O. yon Lemm in Izvestia Imper. Academy of Sciences, 1908, No. 2 and 7. In the study accompanying the translation, Kraatz recognizes the story about Victor as trustworthy and, from this point of view, criticizes V.V. Bolotov’s conclusion in a special appendix (S. 202–214). On the contrary, N. Leclercq recognizes this story as completely implausible in the appendix to his translation of C. J. Hefele, Histoire des conciles. T. II, 2. Paris 1908. Appendice VI. Les fragments coptes du concile d' Éphèse d'après les travaux de MM. Bouriant, K. Piehl, W. Kraatz, V. Bolotov, et le "Synodicon cassinense" de Baluze, p. 1309–1312 (“n’offre, décidément, aucune espèce de vraisemblance”, “composition fantaisiste”). Kraatz's criticism of V.V. Bolotov's opinion was subjected to a detailed analysis by priest. D. A. Lebedev, On the issue of the Coptic acts of the 3rd Ecumenical Council of Ephesus and their hero Archimandrite Tabennisiot Victor, in “Christ. East”, 1912, vol. I, 146–202 (cf. also the bibliographic note by S. L. Epifanovich in “Proceedings of the Kyiv Spiritual Academy”, 1913, January, 138–151). Doesn't agree with V.V. Bolotov and takes under his protection the authenticity of the essence of the legend about Victor the priest. T. I. Lyashchenko in the work: St. Cyril, Archbishop of Alexandria. Kyiv 1913, 260, 394–8, and in the introduction to the translation of the acts into Russian (from the German translation by Kraatz, with verification against the Coptic text of Burian, made by Prof. B. A. Turaev) with a study about them: Coptic acts of the third ecumenical council, in “Proceedings of the Kyiv spirit. Academy", 1914, March, 393–407. But in the question, for example, about permission for John, given from Constantinople, to arrive at the council somewhat later than the appointed time, the author, however, unlike V.V. Bolotov, does not find it possible to trust the Coptic acts (St. Cyril, 350). – By the way, for the history of the third ecumenical council and in general the history of the Nestorian dispute, a collection of documents translated from Greek into Latin, which was preserved in only one Montecassinian manuscript and was first published by the Augustinian Wolf (Chr. Lupus, Ad Ephesinum (Concilium variorum patrum epistolae. Lovanii 1682, cf. Mansi, t. V, Migne, s. gr. t. 84), the so-called Synodicon Cassinense or Synodicon Lupi, or, following the example of Baluz, Synodicon adversus tragoediam Irenaei. Regarding the history of its publication, cf. Leclercq, 1. p. 1312–1320. V.V. Bolotov established back in 1880–1 that the compiler of this collection was the Roman deacon Rusticus, nephew of Pope Vigilius, and that in its entirety the Synodicon of Rusticus embraced the acts of the Third and Fourth Ecumenical Councils. He intended to give a detailed justification for this discovery in a special essay: “Rusticus, deacon of the Roman Church, and his literary works,” but this intention remained unfulfilled. Wed. A letter and two notes from Prof. V.V. Bolotov about his unfinished work on Rusticism, in “Christ. Thu." 1907, I, 380–391. The scientific edition of the Synodicon, instead of the existing very unsatisfactory ones, is currently being prepared by Ed. Schwartz. Notes on the state in which the sources of the history of the third ecumenical council and the Nestorian dispute in general are located to this day, cf. in G. Löschke, Zwei kircheugeschichtliche Entwürfe. (II. Quellenkunde der alten Kirchengeschichte). Tübingen 1913, S. 72–8. A. B. Eutyches was invited as a defendant from the very first vocatio; Dioscorus for the first time - as a member, but with a verbal statement that he is accused, for the 2nd and 3rd time - as an accused. Wed. V. V. Bolotov. Note about the book: Canons of the most important ancient church councils, together with the apostolic canons, ed. prof. Fr. Lauchert, in “Christ. Thu." 1896, II, 180–2, 183–4. A.B. The important dogmatic significance of this monument is evident from the fact that it was used as the basis for the text of the Chalcedonian creed. (The most important expressions: “ὁμοοὑσιον τῷ πατρὶ τὸν αὐτὸν κατὰ τὴν θεότητα καὶ ὁμοόυσιον ἡμῖν κατὰ – τὴν ἀνθρωπότητα δύο γὰρ φύσεων ἕνωσις γέγονε". The image of the connection: ἐνανθρωπῆσαι καὶ – – ἑνῶσαι ἕαυτῷ τὸν – – Holy Virgin – Θεοτόκος. "τὰς μὲν κοινοποιοῦντας, ὡς ἐφ᾽ ἑνὸς προσώπου, τὰς δὲ διαιροῦντας, ὡς επὶ δύο φύσεων"). The important historical significance is clear from the fact that the Easterners, even in Ephesus, offered this creed as their confession of faith; consequently, in 431 they were not Nestorians, and in 433 they united with the church not as converts from heresy. It is believed that Theodoret was the author of the creed; he himself cites this text in his work as a quotation from Ambrose of Milan; however, the publishers of the works of St. Ambrose was unable to find the Latin original of this creed. In general, the question of who owns this belief remains controversial. In my extreme understanding, if anyone can be considered the author, it is most likely Paul of Emesa or John of Antioch, but there is no reason to attribute it to Theodoret. He himself does not present it as his own work, and his contemporaries do not mention it in their letters - and one must think that if he were its author, then he, as the main polemicist against Cyril, would have introduced expressions that Cyril did not accept. [Wed. V.V. Bolotov, Theodoretiana, in “Christ. Thu." 1892, II, 96–100 (and separately)). An expression from a letter from Nestorius to Theodoret opened by V.V. Bolotov in chapter 121 of the Synodicon. Wed. A letter and two notes from Prof. V.V. Bolotov about his unfinished work on Rusticism, in “Christ. Thu." 1907, I, 384, 386 (and separately, 19:21). A.B. The meaning of this fiction is as follows: in his letter to Akakios, Cyril discovered some signs of conversion to the path of truth; therefore, the eastern sent Paul of Emesa as a doctor to the Egyptian, who was suffering from Apollinarianism, who, having heeded Paul’s instructions, repented of his previous errors and confessed the Orthodox faith, as set forth by the eastern, for which the eastern granted him their ecclesiastical communion. Regarding the tomos of Proclus and its date, cf. V.V. Bolotov, Theodoretiana, Review of the work of N.N. Glubokovsky, “Bl. Theodorite. His life and literary activity (1890)", in "Christ. Readings" 1892, II, 102 (and separately). V.V. Bolotov, recognizing here that “the question about the date of the tomos of Proclus is very complex and at present it is completely impossible to solve it,” expresses the opinion that the tomos Οὐ μετρίως could have been written in 435, as is usually assumed based on the date in its Latin translation; the movement in the east, which took place after 436–437, was caused by the second tomos of Proclus, which has not reached us, and from which only fragments have survived. A.B. = anti-Monophysite facts, – = successes of the Monophysites. Not “Εὐτύχιος”, but “Εὐτυχὴς” (gen. Εὐτυχοῦς), like Ἀριστοτέλης. Consequently, it would be more correct to call him “Eutychus”, just as they say “Mitrofan”, and not “Mitrofaniy”. Orthodox teaching runs like a royal path between the extremes of Nestorianism and Monophysitism, but at this moment in history a choice was possible between different terms for expressing the hypostatic unity and duality of natures in Christ. The degree of energy of consciousness of unity or duality is determined by the proximity of the expression to one or the other extreme; in the following diagram, this degree is indicated by numbers (higher number = more energy). (here is the diagram) The inverse relationship in terms of the degree of energy is represented by the strongly difisite (2 a. I) formula: in two natures united into one person. Ἐπειδὴ γὰρ σῶμα Θεοῦ αὐτὸ ὁμολογῶ, πρόσεσχες; οὐκ εἶπον σῶμα ἀνθρώπου τὸ τοῦ θεοῦ σῶμα, ἀνθρώπινον δὲ τὸ σῶμα, καὶ ὅτι ἐκ τῆς παρθένου ἐσαρκώθη. G. Hoffmann, Verhandlungen der Kirchenversammlung zu Ephesus am XXII August. CDXLIX aus einer syrischen Handschrift vom Jahre DXXXV. Kiel 1873. P. Martin, Actes du Brigandage d'Éphèse. Amiens 1874. – Le pseudo-synode connu dans l’histoire sous le nom de Brigandage d’Éphèse, étudié d’après ses actes retrouvés en syriaque. Paris 1875. S. G. F. Perry, The second synod of Ephesus, together with certain extracts relating to it, from syriac mss. preserved in the British Museum, and now first edited. English version. Hartford 1881. A. B. G. Amelli, S. Leone Magno e l'Oriente. Roma 1882 (then Monte-Cassino 1890). Amelli reprinted the text, but not in its entirety, but with abbreviations, Grisai in Zeitschrift fur katholische Theologie, VII, 1883, S. 193–196. These same documents were later published by Th. Mommsen in Neues Archiv der Gesellschaft für ältere deutsche Geschichtskunde, XI, 2, 1886, S. 362–367, and T. A. Lacey, Appellatio Flaviani. The Letters of appeal from the council of Ephesus, A. D. 449, addressed by Flavian and Eusebius to St. Leo of Rome. Edited with historical introduction. London 1903. V.V. Bolotov intended, when these monuments appeared in print for the first time, to write a special study about them; but only the beginning of the rough sketches of this sketch (without the title) were preserved in the papers left after him. The translation of the appeals printed here (based on the Amelli text) is found in the lithographed student notes of the 1897 8 lectures and does not always represent a literal and complete transmission of the original (especially in the appeal of Eusebius); During printing, necessary corrections and additions were made in different places. The Russian translation of Flavian's appeal is also given by Archimandrite. (now bishop) Anatolia, St. Flavian, Archbishop of Constantinople, confessor, in the Works of the Kyiv spirit. Academy, 1912, May, 57–61 (and separately, 34–38). A.B. In manuscript, oportunae quidem ad praesens tempus mediocriter referre. Amellï Opportunum est quidem etc. Mommsep: Oportuit quidem ad praesens tempus me dignanter referre. Lacey: Opportune quidem ad praesens tempus meditor iterum referre. quam sudore ultionis tradiderunt. Lacey translates (p. 18): which they with laborious defense have handed down to us. Amellï perierunt ea quae sunt fidei, dissentione. Retinentur piae au imae. Mommsen: fidei, (Lucey: fideï) dissensione retinentur piae animae. In the manuscript: ad hanc diem qui nobis repente. Amellï ad hanc diem qua etc. Mommsen, Lacey, ad hanc diem. Qui etc. In the manuscript: convocat quidem concilium diluculo ammaiori quoque me facit. Amelli (1882) suggests an omission: a majori quoque me facit. Mommsen: ammoneri (or acciri) quoque me facit. de his gestis quae ab Eutychete olim confecta sunt. Lacey (p. 21) translates: an account of the matter previously prepared by Eutyches. qui aliud quam de homousio (in the hand: de homusion) nobis habuisse Dominum carnem uel scrutans uel dicens. Lacey (p. 21) translates: Whose questions or asserts anything else that the Lord had flesh of one consubstantial with us. In the notes of V.V. Bolotov’s lectures, this whole passage reads like this: Then, to some bishops who did not agree with this, he delivered a speech with the following content: “before St. the council is good (confesses faith) Eutyches, we believe as Eutyches believes. Therefore, let us adhere to the faith of Eutyches, and whoever does not agree with this, let him be anathema, and whoever does not confess two natures in Christ before the union, but one after the union, let him be anathema, and whoever, by examining, teaches that the Lord has flesh consubstantial with us, let him be anathema. et his dictis interloquitur ipse sicut voluit. From V.V. Bolotov: With these words, he said “interlocutio” (indicating the starting points when solving a case), and what he himself wanted, etc. In the manuscript: promisit; so left at Amelli. Mommsen and Lacey correct in permisit. insipienti et furioso consilio. Grisar-Amelli (1890): insipienti. From V.V. Bolotov: at this unwise and evil council. plebi quae numero praecellit. Anatoly: significant in its numbers. Lacey (p. 25): to the more honorable among the people. In the manuscript: eusebius exiguus qui fui desuper et ab exordio consueuit. tronus apostolicus. Amelli Eusebius exiguus. Quia fuit desuper etc. Mommsep: Eusebius exiguus. Curavit desuper etc. Lacey. Eusebius Exiguus, qui fui... (p. 27: who was (bishop of Dorylaeum)). Desuper etc. In the manuscript: secundum possibilitatem quam habentes, conpassionem enim supra uiniuersos homines possidentes. Amellï secundum possibilitatem quam habetis, compassionem (Mommsen: habetis: conpassionem) enim supra universos homines possidetis. Lacey: secundum possibilitatem. Quam habentes compassionem eminentiam supra uniuersos homines possidetis. The publisher Amelli added the following words to the text in the same typeface: “this is the clearest evidence of papal infallibility” (En luculentissimum locum pro Romani Pontificis infallibi(li)tate). But from these words one can deduce anything, but not papal infallibility. (Remark by V.V. Bolotov). Eusebius, addressing the letter to Leo, uses the plural. The one who wrote such libellas was sure that it would not be the bishop of Rome himself who would examine them, but the entire council. (Remark by V.V. Bolotov). §§ 5. 14–15. 22–23 are marked *: it was precisely these three passages of the epistle that the special attention of the Council of Chalcedon was drawn to, since the Illyrian and Palestinian bishops hesitated to recognize the teaching of these passages as Orthodox!.. In § 14 agit is explained, on the one hand, through operante (more active), on the other, through exsequente (less energetic). In § 17, 18, 19, with the tactile manifestatio ostenditur, evidenter, those linking to more theoretical activities are compared: indicium, declaratur, sine ambiguitate. The Latin verb can move quite freely throughout the sentence. Sometimes he, so to speak, intrudes between the noun and its definition in order to allow the thought to assimilate them more separately, pay special attention to them, emphasize both of these words and transfer the center of gravity of logical stress to the word preceding the verb. This makes it possible to express even psychological tones of thought concisely and accurately, without wasting unnecessary words. Here are examples. Qui enim verus est Deus, idem verus est homo. Salva igitur proprietate – et in unam coeunte personam: (duality of natures) does not in the slightest weaken the high unity of the face, it is not forgotten for a minute that there is one face. Nec sine vera credatur humanitatë in essence of the historical state of affairs, it was not the truth of the deity of Christ, not even simply His humanity, that required special protection, but precisely the true humanity, veritas carnis, as Leo puts it. The logical components of the dogma are given completely uniformly; but the psychological aspect of the dispute is clearly emphasized. Grisar in Zeitschrift für katholische Theologie, VII, 1883, S. 191: Es ist bekannt, wie Leo I., um mit Döllinger zu reden, das Morgenland gleichsam gegen seinen Willen gerettet hat. These words of Grisar are quoted in the above-mentioned () sketch by V.V. Bolotov in Russian translation: “It is known how Leo I - let’s say with Döllinger - saved the east even against his will.” A.B. Y. Kulakovsky, History of Byzantium, makes a different assessment of the reign of Theodosius II than the generally accepted one. I. 2nd ed. Kyiv. 1913, pp. 321–324 A. B. A remarkable coincidence of circumstances! In 431, the attention of the Western Christian world was diverted from the church affairs of the east by domestic military unrest (Aetius in Gaul is fighting the Goths and other peoples; the successes of the Vandals in Africa; the Suevi in ​​Spain). 451 was also the year of the Catalaunian battle against the Hunnic hordes of Attila. At present, everyone, apparently even in the West, recognizes what was proven by V.V. Bolotov back in 1884–5. the inauthenticity of the Coptic “stories of Dioscorus about the Council of Chalcedon”, or more precisely, the praiseworthy words of Dioscorus in honor of Bishop Macarius of Tkou (Anteopolis), who accompanied him to this council. V.V. Bolotov, Stories of Dioscorus about the Council of Chalcedon, in “Christ. Thu." 1884, II, 581–625, 1885, I, 9–94 (= From the Ecclesiastical History of Egypt. Vol. I) (from texts edited by É. Revillout, in Revue égyptologique, 1880, 1881, 1883: Récits de Dioscore exilé à Gangres sur le concile de Chalcédoine, with additions from G. Zoega, Catalogus codicum copticorum 1810). Wed. also “Christ. Thu." 1892, I, 73 (= From the Church History of Egypt. Issue II, 191); List of articles and notes published in Church. Messenger" and "Christ. Readings" from 1880 to 1893, with remarks ad instar retractationum, in "Christ. Read.”, 1907, I, 253–4 (and separately, 4–5). This monument was published in its entirety by E. Amélineau, with an introduction, in Mémoires publiés par les membres de la mission archéologique française au Caire. T. IV, Paris 1888, 92–164, under the title: Panégyrique de Macaire de Tkoou par Dioscore d’Alexandrie; in the introduction (XV–XXVII) Amelino also strongly expressed the opinion of its falsity. Excerpts of this work in the South Coptic (Sahidic) dialect were published by J. Krall in Mittheilungen aus der Sammlung der Papyrus Erzherzog Rainer. IV, Wien 1888, 63–74, and O. von Lemm, in Izvestiya imper. Academy of Sciences, 1913, No. 11, 632–5, 1914, No. 7, 485–492. Amelino’s opinion about the forgery of the monument was later joined by Kruger (in Die sogenannte Kirchengeschichte des Zacharias Rhetor in deutscher Übersetzung herausgegeben von K. Ahrens (und) G. Krüger. Lpz. 1899, 3041, who previously (1884) recognized the “stories” as reliable. Compare now about this work by F. Haase, Patriarch Dioskur I. von Alexandria. Nach monophysitischen Quellen, in Kirchengeschichtliche Abhandlungen. von M. Sdralek. VI. Breslau 1908, 162-180. - But in 1903 another monument was published by Abbot Nau, Histoire. de Dioscore, patriarche d'Alexandrie, écrite par son disciple Théopiste, publiée et traduite par M. F. Nau, in Journal asiatique, X série, t. I, Paris 1903, 1-108, 240-310 (and separately); Coptic fragments of this monument were also published, W. E. Crum, Coptic Texts relating to Dioscorus of Alexandria, in Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archeology, 1903, 267–276), and an Arabic translation of it is known in manuscript (cf. Haase, 146). Representing in general a work of higher quality than the Coptic panegyric of Macarius, and this work (which probably served as the reason for compiling the said panegyric and provided part of the material for it) is also Assemani, Bibl. vat. cat. III, 497 (cp. Nau, 11 4), was recognized as a later Jacobite fiction. In the end, its publisher Nau pronounces an unfavorable judgment about it, although he does not deny that its compiler (after 512) could have partly possessed genuine documents and reported actual facts, based, perhaps, on the original notes of Theopist (10–15); he recognizes, however, the message about the Council of Chalcedon as legendary (181). He speaks more harshly of the monument in Revue de l’Orient chrétien, 1905, 122 (cf. Haase, 159). Haase, 1. p., 145–162, and then generally 183–233, takes under his defense the “history” of Theopistus. J. Lebon finds it possible to agree with him, Le monophysisme severien. Lonvain 1909, 86–93, recognizing as probable the conference of Constantinople that preceded the Council of Chalcedon in the presence of the Emperor Marcian, which is mentioned both in the panegyric and - but only in a slightly different form - in the “history”. However, what was said on this occasion about the first monument by V.V. Bolotov in “Christ. Thu." 1885, 1, 40–57 (department 77–94) retains more or less meaning in relation to the second. And here, for example, there is not a word about the fact that the council was originally appointed in Nicaea. Despite all the captivating specificity and hence the apparent plausibility of the story of the author, who poses as the deacon Dioscorus and his companion to Constantinople, to Chalcedon and, finally, to the place of exile, among other things, the fact that he not only sends Dioscorus and himself into exile on the “island” of Gangra (this is the case everywhere in “history”, hence the “island” of Gangra, one must think, turned into a panegyric and then in various other monuments, cf. V.V. Bolotov, 1884, II, 611–2 (31–32)), but also reports his walk along the shore of the “sea”, when an Alexandrian merchant sailed to this “island” (Nau, 78:288), and speaks of the harbor located there (λιμήν, 92:297), while the city Gangra is actually located at least 150 miles from the sea in a straight line. Describing the path to exile from Chalcedon, he notes only a stop in Constantinople (75:286), but does not mention anything about Cyzicus and Heraclius; Meanwhile, from the work of the Monophysite successor of Dioscorus in the department, Timothy Elur, preserved in Armenian and Syriac translations, against the tomos of Leo V. and against the Council of Chalcedon, it is known that Dioscorus was sent first to Cyzicus, then to Heraclius (it is not said whether Thracian or Pontic), and then to the city of Gangra in Paphlagonia. Timotheus Älurus, des Patriarchen von Alexandrien, Widerlegung der auf der Synode zu Chalcedon festgesetzten Lehre. Armenischer Text herausgeg. von K. Ter-Mĕkĕrttschian und E. Ter-Minassiantz. Lpz. 1908, 147. Lebon, 12 3, 105. Since Gangra is sometimes called in Greek monuments ἡ τῶν Γαγγρηνῶν, without adding the word πόλις (this is exactly what Evagrius, h. e. II, 5: Διόσκορος μὲν τὴν τῶν Γαγγρηνῶν τῶν Παφλαγόνων οἰκεῖν κατακρίνεται; in Liberatus, breviar. 14: in Gangrena civitate; εἰς τὴν (τῶν) Γαγγρηνῶν πόλιν Armenian translation: ι Γαγγρηνῶν χαλαχ), and since the message of Timothy Elur about Cyzicus and Heraclius, undoubtedly reliable, remained, apparently, little known, and various other sources speak directly about the exile of Dioscorus to Gangra, then one can guess whether the compiler of the “history”, written originally in Greek, did not read in the former he had at hand some Greek source instead of Γαγγρηνῶν - Γάγγρην νῆσον, thus turning Gangra into an island. The Monophysites should have known Gangra as the place of exile not only of Dioscorus, but then also of Timothy Aelur and Philoxenus. A.B. This apparently shows that all previous protests were based on suspicion and misunderstanding: they did not understand what, what changes, the imaginary Nestorians were seeking. Schapper (K. Scharper, Die christologischen Sätze der Synode von Chalcedon, ihre dogmatische Bedeutung und historische Folgen. (Gütersloh?), 12) says that Hefele presented 8 arguments, each of which individually is sufficient to prove the inauthenticity of the reading. Hefele's arguments are as follows. The reading ἐν δύο φύσεσι is supported by: 1) vita s. Euthymii, 2) Severus of Antioch (513), 3) the Constantinople conference with the Sevirians (533), 4) church historian Evagrius (594), 5) Leontius of Byzantium, 6) Latin translation in 5 editions and Deacon Rusticus (553), which all read: “in duabus naturis”, 7) Lateran Council of 649 and 8) message of Pope Agathon of 680 (C. J. Hefele, Conciliengeschichte. B. II. 2 Aufl. Freiburg im Br. 1875, 470–1). Italics indicate passages taken literally from the Antiochene creed; italics with discharge (here - bold italics) - from the Antiochian creed, but with a rearrangement or change in edition; discharge (here – in bold) – literally from “Καταφλυαροῦσι”; CAPITAL - not literally from the tomos of Leo V. (§§ 4, 9:7). Greek text cf. in Bibliothek dei Symbole und Glaubensregeln der alten Kirche. Herausgeg. von A. Hahn. 3 Aufl. von L. Hahn. Breslau 1897, pp. 166–7. Ἑπόμενοι τοίνυν τοῖς ἁγίοις πατράσιν ἕνα καὶ τὸν αὐτὸν ὁμολογεῖν υίὸν τὸν κύριον ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦν Χρίστὸν συμφώνως ἅπαντες ᾽εκδιδάσκομεν, τέλειον τὸν αὐτόν ἐν θεότητι καὶ τέλειον τὸν αὐτόν ἐν άνθρωπότητι, θεὸν ἀληθῶς καὶ ἄνθρωπον ἀληθῶς τὸν αὐτόν ἐκ ψυχῆς λογικὴς καὶ σώματος, ὁμοούσιον τῷ πατρὶ κατὰ τὴν θεότητα καὶ ὁμοούσιον τὸν αὐτόν κατὰ τὴν ἀνθρωπότητα, κατὰ πάντα ὅμοιον ἡμῖν χωρὶς ἁμαρτίας πρὸ αἰώνων μὲν ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς γεννηθέντα κατὰ τὴν θεότητα, επ᾽ ἐσχάτων δὲ τῶν ἡμερῶν τὸν αὐτόν δἰ ἡμᾶς καὶ δια τδν ἡμετέραν σωτηρίαν ἐκ Μαρίας τῆς παρθένου τῆς θεοτόκου κατὰ τὴν ἀνθρωπότητα, ἕνα καὶ τὸν αὐτὸν Χρίστόν, υἱόν, κύριον, μονογενῆ, ἐν δύο φύσεσιν ἀσυγχύτως, ἀτρέπτως, ἀδιαιρέτως, ἀχωρίστως γνωριζόμενον ? σωζιότητος ἑκατέρας φύσεως καὶ εἰς ἓν ?? μεριζόμενον ἢ διαιρούμενον, ἀλλ᾽ ἕνα καὶ τὸν αὐτὸν υἱὸν καὶ μονογενῆ, θεὸν λὸγον, κύριον Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν καθάπερ ἀνωθεν οἱ προφῆται περὶ αὐτοῦ καὶ αὐτὸς ἡμᾶς ὁ κύριος Ἰησοῦς ἐξεπαίδευσε καὶ τὸ τῶν πατέρων ἡμῖν παραδέδωκε σύμβολον. A.B. Wed. V.V. Bolotov, Stories of Dioscorus about the Council of Chalcedon. In "Christ. Thu." 1884, II, 621–2 (= From the Church History of Egypt. Issue I, 41–2). A.B. The expression is not entirely clear. The word "salgama", from which it comes, means the actual seasoning for food; in this case, obviously, indicated a bribe, against which the laws of the empire were directed. Candidates for episcopal sees, coming to Constantinople, receiving government allowance, had to give salgam to the servants. Thus, Diogenes wanted to say with this word that “henchmen” were supplied to Constantinople. These circumstances give us reason to look at the economic situation of the bishops at that time. The blast furnace of Antioch was given 250 solidi (1453 rubles 12½ kopecks), and Vassian in Stefan was given 200 solidi (1162 rubles 50 kopecks in chervonets). In the history of both the initial emergence of Monophysitism and its establishment in subsequent times, of particular importance was the trust in forged Apollinarian texts, which contained, among other things, the expression inscribed with the names of such authoritative figures of antiquity as Athanasius V., Gregory the Wonderworker, Popes Julius and Felix. Since St. himself treated them with confidence. Cyril of Alexandria (two texts with the names of Julius and Felix, but without μία φύσις, were read at the Council of Ephesus in 431), and their true nature was not revealed with conviction even during the Council of Chalcedon, then extraordinary, one might say, difficulties were created for the bishops from this side when discussing the issue to which they were then called upon to resolve. This, apparently, is what mainly needs to explain the hesitations and sharp transitions from one side to the other of many of them and the soft attitude towards Dioscorus as the protector of the μία φύσις. Wed. A. Brilliantov, The Origin of Monophysitism, in “Christ. Thu." 1906, June, 793–822 (and separately). A.B. On the dogmatic and ritual features of the Armenian church, see I. E. Troitsky, Statement of the Faith of the Armenian Church, inscribed by Nerses, the Armenian Catholicos, at the request of the God-loving sovereign of the Greeks, Manuel. SPb. 1875. A. B. In general, about different trends in Monophysite dogmatics, cf. in I. E. Troitsky, Exposition of the Faith of the Armenian Church. SPb. 1875, 140–164. Wed. V.V. Bolotov, several pages from the church history of Ethiopia. II. Theological disputes in the Ethiopian Church. “Christ. Thu." 1888, II, 30–35. On Sevirian Monophysitism and Sevirian predecessors Dioscorus, Timothy Elure and Philoxenus, J. Lebon, Le monophysisme sévérien. Étude historique, littéraire et théologique sur la résistance monophysite au concile de Chalcédoine jusqu’à la constitution de l’église Jacobite. Louvain 1909. About Timothée Aelure, La christologie de Timothée Aelure, in Revue d’histoire ecclésiastique, IX, 1908, 677–702. A. B. About the year of death of Sevier - 538 instead of 543 - cf. M. Peisker, Severus von Antiochien. Ein kritischer Quellenbeitrag zur Geschichte des Monophysitismus. Halle a. S. 1903, 56–58. A.B. Wed. J. C. L. Gieseler. Commentatio, qua Monophysitarum veterum variae de Christi persona opiniones inprimis ex ipsorum effatis recens editis illustrantur. Part. I. Gottingae 1835. p. 13: καὶ τῶν, ἐξ ὧν ἡ ἕνωσις, μενόντων ἀμειώτων καὶ ἀναλλοιώτων, ἐν συνθέσει δὲ ὑφεστώτων, καὶ οῦκ ἐν μονάσιν ἰδιοσύστάτοις. 13: τὰ, ἐξ ὧν ὁ Ἐμμανουὴλ, ὑφεστήκει, καὶ μετὰ τὴν ἕνωσιν οὐ τέτραπται· ὑφεστήκει δὲ ἐν τῇ ἑνώσει καὶ ἐν μιᾷ ὑποστάσει θεωρούμενα, καὶ οὐκ ἐν μονάδι κατ᾽ ἰδίαν ὑπόστασιν, ἕκαστον ἰδιοστάτως θεωρούμενον. 14: τῆς φυσικῆς ἑτερότητος καὶ διαφορᾶς μὴ σβεσθείσης διὰ τὸ ἀσύγχυτον τῆς ἑνωσεως. 18: ἐν τῇ συνθέσει σκοπουμένας ἀναλλοιώτους, καὶ μεινάσας τοῦτο ὅπερ εἰσίν. Migne, s. gr. t. 86, 1 (Eustathii monachi epistola ad Timotheum scholasticum de duabus naturis adversus Severum), C. 936D: καὶ ταῖς ὑποστάσεσι. 933C: τὰ πάθη τὰ ἑκούσια καὶ ἀδιάβλητα, κατὰ τοὺς τῆς φύσεως νόμους ἐνδιδόντος τοῦ Θεοῦ Λόγου, τὸ σῶμα ἔπασχεν· τὰ θαύματα δὲ πάλιν δι᾽ αὐτοῦ τοῦ σώματος ὑπὲρ τοὺς τῆς φύσεως νόμους ἀπετέλει τότε καὶ ἐπράττετω. Gieseler. 14: συνεκαινοτόμησεν αὐταῖς καὶ τὰς προσηγορίας. – – μίαν ὡς ἑνὸς αὐτοῦ τήν τε φύσιν καὶ τὴν ὑπόστασιν καὶ τὴν ἐνέργειαν σύνθετον – – κηρύττομεν. 9: δύο τούτων [φύσεων] ἐνεργέιας ὁρισάμενοι μετὰ τὴν ἄφραστον ἔνωσιν, δικαίως ἀναθεματιζέσθωσαν, ὡς τὸν ἔνα Χρίστὸν εἰς δύο πρόσωπα καταμερίσαντες, οῦ γὰρ ἐνεργεῖ ποτε φύσις οὐχ ὑφεστῶσα. Migne. 908A: Ἐν συνθέσει δὲ ὑφισταμέναις ταῖς φύσεσιν ἐξ ὧν ὁ εῖς Χριστός. Gieseler, 16: φαίνεται γὰρ ἐν πολλοῖς ὁ λόγος μη, συγχωρῶν τῇ ἰδίᾳ σαρκὶ διὰ τῶν τῆς σαρκός ἔρχεσθαι νόμων. Migne, 924B: διὰ τὸ μηδὲ τὰς οὐσίας ἤγουν ὑποστάσεις ἢ φύσεις ἰδιοσυστάτως ὑφεστηκέναι καὶ κεχωρισμένως καὶ ἀνὰ μέρος. Gieseler 21 καὶ ἑνὸς ἰδιώματος. 22: ?? σαρκί. 23: καθ᾽ ὃ μὲν θεὸς, δοκήσέι πέπονθεν· καθ᾽ ὃ δὲ ἄνθρωπος, ἀληθείᾳ. 17: καὶ ὁ αὐτὸς κατὰ ἀλήθειαν καὶ γενόμενος καὶ φαινόμενος ἄνθρωπος. Cp. J. A. Dorner. Entwickelungsgeschichte der Lehre von der Person Christi von den ältesten Zeiten bis auf die neueste. 2 Aufl. Th. II. Berlin 1853, 168. A. B. On the subject of human knowledge of Christ, see especially Ch. Gore, Dissertations on subjects connected with the incarnation. (1895) 1907 3 London, p. 71–225: The conciousness of our Lord in His mortal life. H. C. Powell, The principle of the incarnation with especial reference to the relation between our Lord’s divine omniscience and His human consciousness. London 1896. Wed. also J. Lebreton, Les origines du dogme de la Trinité. Paris 1910, p. 447–469. M. Skaballanovich, in the article “Communicatio idiomatum”, in the Theological Encyclopedia, vol. XII (), 609–617. A.B. The first to speak among the Monophysites with the Tritheite teaching was a certain John Askosnagis. For triteite disputes, see A.P. Dyakonov, John of Ephesus and his church-historical works. SPb. 1908, 125–143. A.B. Our modern Monophysites - Jacobites, Copts, Abyssinians and Armenians, all belong to the Sevirian - Theodosian branch. – In historical monuments the name Sevirians “diacrinomenami” is found. οἱ διακρινόμενοι. The meaning of this word is “doubting, indecisive”, and in the best sense: “choosy”. Wed. Rom.14:23 ("but if anyone doubts, if he eats, he is condemned, because it is not from faith, and whatever is not from faith is sin"); 1 Corinthians 11:31 This name reflects the view of Orthodox polemicists on the Sevirians, somewhat reminiscent of Athanasius V.’s review of the Omiusians. The polemical study of Sevier's works led the Orthodox to the conclusion that in this teaching there are more internal contradictions and inconsistencies than tangible errors; and since they did not see a directly and consistently negative attitude towards Orthodox dogma in its content, they tried to arrange a union with the “diacrinomen”. In this regard, the comment of the 6th century polemicist is interesting. Eustathia. He does not at all sympathize with either the “two-headed fox” - Sevirus, or the “bilingual snakes” - the Sevirians; however, he expresses his judgment about this system as follows: “they came up with “one nature”; and use it to undermine the “two” (natures); and therefore they anathematize those who speak of two natures by union. And yet the logic of the facts forces them themselves (καὶ τοίγε τῇ ἀκολουθίᾳ τῶν πραγμάτων συνελαυνόμενοι) to often talk about two natures, as we have proven above. Whoever says: “one nature of God the Word incarnate and animated by a rational soul,” and does not confess “two natures,” is like the person who said: “one and a half and three sixths (1 1/2 - 3/6),” and does not want to say that these numbers add up to two.” See V.V. Bolotov, Lectures on the history of the ancient church. III, 303–4. A.B. It should be noted, however, that among, for example, the Akimites there were undoubtedly persons who were very close to Nestorianism in their views, admirers of Theodore of Mopsuestia. But the number of such persons, “secret Nestorians,” one must think, was generally very insignificant, although they carried out propaganda of their views, as Leontius of Byzantium reports. A.B. Regarding the works known with the name of St. Dionysius the Areopagite, cf. V.V. Bolotov, On the issue of Areopagite creations. (Letter to Archbishop Anthony of Finland), in “Christ. Thu." 1914, May, 555–580. A.B. F. Kurganov. Relations between church and civil authorities in the Byzantine Empire. Kazan 1880, 581–590, 587. A. B. Wed. about the order of commemoration of the living and the dead in prayer at the liturgy of St. Vasily V. (with mentions of the liturgy of St. Gregory the Theologian) V. V. Bolotov, Notes on the text of the liturgy of St. Basil the Great, in “Christ. Readings”, 1914, March, 281–298. A.B. The chronology of the initial history of the Monothelite dispute is generally confused, because the political history of the Persians, the religious history of the Armenians and then the Arab movement are connected with the history of the campaigns of Heraclius. Each story has its sources. Meanwhile, for example, Arab history is conveyed by Arab writers in a unique way. It is a well-known technique of Arab writers to compare together evidence from several sources; it is necessary to determine the comparative dignity of the latter. The Chronicle of Theophanes the Confessor in this case is a completely untenable source. In Egypt, politics was extremely peculiar. The emperor's cousin, dux Nikita, is leading an operation on two fronts. He had clashes with John the Merciful over church property, which Nikita wanted to use for the needs of the state. Nikita's Orthodoxy is beyond any doubt; he behaved like a child of the Orthodox Church. But on the other hand, in a secret way, even before the capture of Alexandria, he tried to bring the Monophysites together into one solid whole. There was a division between the Monophysites: on the one hand, the Kononites (Triteites) stood out from them, on the other, there was a division between the Monophysites of the two patriarchates (Alexandrian and Antioch) due to the issues raised by Peter of Antioch and Damian of Alexandria. This division outlived the perpetrators themselves. The Theodosians themselves did not represent strict unity among themselves: they were divided by infighting. The state tried to unite the Monophysites among themselves in order to carry on the work of a union with a compact core. The principle of divide et impera, as previous experience had shown, was inapplicable in the matter of the union of the Monophysites with the Orthodox. Attempts to unite the Monophysites among themselves and to destroy the divisions that were corroding them, apparently, did not remain completely unsuccessful. Presbyter Thomas reports that in 618 the “house” of Damian joined the (Monophysite) church, and in 619 the “house” of Konon and Eugene joined the church (according to other news, the reunion of the Damianites occurred back in 616). So, just before the capture of Alexandria by the Persians, Nikita was already working for the benefit of the reunification of the renegades with the Monophysites. The union of the Alexandrian Monophysites with the Antiochian ones also apparently took place. Patriarch Anastasius of Alexandria has long grieved that the Monophysite Church does not have communion with the Antioch Church. As a result of his message to the Patriarch of Antioch, Athanasius, Athanasius arrived in Alexandria, where he was greeted with triumph, and, thanks to the efforts of the “Orthodox” (Monophysites), the zeal of Anastasius, and the efforts of Nikita, a union took place between Athanasius and Anastasius. In any case, events indisputably indicate that the Constantinople government has been working for a long time and systematically for the cause of union. Bardenhewer published extracts from a work named Eulogius (Theologische Quartalschrift. 1896, 363–378), where a polemic is waged against the doctrine of one will and energy in Christ. But despite the publisher’s confidence in its authenticity (358: Die Ächtheit - - steht ausser Zweifel), shared by other scientists, this work, one must think, does not belong to Eulogius and belongs to a later time. A.B. Wed. however, W. Wright, A Brief Sketch of the History of Syriac Literature. Translation from English K. A. Turaeva. Edited and with additions by Prof. P.K. Kokovtsova. SPb. 1902, 93 6 (228), where it is noted that Paul, probably the abbot of the Ken-Neshri monastery, “is incorrectly called in the manuscript the Bishop of Edessa.” But V.V. Bolotov’s hypothesis that he was at least destined for the Edessa department is apparently possible. A.B. About Kira cf. in the sketches of V.V. Bolotov, found in his papers and published under the general, not entirely accurate, title: “On the history of Emperor Heraclius”, in “Byzantium. Vremennik” for 1907, vol. XIV. 1 (1908) and separately, pp. 68–73 (= 1–6): “Who was “al-mukaukis”? What does the word "al-mukaukis" mean? (“al-mukaukis” - the “great Copt” of the Arab legend, who surrendered Egypt to the Arabs by treaty, is Cyrus; the name was either given by the Arabs in mockery and means the bird al-muqaucas, or there is an Arabic translation of the Greek nickname “ὁ κεκαυκασιωμένος”, indicating Cyrus’s earlier stay in the Caucasus), and pp. 98–106 (= 31–39) - about the disgrace that later befell Cyrus († March 21, 642) On the issue of the identity of “al-Mukaukas” or “al-Mukaukas” with Cyrus, after the death of V.V. Bolotov, an article by A. J. Butler, On the identity of “Al Mukaukas” of Egypt, appeared, in Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archeology, XIII (1901), 275–290, reprinted with amendments in his The Arab Conquest of Egypt and the last thirty years of Roman dominion. Oxford 1902, 508–526. The author is also inclined to think that this name could indicate the arrival of Cyrus from the Caucasus, namely, it could correspond to the Greek “ὁ καυκάσιος”, although it could have a different meaning. A.B. V.V. Bolotov himself in his lectures (course 1892/3), as well as in the above-mentioned sketches, published after his death in the form of an article entitled “On the history of Emperor Heraclius.” (Byzantium. Times. XIV, 1, 89–91, separate from 22–24), expresses the opinion that the council in Karin, at which the reunification of Ezra and other Armenians with the Greek Church took place, took place at the end of 628 or the beginning of 629. In this article, as the terminus post quem non of the council, July 28, 631, the date of death of the Antiochian Monophysite Patriarch Athanasius, is established, in view of the letter on behalf of this patriarch to the deposed predecessor of Ezra Christopher, available in the Armenian translation of the chronicle of Michael the Great, which mentions the “unreasonable act” of Ezra. When determining the exact date of the cathedral, V.V. Bolotov follows the testimony of Hovhannes Mamikonyan that the cathedral took place in the 19th year of the reign of Heraclius (October 5, 628–October 4, 629). M. Brosset, Histoire de la Siounie par Stéphannos Orbélian, traduite do l’arménien, already treated this testimony with confidence. I. S.-Pétersbourg 1864, 72 4. - But the letter with the name Athanasius, after the publication of the corresponding part of the chronicle of Michael in the original Syriac text (II, 3, ed. Chabot, 1904), turned out to actually belong to Maruta, Metropolitan of Mar-Mattai, and was addressed to Athanasius’ successor, John; there are no words about Ezra at the beginning of the letter (as well as the end of the letter), and they appeared only in the Armenian processing of the chronicle. Wed. V. Ter-Minassiantz, Die armenische Kirche in ihren Beziehungen zu den syrischen Kirchen bis zum Ende des 13. Jahrhunderts. (Texte und Untersuchungen herausgeg. von O. Gebhardt und A. Harnack. N. F. XI, 4). Leipzig 1904, 177–8. O. Braun, Das Buch der Synhados, already speaks of this letter as a forgery – “gefälscht”. Stuttgart und Wien 1900, 383 (cp. Ter-Minassiantz, 67). On the other hand, even earlier G. Owsepian, Die Entstehungsgeschichte des Monotheletismus nach ihren Quellen geprüft und dargestellt. Leipzig 1897, 51–4, drew attention to the fact that, according to Sebeos (History of Emperor Herakles, ch. 28), Ezra's predecessor Christopher was installed in the see under Kavad, who occupied the throne in 628, from February 25 to September, and was replaced by Ezra after two years of reign, on the third. From this he concludes that this deposition could not have taken place earlier than the end of 630, and the council, if it had already taken place in the first year of Ezra, could not have taken place earlier than the beginning of 631. But in the Narratio de rebus Armeniae of an unknown author, published by Combefis (1648), the time of the council is determined as the 23rd year of Heraclius, the 4th after the death of Khosroes. Since the 23rd year of Heraclius (632 Oct. 5 – 633 Oct. 4) “may very well correspond to the year 633, and not 632, as Assemani thinks,” and Stefan Orbelian notes that the council was in the 3rd year of the reign of Ezra, then it should be attributed to the year 633 (54). This date can already be found in A. Ter-Mikelian, Die armenische Kirche in ihren Beziehungen zur byzantinischen (vom IV. bis zum XIII. Jahrhundert). Leipzig 1892, 61; but for him it appears regardless of the indicated grounds, due only to a misunderstanding. After Hovsepyan’s argument, it is now usually accepted by scientists. Wed. G. Krüger in Hauck's RE 3 XIII (), 403 47 . A. Pernice, L'imperatore Eraclio. Firenze 1905, 225 4: “L’anno di questo concilio è stato saldamente fissato da Owsepian.” Yu. Kulakovsky, History of Byzantium. III. Kyiv 1915, 131–2. – It is necessary, however, to note (Kulakovsky also draws attention to this) that the 23rd year of Heraclius reported in the Narratio does not actually coincide with the 4th year after the death († 628 February 29) of Khosroes II (631 February 28 (+1) – 632 February 28). It is necessary, obviously, to assume an error either by the author or the scribes in one of the numbers, κγ' or δ' (in the text published by Combefis there is “ἐν τετάρτῳ ἔτει”, but in the manuscripts that preceded his original there could have been a letter designation). The agreement of dates, by the way, would be achieved if we assume the replacement of the original A in the latter case through Δ, and see here not Khosroe II, but Khosroe III († in the second half of 632 or the first 633); but it must be considered almost certain that it is Khosroes II that is meant here, and not the ephemeral and little-known Khosroes III. If we recognize δ' as originating from ε', then the time for the cathedral will be 632 Oct. 5 – 633 Feb. 28; if we correct κγ' to κβ', then – 631 oct. 5 – 632 Feb. 28. One should not, however, lose sight of the fact that it remains unknown how the author counted the years, whether the years in relation to the beginning were identified with Byzantine (from September 1) or even Armenian (from June 21 - if he was an Armenian writing in Greek). In any case, it is apparently impossible yet to consider the issue finally resolved in favor of 633, and Hovsepyan, without sufficient grounds, completely rejects the one proposed by Assemanius in 632 (this year is accepted by G. Williams in Smith and Wace, Diction. of Christian Biography, I 1877), 165, as noted by V.V. Bolotov in Viz. Time XIV, 1, 89, dep. Ott. 22). Ezra’s first year could have begun already in the second half of 630, and Orbelian’s indication that the council took place in the 3rd year of his reign is quite applicable to the last half of 632. - It is difficult to explain the silence about the Carin Council in Sebeos, who instead only talks about Ezra’s journey to the emperor to conclude a union in “Assyria” (chap. 29). V.V. Bolotov, distinguishing this journey from his trip to the Karinsky Cathedral, dates it back to the time after the council, which, according to him, was in 628–9, precisely to the summer of 630, and motivates it with the need to explain to the emperor “openly regarding the union” after a letter to Heraclius Matusag of Siuni (98, sec. ot. 31). But if the council took place later, then obviously this meeting between Ezra and the emperor could have been aimed at attracting, first of all, Ezra himself to the union, which over time should have been approved at the council. This is how the matter is understood, for example, by Pernice, 225 4, and Kulakovsky, 126. That Heraclius drew attention to Ezra from the very beginning, as soon as he was elevated to the department, and soon invited him to his place, is quite natural. It is possible that the very election of Ezra did not occur without Byzantine influence, at least indirectly. – According to what has been said, changes were made in V.V. Bolotov’s lectures during publication: the story about the cathedral, as it happened no earlier than 632, is placed further, and Sebeos’ message about Ezra’s trip to Mesopotamia and his personal union with the emperor is attributed to the initial moment of relations between Heraclius and Ezr. A.B. Wed. V.V. Bolotov, Lectures on the history of the ancient church. I. St. Petersburg. 1907, 103–5. In the present case, in the notes of the lectures (course 1892/3), instead of “in Alexandria” or “in Egypt”, it is mistakenly written “in Armenia”. In the papers of V.V. Bolotov regarding the date in the union act, Mansi, XI, 563–4D: μηνὶ Παϋνὶ, ἰνδικτιῶνος ς, in lat. translation: mensis Maii die quarta, indictione sexta (874Ë mense Martio, indictione VI), a comparison is made: “632Γd = 3 παϋνι = Thursday June 3 – Wednesday; 633Δ s = 3 παϋνι = Friday June 3 = Thursday." From this we can obviously conclude that he interpreted “die quarta” in the sense of environment (that instead of Maii one should read Junii, Hefele notes this, Conciliengeschichte. Freiburg im Br. 1877, 138, whose name was immediately mentioned by V.V. Bolotov: “Hefele 1877”). Regardless of V.V. Bolotov, S.A. Epifanovich came to the conclusion that the union in Alexandria took place in 632, based on the identification of “die quarta” with the environment and in view of the peculiarities of the Egyptian indictment (written message dated May 15, 1915). V.V. Bolotov also draws attention to the words of Pope Martin in the first meeting of the Lateran Council (a.d. 3. non. Oct. = 5. oct. 649, ind. 8), Mansi, X, 872D? (sic) καὶ ὀκτὼ (“ante hos decem et octo annos”) Ἀλεξάνδρου πόλιν ὁρίσας ἐνέργειαν, τῆς τε θεότητος αὐτοῦ καὶ ἀνθρωπότητος, ὁμοτρόπως τοῖς ἀκεφάλοις αἱρετικοῖς ἐν ?? κηρυχθέντων σὺν ἀναθεματίσμῷ κατὰ τῶν μὴ οὕτω κατ᾽ αὐτὸν φρονούντων ἐθέσπισεν. In this case, the following calculations are made. “8 + 15 = 23 − (18 − 1) = ind. 6; 23 − (18 − 0) = ind. 5. 649.Х.5 − 633.VI.3 = 16 a 4 m 2 d ; 649.X.5 − 632.VI.3 = 17 a 4 m 2 d . Cf. 913: “πρò χρόνων ἐπτà”, (at the same meeting, about the message of Sergius of Cyprus, which was written) 916: “Μαΐῳ κθ᾽ ἰνδικτιῶνος πρώτης.” 8 ind. − (7 − 0) = ind. 1. 649 X.8 − 643.V.29 = 6 a 4 m 9 d. Cf. a. d. 3.non. Oct.: 7. Oct. − (3 − 1) = 5 Oct. not oct. 7 − (3 − 0) = Oct. 4". The reference to 913A, 916E (the first “cf.”) should obviously explain the way in which Martin kept count in 872DE, namely, without including the current year, although this was not the custom of the Romans in their counting of the days of the month (the second “cf.”). A.B. J. Hergenröther, Handbuch der allgemeiner Kirchengeschichte. III. Freiburg im Br. 1880, 138–140. Cp. Ch. J. Hefele, Histoire des conciles. Trad. par. H. Leclerc q. III, 1. Paris 1909, 347–9. A. B. A. Ruсkgaber, Die Irrlehre des Honorius und das vaticanische Decret über die päpstliche Unfehlbarkeit. Stuttgart 1871. A. B. The pink color in the petals of a rose is not only ἰδιότης, but also ἐνέργεια of this plant, determined by its nature; the pink color in the crystal goblet is its color, but not its color from the point of view of the issue we are considering, since this color is not given in the color of the crystal itself. Wed. V.V. Bolotov, On the history of Emperor Heraclius in “Byzantium. Vremennik”, XIV, 1, 74 (separate from 8): “from Ἡράκλειος the Syriac diminutive should be precisely Heraqlônâ = Ἡρακλωνἀς the generally accepted spelling “Herakleonas” does not have a solid basis. “Emperor Constantine (641–668) is usually called by the diminutive Κώνατας, which, of course, is also of family origin.” A.B. In the lithographed notes of lectures (course 1892/3) it is written “in βεσσας”. This refers to the area mentioned in the description of the trial of Maxim. Combefis in his edition gives here ᾽εις Вέββας (Migne, s. gr. 90, 124C), in the Latin translation by Anastasius the Librarian it stands in Bellas, in the manuscripts of Moscow. Synod. Libraries No. 380 and 391 – ᾽εις Βεμβας (cf. Life of St. Maxim and service to him. Translated by Prof. M. D. Muretov. Sergiev Posad 1915:73), the same is in the Vatican manuscripts, from which Morin’s translation was made, placed in Baronius (in Bembas). But in the Georgian handwritten translation of the life of Maxim, according to the Russian transmission by Archpriest. K. S. Kekelidze (Information from Georgian sources about the teacher Maximus the Confessor, in the “Proceedings of the Kyiv Spiritual Academy” 1912, November, 464, separate print, 51), reads: “when you were sitting in Vess”, according to the guess of V.V. Bolotov. Prot. Kekelidze sees here an indication of the Palestinian Vesses and the stay of Maxim in Palestine (ibid., September, 15–16). The papers of V.V. Bolotov contain the signature of the petition to Justinian by the abbots of Constantinople and the Palestinian and Syrian monks, which was read at the Council of Constantinople in 536. (Mansi, VIII, 987E) τῶν Βέσσων (Latin translation: monasterii Bessorum), ὑπογράψας ᾽εδεήθην”, and attention is drawn to the fact that this Andrew is among the Abbots of Constantinople (No. 29, Constantinople = No. 1–66; obviously he is identical with Andrew, “πρεαβύτερος καὶ ἡγούμενος μονῆς τῆς ἀγίας Θεοτόκου”, in the petition Mine, 1010E, No. 32 in the series of Constantinople = Nos. 1–68). At the same time, it is noted: “It is more than possible (for Βεσσῶν, not Βέσσων) that the correct translation = Bessarum. Cf. Σέργιος ὁ Εὐκρατᾶς (his words during the trial of Maxim) εἰς Βέββας . This – Βεσσῶν – is the monastery of Constantinople.” In Mansi, VIII, 987E, however, it reads “Βέσσων”, and “Βεσσῶν” in V.V. Bolotov, apparently, is based on an oversight. But this monastery, in any case, was located in Constantinople. Wed. Marin, Les moines de Constantinople depuis la fondation de la ville jusqu'à la mort de Photius (330–898). Paris 1897, 24. A. B. In the lectures of V.V. Bolotov it is written here: “together with his two students Anastasia.” To the inaccuracy of this message, which can be found in almost all new authors speaking about Maxim, and which is definitely expressed in the synaxaric narrative about Maxim and in his life (Migne, s. gr. 90, 209C; 851); Muretov, 47), drew attention to J. Stiglmayr, Der heilige Maximus “mit seinen beiden Schülern”, in “Der Katholik”, V. XXXVIII, 1908, No. 7, 39–45. Anastasius the apocrisiary was exiled to Trebizond back in 648 (not in 646, as Stiglmayr believes, 43:45), then he was transferred to Mesimvria, and finally, already in 662, together with Maximus and Anastasius the monk, he was exiled to Lazika. It should be noted, by the way, that the question to Maxim at the trial (Migne, s. gr. 90, 128C): σου; and his answer: Τριάκοντα ἑπτά, obviously refer to the duration of Anastasius’ stay with Maxim as his student (cf. Muretov, 80), and not to Anastasius’ age, as Stieglmayr understood it (40). From this message we can conclude that by 619 Maxim was already a monk. A.B. The name “Pogonat” was acquired by Constantine from Kedrin and Zonara. But Constantine the Porphyrogenitus applies it to Constant (= Constantine), the father of Constantine. Hence it is assumed that this name was transferred to the latter due to a misunderstanding, and in the explanation given in the text (by Zonara) they see only a later invention. Wed. Yu. Kulakovsky, History of Byzantium. III, Kyiv 1915, 351–2. A.B. Quaternio or τετράδιον is a technical term meaning the size of a particular manuscript or book. 4 oblong sheets, folded into one stack, formed a τετράδιον (hence the Russian word “notebook”), which was equal to eight leaves or 16 pages. If they took not 4, but 5 sheets, and folded them in the same way, then the stack obtained from this had a different term - πεντάδιον = 10 leaves, or 20 pages. Tirade: Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν συμφώνως ἄπαντες ἐκδιδάσκομεν, added: “Ι. X. ζωαρχικὴς Τριάδος ". Tirade: ᾽εκ Μαρίας τῆς παρθένου τῆς Θεοτόκου κατὰ τὴν ἀνθρωπότητα, added: "ἐκ Πνεύματος ἁγίου καὶ Μαρίας τῆς παρθένου τῆς κυρίως καὶ καὰ ἀλήθειαν Θεοτόκου κατὰ τὴν ἀνθρωπότητα.” For further discussion about the Maronite sect and its emergence, it is necessary to pay attention to some geographical data. – Monastery of Maron – Dayr (μονὴ) Marôn – lies at φ+34° 19’ 3 , λ+36° 21’; Kanobîn (= κοινόβιον) – φ+34° 14’ 3 , λ+35° 54’ 4 . Cities: al-Batroûn (= Βότρυς) φ+34° 16’ 4 , λ+35° 40’; Homs (= Homs, Ἔμισσα) φ+34° 42’ 8 . λ+36° 41’ 7 ; Hamâh (= Hama, Ἐπιφάνεια) φ+35° 7’ 4 , λ+36° 41 7 ; a Kala’at-el-Medîk (Ἀπαμεια) φ+35° 25’ 4 , λ+36° 1’. φ+ denotes northern latitude, λ+ eastern longitude (from Greenwich).