Venerable Anastasius Sinaite. Chapters against Monothelites: 3-4 chapters

Translation from the original: Uthemann 1985. S. 115–134. Translation of the first two chapters of the treatise “Chapters against the Monothelites”: Adrian (Pashin), abbot. 2017. Special thanks for their help in editing the translation are expressed to Hieromonk Theodore (Yulaev) and Abbot Dionysus (Shlenov). Translation from Ancient Greek and notes by Abbot Adrian (Pashin) We continue to publish in Russian the works of St. Anastasia Sinaita “Chapters against Monothelites.” In the third chapter of St. Anastasius comments on quotations from the Areopagite Corpus about the inseparable division of the single Divine action and will. In the fourth, Sinait comments in detail on the expression from the Areopagite Corpus about the “divine action” of Christ. The last two chapters and the adjoining “Florilegium against the Monothelites” will be published in the next issues of the Theological Bulletin. In the published third and fourth chapters of the treatise “Chapters against the Monothelites”, St. Anastasius Sinaite refutes the Monothelite interpretation of the Areopagite Corpus. In the third chapter of St. Anastasius points out that Dionysius speaks of the inseparable division of the common unified Divine action and the common unified Divine will into many Divine actions and expressions of will: creation, providence, sanctification, etc.: “... in God the Divine wills are visible, as well as the Divine energies: the wills of providence, as well as energies, intelligent wills, as well as intelligent energies, punishing wills, commanding wills, convincing wills, comforting wills, but all of them for the salvation and conversion of people appeared from God and were conceived by God, who wants all people to be saved and to achieve the knowledge of the truth 1.” Sinaite ironically notes that, “being ashamed of the apostolic husband Dionysius,” the Monothelite “theatrical fables and funeral dances” should say: “We are talking about many energies in Christ, which the teacher has now listed, but we are not talking about two energies.” St. Anastasy uses one of the techniques of logic - reduction to absurdity. He accuses the Monothelites - this step of Monophysitism closest to Orthodoxy, which agrees with the text of the Chalcedonian Oros (including the dual consubstantiality of Christ and two natures) while adding the doctrine of one, only Divine, His will - of extreme heresy: Manichaeism and Apollinarism. According to Rev. Anastasia, the Monothelites’ veneration of Christ as perfect and consubstantial with us in humanity while denying His human will and action is hypocritical. Indeed, in fact, in Monothelite guise the same heresy of Monophysitism appears (as expounded by Severus of Antioch), therefore the union of the Orthodox with the Monophysites based on the formula “two natures, one will,” according to the thought of St. Anastasia, was not an equal compromise between two parties - Orthodox and Monophysites, but a betrayal of Orthodoxy. This was clearly realized by the Monophysites themselves, who hypocritically signed the Monothelite union confession. According to Sinaite, “the Jacobites in Syria and the Theodosians in Alexandria, boasting, said: “Not we and Chalcedon, but Chalcedon entered into communion with us, confessing one nature of Christ through” one action.” The fourth chapter is devoted to the Orthodox interpretation of the expression “the divine energy of Christ” from the fourth letter of Dionysius the Areopagite to the minister Gaius. The Monothelites, following Sevier of Antioch, referring to the authority of Dionysius, spoke of a single, but complex “divine” energy of Christ, seeing in it the presence of two “particular” components - Divine and human. Both opponents and supporters of the Council of Chalcedon, speaking about the complex action of Christ, referred to the words from this epistle: “He (Christ - I.A.) was not a man, not in the sense that He is not a man, but as one who became such a man from among men, Who is truly beyond men and above man, and, finally, not as God who accomplished the divine and not as a human man, but since God became a man, a kind of new God-husband energy for us living" 3. This expression became a sign of monoenergism. In the 7th century One of the first to interpret the expression of Dionysius in the Orthodox spirit was St. Sophronius of Jerusalem. He distinguished between three actions in Christ: the purely Divine, the purely human and the divine. According to Sophronius, the divine action was not single, but consisted of two different and unmixed actions. When the Lord healed the centurion's servant at a distance, 4 He acted only as God, acted only as a man when he ate and suffered, and, finally, performed a godly action when he healed by touch, anointing, etc. This is the teaching of St. Sophrony reproduced St. Maximus the Confessor in his comments on the fourth epistle of Dionysius the Areopagite: “Let no one say, turning to vanity, that he (Dionysius - I.A.) calls the Lord Jesus a “god-man,” for he did not say “god-man,” forming from “god-man,” but “god-man” energy, that is, the intertwined energy of God and man. Hence he called God “who became a man,” and not the husband – God. Nowadays he called only mixed energy “godly.” For He acted only as God when He healed the centurion’s son at a distance, but only as a man, although He was God, when He ate and grieved. In a mixed way, He performed miracles: by anointing He created the eyes of the blind and by His touch He stopped the bleeding.” 5 St. Anastasius Sinaite, discussing the expression of Dionysius the Areopagite regarding the new godly action, repeats the teaching of St. Sophronia, etc. Maximus, citing numerous examples of the purely Divine and purely human actions of Christ. Only Divine action is the vision of the events that happened at the time of His death; purely human - hunger, sleep, fatigue, etc. This in no way introduces the Nestorian division of Christ: “But even if we say that Christ endures all human passions in the flesh, we do not say that it is simple in the flesh - let it not be! - but flesh and soul, inseparably united with the Divine in them at all times, in every place and in every matter. For we do not partake of the simple body of man, but of the body of God and the blood of God in truth.” By the divine action of St. Anastasius, following St. Sophronius and etc. Maxim refers to the joint action of the Divinity and humanity of Christ: the miraculous birth from the Virgin, walking on water, healing of a man born blind, resurrection of the daughter of the ruler of the synagogue, etc. Quotes from Saint Dionysius the Areopagite, clearly showing that even without humanity Christ has different energies according to the divinity of the word 1. From the Epistle to Titus, in which he speaks about God like this: “... and neither resting nor moving, but, if I may say so, providential energies in uniqueness 6 and immobility in providence inseparably and completely having” 7. Since this is what the apostolic teacher said about the Divinity, then if they say that Christ is completely perfect in the Divinity, it means that according to the perfect Divinity of the Word He has Divine energies: He has providential energies, has the rational energies of the Word, has His sacred energies, has unshakable energies, has rational energies, has infinite energies, has God-originating 8 energies, has the first, middle and last energies 9. Therefore if he who speaks of two energies in Christ names two persons, then he who speaks of so many energies will be found to name countless persons in Him. But it is surprising that the teacher names many different energies not only in the Divine nature, but also in the angelic essence, and in the human, and, generally speaking, in all nature, because it is obvious that such an irrelevant statement: “The death of nature is weakness and lack of natural properties, energies and forces” 10 pointed to the nature of everything. And if so, and this is so, why then did we decide to think that every essence has one natural energy? If there is one, then why does Dionysius call one many energies? If there are many of them, then why can many be considered as one? So, as one is called by God 11 the nature of fire and one is its comprehensive and main natural property, that is, igniting power, but in addition, in this natural property, certain branches and other properties of fire are visible, that is, to shine, strive upward, be intangible, warm, give life, purify, 12 so piously think that all natures have one most comprehensive and most important natural of each essence energy from which, as from a certain source and generative root, the particular, so to speak, energies of this comprehensive and essential energy are also seen to originate. And if you like, let us take the floor again and start researching. We have been taught by the Divine voice itself that the moon has one essential energy - the radiance that enlightens the night, for which it was created 13 . But in this most important, all-encompassing and most general essential energy of the moon, in addition, other contributing energies are visible, as if branches and branches from their maternal energy, for example: movement, movement in space, birth once a month, growth every day, decrease after fullness, and not only this, but also the moon’s control of sea waters, their ebb and flow, as well as the growth and decline of the bodies of fish in accordance with the body moon. Not only this, but the nature of the trees, due to the lunar energy, retreats and perceives increases and decreases. Do you see that one nature and one natural energy, moreover, this soulless, unreasonable and insensitive one, has numerous and countless private energies? Therefore, the divine Dionysius says with divine inspiration and wisdom that each nature has its various natural energies: “The death of nature is weakness and lack of natural properties, energies and forces” 14. After all, examining individually, according to the model of the speculations examined above and shown regarding the moon, the prudent will find that every nature has in itself both its most comprehensive and total energy, and in it, as in the source, its energies that are born and originate from it. For the earth also received from God one essential name of energy, named by God, being called dry land by Him. 15 But look what (comes) from this most important and only energy; how many private energies we see in the dry essence of the earth: the energy of plant growth, the energy of the birth of bodies, the energy of animal nutrition, the energy of the appearance of sources; the energy of the earth is one - fertilizing, the other - making infertile, this - giving salinity 16, this - delivering health, this - destructive, this - healing, and this - deadly, for example, the so-called hemlock 17 and scammonium 18 and many other good things, copper sulfate and sulfur 19. In the same way, in one essential and most comprehensive energy of water, which consists in the fact that it supplies drink and life, various partial energies are seen: the energy of water is cleansing, the energy of water is salty and bitter, another, in turn, is fertilizing, and another is the dead and barren sea; some waters are bad, as in Jericho, 20 some cause illness, others are unfit for drinking, some waters are stagnant, others are flowing and restless; some have energy that rises up from the ground, others flow like rivers, falling down. And in the nature of the air you will discover myriads of differences, mixtures and energies of the air, one way or another, in places and countries: here the life-giving, and there the destructive energy of the air. In the same way, one must think and understand about the essential will, namely: every rational spiritual nature has one unique will, desiring and desiring ability and power, but in addition, in the image of the all-encompassing energy, the all-encompassing will is divided and proceeds into many and differently named wills. What I mean is this: We know that the most general, chief, and all-embracing will of the Divine nature is to will that all men should be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth 21 . So, we know the various wills of God that came from this very all-encompassing will: God, by his own will, instructed Adam in the saving law, 22, by his will, established the law of Noah, 23, by his will, he gave circumcision to Abraham as a sign of worship of God, 24, by his will, he inscribed the law of piety on Moses, 25, by his will, he revealed the prophets for salvation, by his good will, the Lord of all, God the Word, for the salvation of all came to earth and, incarnate, became human. And so, in the same way, think, prudent, about the many and varied wills of God, which are spoken of in the Divine Scripture, as, for example, when God says: “I have found a man after My heart, David, the son of Jesse, who will fulfill all My desires” 26, and: “I told Moses His way, the sons of Israel His desires” 27, and: “...in the council of the righteous and in the assembly of the great work of the Lord, perfected in all His will” 28 . If it is necessary to say, following the rule about the energies that blessed Dionysius mentioned in God, then in God the Divine wills are visible, as well as the Divine energies: the wills of providence, as well as energies, intelligent wills, as well as intelligent energies, punishing wills, commanding wills, persuasive wills, comforting wills, but all of them for the salvation and conversion of people appeared from God and were conceived by God, who wants all people to be saved and achieve knowledge truths 29. 2. If you, the adversary, ask me, saying: “If this is so, then would it not be better for you to speak of the many wills and the many energies of the Divinity and humanity of Christ, and not of two or one?” - then listen. With the help of the most comprehensive and most important essential abilities and properties, the pious word contains and always embraces everything particular and plural that is seen and thought about nature. Therefore, a host of holy fathers taught us to think about two natural properties of the Divinity and humanity of Christ, although for one who strives to think piously, there are in some way different (properties). So, if I say that Christ, according to Divinity, has the most comprehensive volitional and active omnipotent and indescribable ability of the Divine nature of essential will and energy, this contains and embraces every name and thought of God and will and together - energy. In the same way, in humanity, united with Him by hypostasis, we call our comprehensive volitional ability and the power of the rational soul created by God and purely human will in Christ. Likewise, the vital and essential energy of the soul, through which the body lives, is given life and is formed, we confess and preach it as human energy in Christ. So tell me, opponent, what is the main thing, the undoubted thing, which is necessarily included in and is a sign of any spiritual or rational nature, if not its essential will and energy? After all, the Divine nature, by will and action, embraces and contains everything, and the angelic nature, with its own desire and energy, performs worship, singing and serving God. In the same way, human nature, through rational desire, will and energy, comes to do and create God's commandments. And therefore Dionysius said that the destruction of all nature is the loss of its natural properties, energies and forces 30. But what, in turn, will the theatrical fables and funeral dances of opponents answer to this? After all, they, perhaps, ashamed of the apostolic husband Dionysius, will say: “We are talking about many energies in Christ, which the teacher has now listed, but we are not talking about two energies.” To this I announce to you a great curse, which will be upon all your people, 31 because if you speak of many and countless energies, but do not speak of two, then you are convicted of the fact that you speak of many natures in Christ, but do not speak of two, and of many natural properties. 3. “However,” they say, “Dionysius did not think about energies in the way you interpret them.” How? Give us the fatherly definition of energy - and we will follow it and accept it. We think of energy, as the godly Gregory of Nyssa defined it in his letter to Zinodorus, so we think of it and preach it, saying: “We affirm that energy is the essential and natural force and movement of every essence, in intelligent people - reason, in thinking - thinking, in sprouts - growth, in moving - movement, in floating - swimming, in flying - flight, in reptiles - crawling, and, in a word, the sign of every essence is energy, called natural, of which only non-existence is lacking. After all, something is involved in a certain essence necessarily by participation in the energy that manifests this essence. For the true word knows that the definitions of essences are their non-false energies” 32. Therefore, the father, using this rule of his, when interpreting [the words] “Blessed are those who hunger” 33 in the work “On the Beatitudes,” says about Christ the Son of God that “Having been forty days without food, He “at last became hungry” 34: for when He wanted, He gave nature time to do what was proper to Him” 35. If you want to know about the amount of time, then the Evangelist teaches you, testifying that for thirty years Christ gave His human nature, which is like us except for sin 36, to do what was characteristic of it 37 and that He did not show any sign to people before baptism and before marriage in Cana 38. The same thing was brought to us by our opponents in Damascus, saying: “If, according to the judgment of the majority, everything that is said by the Apostle about Christ applies to any question, then you should rather confess Christ within thirty years than within three years after baptism.” Listen, all of you, good people! But if you consider Christ perfect in Divinity and also perfect in humanity, consubstantial with the Father in Divinity and in the same way consubstantial with us in humanity, then you cannot, following the chatter of the Manichaeans and Apollinarians, reject the willful power of His rational and holy soul, [created] in the image of [God], and its essential living and life-giving energy. After all, it is precisely these rational properties and only these that distinguish our rational soul from the soul of dumb animals. And so that it does not seem to our opponents that we are building up some special teachings and opinions in accordance with their fables, as we have said in other places, so we will say again now: the divine Apostle in almost all of his epistles calls our death a sleep, but he never called the death of Christ a sleep, but death, in order to show that He truly accepted death, mortification and the false separation of the soul from the body. So, He experienced this mortification and immobility of the body in the grave, the absence of vision, breath and soul, the inactivity of the limbs and carnal senses with all His godly energy, or half, or a third of it? After all, you definitely need to say either that all of His divine energy was deadened, or that half of it, or that when separated from the energy of the life-giving soul, the body of Christ became dead and inactive. And that the life-giving energy of our rational soul gives life to the body is evidenced by the Divine Scripture, which says: “And God breathed into the inanimate dust, which blinded, the breath of life, and man became a living soul” 39 . Therefore, the divine Solomon, condemning the wicked, says: “His life is more despicable than dirt; for he did not know the One who gave them an active soul and breathed into him the spirit of life” 40 ; just as Christ Himself says about our life-giving spiritual energy that “The flesh does not benefit in the least, the spirit gives life” 41 . This life-giving energy of the soul, to which He testified, we confess as human energy in Him, seeing that His all-holy body, even if it received animation from the Holy Ever-Virgin in an extremely new and unusual manner in relation to the boundaries and laws of nature without a seed, is nevertheless seen to be animated according to the God-given law of nature by His soul, created along with it, and again, immediately upon separation from her on the cross, dead, motionless and inactive, like ours. Further, thanks to the return of the soul on the third day, man in the Lord is known to be life-giving, moving, resurrected, risen from the grave and a perfect man. And thanks to animation after mortification, He again publishes speech, again, as if alive, He speaks through the living and intelligent energy of His rational soul, teaches again after animate - which He did not utter in the tomb due to soulless mortification, deprivation and separation of the vital energy of the soul. After all, the Divine unchanging and immaculate energy does not die, does not remain silent, does not calm down, does not cease, does not die, does not come to life, does not give up the spirit, does not animate again, does not change from corruption to incorruption. It does not stop and does not begin again, is not limited, does not come out of the body and does not enter it again, and not in such a way that it sometimes sees and sometimes does not see, just as the dead eyes of Christ closed. On Dionysius' Dionysian Energy in Christ 1. But when I expound and tell this for a long time, the enemy often pokes me in the side with his hand, whispering, reminding and exposing Dionysius’ godly energy. So let’s briefly look at something about her, because the time has come. So, it seems to me, at least, that this Gaius Therapeus, to whom the divine Dionysius wrote about godly energy, did not very thoughtfully reveal the theological meaning of the economy of Christ, but seemed to think about Him in a somewhat down-to-earth manner; the teacher, guiding him, raises him to something more divine. Therefore, throughout the entire second and fourth epistles, he calls Christ the Most Essential 43, the Super-Good 44 and above man 45 and at the same time man and conformable to man 46. Having said that He above man does what is proper to man 47 , he did not say: “everything proper to man,” but pointed to the seedless Incarnation from the Virgin, about which he said in another chapter that it was realized from the virgin blood of the nature of the Holy Virgin Mary 48 ; also pointed to Christ's walking on the waters to represent His Godhead 49 . Hearing this, one of the disputants answered me, saying: “So what? Since many other saints walked on the waters, are we really going to call them gods? After all, Jesus Himself said: “Not only will those who believe in Me do what I have done, but also greater things than these.”50. To this, Dionysius again speaks below about Christ: “And, let’s say briefly, He was not a man, not in the sense that He was not a man, but as one who became such a man from among men, Who is truly beyond men and above man, and, finally, not as God who accomplished divine things and not as a human man, but since God became a man, living in some new God-husband energy for us” 51. 2. This is what the divine teacher says. And how the theatrical choirs of heretics understood the proposed sayings, this needs to be said. Namely: Theodore of Antioch, Diodorus of Tarsus and their fiend, a nasty dragon, a Chaldean Assyrian pig, a mouse encroaching on the Heavenly Bread, Christ, Nestorius - the enemy of God and Divinity, a wolf, a hater of the immaculate Virgin Mary, a dirty sword that dismembers and divides Christ, a barking dog that tears apart the Good Shepherd Nestorius, truly more wicked than the Jews - for they, having seen the naked unstitched tunic of Christ, I mean the all-holy body of God the Word, took pity on this spectacle and said: “We will not tear it apart” 52, as if prophetically saying to Nestorius: “We will not tear Christ apart. Let us not tear the Word away from the body. Let us not tear the tunic of flesh from the Divinity of the Word. Let us not tear Christ into two divided natures. Let us not tear Him into two hypostases. Let us not tear Him into two faces. Let us not tear Him apart into God and separately into mere man. Let us not tear Him apart into two wills that are contrary to each other. Let us not tear Him apart into two energies opposite to each other.” But these are the spiritual Jews who duly believed in Christ, of whom was the Pharisee who says: “Christ was not divided” 53 ; and the tongue of the teacher - [the tongue] his sword is sharp 54 - Nestorius declares: “I share the natures of Christ”; truly separated from God by nature and truly the one who, having heard Dionysius say that “after the Incarnation, He no longer performed the divine as God,” 56, seizing on this expression like a stinking dog as some kind of specious support for his heresy, asserted: “God the Word, having become incarnate, no longer performed, as before, the divine as God, He no longer acted in heaven on the throne cherubim as before, no longer held everything with the word of His power 57, no longer filled everything like God and did not act in all creation, no longer created from non-existence into being with Divine energy, no longer sent from heaven, being on earth, angels to serve as God, was no longer in the bosom of the Father as before as a co-worker as the Son and God, accomplishing the divine 58 with the Father, but having humbled himself and united with in the flesh, as God, no longer accomplished in heaven, on earth, in the seas and in all the abysses, as God, the divine with His indescribable, universal and premium energy.” This is how the wicked, or rather godless, Nestorius raged at the words: “Not as God accomplished the divine.” Further, the second expression, which reads: “Not like a human being” 59. Mani, the truly enraged 60 Persian, the creator of disgusting idolatry and woman-worship, the ill-fated Eutyches 61 and, finally, Sevirus and his descendants, poorly understanding this expression that says: “Not like a man of man,” darkened, denied the entire doctrine of the incarnation, saying that Christ has nothing of ours, nothing of the same essence with us, neither body, nor soul, nor image, no appearance, no life, no nutrition, no drink, no sleep, no growth, no change, no flow, no sorrow, no perforation, no tangibility, no wounds, no death, no change, but everything happened imaginary and ghostly. “After all,” they say, “the great Dionysius said that Christ did not act as a human being, but since God became a man, living for us as a kind of new godly energy” 62 . 3. The new disciples of the ancient Manichaeans and Sevirians badly interpreted all this expression in a Manichaean way and said: “Everything that Christ said and did after the union turns out to be godly, being common to His Divinity and humanity and accomplished by godly energy. It is obvious that they are considered common to His Divinity and humanity, since the Divine energy of God the Word was victorious and, as a result of the victory of the stronger, changed the flesh and all things carnal into Divine energy. The beginning of the refuting comedy addressed to them must be made from here: The Divine Scriptures teach us that the Divine nature of the incarnate God the Word and His Divine energy is immutable and unchangeable, without defect and always the same, and it does not transform or change this way or that. 1) So, those who say that everything and always with Christ is godly and accomplished in a godly manner, let them tell us: when the all-holy body of Christ was alive before the passion, then it is obvious that Christ saw people in a godly manner; further, when He died on the Cross and Joseph and Nicodemus came to bury Him, then Christ looked at them godly, as before, or only divinely, since the bodily visual energy of the eyes was taken away? If Christ saw Joseph in a divine manner, then you obviously declare His death imaginary and illusory; if He saw Joseph with the Divine, vigilant and immortal energy of God the Word, and nothing more, then it is no longer possible to say that everything that Christ does is godly. 2) The Prophet Isaiah teaches us that Christ was in agony 63 when the Jews pierced His spine with wounds 64 . So, when they beat Him on the spine, as if He was alive before the cross, and when they pierced Him with a spear in the side after death, did He feel torment with the same energy or not? Obviously not. Therefore, Christ did not have the same energy, and it was not God-manly that He felt pain, and it was not God-manhood that He acquired mortal insensibility. 3) When Christ, touching his hand to the daughter of the leader of the synagogue, resurrected her, then it is obvious that He performed this miracle with the general energy of God. Further, when He, dead, buried by the hands of Nicodemus, touched these hands, then His hands had a godly touch and energy, as before? By no means, but only Divine. Therefore, in no way can everything in Christ be called godly. 4) After all, again, it was not as a godly man that the deceased Christ, wrapped in a shroud around his feet, lost his movement, but as a husband. For the ever-moving energy of God the Word in the flesh was unbound and unimpeded, spreading everywhere even when the Lord's body was dead. 5) What should we call the power of hearing of Christ in the tomb? Did He really hear human speech with godly ears? In no case, but only with Divine energy. Therefore, one cannot think of everything in Christ as godly. 6) But Christ did not have a godly voice in the tomb, but only a Divine one, ineffable, inexpressible and inaudible. 7) But His silence was not godly, but only masculine. 8) But it was not a godly life, but only a divine one, that Christ had in the tomb. For the divine is called that which exists in His two natures, is accomplished through two natures, is conceived in the fullness of Christ, and is related and expressed to His Divinity and humanity together in the two natures of Christ. 9) Christ was not contemplated by people in a godly manner - after all, no one had ever seen God 65 - even though by hypostasis, undoubtedly, both the soul in the body, and the whole God the Word was indescribably entirely one with his own soul and body at all times, in all places and in all deeds. But not entirely, so that we do not fall into the snares of Arianism, subordinating the impassive and needless God of the Word to our human natural passions and needs. Thanks to this, we do not call everything characteristic of Christ God-husband, since not everything characteristic of Him can be raised to the fullness of His two natures and thought like that. 10) We do not call the small size of the body of Christ, swaddled in the manger, and the honest conception that took place earlier, not godly. 11) Not godly - the ascending growth of the body, because the Divine is such an increase that does not accept increase. 12) The gradual growth of hair, nails and teeth was not godly. 13) Not godly - the touch of Christ 66, because the Divine is intangible and inviolable. 14) Those who are not godly - hunger, sleep and exhaustion, because Scripture says that “God will not be hungry, nor will he be weary” 67 and will not sleep. 15) Not godly - any cuttings, flows or discharges from the body of Christ, because the Divine does not accept the flow or flow of tears, saliva, sweat or blood. 16) Not godly - wounds from nails and perforation of hands, feet and ribs, because the Divine is not cut or pierced. 17) Not God-married death, because the ever-living God the Word is immortal, although the body inseparable from Him has died. 4. And let’s say briefly like the great Ambrose of Milan in his word on the Incarnation, for this divine Ambrose says exactly this: “What is said about the Incarnation of the Word in Christ cannot be said and attributed also to the Father and the All-Holy Spirit, all this is characteristic, fitting and proper for our human poverty and nature in Christ” 68 . Therefore, we do not call the human Christ divine: if it were divine, it would be inseparable in every thing; However, that which is impossible to essentially think about the Divinity, we do not call either godly or purely masculine, but signs and designations of the deified 69 body and soul. “However, God assimilated the Word,” he says, “everything corporeal, and, finally, everything relates to Him.” Did you get it? How, tell me: mentally 70 and with condescension? Or did the Word essentially undergo this in its own nature? It won't happen! After all, God the Word is impassive and immortal. So, do not teach that economic condescension is a change in the Divine essence. Although He assimilated our sins 71, He remained alien to all sin 72; in the same way, He assimilated our curse 73, but He turns out to be above every curse, as having given blessing to the whole world; Likewise, He has adopted our death, but God the Word is alien and not involved in all death and corruption. So, do not understand by assimilation a change in natures, but each thing remains and is thought of in that which is inherent in it by nature 74 . 5. And when I set out this and note the weak points of the heretics, the great light and the name of immortality Athanasius, approaching, exhorts me to dare, since he also adheres to the same thought and the same opinion. After all, having accepted, as the godly leader of Orthodoxy, the seeds of piety from the supreme Peter and raising it into an infallible rule that Christ suffered in the flesh 75, the father multiplies it, saying that just as “Christ suffered in the flesh,” so also “Christ hungered 76 in the flesh,” “Christ thirsted 77 in the flesh,” “Christ slept 78 in the flesh,” “Christ cried 79.” flesh”, “Christ prayed to the flesh”, “Christ was weary 80 of the flesh” 81. But one means “flesh,” and the other means “god-fleshly,” because “flesh” indicates human nature, and “god-fleshly” is like “god-male,” which designates the two natures of Christ. But even if we say that Christ endures all human passions in the flesh, we do not say that he is simple in the flesh - let it not be! - but flesh and soul, inseparably united with the Divine in them at all times, in every place and in every matter. For it is not the mere body of man that we partake of, but the body of God and the blood of God truly. And therefore we call the Virgin the Mother of God, and we worship Her Child as the Child of God, and we confess that the manger is God, that the swaddling clothes are God, and that everything in Christ is God, the true God, since we believe in Him as the true God, for cursed is everyone who has hope in a mere man 82 . And so that no one, having become enraged like a Manichaean, should think that we deny the Divinity of Christ and proclaim Him to be a simple man, we will say that what He performed and worked miracles as God in the proper sense and truly divine as the Father, did not in the least assist or touch His Lordly body. Such is the rise of the star for the Magi and leading them to Him 83 , the illumination of the shepherds who were on the field 84 , the praise of the angels at His birth 85 , the healing of the centurion’s servant, to whom Christ did not come in the flesh 86 , the healing of the Canaanite daughter whom He did not see in the flesh 87 , the eclipse of the sun during the crucifixion 88 , the splitting of stones 89 , the rupture the church curtain 90, the opening of the tombs 91, the resurrection of the dead, the earthquake at the crucifixion 92, another earthquake when He was in the tomb 93 - and everything like this, which He did not touch with either flesh, hand or finger. After all, when in some way He jointly performed miracles, that is, simultaneously as God and with the help of the body, this is what the divine Dionysius calls a divine action, for example, His miraculous birth from the Virgin 94 and the walk of Christ on the sea were divine, when the Divinity solidified the water, and the flesh moved from place to place 95, which two miracles as mixed and joint, that is, divine, were also brought by the divine Dionysius. The divine action was the granting of sight to the blind through spitting, 96 and the healing by the fingers of Christ of the deaf 97, and the resurrection of the daughter of the leader of the synagogue through touching the hand 98 - and everything similar to this, when the Divine Word together through His holy and deified 99 flesh performs miracles. Those who say that by one divine energy Christ does, accomplishes and endures everything, are truly forced, even against their will, to say that Godly, according to His Divinity and humanity, He suffered, was exhausted, was in agony before death, grew, prospered, hungered, thirsted, was visible, tangible, perforated, died, deadened and buried, and endured everything else alien to the Divine, what is wicked and foolish and is known to be so; and if we need to use examples, we will not hesitate. Adrian (Pashin), abbot. 2017 – Rev. Anastasy Sinait. Chapters against the Monothelites: chapters 1–2 / Trans. from ancient Greek, intro. article and notes abbot. Adriana (Pashina) // BV. 2017. No. 24–25. Vol. 1–2. pp. 573–591. [Prepodobnyi Anastasii Sinait. Glavy protiv monofelitov: 1–2 glavy (Chapters against monothelites: 1–2 chapters) / Perevod s drevnegrecheskogo, vstupitel’naia stat’ia i primechaniia igumena Adriana (Pashina) // Bogoslovskii vestnik. 2017. No. 24–25. Vypusk 1–2. P. 573–591.] John of Damascus, St. 2002 – John of Damascus, St. An accurate statement of faith. M., 2002. [Ioann Damaskin, prepodobnyi. Exactly izlozhenie very (Precise expression of faith). Moscow, 2002.] Prokhorov 2002 – Dionysius the Areopagite. Essays. Interpretations of St. Maximus the Confessor / Trans. from ancient Greek G. M. Prokhorova. St. Petersburg 2002. [Dionisii Areopagit. Sochinenia. Tolkovaniia prepodobnogo Maxim Ispovednika (Compositions. Interpretations st. Maximus the Confessor) / Perevod s drevnegrecheskogo G. M. Prokhorova. Saint Petersburg, 2002.] Theodore (Yulaev), hierome. 2010 – St. Cyril of Alexandria. Two epistles to Sukkens, Bishop of Diocaesarea / Trans. from ancient Greek, preface. and note. hierome Feodora (Yulaeva) // BV. 2010. No. 10. pp. 15–31. [Sviatitel’ Kirill Aleksandriiskii. Dva poslaniia k Sukkensu, episkopu Diokesariiskomu (Two Epistles to Succensus, Bishop of Diocaesaria) / Perevod s drevnegrecheskogo, predislovie i primechanie ieromonakha Feodora (Iulaeva) // Bogoslovskii vestnik (Theological herald). 2010. No. 10. P. 15–31.] Heil, Ritter 1991 – Corpus Dionysiacum II: Pseudo-Dionysius Areopagita. De coelesti hierarchia, de ecclesiastica hierarchia, de mystica theologia, epistulae / Hsgb. G. Heil, A. M. Ritter. B., 1991 (PTS 36). Suchla 1990 – Corpus Dionysiacum I: Pseudo-Dionysius Areopagita. De divinis nominibus / Hsgb. B. R. Suchla. B., 1990 (PTS 33). Uthemann 1985 – Anastasii Sinaitae. Sermones duo in constitutionem hominis secindum imaginem Dei, necnon Opuscula adversus monotheletas / Ed. K.-H. Uthemann. Turnihout – Leuven, 1985 (CCSG 12). "The Word against the Monothelites." Dionysius Areopagita. Epistula 4:15–20 (Heil, Ritter 1991, p. 161). Prokhorov 2002. pp. 778–779. Ἐν μονότητι. So here at St. Anastasia. In the printed editions of the Areopagite Corpus: “in stillness” (ἐν μονιμότητι), although the same reading as St. Anastasia, is also attested in a number of manuscripts. Compare: Dionysius Areopagita. Epistula 9, 3:10–1 (Heil, Ritter 1991. S. 201–202). Here and further Rev. Anastasius quotes the Areopagite Corpus. Dionysius Areopagita. De Divinis nominibus 2, 1 (Suchla 1990. S. 123–124). Compare: Dionysius Areopagita. De Divinis nominibus 9, 9 (Suchla 1990. S. 213). Dionysius Areopagita. De Divinis nominibus 4, 25 (Suchla 1990. S. 173). Ἀπόθου. The publisher of the Chapters against the Monothelites, Uteman, presumably derives this form from the expression: ἀπὸ Θεοῦ. Compare: Dionysius Areopagita. De coelesti hierarchia 15, 2 (Heil, Ritter 1991. S. 51–52). That is, dry. Wed. Gen.1:9–10. Ἕξαλμον. A rare word, not found in the dictionaries available to us. We assume that it comes from a combination of the words ἕξις and ἅλμη. Or hemlock. Its juice was used to poison those sentenced to death in Ancient Greece. In particular, Socrates was sentenced to such death. A type of bindweed, the juice of which was used as a laxative. St. Anastasius contrasts these two gifts of the earth (hemlock and scammonium), one of which kills a person, the other heals. And here the property of copper sulfate to protect wood from rotting and the flammability of sulfur are contrasted. Wed. Exodus 20:1–17; 34:1–28. Dionysius Areopagita. De Divinis nominibus 4, 25 (Suchla 1990. S. 173). Paraphrase of Luke. 2:10: The angel said to the shepherds, “I bring you good tidings of great joy that will be to all people.” St. Anastasius again used a play on words, using instead of the word χαρά (joy) the word ἀρά (here: curse, misfortune, misfortune, destruction). Fragments from the Epistle of St. Gregory of Nyssa to Zinodorus (or Xenodorus) are preserved in the “Guide” and “Chapters against the Monothelites” by St. Anastasia and St. Maximus the Confessor. Gregorius Nyssenus. Orationes de beatitudinibus 4 // PG 44, 1237: 6–7. Gregorius Nyssenus. Orationes de beatitudinibus 4 // PG 44, 1237:7. Lit.: "The Lord's man." Dionysius Areopagita. Epistula 3, 1:3; 4, 1:5 (Heil, Ritter 1991. S. 159–160). Dionysius Areopagita. Epistula 2, 1:3 (Ibid. S. 158). Compare: Dionysius Areopagita. Epistula 4, 1:6 (Ibid. S. 160). Compare: Dionysius Areopagita. Epistula 4, 1:6 (Ibid. S. 160). Dionysius Areopagita. Epistula 4, 1:9–10 (Ibid. S. 160). Compare: 2, 9. Dionysius Areopagita. De Divinis nominibus 2, 9 (Suchla 1990. S. 133–134). Dionysius Areopagita. Epistula 4 (Heil, Ritter 1991. S. 160–161). Ps.56:5. Compare: Isa.49:2; Rev.1:16; Rev.2:12. St. Anastasius ironically calls Nestorius “the language of the teacher,” obviously meaning Theodore of Mopsuestia as a teacher. The following is Nestorius’ understanding of this phrase: “After the Incarnation He did not accomplish the Divine as God.” Compare: Dionysius Areopagita. Epistula 4 (Heil, Ritter 1991. S. 160–161). Compare: Dionysius Areopagita. Epistula 4 (Ibid. S. 160–161). A play on words based on the consonance of the name Mani (Μάνης) and the participle “enraged” (μανείς). The name of the heresiarch Eutyches is also played on, meaning “happy” (Εὐτυχής) and antinomic to the cognate adjective “ill-fated” (δυστυχής). Ἐν πόνῳ εἶναι (Isa. 53:4). Wed: “to be in labor” (Elizab.); “is in distress” (Yungerov). Wed: “I gave My backbone to be wounded” (Is. 50:6, trans. Yungerov). Wed: Luke. 24:39 ; 1John 1:1. Is. 40:28 (trans. Yungerova). In the surviving works of St. Ambrose, this quote is not found. Λογιστικῶς. It is often contrasted with the adverb “in fact” (πρακτικῶς) (PGL. P. 807). St. Anastasius here, in slightly different words, makes the same distinction that the saint has. John of Damascus, who says that there are “two assimilation: one is natural and essential, and the other is personal and relative” (John of Damascus, St. 2002. P. 282). Compare: God sent His Son in the likeness of sinful flesh [as a sacrifice] for sin and condemned sin in the flesh (Heb. 8:3); Christ died for our sins (1 Cor. 15:3); He made him who knew no sin for us [a sacrifice for] sin (2 Cor. 5:21); Christ, in order to lead us to God, once suffered for our sins (1 Pet. 3:18). Wed: We do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with us in our weaknesses, but who has been tempted in all things like [us], yet without sin (Heb. 4:15); He committed no sin (1 Peter 2:22). Wed: Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, becoming a curse for us - for it is written: Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree (Gal. 3:13). Theodore (Yulaev), hierome. 2010. P. 37. Wed: Matthew 8:24; Mark 4:38; Luke 8:23. Wed: John 11:35; Luke 19:41. Compare: Athanasius Alexandrenus. Contra arianos 3, 34, 1:4; 2:4–5 (K. Metzler, K. Savvidis. B. - New York, 2000. Bd. 1. Lfr. 3. S. 345.) Wed: Cursed is the man who trusts in man (Jer. 17:5). Wed: Matthew 8:5–13; Luke 7:1–10. Wed: Matthew 15:21–28; Mark 7:24–30. Wed: Matthew 27:45; Mark 15:33; Luke 23:44–45. Wed: Matthew 27:45; Mark 15:38; Luke 23:45. Compare: Dionysius Areopagita. Epistula 4 (Heil and Ritter 1991). Wed: Matthew 14:24–33; Mark 6:47–52; John 6:16–21; Message 4. Wed: Mark 8:22–26; In. 9:1–7. Wed: Matthew 9:23–25; Mark 5:38–42; Luke 8:51–55.