Theology Rev. Stamp of the Ascetic

Moscow Theological Academy Department of Theology As a manuscript Specialty: patrolology Dissertation for the degree of candidate of theology Author: Ashmarin Andrey Aleksandrovich Sergiev Posad 2013 1 Relevance of the research topic Works of Rev. Marks occupy an important place in the Orthodox tradition. Many of the holy fathers of the Church referred to his works as an authoritative source, and the works themselves were widespread in the Christian world. During the era of the Ecumenical Councils, Rev. Mark is quoted by such holy fathers as Abba Dorotheos of Gaza, St. John Climacus and Rev. John of Damascus. If they were primarily interested in the ascetic teaching of the saint, then the hesychast movement of the 14th century aroused interest in the theology of the saint. Mark: the doctrine of the bestowal of the grace of the Holy Spirit in the sacrament of Baptism and its manifestation to a person as he fulfills the commandments. His words are quoted by Rev. Gregory of Sinaite, St. Callistus and Ignatius Xanthopoulos. Of interest are not only those themes of the theology of St. Mark, who have received wide fame and recognition in the Orthodox Church, but also those who have not received such fame. Thus, the work directed against the Nestorian teaching, not having received wide circulation in antiquity, was opened to science only at the end of the 19th century. Christology Rev. Mark is of great interest as one of the first attempts at an Orthodox presentation of the doctrine of Christ in response to the emerging heresy of Nestorianism. Currently, such themes of theology of Rev. Mark, as a teaching about free will, about the synergy of man and Divine grace in the matter of salvation. In addition to the study of individual topics, it seems relevant to consider and systematize the theology of St. Mark as an important heritage of patristic thought. Goals and objectives of the study The purpose of this study is to systematically reveal the main themes of the theological teaching of St. Stamp of the Ascetic. Theological teaching, in this case, should be understood as something that can be attributed to the field of dogmatic theology. In accordance with the purpose of the study, the following tasks can be distinguished: 1. Systematic analysis of theology by Rev. Mark in the context of the theological views of other Christian writers. 2. Assessing the conformity of individual theological views of Rev. St. Mark Tradition. 3. Analysis of the theological polemics contained in the works of St. Brand. Methodological basis of the study This work uses a comparative research method, involving the study of the theological heritage of St. Mark the Ascetic in connection with the theological context in which he wrote his works, as well as in general with the Tradition of the Orthodox Church. During the research process, methods such as analysis and synthesis were also used. Methodologically important in our study is the principle of historicism, which allows us to correctly interpret some of the dogmatic formulations of the monk. Brief review of literature on the topic Bibliography of works about the life and works of Rev. The brand is small. There is very little information about him and his theology in Russian-language literature. St. Filaret of Chernigov included information about Rev. Marche in the general course of patrolology. In the “Historical Teaching about the Fathers of the Church,” published in 1859, data on the life of St. The marks are taken from Palladius of Helenopolis's "Lavsaik", the church histories of Sozomen and Nikephoros Callistus, and from the synaxarion of the Greek menaion. St. Philaret insists that the author of the works we are considering is the hermit Mark of Nitria 4. St. Filaret gives a list of the saint’s works according to the “Library” of St. Photius of Constantinople. But he skips the first work on the list of the Constantinople saint - “On the Spiritual Law”, mistakenly believing that St. Photius does not indicate it. He considers this essay to be the 37th conversation of the Rev. Macarius the Great 5. On the other hand, he considers St. Photius's works "Chapters on Temperance". But St. Photius, in fact, does not mention them, and Rev. They don't belong to the brand. Exposition of the teachings of the Venerable St. Filaret limits himself to citing excerpts, including theological content, from the work “On those who think to be justified by works.” At the same time, the saint rightly notes that “these instructions are not in all respects similar to those that we heard from the blessed one. Augustine" 6. This remark obviously concerns the difference between blzh. Augustine and St. Mark in his teaching about the relationship between grace and free will in the matter of salvation. In 1858, a year before the publication of St. Philaret of his fundamental work comes out with a new translation of the moral and ascetic words of St. Mark, prepared by Optina Hermitage. And there, as an introduction, a translation of that passage from the “Library” of St. is published. Photius, where the works of the monk are described (with the exception of the dialogue “On Melchizedek”, which St. Photius speaks about separately), starting with the work “On the Spiritual Law” 7. A few lines from Rev. Mark was given to Professor P.S. Kazansky in his work “On sources for the history of Egyptian monasticism in the 4th and 5th centuries.” Having spoken about the closeness in spirit of the works of St. Mark Rev. Macarius the Great, he notes that there is no data to determine the time of his life. Also, referring to the publisher of the works of Rev. Macarius the Great J. Floess, P.S. Kazansky makes an unusual assumption that if Rev. Mark is the Mark who is spoken of in the XX chapter of Lavsaika, then he can be one person with the venerable one. Macarius of Alexandria. That is, speaking about Mark, Rev. Macarius of Alexandria thus spoke about himself 8. Archbishop Sergius (Spassky) in the “Complete Monthly Book of the East” writes that St. Mark was a listener of St. John Chrysostom, lived 100 years, spending 60 of them, after separation from the saint, in the Nitrian desert, respectively, dying around the middle of the 5th century 9. Professor N.I. Barsov in “Essays on the History of Christian Preaching” about the correspondence dispute between St. Philaret of Chernigov and the Jesuit A. Gallandi regarding who the monk was, speaks as a question that is difficult to resolve with precision. Having written that St. Photius knew eight of the works of St. Mark, he does not borrow this list from the original source, but cites an erroneous one contained in St. Philaret of Chernigov. Whether the essay “On the Spiritual Law” belongs to the monk, the professor does not express his own opinion, pointing to both the opinions of Western scientists and St. Philareta. He mistakenly writes about the dialogue “On Melchizedek”, rediscovered in 1748, as a work unknown to St. Photius 10. Speaking about the close similarity, up to “complete identity in expression” of the words of St. Stamp with the works of Rev. Macarius the Great, N.I. Barsov refers to the essay “Chapter on Temperance,” although at that time the authorship of this work was already disputed. As a result, it is concluded that both preachers lived at the same time and in the same place, exchanging thoughts and using each other’s writings 11 . The Brockhaus and Efron Encyclopedic Dictionary lists St. Mark to the Egyptian hermits of the 4th century. The importance for dogmatic theology of the saint’s conversation “On Baptism” is noted: “due to its presentation of the doctrine of free will, for which the Roman Church classifies it as one of the Pelagian, forbidden books” 12. A much more in-depth analysis of information about the life of the monk is contained in the work of A. Yuryevsky “Mark the Hermit and His Newly Discovered Word against the Nestorians” 13 . A. Yuryevsky suggests that there were two teachers. Writer's mark. One, mentioned in Lavsaik, who lived in the 4th century, wrote moral and ascetic works, and the other, who lived during the Nestorian dispute, wrote dogmatic and polemical works: “On Melchizedek” and “Against the Nestorians” 14. It should be noted that the work of A. Yuryevsky is the first special study of the theology of the monk in Russian patrolology. Circumstances that significantly reduce the quality of his work include the fact that the essay “Against the Nestorians” is considered without connection with the essay “On Melchizedek,” which does not allow for a qualitative analysis of the Christological terminology of the monk in the creation under study. In addition, the essay in question by Rev. Mark is practically not compared with the works of other Christian writers. K.D. Popov gave a brief overview of the essay “On Baptism” by Rev. Mark in the notes to the “Ascetic Word” by Bl. Diadoche of Photikiysky 15. According to the researcher, since the teaching of the Messalians in the work of St. Mark is expounded and refuted in more detail, then it can clarify the polemic against the Messalians of the blj. Diadoche 16. Characteristics of the theology of Rev. Mark was given by Archpriest. Georgy Florovsky. He notes that the moral instructions of Rev. Mark leads to dogmatic premises, developing a coherent doctrine of sin and salvation, of freedom and grace. In the dialogue “Against the Nestorians”, Rev. George sees moderate Antiochene theology 17. Prot. George dates the life of St. Mark to the first half of the 5th century, and the place of the exploits - to Galatia, near Ancyra, where St. Mark was at first the abbot of Cenobia, and then he went into the desert and labored as a hermit 18. In 2003, at the Moscow Theological Academy, a dissertation for the degree of candidate of theology was defended by Deacon Alexei Zverev, “The ascetic views of St. Mark the Ascetic.” In addition to the stated analysis of the ascetic views of the monk, Deacon Alexei also illuminates a topic at the intersection of asceticism and theology: the effect of the grace of the sacrament of Baptism on a Christian. A.G. Dunaev in the preface to the publication of the works of Rev. Macarius the Great devoted several pages to an analysis of some aspects of the teachings of St. Mark, contained in the essay “On Baptism” 19. In his opinion, Rev. Mark in this essay comes to the conclusion that everyone after Baptism is responsible for his own mortality. A.G. Dunaev recalls the Church Tradition, according to which the Mother of God had no personal sins, but ended her earthly life with the Dormition. Therefore, if “death is in no way connected with personal sin, but is a property of human nature after the Fall,” then “all the arguments of Mark, and at the same time those of the overwhelming majority of the Byzantine holy fathers, collapse” 20 . As an alternative, it seems most acceptable to A.G. Dunaev, he offers this answer: “The Mother of God, without committing a sin and not being subject to death... gave voluntary consent to death. But in this case, the Mother of God becomes an accomplice of Christ in the work of the redemption of humanity” 21. In our opinion, such interpretations of the teachings of St. Mark, are erroneous, as will be shown in the corresponding chapter of this dissertation. As a result, A.G. Dunaev concludes that “if we leave Mariological difficulties aside, then the reasoning of Rev. Mark the Ascetic, with some differences in emphasis, should be recognized as very close in spirit to Macarius” 22. A. I. Sidorov sets out the contents of the work “Against the Nestorians” by Rev. Mark among the articles published in the work “Holy Fathers in the History of the Orthodox Church” 23. Analyzing this work of the monk, the professor speaks out against attributing it (as some Western researchers do) to the so-called “monastic theology” (mönchische Theologie), since this work is not fundamentally different from the works of St. Proclus of Cyzicus or St. Theodotus of Ancyra, directed against Nestorianism. A.I. Sidorov writes that as Rev. Mark and the mentioned saints, polemicizing against Nestorianism, expressed the conciliar religious consciousness of the Church 24. Among Western scientists, the greatest contribution to the study of personality is St. The brand was contributed by I. Kuntze. In the work “Marcus Eremita, ein neuer Zeuge für das altkirchliche Taufbekenntnis” 25 he suggested that originally Rev. Mark lived among the ascetics of the Nile, then became abbot of a monastery near Ancyra in Galatia, and then retired into the desert, possibly the Judean desert. He called one of the chapters of his work “The Theology of Mark,” stipulating that although the study of the theology of St. Mark goes beyond the scope of his work; he is forced to give some explanations on the Christology of the author under study 26. I. Kuntze is named as having successfully solved the mystery of St. Mark in the Dictionnaire de théologie catholique 27. Often it is I. Kuntze’s hypothesis that is given in reference literature 28; it is contained in the introduction to the modern Greek translation of one of the works of the monk 29. O. Bardenheever 30 and I. Quasten 31 adhere to this hypothesis in their patrol courses. P. Christ in volume 3 “Ελληνική πατρολογία” although he agrees that St. Mark was the abbot of a monastery near Ancyra; he believes that after that he retired not to the Judean, but to the Galatian desert 32. He not only, like O. Bardenheever or I. Quasten, gives an overview of the works of the monk, but also briefly outlines the main points of the teaching. Modern Western researchers of the venerable theology include Bishop Callistus (Ware) of Diocleia, who defended his dissertation at Oxford in 1965 on the topic: “The ascetic writings of Mark the Hermit.” In 1970, he published in the series “Studia Patristica” an article “The Sacrament of Baptism and the ascetic life according to the teachings of Mark the Monk” 33. In this short work, Bishop Callistus shows the anti-Messalian character of the doctrine of Baptism by St. Mark, draws parallels with the teaching of Baptism by St. Macarius the Great and St. Gregory of Nyssa. The hypothesis of G. Chadwig, who suggested that Rev. Mark lived in the 5th–6th centuries and was a Monophysite, being the abbot of a monastery near Tarsus 34. But this hypothesis was not confirmed. According to another hypothesis put forward by J. Gribomon, Rev. Mark was an Egyptian "anti-Origenist" writing at the very beginning of the 5th century. J. Gribomon is the author of articles about Rev. Marche in Dictionnaire de spiritualité 35 and Encyclopedia of the Early Church 36. The most valuable research about St. Marche are articles by J.-M. Durand in the publication of the saint's texts in the series "Sources Chrétiennes" (volumes 445 and 455). He evaluates hypotheses about who the Rev. was. Mark, in what time he lived, briefly covers the issue of the history of the text, analyzes each of the works of the monk. The scientist suggests that the “Epistle to Monk Nicholas,” on which the hypotheses are based that the monk was the abbot of the monastery in Ancyra, is in fact Ven. It does not belong to Mark, since it is very different from other creations of the monk 37. But despite this, J.-M. Durant is inclined to believe that Rev. Mark lived in a small city in Asia Minor and wrote at the end of the 4th - first third of the 5th century 38. Thus, in Russian-language literature, the only work in which the theology of St. Mark, became a study by A. Yuryevsky, containing an analysis of the work “Against the Nestorians”. Among Western Orthodox authors, the teaching on the sacrament of Baptism by St. Mark was studied by Bishop. Callistus (Ware). A number of foreign language studies also touch upon some issues of the theology of the monk, and J.-M. Durand carried out an analysis of each of the Rev.'s works. Brand. But at the same time, as far as we know, there is no work that systematically analyzes the theology of the entire corpus of the saint’s works. Moreover, there is no work containing a general analysis of the theology of St. Mark in the light of Church Tradition. This also explains the relevance of this study. Source base of the study The source base for the study was a critical edition of the works of Rev. Mark in SC, works of church writers contained in PG, PL, ASO, SC, TLG, as well as translations into Russian. Quoting the main body of works by Rev. The Mark of the Ascetic in the work is based on the translation of Optina Hermitage 39, which we corrected according to the text of SC. The work “Against the Nestorians” is quoted from the translation by B. Barchunov 40, also in our edition. The work “On Melchizedek” is quoted from our translation. The work consists of an introduction, four chapters, a conclusion, a bibliography and two appendices. The first chapter discusses information that may be relevant to the life of St. Mark, provides an overview of hypotheses about who the author of famous creations could be. Testimonies of ancient church authors about the works being studied are given, brief information is given about the history of the text of the saint’s works, from manuscripts to the latest editions, and, separately, the history of translations into Russian. The second chapter gives a brief description of the works of St. Brand. At the same time, the emphasis is on their theological content. The third chapter is the main one in this study. It contains an analysis of the theological views of the reverend. The fourth chapter contains an analysis of the theological polemics of St. Brand. Appendix 1 provides a table of correspondence between the numbering of the chapters of the essays “On the Spiritual Law” and “On Those Who Think to Be Justified by Works” according to the Sources Chrétiennes edition (reproducing the PG numbering) and the Russian translation. Appendix 2 contains the author's translation of the essay by Rev. Mark "About Melchizedek". Chapter 1. Sources about the teacher. Mark the Ascetic and his Creations 1.1 Information about the life of the teacher. Stamp of the Ascetic There are no indisputable biographies of the author of works inscribed with the name of Mark the Ascetic. In manuscripts, Mark is often referred to as a “monk,” “ascetic,” and “abba.” In the most ancient surviving manuscript containing the works of St. Mark (dated 534), Rev. Mark is twice called "Egyptian" 41. Some manuscripts, the oldest of which dates back to the 10th century (Marcianus gr. 133 from Venice), identify the author with that Mark the Ascetic (ἀσκητής), who is mentioned by Bishop Palladius of Helena († 430) in “Lavsaik” and Sozomen († late 4th century) in “Ecclesiastical History” 42. The same information is contained in the monthly book of Emperor Basil the Porphyrogenitus († 802) and in the Synaxarion of Greek menaia dated March 5, where Mark is called the author of edifying and useful words 43. The Lavsaik, compiled by Palladius of Elenopolis, tells the story of the ascetic Mark, who from his youth knew the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments by heart and was, like no one else, meek and modest. Rev. Macarius of Alexandria, according to the narrative of Lavsaik, told about him that the monk was always given communion by an angel, taking the Holy Gifts from the altar 44. Palladius describes that when he came to Mark and sat down at the threshold of his cell, he heard how the ascetic “wrestled with himself and the devil,” 45 turning his speech first to the devil, then to himself. Palladius writes that at that time he was already a hundred-year-old man who did not even have teeth 46. Sozomen takes information about Mark from Palladius for his “Ecclesiastical History.” Sozomen calls him famous, writes that from a young age he was meek, self-controlled and remembered the Holy Scripture well. Scripture. He also mentions the testimony of St. Macarius, according to which Rev. Mark always received communion from an angel. But unlike Palladius, Sozomen indicates the place of the saint’s exploits - Skete 47. Palladius and Sozomen do not contain any indication that Mark wrote any works. Based on Palladius’ “Lavsaik,” it is possible to reconstruct the approximate life span of Mark, mentioned by him. Palladium came to Mark when he was already a hundred years old. It is known that this was after 388, when Palladius retired into the desert, and before 395, the year of the death of St. Macarius of Alexandria, with whom the story of Mark goes. A. Yuryevsky dates the meeting with Mark described by Palladius half a century earlier, since he believes that it was not Palladius himself who came to the elder Mark, but the reverend. Macarius of Alexandria. Thus, he attributes the entire twenty-first chapter of “Lavsaik” to the recording of the story of St. Macarius addressed to Palladium 48. In any case, it is impossible to associate Mark, whose evidence is contained in Palladius and Sozomen, with the author of works inscribed with the name of Mark due to chronological discrepancies. After all, Mark, about whom Palladius writes, was a centenarian at least a third of a century before the start of the Nestorian dispute. The works “Against the Nestorians” and “About Melchizedek”, inscribed with the name of St. Mark could not have been created prior to the occurrence of this dispute. A. Yuryevsky, in order to preserve the authorship of works of moral and ascetic content for the Mark about whom Palladius writes, proposed the above two dogmatic and polemical works to be considered written by another Mark, who lived later 49 . But this hypothesis did not gain wide acceptance, and most modern researchers believe that the author of the entire corpus of creations was one person 50 . We set out the arguments in favor of this in Chapter 2.9. Another source of information about Rev. Mark the Ascetic are entries from the “Chronicle” of St. George the Monk (9th century). George writes that St. John Chrysostom “had disciples: bishops Proclus, Palladius and Brisson (βρίσσωνα), ascetics Mark, Nilus and Isidore Pelusiot” 51. Elsewhere, George calls Mark “the divine and disciple (φοιτητής) of Chrysostom,” 52 quoting the monk in his account of Melchizedek. Another church historian, Nicephorus Callistus (XIV century), following George, also calls the ascetic Mark (ἀσκητής Μάρκος) a disciple of St. John Chrysostom, as well as Isidore Pelusiot 53 and blj. Theodoret of Cyrus 54. But these records lose their historical value due to inconsistencies: the Rev. could not have been a disciple of the Constantinople saint. Isidore Pelusiot, who never left Egypt 55. Could not be a disciple of St. John and Blessed Theodoret of Cyrrhus, since he, born in 386–393 (the latter date is more likely 56), was no more than 11 years old when St. John was summoned to Constantinople in 397. What Rev. Mark was not a disciple of St. John Chrysostom, is confirmed by his quoting the second letter of the Apostle Peter 57. In Syria this is a letter to the canon of St. Scripture was not included at that time. He was never brought by St. John Chrysostom († 407), nor Theodore of Mopsuestia († 428), nor the bl. Theodoret of Cyrrhus († c. 466) 58 . Most likely, the messages of ancient authors about the discipleship of St. Mark at St. John are not based on historical documents, but are based on an assumption that arises when reading the works of the monk 59. From the history of the Ancient Church of that time, other persons bearing the name of Mark are also known. These include Mark, Bishop of Areth, who proposed the creed at the Council of Sirmium in 351; Mark, disciple of Abba Silouan from the Skete desert; Mark the Athenian, ascetic of the Libyan Desert of the 4th century; Mark the Deacon (IV–V), compiler of the biography of Saint Porphyry, Bishop of Gaza. But to associate Rev. with them. Mark, the author of the works in question, there is also no reason 60. I. Kuntze draws attention to the “Message to Monk Nicholas.” This message indicates that Nicholas, having escaped from a shipwreck, was received in Ancyra by “a certain merciful husband.” And then, having received instruction together “with the most reverent son Epiphanius,” they “were received from the holy servants of God as true children” 61. Obviously, here we are talking about Nicholas’s entry into the monastery. And the awareness of Rev. Mark, I. Kuntze suggests, may be due to the fact that the monk was the abbot of the monastery into which Nicholas was accepted. In addition, the theological language of Rev. Mark in his essay “Against the Nestorians” is similar to the language of the sermons of St. Theodotus, who was at the time of the beginning of the Nestorian dispute and, therefore, when the monk wrote his work, bishop of Ancyra, a city in Asia Minor 62. On the other hand, the work “Against the Nestorians,” according to I. Kunze, could not have appeared in Egypt, where Nestorius had almost no adherents 63 . After his abbot, according to I. Kuntze, Rev. Mark retires to Palestine. And it is about him that is narrated in the “Spiritual Meadow” of John Moschus as the hermit Abba Mark 64. This Abba Mark lived near the monastery of Pentukla in Palestine and “for sixty-nine years he led such a way of life: he fasted for whole weeks, so that some considered him incorporeal. He worked day and night according to the commandment of Christ and gave everything to the poor, without accepting any reward for it” 65. P. Christou agrees with I. Kunze that Rev. Mark was the abbot of a monastery near Ancyra, but he believes that after leaving his abbotship, the monk retired not to the Judean, but to the Galatian desert 66. According to the hypothesis put forward by G. Chadwig, Rev. Mark lived in the 5th–6th centuries and was abbot of a monastery near Tarsus 67. The author of the works under consideration is identified with that Mark, whom Sevier of Antioch mentions in two letters, as having possibly deviated from the religion that was correct for him (Monophysitism). After the appearance of this hypothesis, it was immediately criticized by O. Hesse, who believed that Rev. Mark was an Egyptian monk who took part in the beginning of the Nestorian controversy 68 . J.-M. Durand also writes about the impossibility of attributing the work of Rev. Mark “Against the Nestorians” by the beginning of the 6th century, and even more so to talk about its Syrian origin, as G. Chadwig suggests 69. Thus, considering historical evidence and modern hypotheses regarding the life of St. Mark, we must admit that we do not have reliable facts about the life of St. Brand. If earlier Rev. Mark was predominantly associated with the Egyptian ascetic described by Palladius and Sozomen, but in modern literature the prevailing version is that the monk lived in Asia Minor. The only thing we can say with greater certainty is that Rev. Mark lived during the beginning of the Nestorian controversy 70. 1.2 Testimony of ancient church authors about the works of St. Brand The first mention of the works of St. Mark is contained in the “Soulful Teachings” of St. Abba Dorotheus of Gaza (VI century) 71. He freely quotes it twice, once citing words about heartbreak 72 , and the other about anger (κακία) 73 . Without calling Rev. by name. Mark, his words are quoted twice by the Rev. John Climacus (c. 575 – c. 650) 74 . So he writes that the most enlightened and sensible of the fathers spoke about the raid (παραρριπισμός) of thought 75. As far as is known, 76 only the Rev. wrote about this, using the word παραρριπισμός. Mark 77. Next, Rev. John cites the opinion of St. Mark as one of the possible: “if the mind had not preceded, then the body would not have followed” 78. Second time Rev. John quotes the words of St. Mark is closer to the text: “I heard a certain venerable man say 79: let us suppose that there are twelve dishonorable passions; if you arbitrarily love one of them, that is, pride, then this one will fill the place of the other eleven” 80. In addition, Bishop Callistus (Ware) indicates four possible reminiscences, and also notes the assimilation of the prep. John Dictionary Rev. Brand about developing passion 81. Repeatedly the words of Rev. Mark is cited by Rev. Isaac the Syrian (VII century). In particular, he quotes his words about the difference between the knowledge of virtue and the knowledge of God 82. Among other Syriac authors of the Church of the East, Ven. Mark is mentioned by Abraham of Kashkar († 588), Babai the Great († 661), Simeon d-Taibute (the Merciful) († c. 680) 83 . Rev. Hesychius of Sinaiti (probably 8th–10th centuries) in his essay “On Temperance and Virtue”, without indicating the author, retells the teaching of St. Mark about sorrows, passions, about the obligatory observance of every commandment, about the fact that the Kingdom of Heaven is not a reward for deeds, but a gift 84. Since earlier this work was erroneously attributed to Rev. Hesychius of Jerusalem († 432), this gave A. Yuryevsky reason to consider this direct evidence of the early origin of the ascetic creations of St. Mark and reject their common authorship with dogmatic-polemical works 85. Rev. John of Damascus († before 754), in his essay “On Virtues and Vices” refers to the words of St. Mark from the “Epistle to Monk Nicholas” about oblivion, despondency and ignorance, calling Mark “the wisest of ascetics” 86. Rev. Theodore the Studite († 826) in his will mentions the works of St. Brand: “I accept every God-inspired book of the Old and New Testaments, as well as the lives and Divine writings of all God-bearing fathers, teachers and ascetics. I say this because of the insane Pamphilus, who, coming from the east, slandered these saints, that is, Mark, Isaiah, Barsanuphius, Dorotheus, and Hesychius; ... in their teachings I did not find wickedness, but, on the contrary, many spiritual benefits” 87. The mentioned Pamphilus most likely suspected the Rev. Mark, like the other listed holy fathers, is in Monophysitism 88. The only work in the ancient Church that contains borrowings from the dogmatic-polemical work of the venerable 89 is the “Chronicle” of George the Monk (IX century), which contains the story of Melchizedek 90. St. Photius of Constantinople († c. 896) described the works of St. Mark in his “Library”. He writes: “We have read the book of Mark the monk [consisting] of eight words” 91 and successively describes the works “On the spiritual law”, “On those who think to be justified by works”, “On repentance”, “On Baptism”, “Advice of the mind to your soul”, “Debate with a scholastic”, “On fasting” and “Epistle to the monk Nicholas” 92. St. Photius saw several lists of the creations of St. Mark, as it notes the different order of words in these lists. St. Photius makes notes on the theological teaching contained in the writings of St. Brand. In his essay “On Baptism,” he notes the idea “that through saving Baptism, freedom and cleansing from sins have been mysteriously granted to us, and the grace of the Most Holy Spirit has been infused into us” 93 . In the work “Advice of the Mind to Your Soul” “it is clearly proven that it is not others who are guilty of our sins, but ourselves” 94 . Essay “On Melchizedek”, according to St. Photius, is involved in the emergence of heresy. The saint does not indicate what heresy this is, but most likely he means Monophysitism 95. In addition, St. Photius notes the inconsistency in the Melchizedekian refutation. Nevertheless, he believes that useful things can be learned from this book 96 . In the next entry in the Library of St. Photius remarks regarding St. Diadochos of Photicus that “his speech is impeccable and his thought reveals wisdom from deeds. However, surpassing Mark in one and another quality, he sometimes contradicts the thoughts of [Mark]” 97. About the works of Rev. Mark mentions Rev. Simeon the New Theologian († 1022) in the “Instructions”. He narrates that a certain young man George, who lived in Constantinople, received from one holy monk, along with his oral instructions, a book by St. Mark of the Ascetic “On the Spiritual Law.” Having read it and received great benefit, during prayer he was rewarded with an immaterial Divine illumination, which filled the place in which he was 98. In the second millennium, in connection with the hesychast movement of the 14th century, the teaching of St. Mark about the action of the grace of the Holy Spirit and the associated teaching about the sacrament of Baptism. St. Callistus and Ignatius Xanthopoulos (XIV century) repeatedly refer to the ascetic teaching of St. Brand. In “Instructions to the Silent,” they quote a quote from the monk, which says that in Baptism the perfect grace of the Holy Spirit is given, which is revealed as the commandments are fulfilled 99 . Rev. Gregory of Sinai († 1346) in his essay “On Silence and Prayer” also refers to St. Mark and, in particular, writes: “The action (ἐνέργεια) of the Spirit, which we mysteriously (μυστικῶς) received in Baptism, is acquired in two ways. First of all, it should generally be said that the gift [of the Holy Spirit] is revealed by fulfilling the commandments with the help of great and long-term work, as the ascetic Mark said” 100. Next, Rev. Gregory writes about the second method - about the remembrance of God, in which the action of the Holy Spirit is revealed faster than through the fulfillment of the commandments 101. Nicephorus Callistus († c. 1350) mentions the works of St. Mark in Church History. He reports that Rev. Mark left many writings, of which he saw eight, according to the number of main passions. In addition, Rev. Mark, according to Nicephorus, wrote thirty-two more works in which “he goes through the entire path of ascetic life” 102. Most likely, the reference to thirty-two works is erroneous. 1.3 History of the text of works In addition to the testimony of church writers, the wide popularity of the works of St. Mark in the Ancient Church is indicated by surviving manuscripts. More than forty manuscripts are known, dating from the 9th to the 16th centuries 103. The differences between these texts give reason to assume that many manuscripts were lost 104. Only the work “Against the Nestorians” received minor distribution: it is contained in only two manuscripts dating from the 10th and 13th centuries. The order of creations in manuscripts varies greatly. Most often, the first place goes to the essays “On the Spiritual Law” and “On Those Who Think to Be Justified by Works.” In the most ancient manuscripts, the word “On repentance” is often in the first place, perhaps to indicate that the path to salvation begins with repentance. The work “Against the Nestorians” is in last place in the surviving manuscripts. The most ancient translations of the works of St. Mark are translations into Syriac. There are twelve known Syriac manuscripts containing the works of St. Mark 105, among which is the most ancient text of the works of the monk that have come down to us (Add. 12175, British Library). This manuscript dates from 533–534 and contains the works “On the Spiritual Law” and “On Those Who Think to Be Justified by Works.” The Syriac manuscripts lack the essay “Against the Nestorians,” as well as the “Epistle to Monk Nicholas” and “On Fasting.” From the Syriac language the works of Rev. The stamps were translated into Arabic. Two famous manuscripts, dating from 901 and 1493, contain excerpts from the words “On Repentance,” “On the Spiritual Law,” and “Counsels of the Mind to the Soul.” The same excerpts in the same order are contained in the Georgian translation of the 10th century, kept in the monastery of St. Catherine at Sinai 106. After the invention of printing, the first to publish the works of St. Mark Protestants. They saw in these writings a refutation of the Catholic doctrine of justification through works. Thus, in 1531, V. Obsopaeus translated into Latin and published in Genoa the works “On the Spiritual Law” and “On Those Who Think to Be Justified by Works.” The peculiarity of his publication is that he did not reproduce the chapter numbering available in the manuscripts. Rev. Mark in the title of the publication is called “Marcus Eremite” (Mark the Hermit) 107. In 1550 this edition was reprinted in Basel by G. Petri 108 . A little later than the work of Rev. Mark began to be published by Catholics. They were interested in him as an ascetic writer. So in 1557, P. Zini published in Verona a translation into Latin of the works “On Baptism,” “On Fasting,” and “Advice of the Mind to Your Soul.” In 1563, J. Picot (lat. Picus) published in Latin the works “On Repentance”, “On Baptism”, “Epistle to the Monk Nicholas”, “Debate with a Scholastic”, “Counsels of the Mind to Your Soul” and added to them “On the Spiritual Law” and “On Those Who Think to Be Justified by Works” from the edition of V. Obsopeus, introducing the numbering of chapters. Also in 1563, J. Picot published Rev. for the first time. Stamp in Greek. The publication was based on a rather mediocre manuscript of the 14th century (Gr. 1037, Paris, BnF). To it he adds “Chapters on Temperance,” considering them to be the authentic works of the monk 109. In 1624, F. Duke in Paris combined the works published by J. Picot in one Greco-Latin edition, adding the word “On Paradise and the Spiritual Law” 110. In 1748, Bishop Balthasar Remonidi published a Greek text with a Latin translation of the works On Fasting and On Melchizedek, based on the manuscript Ottobonianus 397, which was in his personal possession 111 . In 1772, the patrolologist A. Gallandi combined what J. Picot and V. Remondini published in the eighth volume of his 14-volume “Bibliotheca veterum patrum antiquotumque scriptorium ecclesiaticorum Graecorum”, thus publishing together all the works of the saint known at that time. In the notes, Jesuit A. Gallandi placed warnings against misunderstandings of the sayings of St. Brand. Traces of these warnings also found their way into Min’s patrols. A. Gallandi expressed doubts about the ownership of the “Chapters on Temperance” by the Rev. Mark, and one of his friends noticed the similarity with the texts of St. Macarius the Great 112. Among the works of Rev. Mark A. Gallandi does not even include the word “On Paradise and the Spiritual Law,” referring it to the works of St. Macarius the Great 113. In 1864, this edition of Gallandi was reprinted in the 65th volume of the patrolology of Minh 114. Thus, the works of Rev. in PG. Mark has the following sources for the Greek text and Latin translation: In the East, the works “On the Spiritual Law”, “On Those Who Think to Be Justified by Works” and “Message to the Monk Nicholas” by Rev. Mark were included in the “Philokalia” prepared for publication by St. Macarius Notara and Rev. Nicodemus Svyatogorets. According to J.-M. Durand, was based on a 14th-century manuscript now in the National Library of Athens (No. 547). Unlike the text prepared in the West and included in the Ming patrolology, the publication contained discrepancies from three manuscript traditions 115 . The first edition of the Philokalia was printed in 1782 in Venice. At the end of the 19th century, in the monastery of St. Savva in Jerusalem to scientist A.I. Papadopoulo-Keramevs discovered a 13th-century manuscript containing, in addition to all the known works of the monk, the previously unknown word “Against the Nestorians.” He published his find in 1891 in St. Petersburg in a collection of manuscripts he discovered 116. In 1905, the Italian scholar and abbot J. Cozza-Luzi published a second manuscript containing the word “Against the Nestorians” 117 . The manuscript dates back to 965 and was discovered in the Italian monastery of Grottaferrara, where D. Cozza-Luzzi was abbot. A critical edition of all the works of Rev. The stamp was prepared by J.–M. Durand in the “Sources Chrétiennes” series. Volumes 445 (1999) and 455 (2000) contain all the currently known works of St. Brand, executed by J.-M. Durand with French translation and introductory articles. Eighteen manuscripts out of forty analyzed were taken into account in the critical apparatus of the publication. Today this is the best edition of the saint’s works. 1.4 Translations into Russian Creations of Rev. The brand was also known in Rus'. Manuscripts of his works were in the libraries of the Kirillo-Belozersky (“About those who think to be justified by works” and selected chapters “What is helping a monk in every temptation and sorrow”) and Joseph-Volotsky (“On the spiritual law” and “On repentance”) monasteries 118. Rev. Mark quotes Rev. Nil Sorsky 119 and Joseph Volotsky 120. Rev. Paisiy (Velichkovsky) translated the works of St. A stamp in the Slavic language as part of the Philokalia, published in Moscow in 1793. Into Russian by Rev. Mark was the first to be translated by Archpriest. Gerasim Pavsky (1787–1863). In 1821, in the magazine “Christian Reading” (No. 3), he published a translation of the works “On the Spiritual Law” and “On Those Who Think to Be Justified by Works”, in 1828 (No. 29) - “Advice of the Mind to Your Soul”, in 1834 (No. 2) - “On Fasting”. In 1858, in Optina Hermitage, a publication of new translations of the saint’s works was prepared, which included the works “On the Spiritual Law”, “On Those Who Think to Be Justified by Works”, “On Repentance”, “On Baptism”, “Advice of the Mind to Your Soul”, “Debate with a Scholastic”, “On Spiritual Paradise and Law”, “On Fasting”, “Message to Monk Nicholas”, “On Sobriety”. The new translation took into account the translation of Archpriest. Gerasim Pavsky. In 1911, the works were republished in Sergiev Posad. They have been reprinted several times recently. In the dissertation, the Russian translation, unless otherwise stated, means the translation of the Optina Pustyn. St. Theophan (Recluse) included Rev. Mark in the first volume of the Russian Philokalia. In addition to the “Epistle to the monk Nicholas”, “On the spiritual law” and “On those who think to be justified by works”, as in the Greek “Philokalia”, it additionally included “Instructions extracted from other words of St. Mark." They follow the “Epistle to Monk Nicholas” “as a continuation of the lessons given in the epistle, and a preparation for understanding the short sayings” contained in the words “On the spiritual law” and “On those who think to be justified by works” 121. In addition to the Greek “Philokalia”, the source for the translation was the 65th volume of the Patrology of Min and the “manuscript of the monastery of St. Savva, in Palestine, which is more complete and more accurate than others" 122. The saint used the translation of Optina Hermitage, but his translation differs significantly from it. The first volume of the Russian “Philokalia” was prepared for printing in 1875 and published in St. Petersburg in 1877. In 1900, A. Yuryevsky translated the essay “Against the Nestorians” based on the text of the manuscript published in 1891 by A.I. Papadopoulo-Keramevsom 123. Already in our time, PSTBI student B. Barchunov re-translated this work as his diploma work, but taking into account the manuscript discovered by D. Cozza-Lutzi 124. The translation of the word “About Melchizedek” was carried out in the 1850s - 1860s by an unknown author, but remained in the manuscript 125. Our translation, made anew from the critical text Sources Chrétiennes, is placed in Appendix 2. Thus, the works of St. Marks were circulated in the Church no later than the 6th century. They were read in Greek, Syriac, Arabic, Georgian and Slavic. Many of the holy fathers referred to them as an authoritative source. In modern times they attracted attention in Western Europe, both among Catholics and Protestants, and were reprinted several times. The exception was the work “Against the Nestorians”, which, although not widespread in antiquity, became known in modern times only from the end of the 19th century. The work “On Melchizedek” was very widespread in ancient times, but later it was also forgotten, and was published only in the 18th century. This is the only creation of the monk that has never been published in Russian, which served as the basis for its placement as an appendix in this dissertation. Chapter 2. Review of the works of St. Mark The work “On the Spiritual Law” (Περὶ νόμου πνευματικοῦ) 126 is present in almost all lists of the works of St. Mark, and in approximately half of the ancient manuscripts that have reached us it comes first. The authorship of the work is currently beyond doubt 127 . The work in question is in form a collection of short statements, often unrelated in meaning. The numbering of chapters is different in different manuscripts. As J.-M. notes. Durand, the most ancient manuscripts do not give any hints about the presence of the original numbering of chapters, carried out by the Venerable himself. Mark 128. In the oldest known manuscript Add. 12175 (in Syriac), dating from 533–534, there is no numbering, and the statements are separated from each other by crosses. According to the numbering of A. Gallandi, repeated in the patrolology of Min, the text is divided into 201 chapters. The same division is contained in the text given in the “Sources Chrétiennes” series. In the Greek “Philokalia,” as in all Russian translations, the word is divided into 200 chapters. The same division is given in the modern Greek translation. Our work gives the numbering contained in the series "Sources Chrétiennes", as in the best edition of the Greek text to date 129. The title of the essay “On the Spiritual Law” is immediately explained by Rev. Mark. He writes that he will talk about how, according to the Apostle, “the law is spiritual” (Rom. 7:14), and what those who want to preserve it need to know and how to act 130. On the theological topics that Rev. Mark in this work addresses the question of the relationship between Divine grace and human freedom in the matter of salvation. The monk teaches that the desire to do good depends on human will, but implementation depends on God 131, who is the source of all good 132. Touching on the topic of knowledge, Rev. Mark writes that even simple people, but at the same time humble in wisdom, are wiser than the wise in the matter of salvation 133. But external learning will not harm a humble person 134. Knowledge of what is necessary for salvation occurs gradually, as the commandments are fulfilled 135. There is a lot of attention in this word by Rev. Mark devotes attention to the enduring of sorrows as necessary for the healing of the soul 136. The sorrows themselves, according to the saint, inevitably follow the doing of evil 137. 2.2 “About those who think to be justified by works” If in the Greek manuscripts the work is entitled: “On those who think to be justified by works” (Περὶ τῶν οἰομένων ἐξ ἔργων δικαιοῦσθαι) 138, then in the Syriac, for the most part parts, this work is called the “Second Word”, including in the most ancient manuscript Add. 12175, dating from 533–534. The essay begins with an indication of the content of the work: “In the following scripture, those who firmly believe and know the truth expose the evil of external non-believers (ἡ τῶν ἔξωθεν κακοπιστία)” 139. But the essay itself does not contain much denunciation. In terms of content and style of presentation, this essay is close to the essay “On the Spiritual Law.” And most likely, initially these two works constituted one work. This confirms, on the one hand, the absence of a conclusion in the word “On the spiritual law”, and on the other hand, the following ending of the word “On those who think to be justified by works”: “These are the commandments of the spiritual law, a small part of which we have learned...” 140. The title and preamble of the word in question 141 may have originally been marginal glosses, which then found their way into the text 142 . In the West, the word is usually divided into 211 chapters, in Greece and Russia - into 226. We adhere to the division contained in “Sources Chrétiennes” 143. As the name suggests, Rev. Mark in this essay examines the topic of the importance of good works in the matter of salvation. According to the teachings of the monk, good deeds are a duty similar to the duty of a slave: “A slave does not demand freedom as retribution, but pleases, like a debtor, and expects it by grace” 144. The Kingdom of Heaven is given not for works, but as “the grace of the Master prepared for faithful servants” 145. The monk continues the theme of co-working of Divine grace and man in the work of salvation contained in the previous word. He reveals the doctrine of Divine Providence, according to which sorrows, on the one hand, are the generation of evil deeds and thoughts of those to whom they happen 146, and on the other, a manifestation of God’s mercy 147. True knowledge (ἀληθὴς γνῶσις), according to Rev. Mark, reveals to everyone that everything that happens to a person is generated by him 148. And wisdom (σοφία) does not consist in learning the truth naturally, but in enduring evil from those who offend as one’s own 149 . Concerns Rev. Mark in this essay also questions the effect on a Christian of the grace given in the sacrament of Baptism. The grace of Baptism secretly gives help to the baptized. Its effect becomes apparent as the commandments are fulfilled 150. In passing, Rev. Mark touches on the topic of ancestral sin (ἁμαρτία), indicating that when evil thoughts act, one must blame oneself, and not ancestral sin (μὴ πατρῷαν ἁμαρτίαν) 151 . The teaching about the consequences of ancestral sin, as well as about the effect of grace bestowed in Baptism, is revealed in more detail in the essay “On Baptism.” The title of the essay in Russian translation: “On repentance always and everything necessary, with the power of action that the faithful received through the grace of Baptism even before doing it.” The same name, with different spellings, appears in some Greek manuscripts, as well as in the publication of A. Gallandi and, accordingly, in the patrolology of Min. But in “Sources Chrétiennes” a short title is chosen, also found in the manuscript tradition: “On Repentance” (Περὶ μετανοίας) 152. In Western editions of the Greek text, the work is divided into 13 chapters. In Russian translations there is no division into chapters. In more than half of the ancient manuscripts, the essay “On Repentance” comes first, but in St. Photius of Constantinople and in later editions, including the Russian translation, he is placed in third place. The fact that it was placed before other creations had its own logic - after all, Christian life begins with repentance. According to the monk, repentance is always necessary for everyone 153; for a person it is as natural as food and drink 154. Rev. Mark also mentions the “wisdom of the Novatians,” as rejecting repentance, citing their arguments and refuting them. Rev. Mark denies that the words of Christ: “Repent, for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand” (Matthew 4:17) contains an indication of the imminent advent of the Kingdom of Heaven on earth. The future Kingdom will certainly come, but at its own indefinite (ἀόριστος) time 155. Rev. Mark writes that the act of repentance has one basis - Baptism 156. The theme of the sacrament of Baptism as the foundation of Christian life is revealed in detail by him in other works: “Advice of the Mind to Your Soul” and “On Baptism.” Affects Rev. Mark in this work and the theme of original sin. J.-M. Durand believes that in this work, Rev. Mark is close to recognizing that all people bear the guilt of Adam, thereby approaching the understanding of original sin that has emerged in the West. In that in other works the monk distinguished between the crime of Adam itself and the consequences of sin, J.-M. Durand sees grounds for attributing the work “On Repentance” to the earliest works of the monk 157. In the manuscript tradition one can find various names for this work. In the Russian translation, the word has the title: “The same, the answer to those who are perplexed about holy Baptism.” In the patrolology of Min: “An answer to those who are perplexed about Divine Baptism” 158. Some Greek manuscripts give this version of the title: “Questions and answers about holy Baptism,” Syriac: “About Baptism in the form of a conversation with brothers and monks.” In “Sources Chrétiennes” the title is placed as the main version: “On Holy Baptism” (Περὶ τοῦ ἁγίου βαπτίσματος) 159 . Neither in the patrolology of Min, nor in the Russian translation is the word divided into chapters. In Sources Chrétiennes the work is divided into 17 chapters and this numbering is used in our work. The work is structured in the form of a dialogue, so each chapter includes both a question from the perplexed (or even an opponent) and the answer from the teacher. Brand. The homily begins with a question to the monk about whom to believe: those who say that Baptism is perfect 160 or those who say that ancient sin is destroyed by deeds. But for this, Rev. Mark answers: since you are more inclined to curiosity than to Divine preaching, “then your faith is vain: you are still in your sins” (1 Cor. 15:17) 161. But the questioners strongly disagreed with this, saying that they only wanted to learn the truth. To this Rev. Mark noted that we must obey all the commandments to see if we are under the influence of sin. And then he sets out his teaching about the sacrament of Baptism: in Baptism perfection is given, but this grace of perfection is acquired only as the commandments are fulfilled 162. Views of opponents Rev. Mark can be identified with the Messalian teachings. Their assertion that ancient sin is destroyed by heroic deeds for the saint. Mark was tantamount to denying the fruits of the Atonement and asserting that grace is not grace, but reward for works 163 . Unable to contradict, the co-questionnaires of Rev. Mark “inconsistently only question, considering everything according to their own opinions, not obeying the truth of Scripture” 164. Considering the effect of the sacrament of Baptism, Rev. Mark also touches on the topic of original sin. Adam committed a crime, and for this he was overtaken by death. Under the death of Rev. Mark understands first of all alienation from God. And people inherit from Adam not crime (παράβασις), but this death, for those who come from the dead cannot be alive 165 . The Lord revives all those who believe in him through the sacrament of Baptism. In Baptism, a person receives freedom and is freed from the power of sin. But will is not forced, therefore, loving sin, a person again falls under its power 166. With love for the Liberator, a person fulfills the commandments 167 and, as they are fulfilled, the grace of perfection given in the sacrament appears 168. 2.5 “Advice from the mind to your soul” The title of this work is practically the same in all manuscripts and publications, and in Greek it sounds like this: “Συμβουλία νοὸς πρὸς τὴν ἑαυτοῦ ψυχήν” 169 . St. Photius of Constantinople places this work in fifth place, immediately after the essay “On Baptism,” and he occupies the same place in the “Sources Chrétiennes” series. This is logical, since this word is thematically similar to the essay “On Baptism.” But in the manuscripts these works do not follow each other. The essay “Advice of the Mind to Your Soul,” being small in volume, is divided into 5 chapters in the Ming patrol and in the “Sources Chrétiennes” series. In the Russian translation there is no division into chapters. The essay is structured as an appeal of the mind to the soul. The mind says that after it calmed down from the action of passions by grace, it learned that after Baptism no one unjustly forces us either to good or to evil. Whoever a person works for after Baptism according to his own will, God or the devil, encourages the person subsequently to do the corresponding deeds 170. After Baptism, two thoughts come to a person: human praise and pleasing the body. Rev. Mark draws a parallel with the crime of Adam and Eve, like which the mind and soul, revived by Baptism and placed in the paradise of the Church, again violate the commandment and again die mentally (κατὰ διάνοιαν). The Lord commanded to eat from every tree located in paradise (Gen. 2:16), but instead the mind and soul, following the suggestion of the serpent, loved some people as good, hated others as evil, thereby eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil 171. Lust indicated the tree as good for food (Gen. 3:6), and vanity added: “You will be like gods, knowing good and evil” (Gen. 3:5). Like Adam and Eve, who became ashamed of each other, the soul and body sew together fig leaves for themselves: covering themselves with an outer cover of words, feigned actions and self-justifications 172 . Rev. Mark expresses the idea that punishment, including for Adam’s crime, is not a punishment that comes directly from God. Every deed, good or evil, is naturally (φυσικῶς) followed by retribution. God was not angry with Adam and did not bring punishment upon him, but Adam himself brought death upon himself according to the spiritual law 173. The word ends with a call to the soul not to blame anyone for its passions: neither Adam, nor the devil, nor other people, but to enter into a struggle with its own will, having Christ as an assistant, hidden in man after Baptism 174. 2.6 “Debate with a scholastic” The title of this work by Rev. The mark in the manuscripts has only minor variations and in Greek it sounds like this: “Ἀντιβολὴ πρός τινα σχολαστικόν” 175 . In manuscripts, the word often comes after the essay “Advice of the Mind to Your Soul.” Also, in sixth place, this work comes from St. Photius of Constantinople. The text in the Patrology of Mines and in the Sources Chrétiennes is divided into 21 chapters. In the Russian translation there is no division into chapters. The word begins with the fact that one of the prominent lawyers (δικανικός) asked the elder ascetic on what the monks are based, arguing that those who offend them (monks) should not be brought to justice. His other question was about monastic work. The expert in laws condemned the monks for what he considered to be an unlawful disregard for the judicial system, of which he himself was a member, and for the fact that, in his opinion, they were in unnatural idleness 176 . The monk points out to this that the work of monks is a search for the Kingdom of Heaven. Reverend on the basis of St. Scripture shows that this is a commandment of God, as well as not to bring those who offend to justice 177. The lawyer asked why some monks, fulfilling the commands of the spiritual law, fall 178, while worldly sages, neglecting prayer, do not fall, protecting themselves with wisdom 179. To this the monk replied that monks fall because they neglect the main thing in the spiritual law - prayer and humility 180, while worldly sages have already fallen through presumption and negligence 181. The elder condemned man-pleasing (ἀνθρωπαρέσκεια), according to which people assimilate human wisdom instead of Divine wisdom, deceiving many simpletons to remain in it, instead of carrying out the labors of piety 182. The elder’s conversation with the lawyer ends with the latter, annoyed by the elder’s instructions, leaving, suspecting the ascetic that he secretly has in himself something of which he denounces others 183 . After the lawyer left, one of the brethren entered into an argument with the elder, hoping for his abstinence and therefore enduring everything sorrowful with the thought that he was suffering as a martyr. He considered the elder to be wrong in that he taught about the spiritual law, according to which everyone is to blame for the sorrows that happen 184. This brother cited as an argument the example of Christ, whose suffering cannot be considered to have occurred through His fault. To this the elder replied that Christ, having accepted us, made himself a debtor for us 185. Some suffer for their own deeds, and some for the deeds of their neighbors, taking on their guilt 186. Moreover, acceptance can be not only voluntary out of love, but also involuntary out of malice, when the one who offends his neighbor takes upon himself his temptations 187 . This work also contains a phrase that seems to be directed against Nestorianism: If these words are really directed against the Nestorians, then this work must be dated no earlier than the beginning of the Nestorian dispute. 2.7 “Message to Monk Nicholas” The title “Epistle to the monk Nicholas”, used in the translation of Optina Hermitage, or “Epistle to the monk Nicholas” - in the translation of St. Theophan the Recluse in the Russian “Philokalia” - corresponds to the name of the Greek “Philokalia”. In Ming’s patrolology the title is different: “Soulful instructions to Nicholas,” and in “Sources Chrétiennes”: “Message to Nicholas. To the most beloved son Nicholas" (Πρὸς Νικόλαον ἐπιστολή. Τῷ πολυποθήτῳ τέκνῳ Νικολάῳ) 189 . In Western editions, the work is divided into 13 chapters; in Eastern editions there is no division into chapters. In manuscripts, the message often comes after the dialogue “On Baptism.” In Min's patrolology, the essay is in fifth place. But St. Photius's epistle in question ranks last among the ascetic writings of the monk, after the work “On Fasting.” And since it is now considered proven that the essay “On Fasting” does not belong to Rev. Mark 190, then the “Epistle to Monk Nicholas” is in the seventh and last place among the ascetic creations of the monk in the “Sources Chrétiennes” series. Message from Rev. Mark is a response to a letter from the monk Nicholas, in which the latter asked for advice regarding the fight against passions. Rev. Mark gives advice in writing, and not orally, for the reason that “we are temporarily removed from you in face, and not in heart, having gone into the desert to the true workers and ascetics of Christ” 191. Rev. Mark commands Nicholas to remember the great grace given from God, which he previously spoke about. The fact is that Nicholas and his mother were shipwrecked while sailing from the holy places in Constantinople. Only he and two other travelers escaped. Once in Ankyra, Nikolai was received by “a certain gracious husband.” And, as Rev. Mark, Nicholas “with their most reverent son Epiphanius” were “instructed by the reverend man, turned to the path of salvation, and were received from the holy servants of God as true children” 192. As already noted, this information gave I. Kuntze reason to believe that Rev. Mark was then the abbot of the monastery into which Nicholas was accepted. But J.-M. Durand suggested that the work in question by Rev. Doesn't belong to the brand. This is evidenced by the lack of common themes with other works and some stylistic differences 193. However, the question of the authorship of the message cannot be considered finally resolved. In addition to ascetic themes, the message touches on the theme of the fall of Adam and the salvation accomplished by Christ. Due to the crime (παράβασις) of Adam, humanity became a captive of the enemy through the action of passions 194 and was under the power of death. But the Lord of all creation diminished (ταπεινόω) by becoming like us in everything except sin, having accepted what man received through sin and crime: death, labor, hunger, thirst, and the like. The Lord became what man became, so that man could become what God is 195. If in manuscripts and publications this work is called “On Melchizedek” (Εἰς τὸν Μελχισεδέκ) 196, then St. Photius of Constantinople calls it “Against the Melchizedekians.” The name given by the saint better reflects the content, although the name “Melchizedekians” is absent from the text. In manuscripts this work often comes last. The work “On Melchizedek” was very widespread in antiquity, found in almost half of the manuscripts that preserved the corpus of the monk’s works, especially when we are talking about the most ancient of them 197 . But then, having lost popularity, this work was forgotten, and only in the middle of the 18th century was it published among the works of the monk. A translation into Russian has not yet been published. It has been suggested that the work was written at the request of Theophilus, Archbishop of Alexandria, between 385 and 412 198. But this is unlikely, since the work contains Christological formulations that were formed during the Nestorian dispute. In the work “On Melchizedek” there are no terms that are in the work “Against the Nestorians”: ὑπόστασις, οἰκειοῡσθαι and λόγος γυμνός. Therefore, it was probably written before him 199. The teacher begins. Mark his essay with the argument that the Lord gave the apostles the fullness of truth, and the teachings that appeared subsequently are false. Further, the monk returns to this topic again, saying that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and there is no lack in Him. Therefore, there is no need to look for completeness elsewhere 200. The reason for the wrongness of those who consider Melchizedek to be God's Word is that they interpret individual sayings of Scripture out of context 201 . Rev. Mark, refuting the views of the Melchizedekians, dwells on Christology, showing what is the similarity of Melchizedek to Christ. The work also contains polemics with Nestorianism, and the monk directly accuses his opponents of Nestorian views: St. Photius, assessing the Christology of the work under consideration, wrote that it was involved in the emergence of heresy, meaning Monophysitism 203. The Monophysites could indeed use this work for their own purposes, as they did with the works of St. Cyril of Alexandria and other holy fathers, but this was not due to the fact that they contained non-Orthodox teaching, but to the fact that Orthodox Christology at that time was only looking for forms of expression, not always immediately finding the optimal ones. The full name of the word according to the manuscript of the Grottaferrara monastery: “The word is dogmatic. Against those who say that the holy flesh was not united with the Word, but like clothing, as a single whole clothed Him, so that in Him there is the Bearer and the Worn” 204. In a manuscript from the monastery of St. Savva added: “who are wise in accordance with Nestorius.” The two surviving manuscripts contain different numberings. In a manuscript found in the monastery of St. Savva, there are 30 chapters. The manuscript from the Grottaferrara monastery contains 52 chapters. The last of the manuscripts gives the best text, its division into chapters is contained in the Sources Chrétiennes and is used in our work. But in both manuscripts there is an omission of two chapters (between chapters 27 and 28 according to the manuscript from the Grottaferrara monastery, and according to the manuscript from the monastery of St. Sava - these are chapters 16 and 17) 205. Among all the works of the monk, the work “Against the Nestorians” was the least widespread. Moreover, it was not cited in any collections 206. Therefore, it is quite natural that the work in question was forgotten until the end of the 19th century. In form, this work is close to the work “On Melchizedek” and, as having a more developed Christological terminology, was probably written shortly after it. Signs that the essay “Against the Nestorians” was written at the beginning of the Nestorian dispute, even before the time of the Third Ecumenical Council of 431 include: 1. Rev. Mark writes that he sets forth the opinions that the heretics are now expressing (νῦν) and makes assumptions about what they will come to in the future 207. He also points out that there were heretics in the Church before 208. Both of these indicate that the heretical teaching was accepted by the opponents of St. Mark only recently, and before that they adhered to Orthodox teaching. 2. The indication of the possibility of heretics concealing the interpretations of Scripture given by the monk 209 indicates the absence of other polemical literature among those for whom the work was written. 3. If in the work “About Melchizedek” Rev. Mark mentions that the Melchizedekians are anathematized by their bishops 210, but here he writes nothing about canonical reproaches against the Nestorians, despite the fact that they are denounced more severely. Neither the name of Nestorius nor the name of the heresy derived from his name is mentioned. 4. The mention of those who, seeing the controversy and not knowing which side to lean on, believed that true faith is something unclear 211, also confirms that the dispute has only just begun. 5. The cited local Creed, which was professed at Baptism and those who fell into heresy 212, also testifies to the origin of the work in the period before the Third Ecumenical Council, which prohibited the use of symbols other than the Nicene 213. 6. The use of the words “contact” (συνάφεια) 214 and “by good will” (κατ᾿ εὐδοκίαν) 215 to describe the unity in Christ, 215 which later became associated with Nestorianism. Traces of a later origin are found in the final chapters 51 and 52 of the work in question, contained only in the manuscript of the Grottaferrara monastery. They speak of two natures in Christ, while St. Mark preferred to apply the term "nature" (φύσις) only to the Divinity of Christ. The moral and ascetic works of the monk, such as “On the Spiritual Law”, “On Those Who Think to Be Justified by Works”, “On Repentance”, “On Baptism”, “Counsels of the Mind to Your Soul”, “Debate with a Scholastic” clearly have common themes, indicating that they belong to the same author. Two dogmatic and polemical works: “On Melchizedek” and “Against Nestorius” also clearly belong to the same person. But since the unity of these two works with ascetic works has been questioned, it makes sense to present some arguments indicating the unity of their author. The introductions of the works “Against the Nestorians” and “On the Spiritual Law” are similar, even starting with the same words: “Ἐπειδὴ πολλάκις.” Further, as in the dialogue “On Baptism,” the work under consideration contains an indication of the spiritual causes of errors. In the work under consideration this reason is: “perception of praise and pleasure” 216. In “Advice of the Mind to Your Soul” about these two reasons, about praise and pleasing the body, Rev. Mark speaks of two battles (προσβολή) that determine who a person will be with: with God or the devil 217. The theme of these two vices is also found in the works “On the Spiritual Law” 218 and “On Baptism” 219. If the essay “Against the Nestorians” states that the truth is revealed to those who do deeds consistent with the truth 220, then the essay “On Baptism” states that the truth is acquired as the commandments are done 221. Just as in the essay “On Baptism” 222, the essay “Against the Nestorians” emphasizes the curiosity of heretics 223 and indicates that it is necessary to believe and fulfill the commandments, and not engage in useless research 224. The essay “Against the Nestorians” lacks a clear plan; sometimes there are repetitions 225. In the introduction, the monk addresses his readers as Orthodox, then later, in most chapters, he addresses denounced heretics 226. At the same time, as in the essay “On Baptism,” the opponents’ remarks alternate, sometimes in the plural, sometimes in the singular. Touching on the topic of Adam's sin, Rev. Mark argues in accordance with the word “On Baptism” 227. All men, both righteous and sinful, were under the power of death, not because of their own, but because of Adam's crime 228 . When discussing the power of death, the monk speaks in the past tense, which also corresponds to his views contained in the essay “On Baptism.” Touching on the topic of the Sacrifice of Christ, Rev. Mark speaks of a ransom that was given not by authority, but by exchange and fairly 229. The work ends with two chapters, which, as indicated above, are a later insertion, since they contain later terminology. 2.10 Works attributed to Rev. Mark A number of works included in the patrolology of Min and present in the Russian translation among the works of Rev. Mark of the Ascetic, the author of the main body of creations does not belong. The first such work is the work “On Fasting” or in the Russian translation “On Fasting and Humility”. It is contained in some ancient manuscripts as the work of St. Mark, and he is mentioned by St. Photius of Constantinople. If in the textbooks of patrolology by I. Kvasten 230 and P. Christ 231 it still appears along with other works of the monk, it is now generally accepted among researchers that this is the work of another author 232 . If the essay “On Fasting” was added to the works of the monk in ancient times (previously St. Photius), then others were added in modern times. Thus, in 1563, in the first edition of the saint’s works in Greek, J. Picot added “Chapters on Temperance” to the saint’s works. Two centuries later, in 1772, A. Gallandi doubted the ownership of the work in question by the Rev. Mark, and one of his friends noticed a similarity with the writings of St. Macarius the Great 233. In the patrolology of Min, in the introduction to the works of Rev. Mark, the corresponding mention by A. Gallandi 234 is reprinted, but in the text of the “Chapters on Temperance” there are no marks indicating its controversial nature. Today it is generally accepted that the “Chapters on Temperance” is a compilation from the works of St. Macarius the Great and Maximus the Confessor and cannot belong to St. Mark. In 1624, when combining the Greek texts and Latin translations of the saint in one edition, F. Duke added to them the word “On Paradise and the Spiritual Law.” But subsequently A. Gallandi did not publish it among the works of St. Mark, attributing it to the works of St. Macarius the Great 235. Although the Russian translation of the Optina Hermitage edition contains this word. Thus, from the works inscribed with the name of Rev. Mark the Ascetic, the following seven works undoubtedly belong to him: “On the spiritual law”, “On those who think to be justified by works”, “On repentance”, “On Baptism”, “Advice of the mind to your soul” and “Debate with a scholastic”. The “Message to Monk Nicholas” stands apart, the content of which does not allow us to unequivocally classify it among the works of the monk. It was suggested that both the works “On Melchizedek” and “Against the Nestorians” did not belong to the author of ascetic works, but this hypothesis was not confirmed. Works that obviously do not belong to the author of the main body include: “On Fasting,” “Chapters on Temperance,” and “On Paradise and the Spiritual Law.” Chapter 3. Theological views of St. Mark 3.1 Tradition of faith, knowledge of God and error Analysis of the theological views of Rev. We will begin Mark by identifying his relationship to Sacred Tradition, within the framework of which church theology exists. We also point out that for Rev. Mark is the necessary conditions for knowing the truth, and what, in his opinion, are the reasons leading to the emergence of errors. Like other fathers of the Orthodox Church, Rev. Mark states that the fullness of the truth was revealed to the apostles, who passed it on to their disciples. Those teachings that arise at a later time are unnecessary and harmful 236. Rev. Mark illustrates this with the Gospel parable of the sower (Matthew 13:24–30). According to him, the sower is an ap. Paul, who sowed the whole world with his words as if with wheat. After this, “other wise men” (ἑτερόφρονες) appeared, who, like the tares, rose above the loaves, in their effort to teach a more mysterious (μυστικώτερος) teaching than the teaching of the apostles 237 . Quoting app. Paul, “there will be false teachers who will introduce destructive heresies” (2 Pet. 2:1), Rev. Mark draws attention to the word “will be introduced.” He emphasizes that false teachers introduce heresies, looking for the right moment, and tailor their answers depending on the objections 238. To offer a new teaching different from the teaching of the apostles, argues the Rev. Mark, - only the one who himself will be higher than the apostles can. If a new teaching has been revealed to you, he says to the Melchizedekians, then you are higher than the apostles, and they are “babies compared to you” 239. Of course, the monk himself considered the teaching of the apostles and those who adhere to it in the Church to be perfect 240 and therefore not subject to addition in any case 241. That the teaching of the apostles contains the fullness of revelation is shown by their own examples, as well as the examples of martyrs and holy fathers. By imitating them, one can be saved even now without new teachings. Those who believe that it is necessary to adhere to the new teaching must necessarily consider that none of the saints were saved, counting only themselves among those saved 242. Discussing doctrinal truth, Rev. Mark makes her knowledge dependent on the fulfillment of the commandments 243. The Truth is revealed as one succeeds in virtue, through the accomplishment of deeds that are characteristic of the Truth: patience with labors and dishonor 244. A believer and one who keeps the commandments receives the Holy Spirit and becomes knowledgeable of God (θεοδίδακτος), pouring out truth like a river onto other people (John 7:38–39) 245. On the other hand, a person plunges into error through doing things that are characteristic of error: through accepting praise and pleasures 246. The reason for the appearance of Nestorianism by St. Mark sees that it is difficult and shameful for pleasure lovers and the vain to confess that He who was Crucified and Endured Dishonor is the Lord, the Indivisible Son of God 247 . Rev. Mark writes that God gives everyone knowledge of useful things (συμφερόντων γνῶσις) 248 as he fulfills the commandments 249 . This knowledge makes a person capable of enduring sorrows and not blaming others for his misfortunes 250. Also, without it, it is impossible to forgive other people’s misdeeds from the heart, since true knowledge shows that everything that happens to a person happens according to the truth of God 251. Whoever has such knowledge, for him every case will be a “teacher of the knowledge of God” (θεογνωσίας διδάσκαλος) 252. He will endure sorrows with the hope of receiving future benefits 253. Such knowledge by Rev. Mark calls it “grace before grace” (χάρις πρὸ χάριτος), which teaches one to believe in God 254. Without it, it is impossible to truly believe, since “knowledge by nature (κατὰ φύσιν) precedes faith” 255. But through negligence, which stems from voluptuousness, a person comes to oblivion 256. The antipode of true knowledge is ignorance (ἄγνοια), which forces a person to act contrary to his benefit 257. Knowledge of useful things, which Rev. Mark also calls knowledge of affairs (γνῶσις πραγμάτων), he distinguishes it from knowledge of the Truth (ἀληθείας ἐπίγνωσις), by which he means experimental knowledge of God. Experienced knowledge of God is more useful than simple knowledge to the extent that the sun is different from the moon 258. Simple knowledge (ψιλὴ γνῶσις), not associated with doing the commandments 259, is unstable 260 and puffs up a person 261. Speaking about the importance of living according to the commandments for correct faith, Rev. Mark admitted that even those who do not keep the commandments can adhere to the correct doctrine. So he draws attention to the fact that some of the heretics, even after learning the truth, do not confess it, since the main thing for them is the satisfaction of their own vanity. That is, even heretics with vanity can comprehend where the right faith is 262. But if truth is more important for a deluded person, then such a person will turn to the truth, discovering the deceitfulness of his beliefs. This Rev. Mark substantiates the need for theological polemics: “We should not be vain, but [try] to benefit them [the erring] in the Lord” 263 . Rev. Mark warns against researching what cannot be researched 264 . He asks his opponents the question: “How out of nothing did He [God] create heaven and earth, the sea and everything in them?” And since it is impossible to answer such a question, it is impossible in a natural order (φυσιολογέω) to investigate the more mysterious: how the Word became man or how He suffered dispassionately 265. You just need to believe what the Holy Scripture says about this 266 and fulfill the commandments 267. For example, one of the reasons for the appearance of the Messalian teaching on the sacrament of Baptism by St. Mark saw that the followers of this teaching are more inclined to curiosity (περιεργία) than to the Word of God 268. The one for whom the Word of God contains truth will fulfill the commandments and, by fulfilling them, will discover for himself the true teaching 269. Rev. Mark also writes about a category of people who, seeing a theological polemic (in this case, Nestorian) and not having the strength to judge where the truth is and where the error is, conclude: “true faith is something unclear (ἄδηλος)” 270. The monk strongly disagrees with this idea. He declares that “the whole Divine Scripture convinces the industrious” of the errors of the Nestorians 271, and true faith is not something not entirely clear 272. Warning against excessive curiosity in theology, Rev. Mark, however, sharply condemns those who reject the pursuit of secular sciences: “Whoever despises knowledge and boasts in ignorance; he is ignorant not only in word, but also in mind” 273. As a writer for ascetics, among whom, very likely, there were views about the dangers of worldly knowledge, Rev. Mark notes that external learning will not harm humility 274. So, we see that Rev. Mark denies the possibility of new teachings appearing in the Church. According to him, the apostles received a perfect teaching that does not need to be replenished. Doctrinal truth, like the truths of correct spiritual life, is revealed through the fulfillment of the commandments. By breaking the commandments, a person falls into various errors. However, according to the monk, those who are mistaken can benefit from clarification of what the truth is. 3.2 The Fall of Adam and its consequences In the Fall of Adam, St. Mark highlights the crime (παράβασις) that the first people committed and the consequence, which the monk calls death 275. The first people to whom God gave everything created 276 committed a crime due to their own unbelief 277. Lust (ἡδονή) indicated that the tree of knowledge is good for food, pleasing to the eyes and desirable (Gen. 3:6), and vanity (κενοδοξία) promised that “you will be like gods, knowing good and evil” (Gen. 3:5) 278. Rev. Mark also indicates that the fall of the first man was the result of the devil's deception 279. Polemicizing with the Messalians, Rev. Mark especially emphasizes that the descendants do not inherit the crime (παράβασις) of Adam. A crime is only something that is committed arbitrarily 280. According to the monk, inheriting a crime would mean that the descendants of Adam would commit crimes out of necessity, and in this case there would be no basis for God to condemn them 281 . Adam's descendants did not inherit crime, but death 282, under which the Rev. Mark implies not only mortality, but also the state of death in sins, the state of alienation from God 283. Death followed Adam's crime not by special definition, but naturally (φυσικῶς), according to the law established by the Creator from the beginning. Rev. Mark draws attention to the fact that the Lord did not say to Adam in paradise: “I will put you to death,” but said: “In the day that you eat from it [the tree of knowledge], you will surely die” (Gen. 2:17) 284. In a similar way, St. wrote about the naturalness of death after the Fall. Athanasius the Great. According to his teaching, people, having turned away from the Existing God, deviated into the non-existent, into evil, thereby depleting eternal existence within themselves, becoming the culprits of death and corruption for themselves 285. Consequences of Adam's crime Rev. Mark, in addition to the word “death” (θάνατος), also calls “forefathers’ sin” (πατρικῆς ἁμαρτία) 286, “forefathers’ death” 287, “forefathers’ law” 288. In the essay “Against the Nestorians,” the fall of the descendants of Adam from eternal life by St. Mark calls it an accusation (ἔγκλημα) 289, without implying here, of course, that the descendants are guilty of Adam’s sin, as the blessed one taught. Augustine 290. If the theological meanings of the words “crime” and “death” by St. Mark is clearly defined as the crime itself and its consequences, the same cannot be said about the expression “the sin (ἁμαρτία) of Adam.” In one place in the essay “On Baptism,” Rev. Mark writes that the sin of Adam is a transgression of the commandment only by the first man, that is, the sin of only one Adam 291. In another place in the same work, the monk writes that Adam’s sin is destroyed not by his own exploits, but by Jesus Christ, meaning by Adam’s sin not the crime itself, but its consequences, which were reflected on the descendants 292. In the essay “On Repentance” Rev. Mark makes little distinction between the guilt that Adam bears for his crime and the consequences of sin that his descendants bear. Here, discussing the need for repentance, he writes that if there were people who were from birth alien to any vice (although, according to the word Rom. 3:23-24, the monk notes, there are no such people), then they too would have a need for repentance, since all were born condemned to death under the sin of Adam’s crime. Therefore, no one can be saved without Christ. Christ gave commandments that command repentance and determined to fulfill them until death 293. J.-M. Durant sees in this text a statement of the guilt of the descendants for Adam's sin, since repentance presupposes a state of guilt. He writes that the Rev. is here. Mark comes very close to the concept of “original sin”, which was formed in the West. Later, as the scientist suggests, returning to this topic, Rev. Mark will speak with greater caution in distinguishing between Adam's crime and its consequences, which affect all humanity 294. One can agree with him regarding the dating of the works. We cannot agree with J.-M. Durand that, according to the thought of St. Mark (as it is expressed in the essay “On Repentance”), the need for repentance is the result of the guilt of the descendants for the sin of Adam. The need for repentance Rev. Mark directly derives not from Adam’s crime, but from the fact that this is the commandment of Christ, and without Christ it is impossible to get rid of the condemnation of death, that is, from the consequences of Adam’s sin. Repentance itself (μετάνοια) Rev. Mark interpreted it quite broadly, meaning by it purification of thoughts, unceasing prayer and patience with befalling sorrows 295 . The plight of man, according to Rev. Mark, consists not only in the first sin of the first parents, but also in the fact that a lot of wickedness was added to the consequences of this sin. After the Fall, man imperceptibly fell in love with what was contrary to God, and the tendency to error (πλάνη) became more characteristic of him than adherence to the truth. Depravity became voluntary, idolatry - acceptable, love of pleasure - in accordance with the demands of the mind (εὔλογος), self-interest - the subject of zealous service 296. And if death was punishable for eating the forbidden fruit, then eternal torment would be imposed for such an increase in sin 297 . But both from the consequences of ancestral sin and from the subsequent increase in evil, a person is saved by the incarnate Power of God - the Lord Jesus Christ 298. 3.3 Christological terminology Teaching about Christ Rev. Mark expounds in two essays: “On Melchizedek” and “Against the Nestorians.” It is most likely that the monk wrote them immediately before the Third Ecumenical Council. This circumstance largely determined the saint’s use of Christological terminology. Recognizing the existence in Jesus Christ of perfect human nature 299, the very term “nature” (φύσις) Rev. Mark applies only to the Divinity of Christ, meaning by the nature of Christ precisely His Divine nature, which became incarnate. He writes that Christ did not have a natural beginning in time, but had a beginning according to the economy 300. The monk calls the Body and Blood of Christ holy “by nature” 301. The word "nature" Rev. Mark uses, like St. Cyril of Alexandria 302 who, as A. Grillmeier notes, does not reject the expression “human nature” as such 303 but only as capable of bringing division into Christ 304 . In order to do the best, according to St. Cyril, to say about the humanity of Christ, it is enough to say about the Incarnation 305. But unlike St. Cyril, who often uses the term “nature” in the formula “one nature of God the Word incarnate” (μία φύσις τοῦ θεοῦ λόγου σεσαρκωμένη), Rev. Mark does not use this formula at all and always uses the word “nature” independently. Just like Rev. Mark, the term “nature” was also used by another polemicist with Nestorianism - St. Theodotus, Bishop of Ancyra 306, an active participant in the Third Ecumenical Council, which, according to I. Kunz, headed exactly the diocese in which Venerable. Mark wrote the essay “Against the Nestorians.” The emphasis on the Divinity of Christ, as St. explains. Cyril, was made polemicist with Nestorianism in order to defend Unity in Christ 307. For the defenders of Orthodoxy, it was important to point out that it was God the Word who was born of the Virgin, endured suffering and was glorified 308. To designate humanity in Christ, St. Mark uses the words: “flesh” (σᾶρξ) 309 , body (σῶμα) 310 and “man” (ἄνθρωπος) 311 . He also points out that Christ accepted man in fullness (τέλειος) 312. In the essay “The Scholastic’s Debate with Abba Mark,” the monk writes that the Lord has united with us both in flesh and in spirit 313. Rev. Mark cites the rhetorical question of the Nestorians, to whom they tried to show the absurdity of Orthodox teaching: “Is God crucified, or is God dying, or is he hungry, or is he weary?” To this he replied that those who ask this question forget about the Incarnation 314 or hide it 315. Question, according to Rev. Mark, should sound like this: “how is it that Christ died, suffered, hungered?” 316. But to the direct question “Is He who suffered for us God or not?” Rev. Mark answers in the affirmative, making the appropriate clarification that “God suffered, but not deprived of humanity” 317. About the Nativity of Christ, Rev. Mark writes that not only God (γυμνὸς ὁ Θεὸς) and not a simple man (ψιλὸς ἄνθρωπος) was born, but Christ, who is both together (συναμφότερον) 318 . Perhaps because of this terminological caution, Rev. Mark does not use the title “Mother of God,” since this word does not specify that God was born of Mary according to humanity. Speaking about the confession of the Apostle Peter (Matthew 16:13–18), the monk, turning to the heretic, calls on him to confess “the Son of Man born of Mary as the Son of God” 319. And then he asks the question about who the Son of Man is, considering the incorrect answer that He is the only God the Word, and that He is a simple man 320. Here it must be taken into account that in that era the use of the word “Mother of God” was not universal, and the monk wrote his essay “On the Incarnation” for the needs of the local church exclusively 321. This makes Rev. very different. Mark from other defenders of Orthodoxy writing at the time. For the latter, the defense of Orthodoxy largely meant the defense of the name “Mother of God” 322. Rev. Mark uses the term “hypostasis,” which later became key in Christology. In triadology, he uses it in relation to the Persons of the Holy Trinity 323. The reverend also uses this term to mean reality, actuality. He contrasts it with the term “likeness,” explaining that Melchizedek is not the Son of God, but is likened to Him: “Likeness and reality (ὑπόστασις) are not the same thing, for one is an image, and the other is truth” 324. In Christology Rev. Mark uses the term “hypostasis” only in the expression “according to hypostasis” (καθ’ ὑπόστασιν) 325 characterizing the reality of unity in Christ. He writes that God the Word took on our flesh according to hypostasis 326, making it partaker of Himself according to hypostasis 327. Humanity in Christ participates in hypostasis with God the Word 328, and God the Word with humanity 329. Discussing the Body and Blood of Christ, the monk writes that they are united by hypostasis with the Divine from the womb of the Mother, and not after birth united “by communion” (κατὰ μέθεξιν) 330. As an example of connection according to hypostasis, St. Mark cites the connection of fire with red-hot gold, in which fire, uncontrollable and indestructible, is combined with tangible and contained gold 331. Rev. Mark, to denote the union of natures, also used the word “συνάφεια” (literally contact, immediate proximity). He calls unity in Christ an inseparable union (ἀδιαιρέτου συνάφεια) 332. This term was used both in triadology to indicate the connections of the persons of the Holy Trinity, for example in St. Gregory of Nyssa 333, and in Christology, to indicate the combination of natures, for example, in St. Basil the Great 334 or St. Theodotus, Bishop of Ancyra 335. Similar to Rev. Mark, in the context of his early polemics with Nestorius, this term is used by St. Proclus, then bishop. Kizicheskiy, exhorting not to separate the union (συνάφεια) 336, so as not to be separated from God 337. But this word was convenient for those who divided the natures in Christ. Thus, Paul of Samosat (III century), taught that a relationship of contact (συνάφεια) was established between Christ and the Logos according to the unity of knowledge, desire, action 338. This word began to be actively used in Christology by Theodore of Mopsuestia and Nestorius. The fact that this term can mean only external unity is also shown by the statement of Rev. Mark, where he says that prayer is the mother of virtues, giving birth to them from its union (συναφεία) with Christ 339. Thus, Rev. Mark uses mainly Christological terminology similar to that used by St. Cyril of Alexandria, although with some differences. He uses the word “nature” (φύσις) in the same way as St. Kirill, although, unlike the latter, does not include it in any formulations. On the contrary, the word “hypostasis” (ὑπόστασις) is used in the Christology of St. Mark always in the expression “according to hypostasis” (καθ’ ὑπόστασιν), while St. Kirill also used it himself. The monk also does not avoid the word “contact” (συνάφεια), the use of which was common at that time among the Orthodox. What distinguished Rev. Mark from other defenders of Orthodoxy is that he did not use the title of the Virgin Mary “Theotokos,” which at that time was a symbol of the fight against Nestorianism. 3.4 Teaching about Jesus Christ and the salvation accomplished by Him According to the teachings of Rev. Mark Jesus Christ is both God and Man 340. God the Word became Man not by being transformed into flesh, but by receiving it and adding it to Himself 341. The union of Divinity and humanity in Jesus Christ is not a temporary union 342, but inseparable forever 343. The Body of the Lord never existed separately from the Divinity, but received its beginning in hypostatic unity with God the Word 344. Rev. Mark insists that the image of the union according to hypostasis, according to which “the Word became flesh” (John 1:14), is inaccessible to the mind 345. After all, if it is impossible to say how God created our visible world out of nothing, then it is even more impossible to find an answer about something more amazing: the incarnation of the Lord and his impassive suffering 346. God is Almighty - and nothing is impossible for Him. Anyone who seeks an answer to the question of how the union took place in Jesus Christ and at the same time divides Christ, thereby shows his disbelief in the omnipotence of God 347. Confessing the unity of Divinity and humanity in Christ, Rev. Mark speaks of what was later called “intercommunication of properties” (communicatio idiomatum). He writes that “God, but not devoid of humanity,” or “Man, but united with the Divine,” suffered on the Cross 348. One and the same (ἕνα καὶ τὸν αὐτὸν) 349 both God and Man who suffered the Crucifixion 350. St. Photius of Constantinople in the 9th century regarding one of the works of St. Mark wrote that it was involved in the emergence of heresy, by which he most likely meant the heresy of Monophysitism 351. A similar statement that Rev. Mark is dangerously close to the Monophysites, contained in A. Grillmayer 352. The priest of the Anglican Church G. Chadwig even suggested that Rev. Mark lived in the 5th–6th centuries and was a Monophysite 353. In this regard, it seems important to study the question to what extent the Christology of St. The mark corresponds to Orthodox teaching. Indeed, Rev. Mark applies the term “nature” only to the Divinity of Christ 354. But, as noted in the previous chapter, this fact in itself, in a period when Christological terminology was only looking for a language for its expression, cannot serve as evidence of the non-Orthodoxy of Christology. The greatest doubt regarding compliance with Orthodox teaching can be caused by the following excerpt from the work of St. Mark “About Melchizedek”: a Melchizedekian, who believes that Melchizedek is the Son of God, asks the monk a question about whether the unity of Divinity and humanity in Christ began in time? To this Rev. Mark answers: To analyze this text, it is necessary to consider the context. Rev. Mark cites these words to explain the text of Scripture about Melchizedek: “having neither beginning of days nor end of life, being made like the Son of God, he remains a priest forever” (Heb. 7:3). He shows how these words of the Epistle to the Hebrews relate to Melchizedek, who only becomes like Christ, serving as His prototype. The Melchizedekians respond to this by asking the question: How does Christ have neither the beginning of days nor the end of life? Rev. Mark responds that the Son of God “had the beginning of an economic birth, but did not have a natural beginning, because of unity from the womb of the Mother” 356. Next, opponents object to Rev. Mark, that if Christ has no beginning because of the unity [of Divinity and humanity], then unity itself has a beginning? To this Rev. Mark answers in the above passage. The monk argues that although one can speak of the beginning of the unity of Divinity and humanity in time, one can also say that this union has no beginning, since the Divinity in Christ is more significant than humanity. He justifies this by the fact that, when connecting a larger one with a smaller one, the united is called by the name of the larger one, and not the smaller one, therefore, like the larger one, the united one has no beginning. The monk gives the example of a river, which, when it flows into the sea, ceases to be called a river, since it connects with the sea and ends in it. This example is unfortunate in that when applied to Christ, the thought arises of the absorption of human nature by the Divine nature. However, Rev. Mark does not apply this example directly to Christ; with its help, he only illustrates the idea that when anything is united, what is united is called by the name of the greater. Moreover, he writes this in polemics with the Melchizedekians, to whom he proves the originlessness of Christ. The monk did not ignore the fact that Christ called Himself the Son of Man 357. In the essay “Against the Nestorians,” written at the same time as the essay “On Melchizedek,” Rev. Mark, contrary to his assertion that what is united is called by the name of the greater, calls Christ also Man 358. Therefore, this text by Rev. Mark must be seen solely as aimed at interpreting the controversial passage in Hebrews. He seeks to show the eternity of Christ in order to explain how Melchizedek is His type. In Christology Rev. The brand has another problem area. In his polemic with the Nestorians, he refuses to divide the natures in Christ according to their actions. The words of the Nestorians: “We speak of Christ as One, but in [His] works we divide natures according to [the occasion],” - Rev. Mark calls it atheism and blasphemy 359. However, these words of Rev. Mark must be understood precisely in the context of the polemic with the Nestorians, in whom he saw that some of the Savior’s actions are attributed to simple (ψιλή) flesh, that is, to man, not united by hypostasis with God, and others to the pure (γυμνή) Divinity, i.e., to God, not united with man 360. Rev. Mark recognized two actions in Christ (πράγματα): “all Divine Scripture reveals one and the same Son of God in both His actions - Divine and human” 361. He emphasizes that Christ, in His love for mankind and condescension, took on all its natural actions along with the flesh, “so that we would know that nothing natural forces us to sin” 362. Christ hungers, thirsts, worries, prays. In the category of human infirmities of the Savior, St. Mark also puts ignorance of the day of the end of the world 363. Specially Rev. Mark examines the question of how Jesus Christ, one of divinity and humanity, could endure suffering. He writes not only that Christ endured suffering in the flesh 364, but also that Christ endures suffering dispassionately in Divinity 365. Speaking about the incomprehensibility of the dispassionate assimilation of suffering, Rev. Mark nevertheless gives an analogy of the union of fire with red-hot gold: fire, in itself uncontrollable and indestructible, united in hypostasis with the restrained gold, can indifferently (ἀπαθῶς) endure everything that happens to it 366. At the same time, Christ acts freely in humanity, enduring everything out of His mercy towards people, and “not out of natural necessity” (οὐ φύσεως ἀνάγκῃ). Christ could always act according to Divinity, being not only Man, but also God. For example, if Christ, having suffered death, was resurrected, then even more so he could not have died at all. If He walked on the sea, then He could walk on land without getting tired, and if He entered with the doors closed, He could hide and grab Him from those who came 367. The purpose of Christ's coming is to do for people what they should have done, but could not. By doing this, He shows the measure of human nature: for example, after fasting for forty days, he became hungry, showing that while fasting, one should not lose heart and listen to the devil, who advises turning stones into bread 368. Exposition of the doctrine of the salvation of the human race accomplished by Jesus Christ, Rev. Mark begins by describing the plight of humanity and the impossibility of salvation without Christ. Many evils became insoluble fetters for man, and the evil committed had to be followed by a fair trial. Knowing about the justice of God and the immutability of His law, but not knowing God’s omnipotence, the devil hoped that, having become accomplices of his defilement, people would also become accomplices of his punishment 369. But against the power of the devil, the incarnate Power of God appeared and freed man by His omnipotence and lawfully (νομίμως), and not arbitrarily (ἐξουσιαστικῶς), so as not to abolish justice. Justice (δίκαιον) was observed in that Christ achieved salvation not through the cancellation of His word spoken in paradise about death for eating from the tree of knowledge (Gen. 2:17), but through His perception of humanity. Having been born according to humanity, the Word of God through one perceives everyone and suffers in order to “destroy condemnation and establish justice; and to fulfill His word, and to free man from death” 370. Thus, Rev. Mark identifies two consequences of the Sacrifice of Christ. Firstly, it is the liberation of people from the power of the devil 371. The monk writes that by His death Christ “abolished the devil, not allowing him to arbitrarily do whatever he wanted” 372. Secondly, this is the liberation of people from the power of death 373, which is associated with the removal of people from the Source of Life - God. Due to the union of Divinity and humanity in Christ, people receive the opportunity to participate in God and receive the Holy Spirit 374. The teaching of Rev. Mark about salvation has much in common with the teachings of St. Athanasius the Great. He also wrote that it was impossible to change the word of God, according to which death took possession of people 375. Like the monk, he taught that people did not stop at the first sin, becoming insatiable in it 376. Repentance could only stop sins, but not bring a person out of the state in which he was: the state of decay and death 377. Therefore, out of His love for mankind, the Lord, for the salvation of people, taking the body, accepts death for everyone, in order to return people to incorruption and revive them from death 378. For the saint, as well as for the reverend. Mark, death is the natural consequence of falling away from God, 379 and therefore communion with God abolishes death. Summing up the teaching about Christ, St. Mark, it should be concluded that he was a diophysite who did not allow the fusion of natures in Christ. For each of the natures, he recognized its inherent properties and actions. The teaching about the salvation of the monk is similar to the teaching about the salvation of St. Athanasius the Great. The central place in the doctrine of salvation is St. Mark occupies the doctrine of the sacrament of Baptism. In Baptism, according to the teachings of the monk, a person receives (δέχομαι) the Holy Spirit. He also receives both the Father and the Son 380, since the Holy Spirit is called the Spirit of God and the Spirit of Christ 381 and is inseparable from Them 382. Christians have the beginning of the Spirit (Rom. 8:23), since the gifts of the Spirit operate within the framework of earthly life only partially, to the extent that a person is able to perceive them 383. A detailed discussion of the topic of the action of the sacrament of Baptism was necessitated by the need for polemics with the Messalians, who, devaluing the meaning of the sacraments, believed that all human prosperity depended solely on diligent prayer 384. The polemically presented teaching of Rev. Mark led to a distorted perception of him. The opinion has been established that, according to the teachings of the monk, after Baptism people gain immortality, losing it as a result of their own sins 385 and are restored to the state of Adam before the Fall 386. The reason for this was that Rev. Mark, referring to ap. Paul 387, writes about such a gift of Baptism as liberation from death 388. However, in our opinion, it is impossible to see in these words the teaching of complete liberation in Baptism from all the consequences of original sin, including physical death. After all, the monk also teaches that those who want to achieve perfection “must do everything in general: the common (set) of all commandments is the renunciation of one’s soul, that is, death” 390. And if death is necessary to achieve perfection, then immortality cannot be given immediately after Baptism. To correctly interpret statements about liberation from death, it is necessary to consider the teaching on Baptism by St. The brand as a whole. According to the teachings of Rev. Mark, all success in the Christian life is the revelation of the perfect gifts of the sacrament of Baptism. By struggling and ascending to perfection, no one can acquire more than what he has already “received through Baptism, that is, Christ” 391. The ascension itself occurs by grace received in Baptism 392. Grace is given mysteriously (μυστικῶς) and is hidden in the baptized person (κρυπτῶς). It opens gradually, as the commandments are fulfilled 393. Claiming that in Baptism a person finds God, Rev. Mark did not believe that this happened mechanically: “to those who firmly believe, the Holy Spirit is given immediately after Baptism; it is not given to unbelievers (ἄπιστος) and evil believers even after Baptism” 394. Under the unbeliever Rev. Mark understands not only those who do not believe in God, but also those who are not guided in life by this faith. Believer, for Rev. Mark is the one who fulfills Christ's commandments 395. But Rev. Mark does not deny the reality of the Baptism performed on those whom he called unbelievers and evil-believers. According to the teachings of the monk, all people in Baptism become capable (δεκτικός) of accepting the actions and gifts of the Holy Spirit 396. This is the teaching of Rev. Mark is similar to the reflections on the same subject by Rev. Maximus the Confessor, who describes the reality of the sacrament of Baptism through the doctrine of the duality of birth from God. The first birth takes place in the sacrament of Baptism and bestows the grace of adoption in a state of possibility (δύναμις), and the second birth is the bringing of this possibility into a state of fulfillment (ἐνέργεια) 397 . Rev. Mark reveals the teaching about the gifts that are given to a Christian in the sacrament of Baptism. One of them is the power (δύναμις) to fulfill the commandments, having which, a person can be freed from the power of sin 398. Another benefit of Baptism is liberation from death. When Rev. Mark speaks about this gift, then his words can be understood in two ways. Firstly, liberation from death is the gift of physical immortality, but which, like other gifts, is bestowed according to the will of a person and will fully manifest itself only in the next century. And secondly, as liberation from spiritual death, that is, from life without God, life in sins. About spiritual death, which is a consequence of sin, Rev. Mark writes, explaining the words of St. James “sin committed gives birth to death” (James 1:15). Thus, from sin, in his words, “comes a commission consistent with the action that Scripture calls death” 399. The monk writes not just about death, but about what Scripture calls (ὀνομάζω) death, by death meaning, first of all, spiritual death 400. It is even more obvious about death as spiritual death, Rev. Mark writes this: “it was impossible for us [who came] from the dead to be alive until the Lord came and gave life to all who believed in Him” 401. It was precisely this kind of death, which is hidden inside a person, that St. considered true death. Macarius the Great, saying that those who have secretly “passed from death into life” (John 5:24) live forever and do not die, although their bodies will be destroyed for a time 402. Similar to Rev. Mark taught St. about the effect of Baptism. Basil the Great, speaking about liberation from death as liberation from the power of sin: “so we, who were baptized into death in the likeness ... no longer die, that is, we no longer sin, because the soul that sins will die (Ezek. 18:4)” 403. St. also wrote about Baptism about liberation from the violence of death. John Chrysostom: “You have put on a robe... in order to be inviolable from the violence of death” 404. Thus, according to the teachings of Rev. Mark, in Baptism a person receives the ability to perceive God and ascend to perfection, thereby gaining the freedom lost through the fall of his ancestors. As the commandments are fulfilled, the actions and gifts of God, mysteriously received in Baptism, become apparent. If a Christian remains enslaved to sin, then the reason for this lies in the fact that he does not lead the life commanded by the Gospel. In Baptism, liberation is also given both from spiritual death, which is separation from God, and from physical death, which, like other gifts, will be revealed only in an eschatological perspective. 3.7 Human freedom and the power of sin In polemics with the Messalians, St. Mark expounds the doctrine of the relationship between human freedom received after Baptism and the power of sin. To expand on this topic, Rev. Mark makes a distinction between temptation from the devil, the attack of Satan, and evil thoughts 405. Temptation from the devil, according to Rev. Mark, inevitable for a person. The Lord Himself, the righteous Job, was subjected to it (Job 1:12, 2:6), and the New Testament contains indications that a Christian will have to fight the devil (Eph.6:12; James 4:7; 1 Pet.5:8) 406. The satanic attack (προσβολὴ τοῦ Σατανᾶ) “is in thought alone the appearance of an evil thing, which, in order to get closer to our mind, finds [convenience] only due to our lack of faith” 407. Rev. Mark puts lack of faith as the reason for Satan’s attack, since through lack of faith a person deviates from the commandments not to care about anything (Matt. 6:25) and to guard one’s heart (Prov. 4:23), thereby becoming accessible to the evil advice (ὑπόθεσις) of the devil. But even in this case, so that a person’s freedom is not violated, the devil has the power to suggest only in the first thought (ἐν πρωτονοίᾳ), tempting the inner (ἐνδιάθετον) of a person, where it will incline: whether to his advice or to the commandment of God 408. Evil thoughts (πονηροὶ λογισμοί), according to St. Mark, there is an action of human nature itself, although their motivating cause is the attacks of Satan 409. God wants “all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth” (1 Tim. 2:4), but this is hindered by evil thoughts, which, as St. Mark, “they come from the heart” (Matthew 15:19) 410. Sin is not the resistance, not the appearance of an evil thought in itself, but the friendly conversation of the mind with it, the slowness in it. It is impossible for an evil thought, which a person hates, to talk to the heart for a long time without the voluntary participation of the person himself 411. But Rev. Mark does not deny that an evil thought can still dominate the mind, even though the person himself hates this thought. The monk saw the reason for this in the Christian’s violation of his obligations given in Baptism. Firstly, this is insufficient fulfillment of the commandments, and secondly, these are committed sins 412. Rev. Mark dwells on the question of how a person is inclined to sin after Baptism. In Baptism freedom from the violent power of sin is given, 413 therefore the saint even compares the state of the newly baptized with the state of his forefathers in paradise. Just as the first parents were introduced into heaven, so those renewed in the sacrament are introduced into the Church. By violating the commandment of love for one's neighbor, a person dies mentally, like Adam who tasted the forbidden fruit 414. But unlike Adam, a Christian, having sinned, can again free himself from the power of sin with the help of grace given in Baptism 415. First of all, after Baptism, two wordless (ἀδιαλόγιστοι) thoughts approach a person: human praise and relaxation of the body. And if a person is inclined towards voluptuousness, then, instead of giving entrance to Christ, who directs the mind to the truth, he gives entrance to the devil, who offers his evil suggestions, gradually adding them. And this continues until a person hates these two thoughts 416. Opponents Rev. Mark, the Messalians, sought to prove that a Christian cannot free himself from evil thoughts, since they are a consequence of Adam’s crime 417. To do this, they tried to cite the example of righteous people who, in their opinion, suffered from evil thoughts without their own guilt. The first they brought was the ap. Paul, who wrote: “I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me captive to the law of sin that is in my members” (Rom. 7:23). To this Rev. Mark urged them to read what the Apostle wrote above and understand that in this place the ap. Paul speaks on behalf of unbelievers and unbaptized Jews, for whom without the grace of Christ it is impossible to overcome sin 418. Further, the Messalians gave the example of hermits (ὁ ἕαυτὸν καθείρξας ἐν κελλίῳ), performing many feats and enduring many sorrows for this, but at the same time suffering from thoughts. To this Rev. Mark notes that they would not be sensualists only if they performed their exploits with joy and hard work (μετὰ χαρᾶς καὶ φιλοπονίας), and not with sorrow. As much as they grieve from their labors, they converse with their enemies, thereby softening the severity of their exploits 419. The next argument against the teachings of Rev. Mark the Messalians quoted the words of the Lord: “Will God not protect His chosen ones who cry out to Him day and night, although He is slow to defend them?” (Luke 18:7). To this Rev. Mark replied that these words refer to those who are struggling from former habits, and not to those immersed in voluptuousness of their own free will. At the same time, the monk draws attention to the following verse of the Gospel: “he will give them protection soon” (Luke 18:8), and asks the question why the Lord “tarries and leaves you in evil thoughts, although you pray, as you said, with all your heart and without doubt?” 420. To this the Messalian replied: “The Lord hesitates [to take revenge] not for the sake of anything else, but only for the sake of my patience” 421. The monk called this answer blasphemy (βλασφημία). Priest Scripture nowhere praises those possessed by evil thoughts, but everywhere it reproaches and condemns those who are guilty 422. Reasonings of Rev. Mark may suggest that he denied any connection between the Christian's enslavement to evil thoughts after Baptism and the consequences of Adam's sin. But we must not forget that according to the teachings of St. Mark, the revelation of the grace-filled gifts of the sacrament of Baptism occurs gradually, according to the will of the person. And since the saint’s opponents are Messalians, who denied the gracious meaning of the sacrament of Baptism and believed that remaining in evil thoughts is a natural consequence of Adam’s sin, from which there is no way to free oneself, the saint insists that enslavement to evil thoughts after Baptism is the fault of the person himself. Rev. Mark answers the Messalians: “I do not even call this [violent possession of the mind] Adam’s sin, but more (ἀλλ’ ἢ μᾶλλον) the sin of one who has done evil and contains its seeds” 423. The adverb “more” (μᾶλλον) indicates that there is a connection between the evil thoughts of a baptized person and the consequence of Adam’s sin. But Divine grace given in Baptism can free a Christian from it. If this does not happen, then this is the fault of the person himself, who, on the one hand, does not do what is commanded by the Gospel, and on the other hand, commits sins of his own free will. Including on the basis of whether a person understands that he himself is guilty of his evil thoughts or not, Rev. Mark identifies three mental states (νοητοὶ τόποι) of the mind. The lowest state is unnatural (παρὰ φύσιν) - when the mind forgets the truth of God and rebels against people as those who offend it 424. Carried away by unnatural (παρὰ φύσιν) actions, he believes that evil is outside of man and blames Adam, Satan, and other people for his sins. A person seeks evil outside of himself, thinking that he loves the commandments, in reality hating, through self-delusion (διὰ τὴν πλάνην), the reasons (αἰτία) for their fulfillment 425. Rev. Mark writes that it is impossible even to free oneself from evil thoughts, considering them the action of others 426. Natural state (κατὰ φύσιν) Rev. Mark called one in which the mind “finds itself guilty of evil thoughts, and confesses sins to God, recognizing the causes of the passions.” In a supernatural state (ὑπὲρ φύσιν), the mind experiences within itself the fruits of the Holy Spirit 427 . But in another work, the monk writes that the mind recognizes what is related to the natural state only when it is in a supernatural state, when “having been cleansed from passions... somewhat calmed down from them by the grace of God” 428. Perhaps here we are already talking about experimental, accurate (ἀκριβῶς) knowledge 429. To summarize the reasoning of Rev. Mark on human freedom and the power of sin, it should be noted that they directly follow from his teaching on Baptism. If Baptism bestows perfect grace, and it depends on the person how much he will accept it, then enslavement to sin, as well as the violence of evil thoughts, can exist only because a person does not accept the gift of Baptism, which is revealed through the fulfillment of the commandments. 3.8 The action of grace and human effort in the matter of salvation In agreement with other Eastern fathers, Rev. Mark taught that a person’s salvation occurs both through the effort of a person, his own labors, and thanks to Divine help: “What is sown will not grow without earth and water, and a person will not benefit without voluntary labor and Divine help” 430. Grace, mysteriously (μυστικῶς) bestowed in Baptism, after Baptism secretly (κρυφίως) helps a person 431. About the action of grace in the Baptized, the monk writes that it “stirs up the conscience, so that those who do evil repent and turn to God, ... hides in the teaching of one’s neighbor, sometimes even during reading thoughts follow, and naturally teaches the mind its truth, thus instructing a person. And if ... we do not hide our talent, then we will truly enter into the joy of the Lord” 432. Considering the verse: “God works in you both to will and to do for good pleasure” (Phil. 2:13) 433, Rev. Mark writes that goodwill comes from human autocracy, but the goal of goodwill cannot be achieved without God 434. Even the beginning of any virtue comes from God: “The beginning of all virtue is God, just as the beginning of daylight is the sun” 435. Man's deeds, in themselves, are not worthy of either Gehenna or the Kingdom. The Lord judges not by external deeds, but “by the deeds of one’s own unbelief or faith,” 436, that is, by the inner state of a person. If external circumstances interfere with the implementation of what a person wants to accomplish, then in this case the person appears before God as if he had fulfilled what he wanted 437. In itself, a good deed performed by a person does not give holiness (ἁγιασμός) 438. It only removes one from the opposite vice 439. So, for example, a temperate person moves away from gluttony, a chaste person from fornication, a humble person from vanity, etc. 440 Therefore, the meaning of doing good deeds is to refrain from vice, to preserve purity 441 and the freedom given at Baptism 442 . This shows similarities with the understanding of virtue by Evagrius of Pontus, which became classic for monastic writing 443. For him, virtue is a skill of the rational soul, “thanks to which it becomes averse to vice” 444. Since virtues keep from vice, Rev. Mark considers them duties or commandments 445 . Having been baptized, people, according to Rev. Mark, become “debtors of doing” (ὀφειλέται τῆς ἐργασίας) 446, therefore, everything that a person can do good, he must do constantly 447. While not valuable in themselves, good deeds, done with the proper disposition, not only keep one from vice, but also make manifest the grace that is secretly bestowed in the sacrament of Baptism 448 . About those who say that they are incapable of doing good, because they have clearly not received the grace of the Holy Spirit, Rev. Mark writes that they, justifying their arbitrary stay in pleasures (ἡδονή), also abandoned what they could do 449. By doing what he can, a person will receive the help of Christ, who has been secretly with him since Baptism 450. On the other hand, the monk speaks of those who seek reward for doing good deeds as serving their own will, and not God. After all, good deeds are a person’s responsibility, for which there should be no reward 452. In the “Orthodox Encyclopedia” the teaching on virtue by St. The brand is defined as follows: "Rev. Mark the Hermit defined virtue as “abstinence from vice” (ἁμαρτίας ἀποχή), which is “a work of nature” 453, that is, based on the natural abilities of man, and not on the grace of God” 454. The authors of the article base their statement on the following text by the monk: “virtue practiced before death is nothing other than removal from sin, and removal from sin is a matter of nature (φύσεώς ἐστιν ἔργον), and not the price of the kingdom. A person barely preserves what is natural to him (φύσεως): Christ, by the cross, bestows adoption as sons” 455. But, according to the teachings of Rev. Mark, the grace of God secretly acts through the natural order of things, without ceasing to help the baptized person 456. At the same time, the monk writes: “good (ἀγαθόν) cannot be accomplished otherwise... except in Christ Jesus and in the Holy Spirit” 457. The implementation of virtues, as well as their acquisition, according to Rev. Mark, depends both on the will of man and on the grace of God. On the other hand, A.G. Dunaev believes that in the word “On Baptism” “the author somewhat distorts the initial question about the relationship between grace and ascetic feat, turning it into a categorical dilemma” 458. The researcher refers to the words of Rev. Mark, said to his opponent: “For this you preach clearly, saying that the sin of Adam is destroyed by exploits, and not by the grace of Christ” 459. But Rev. Mark, after these words, continues: “which [grace] is infused into us secretly through Baptism, is revealed when, having completed the path of the commandments as it should be..." 460. To understand the teachings of Rev. Mark on the question of the relationship between grace and ascetic feat, as he sets it out, it is necessary to determine the position of the monk on two issues. First, what is necessary for salvation? – the monk replies that both grace and feat are necessary 461. Secondly, what saves a person, what destroys the sin of Adam? - Rev. Mark insists that it is exclusively the grace of God bestowed in Baptism. That is, the categorical dilemma that A.G. writes about. Dunaev, refers to the second question, the teaching on which Rev. Mark is quite traditional: a person cannot save himself, he is saved by Christ. 3.9 “Spiritual law” as an action of Divine Providence To reveal his teaching about the Providence of God, Rev. Mark uses the expression “spiritual law” (ὁ νόμος πνευματικός) from the Epistle to the Romans: “we know that the law is spiritual, but I am carnal, sold under sin” (Rom. 7:14) 462. Here under the law, based on the context, ap. Paul was referring to the law of the Old Testament, contrasting the holiness of the law with the wretched condition of the people for whom the law brought death. Ancient church writers believed that the law was called spiritual for the reason that it either comes from the Holy Spirit (Diodorus of Tarsus); either he is a teacher of virtue and an enemy of vice (St. John Chrysostom), which makes a person spiritual, receptive to the Holy Spirit (Diodorus of Tarsus); or because it can only be performed and understood by spiritual people (Origen, Blessed Augustine of Hippo) 463. Origen, without denying that what the Apostle said referred to the law of Moses, goes beyond the literal understanding: “What [the Apostle said about “the law being spiritual”] refers to the law of Moses. For to those who understand it spiritually, it is a spiritual law and a life-giving spirit; for those who understand carnally, it is the law of the letter and the deadly letter” 464. “we must ask Him [God] to prepare for us words with the help of which we could build up the work of Christ and plant in our hearts the spiritual law and those prophetic sayings that relate to it” 465. Rev. also encourages you to accept the spiritual law. Macarius the Great 466. But no one develops the topic of spiritual law like Rev. Mark the Ascetic. According to his teaching, the spiritual law is indicated by both the Old and New Testaments. The spiritual law is not the Law of Moses, which judged only the visible. This law also exposes the secret 467. Christ wrote the spiritual law in the faithful “not on tablets of stone, but on tablets of flesh of the heart” (2 Cor. 3:3) 468. Observe the spiritual law, according to the teachings of Rev. Mark, means to lead a life in accordance with God's regulations 469. Rev. Mark does not limit himself to revealing the subjective side of the spiritual law, but extends its action to the entire rational creation and to all times. God originally predestined all things to be judged according to spiritual law, according to which “for every deed, good or evil, a suitable reward followed naturally (φυσικῶς), and not according to a special purpose (οὐκ ἐπινοητικῶς), as some who do not know the spiritual law think” 470. God is not subject to the passion of anger and does not seek retribution for the evil deeds of people, and does not change according to the dignity of each 471. But at the same time, explaining the action of the spiritual law, Rev. Mark writes: “if we hate one of our fellow believers as evil, then God will hate us as evil; and if we reject a repentant sinner, then we will also be rejected by God as sinners; and if we do not forgive our neighbor’s sins, then we ourselves will not receive forgiveness for our sins.” In the words spoken to Adam: “in the day that you eat from it [the tree of knowledge], you will die” (Gen. 2:17), - the Lord foretold to him the spiritual law 472. Rev. Mark emphasizes that the Lord did not say: “I will put you to death,” and human mortality is a consequence of spiritual law 473. Through the sorrows that follow the doing of evil, the Lord directs people to repentance, delivering them from eternal torment 474, and teaches them to be hardworking 475. The monk compares the benefits of grief for the evil-willed to bitter wormwood, which is useful for those who have poor digestion 476. A person needs sorrow for self-knowledge, for the knowledge of his own sinfulness. That is why they are called “temptations”, since they reveal to a person his innermost desires 477 and reveal the evil thoughts that secretly possess a person. After a person recognizes his sinfulness, the Lord gives true humility and delivers from arrogance. Without enduring sorrows with faith and gratitude, a person cannot recognize the evil hidden within himself. And without this knowledge, “we cannot reject real evil thoughts, nor seek cleansing from past evils, nor can we obtain firm confidence regarding the future,” 478 writes the Rev. Mark. And only without knowing most of the evil hidden within can a person be embarrassed by the sorrows that befall him 479 . Those who, receiving insults from people, rejoice and do not mourn, according to Rev. Mark, have true knowledge of God (θεογνωσία), “which is more comprehensive than any knowledge.” They have the opportunity to forgive the sinner, receiving forgiveness of their own sins and acquiring many virtues 480. The spiritual law established by God for the benefit of man is at the same time fair. The fact that everything happens according to the righteous Judgment of God is testified by David, who, slandered by Shimei, said that at the commandment of the Lord he is insulted (2 Sam. 16:11) for his sins (Ps. 119:75). Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel and other prophets foretold disasters both to the people of Israel and to the tribes of the pagans in proportion to their sins 481 . The sorrows that befall people are not similar to their sins, therefore only God knows the connection between a sin and retribution for it 482. So, for example, those who died under the collapsed tower of Siloam (Luke 13:4) did not themselves bring down the tower on others. And it was not because the Jews were taken into Babylonian captivity that they themselves took captives 483 . In addition, just as “there is a certain time between sowing and reaping,” reward does not come immediately after the action 484. Therefore, Rev. Mark advises us to seek not what gave rise to this or that temptation, but how to endure it with gratitude and without resentment 485 . Those who sin without repenting and without experiencing sorrows will face an unmerciful judgment 486. This happens, as can be concluded from the teachings of the saint, not because the Lord has turned away from man, but because of such spiritual ulcers that cannot be healed even by sorrows. Retribution for evil deeds, according to the teachings of St. Brand, can move from one person to another. This can happen either out of malice (ἀπὸ κακίας) or out of love (ἀπὸ ἀγάπης). Relationships of malice, as a result of which the neighbor is offended, lead to the fact that the one who offends, in proportion to that, involuntarily takes upon himself the temptation of the offended. For example, he who deprives his neighbor of something takes upon himself the temptation of the deprived, the slanderer - the slandered, the weary - the weary, etc. 487. But in love relationships, there is also an acceptance of the sorrows of others. The Lord Jesus Christ took upon himself suffering for everyone, commanding his disciples to do the same: “Greater love has no one than this, that someone lay down his life for his friends” (John 15:13). The apostle acted similarly, imitating the Lord. Paul: “Now I rejoice in my sufferings for you, and I fill up in my flesh what is lacking in the tribulations of Christ for His Body, which is the Church” (Col. 1:24). This is what other apostles, prophets, patriarchs, and holy fathers did when suffering for their neighbors. Therefore, one who has freed himself from passions cannot help but grieve, since he must grieve for his neighbor 489. Since “the external is the generation of the internal” 490, the saint calls thought (λογισμός) 491 or thought (ἔννοια) 492 the cause of all external circumstances of human life. Thus, Rev. Mark, instructing patiently enduring sorrows, formulates the doctrine that everything that happens to a person is a consequence of the spiritual state of the person himself, his actions. God does not seek retribution, but for the salvation and elevation of people to perfection, he established a spiritual law, according to which every action, every thought is followed by a corresponding reward. Chapter 4. Theological controversy 4.1 Controversy with Nestorianism 4.1.1 Rev. Mark on the teachings of the Nestorians On April 10, 428, the Antiochian monk Nestorius was appointed to the See of Constantinople. And soon a dispute broke out, which began with the question of the veneration of Mary as the Mother of God. After the writings of Nestorius became widespread, and the disputes in the capital became known in the Egyptian monasteries, St. Cyril of Alexandria. Around April 429, he wrote the “Epistle to the Egyptian Monks” 493, in which he refuted the teachings of Nestorius. After this and, probably, before the beginning of the Third Ecumenical Council (June 431), Rev. Mark wrote his essay directed against the Nestorians. One of the goals of the essay “Against the Nestorians” by Rev. Mark’s goal is to acquaint the reader with the objections of heretics to the arguments that the Orthodox brought in polemics with them, as well as with those opinions that are inherent in people who are not established in the true faith 494. The introduction to the work under consideration assumes that readers are familiar with Nestorian teaching itself, although not familiar with Nestorian argumentation. On the other hand, in the essay itself, the monk denounces local Christians 495 who have recently become carried away by the new teaching 496. That is, on the one hand, we see that members of the local church community were carried away by Nestorianism, on the other hand, readers did not have a clear idea of ​​their arguments. Therefore, probably, among those around St. Mark, to whom he addressed his essay, there were not many of those who were inclined towards Nestorianism and they could not actively propagate their views 497 . A. Yuryevsky believes that the heretics with whom the Rev. dealt. Mark, there were lay city dwellers, not desert monks. He makes this conclusion based on the fact that Rev. Mark denounces the heretics, on the one hand, for their desire for honors and pleasure 498, and on the other, for the fact that “they maintain their houses carelessly” 499. To us, this statement by A. Yuryevsky seems insufficiently substantiated. In moral and ascetic writings, addressed primarily to monastics, Rev. Mark also writes about the desire for honor and pleasure 500. Regarding the second text (“that they carelessly maintain their houses”), it can be noted that, according to the Grottaferrara manuscript, it should be read: “they do not care about their lives.” This option fits better into the context of the work and is accepted as the main one in “Sources Chrétiennes” 501. The monk does not mention the name Nestorius either in its own or in its common meaning. He does not mention other names. But, nevertheless, his opponents Rev. Mark characterizes them very harshly, calling them heretics 502, evil-believers (κακόπιστος) 503, apostates 504, which is stronger than the denunciations contained in his other writings. However, he does not mention that heretics were formally condemned by the Church, as he writes in a similar work on the Melchizedekians 505. Heretics, denounced by St. Mark, - according to A. Yuryevsky, - at that time were only internal enemies of the Church; they were not a completely organized community that had its own hierarchy 506. The reverend does not have the writings of his opponents, which could be consistently refuted in this dispute, but on the other hand, in the environment in which the reverend was located. Mark, there are probably no written works by other Orthodox authors denouncing heresy 507. The monk does not write about where the new teaching came from, nor does he try to reveal its origin, pointing out its connection with earlier heresies 508. But he talks about the spiritual roots of the new teaching. The monk sees them in the fact that many have turned away from the condition under which the truth is revealed: from the patience of labor and dishonor. And, accordingly, they followed what plunges a person into error (πλάνη): accepting praise and pleasures. Hence comes the shame of confessing “He who was crucified and endured dishonor as Master, Master and Lord, the Son of God,” 509 and this leads to error. Rev. Mark accuses the heretics of dividing Christ in two 510, “now separating the flesh from the Word, now the Word from the flesh” 511. They introduce division by teaching separately about the Son, who for them is pure (γυμνός) Word, without His own flesh 512 and separately about man in Christ - for them He is “one-component and simple man” (μονομερὴς καὶ ψιλὸς ἄνθρωπος) 513 . At the same time, the monk notices that the words of Scripture force the heretics to speak of Christ as one 514. Therefore, unlike St. Cyril of Alexandria, the monk does not say that heretics teach about “two sons” or “two Christs.” Paul of Samosata called Jesus Christ a “common man” (ψιλὸς ἄνθρωπος), and after him, using such an expression in relation to Christ was considered indecent and even subject to condemnation 515. Nestorius did not use such an expression 516, therefore, in this case, Rev. Mark does not quote literally the words of his opponents, but expresses their main idea. This style of discussion was common at the time 517 . Rev. Mark is trying to prove to his opponents that Christ is one of two (εἷς ἐξ ἀμφοῖν) 518, at the same time, both Man and God of the Word, obviously believing that this was denied by the heretics. But this cannot be attributed to Nestorius himself, who said: “Christ was not a simple man, but a man and at the same time God” 519. For Nestorius, the name “Christ”, as well as the names “Lord”, “Son of God”, are names of two natures, meaning, depending on the context, Holy. The Scriptures are either the Divine nature or the human nature, as well as both natures together 520. The heretics looked at Christ according to humanity, according to Rev. Mark, as the one in whom God dwelt 521 or as the garment of God the Word 522 . To believe in Christ, according to the monk, for heretics means to believe in the God who dwells in Him 523. In order to establish their teaching, the Nestorians, according to St. Mark, they asked the questions: “Does God die or does God suffer?” 524 or “God is crucified, or is God dying, or is he hungry, or is he weary?” 525. Nestorius, indeed, used similar questions in polemics, calling such expressions blasphemous. Rev. Mark attributed questions such as “Does God die or does God suffer?” to the treachery of heretics 526 . Heretics, according to the monk, not only asked similar questions, but also attributed these statements to the Orthodox. In this rev. Mark thought they were wrong 527. Elsewhere Rev. Mark puts the question of the heretics differently: “So the Lord of Glory was crucified?” 528. In this case, Rev. Mark does not quote the words of his opponents literally, but does this in order to bring them to the text of the text. Paul: “...if they had known, they would not have crucified the Lord of Glory (1 Cor. 2:7–8)” 529. To the text of Scripture, heretics, according to the monk, answer: “The Word is the Lord of Glory, but man was crucified” 530. But for Nestorius himself, the word “Lord,” as noted above, could also be applied to humanity in Christ, and therefore he did not need to resort to such a strained interpretation. Also probably Rev. Mark conveys only a thought, and does not literally quote the Nestorians in the words: “it is foolish to believe that the Son of God is crucified...” 531, since the expression “Son of God” by the Nestorians could also refer to humanity in Christ, although in an improper sense. Rev. Mark conveys the question of the heretics: “how could He who was united in hypostasis dispassionately partake of suffering?” 532. This question was one of the main ones in the Nestorian controversy. Nestorius saw a contradiction in God's dispassionate acceptance of suffering. For example, answering St. Cyril, Nestorius ironically called such words of the saint containing wisdom that is incomprehensible and incomprehensible to the readers 533. Heretics, according to Rev. Mark, they call the Lord “a dead body (σῶμα νεκρόν), by human conjectures dividing what is inseparable forever and united in a manner fitting to God by hypostasis” 534. Apparently, this indicates the denial by the Nestorians that the flesh of the Lord was life-giving, as having become its own to the Word 535. Heretics, according to the monk, say that the flesh of Christ needed cleansing (καθαρισμός) 536. This corresponds to the teaching of Theodore of Mopsuestia about the moral perfection of Christ 537. Thus, Rev. Mark, while generally correctly defining the main points of Nestorius’s teaching, was, however, not entirely accurate. This is partly due to the fact that Rev. Mark did not discuss with Nestorius himself, but with his followers 538. In addition, this dispute was characterized by the fact that, given the unestablished Christological terminology, the opponents, even reading the works of their opponents, suspected each other of a much greater deviation from the truth than was actually the case 539 . 4.1.2 Refutation of Nestorianism Most of the evidence aimed at refuting Nestorianism, Rev. Mark draws from St. Scriptures. In use by Rev. St. Mark Scriptures to refute the Nestorians, A. Yuryevsky noticed the originality that distinguishes the monk from other polemicists. If almost all church writers, speaking about the union of two natures in Christ, referred, in proof of their thoughts, to the fact that Jesus Christ in Scripture is called either the Son of God (or God), or the Son of Man (or even simply Man), then Rev. Mark, in proof of the truth of the union of natures in Christ, points out that in St. In Scripture the Savior is called Jesus Christ. The name “Jesus Christ” is the center of the Rev.’s thoughts. Mark of the Ascetic is not only the name of the disembodied God the Word and not only the name of a simple man, but the name of the union of natures. From this basic position, Rev. Mark brings out all the other thoughts of his essay 540. In addition to this correct observation, A. Yuryevsky also makes a very controversial conclusion: Rev. Mark deliberately begins the debate with something on which both opposing sides more or less agree. After all, Nestorius, like St. Mark very definitely expressed the idea that the words “Lord”, “Jesus Christ”, “only begotten” and “Son” are names common to both the Divinity and humanity 541. With the conclusion of A. Yuryevsky that Rev. Mark assumed that there was no disagreement on this between him and the Nestorians; it was impossible to agree. This is contradicted by the fact that the entire essay “Against the Nestorians,” and not just the beginning, contains proof of this thesis. In addition, as shown in chapter 4.1.1, Rev. Mark accused the Nestorians of being wrong on this issue. Priest Scripture, according to Rev. Mark, everywhere speaks of the one Christ and Son of God - God the Word with His own flesh 542. He cites texts that contain indications of both the Divinity and humanity of the Savior: – “If they had known, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory” (1 Cor. 2:8) 543; - “He was led like a sheep to the slaughter... but who can explain His generation? " (Isa. 53:7-8) 544; “This is our God, and no one else can compare with Him. ... He appeared on earth and spoke among people” (Bar.3:36–38) 545; - “I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is My flesh, which I will give for the life of the world” (John 6:51) 546. Each time, after quoting the corresponding passage, the reverend asks his opponents the question: Who is Scripture talking about? If it is about a simple (ψιλός) person, then why is He spoken of as God? And if only about (γυμνός) God the Word, then why is He spoken of as a Man? Therefore, it cannot be said about Christ, the monk concludes, that He is a simple man or only God the Word, since He is Holy. Scripture speaks of Christ as One, who is God the Word with His Own flesh 547 . The monk draws attention to the words of St. Paul: “there is one Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Cor. 8:6). The Lord cannot be a simple man, since “God is above all” (Rom.9:5) and is born from the essence of the Father 548, is God’s power and God’s Wisdom 549. It cannot be only God the Word, since he is born of a woman 550 and crucified 551. Therefore, Christ can only be “one of two” (εἷς ἐξ ἀμφοῖν) 552. To confirm the unity of Christ, St. Mark refers to passages from St. Scriptures in which there is no distinction between the actions of the man Jesus and God the Word (John 20:13; John 9:37-38; Luke 8:46; John 18:22, 19:11; Matthew 27:28; Mark 8:23; John 14:12, 20:27) 553. The monk cites the testimony of St. Thomas, who, touching the ribs and hands of the Savior, confessed Him as Lord and God (John 20:28). The Apostle called Christ that not because of His amazing deeds or words, writes Rev. Mark, - so that no one says that the words of the ap. Thomas refers to the Divinity dwelling within, but having touched His holy Body with his hands 554. Citing words about Christ by St. Paul: “He died for all, so that those who live should no longer live for themselves, but for him who died for them and rose again” (2 Cor. 5:15), - Rev. Mark writes that if the Died and Risen One is a simple person, then this means that Christians live for a simple person, and not for the Son of God 555. If Christ Himself and His apostles command us to believe in Him, then “are they really forcing us to believe in a common man?” 556 – asks the monk. In addition to St. Scriptures by Rev. Mark uses the local baptismal Symbol to testify to the unity of Divinity and humanity in Christ: “I believe in God the Father Almighty, and in the Lord Jesus Christ, God the Word, God from God, Light from Light, Power from Power [born], in the last days for us, incarnate, born, made man, crucified, died, rose from the dead, ascended into heaven, coming to judge the living and the dead.”557 With this Symbol at Baptism, the heretics confessed Jesus Christ as the Incarnate Word, writes the monk, but now they deny both faith and Baptism 558. In the Nestorian question: “Is God dying? or is God suffering?” - Rev. Mark saw the question posed incorrectly. That’s right: “how is it that Christ died, suffered, and hungered?” 559. Yes, writes Rev. Mark, “God suffered for us, but not devoid of humanity” 560. Christ “suffers humanly and endures dispassionately” 561. Unity of Christ, for Rev. Mark, there is a necessary condition for Him to accomplish our salvation. After all, if Jesus Christ is a simple man, then He could not die for everyone (2 Cor. 5:15). Himself in need of redemption, he could not save himself through his suffering. Even if someone had not committed a sin, he would still be under the power of death, in need of atonement, since “death reigned even over those who had not sinned” (Rom. 5:14), due to the crime of Adam 562. But since Christ was God who united human flesh with Himself, by virtue of this He made every person capable of receiving the Holy Spirit 563. The necessity of the unity of Divinity and humanity in Christ for the salvation of people. Mark also derives from the sacrament of the Eucharist: if the Body and Blood of Christ are not united with the Divinity, then how can they revive, sanctify and give liberation from sins? 564 The monk quotes the words of the priest: “The Holy Body of Jesus Christ, unto eternal life” 565, emphasizing that the Body Itself is called holy. If it were said: “Holy Christ unto eternal life,” then the heretics could say that He is holy by virtue of God dwelling in Him, but in the words of the priest it is said about the Body of Christ, which is “holy by nature, by hypostasis, united to the Divinity from the [womb] of the Mother, and not after birth by communion” 566. This argument was expressed more emotionally by St. Cyril of Alexandria, pointing out that if humanity in Christ is something separate from God the Word, then the Eucharist will be anthropophagy and participation in it is useless, since “the flesh does not benefit in the least, the Spirit gives life” (John 6:63) 567. Thus, the arguments of Rev. Mark against the teachings of the Nestorians can be reduced to two main groups: firstly, these are the testimonies of the Holy Spirit. Scriptures and Holy The traditions that the Lord Jesus Christ is God the Word with His own flesh, secondly, are arguments showing the need for unity in Christ as a necessary condition for salvation. Rev. Mark was among the first writers to defend Orthodoxy against the threat of the spread of Nestorian teaching, and this determines the value of his polemics. 4.2 Controversy with Melchizedekians Various misconceptions regarding the doctrine of Melchizedek are given by St. Epiphanius of Cyprus in Panarion 568. Among them, the saint mentions those who within the Church incorrectly think about Melchizedek, considering him the Son of God who appeared to Abraham in the form of a man 569. The saint likens the incorrect teachings about Melchizedek to a shrew (μυογαλλίδιον), which walks at night and is in no hurry to show itself. Its bite does not kill immediately, but after a while, destroying those who do not have an antidote against it 570. Misconceptions regarding Melchizedek, according to St. Epiphany, especially common in Egypt 571. The Apophthegmata Patrum tells the story of an old man from Lower Egypt who, because of his holiness, was even granted the gift of miracles. But at the same time he taught that Melchizedek is the Son of God. St. Cyril of Alexandria, having learned about this, invited the elder to his place and said: “Abba! pray for me. One thought tells me that Melchizedek is the Son of God, and another thought says: no! he is a man and a bishop of God. I hesitate which of these thoughts to believe. That's why I invited you. Pray to God that God will reveal this to you by revelation." 572 The elder prayed for three days and finally received a revelation that Melchizedek was a man, one of the patriarchs 573. Thus, according to St. Epiphanius and according to “Apophthegmata Patrum” the doctrine of Melchizedek as the Son of God spread within the Church 574. Rev. Mark confirms this by reporting that supporters of this doctrine are excommunicated by bishops. But when they are excommunicated, they gather and receive communion in those places where they are not known. In addition, the monk notes, the Melchizedekians, having entered into the trust of bishops or periodeuts 575, slander the Orthodox 576. Polemics with those who considered Melchizedek to be the Word of God before the Incarnation, Rev. Mark begins by affirming the completeness of the apostolic tradition. Those teachings that appeared subsequently, he, borrowing an image from the Gospel parable of the tares (Matthew 13:24–25), calls the devil's sowing 577. With his opponent, he asks the question why neither the prophets nor the apostles declared Melchizedek to be God? And he offers them two possible answers: either out of envy and fear, which is impossible, since they preached the One born of Mary without envy and fear, or out of ignorance, which means that they were babies compared to the preachers of the new teaching. The Melchizedekians responded to this that the apostles did not know this secret, thereby leaning toward the second. In support, they cited the words of St. Paul, to whom, as they said, this secret was revealed with difficulty: “We should talk a lot about this; but it is difficult to interpret” (Heb. 5:11). To this, the monk notes that in the Melchizedekian teaching there is nothing that is difficult to interpret. If Melchizedek only prefigures Christ, then the words of the ap. Paul (Heb. 5:11) are fully applicable to the king of Salem 578. Melchizedek is called in Scripture “king of peace” and “king of righteousness” (Rom. 7:2). But those who worship Melchizedek as God did not take into account why he was called so. Melchizedek is named “King of the World” after the city of Salem, where he was king. The word "Salim" is translated as "peace". Melchizedek is named “King of Truth” in accordance with his name, which is translated from the Canaanite language. The names, notes the reverend. Mark, often do not correspond to those whom they designate: those named Ambrose, which means immortal, die, those named Eugene, which means noble, remain slaves, etc. 579 The Melchizedekians said that Christ was without a father and without a mother “according to the order of Melchizedek.” But Scripture refers to the “order of Melchizedek” only to the priesthood of Christ: “You are a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek” (Heb. 5:6), since Christ was a priest, just like Melchizedek, that is, in addition to the Law 580. Melchizedek “without father” and “without mother” 581 because “without genealogy” (Heb. 7:3) 582: he comes from a people who are Holy. Scripture passed over in silence 583. In this he is like Christ, Who had no father on earth and no mother in heaven 584. In addition, if Melchizedek is considered great because of the lack of genealogy, notes the Rev. Mark, then Christ, who has a genealogy, must be revered as lesser 585. The Melchizedekians said that Melchizedek could not be a man, since he “remains a priest forever” (Heb. 7:3). But they omit the beginning of this phrase of Scripture: “being made like the Son of God” (Heb. 7:3). Melchizedek “abides as a priest forever,” since he is “forever” included in Scripture, and also because he always remains before God. Likewise, the prophets always remain prophets, both in Scripture and before God, and the apostles, “and all who are priests of Christ” 586. Rev. Mark insists on the need to distinguish likeness (ἀφομοίωσις) from reality (ὑπόστασις), as well as image (τύπος) from truth (ἀλήθεια) 587 . God the Word could not be an image of Himself 588. Rev. Mark notes that if we do not make a distinction between the image and what is the image, then it is necessary to recognize both the slaughtered lamb and the brass serpent as God 589. Melchizedekians, to confirm Melchizedek's divinity, cited the fact that Abraham gave him tithes (Heb. 7:4) 590. To this Rev. Mark notes that priests also receive tithes according to the Law. Abraham showed even greater humility by bowing to the one who gave him the cave to bury Sarah (Gen. 23:7–12) 591. Rev. concludes his speech. Mark calls to return to the faith of the holy fathers, which is sufficient for salvation even without new teachings, to faith in Christ, born of Mary, who is the Son of God and who lacks nothing 592. With his polemics with the Melchizedekians, St. Mark destroys their main arguments on which they based their teaching. By pointing out the differences between the image and what it represents, and also showing why one or another image is used in Scripture, the monk thereby reveals the true teaching about Melchizedek as a type of Christ. 4.3 Controversy with Messalianism In many of his writings, Rev. Mark polemicizes with the teachings of the Messalians. The name "Messalians" comes from a Syriac word meaning "those who pray." Sometimes a Greek name with a similar meaning is used: “Euchitites”, as well as “enthusiasts”, since they considered themselves inspired by the Holy Spirit. They called themselves “spiritual” (πνευματικοί) 593. Messalianism was primarily a monastic movement that originated in the middle of the 4th century in Syria, 594 from where it spread to the East of the Empire and even penetrated into Persia. The first to briefly mention the Messalians is St. Ephraim the Syrian († 373), then St. Epiphanius of Cyprus († 403). They are also mentioned by Rev. Neil of Sinai († 450), bl. Jerome of Stridon († 419/420), Rev. Marufa, ep. Tigritan († c. 422), St. Cyril of Alexandria († 444), bl. Theodoret of Cyrus († 457) and others 595. The Messalians were condemned at a number of Local Councils, as well as at the Third Ecumenical Council 596. Traces of Messalianism can be traced in Byzantium as early as the 7th–9th centuries, then this heresy merges with the heresies of the Paulicians and Bogomils 597. Rev. Mark does not use the name “Messalians” or any other, polemicizing only with their individual views 598. A possible reason for this may be the fact that Messalians often stayed within church communities without breaking with them 599, and certain Messalian views were also widespread among the Orthodox 600. According to Messalian views, as a result of the Fall of Adam, demons are combined with each person significantly (οὐσιωδῶς) 601 or hypostatically (ἐνυποστάτως) 602, pushing a person to commit inappropriate actions 603 . This happens even with people who are involved in the Holy Spirit: even the apostles were not free from this obsession 604. Interlocutor Rev. Mark, with whom he discusses in the essay “On Baptism,” without mentioning such essential unity, speaks about this in a slightly different form: all people accepted the crime of Adam, which is their sin, consisting of thoughts 605. The interlocutor asks Rev. Mark about whether the apostle sinned. Paul after Baptism, involuntarily exposed to the action of sin, which he himself speaks of as follows: “I see another law warring against the law of my mind” (Rom. 7:23) 606. It seemed incredible to the questioner that ascetics, of their own free will, fall under the influence of sin 607. Analysis of the teacher's answers. The answer to these questions is given in Chapter 3.7 of this dissertation. In contrast to the Messalians, Rev. Mark teaches that in Baptism freedom is given, and if a person falls under the power of sin, then this is a consequence of free choice 608. The monk quotes from St. Scripture, which the Messalians themselves often used: “let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit” (2 Cor. 1:7), and asks the question: how can a slave of sin cleanse himself from all filthiness? Christ could not command the works of freedom to those who are unwittingly enslaved to sin 609. Rev. Mark objects to the teaching that one must first strive and blot out sin in order to be able to fulfill the commandments of freedom. According to him, there are no such feats that would not be commandments, be it prayer, fasting, repentance, and even death or the cross. All these feats, each of which is also a commandment, do not eradicate sin, but only preserve the freedom received by man 610. In refutation of the teaching that the power of evil thoughts over a Christian is a necessary consequence of Adam’s crime, Rev. Mark quotes the words of the Apostle Paul, where he writes that those who are baptized have put on Christ (Gal.3:27) and have weapons to overthrow their thoughts (2 Cor.10:4) 611. Therefore, the monk concludes, if someone does not cast down their thoughts from their first attack, he agrees and combines with them of his own free will 612. After all, St. Scripture places all responsibility for breaking the commandments not on Satan, nor on Adam's sin, but on man himself 613. Moreover, not everyone transgresses the commandments in the same way and not everyone keeps them in the same way. It follows from this that a person violates the commandments not because he cannot keep them at all, but because of his own voluptuousness 614. The Sacrament of Baptism, according to Messalian views, does not contribute to the expulsion of a demon from a person, it is not enough to cut off the roots of sin 615, it does not elevate a person to perfection. This can only be done by diligently performed prayer 616. In contrast to Rev. Mark proves that Baptism bestows perfect grace, which, as the commandments are fulfilled, makes a person perfect 617. To say that perfection is acquired through exploits is the same as saying that justification is the result of fulfilling the law. And according to ap. Paul, “if justification is by law, then Christ died in vain” (Gal. 2:21). In this case, the grace of God is no longer grace, but a reward for deeds (cf. Rom. 11:6) 618. Objecting to the fact that grace is a reward for deeds, Rev. Mark poses the question: should a person daily bring to God the power of piety that he has, that is, should he constantly strive in full force? If this is so, then the deeds of piety performed every day are only a return to God of the daily debt. Therefore, a person cannot repay his old debts with anything, and, especially, for the debt of Adam 619. Christ suffered death for people. Therefore, exclaims the Rev. Mark, can adoption by Christ be taken for granted? 620 The monk calls for abandoning the search for perfection in human virtues, since perfection is not found there, but is mysteriously hidden in the Cross of Christ 621. The Lord “will reward everyone according to his deeds” (Matt. 16:27; Rom. 2:6), but for the deeds of his own unbelief and faith, and not simply for deeds that in themselves are not worthy of either Gehenna or the Kingdom 622. Avoiding vice is natural for a person and cannot be the price of the Kingdom 623. According to Messalian views, a person who has received the gift of the Holy Spirit (this requires striving for diligent and unceasing prayer from three to twelve years 624) becomes “spiritual” (πνευματικός) 625 and perfect 626, and he no longer needs an ascetic life 627. Rev. Mark also uses the name “spiritual”, which the Messalians called themselves, distinguishing the “spiritual” as perfect from the “prosperous” 628. He agrees that there were and are people who truly pleased God and achieved perfection, but they also need repentance. Under repentance (μετάνοια) Rev. Mark understands not only repentance, but also purification of thoughts, unceasing prayer and patience with sorrows 629, that is, that ascetic life, the necessity of which for the perfect was denied by the Messalians. The reverend proves the need for repentance for everyone by the fact that there are no people who, from childhood, would be completely alien to lies, lust, anger, idle talk - according to the word of the Apostle: “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Rom. 3:23). And even if such people existed, they would still come from Adam, condemned to death. They can only be saved through Christ, and He gave commandments commanding repentance until death, saying that “whoever loses his life for Me and the Gospel will save it” (Mark 8:35). Therefore, the monk concludes, “whoever claims that repentance can end before death destroys the commandment (Matthew 5:19) and is a transgressor of God’s commandments 630.” Rev. Mark also briefly mentions other Messalian errors in his writings. Since the Messalians taught that communion with the Holy Spirit should be in every sensation 631, then Rev. Mark notes that most often grace acts secretly after Baptism 632. The Messalians held the view that the Lord, having received man from Mary, was sometimes transformed into a Spirit, sometimes into a body, which was indescribable, like the nature of the Divinity 633. And the monk is asked the question of whom the baptized person receives in Baptism: Christ or the Holy Spirit? In response to the monk’s answer that all persons of the Holy Trinity are received in Baptism 634, the opponent asks another question, which directly reflects the triadology of the Messalians: “Is the [Holy] Spirit a Trinity?” 635. Rev. Mark revealed the inconsistency of the Messalian teachings in various writings that were devoted to different topics. Summing up the polemic with the Messalians, we can conclude that the main tasks in it for the monk were, firstly, to substantiate the fact that a person receives freedom in Baptism and therefore bears personal responsibility for enslavement to sin. Secondly, a refutation of the views according to which salvation can be achieved through works, as merits. Thirdly, a refutation of the opinion that repentance is not necessary for the perfect. 4.4 Controversy with the Novatians The only misconception that Rev. Mark called by name, became the teaching of the Novatians 636. The Novatians received their name from the name of Novatian (III century), a Latin theologian who aspired to the bishopric of Rome. But, having failed in the election of a new pope in 251, he organized a schism, becoming an antipope. At the same time, he changed his initial opinion on the issue of accepting those who fell during persecution, beginning to demand their exclusion from the Church forever - which later became the main topic of controversy 637. In 254, Novatian united with Novatus, who separated from the Church in connection with the election in 248 of St. Cyprian, and took a similar position on the issue of receiving the fallen. The Novatians quickly spread throughout the Roman Empire, existing in the West until the 5th century, and in the East until the 8th century. In the East there were especially many of them in Asia Minor. Distinguished by their strict morals, the Novatians were respected by many Christians. Emperors who persecuted heretics often made an exception for the Novatians 638 . St. Constantine the Great even invited one Novatian bishop to the First Ecumenical Council of 639. Rev. Mark polemicizes with the teachings of the Novatians in his essay “On Repentance.” Some, according to the monk, under the pretext that there is no hope for salvation, accept the “wisdom of the Novatians” and reject repentance 640. They, according to Rev. Mark, are based on the words of the Apostle: “let us not again lay the foundation for conversion from dead works and faith in God... For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the world to come, and have fallen away, to be renewed again to repentance” (Heb. 6:1-6) 641. The refutation of the Novatian teaching is based on the exegesis of this particular passage of St. Scriptures. The Apostle, as the monk writes, here addresses the Jewish believers who, having sinned arbitrarily, were baptized every day. What the apostle writes about the impossibility of renewing those who have fallen away with repentance, Rev. Mark explains that there can only be one renewal - Holy Baptism 642. As suggested by Rev. Mark, the apostle made his words difficult for careless and disdainful people, so that they would not sin under the pretext of future repentance. For the reverent, through the study of the Scriptures, the meaning of these words is clear 643. In a similar way, as telling about Baptism, and not about repentance itself, this passage from the Epistle to the Hebrews was understood by other holy fathers, such as, for example, St. Athanasius the Great 644, St. John Chrysostom 645, bl. Theodoret of Cyrus 646, Rev. John of Damascus 647. Thus, polemics with the teachings of the Novatians, St. Mark paid attention only once, examining the topic “On repentance”, interpreting Hebrews 6:1-6 for this purpose. Therefore, it can be assumed that this polemic was not as relevant for the monk as the refutation of other misconceptions that he touched upon. In this study, we pursued the goal of systematizing the theological teaching of St. Mark of the Ascetic. According to the teachings of Rev. Mark, God gave man everything created, but man, having sinned, fell into sin. The consequence of Adam's crime was death, which is not only the limit of human life, but also a state of alienation from God. In the works of the monk there is no reason to see the inheritance of guilt for the crime of Adam by descendants. Man, after the Fall, did not have the possibility of salvation, therefore, in his love for mankind, the Lord, in order to save people, having assumed the body, accepts death for everyone in order to return people to incorruption and revive them from death. By affirming the unity of Christ and applying the term “nature” only to the Divinity of Christ, the monk does not go to the extreme, according to which a fusion of natures occurs in Christ. Being a Dyophysite in his teaching, he recognizes in Christ both perfect Divinity and perfect humanity, with all their properties and actions. A person acquires the salvation accomplished by Christ through the sacrament of Baptism. In Baptism, people mysteriously receive grace, becoming capable of receiving the gifts of the Holy Spirit. The revelation of the gifts of the sacrament occurs as the commandments are fulfilled. The main gifts that a person receives in Baptism are freedom and power to fulfill the commandments, as well as liberation from death. There is no reason to believe that the monk teaches that a person, having accepted Baptism, returns to the state of the primordial Adam. The gifts of Baptism are revealed in a person gradually, as the commandments are fulfilled, and full disclosure occurs only in an eschatological perspective. In Baptism, perfect grace is given, sufficient to eradicate enslavement to sin. Therefore, the violence of evil thoughts after Baptism, according to the teaching of St. Mark cannot exist without the fault of the person himself. The reason why a person remains in the power of sin lies both in the insufficient fulfillment of the commandments and in the evil deeds committed after Baptism. According to the teachings of the saint, God saves a person, but only under the condition of efforts on the part of the person himself. Virtues are natural to man; they keep him from the vices that are opposite to them. But their acquisition, as well as their implementation, depends both on the will of man and on the grace of God. Instructing about patiently enduring sorrows, Rev. Mark formulates the doctrine that everything that happens to a person is a consequence of his spiritual state. The monk proceeds from the fact that God is not subject to the passion of anger and does not strive for retribution for evil deeds. But for the benefit of man, God initially established a spiritual law, according to which every action, every thought is followed by a corresponding reward. For Rev. Mark's doctrine of the Church is perfect and it is impossible for new, more perfect teachings about faith to appear. But since new teachings arise, it is necessary to enter into polemics with them. And most of the theological teaching of the saint is a revelation of the teaching of the Church in polemics with various errors. In polemics with the Nestorians, St. Mark, while not entirely accurately describing the terminology of the heretics, on the whole, correctly depicts their teaching. He proves that one and the same Christ is both God and Man, and also shows that the unity of natures in Christ is a necessary condition for salvation. The value of polemics against the Nestorians by Rev. Mark is that he was among the first polemicists against Nestorianism. In polemics with Melchizedekians, those who considered Melchizedek to be the Word of God before the Incarnation, the monk convincingly destroys the main arguments of his opponents, revealing the doctrine of Melchizedek as a prototype of Christ. Most of all, Rev. Mark polemicizes with the teachings of the Messalians. He argues that a person in Baptism receives freedom and therefore bears personal responsibility for enslavement to sin. The monk refutes the view that salvation can be achieved through works, as through merit, and also that repentance for the perfect is not necessary. The monk also refutes the teachings of the Novatians, interpreting that passage from the Holy Scriptures. Scripture on which they based their practice: “for it is impossible... for those who have fallen away to be renewed again to repentance” (Heb. 6:1–6). Like many Church Fathers, the monk saw in these words an indication of Baptism, and not actual repentance. Thus, trying to ward off and warn against innovations in doctrine, Rev. Mark left a vibrant theological legacy, which is an expression of the living Tradition of the Church. And this heritage is an important testimony to the faith of the Ancient Church. 1. Acta Conciliorum Oecumenicorum/Ed. E. Schwarz. T. 1: Concilium universale Ephesenum. Vol. 1. Pars 1. Collectio Vaticana 1–32. – Berolinum: Walter de Gruyter & Co, 1928. – 128 p. 2. Acta Conciliorum Oecumenicorum/Ed. E. Schwarz. T. 1: Concilium universale Ephesenum. Vol. 1. Pars 2. Collectio Vaticana 33–80. – Berolinum: Walter de Gruyter & Co, 1927. – 110 p. 3. Acta Conciliorum Oecumenicorum/Ed. E. Schwarz. T. 1: Concilium universale Ephesenum. Vol. 1. Pars 3. Collectio Vaticana 81–119. – Berolinum: Walter de Gruyter & Co, 1927. – 110 p. 4. Acta Conciliorum Oecumenicorum/Ed. E. Schwarz. T. 2: Concilium universale Chalcedonense. Vol. 5. Collectio sangermanensis. – Berolinum: Walter de Gruyter & Co, 1936. – 167 p. 5. Acta Conciliorum Oecumenicorum/Ed. J. Straub. T. 4: Concilium universale Constantinopolitanum. Vol. 1. Concilii actiones VIII. Appendices graecae – indices. – Berolinum: Walter de Gruyter & Co, 1971. – 286 p. 6. Acta Conciliorum Oecumenicorum/Ed. E. Schwarz. T. 4: Concilium universale Constantinopolitanum. Vol. 2. Iohannis Maxenti libelli. Collectio codicis novariensis XXX et al. – Librarii Angentoratensis: Sumptibus Caroli J. Trubner, 1914. – 210. 7. Apophthegmata Patrum // Patrologiae cursus completus. Series Graeca/Ed. J.P. Migne. T. 65. – Paris: Imprimerie Catholique, 1864. – Col. 70–441. 8. Athanasius Alexandrinus. De incarnatione verbi / Ed. C. Kannengiesser // Sources chrétiennes. Vol. 199. – Paris: Cerf, 1973. – P. 258–468. [TLG. 2035.002]. 9 . Athanasius Alexandrinus. Epistulae quattuor ad Serapionem // Patrologiae cursus completus. Series Graeca/Ed. J.P. Migne. T. 26. – Paris: Imprimerie Catholique, 1864. – Col. 529–648. [TLG. 2035.043]. 10. Athanasius Alexandrinus. In illud: Omnia mihi tradita sunt // Patrologiae cursus completus. Series Graeca/Ed. J.P. Migne. T. 25b. – Paris: Imprimerie Catholique, n. d. – Col. 208–220. 11. Basilius Caesariensis. De baptismo libri duo // Patrologiae cursus completus. Series Graeca/Ed. J.P. Migne. T. 31. – Paris: Imprimerie Catholique, 1885. – Col. 1513–1628. [TLG. 2040.052]. 12. Basilius Caesariensis. Epistulae/Ed. Y. Courtonne. Vol. 1. – Paris: Les belles lettres, 1957. – P. 1–100. [TLG. 2040.004]. 13. Basilius Caesariensis. Epistulae/Ed. Y. Courtonne. Vol. 2. – Paris: Les belles lettres, 1961. – P. 101–218. [TLG. 2040.004]. 14. Basilius Caesariensis. Regulae morales // Patrologiae cursus completus. Series Graeca/Ed. J.P. Migne. T. 31. – Paris: Imprimerie Catholique, 1885. – Col. 692–869. 15. Callistus et Ignatius Xanthopuli. Methodus et régula cum Deo accuratisma // Patrologiae cursus completus. Series Graeca/Ed. J.P. Migne. T. 147. – Paris: Imprimerie Catholique, 1865. – Col. 635–812. 16. Cyrillus Alexandrinus. Adversus Nestorium // Patrologiae cursus completus. Series Graeca/Ed. J.P. Migne. T. 76. – Paris: Imprimerie Catholique, 1859. – Col. 9–249. 17. Cyrillus Alexandrinus. Commentarii in Lucam (in catenis) // Patrologiae cursus completus. Series Graeca/Ed. J.P. Migne. T. 72. – Paris: Imprimerie Catholique, 1864. – Col. 476–949. 18. Cyrillus Alexandrinus. De Trinitate // Patrologiae cursus completus. Series Graeca/Ed. J.P. Migne. T. 77. – Paris: Imprimerie Catholique, 1859. – Col. 1119–1174. 19. Cyrillus Alexandrinus. Epistolae // Patrologiae cursus completus. Series Graeca/Ed. J.P. Migne. T. 77. – Paris: Imprimerie Catholique, 1859. – Col. 9–390. 20. Cyrillus Alexandrinus. Glaphyra in Pentateuchum // Patrologiae cursus completus. Series Graeca/Ed. J.P. Migne. T. 69. – Paris: Imprimerie Catholique, 1864. – Col. 9–677. 21. Cyrillus Alexandrinus. Homilia XVIII // Patrologiae cursus completus. Series Graeca/Ed. J.P. Migne. T. 77 – Paris: Imprimerie Catholique, 1859. – Col. 767–800. 22. Cyrillus Hierosolymitanus. Catecheses // Patrologiae cursus completus. Series Graeca/Ed. J.P. Migne. T. 33. – Paris: Imprimerie Catholique, 1886. – Col. 331–1164. 23. Diadochus Photicensis. Capitula centum de perfection spirituali / Éd. Edouard des Places, s. j. // Sources chrétiennes. Vol. 5. – Paris: Cerf, 1968. – P. 84–163. 24. Dorotheus Gazaeus. Doctrinae diversae I–XVII // Patrologiae cursus completus. Series Graeca/Ed. J.P. Migne. T. 88. – Paris: Imprimerie Catholique, 1860. – Col. 1618–1844. 25. Ephraem Syrus. Sermo in transfigurationem domini et dei salvatoris nostri Iesu Christi / Ed. K.G. Phrantzoles. Vol. 7. – Thessalonica: To Perivoli tis Panagias, 1998. – P. 13–30. 26. Epiphanius Cypriota. Panarion // Patrologiae cursus completus. Series Graeca/Ed. J.P. Migne. T. 41. – Paris: Imprimerie Catholique, 1863. – Col. 173–1198. 27. Georgius Hamartolus. Chronicon // Patrologiae cursus completus. Series Graeca/Ed. J.P. Migne. T. 110. – Paris: Imprimerie Catholique, 1863. – Col. 42–1328. 28. Gregorius Nazianzenus. Adversus Eunomianos (orat. 27) // Gregor von Nazianz. Die fünf theologischen Reden / Ed. J. Barbel. – Düsseldorf: Patmos Verlag, 1963. – S. 38–60. [TLG. 2022.007]. 29. Gregorius Nazianzenus. Oratio XLIII // Patrologiae cursus completus. Series Graeca/Ed. J.P. Migne. T. 36. – Paris: Imprimerie Catholique, n. d. – Col. 493–606. 30. Gregorius Nyssenus. Adversus Macedonianos de spiritu sancto // Gregorii Nysseni opera / Ed. F. Mueller. Vol. 3.1. – Leiden: Brill, 1958. – P. 89–115. [TLG. 2017.006]. 31. Gregorius Nyssenus. Oratio catechetica magna // The catechetical oration of Gregory of Nyssa / Ed. J. Srawley. – Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1903. – P. 1–164. [TLG. 2017.046]. 32. Gregorius Sinaita. De quiete et oration // Patrologiae cursus completus. Series Graeca/Ed. J.P. Migne. T. 150. – Paris: Imprimerie Catholique, 1865. – Col. 1303–1312. 33. Hesychius Hierosolymitanus. De Temperantia et Virtute // Patrologiae cursus completus. Series Graeca/Ed. J.P. Migne. T. 93. – Paris: Imprimerie Catholique, 1865. – Col. 1479–1544. 34. Irenaeus Lugdunensis. Adversus haereses. Liber Tertius // Ed. A. Rousseau et L. Doutreleau // Sources chrétiennes. Vol. 211. – Paris: Cerf, 1974. – P. 22491. 35. Irenaeus Lugdunensis. Fragmenta deperditorum operum // Sancti Irenaei episcopi Lugdunensis libri quinque adversus haereses / Ed. W.W. Harvey. Vol. 2. – Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1857. – P. 470–511 [TLG. 1447.005]. 36. Johannes Cassiani. Vigintiquatuor collationes // Patrologiae cursus completus. Series Latina/Ed. J.P. Migne. T. 49. – Paris: Imprimerie Catholique, 1862. – Col. 477–1328. 37. Johannes Chrysostomus. Adversus Judaeos // Patrologiae cursus completus. Series Graeca/Ed. J.P. Migne. T. 48. – Paris: Imprimerie Catholique, 1862. Col. 843–942. 38. Johannes Chrysostomus. De Melchisedech [Sp.] // Patrologiae cursus completus. Series Graeca/Ed. J.P. Migne. T. 56. – Paris: Imprimerie Catholique, 1859. – Col. 257–262. 39. Johannes Chrysostomus. In epistulam ad Hebraeos (homiliae 1–34) // Patrologiae cursus completus. Series Graeca/Ed. J.P. Migne. T. 63. – Paris: Imprimerie Catholique, 1862. – Col. 9–236 [TLG. 2062. 168]. 40. Johannes Chrysostomus. In Genesim // Patrologiae cursus completus. Series Graeca/Ed. J.P. Migne. T. 53. – Paris: Imprimerie Catholique, 1862. – Col. 21–385. 41. Johannes Climacus. Scala paradise // Patrologiae cursus completus. Series Graeca/Ed. J.P. Migne. T. 88. – Paris: Imprimerie Catholique, 1860. – Col. 632–1164. 42. Johannes Damascenus. Contra Nestorianos // Die Schriften des Johannes von Damaskos / Ed. B. Kotter. B. 4 // Patristische Texte und Studien. Vol. 22. – Berlin: De Gruyter, 1981. – S. 263–288 [TLG. 2934.010]. 43. Johannes Damascenus. De haeresibus // Die Schriften des Johannes von Damaskos / Ed. B. Kotter. B. 4 // Patristische Texte und Studien. Vol. 22. – Berlin: De Gruyter, 1981. – S. 19–67 [TLG. 2934.006]. 44. Johannes Damascenus. De Virtutibus et Vitiis // Patrologiae cursus completus. Series Graeca/Ed. J.P. Migne. T. 95. – Paris: Imprimerie Catholique, 1864. – Col. 81–98 45. Johannes Damascenus. Expositio fidei // Die Schriften des Johannes von Damaskos / Ed. B. Kotter. B. 2 // Patristische Texte und Studien. Vol. 12. – Berlin: De Gruyter, 1973. – S. 3–239 [TLG. 2934.004]. 46. Johannes Moschus. Pratum spiritualité // Patrologiae cursus completus. Series Graeca/Ed. J.P. Migne. T. 87c. – Paris: Imprimerie Catholique, 1865. – Col. 2351–3112. 47. Macarius Magnes. Sermo 28 (recensio expletior) // Neue Homilien des Makarius/Symeon/Ed. E. Klostermann and H. Berthold. Texte und Untersuchungen. Vol. 72. – Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1961 – S. 160, 162, 164, 166–170 [TLG. 2109.008]. 48. Macarius Magnes. Sermones 64 (collectio B) // Makarios/Symeon Reden und Briefe, 2 vols / Ed. H. Berthold. Vol. 1. – Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1973. – S. 3–265; Vol. 2. – S. 3–219 [TLG. 2109.001]. 49. Marcus Eremita. Adv. nest. /Ed. J. Cozza-Luzi and A. Mai // Novae Patrum Bibliothecae. Vol. 10/1. – Rome: Bibliotheca Vaticana et Typi Vaticani, 1905. – P. 201–247 [TLG. 3291.001]. 50. Marcus Eremita. Adv. nest. // Kunze J. Markus Eremita. Ein neuer Zeuge für das altkirchliche Taufbekenntnis. – Leipzig: Dörffling & Franke, 1895. – S. 6–30. 51. Marcus Eremita. Adv. nest. / Παπαδοπούλου-Κεραμέως A. Ανάλεκτα Ιεροσολυμιτικής σταχυολογίας, ἡ, συλλογή ανεκδότων και σπανίων ελληνικών συγγραφών περί των κατά την Εώαν ορθοδόξων εκκλησιών και μάλιστα της των Παλαιστινών. Τ. Α´. – Εν Πετρουπόλει: Εκ του Τυπογραφείου Β. Κιρσπάουμ, 1891. – Σ. 89–113. 52. Marcus Eremita. Opuscula/Éd. G.-M. Durand. // Sources chrétiennes. Vol. 445. – Paris: Cerf, 1999. – P. 74–398; Vol. 455. – Paris: Cerf, 2000. – P. 26–316. 53. Marcus Eremita. Opuscula // Patrologiae cursus completus. Series Graeca/Ed. J.P. Migne. T. 65. – Paris, 1864. – Col. 906–1140. 54. Maximus Confessor. Quaestiones ad Thalassium 1–55 / Ed. C. Laga and C. Steel // Corpus Christianorum. Series Graeca. T. 7. – Turnhout: Brepols, 1980. – P. 9–539 [TLG. 2892.001]. 55. Maximus Confessor. Quaestiones ad Thalassium 56–65 / Ed. C. Laga and C. Steel // Corpus Christianorum. Series Graeca. T. 22. – Turnhout: Brepols, 1990. – P. 3–325 [TLG. 2892.001]. 56. Nestoriana. Die Fragmente des Nestorius / Gesammelt, untersucht und hrsg. von F. Loofs. – Halle: M. Niemeyer, 1905. – 407 s. 57. Nestorius. Sermones // Patrologiae cursus completus. Series Latina/Ed. J.P. Migne. T. 48. – Paris: Imprimerie Catholique, 1846. – Col. 757–800. 58. Nicephorus Callistus Xanthopulus. Ecclesiastica Historia (continuatio) // Patrologiae cursus completus. Series Graeca/Ed. J.P. Migne. T. 146. – Paris: Imprimerie Catholique, 1865. – Col. 9–1288. 59. Origenes. Commentarium in evangelium Matthaei (lib. 10–11) // Sources chrétiennes. Vol. 162. – Paris: Cerf, 1970. – P. 140–386. [TLG. 2042.029]. 60. Origenes. Contra Celsum/Ed. M. Borret. Vol. 2. // Sources chrétiennes. Vol. 136. – Paris: Cerf, 1968. – P. 14–434. 61. Origenes. Contra Celsum. T. 2 (lib. 3–4) // Sources chrétiennes. Vol. 136. – Paris: Cerf, 1968. – P. 14–435. 62. Origenes. Selecta in Genesim (fragmenta ex catenis) // Patrologiae cursus completus. Series Graeca/Ed. J.P. Migne. T. 12. – Paris: Imprimerie Catholique, 1862. – Col. 91–146 [TLG. 2042.048]. 63. Palladius Helenopolitanus. Historia Lausiaca // Patrologiae cursus completus. Series Graeca/Ed. J.P. Migne. T. 34. – Paris: Imprimerie Catholique, 1903. – Col. 991–1278. 64. Photius Constantinopolitanus. Bibliotheca // Patrologiae cursus completus. Series Graeca/Ed. J.P. Migne. T. 103. – Paris: Imprimerie Catholique, 1900. – Col. 42–1588. 65. Socrates Scholasticus. Historia ecclesiastica / Ed. W. Bright. – 2nd edn. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1893. – P. 1–330. [TLG. 2057.001]. 66. Sozomen. Historia Ecclesiastica // Patrologiae cursus completus. Series Graeca/Ed. J.P. Migne. T. 67. – Paris: Imprimerie Catholique, 1864. – Col. 843–1630. 67. Symeon Theologus novus. Catecheses / Éd. B. Krivochéine. T. 2. // Sources chrétiennes. Vol. 104. – Paris: Cerf, 1964. – P. 12–393. 68. Theodoretus Cyrrhensis. Historia Ecclesiastica//Patrologiae cursus completus. Series Graeca/Ed. J.P. Migne. T. 82. – Paris: Imprimerie Catholique, 1864. – Col. 879–1280. 69. Theodoretus Cyrrhensis. Interpretatio epistolae ad Hebraeois // Patrologiae cursus completus. Series Graeca/Ed. J.P. Migne. T. 82. – Paris: Imprimerie Catholique, 1864. – Col. 674–786. 70. Theodoras Studita. Testamentum S. Theodori // Patrologiae cursus completus. Series Graeca/Ed. J.P. Migne. T. 99. – Paris: Imprimerie Catholique, 1860. – Col. 1813–1824. 71. Theoleptus Philadelphiensium. De abscondita operatione in Christo et profectu in vita monastica // Patrologiae cursus completus. Series Graeca/Ed. J.P. Migne. T. 143. – Paris: Imprimerie Catholique, 1865. – Col. 381–400. 72. Timotheus Contantinopolitanus. De Receptione Haereticorum // Patrologiae cursus completus. Series Graeca/Ed. J.P. Migne. T. 86a. – Paris: Imprimerie Catholique, 1865. – Col. 11–71. Translations of the works of Rev. Brand 1. Mark the Ascetic, Rev. Our venerable and God-bearing father Mark the Ascetic / Trans. from Greek Pavsky G., prot. // Christian reading. “On the spiritual law, 200 chapters” – 1821. – No. 3. – P. 237–266; pp. 267–310 “About those who think to be justified by works, 226 chapters”; 1828. – No. 29. – P. 14–25 “Conversation of the mind with your soul”; 1834. – No. 2. – P. 250–257 “About fasting.” 2. Mark the Ascetic, Rev. Moral and ascetic words of our venerable and God-bearing father Mark the Ascetic. – M. Univ. Type., 1858. [From the translation, prepared. in Optina Pustyn]. – 331 p. 3. Mark the Ascetic, Rev. Our Reverend Father Mark the Ascetic. A Word about Melchizedek // NIOR RSL F. 172 K. 486. Unit. hr. 8. 1850s – 1860s, – 14 p. 4. Mark the Ascetic, Rev. Against the Nestorians / Translated from Greek. B. Barchunova // Theological collection. PSTBI. – 1999. – No. 4. – P. 129–152. [Paral. Greek text and Russian translation, ch. 1–26]; 2000. – No. 5. – P. 118–182. [Ch. 27 words]. 5. Marc le Moine. Traités spirituels et théologiques / Traduction française, notes et index par Sæur C.-A. Zirnheld. – Begrolles-en-Mauge: Abbaye de Bellefontaine, 1985. – 291 p. 6. Marcus Eremita. Opuscula quaedam Theologica, quae in Bibliotheca regia reperta sunt, graecè scripta / Nunc primùm Latino sermoni tradita, per I. Pieu. – Apud Audoënum Paruum, 1563. – 542 p. 7. Μάρκος ο Ασκητής. Ο πνευματικός νόμος του Ἁγίου Μάρκου του Ἀσκητοϋ. – Αθήνα: Παρουσία, 1999. – 99 σ. Other translations and sources in Russian: 1. Athanasius the Great, St. Creations. 4.1. – 2nd ed. – Holy Trinity Lavra of Sergius, 1902. – 472 p. 2. Athanasius the Great, St. Creations. Part 3 – 2nd ed., revised. and additional – Holy Trinity-Sergius Lavra, 1903. – 524 p. 3. Basil the Great, St. Archbishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia. Creations. T. 2: Ascetic creations. Letters. – M. Siberian benediction, 2009. – 1232 p. 4. Gregory the Theologian, St., Archbishop of Constantinople. Creations: Vol. 1: Words. – M. Siberian benediction, 2007. – 896 p. 5. Gregory of Nyssa, St. Creations. Part 4: A large catechetical word, divided into forty chapters. – M. Printing house V. Gautier, 1862. – 398 p. 6. Gregory of Sinaite, Rev. Creations / Transl. from Greek Ep. Veniamina (Milova). – M. Novospassky Monastery, 1999. – 158 p. 7. Acts of the Ecumenical Councils. Volume I. – Ed. 3rd. – Kazan: Central Printing House, 1910. – 401 p. 8. Acts of the Ecumenical Councils. Volume V. – Ed. 4th. – Kazan: Central Printing House, 1913. – 323 p. 9 . Philokalia: in Russian. lane, add. T. 1 – 4th ed. – M. Type. I. Efimova, 1905. – VIII, 638, II p. 10. Philokalia: in Russian. lane, add. T. 3. – 2nd ed. – M. Tipo-lit. I. Efimova, 1900. – 440, II p. 11. Philokalia: in Russian. lane, add. T. 5. – 2nd ed. – M. Tipo-lit. I. Efimova, 1900. – 482, VI p. 12. Dorotheos, Rev., Abba. Soulful teachings and messages with the addition of his questions and answers to them by Barsanuphius the Great and John the Prophet. – M. Lodya, 2000. – 287 p. 13. Memorable tales about the asceticism of the holy and blessed fathers: trans. from Greek – Kyiv: Publishing house. them. St. Leo, Pope, 2001. – 292 p. 14. Evagrius of Pontus. Ascetic and theological creations / Trans. from other – Greek, intro. article and comment. A.I. Sidorova. – M. Martis, 1994. – 364 p. 15. Epiphanius of Cyprus, St. For eighty heresies, a panarium, or ark. Book two. Dept. 1 // Works of the Holy Fathers in Russian translation. T. 44. – M. Printing house V. Gautier, 1864. – P. 435–453. 16. Ignatius (Brianchaninov), St. Complete collection of creations. T. 3. – M. Pilgrim, 2006. – 607 p. 17. John of Damascus, Rev. Source of knowledge / Translation and comments by D.E. Afinogenova, A.A. Bronzova, A.I. Sagardy, N.I. Sagardas. – M. Indrik, 2002. – 416 p. 18. John of Damascus, Rev. Creations. Christological and polemical treatises. Words for the Mother of God holidays / Transl. and com. priest Maxim Kozlova, D.E. Afinogenova. – M. Martis, 1997. – 351 p. 19. John Chrysostom, St. Creations: in Russian. lane in 12 volumes. T. 1. Book. 2. – St. Petersburg. Ed. SPbDA, 1895. – P. 393–883. 20. John Chrysostom, St. Creations: in Russian. lane in 12 volumes. T. 6. Book. 1: Commentary on the prophet Isaiah. Conversations on the words of the prophet Isaiah. – St. Petersburg. Ed. SPbDA, 1900. – VIII, 488 p. 21. John Chrysostom, St. Creations: in Russian. lane in 12 volumes. T. 12. Book. 1: Commentary on Hebrews. Eleven Discourses of St. John Chrysostom. – St. Petersburg. Ed. SPbDA, 1906. – 468 p. 22. John Cassian the Roman, rev. Scriptures / Transl. from lat. Ep. Petra. – 2nd ed. – M. Typo-Lithography by I. Efimov, 1892. – 653 p. 23. John Climacus, Rev. The Ladder and the Word to the Shepherd - 4th ed. – Sergiev Posad: [b. i.], 1894. – 286 p. 24. John Climacus, Rev. Ladder. – St. Petersburg. Blagovest, 1996. – 352 p. 25. John Moschus, bl. Spiritual meadow / trans. from Greek M.I. Khitrov, priest. – [B. m.]: Holy Trinity Sergius Lavra, 1896. – XXXVIII, 281 p. 26. Isaac the Syrian, Rev. About divine secrets and spiritual life. Newly discovered texts / Transl. from Syriac, note, preface. and after. Bishop Hilarion (Alfeev). – 4th ed. – St. Petersburg. Publishing house Oleg Abyshko, 2009. – 336 p. 27. Isaac the Syrian, Rev. Creations: ascetic words // Creations of the Holy Fathers in Russian translation. T. 23. – M. Printing house V. Gautier, 1854. – XVI, 526, VIII p. 28. Hesychius of Jerusalem, Ven. A soul-helping and saving word about virtue and sobriety. – 3rd ed. – St. Petersburg. [b. i.], 1872. – 63 p. 29. Cyril of Alexandria, St. Glaphyrs, or skilful explanations of selected passages from the Pentateuch. Book 2: About Noah and the Ark. – M. [b. i.], 1886. – P. 46–112. 30. Cyril of Alexandria, St. Memorial note from the most God-loving and holy Archbishop Kirill to His Beatitude Sukkens, Bishop of Diocessaria, Isaurian diocese. // Theological Bulletin. – 2010. – No. 10. – P. 17–31. 31. Cyril of Jerusalem, St. Creations. – M. Type. V. Gautier, 1855. – 398, II p. 32. Macarius the Great of Egypt, Venerable Spiritual words and messages. Collection type I (Vatic, grace. 694) / Preface, translation, comments, indexes. A. G. Dunaev. – M. Indrik, 2002. – 1056 p. 33. Maximus the Confessor, Rev. Creations. Book 2: Questions and answers to Thalassia. Part 1: Questions I–LV / Transl. Old Greek and comm. S.L. Epifanovich and A.I. Sidorova. – M. Martis, 1993. – 283 p. 34. Nil of Sorsky and Innocent of Komelsky, reverends. Works / Ed. preparation G.M. Prokhorov. – 2nd ed. corr. – St. Petersburg. Publishing house Oleg Abyshko, 2008. – 424 p. 35. Origen of Alexandria. Against Celsus / Transl. from Greek L. Pisareva. – M. Educational and information ecumenical center ap. Pavla, 1996. – 365 p. 36. Diadochos of Photicus. Blessed creations Diadoche: Greek. text, ed. according to other Greek manuscripts, in Russian. lane // Popov K.D. Blessed Diadochos (5th century), Bishop of Photica of Ancient Epirus, and his works. T. 1. – Kyiv: Type. I.I. Gorbunova, 1903. – XXXIV, 620 p. 37. Simeon the New Theologian, Rev. Creations. T. 2: Words 53–92. – Sergiev Posad: TSL, 1993. – 593 p. 38. Socrates Scholasticus. Ecclesiastical History: 1850 Edition, an exact reprint from the 1850 original. – Saratov: [b. i.], 1911. – 464 p. 39. Theodoret, blessed Bishop of Cyrus. Creations. Part 7: Letters. – Sergiev Posad: [b. i.], 1907. – 517 p. 40. Theodoret, bishop Kirsky. Church history. Book IV. – [Electronic resource]. TsEG: http://pagez.ru/lsn/0255 4.р1tr (access date 02/13/2013). 41. Ermiy of Salamis (Sozomen). Church history. – St. Petersburg. Type. Fisher, 1851. – 636, XXXIV p. Research and other works in Russian: 1. Alekseev A.I. Judaizers // Orthodox Encyclopedia. T. 19. – M. Church and Scientific Center “Orthodox Encyclopedia”, 2008. – P. 185–194. 2. Barsov N. Essays on the history of Christian preaching. Representatives of the moral-ascetic type of preaching in the East in the 4th century (End) // Faith and Reason. – 1889. – No. 11. – P. 735–753. 3. Biblical commentaries of the Church Fathers and other authors of the 1st–8th centuries. New Testament. T. 6: Epistle to the Romans / Trans. from English, Greek, Lat. Ed. volumes J. Bray. Russian edition, ed. K.K. Gavrilkina and S.S. Kozina. – Tver: Hermeneutics, 2003. – 632 p. 4. Bolotov V.V. Lectures on the history of the Ancient Church. T. 2: History of the Church in the period before Constantine V. - St. Petersburg. Printing house of M. Merkushev, 1910. – 474 p. 5. Bolotov V.V. Lectures on the history of the Ancient Church. T. 4: History of the Church during the period of the Ecumenical Councils. – Petrograd: Third State Printing House, 1918. – 615 p. 6. Vorontsov E. A. The Lord Jesus Christ and Melchizedek, King of Salem // Christian Reading. – 1906. – No. 1. – P. 3–26. 7. Glubokovsky N. Blessed Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrrhus. Life and literary activity. T. 1. – M. [b. i.], 1890. – 349 p. 8. Govorun S.N. The One Complex Christ // Theological Bulletin. – 2004. – No. 4. – P. 150–176. 9 . Grezin P.K. Theological term “hypostasis” in the context of late Hellenism // Theological Bulletin. – 2005–2006. – No. 5/6. – P. 191 – 228. 10. Grezin P.K. An experience of a brief dogmatic lexicon of patristic theology. Christology: Diss. for the job application Ph.D. theologian MDA. – Sergiev Posad, 2005. – 278 p. 11. Guryev P. Theodore, bishop Pugsuestsky. – M. Printing house of L. and A. Snegirev, 1890. – 356 p. 12. Davydenkov O., priest. Christological system of Sevirus of Antioch: Dogmatic analysis. – M. PSTGU Publishing House, 2007. – 328 p. 13. Dionysius (Shlenov), abbot. Dorofei Gazsky: Life. Works // Orthodox Encyclopedia. T. 16. – M. Church and Scientific Center “Orthodox Encyclopedia”, 2007. – P. 32–36. 14. Dionisy (Shlenov), Kim S.S. Diadochos, bishop Photikian: Life. Works // Orthodox Encyclopedia. T. 14. – M. Church Scientific Center “Orthodox Encyclopedia”, 2006. – P. 564–566. 15. Dobroklonsky A.P. The Christological teaching of Theodore of Mopset // Readings in the Society of Lovers of Spiritual Enlightenment. – 1880. – No. 1. – P. 471–494. 16. Dobrotsvetov P. The mysterious presence of Christ in the saints according to the apostolic and patristic teachings // VI International Theological Conference of the Russian Orthodox Church “Life in Christ: Christian morality, the ascetic tradition of the Church and the challenges of the modern era” (Moscow November 15–18, 2010): materials. – M. Synodal Biblical and Theological Commission, 2012. – P. 254–277. 17. Dunaev A.G. Preface to the Russian translation of words and messages of the “Makarievsky corpus” of the first type // Macarius the Great of Egypt, Rev. Spiritual words and messages. Collection type I (Vatic, grace. 694) / Preface, translation, comments, indexes. A.G. Dunaev. – M. Indrik, 2002. – 1056 p. 18. Epifanovich S.L. Rev. Maximus the Confessor and Byzantine theology. – M. Martis, 2003. – 220 p. 19. Zheltov M., diac. Evergetian Typikon // Orthodox Encyclopedia. T. 17. – M. Church and Scientific Center “Orthodox Encyclopedia”, 2008. – P. 139–143. 20. Zheltov M., diac. Eucharist: Questions of the theology of the Eucharist in the Church of the 5th–10th centuries. // Orthodox encyclopedia. T. 17. – M. Church and Scientific Center “Orthodox Encyclopedia”, 2008. – P. 583–600. 21. Zarin S.M. Asceticism according to Orthodox Christian teaching: an ethical and theological study. T. 1: Fundamental. Book 2: Experience of systematically revealing the issue. – St. Petersburg. Type. V.M. Kirshbaum, 1907. – XI, XV, 693 p. 22. Zverev A., diac. Ascetic views of St. Mark the Ascetic. Diss. for the academic degree of candidate of theology MDA. – Sergiev Posad, 2003. – 139 p. 23. Jesus Christ: Jesus Christ according to the teachings of the Church [without author] // Orthodox Encyclopedia. T. 21. – M. Church and Scientific Center “Orthodox Encyclopedia”, 2009. – P. 688–705. 24. Hilarion (Alfeev), archbishop. Orthodoxy. T. 1: History, canonical structure and doctrine of the Orthodox Church. – M. Sretensky Monastery Publishing House, 2009. – 864 p. 25. Imshenetsky D. The teaching of the holy ascetic fathers about the grace of God that saves man. - Kyiv. University Printing House, 1853. – 108 p. 26. Hesychasm. Annotated bibliography / Under the general and scientific editorship of S.S. Horuzhego. – M. Publishing Council of the Russian Orthodox Church, 2004. – 912 p. 27. Kazansky P.S. On sources for the history of Egyptian monasticism in the 4th and 5th centuries. General outline of the life of Egyptian monks in the 4th and 5th centuries. – M. [b.i.], 1872. – 56, 101 p. 28. Kartashev A.V. Ecumenical councils. – M. Respublika, 1994. – 542 p. 29. Katansky A.L. Dogmatic teaching about the seven church sacraments in the works of the most ancient Fathers and writers of the Church up to and including Origen: historical-dogmatic research. – St. Petersburg. Type. F.G. Eleonsky and K 0, 1877. – II, 423 p. 30. Kirill (Govorun), archimandrite. Hypostasis: The concept of “hypostasis” in Eastern Christian theology // Orthodox Encyclopedia. T. 26. – M. Church and Scientific Center “Orthodox Encyclopedia”, 2011. – P. 183–190. 31. Cyril of Alexandria and Nestorius, heresiarch of the 5th century / trans. from fr. D. Pospehov; auto preface A. Kuraev. – M. By the way of grain, 1967. – 208 p. 32. Cyril of Alexandria and Nestorius, heresiarch of the 5th century / Revised. and additional lane from French D. Pospehov. – M. By the way of grain, 1997. – 207 p. 33. Kremlevsky A. Original sin according to the teachings of the blessed one. Augustine of Ippona. – St. Petersburg. [b. i.], 1902. – 127 p. 34. Lebon J. Christology of Syrian Monophysitism / Transl. edited by prof. N.A. Zabolotsky. – [B. m. b.i.] [typescript] – 224, 34, 19, 54, 3 p. 35. Lyashchenko T., priest. St. Cyril, Archbishop of Alexandria. His life and activities. – Kiev, 1913. – 550 p. 36. Mark the Ascetic // Christianity: encyclical. Dictionary: in 3 volumes / Ch. ed. S.S. Averintsev. T. 2. – M. Bolshaya Ross. Encycl., 1995. – P. 87. 37. Mark the ascetic // Encyclopedic Dictionary / ed. I.E. Andreevsky. Ed. F. Brockhaus, I.A. Efron. T. 36. – [B. m.b. and], 1896. – P. 670. 38. Meyendorff I.F., Protopres. Jesus Christ in Eastern Orthodox theology / Trans. from English O. Davydenkov, priest, note. A.I. Sidorov. – M. Ed. St. Tikhon's Theological Institute, 2000. – 318 p. 39. Meyendorff I., prot. Introduction to Patristic Theology. – Minsk: Rays of Sofia, 2007. – 384 p. 40. Meyendorff I., prot. Byzantine theology. Historical trends and doctrinal themes / Trans. from English V. Marutika. - Mn. Rays of Sofia, 2001. –336 p. 41. Meyendorff I. The Life and Works of St. Gregory Palamas. Introduction to the study / Trans. G.N. Nachinkina. – St. Petersburg. Byzantine Russian, 1997. – 480 p. 42. Meyendorff I., prot. History of the Church and Eastern Christian mysticism / Comp. and general ed. I.V. Mamaladze. – M. Institute DI-DIK, 2000. – 576 p. 43. Metzger B.M. Canon of the New Testament / Trans. from English (Series “Modern Biblical Studies”), – 6th ed. – M. Biblical and Theological Institute of St. Apostle Andrew, 2008. – 332 p. 44. Muravyov A.V. "Messalian" myth of the 4th–5th centuries. and disputes about asceticism in the Iranian Church of the East of the 7th century. n. e. // Bulletin of ancient history. – 2010. – No. 4. – P. 153–165. 45. Nikiforov M.V. Diodorus, bishop Tarsian (Tarsian) // Orthodox Encyclopedia. T. 15. – M. Church and Scientific Center “Orthodox Encyclopedia”, 2007. – P. 228–234. 46. Oksiyuk M. Theopaschite disputes // Theological collection. Vol. 2. – M. PSTBI, 1999. – P. 18–40. 47. Ponomarev P.P. Sacred Tradition as a source of Christian knowledge. The doctrine of Holy Tradition in the ancient, mainly Eastern, Church. - Kazan. Central Printing House, 1908. – 586 p. 48. Popov I.V. Patrology. Section four. The emergence of scientific theology. [Electronic resource]. URL: http: //www, portal-slovo. m/theology/37830.php?PRINT=Y (accessed 02/12/2013). 49. Popov K.D. Blessed Diadox (5th century), Bishop of Photica of Ancient Epirus, and his works. T. 1. – Kyiv: Type. I.I. Gorbunova, 1903. – XXXIV, 620 p. 50. Porfiry (Uspensky), archimandrite. Doctrine, worship, order and rules of church deanery of Egyptian Christians (Copts). – St. Petersburg. Printing house of the Imperial Academy of Sciences, 1856. – 311 p. 51. Sagarda N.I. , Sagarda A.I. A complete body of lectures on patrolology. 1st ed. – St. Petersburg. Resurrection, 2004. – 1215 p. 52. Seleznev N.N. Nestorius and his apology “The Book of Heraclides” // Religious Studies. – 2006. – No. 3. – P. 16–27. 53. Seleznev N.N. Nestorius and the Church of the East / Under scientific. ed. and with a preface. N.V. Shaburova; Russian State University, Center for the Study of Religions. – M. Put, 2005. – 111 p. 54. Seleznev N.N. Nestorius and the Church of the East. – M. Put, 2005. – 111 p. 55. Seleznev N.N. Christology of the Assyrian Church of the East. – M. Euroasiatica, 2002. – 199 p. 56. Sergius (Spassky), Archbishop. Complete months of the East. T. 2: Holy East. – 2nd ed., rev. and additional – Vladimir: [b. i.], 1901. – XXX, 700 p. 57. Sidorov A.I. Venerable Macarius of Egypt. His life, works and theology // Works of St. Macarius of Egypt. – M. Pilgrim, 2002. – P. 3–94. 58. Sidorov A.I. Patristic heritage and church antiquities. Volume 1: Holy Fathers in the history of the Orthodox Church (general works). – M. Sibirskaya blagozvonnitsa, 2011. – 432 p. 59. Skurat K.E. The doctrine of salvation of St. Athanasius the Great. – St. Petersburg. Aksion estin, 2009. – 436 p. 60. Smirnov S.K., prot. Terminology of the Church Fathers in the doctrine of God // Addition to the Works of St. Fathers. – 1885. – No. 35. – P. 537–574 (1st page). 61. Tkachev E. St. Hesychius, Presbyter of Jerusalem and his homiletical heritage. Dipl. MDS work. – Sergiev Posad, 2004. – 145 p. 62. Thierry A. Nestorius and Eutyches, heresiarchs of the 5th century: vol. 1 and 2. Ed. add. and processed – Kyiv [b. i.], 1880. – IV, 242, 270 pp. 63. Fairburn D. The Doctrine of Christ and Grace in the Early Church. – M. Bible – theology. Institute of St. ap. Andrey, 2008. – XXII, 229 p. 64. Fetisov N., priest. Diodorus of Tarsus. - Kyiv. Printing house of I. I. Chokolov, B. Zhitomirskaya, 1915. – 460 p. 65. Filaret, Archbishop. Chernigovsky. Historical teaching about the Fathers of the Church, in 3 volumes - St. Petersburg. [b. i.], 1859. – T. 1 – C. XXX, 384, IV; T. 2 – C. VIII, 384; T. 3. – C. VIII, 450. 66. Florovsky G.V., prot. Byzantine fathers of the 5th–8th centuries. from readings in Orthodoxy. theologian Institute in Paris. – Paris: [b.i.], 1933. – 260 p. 67. Fokin A.R. Athanasius I the Great. The doctrine of the Fall // Orthodox Encyclopedia. T. 4. – M. Church and Scientific Center “Orthodox Encyclopedia”, 2002. – P. 38. 68. Fokin A.R. Latin patrolology. Vol. 1: Ante-Nicene patrolology (150–325): period 1. – M. Greco-lat. cab. Yu. A. Shichalina, 2005. – 362 p. 69. Fokin A.R., Platon (Igumnov), archim. Virtue: The concept of virtue in the patristic tradition // Orthodox Encyclopedia T. 15. – M. Church and Scientific Center “Orthodox Encyclopedia”, 2008. – P. 477–484. 70. Hall S.D. Teaching and life of the early Church / Trans. from English – Novosibirsk: Posokh, 2000. – 324 p. 71. Yuryevsky A. Mark the Hermit and his newfound word against the Nestorians // Collection of essays by students of the Kazan Academy. – 1900. – No. 1. – P. 1–66. 72. MeGuckin J. A. St. Cyrill of Alexandria. The Cristilogical controversy: translation of the first part of the book from English: MDS thesis / D. Polukhin. – Sergiev Posad, 2009. – 169 p. Research and other work in foreign languages 1. Amann. E. Marc l’Ermite // Dictionnaire de théologie catholique / Éd. A. Vacant, E. Mangenot, cont É. Amann. T. 9.2. – Paris: Letouzey et Ané, 1927. – P. 1964–1968. 2. Argles M.F. Marcus, sumamed Eremita // A Dictionary of Christian Biography, Literature, Sects and Doctrines / Ed. W. Smith and H. Wace. T. 3. – London: J. Murray, 1882. – P. 826–827. 3. Aubineu M. Textes de Marc l’ermite, Diadoque de’ Photice, Jean de Carpathos et Maxime le confesseur, dans le cod. Harleianus 5688 // Orientalia Christiana Periodica. – 1964. – N 30. – P. 256–259. 4. Bardenhewer O. Patrology: the lives and works of the fathers of the church / Translated from the second edition by T.J. Shahan. – Freiburg im Breisgau; St. Louis, Mo. B. Herder, 1908. – 680 p. 5. Chadwick H. The identity and Date of Mark the Monk // Eastern Church Review. – 1972, – N 4, – P. 125–130. 6. Clayton P.B. The Cristology of Theodoret of Cyrus. Antiochene Cristology from the Council of Ephesus (431) to the Council of Chalcedon (451). – Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007. – 354 p. 7. Couileau G. Jean Climaque (saint) // Dictionnaire de spiritualité, ascétique et mystique, doctrine et histoire. T. 8. – Paris: Beauchesne, 1974. – P. 369–389. 8. Daly A.C. Nestorius in the “Bazaar of Heraceides”: A Christology compatible with the third letter and anathemas of Cyril of Alexandria [diss.]. – Los Angeles: University of California, 1983. – 260 p. 9 . Durand G.-M. Analyze // Marc le Moine. Traites. – Paris: Cerf, 1999. – T. 1. – P. 59–73; 203–214; 261–298 (Sources chrétiennes. Vol. 445); 2000. – T. 2. – P. 13–25; 97–105; 171–181; 227–251 (Sources chrétiennes. Vol. 455). 10. Durand G.-M. Introduction // Marc le Moine. Traites. T. 1. – Paris: Cerf, 1999. – P. 13–58 (Sources chrétiennes. Vol. 445). 11. Fred L. Horton Jr. The Melchizedek Tradition. A Critical Examination of the Sources to the Fifth Century A.D. and in the Epistle to the Hebrews. – Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005. – 192 p. 12. Gribomont J. Marc le moine // Dictionnaire de spiritualité, ascétique et mystique, doctrine et histoire. T. 10 – Paris: Beauchesne, 1980. – Col. 274–283. 13. Gribomont J. Mark the Hermit // Encyclopedia of the Early Church / Ed. A. Di Berardino; Inst. Patristicum Augustinianum. Vol. 1.2. – Cambridge: James Clarke & Co Ltd, 1992. – P. 527. 14. Grillmeier A. Christ in Christian tradition. From the Apostolic Age to Chalcedon (451) / Translated by J.S. Bowden. – London: A.R. Mowbray & Co. 1965. – 528 p. 15. Guillaumont A. Messaliens // Dictionnaire de spiritualité, ascétique et mystique, doctrine et histoire. T. 10 – Paris: Beauchesne, 1980. – Col. 1073–1083. 16. Herbermann. C.G. Marcus Eremita // The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 9. – New York, n. d. – P. 1413–1414. 17. Hesse O. Marcus Eremita // Theologische Realenzyklopadie / Hrsg. v. G. Krause, G. Muller. B. T. 22. – Berlin: Walter De Gruyter, 1992. – S. 101–104. 18. Kunze J. Marcus Eremita, ein neuer Zeuge für das altkirchliche Taufbekenntnis. Eine Monographie zur Geschichte des Apostolikums mit einer kürzlich entdeckten Schrift des Marcus Eremita. – Leipzig: Kessinger Publishing, 1895 – 211 s. 19. Lebon J. 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: J. VanLinthout, 1909. – 551 p. 20. Loofs F. Nestorius and his place in the history of Christian doctrine. – Cambridge: at the University Press, 1914. – 132 p. 21. Loon H. The Dyophysite Christology of Cyril of Alexandria. – Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2009. – 632 p. 22. Manfred C. Marcus Eremita (Monachus) // Biographisch-bibliographisches Kirchenlexikon / Hrsg. F.W. Bautz. Hamm (Westf.). B. 5. – S. 787–788. [Electronic resource]. URL: http://www.bautz.de/bbkl/m/marcus er.shtml (accessed 05/04/2012). 23. McGuckin J.A. St. Cyril of Alexandria. The Christological controversy. Its history, theology, and texts. – Leiden; New York; Köln: E. J. Brill, 1994. – 432 p. 24. Peterson E. Die Schrift des Eremiten Markus über die Taufe und die Messalianer // Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde Kirche. – 2009. – N 31. 1. – S. 273–288. 25. Quasten J. Patrology. T. 3: Christian classics. – Westminster; Maryland: Christian Classics, 1986. – 605 p. 26. Sauget J.-M. Marco, Monaco in Egypt, santo // Bibliotheca sanctorum. T. 8. – R. Instituto Giovanni XXIII della Pontificia universitä lateranense, 1967. – P. 708–709. 27. Ware. K.T. The Sacrament of Baptism and the ascetic life in the teaching of Mark the Monk // Studia Patristica. – 1970. – N 10. 1 – P. 441–452. 28. Welch L. Christology and Eucharist in Early Thought of Cyril of Alexandria. – San Francisco: International Scholars Publications, 1993. – 182 p. 29. Wessel S. Cyril of Alexandria and the Nestorian Controversy. – New York; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004. – 365 p. 30. Χρήστου Π. Ελληνική πατρολογία. T. 3. – Θεσσαλονίκη: Κυρομάνος, 1987. – 599 σ. 31. Harcins P.W. Marks the Hermit // New Catholic Encyclopedia. T. 9. – N.Y. McGraw-Hill, 1967. – P. 189. Appendix 1. Table of correspondence between the SC (PG) numbering and the numbering of the Russian translation of the works “On the Spiritual Law” and “On Those Who Think to Be Justified by Works.” “On the Spiritual Law” (Leg.) “Of those who think to be justified by works” (Justif.) Appendix 2. Translation of the essay by the teacher. Mark of the Ascetic “About Melchizedek” On the field by hand: “To the official opponent, Deacon Pavel Ermilov, for review. Rector of the MDA Archbishop of Vereisky. 08/26/13 A. Evgeniy.” Latin names of the works of the Rev. The grades are given according to CPG NN 6090–6101. In "Sources Chrétiennes" the title is: "De incamatione". At the same time, St. Filaret refutes the opinion of A. Gallandi (in the text - Bolland), who considered Mark of Nitria and the author of the works to be different persons (Filaret, Archbishop of Chernigov. Historical doctrine of the Fathers of the Church. Vol. 3. P. 48). Moral and ascetic words of our venerable and God-bearing father Mark the Ascetic. S. 5. Kazansky P.S. On the sources for the history of Egyptian monasticism in the 4th and 5th centuries. P. 53. Sergius (Spassky), Archbishop. Complete months of the East. T. 2. P. 95. Barsov N. Essays on the history of Christian preaching. Representatives of the moral-ascetic type of preaching in the East in the 4th century (End) // Faith and Reason. 1889. 11. P. 746. Encyclopedic Dictionary / Ed. F. Brockhaus, I.A. Efron. T. 36. P. 670. Yuryevsky A. Mark the Hermit and his newfound word against the Nestorians // Collection of essays by students of the Kazan Academy. 1900. 1. P. 1–66. Popov K.D. Blessed Diadochos (5th century), Bishop of Photica of Ancient Epirus, and his works. T. 1. pp. 415–420 (approx.). Florovsky G.V., prot. Byzantine fathers of the 5th–8th centuries. P. 169. Right there. In this he follows, in general, the hypothesis put forward at the end of the 19th century by I. Kunze. Dunaev A.G. Preface to the Russian translation of words and messages of the “Makarievsky corpus” of the first type // Macarius of Egypt, teacher. Spiritual words and messages. pp. 212–215. Sidorov A.I. Patristic heritage and church antiquities. T. 1. pp. 218–233. Kunze J. Marcus Eremita, ein neuer Zeuge für das altkirchliche Taufbekenntnis. Leipzig, 1894. Amann. É. Marc L'Ermite // DThC. 9. P. 1965. For example: Manfred C. Marcus Eremita (Monachus) // BBKL. 5. S. 787–788; Sauget J-M. Marco, Monaco in Egypt, santo // Bibliotheca sanctorum. T. 8. P. 709; Mark the Ascetic // Christianity: encyclical. Dictionary: in 3 volumes / Ch. ed. S.S. Averintsev. T. 2. P. 87. Σωτήρχος P.M. Πρόλογος // Ὁ πνευματικός νόμος τοῦ Ἁγίου Μάρκου τοῦ Ἁσκητοϋ. Σ. 19–20. Bardenhewer O. Patrology: the lives and works of the fathers of the church. P. 382. Quasten J. Patrology. T. 3. P. 504. Χρήστου Π. Ελληνική πατρολογία. Τ. 3. Σ. 238. Ware K. The Sacrament of Baptism and the ascetic life in the teaching of Mark the Monk // Studia Patristica. 1970. 10:1 (TU 107). P. 441–452. Chadwick H. The identity and Date of Mark the Monk // Eastern Church Review. 1972. 4. P. 125–130. Gribomont J. Marc le Moine // DS. 10. P. 274–283. Gribomont J. Mark the Hermit // EEC. 1. 2. P. 527. Durand G.-M. A Nicolas: Analise // Marc le Moine. Traites. S.C. 455. P. 102–104. Durand G.-M. Introduction // Marc le Moine. Traites. S.C. 445. P. 33–34. Mark the Ascetic, Rev. Moral and ascetic words of our venerable and God-bearing father Mark the Ascetic. M. 1858. Mark the Ascetic, Rev. Against the Nestorians / Transl. from Greek B. Barchunova // PSTBI. Theological collection. 1999. 4. pp. 129–152. [Paral. Greek text and Russian translation, ch. 1–26]; 2000. 5. pp. 118–182. [Ch. 27 words]. Syriac manuscript Add. 12175 (British Library), which is a most extensive collection of the works of the holy fathers, contains these instructions at the beginning and end of the works of St. Mark (Durand G.-M. Introduction // Marc le Moine. Traités. SC. 445. P. 16–17). J.-M. Durand in Introduction // Marc le Moine. Traites. S.C. 445. P. 13 indicates that at least three manuscripts of the 10th–14th centuries contain the corresponding life of the monk. Priv. by: Yuryevsky A. Mark the Hermit and his newfound word against the Nestorians // Collection of essays by students of the Kazan Academy. 1900. 1. P. 24. Palladius Helenopolitanus. Historia Lausiaca. 20.PG. 34. Col. 1065. Sozomen. Historia Ecclesiastica. 6. 29. PG. 67. Col. 1375. Yuryevsky A. Mark the Hermit and his newfound word against the Nestorians // Collection of essays by students of the Kazan Academy. 1900. 1. pp. 22–23. But at the same time, even taking into account the corresponding opinion of patrolologists, J. Gribomont calls for some restraint on the issue of unity of authorship (Marc le Moine // DS. 10. P. 274–283). Georgius Hamartolus. Chronicon. 4.202 (17). PG. 110. Col. 733. Ibid. 2. 12. PG. 110. Col. 147. Nicephorus Callistus Xanthopulus. Ecclesiasticae historia. 14.31.PG. 146. Col. 1157. Ibid. 14.54.PG. 146. Col. 1257. Tkachev E.B. Isidore Pelusiot, St.: Life // PE. 27. P. 209. Glubokovsky N. Blessed Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrrhus. Life and literary activity. T. 1. P. 3. So in Bapt. 2 he quotes 2 Peter 1:5, 9, in Melch. 10 quotes 2 Peter 2:1. Quoting 2 Peter 1:9 in Paen. 12, Rev. Marc does not indicate the author of the quoted text (Durand G.-M. Introduction // Marc le Moine. Traités. SC. 445. P. 27). Metzger B. The Canon of the New Testament. pp. 211–212. Gribomont J. Marc le Moine // DS. 10. P. 280. More about this: Durand G.-M. Introduction // Marc le Moine. Traites. S.C. 445. P. 14–15. Kunze J. Marcus Eremita, ein neuer Zeuge für das altkirchliche Taufbekenntnis. S. 136. Johannes Moschus. Pratum spiritualite. 13.PG. 87c. Col. 2861. Χρήστου Π. Ελληνική πατρολογία. T. 3. Σ. 238. Hesse O. Markos Eremites und Symeon von Mesopotamien. Untersuchung und Vergleich ihrer Lehre zur Taufe und zur Askese. Dissert. Göttingen, 1973, pp. 186a–186d. Priv. by: Gribomont J. Marc le Moine // DS. 10. P. 280. Durand G.-M. L’Incarnation: Analysis // Marc le Moine. Traites. S.C. 455. P. 244. The issue of dating the works “Against the Nestorians” and “On Melchizedek” is discussed in chapters 2.8 and 2.9 of this work. For a long time, various hypotheses were put forward about the life span of St. Dorotheus, with a range of dates from the 5th to the 7th centuries. At the beginning of the 20th century, the French patrolologist S. Vele established the most probable chronology, according to which Abba Dorotheos was born at the beginning of the 6th century, founded the monastery after 540, and died between 560 and 580. (Dionysius (Shlenov), abbot. Dorofey of Gaza // PE. 16. pp. 33–36). Dorotheus Gazaeus. Doctrine. 1. 9. PG. 88. Col. 1628, Wed. Justif. 197 Dorotheus Gazaeus. Doctrine. 8. 2. PG. 88. Col. 1708, Wed. Leg. 14. Couileau G. Jean Climaque (saint) // DS. 8. P. 369. Johannes Climacus. Scala paradise. 15.PG. 88. Col. 897. Durand G.-M. Introduction // Marc le Moine. Traites. S.C. 445. Col. 17. Johannes Climacus. Scala paradise. 15.PG. 88. Col. 897, Wed. Leg. 120. In the Russian translation: “one venerable man told me” (John Climacus. Ladder. 1996. p. 157) or “I heard from one venerable man” (John Climacus. Ladder. 1894. p. 168), which indicates that the Rev. John and Rev. Mark met in person. This would imply the need to revise the dating of the life of St. Brand. But the Greek text does not require a personal meeting. Johannes Climacus. Scala paradise. 23.PG. 88. Col. 965. Quote. by: John Climacus. Ladder. 1996. P. 157. Cf. “Imagine that there are twelve dishonest passions. If you arbitrarily love one of them, then she alone will take the place of the eleven” (Leg. 136). Ware T. The Ascetic Writings of Mark the Hermit: Thesis. 1965, pp. 458–459. Priv. by: Dionysius (Shlenov), abbot, Andrey Kordochkin, priest. John Climacus // PE. 24. P. 410. About divine secrets and spiritual life. Newly discovered texts. Conversation 10. 14–16. pp. 126–127, cf. Justif. 135. O. Hesse dedicated a special article to this: “Markus Eremita in der syrischen Literatur” // Deutscher Orientalistentag. Teil 2. Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft. Supplementa 1. Wiesbaden, 1969, pp. 450–457. Priv. by: Durand G.-M. Introduction // Marc le Moine. Traites. S.C. 445. P. 17. Hesychius Hierosolymitanus. De temperantia et virtute. PG. 93. Col. 1479–1544, cf. Leg., Justif. and Causid. Yuryevsky A. Mark the Hermit and his newfound word against the Nestorians // Collection of essays by students of the Kazan Academy. 1900. 1. pp. 30–31. Johannes Damascenus. De Virtutibus et Vitiis. PG. 95. Col. 89, Wed. Nic. 13. Theodorus Studita. Testamentum S. Theodori P.G. 99. Col. 1816. Here and below, quotations of significant length are highlighted in a separate font and presented in a separate block. Gribomont J. Marc le Moine // DS. 10. P. 278. To the dogmatic-polemic teachers. Mark's works include: “About Melchizedek”, “Against the Nestorians”. Georgius Hamartolus. Chronicon. 2. 12. PG. 110. Col. 147–149. Melch's retelling will be contained there. 4, 6, 7. Photius Constantinopolitanus. Bibliotheca. Cod. 200.PG. 103. Col. 667. Quote. by: Mark Podviznik. Moral and ascetic words. S. 5. Ibid. Col. 669. Quote. by: Mark Podviznik. Moral and ascetic words. pp. 6–7. J.-M. has a different opinion. Durand, according to which the saint talks about the remnants of monarchianism (Durand G.-M. Introduction // Marc le Moine. Traités. SC. 445. P. 21). But St. Photius speaks of heresy, which should have appeared after the writing of the essay, and monarchianism cannot be suitable for this role. Photius Constantinopolitanus. Bibliotheca. Cod. 200.PG. 103. Col. 669. Ibid. Cod. 201.PG. 103. Col. 672. Quote. by: Popov K.D. Blessed Diadochos (5th century), Bishop of Photica of Ancient Epirus, and his works. T. 1. pp. 8–9. Symeon Theologus novus. Catechesis. 22. SC. 104. P. 366–370. Callistus et Ignatius Xanthopuli. Methodus et regula cum Deo accuratissima. 6.PG. 147. Col. 641–644, cf. Bapt. 17. Gregorius Sinaita. De quiete et oratione. 3.PG. 150. Col. 1308. Quote. by: Gregory Sinait, Rev. Creations. C. 87. Nicephorus Callistus Xanthopulus. Ecclesiasticae historia. 14.54.PG. 150. Col. 1256. The two oldest Greek manuscripts date back to the 9th century. Durand G.-M. Introduction // Marc le Moine. Traites. S.C. 445. P. 37. Gribomont J. Marc le Moine // DS. 10. P. 276. Durand G.-M. Introduction // Marc le Moine. Traites. S.C. 445. P. 41. Durand G.-M. Introduction // Marc le Moine. Traites. S.C. 445. P. 41. Zverev A., diac. Ascetic views of St. Mark the Ascetic. Diss. for the academic degree of candidate of theology. P. 13. Durand G.-M. Introduction // Marc le Moine. Traites. S.C. 445. P. 42–43. Galland A. Notitia in Marcum Eremitam // PG. 65. Col. 895. Durand G.-M. Introduction // Marc le Moine. Traites. S.C. 445. P. 43. A. Ανάλεκτα Ιεροσολυμιτικής σταχυολογίας, ἡ, ?? τῆν Εώαν ορθοδόξων εκκλησιών καὶ μάλιστα τῆς τῶν Παλαιστινών. T. Α´. Σ. 89–113. Marcus Eremita. Sermo dogmaticus adversus eos qui dicunt sanctam carnem non fuisse unitam cum Verbo / Ed. J. Cozza-Luzi and A. Mai // Novae Patrum Bibliothecae. Vol. 10/1. 1905. Zverev A., diac. Ascetic views of St. Mark the Ascetic. P. 12. Nil of Sorsky and Innocent of Komelsky, reverends. Essays. P. 115. See Brief historical information about St. Mark the Ascetic // Christian Reading. 1821. 3. P. 236. Philokalia. T. 1. P. 468. Collection of essays by students of the Kazan Academy. 1900. 1. P. 1–66. Separate edition of the translation: Rev. Mark the Ascetic. Word against the Nestorians / Trans. from Greek Yuryevsky A. ed. prof. Pisareva L. Kazan. 1901. Priv. from: Hesychasm. Annotated bibliography. 2004. P. 226. Theological collection. PSTBI. 1999. 4. pp. 129–152. [Ch. 1–26]; 2000. 5. pp. 118–182. [Ch. 27 words]. NIOR RSL. F. 172. K. 486. Unit. hr. 8. CPG title: De lege spirituali. The abbreviation used in the dissertation is Leg. On the special opinion of St. Filaret (Gumilyovsky) see introduction. Durand G.-M. Introduction // Marc le Moine. Traites. S.C. 445. P. 61. Appendix 1 contains a table of correspondence between the numbering of the text “Sources Chrétiennes” and the numbering of translations into Russian. CPG title: De his qui putant se ex operibus justificari. The abbreviation used in the dissertation is Justif. Durand G.-M. Introduction // Marc le Moine. Traites. S.C. 445. P. 63. Appendix 1 contains a table of correspondence between the numbering of the text “Sources Chrétiennes” and the numbering of translations into Russian. Justif. 9, 60, 96, 119, 141. CPG title: De paenitentia. The abbreviation used in the dissertation is Paen. Durand G.-M. La Pénitence: Analysis // Marc le Moine. Traites. S.C. 445. P. 210. SC. 445. R. 296. Title according to CPG: De baptismo. The abbreviation used in the dissertation is Bapt. That is, perfection is given in Baptism. CPG title: Consultatio intellectus cum sua ipsius anima. The abbreviation used in the dissertation is Consult. CPG title: Disputatio cum quodam causidico. The abbreviation used in the dissertation is Causid. CPG name: Ad Nicolaum praecepta animae salutaria. The abbreviation used in the dissertation is Niс. Durand G.-M. Introduction // Marc le Moine. Traites. S.C. 445. P. 39. Durand G.-M. A Nicolas: Analysis // Marc le Moine. Traites. S.C. 455. P. 102–104. Niс. 9. This thought is found in St. Irenaeus of Lyons, Clement of Alexandria, St. Athanasius the Great, St. Gregory the Theologian, St. Gregory of Nyssa (Skurat K.E. The doctrine of salvation of St. Athanasius the Great. P. 241). CPG title: De Melchisedech. The abbreviation used in the dissertation is Melch. Durand G.-M. Melchisédech: Analysis // Marc le Moine. Traites. S.C. 455. P. 171. O. Hesse. Markus Eremita und seine Schrift De Melchisédech. Oriens Christianus. 1967. 51. P. 72–77. Priv. by: Durand G.-M. Melchisédech: Analysis // Marc le Moine. Traites. S.C. 455. P. 178. Kunze J. Marcus Eremita, ein neuer Zeuge für das altkirchliche Taufbekenntnis. S. 84. Melch. 1. In the essay “On Baptism” (Bapt. 4), the monk sees this reason in the incorrect interpretation of Romans 7:23. Photius Constantinopolitanus. Bibliotheca. Cod. 200.PG. 103. Col. 669. Probably St. Photius meant Melch. 5. An analysis of this text is given in Chapter 3.4 of this dissertation. CPG title: Adversus Nestorianos. In "Sources Chrétiennes" the title is: "De incamatione". The abbreviation used in the dissertation is Adv. nest. Rev. Mark the Ascetic. Against the Nestorians / Transl. from Greek Barchunova B. From the translator // Theological collection. PSTBI. 1999. 4. pp. 125–126. Durand G.-M. L’Incarnation: Analysis // Marc le Moine. Traites. S.C. 455. P. 227. ASO T. 1. Vol. 1 (7). R. 105–106. Adv. nest. 16, 26, 33, 34, 37. According to A. Yuryevsky, “the general train of thought of a writer polemicizing with people who deny his main dogmatic position is quite difficult to grasp, which is explained, of course, by Mark’s inexperience in a smooth and consistent presentation of his thoughts” (A. Yuryevsky. Mark the hermit and his newfound word against the Nestorians // Collected essays of students of the Kazan Academy. 1900. 1. P. 48). Some other works of the monk are also difficult to understand. For example, regarding the word “On Baptism” by A.G. Dunaev writes: “The subtlety of reasoning reaches the point where it is difficult to notice the difference between the thoughts of Mark and his interlocutor” (Dunaev A.G. Preface to the Russian translation of the words and messages of the “Makarievsky corpus” of the first type // Macarius of Egypt, Rev. Spiritual words and messages. P. 213). A. Yuryevsky sees in this the lack of school, systematic education of the teacher. Mark (Yuryevsky A. Mark the hermit and his newfound word against the Nestorians // Collection of essays of students of the Kazan Academy. 1900. 1. P. 45). Quasten J. Patrology. T. 3. P. 506. Χρήστου Π. Ελληνική πατρολογία. T. 3. 1987. Σ. 240. Durand G.-M. Introduction // Marc le Moine. Traites. S.C. 445. P. 41–42. Rev. Mark uses this thesis in his polemic with the Melchizedekians, like St. Irenaeus of Lyons, who used it against the Gnostics (Adversus haereses. 3. 4. 1. SC. 211. P. 44). Wed. also with the message of the IV Ecumenical Council to the Emperor Marcian: “If everyone were content with the code of faith and did not renew the path of piety, then there would be no need for the (sons of) the Church to invent anything for the symbol for clarification. And since many are led astray from the straight path to the crossroads of error, mistakenly inventing for themselves some new path, then we also need to turn them to the inventions of truth, and counter their thoughts with reproofs, however, never adding anything new to piety, as if missing in faith, but inventing something corresponding to their novelties” (AS O T. 2. Vol. 1(3). R. 110–111. Quoted from: DVS T. 4. pp. 160–161) Melch. 1. In this rev. Mark comes close to the interpretation of Origen, who understood perverted teachings as tares (Commentarium in evangelium Matthei 10. 2. (Matthew 10:2) TLG. 2042. 029). Melch. 10. Also St. Irenaeus of Lyons calls the knowledge received by the apostles, after they were clothed with the power of the Holy Spirit, perfect (Adversus haereses. 3. 1. 1. SC. 211. R. 22). Prot. John Meyendorff: “Byzantine theologians recognized as obvious the opinion that no new revelations could be added to the unique testimony of the apostles... It is impossible to learn anything new about Christ and salvation that surpasses what the apostles “heard, what they saw with their own eyes, what they looked at and what they touched..., about the Word of life...” (1 John 1:1)" (Meyendorff I., Archpriest Byzantine Theology. 2001. P. 19). Wed. Gregory the Theologian: “What should one philosophize about and to what extent? About what is available to us, and to the extent to which the state and ability of understanding extend in the listener” (Adversus Eunomianos (orat. 27). 3. TLG. 2022. 007. Quoted from: Gregory the Theologian, Holy Creation. T. 1. P. 328). Leg. 82. Wed. from St. Gregory the Theologian: “we must recognize as stupid and ignorant those who... would like to see everyone like themselves [ignorant], in order to hide their own shortcoming in a common lack and avoid being accused of ignorance” (Oratio. 43. 11. PG. 36. Col. 509. Quoted from: Gregory the Theologian, St. Creations: T. 1. P. 516). “A crime, being arbitrary... is not perpetrated by anyone involuntarily” (Bapt. 12). “But we didn’t get continuity in crime either. If we transgressed the law because of succession, then it would be necessary for all of us to be criminals and not be accused by God as transgressing the law because of the necessity of natural succession” (Bapt. 12). “It is not crime that we have inherited, because Adam himself did not fall into it out of necessity, but of his own free will. We inherited death unwillingly, because death also involuntarily befell him” (Bapt. 12). Prot. Georgy Florovsky wrote that in polemics with the Messalians, St. Mark “too sharply emphasized the integrity of human freedom” (Florovsky G.V., Archpriest Byzantine Fathers of the 5th–8th centuries. P. 169). Prot. George uses the word “intactness” here not entirely successfully, since this suggests that the consequences of Adam’s fall do not include damage to the will. Fr. himself George did not think so, understanding by mortality, which the reverend speaks of. Mark, “not only the instability of the psychophysical connection and bodily mortality, but also the decay of will itself” (Ibid. p. 170). Consult. 3. At the same time, Rev. Mark does not avoid legal language when describing the fall of the first man. He writes that if the first man “disobeyed God, and through disobedience fell into sin, and because of sin was put to death, then we all - both sinners and righteous ones - have fallen from eternal life. For none of the people was exempt from this accusation, because the root of our nature, that is, the first man, was subject to it... After all, since there was a commandment, punishment was determined for [its] violation. The judge [at the same time] was infallible, His word was not false, the law was true, righteousness was unchangeable; repentance was ineffective, since there was no unblemished priest, for everyone was subject to accusation” (Adv. nest. 31). Fokin A.R. Athanasius I the Great: Doctrine of the Fall // PE. 4. P. 38. Bapt. 2: “If, having been baptized, we have not been freed from the sin of our forefathers, then it is obvious that we cannot perform works of freedom.” Bapt. 17: “The Lord came for us, died for us, delivered us from the death of our forefathers...” Bapt. 17: “If you believe that death, which originated from Adam, reigns without [the participation of] our evil faith, then it is obvious that you deny the coming of the Lord, and recognize Baptism as imperfect, if the ancestral law, or, better said, death, rules over those baptized without their own guilt.” Kremlevsky A. Original sin according to the teachings of the blessed one. Augustine of Ippona. 1902. P. 2. The absence of guilt of descendants for original sin, according to Protopresbyter John Meyendorff, is characteristic of Eastern patristic thought (Meyendorff I., Archpriest Introduction to Patristic Theology. P. 43). For example, E. Amann calls Rev. Mark is an undoubted diophysite and even considers his thought clearer than the thought of St. Cyril of Alexandria, who allowed the expression “union in the unity of natures” in the third anathematism (ASO T. 1. Vol. 1 (1). R. 40; Amann E. Marc L’Ermite // DThC 9. P. 1967). P. Harkins also notes that the teaching of the monk, especially in the treatise “On Melchizedek,” is based on the recognition of two natures in one person of Jesus Christ (Harcins P. W. Marks the Hermit // NCE 9. P. 189). Nami Dyophysitism Rev. The brand will be shown below. Adv. nest. 42. At Rev. Mark, there is absolutely no reflection on the relationship between the Divine and bodily-human principles in the Eucharist (Sidorov A.I. Patristic Heritage and Church Antiquities. Vol. 1. P. 229). On the use of the term “nature” by St. Cyril of Alexandria, see Lebon J. Le monophysisme severien. P. 311; Grillmeier A. Christ in Christian tradition. From the Apostolic Age to Chalcedon (451). P. 406. Cyrillus Alexandrinus. Epistola 46. 5. ACO T. 1. Vol. 1 (6). P. 162. Although St. Kirill uses the expression “human nature” in relation to Christ, but by the nature of Christ he always means the Divine nature. Grillmeier A. Christ in Christian tradition. From the Apostolic Age to Chalcedon (451). P. 407. Cyrillus Alexandrinus. Epistola 46 (ad Succensum II). 3. ACO T. 1. Vol. 1 (6). P. 160. For example: Theodotus Ancyranus. Homilia 3.PG. 77. Col. 1385–1389. Cyrillus Alexandrinus. Epistola 46. 5. ACO T. 1. Vol. 1 (6). P. 162. And even later, in patristic writing, such a one-sided use of the term “nature” was not considered erroneous. Yes, Rev. John of Damascus, arguing with the Nestorians, writes: “Tell us, people, whom the Holy Virgin conceived, by the nature of the Son of God and God, or man (τὸν φύσει υἱὸν τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ θεὸν ἢ ἄνθρωπον)? And if they say that by nature the Son of God and God, they are Orthodox. ... If they say: man, then, as to heretics, we turn to them...” (Contra Nestorianos. 1. TLG. 2934. 010. Quoted from: John of Damascus, Rev. Christological and Polemical Treatises. P. 119). Adv. nest. 5, 6, 21, 25, 27, 30, 34, 38, 39, etc. Adv. nest. 8, 44, 46, Melch. 5 and others. J.-M. Durant notes that in the essay “Against the Nestorians” the Rev. Mark, using the word “body” in relation to Christ, is not aware of the possible ambiguity associated with Apollinarianism (Durand G.-M. L’Incarnation: Analysis // Marc le Moine. Traités. SC. 455. P. 231–232). Melch. 4, 5. Adv. nest. 25, 28, etc. Rev. Mark uses, in particular, the expressions “κυριακός ἄνθρωπος” (Adv. nest. 20) and “κυριακὸν σῶμα” (Melch. 5), which, according to A. Grillmayer, indicate not just the human nature of the Lord, but his glorified humanity, which is the result of hypostatic union with God the Word (Grillmeier A. About κυριακός ἄνθρωπος. Eine Studie zu einer christologischen Bezeichnungen der Väterzeit // Traditio. Studies in Ancient and Medieval History, Thought and Religion. Vol. 33. 1974. S. 25–32. Priv. by: Sidorov A.I. Patristic heritage and church antiquities. T. 1. S. 224–225). This is indicated by his use of the local Creed, read at Baptism (Adv. nest. 40). Just as the non-use of the word “Mother of God” did not in itself mean non-Orthodoxy, so the use of this word was not an unambiguous sign of Orthodoxy in the Nestorian dispute. The very word “Mother of God” was not fundamentally unacceptable to Nestorius. In the summer of 428, Nestorius privately said that the word Theotokos, like the Mother of God, can be interpreted in both Orthodox and heretical senses (Mcguckin. J.A. St. Cyril of Alexandria. The Christological controversy. Its history, theology, and texts. P. 27–28). Later, he prohibited these names, proposing the word “Christ Mother,” and even actually agreed with the anathema on those who call Mary the Mother of God, pronounced by Dorotheus, Bishop of Marcianopolis. But after the condemnation of his teaching at the councils in the Roman and Alexandrian churches, Nestorius, in a sermon on December 13, 430, declared that he agreed with calling Mary the Mother of God (Ibid. R. 46). For Nestorius, the idea held by the Venerable was unacceptable. Mark that God the Word was born according to humanity (ASO T. 1. Vol. 1 (2). R. 46), but he could, like his teacher Theodore, consider Mary the Mother of God, since, according to their teaching, God was with good will in the Man born of her (Bolotov. V.V. Lectures on the history of the Ancient Church. Vol. 4. P. 156). Prof. A.I. Sidorov in disuse as a reverend. The mark of the term “Mother of God” sees that the opposition to the heresy of Nestorius did not focus on any one point of his false teaching, but saw a deep contradiction of Nestorian Christology with the Orthodox teaching about the Person of the Lord Jesus Christ (Sidorov A.I. Patristic Heritage and Church Antiquities. Vol. 1. P. 230). The term “hypostasis” was introduced into Orthodox Christology by St. Cyril of Alexandria in his second letter to Nestorius (Loon N. The Dyophysite Christology of Cyril of Alexandria. P. 508). Although the expression “according to hypostasis” in Orthodox Christology is sometimes found even before St. Cyril of Alexandria, for example, in St. Irenaeus of Lyon, who taught about “natural unity according to hypostasis” (Fragmenta deperditorum operum. 26. TLG. 1447. 005). Adv. nest. 21. Among the Neoplatonists, the term “συνάφεια” was often identical to “unfused unity” (See A.I. Sidorov, Patristic Heritage and Church Antiquities. Vol. 1, p. 224) Gregorius Nyssenus. Adversus Macedonianos de spiritu sancto. 30.TLG. 2017.046. Basilius Caesariensis. Epistula 210. 5. TLG. 2040.004. Theodotus Ancyranus. Sermo alter in nativitatem Christi. 5. ACO T. 1. Vol. 2. P. 83. This reading is in most manuscripts of the Council of Ephesus, although in the Codex Vaticanus 1431 of the 11th century, instead of συνάφεια there is ἕνωσις (see ASO T. 1. Vol. 1 (1). R. 105). Proclus Constantinopolitanus. Oratio de laudibus Mariae. 8. ACO Vol. 1. Vol 1 (1). P. 105. Bolotov V.V. Lectures on the history of the Ancient Church. T. 2. P. 334. Adv. nest. 17, 18, 25, etc. Adv. nest. 21. In Adv. nest. 51 connections are also called unfused (ἀσύγχῠτος), but this chapter is a later insertion. Melch. 5. Adv. nest. 34, 48. These words will be included in the oros of the IV Ecumenical Council. Adv. nest. 6, 20, 39, 47. This refers to the essay by Rev. Mark "About Melchizedek". St. Photius writes about this in his “Library” (Cod. 201. PG. 103. Col. 669). Grillmeier A. Ο κυριακός ἄνθρωπος. Eine Studie zu einer christologischen Bezeichnungen der Väterzeit // Traditio. Studies in Ancient and Medieval History, Thought and Religion. Vol. 33. S. 25–32. Priv. by: Sidorov A.I. Patristic heritage and church antiquities. T. 1. pp. 224–225. Chadwick N. The identity and Date of Mark the Monk // Eastern Church Review. 1972. 4. P. 125–130. According to the teachings of Sevirus of Antioch, who influenced all modern Monophysite churches in this, in Christ there is more than one nature - the Divine, which was embodied, as St. taught. Kirill, and after him the Rev. Mark, but a single nature, which includes both Divinity and humanity. For example: Matthew 8:20; Mark 2:10, Luke 5:24; John 3:13. Rev. Mark specifically emphasized this: “Pay special attention that He called Himself not the Son of God, but the Son of Man” (Adv. nest. 44). Adv. nest. 49. The fact that Christ, by His humanity, did not know the time of the end of the world, was written, in particular, by St. Irenaeus of Lyons, St. Athanasius the Great, St. Gregory the Theologian, St. Gregory of Nyssa. St. John Chrysostom in Christ’s answer about the time of his death sees a moral and pedagogical meaning aimed at ensuring that the disciples are awake and always ready, but this does not contradict the thoughts of other fathers, since they also implicitly imply the omniscience of the Son according to the Divinity. St. Cyril of Alexandria summarized what his Orthodox predecessors said on this issue (Sidorov A.I. Patristic Heritage and Church Antiquities. Vol. 1, pp. 304–316). Adv. nest. 34. The union of natures in Christ is so inseparable that each of the natures performs its actions only “with the participation” of another nature (Jesus Christ: I.X. according to the teachings of the Church. // PE. 21. P. 698). Wed. with the message of St. Cyril of Alexandria to Nestorius on excommunication: “The Son, born of God the Father, and the Only Begotten God, although impassive by his own nature, nevertheless suffered for us in the flesh, according to the Scriptures, and in the crucified Body dispassionately assimilated to himself the sufferings of his own flesh” (ASO T. 1. Vol. 1 (1). R. 37. Quoted from: DVS. T. 1. P. 194). Adv. nest. 26. In accordance with the ideas of antiquity, fire was one of the primary elements of matter, so Rev. Mark, speaking about fire, meant it to have the same complete nature as gold. Adv. nest. 27. Wed. with Rev. John of Damascus: “our natural passions were in Christ both in accordance with nature and supernaturally. In accordance with nature, they were aroused in Him when He allowed the flesh to endure what is characteristic of it; but supernatural because in the Lord what was natural did not precede His will, for in Him nothing is seen as forced, but everything is voluntary. For He hungered by His will, He thirsted by His will, He feared by His will, He died by His will” (Expositio fidei. 3. 64. TLG. 2934. 004. Quoted from: John of Damascus, Venerable Source of Knowledge. P. 277). Adv. nest. 32–33. A similar idea about the ignorance of the devil is contained in St. Macarius the Great, who wrote that the devil, not knowing the omnipotence of God, believed that the justice of God would prevent God from delivering man (Homily 37. 6 (collection B). TLG. 2109. 001). Athanasius Alexandrinus. De incarnatione verbi. 6. SC. 199. P. 282. According to the teachings of St. Athanasius the Great, God, as a just one, had to subject the violator of the commandment to punishment - death, but in his all-goodness could not allow a person, being in death and corruption, to forever be alienated from God (Skurat K.E. The Doctrine of the Salvation of St. Athanasius the Great. pp. 151-153). Ibid. 5. SC. 199. P. 280. Ibid. 7. SC. 199. P. 286. Ibid. 8. SC. 199. P. 290. Ibid. 3.SC. 199. P. 274. According to the teachings of St. Athanasius in the punishment of Adam there is no revenge or fabrication of any torment on the part of God, but this is a natural consequence of sin itself. If the Lord took away from a sinned person those grace-filled gifts with which he was endowed in a sinless state, then in these deprivations, careful reflection clearly reveals God’s love and favor, merciful to the sinner (Skurat K.E. Teaching on the salvation of St. Athanasius the Great. pp. 151–153). The doctrine of the mysterious incarnation of Christ in the souls of believers was generally widespread in ancient times (Epifanovich S.L. Rev. Maxim the Confessor and Byzantine theology. 2003. P. 96). An opinion different from the teachings of Rev. Mark, expressed by the svmch. Methodius of Patara, attributing the entry of Christ into the souls of believers even before the sacrament of Baptism was performed on them. “Christ first descends on the catechumens in the form of an internal spiritual call and is born in the souls of those preparing to receive Holy Baptism through faith, understanding and knowledge” (Dobrotsvetov P. The mysterious presence of Christ in the saints according to the apostolic and patristic teaching // VI International Theological Conference of the Russian Orthodox Church “Life in Christ: Christian morality, ascetic tradition of the Church and challenges of the modern era” (Moscow November 15–18, 2010): materials. 2012. P. 260). Timotheus Contantinopolitanus. De Receptione Haereticorum // PG. 86a. Col. 48; Johannes Damascenus. De haeresibus. 80.TLG. 2934.006. For example: Epifanovich S.L. Rev. Maximus the Confessor and Byzantine theology. 2003. pp. 92–93; Dunaev A.G. Preface to the Russian translation of words and messages of the “Makarievsky corpus” of the first type // Macarius of Egypt, Rev. Spiritual words and messages. P. 214. Ware K.T. The Sacrament of Baptism and the ascetic life in the teaching of Mark the Monk // Studia Patristica. 1970. 10:1. P. 448. “The law of the Spirit in Christ Jesus has set me free from the law of sin and death” (Rom. 8:2). Bapt. 5. Similarly, the contemporary Rev. taught about the grace of Baptism. Mark blzh. Diadochos, bishop Photician: “Grace hides its presence among those who are baptized, awaiting the will of the soul” (Diadochus Photicensis. Capitula centum de perfection spirituali. 85. SC. 5. P. 144. Quoted from: Philokalia. T. 3. P. 59.). In the 14th century, the doctrine of the perfect gift of Baptism, revealed as the commandments are fulfilled, with reference to St. Mark, repeated the saints. Callistus and Ignatius Xanthopoulos (Methodus et régula cum Deo accuratissima. 6. PG. 147. Col. 641–644.), Rev. Gregory of Sinaite (De quiete et oratione. 3. PG. 150. Col. 1308). See, for example, Bapt. 5, Adv. nest. 42, etc. Maximus Confessor. Quaestiones ad Thalassium. 6. TLG. 2892. 001. Blzh. wrote similarly about the gifts of Baptism. Diadochos of Photicus. He identifies two benefits bestowed in Baptism. The first benefit is immediately bestowed on the person being baptized and consists in the restoration of the soul to the state in which it was at the creation of man, and the cleansing of the body from spiritual defilement. The second good, which is accomplished through the efforts of man and the help of grace, is that man becomes like God, as far as this likeness is possible for man (Popov K.D. Blessed Diadochos (5th century), Bishop of Photiki of Ancient Epirus, and his creations. T. 1. P. 429 (approx.)). Bapt. 2–3. These commandments of St. Mark also calls “the law of freedom” (νόμος ἐλευθερίας) and “commandments of freedom” (ἐντολὴ ἐλευθερίας) (Bapt. 2). Wed. James 2:12. Macarius Magnes. Homily. 45. 3 (collection B). TLG. 2109.008. Basilius Caesariensis. De baptismo. Liber 1. 2. 16. PG. 31. Col. 1553. Quote. by: Basil the Great, St. Creations. T. 2. pp. 398–399. John Chrysostom, St. Creations. T. 6.1. P. 469. Consult. 2. A similar thought was subsequently expressed by St. Theoliptus, Metropolitan of Philadelphia († c. 1325): “If an ascetic, straining to stop [with prayer] the thoughts that confuse him, cuts them off for a time and destroys their appearance, is not at all freed from them, but remains in a state of struggling and being fought, then because he has the reasons for the thoughts that confuse him - peace of the flesh and worldly ambition” (De abscondita operatione in Christo et profectu in vita monastic. PG 143. Col. 397. Quoted from: Philokalia. T. 5. pp. 174–175). “Why do I, being baptized, pray to God and call on His grace, and with all my will I want to get rid of and free myself from evil thoughts, but I cannot? Isn’t it obvious from this that Adam’s crime left us this as an inevitable legacy?” (Bapt. 14). Bapt. 4. J.-M. Durand points out the agreement of the holy fathers that in this place of the Epistle to the Romans ap. Paul speaks on behalf of others (Durand G.-M. Le baptême et Dialogue de l’intellect avec sa propre âme: Analysis // Marc le Moine. Traités. SC. 445. P. 314–315.). But still, not everyone thought so: Rev. John Cassian the Roman († 435) wrote that the words of the Apostle can only be applied to the perfect, and not to sinners, since sinners do not desire righteousness, but the satisfaction of their vices. The apostle, although he had many virtues, still could not accomplish what he wanted - the contemplation of God (Vigintiquatuor collationes. 23. 1-3. PL. 49. Col. 1245-1246). However, Rev. John Cassian, who believed that the indicated passage of the Epistle was spoken on behalf of the Apostle himself, does not contradict the general thought of St. Brand: app. Paul is not talking here about his enslavement to evil thoughts. External sorrows that befall people, according to the teachings of St. Mark, is a consequence of their evil thoughts: “The reason for everything that happens [to us] is the thoughts of each of us. I could say that both words and deeds, but since they do not occur before thoughts, therefore I attribute everything to thoughts” (Causid. 18). “I have reliably (ἀκριβῶς) learned that no power forces us unjustly to either good or evil” (Consult. 1). On the other hand, perhaps the attributable Rev. Mark to the supernatural state of mind, in which the fruits of the Holy Spirit become tangible, is a state higher than the state of the mind purified by grace from passions. But to dwell exclusively on the last explanation, without recognizing the contradiction between the works of St. Mark, it is impossible, since the monk writes about the impossibility of freeing oneself from evil thoughts, considering them the action of others (Bapt. 5). Synodal translation: “for it is God who works in you both to will and to do according to [His] good pleasure.” According to this translation, favor comes from God, but, according to the interpretation of St. Mark, God acts according to man's good pleasure. Justif. 23. According to the teachings of the blessed one. Diadochos of Photikius's feats are important for success in spiritual feat, but in themselves they do not lead the ascetic to perfection (Popov K.D. Blessed Diadochos (5th century), Bishop of Photiki of Ancient Epirus, and his creations. T. 1. P. 430 (approx.)). Fokin A.R., Platon (Igumnov), archim. Virtue: The concept of virtue in the patristic tradition // PE. 15. P. 482. Evagrius of Pontus. Ascetic and theological creations. P. 122. Leg. 32, Justif. 2, Bapt. 3. “We must do everything that is good in our nature every day. What shall we render to God for the evil we have done before?” (Justif. 42). Fokin A.R., Platon (Igumnov), archim. Virtue: The concept of virtue in the patristic tradition // PE. 15. P. 483. Dunaev A.G. Preface to the Russian translation of words and messages of the “Makarievsky corpus” of the first type // Macarius of Egypt, Rev. Spiritual words and messages. 2002. P. 212. For example: “a person will not receive benefit without voluntary labor and Divine help” (Justif. 63). His essay “On the Spiritual Law” (Περὶ νόμου πνευματικοῦ) Rev. Mark begins with the words: “Because you have often desired to know how the law is spiritual” (Rom. 7:14) according to the word of the Apostle” (Leg. proem). See Bible commentaries of the Church Fathers and other authors from the 1st to 8th centuries. New Testament. Vol. 6: Epistle to the Romans. pp. 292–294. Origen. Commentaries on the Epistle to the Romans // Biblical commentaries of the Church Fathers and other authors of the 1st–8th centuries. New Testament. Vol. 6: Epistle to the Romans. P. 293. Origenes. Contra Celsum. 4. 1. SC. 136. P. 188. Quoted. by: Origen of Alexandria. Against Celsus / Transl. from Greek L. Pisareva. P. 259. Macarius Magnes. Sermones 64 (collectio B). Homily 40. 3. 7. TLG. 2109.001. Consult. 3. A similar text is contained in Origen’s catenas (Selecta in Genesim (fragmenta ex catenis). PG. 12 Col. 100), but it is more likely not that Rev. Mark borrowed this text from Origen, and the fact that Origen’s catenas contained a fragment from the works of St. Brand. In this case, Rev. Mark uses the expression “law of righteousness (δικαιοσύνη).” Cyrillus Alexandrinus Epistola 1. PG. 77. Col. 9–40. The fact that the monk addresses the Nestorians precisely from the area to which he himself belonged is indicated, in particular, by his use of the local Creed, used at the sacrament of Baptism (Adv. nest. 40). The novelty of the teaching is evidenced, in particular, by the fact that Rev. Mark is going to describe not only the actual opinions of the heretics, but also those to which they will come in the future (Adv. nest. 10). Rev. himself. To Mark, according to A. Yuryevsky, heresy appears not in its abstract provisions, but in its specific bearers and supporters (Yuryevsky A. Mark the Hermit and his newfound word against the Nestorians // Collection of essays of students of the Kazan Academy. 1900. 1. P. 8). Adv. nest. 9. Yuryevsky A. Decree. op. P. 44. Leg. 42, Bapt. 5, Consult. 2. This is also an argument in favor of the unity of the author of the work “Against the Nestorians” and the moral and ascetic works inscribed with the name of the Venerable, denied by A. Yuryevsky. Brand. Adv. nest. 2, 4, 6, 17, 18. Yuryevsky A. Decree. op. P. 10. Durand G.-M. L’Incarnation: Analysis // Marc le Moine. Traites. S.C. 455. P. 229. Polemicists with Nestorianism often connected the teachings of Nestorius with the heresies of Paul of Samosata and Photinus. For example, Socrates Scholastic writes about this: Historia ecclesiastica. 7. 32. TLG. 2057.001. Kunze. Marcus Eremita, ein neuer Zeuge für das altkirchliche Taufbekenntnis. S. 90. Nestorius himself accuses Paul of Samosata of this (Nestoriana. S. 299). The fact that Nestorius did not apply the expression “common man” to Christ was written, for example, by Socrates Scholastica (Historia ecclesiastica. 7. 32. TLG. 2057. 001), and among modern researchers - A. Grillmayer (Christ in Christian tradition. From the Apostolic Age to Chalcedon (451). P. 379). Another polemicist with Nestorianism, St. Proclus, ep. Kizicheskiy, in the presence of Nestorius, and polemicizing with him in his sermon, said that He who is born of a wife is not a simple man (ψιλὸς ἄνθρωπος), just as he is not the pure (γυμνός) Word (Oratio de laudibus Mariae. 2. ACO T. 1. Vol. 1 (1). P. 103). Nestorius. Sermo 7. 23. PL. 48. Col. 797. ACO T. 1. Vol. 1 (2). P. 45. Nestorius is even ready to apply the name “God” (for him, rather “god”, with a small letter) to the man Christ due to the conjunction (συνάφεια) of God the Word with him (ASO T. 1. Vol. 1 (2). R. 47). At the same time, Nestorius notes that in Scripture Moses is called God (Exodus 7:1), Israel is called the son of God (Exodus 4:22), Saul and Cyrus are called Christs (1 Samuel 24:7), and the Babylonians are called saints (ASO T. 1. Vol. 1 (2). R. 47). Adv. nest. 24. Rev. Mark here simplifies the teaching of Nestorius, who insisted on the unity of worship: “for the sake of Him who wears I honor what is worn, for the sake of what is hidden I honor what is visible. God is inseparable from the visible, therefore I do not share the honor of the Indivisible; I divide nature, but unite worship” (ASO T. 1. Vol. 1 (2). R. 47–48. Quoted from: DVS T. 1. P. 254). “[He said the ap. Paul] that God the Word was crucified, what words do you attribute to us” (Adv. nest. 19). Formally Rev. Mark was wrong about this. Similar expressions were used by the Orthodox. Later, in the 6th century, a dispute flared up around the formula “One of the Holy Trinity was crucified”, which ended with its adoption (For more details, see M. Oksiyuk. Theopaschite disputes // Theological collection. PSTBI. 1999. 2. pp. 18–40). The monk agrees with a similar statement only with the clarification that God the Word was crucified according to the flesh (Adv. nest. 28). Nestorius writes to St. Kirill: “He whom you at first called not involved in suffering, not allowing a second birth for Himself, then you presented, I don’t know why, suffering and created again, as if the natural properties of the word were destroyed by His union with the church of the body” (ASO T. 1. Vol 1 (1). R. 30-31. Quoted from DVS T. 1. P. 148). Adv. nest. 21. More mentions of the “dead body” in Adv. nest. 23, 34. See 11 Anathematism of St. Cyril and the corresponding counter-anathematism of Nestorius. According to the teachings of Theodore of Mopsuestia, the Son of God accepted the sin-prone nature of man, which he gradually led along the path of moral improvement, freeing it from passions and temptations, until he imparted to it through the Resurrection immortality, immutability and sinlessness (Guriev P. Theodore, Bishop of Mopsuestia. P. 304). The fact that the latter adhered to very diverse teachings is evidenced by St. Cyril of Alexandria (Epistola ad Acacium Beroeenserm [ep. 14]. ASO T. 1. Vol. 1 (2). P. 98; Quoted from: DVS T. 1. P. 183). Lyashchenko T., priest. St. Cyril, Archbishop of Alexandria. His life and work. 1913. P. 275. Yuryevsky A. Mark the Hermit and his newfound word against the Nestorians // Collection of essays by students of the Kazan Academy. 1900. 1. pp. 57–58. Yuryevsky A. Decree. op. pp. 58–59. Adv. nest. 4. Here and below, those places that the monk draws attention to are highlighted in bold. Adv. nest. 20. A similar argument was made by St. Proclus, Bishop of Cyzicus, showing on the basis of St. Scripture that Christ is neither a simple (ψιλός) man nor a pure (γυμνός) God, but God made man (Oratio de laudibus Mariae. 9. ASO T. 1. Vol. 1 (1). P. 107). Adv. nest. 46. ​​Theodore of Mopsuestia attributed the words of the ap. Thomas not to Christ, but to the glorification of God for the miracle performed (ASO T. 4. Vol. 1. R. 50). Adv. nest. 41. Nestorius, trying to use the Sacrament of the Eucharist to confirm his teaching, cited the words of Christ: “he who eats my flesh...” (John 6:54), emphasizing that it said “flesh” and not “Divinity.” “Who are we going to eat?” – asks Nestorius: “Deity or humanity?” (ASO T. 1. Vol. 1 (2). R. 51. Quoted from: DVS T. 1. P. 256–257). These words were obviously pronounced at the liturgy in the local church for which the monk wrote his essay. Cyrillus Alexandrinus. Adversus Nestorium. 4. 5. PG. 76. Col. 192. The chapter bears the title “Against the Melchizedekians” (Κατὰ Μελχισεδεκιανῶν) (Epiphanius Cypriota. Panarion. PG. 41. Col. 972), similar to the title given to the work of St. St. Mark Photius of Constantinople (Photius Constantinopolitanus. Bibliotheca. Cod. 200. PG. 103. Col. 669). Epiphanius Cypriota. Panarion. PG. 41. Col. 985. Ibid. PG. 41. Col. 988–989. Apophthegmata Patrum. PG. 65. Col. 160. Quote. by: Ignatius (Brianchaninov), St. Complete collection of creations. T. 3. P. 23. Apophthegmata Patrum. PG. 65. Col. 160. But in the interpretation of the book of Genesis by St. Cyril does not mention those who considered Melchizedek the Son of God. He writes only about those who considered Melchizedek to be the Holy Spirit, as well as the power of many angels (Glaphyra in Pentateuchum. PG. 69. Col. 84). Some researchers have expressed the opinion that St. St. Ambrose of Milan (for example: Vorontsov E.A. The Lord Jesus Christ and Melchizedek, King of Salem // Christian Reading. 1906. 1. P. 10). Periodeuti (Greek: circumventing, overseeing) - officials of the ancient Church in the rank of presbyters, who had the duty of inspecting the parish churches of a given diocese. According to St. To John Chrysostom, Melchizedek was “fatherless” and “motherless” because he did not remember his parents. (In Genesim. 35. 5. PG. 53. Col. 328). The words “without father” and “without mother”, according to the testimony of Rev. Jerome of Stridon was literally understood by Origen and Didymus the Blind, recognizing in the meeting of Melchizedek with Abraham the mysterious appearance of an unearthly being (Vorontsov E.A. The Lord Jesus Christ and Melchizedek, King of Salem // Christian Reading. 1906. 1. P. 9). There is another interpretation of this passage of Scripture: “without genealogy” indicates the exceptional conditions of the priesthood of Melchizedek, since the main point of initiation was the test of the genealogy of the initiate, who was required to prove his descent from Aaron (Vorontsov E.A. The Lord Jesus Christ and Melchizedek, King of Salem // Christian Reading. 1906. 1. P. 17). According to St. Eustathius of Antioch “it was not necessary to compile a genealogy and elevate to the clan of Canaan the one who is at the pinnacle of righteousness, for it was not at all appropriate for one who had achieved the highest righteousness to be intertwined with a clan that had reached extreme wickedness” (Quoted from: Sagarda N.I., Sagarda A.I. Complete body of lectures on patrolology. 2004. P. 941). Melch. 4. These words about Christ were also interpreted by St. John Chrysostom (In Genesim. 35. 5. PG. 53. Col. 328), St. Proclus, ep. Kizichesky (Oratio de laudibus Mariae. 5. ACO T.l.Vol. 1 (1). P. 104), blessed. Theodoret of Cyrus (Interpretatio epistolae ad Hebraeois. 7. 3. PG. 82. Col. 724–725), etc. According to another interpretation expressed by Christian apologists, in particular Lactantius, God, being the beginning and source of the existence of creatures, is rightly called having no father and mother, since he has no parents (Vorontsov E.A. Lord Jesus Christ and Melchizedek, king of Salem // Christian reading. 1906. 1. P. 9). Melch. 1. The doctrine that Melchizedek was superior to Christ existed. St. Epiphanius of Cyprus reports about those who adhere to this teaching: “Others, perhaps, who have broken away from the so-called Theodotians, call themselves Melchizedekians. They glorify Melchizedek, who is spoken of in the Scriptures, recognizing him as some great power, and also, out of their delusion, they claim that he is located in unnamed places, as if he is not only some kind of power, but also higher than Christ” (Panarion. PG. 41. Col. 972. Quoted from: Epiphanius of Cyprus, St. On eighty heresies, panarium, or ark. Book 2. Section 1 // TSO. 44. P. 435). The controversy with those who considered Melchizedek superior to Christ is contained in the essay “On Melchizedek,” which is attributed to St. John Chrysostom (Johannes Chrysostomus. De Melchisedech [Sp.], 3. PG. 56. Col. 260). Melch. 9. “No one can ever become like himself” (Epiphanius Cypriota. Panarion. PG. 41. Col. 985. Quoted from: Epiphanius of Cyprus, St. On eighty heresies the panarium, or ark. Book 2. Div. 1 // TSO. 44. P. 447) - this is the first argument of St. Epiphany of Cyprus against those who consider Melchizedek the Son of God. St. John Chrysostom sees in this a prototype of the New Testament priesthood: “this Abraham, the ancestor of the Levites and priests of Judah, before Melchizedek, who was the image of our priesthood, stood in the place of a layman, and showed this in two ways: by giving him tithes, for the laity gave tithes to the priests; and by the fact that he received a blessing from him, for the laity receive a blessing from the priests” (Adversus Judaeos. 8. 5. PG. 48. Col. 923. Quoted from: John Chrysostom, St. Creations. T. 1.2. 1895. P. 727). “He [ap. Paul] proved that Melchizedek was much higher than Levi and Abraham, appearing in relation to them as a priest” (In epistulam ad Hebraeos. 13. PG. 63. Col. 101. Quoted from: John Chrysostom, St. Creations. T. 12. 1906. P. 118). The Messalians were also called: “jumpers” (χορευταί), “Adelphians” (after Adelphia, who was exposed for heresy by St. Flavian of Antioch), “Marcianists” (after Marcian, who lived under the emperors Justinian (527–565) and Justin (565–578)), “Lampetians” (named after the Euchite presbyter Lampetius (5th century), “Eustathians” (named Eustathia)). For more details see Popov K.D. Blessed Diadochos (5th century), Bishop of Photica of Ancient Epirus, and his works. T. 1. P. 406 (approx.). Blzh. Theodoret of Cyrus and St. Photius of Constantinople calls the first representatives of this heresy: Dada, Sava the Monk, Erm, Simeon, another Sava nicknamed “Castratus” and a certain Eustathius of Edessa. Syrian sources also call Adelphius, who, according to the Monophysite author of the turn of the 4th and 5th centuries Philoxenus of Mabogga, was a student of the famous Syrian ascetic Julian Sava (Sidorov A.I. St. Macarius of Egypt. His life, works and theology // Works of St. Macarius of Egypt. P. 42). Dunaev A.G. Preface to the Russian translation of words and messages of the “Makarievsky corpus” of the first type // Macarius of Egypt, Rev. Spiritual words and messages. pp. 225–226. Even the blessed one was forced to resist the Messalians. Augustine of Ippona (See Folliet G. Des moines euchites a Carthage en 400–401 // Studia Patristica. 1957. 2:2. P. 386–399. Priv. from: Sidorov A.I. St. Macarius of Egypt. His life, works and theology // Works of St. Macarius of Egypt. P. 43). There is another view of Messalianism. So A.V. Muravyov and a number of foreign researchers (M. Kmoshko, A. Guillaumont) question the very fact of the existence of the Messalian heresy: “The conclusion that can be drawn from the early history of the “Messalian heresy”: Greek churchmen were faced with a certain phenomenon, possibly originating from the Syrian environment. This phenomenon consisted in other, unusual for them, forms of “detached” asceticism: the idea that arose on the basis of introspective asceticism about the influence of demons on the soul and methods of expelling them, a certain ascetic relativism in relation to the church structure and its sacramental forms and similar ideas... With the systematicity characteristic of the Greeks, they considered these phenomena “heresy” and almost Manichaeism" (Muravyov A.V. “Messalian” myth of the 4th–5th centuries and disputes about asceticism in the Iranian Church of the East of the 7th century AD // Bulletin of Ancient History. 2010. No. 4. P. 156). Sidorov A.I. Venerable Macarius of Egypt. His life, works and theology // Works of St. Macarius of Egypt. P. 45. Accusations of “Messalianism” were heard back in the 14th century in Byzantium (St. Gregory Palamas and other hesychasts were accused of “Messalianism” (I. Meyendorff. Life and works of St. Gregory Palamas. Introduction to the study. pp. 60–61)) and in the 15th century in Rus' (Judaizers were accused of “Messalianism” (A.I. Alekseev. Judaizers//PE. 19. P. 186)). In this rev. Mark is similar to the blj. Diadochos, ep. Photikian († late 5th century) (Popov K.D. Blessed Diadochos (5th century), Bishop of Photiki of Ancient Epirus, and his works. T. 1. P. 430 (approx.)). The blzh reports this as follows. Theodoret of Cyrus: “They, without moving away from church communion, say that the Divine food about which the Lord Christ said: “Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood will live forever” (John 6:54) - neither harms nor benefits. Trying to hide their illness, even after exposure they shamelessly close themselves off and even shun those who think in accordance with their convictions” (Theodoretus Cyrrhensis. Historia Ecclesiastica. 4. 11. PG. 82. Col. 1144. Quoted from: Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus. Church history. [Electronic resource]. URL: http://pagez.ru/lsn/0255 4.php (date accessed 02/13/2013)). “In its most moderate representatives, Messalianism probably did not differ much from Orthodox monasticism, coming into contact with those of the “simpletons” among the monks who, relying entirely on the power of prayer alone, were close to the temptation to deny the church sacraments” (Sidorov A.I. St. Macarius of Egypt. His life, works and theology // Works of St. Macarius of Egypt. P. 48–49). Timotheus Contantinopolitanus. De Receptione Haereticorum. PG. 86a. Col. 48. Johannes Damascenus. De haeresibus. 80.TLG. 2934.006. Timotheus Contantinopolitanus. De Receptione Haereticorum. PG. 86a. Col. 48. A.I. Sidorov, relying on this evidence, argues that “the starting point of the Messalian teaching is a false idea of ​​the consequences of the fall of our ancestors” (Sidorov A.I. St. Macarius of Egypt. His life, works and theology // Works of St. Macarius of Egypt. P. 43). In his polemics against Messalianism, Blzh. Diadochos, bishop Photikian, according to whose teaching the devil can fight with an ascetic, but cannot force him to sin, since a person in Baptism receives sufficient strength to fight sin, having complete freedom to resist the attacks of demons. Rev. Macarius the Great even says that those who consider Satan more powerful than man are sinning because they consider God unjust, condemning people to obey Satan (see Popov K.D. Blessed Diadochos (5th century), Bishop of Photiki of Ancient Epirus, and his works. Vol. 1. P. 453 (approx.)). Polemicizing with the Messalians, the bl. Diadochos of Photikie argued that even before Baptism a person is not left without the assistance of Divine grace, which is present only not inside the soul, as after Baptism, but acts on it from the outside (Popov K.D. Blessed Diadochos (5th century), Bishop of Photiki of Ancient Epirus, and his creations. T. 1. P. 424 (approx.)). Joannes Damascenus. De haeresibus. 80.TLG. 2934.006. The same idea against the Messalians was developed by the blj. Diadochos of Photiki (Popov K.D. Blessed Diadochos (V-ro century), Bishop of Photiki of Ancient Epirus, and his works. T. 1. P. 428 (approx.)). Sidorov A.I. Venerable Macarius of Egypt. His life, works and theology // Works of St. Macarius of Egypt. P. 46. The Messalians called themselves “spiritual” because they believed that after the feat of prayer they “sensually” (ἐν αἰσθήσει) were rewarded with the perception of the Holy Spirit (Sidorov A.I. St. Macarius of Egypt. His life, works and theology // Works of St. Macarius of Egypt. pp. 46–47). Dunaev A.G. Preface to the Russian translation of words and messages of the “Makarievsky corpus” of the first type // Macarius of Egypt, Rev. Spiritual words and messages. P. 187. Timotheus Contantinopolitanus. De Receptione Haereticorum. PG. 86a. Col. 49. As a result, the asceticism of the Messalians sometimes turned into its opposite: intemperance and amoralism (Sidorov A.I. St. Macarius of Egypt. His life, works and theology // Works of St. Macarius of Egypt. P. 47). Timotheus Contantinopolitanus. De Receptione Haereticorum. PG. 86a. Col. 49. In principle, the Novatians were not against the Church's right to forgive repentant sinners. But they believed that it was more expedient to grant this forgiveness to God, since a slave should not forgive those who sinned against his Lord (Bolotov V.V. Lectures on the history of the Ancient Church. Vol. 2. P. 382). Fokin A.R. Latin patrolology. T. 1. P. 212. Socrates Scholasticus. Historia ecclesiastica. 1. 10. TLG. 2057. 001. Bolotov V.V. indicates that in the era of Arianism, according to some evidence, the Orthodox in Constantinople were even ready to enter into communication with the Novatians (Bolotov V.V. Lectures on the history of the Ancient Church. Vol. 2. P. 383). Paen. 7. St. Cyprian of Carthage reproached the Novatians for the fact that, by blocking access to the Church for the fallen, they make penitential deeds pointless in their eyes, cool their repentant mood, thus depriving them of the only means of purification (Popov I.V. Patrology. Section four. The emergence of scientific theology. [Electronic resource]. URL: http://www.portal-slovo.ru/theology/37830.php?PRINT=Y (date accessed 02/12/2013)). Athanasius Alexandrinus. Epistulae quattuor ad Serapionem. 4. 13. TLG, 2035. 043. Johannes Chrysostomus. In epistulam ad Hebraeos. 9. 3. TLG, 2062. 168. Theoderetus Cyrrhensis. Interpritatio epistilae ad Hebraeois. 6. 4–6. PG. 82.Co1. 716–717. Johannes Damascenus. Expositio fidei. 4. 9. TLG. 2934.004. The Greek text is from the edition: Marc le Moine. Traités / Intr., texte critique, trad., notes et index par Durand G.-M. T. 2. // SC. 455. P. 182–223. Παρασιώπήσις – a rhetorical figure of silence. Matthew 12:29: “Or how can anyone enter into the house of a strong man and spoil his goods, unless he first binds the strong man? and then he will plunder his house.” λοιμοί - plague, pestilence, infection, pestilence. Here it is used in a figurative sense: a dangerous and harmful person. Selge is a Greek city in Asia Minor (Pisidia). Eugene (Greek) – good kind. Athanasius (Greek) – immortal. Polychronium (Greek) – durable. Democrat (Greek) – here: ruling the people. Synod, translation of Ps.7:16: “he dug a ditch, and dug it out, and fell into the pit that he had prepared.”