The main Christological work of St. Anastasius Sinaite “Guide”

See also: “The Guide” of St. Anastasius Sinaite as an experience in revealing the Christological teaching of the Church Recommended for publication by the Publishing Council of the Russian Orthodox Church IS R18–805–0187 Recommended for publication by the Academic Council of the St. Petersburg Theological Academy of the Russian Orthodox Church Extract from Journal No. 4 (966) paragraph 3 dated December 28, 2017 Recommended for publication by the Department of Theology of the St. Petersburg Theological Academy of the Russian Orthodox Church Extract from Protocol No. 9 of 03/21/2018 • Valery Yakovlevich Savrey – Doctor of Philosophy, Professor of the Department of Philosophy of Religion and Religious Studies, Faculty of Philosophy, Moscow State University. M. V. Lomonosova, professor of the Department of Biblical Studies of the Moscow Academy of Sciences. • Alexander Vadimovich Levko – Candidate of Philosophy, Head of the Department of Ancient Languages ​​and Philology of the Kyiv Theological Academy. The monograph is dedicated to the life and works of Rev. Anastasia Sinaita (VII century) – a bright polemicist with Nestorianism, Monophysitism and Monothelitism. Particular attention is paid to the “Guide” - the main dogmatic work of St. Anastasia. This work is one of the first attempts at a complete systematic description of patristic Christology, the predecessor of the “Source of Knowledge” by St. John of Damascus. The first complete Russian translation of the “Guide” is published, made by Abbot Adrian (before that, only the first four chapters were translated by A. I. Sidorov). The publication is recommended for teachers and students of theological educational institutions, theological faculties of secular universities, as well as everyone interested in theology, patristics and history of the Church. Until a certain time, the Monk Anastasius Sinaite was one of the little-studied Byzantine theologians. Starting from the second half of the 20th century, critical editions of the works of this holy father began to appear one after another, so that now we have the opportunity to familiarize ourselves with his most important texts. Therefore, the call of Hans-Georg Beck to critically publish the works of St. Anastasius - without which it is impossible to solve not only the problem of their attribution and dating, but also to accurately outline the timing of the saint's life, 1 - has now actually been realized. Thus, the way is open to a more reasoned debate regarding the authorship of St. Anastasius of certain works attributed to him, and regarding the determination of his place in Byzantine theology. The Monk Anastasius lived during the struggle of the Church against Nestorianism, against various currents of Monophysitism and Monothelitism, during the outbreak of the Arab invasion on the outskirts of the Byzantine Empire and, accordingly, during the clash of the Church with the new religion - Islam. All these events influenced the life of St. Anastasius and his works, which are both historical sources, a polemical and theological response to challenges from heresies and other religions, and a positive formulation of various sections of the dogmatic teaching of the Church. Being a brilliant polemicist, a subtle theologian and an original exegete, the Monk Anastasius left us both ascetic works and beautiful sermons. Some of his works have already been translated into Russian (either anew, from new critical editions, or for the first time). We hope that a Russian translation of all the works of St. Anastasius Sinaite will soon be published. The publication in this edition of the Russian translation of the full text of the main work of the holy father - the theological and polemical treatise "The Guide" - will be our contribution to the study of the legacy of St. Anastasius by Russian-speaking researchers of patristic Tradition. Despite the obvious interest of patrolologists in recent times in the personality of St. Anastasius Sinaite, the topic stated in the title of the monograph can safely be called poorly studied. There are virtually no works devoted to a systematic description of the Christology of the holy father - as well as other aspects of his theology (for example, anthropology). Until the publication of critical publications, and even to this day, the controversy surrounding the identification of the very personality of St. Anastasius and the attribution of his works, including the “Guide,” continues in pathological science. Some researchers attributed this treatise to other fathers, others dated it to the beginning of the 7th century. - when there was no Monothelitism yet and Byzantium did not know Islam, - someone considered the “Guide” to be a later compilation of the 9th century. The terminology of St. Anastasius, reflected in pathological dictionaries, has been studied quite well. 2 However, despite the importance of terminology in theology, church teaching cannot be reduced to terminology alone. Researchers often use historical information from the works of St. Anastasius. This concerns the history of Monophysitism, Monothelitism, Islam 3, etc. In studies concerning particular topics of theology or anti-heretical polemics, if the Monk Anastasius is mentioned, then, often, his quotations are not given. 4 Of course, in critical editions of works. Anastasia, even when publishing Russian translations, there are large introductory articles, but they are devoted only to biographical information, a description of the manuscript tradition, problems of identification and dating, and the comments on the text itself are very brief and, in essence, cannot claim to be a systematic description of the teachings of the holy father. Until recently, the only work devoted to a systematic study of the theology of St. Anastasius Sinaite was a small and superficial work in Italian by the Czech patrolologist T. Spačil, published almost a hundred years ago. 5 In 2015, another work by K.-H. Uthemann was published, dedicated to the Monk Anastasius. 6 The researcher describes in detail the problem of attribution of the works of Sinaite, as well as the structure, terminology and the teaching itself set out in the “Guide”. The contribution of various researchers to the study of the works of St. Anastasius Sinaite – especially the “Guide” – will be outlined below in more detail. We cannot fail to note the presence of an online forum dedicated to the study of the legacy of St. Anastasius. 7 I thank Hieromonk Tikhon (Zimin), Hieromonk Theodore (Yulaev) and Deacon Nikolai Shablevsky for their help in preparing the translation of the Guide. Hegumen Adrian (Alexander Vasilyevich Pashin) I. The life and works of St. Anastasius Sinaite 1.1. Biography of St. Anastasius Sinaite Very little is known about the life of St. Anastasius Sinaite. The Patriarch of Constantinople (1350–1353, 1355–1364) Nikephoros Callistos Xanthopoulos introduced great confusion into the problem of compiling a reliable biography and correct identification of the works of the holy father. 8 This patriarch is the author of the “Church History from the Nativity of Christ to the Year 610” in 23 books, the “Catalogue of Emperors and Patriarchs”, many church hymns, interpretations of the psalms, thirty Homilies of St. Gregory the Theologian and others. 9 It was he who approved St. Alexy in 1355 as the head of the All-Russian Metropolis of Kyiv, which confirmed the letter of Patriarch Philotheus (1353–1354, 1364–1376), dated 1354. The monk Roman, who also laid claim to the Kiev throne and was illegally elevated to the rank of metropolitan of Kyiv by the Bulgarian Patriarch Theodosius in Tarnovo, was appointed by Nikephoros Callistus Xanthopulus as the head of the Lithuanian metropolitanate (with a see in Novogrudsk). 10 His memory is celebrated on June 20 and in the Council of the Athos Saints (2nd week after Pentecost). So, Patriarch Nicephorus identified three persons - the Monk Anastasius Sinaite, Anastasius I, Patriarch of Antioch (559-598) and his successor at the Antiochian see. Anastasia II (599–609). 11 We will reflect in detail on the controversy generated by Nicephorus' error in the paragraph devoted to the attribution and dating of the Guide. The memory of St. Anastasius Sinaite is indicated in various Byzantine liturgical monuments on April 20 and 21. Under April 20, it is recorded in the Minology of Emperor Basil II 12 and in the Typikon of the Great Church of the 10th century, under April 21 in the Great Greek Menaions, in the Synaxarion of the Church of Constantinople and in other synaxarions. The two versions of the short life of the saint are identical to each other, and only at the beginning of the life given in the Menaion is it added: “Ἀναστάσιος ἐν Σινὰ Μώσης νέος” (Anastasius of Sinai the new Moses). 13 The translation into Rus' of the short life of St. Anastasius Sinaite from the Minology of Basil II was carried out in the first half of the 12th century. This translation was included in the Slavic unstitched Prologue, as in the Greek original, under April 20: “Anastasius, our God-bearing venerable father, having left the world and in the world, and taken up his cross, according to the commandment of the Holy Gospel, joyfully followed Christ. And he went to the monastery, and became a monk, and desired great feats of teaching, and created many virtues. Therefore, I came to Jerusalem and worshiped in a holy and honorable place. Therefore, go to Mount Sinai, and find holy monks, and remain with them, obeying them, and working diligently. For the sake of his humble wisdom, he received the gift of healing from God, and taught reason and wisdom to many; hence the father copied the lives of the saints, and became the abbot of Mount Sinai, and copied many words useful to the soul. And having pleased God more than all others, in the depths of old age he departed to the Lord.” 14 In the first half of the 14th century, the life was again translated (apparently by the Serbs on Athos) from the Great Greek Menaion and included in the Stish Prologue. In the Great Menaion Readings of Metropolitan Macarius, both brief lives are given: under April 20 - from the unstitched Prologue and under April 21 - from the Stish Prologue: “On the same day of our reverend father Anastasius of Sinai. Saint Anastasius Sinai Moses is new, and has seen God before the death. This holy father of ours, left the world and those in the world and took up his cross, according to the Lord’s commandments and took monastic vows, politely following Christ. Having been a great feat of virtue, I went to Jerusalem and bowed and kissed the honorable place, looked at Mount Sinai and there I found them, passing through a strong fasting life, remaining with them, obeying and serving. Having become great in humility, they received the gifts of reason, the wisdom of many and the Lives of the saints, the father having compiled and composing soul-helping words, and in deep old age he departed to the Lord.” 15 The Monk Anastasius Sinaite was born at the beginning of the 7th century. By origin, he was presumably a Cypriot, originally from Amafunt, as one passage from the collection of his ascetic stories “Soulful Stories” shows: “In my homeland, in Amafunt.” 16 Probably, in Cyprus he began his monastic path, as indirectly evidenced by both short lives given above. The reverend father received a fairly thorough school and theological education, as he himself testifies to this in the “Guide”: “We, with the assistance of Christ, from a young age received in parts from the Fatherly Tradition the instruction in definitions” (I, 3, 34–36; 156). 17 Then, as sources say, the Monk Anastasius was a resident of the monastery of the Great Martyr. Catherine in Sinai, where at one time he was under the spiritual guidance of St. John Climacus, who was at that time the rector of this monastery. St. Demetrius of Rostov says that “after Saint John the Climacus and his brother George, Saint Anastasius was the abbot of Mount Sinai.” 18 Archbishop Filaret (Gumilevsky) supports the version of his abbess in the Sinai Monastery 19 just like the authors of the new encyclopedic article about St. Anastasia. 20 The presence in the Sinai Monastery of the Mother of God of the 12th century, where a saint is depicted to the left of the Mother of God with the inscription “Ὁ Ἅγιος Ἀναστάσιος ὁ Σιναήτις 21,” speaks in favor of the abbess of St. Anastasius ἡγούμενος" (although on the 8th century icon of St. Anastasius from the same monastery the inscription is more brief: "Ἅγιος Ἀναστάσιος", here the saint is depicted with an omophorion and with a book ("Guide"?) in his hands). 22 Also, the Monk Anastasius is named abbot in some manuscripts of his works, in particular in Arabic translations of his “Soulful Narratives.” 23 However, some researchers doubt the abbot of St. Anastasius at Sinai, for example, A. Binggeli. 24 A.I. Sidorov also doubts that the Monk Anastasius was the abbot of the martyr’s monastery. Catherine, since “accurate information about his abbotship has not been preserved.” 25 All sources about the life of the Monk Anastasius agree that the turbulent events of the 7th century - the invasions of the Persians and Arabs, as well as heated dogmatic disputes - forced him to leave the monastery. To participate in disputes with Monophysites and Monothelites, Sinait traveled to Egypt, Palestine and Arabia neighboring the Sinai Peninsula, and also, possibly, to Syria. Sinait itself, in Chapter X of the Guide, testifies to four such disputes that took place in Alexandria. From the Rev. Father’s “Soulful Narratives” one can also glean a number of autobiographical details: in particular, he describes the captivity in 649–650. “Saracens” of many thousands of his fellow Cypriots, to whom the Monk Anastasius provided all possible assistance. 26 The date of the saint's death is indicated differently in different sources. The statement from the Life compiled by St. is clearly erroneous. Demetrius of Rostov, that “his death followed during the reign of Emperor Heraclius,” 27 for Heraclius ruled the Byzantine Empire from 610 until his death in 641, 28 and modern research dates some of the creations of the Monk Anastasius to the end of the 7th and even the beginning of the 8th century. Probably St. Demetrius could have confused the Monk Anastasius of Sinaite with the martyr. Anastasius the Persian (628) or other monks Anastasius, two of whom are mentioned in the “Spiritual Meadow” of John Moschus. 29 The widespread use of the name Anastasius at this time among Egyptian and Palestinian monks is stated in the Acta Sanctorum DataBase, which also speaks of a certain prefect of Mount Antonia named Anastasius, who, according to the mention of St. John the Merciful, Patriarch of Alexandria (620), saved him from captivity. 30 Archbishop Filaret (Gumilevsky) dates the death of Sinait to 686 31 and no later, with which Archbishop Sergius (Spassky) also agrees. 32 However, the editor of the critical edition of “Three Words on the Creation of Man in the Image and Likeness of God” by St. Anastasius Sinaita, Karl-Heinz Uthemann, showed that the third “Word” dates back no earlier than the year 701, 33 thereby pushing back the date of the death of the holy father to the beginning of the 8th century. The memory of the saint is now celebrated by the Russian Church on April 20, and by the Greek Churches on April 21. 1.2. Works of St. Anastasius Sinaite (except for the “Guide”) The Monk Anastasius Sinaite left a fairly extensive legacy, however, the question of identifying the authentic works of the holy father was complicated for a long time due to the mistake of the Patriarch of Constantinople Nicephorus Callistus Xanthopoulos, who, as we have already said, identified the Monk Anastasius Sinaite with Anastasius I, Patriarch of Antioch, and his successor at the Antioch see - sschmch. Anastasius II. The fact that - as we now know - the first two focused their attention on the fight against Monophysitism in its various forms has created additional difficulties for researchers in solving the problem of properly identifying their works. Only in recent years, thanks to the publication of critical editions by various researchers, the question of identifying the works of St. Anastasius Sinaite is close to a final resolution. The most voluminous creation preserved under the name of St. Anastasius Sinaite is the work “Ἐρωτήσεις καὶ ἀποκρίσεις περὶ διαφόρον κεφαλαίων” (“Questions and answers on various topics”). The genre of patristic literature known as “question-answer” became widespread in Byzantium and the countries of the Christian East. 34 To answer dogmatic, exegetical and moral questions, quotations from the Holy Scriptures and the Holy Fathers are usually given. The work of the Monk Anastasius himself is restored on the basis of a collection of 102–103 questions and answers (two manuscripts from the 8th–10th centuries) without references, comments and scholia. In later editions, differing in composition and volume (from 88 to 154 chapter-questions), the work of the holy father was revised and supplemented with biblical and patristic texts. Unfortunately, Jacobus Gretser published in 1617 not the original text of St. Anastasius, but a later compilation from the 11th century. This edition is reproduced in Patrologia Graeca. 35 Recently, a critical edition of Questions and Answers was published, edited by M. Richard and J. A. Munitiz. 36 A.I. Sidorov published a translation of this work into Russian in a separate edition. 37 It is noteworthy that this work of the monk, having gone through a very complex evolution in the manuscript tradition, was translated into the Slavic language, apparently in Bulgaria at the beginning of the 10th century under Tsar Simeon, and formed the core of an outstanding monument of ancient Russian literature - “Izbornik Svyatoslav 1073”. 38 “Questions and Answers” ​​cover a wide range of problems: dogmatic, exegetical, ascetic, eschatological, etc., placing, however, the strongest emphasis on problems of moral theology (sin and repentance, the possibility of salvation for pious Jews or unbelievers, mercy, etc.). The exegetical-dogmatic work of St. Anastasius is “Three words about the creation of man in the image and likeness of God.” In this work, the holy father clearly and clearly sets out his anthropological views, which are inextricably linked with Christology and soteriology. “Words” is devoted to polemics against the latest Christological heresy - monothelitism. Until the end of the 20th century, only the third “Lay” was published in full. 39 Only fragments were known from the other two “Words”, 40 and the first “Word” was also attributed to St. Gregory of Nyssa. 41 As a result, many researchers erroneously claimed that the Monk Anastasius borrowed, even literally, a number of ideas from the Nyssa saint. 42 It was in this incomplete form that the work of St. Anastasius was translated into Russian before the revolution. 43 Karl-Heinz Uthemann, in the 1985 edition, provided a critical text of the “Words”. 44 Uthemann proved that all three “Words” belonged to the Monk Anastasius Sinaite and showed that the third “Word” dates back no earlier than the year 701, thereby pushing back the date of the death of the holy father to the beginning of the 8th century. Recently A.I. Sidorov carried out a Russian translation of the “Words” with detailed comments, which was published first in the journal “Alpha and Omega”, 45 and then as a separate publication in the series “Library of Fathers and Teachers of the Church”. 46 Our thesis 47 and online publications are devoted to the study of the anthropological views of St. Anastasius Sinaita. 48 “Three words about the creation of man in the image and likeness of God” are closely related in meaning to two more anti-Monothelitian dogmatic works by the Monk Anastasius: “Florilegies against the Monothelites” and “Chapters against the Monothelites”, first published in the same edition of Uthemann. 49 We are planning a translation into Russian of these works of St. Anastasius in the scientific and theological journal of the Moscow Theological Academy “Theological Bulletin”. Of the remaining dogmatic works of Sinaite, the “Chapters Against the Monophysites” remain unpublished. 50 The ascetic works of St. Anastasius Sinaite include “Soulful Stories,” which are preserved in three handwritten collections. 51 Only small excerpts have been published. 52 Judging by them, the reverend father summarizes the spiritual experience of the Sinai, Egyptian and other ascetics. A complete critical edition of the Narratives is being prepared by Pual Canart. Another researcher, Andre Binggeli, studying the manuscripts of the Narratives in recent years, showed that the Syriac manuscripts of the Sinai monastery are earlier and closer to the original than the existing Greek manuscripts. 53 The form of “monastic stories” used by the Monk Anastasius is easily accessible to any reader, like such best examples of this type of monastic writing as “Lavsaik”, “The Spiritual Meadow” by John Moschus and others. A number of sermons by the Monk Anastasius have been preserved, but there are no critical editions of them yet, nor is there a detailed scientific study devoted to the Monk Anastasius as a preacher. 54 Therefore, the question of attribution of certain sermons to Sinai still requires resolution. Undoubtedly, the “Discourse on the Sixth Psalm” occupies a special place among the sermons of St. Anastasius. It has come to us in two editions, differing from each other in a number of details. Both are given in Patrologia Graeca. 55 But an earlier version was preserved in the Syriac and Coptic translations. 56 This sermon for the beginning of Lent, which is a hymn to repentance, can be considered one of the most valuable pearls in the treasury of patristic asceticism. 57 It is one of the few works of Sinaite translated into Russian before the revolution. 58 “The Homily for the Feast of the Transfiguration of Christ” is dedicated to the experiential knowledge of God and was pronounced by the Monk Anastasius in the church on Mount Tabor itself. 59 This mountain is, according to the Sinai abbot, the “second Sinai,” but it is far superior to Sinai in the theological and spiritual sense, just as the New Testament is superior to the Old. Moses, who received the Old Testament law at Sinai from the invisible God, 60 whose face he did not see, but saw only God “from behind,” 61 at Tabor contemplates the face of God incarnate and transformed. 62 63 Sermon of St. Anastasius: “Λόγος περὶ τῆς ἅγιας συναξέως καὶ περὶ τοῦ μὴ κρινεὶν καὶ μνησικακείν" 64 (“The Sermon about the Holy Assembly and that one should not judge and remember malice”) is dedicated to the sacrament of the Eucharist and is an important source on the history of worship. 65 The preacher also discusses in detail the spiritual structure of those participating in the Sacrament of the Eucharist. Characteristic in this sense is the example that St. Anastasius gives at the end of his sermon. He illustrates to his listeners the “short path to salvation” using the example of the blessed death of a careless monk. The preacher relies on the stories of still living witnesses to this story. The monks present at the death of their brother were surprised by his peaceful and blissful death, although the dying man clearly negligently fulfilled his monastic vows during his lifetime. The dying man told one of the monks sitting around him that the angel presented him with a list of sins that he had after his monastic tonsure. But the angel immediately tears up the list of sins and calls on the dying person to prepare for the meeting of Christ without fear and with spiritual joy. Despite the careless lifestyle of the monk, his sins were forgiven, because the dying man after tonsure did not condemn anyone in word, deed, or even thought. 66 The Russian translation of the sermon with commentary was also carried out by M. V. Nikiforov. 67 “The Homily for Good Friday” is preserved only in the Arabic translation, and “The Homily on the Descent of Christ into Hell” is preserved only in the Syriac translation. 68 In meaning, “Διάλεξις κατὰ ἰουδαίων” (“Conversation against the Jews”) is adjacent to the “Word for Good Friday”. 69 70 The researcher Στέργιος Σάκκος insists that the text does not belong to the Monk Anastasius, since it was written no earlier than the 9th century. 71 One sermon of St. Anastasius - “Λόγος εἰς κοιμηθέντας πάνυ ὠφέλιμος” (“The Sermon of the Dead”) 72 – was mistakenly included in the Greek corpus of St. Ephraim the Syrian. 73 The texts of many of the holy father’s works mentioned in the sources have not survived. 74 The Slavic Prologue contains four sermons of the Monk Anastasius, taken, apparently, from “Soulful Narratives” and from other sources: for March 19, “About the Hedgehog Do Not Have Wrath,” 75 for March 30, “About a Certain Father Who Has Passed Away, Who Shall Judge No One” 76 (apparently, a variant translation of “The Sermon about the Holy Assembly and about the that one should not judge and remember malice"). On the day of remembrance of the saint (April 20), in addition to his brief life (given above), there are two more words - “About the guardian angel” 77 and “On confession of sins to spiritual fathers and the perspicacious, and not to the ignorant.” 78 Under the name “Anastasian” they conventionally unite a number of creations attributed to the Monk Anastasius Sinaite, either not belonging to him, or whose attribution is not clear. 79 The most important of the Anastasiana is the Doctrine of the Fathers on the Incarnation of the Word (Doctrina Patrum de Incarnatione Verbi), published in 1907 by Franz Diekamp. 80 This is the most important collection of Diphysite and Dithelitian quotations from the Holy Fathers, especially the Cappadocians and St. Cyril of Alexandria, which contains a systematic exposition of triadology and Christology. The collection was compiled at the end of the 7th - beginning of the 8th century and, in addition to St. Anastasius Sinaite, is also attributed to the disciple of St. Maximus the Confessor. Anastasia Apoxyarius († 666). Of the remaining works included in “Anastasiana”, we note the following. “Commentary on the Sixth Day” in 12 books (the first 11 books are only in Latin translation), 81 which, as J. D. Baggarly showed, dates back to the 10th century, 82 therefore cannot belong to the Monk Anastasius. However, in joint preparation with C. A. Kuehn of the critical edition of “Interpretation on the Sixth Day” by Baggarly J. D. I am already confident in the authorship of this treatise by Anastasia Sinaita. 83 Utemann, analyzing in detail the old arguments of Baggarly J. D. against the attribution of the “Commentaries” to the Monk Anastasius and his new, joint with Kuehn, arguments in favor of the authorship of the Sinaite, is nevertheless confident that the “Commentary on the Sixth Day” does not belong to the Monk Anastasius. 84 Let us add that in the “Commentary on the Sixth Day” an extremely symbolic picture of the Eucharist is drawn, and in the “Guide” the Monk Antastasius uses an extremely realistic Eucharistic concept. 85 1.3. Attribution and dating of the “Guide” The main dogmatic work of St. Anastasius Sinaite is “Ὁδηγός” (“Guide”). As we have already said, Nikephoros Callistus Xanthopulus brought confusion into pathological science for several centuries and gave rise to the Anastasiev problem, including the problem of identifying and dating the “Guide”. Influenced by Nikephoros's identification, Jacobus Gretser attributed the Guide to Patriarch Anastasius I of Antioch, titling the first printed edition of the Guide in 1606: "Anastasii Sinaitae Patriarchae Antiocheni "Ὁδηγός, seu Dux Viae, adversus Acephalos". In addition to the incorrect attribution of the Guide, this also gave rise to an erroneous nickname for the Patriarch of Antioch - Anastasius I of Sinai - who is still erroneously credited with being in Sinai. 86 The later edition of 1740, together with Gretser's introductory article, is a repetition of the first edition of 1606 with some corrections, reproduced by J.-P. Migne in his Patrologia Graeca, repeating the incorrect attribution of the work to the Antiochian Patriarch Anastasius I. 87 The first who, in the middle of the 17th century, discovered Nicephorus' error and tried to distinguish between the Anastasius and their works was Henschenius. 88 By the end of the 19th century, most researchers no longer doubted that the “Guide” belonged to the Monk Anastasius Sinaite. However, the date of compilation of the work still remained unclear. Guilielmus Cave in the 18th century was the first to express doubts about the integrity of the Guide. 89 After him, statements about the compilative nature of labor were expressed again and again in pathological science. This point of view was most strenuously defended by Casimirus Oudinus, who argued that the Guide lacked clarity in structure and was a disorderly collection of small, often careless treatises. 90 Joannes Fabricius subsequently summarized the various arguments supporting the compilative nature of the Guide. 91 His brief remarks on the life of Anastasius I of Antioch, who was still considered then the author of the Guide, and on the compilative nature of the final version of the Guide, were placed in the Patrologia Graeca. 92 Contrary to these statements, Joannes Kumpfmüller tried to prove that the Guide had an internal order, and suggested that further study of the manuscript material would make it possible to confirm the internal unity and harmony of the work. 93 Franz Diekamp in the publication “Doctrina Patrum de Incarnatione Verbi” showed that the Armasite sect (ἁρμασίτης) was organized after the VI Ecumenical Council (681). The founder of the sect, Armasius, and his followers opposed the Difelitsky decisions of the Council. They formed a group in Alexandria that broke away from the Orthodox Church into a separate sect of the Monothelite persuasion. 94 This sect is mentioned in two scholia of the Guide (XIII, 6, 20; 297 and XIII, 9, 91; 310), therefore the discovery of Dicamp made it possible to date these scholia to the time after the VI Ecumenical Council. Jean Maspero, who did not know about this discovery, again raised the question of the dating of the Guide. Maspero stated that St. Anastasius of Sinaiti demonstrated ignorance of Islam in the Guide, and concluded from this that the work was compiled before the Arab invasion of Egypt in 641. Maspero also argued that the author of the Guide was unfamiliar with monothelitism, which was spread in Egypt by the patriarch Cyrus (631–641). So, according to Maspero, the Guide dates back to the year 622. 95 Although most of the conclusions reached by Maspero in the discussion of the Guide were incorrect, they served as a starting point for other researchers. Thus, first Adolf Jülicher, and then Marcel Richard, refuting Maspero and citing an argument with reference to the Armacites, came up with a more reliable date. Jülicher suggested that the Guide was compiled after 681. 96 Richard, based on the presence of inconsistencies and scholia in the work, determined that the Guide was mainly compiled in the early years after the Alexandrian Patriarch Cyrus (631–641). Thus, the theological debates that took place in Alexandria and reflected in Chapter X of the Guide, as well as Chapter XII, convey the religious and political situation in Alexandria during the patriarchate of Cyrus, and do not yet touch upon the controversy regarding the energies and wills in Christ. Other chapters already reflect the polemics with the emerging monoenergism and monothelitism, and in three places there are references to Islam and its differences from Christianity (I, 1, 46; 150. VII.2, 117–120; 221. X.2, 4, 1–16; 257). However, the author of the “Guide” tries to remain in line with the original plan of the fight against Monophysitism, without being distracted by a detailed analysis of monoenergism, Monothelitism and Islam. So, Richard concludes that after the VI Ecumenical Council, between 686 and 689, scholia were added to the Guide and some corrections were made. This second edition of the Guide became the final one. 97 In 1959, Hans-Georg Böck confidently defended that the Guide was written by St. Anastasius Sinaite, as well as other works traditionally attributed to this holy father. 98 In 1965, Günter Weiss published a valuable study on the life and works of St. Anastasia I Patriarch of Antioch. 99 Weiss's study of the manuscript heritage relating to Anastasius I allowed the scientist to determine the canon of the saint's works, which does not include the Guide. Since Weiss also showed that Anastasius I had never been to Sinai, the patriarch was once and for all excluded as a candidate for the authorship of the Guide. To a large extent, Weiss's conclusions contributed to the compilation of the list of Anastasius and, accordingly, the works of each of them in the Clavius ​​Patrum Graecorum. 100 In the 1960s, the Στέργιος Σάκκος and Ἐυάγγελος Χρυσός again began to defend the view that the Guide is a compilation of the works of various authors in various ways. The latter substantiates this assertion from the observation that the codex of the Guide, located in the Paris National Library (Codex X, as described by the editor of the last critical edition of the Guide, K.-N. Utemann 101), is divided into two distinct text groups, and a “compiler” combined them together, thus giving the work its present form. 102 Στέργιος Σάκκος, not having detailed knowledge about the handwritten tradition of the “Guide”, a priori insists on its compilative nature. He claims, in fact, without evidence, that the core of the work, i.e. chapters III–XV (by his definition, “the authentic work of Anastasius Sinaite”), beginning with the words “Anastasius, the most insignificant monk, a work on the Orthodox faith, collected from the Holy Scriptures and teachers [of the Church]” (III, 1, 9–11; 191), was written by a Sinaiticus monk, later Patriarch of Antioch Anastasius II (599–609). 103 The beginning and end of the Guide, according to Σάκκος, were written by one or more authors. 104 The current structure of the text, especially the arrangement of the opening and closing chapters and the scholia, can be traced back to the work of the compiler. 105 Σάκκος makes more serious arguments, proving that the second chapter of the “Guide”, the so-called “Book of Definitions,” has a different author and was written at a different time compared to the “genuine work of Anastasius Sinaita.” The researcher gives five arguments in favor of his hypothesis. 106 First, the “Book of Definitions” comes from the Liber de definitionibus, attributed to St. Athanasius the Great. 107 The fact that in the manuscripts that contain only the “Book of Definitions” (from 30 to 67 in Uthemann’s description), 108 it is attributed to Anastasius, Σάκκος explains by a typo that may have arisen during copying from the ear. Secondly, the title of this collection says that this is a set of definitions drawn from the Fathers of the Church, especially from Clement (II, 1, 1-6; 158). Thirdly, the compiler of the “Book of Definitions” refers to Wisdom 13:1 (II, 3, 22; 163). In the “authentic work of Anastasius Sinaita” there is also a reference to Wisdom 13:1 (VIII, 2, 1–15; 223–224). Based on the fact that in Chapter VIII there is no reference to the interpretation given in Chapter II, but there is a reference to a certain Τόμος ἀπολογητικός, which is not mentioned in Chapter II, Σάκκος makes a conclusion about the different authors of these two passages. Fourthly, Anastasius in his “real work” never refers to the etymology of words, while for the compiler of the “Book of Definitions” this is of great importance for dogmatic disputes. Finally, according to the Greek researcher, from the point of view of the history of language, the part of the second chapter, specifically devoted to the etymology of various words (II, 8, 1–100; 182–189), could not have been created earlier than the 9th century, when “Itacism” began to develop in Byzantium. Thus, Σάκκος indicates that when explaining the etymology of four words presented in the “Guide”: ᾅδης - from ἄδηλος δύλος (ΙΙ, 8, 17; 183), λύπη - from λείψει (ΙΙ, 8, 36; 185), ἀγκύλη – from ἄνω αὐτῆς κοῖλον (ΙΙ, 8, 50; 186) and κοιλία – from κύειν τὰ λεῖα (II, 8, 53; 187), complete identity of the pronunciation of the following vowels and diphthongs is assumed: η, υ, ει, οι. Σάκκος indicates that until the 9th century “Itacism” had not yet become widespread in Byzantium. So, according to Σάκκος’a, the “Guide” in its present form is a compilation dating from the second half of the 9th century. The author of the main part of the work (the so-called “genuine work”, constituting chapters III–XV) is Sschmch. Anastasius II Patriarch of Antioch. The compiler, who lived in the 9th century and, according to Σάκκος, compiled the final version of the “Guide”, was called by the Greek patrolologist “Presbyter Anastasius Allegorist.” 109 Although Σάκκος's work is not without its individual merits, it has rather obscured than clarified the problem of Anastasiev and the Guide. The editor of the critical edition of the Guide, Karl-Heinz Uthemann, refuted the arguments of Σάκκος’a, attributing the main part of the Guide to the Hieromartyr Anastasius II, Patriarch of Antioch. 110 This holy father is known for his polemical writings against the Jews, and works against the Monophysites have never been attributed to him. In order to assign him the authorship of the so-called “authentic work,” Σάκκος is forced to commit some violence to the original text. Thus, Chapter X (X.2, 7, 174–182; 268) speaks of the death of the Patriarch of Alexandria Eulogius, which followed in 607. 111 Since sschmch. Anastasius II of Antioch, who, according to Σάκκος’s, compiled the “authentic work” before the patriarchate, became patriarch in 599, then Σάκκος completely unreasonably attributed this place to the scholium, 112 which he attributed exclusively to the compiler. 113 Uthemann also considers Σάκκος's five arguments in favor of the “unauthenticity” of the “Book of Definitions” to be unconvincing. The most important is the last, fifth argument, which, if true, can only indicate that the etymologies of the four words listed above are later interpolations into a complete work created around the end of the 7th century. However, Eduard Schwyzer showed that in Egypt “Itacism” became widespread much earlier than in the central part of the Byzantine Empire. Thus, he cites documentary evidence on this matter dating back to the 8th century. 114 Uthemann notes that it cannot be ruled out that “Itacism” on the outskirts of Byzantium - in particular in Egypt, where the Guide was written - could have spread earlier than the 8th century. In addition, it is possible that the Monk Anastasius based the etymology not on an exact coincidence, but on the similarity of pronunciation. 115 Σάκκος's second argument in favor of the fact that the “Book of Definitions” cannot belong to the author of the main part of the “Guide”, according to Uthemann, is formulated ambiguously. It is likely that the Monk Anastasius wrote the second chapter, having a collection of selected quotes from the Holy Fathers, including Clement of Alexandria, and not the manuscripts of their creations themselves. It is likely that such a collection could be attributed to Clement alone, as the first of the Fathers quoted. In any case, the question of whether Clement of Alexandria belonged to the definition of nature as the true reality of existing things requires further study. However, as we will indicate below, this definition of nature runs throughout the entire text of the Guide. So, the reference to Clement of Alexandria at the beginning of the “Book of Definitions” cannot be an argument against the authorship of this part of the “Guide” by St. Anastasius Sinaite. 116 The third objection to the original attribution of the Book of Definitions to the “authentic work” also does not stand up to serious criticism. Indeed, when interpreting Pres. 13:1 in the eighth chapter of the Guide, the author could have referred to the scholium in the second chapter, but he was not obliged to do so. Although the course of interpretation in these two places is very different from each other, the meaning is the same: nature is understood as the true reality. 117 Turning here to the Holy Scriptures, the holy father aims not just to interpret this verse of the Book of Wisdom, but specifically to substantiate his definition of nature. Discussing in different parts of the Guide about nature, about its difference from hypostasis, about the properties of humanity in Christ and about other dogmatic issues, the Monk Anastasius often repeats the same arguments, but no less often provides more and more new evidence for one or another thesis. This is the usual style of polemic: presenting new arguments that one is right, considering the issue from different points of view. So, the difference in the interpretation of Pres. 13:1 in chapters II and VIII cannot be a serious argument against the integrity of the Guide. Regarding the fourth argument of Σάκκος, Uthemann notes that, indeed, the author of the “Guide”, in addition to the “Book of Definitions,” nowhere else refers to the etymology of words. But the origin of theological terms in the era of Christological disputes was not as important as in the era of triadological disputes. Neither the Orthodox nor the Monophysites doubted the terminology developed by the Cappadocian Fathers for triadology. There was debate about the applicability of this terminology in the field of Christology. The Monk Anastasius Sinaite includes in his work a collection of the etymology of “nature”, “essence”, “hypostasis” and other terms once - in the “Book of Definitions”, in order to draw a connecting thread with the era of the Fathers of the First and Second Ecumenical Councils. 118 Σάκκος's first argument concerning the connection of Chapter II of the Guide with the Liber de definitionibus attributed to St. Athanasius the Great, 119 and with other manuscripts of a similar type, demanded additional research from Uthemann, the results of which he placed in Ι-III Appendices. 120 “The Book of Definitions”, containing the meaning of the most important theological terms “nature”, “essence”, “person”, “hypostasis”, “will”, “action”, “property” and others, is so important that in some sense it has independent meaning. The significance of such a collection of philosophical and theological definitions for the post-Chalcedonian polemics became the reason for the fate of the “Book of Definitions”, that is, Chapter II of this treatise, “independent” from the rest of the text of the Guide. If in many manuscripts the “Book of Definitions” is an integral part of the “Guide” (manuscripts 1–29 in Uthemann’s description 121), then in others it is contained separately. Thus, 38 manuscripts (from 30 to 67) 122 are reproductions (complete or with small gaps) of the “Book of Definitions” as an independent work. Often, some manuscripts, which are in very damaged form, are attributed to St. Anastasia I of Antioch. Beginning with John the Grammar of Caesarea, who is also mentioned in the “Guide” (VI, 1, 21; 208), many apologists of the Council of Chalcedon began to compile similar collections of dogmatic-philosophical definitions, wanting to transfer the terminology developed by the Cappadocian Fathers to Christology. St. Anastasius I of Antioch wrote theological treatises, including three against the Monophysites: “On the Divine Economy, or on the Incarnation,” “On the Passion and Impassivity of Christ,” and “On the Resurrection of Christ.” Was among the unsurvived works of St. Anastasius I of Antioch, a certain collection of dogmatic definitions, on which the Monk Anastasius of Sinaite could rely when writing Chapter II of the “Guide”, or those manuscripts that are attributed to the Patriarch of Antioch, are, on the contrary, only a periphrasis of the “Book of Definitions”, incorrectly attributed to St. Anastasia I of Antioch remains a question. As for the alleged borrowing by the compiler of the “Guide” “Anastasius the Allegorist” of Chapter II from the Liber de definitionibus, attributed to St. Athanasius the Great, we note that already in Min’s patrolology this work is placed in the category of spuria (forged works). As the translator of this work into Russian, V.V. Baskakova, notes, who has no doubt that it belongs to the Monk Anastasius Sinaite or his entourage, “In a short preface to it (edition in PG. - I.A.), the publishers noted that its forgery is visible both from the reference to St. Gregory of Nyssa, and from the style and peculiarities of the use of words and expressions.” 123 The importance of Uthemann's Appendix III 124 lies in the fact that he certainly refuted Σάκκος's claims that the Liber de definitionibus attributed to St. Athanasius the Great, there is a source for the “Book of Definitions”. By examining the manuscripts, Uthemann proves that the work of pseudo-Athanasius is a significantly abbreviated periphrasis of Chapter II of the Guide. The true author of Liber de definitionibus, according to Weiss, is the Venerable Anastasius of Sinaiti himself 125 or someone from his inner circle. 126 Uthemann's editorial and research work allows us to put an end to the centuries-old dispute about the dating of the Guide. Despite Σάκκος's objections, Uthemann recognized the correctness of Richard's version, which speaks of two editions of the Guide. The bulk of the work was compiled in the first years after the Alexandrian Patriarch Cyrus (631–641). The second edition, in which corrections, additions and scholia appeared, can be dated back to the time after the VI Ecumenical Council. This is evidenced by the reference to the Armasite sect. A more precise dating of the final edition can be established based on the polemics of the author of the “Guide” with the Theodosian Patriarch of Alexandria John III (680–689), 127 reflected in Chapter XV. The scholium speaks of the letter of John five years ago (XV, 16–21; 321). From the meaning of the scholium it is clear that John was still alive, so the scholium could have been inserted between 686 and 689, and then the Guide took on its final form. The “Guide” presents various literary genres: spiritual and moral foundations for practicing theology, rules for conducting theological debates, collections of biblical and patristic quotations and the basic principles of their hermeneutics, questions and answers, aporia, dialogues (sometimes fictitious or composed of quotes), etymology of theological and philosophical concepts, summary presentation of Councils and histories of heresies, and even a satirical “sketch of tragedy” against the theopaschism of the Monophysite sect of the Damianites. It was precisely this variety of styles and the complex structure of the Guide that forced researchers to say that the Guide could be some kind of compilation of the works of various authors. But the manuscript tradition, which Uthemann examines in detail in an attempt to reconstruct the hypothetical archetype, 128 inclines him to the conclusion that this work is a collection of minor works by the same author, who tried to give some orderly appearance - in the compilation of the second edition - by adding scholia. The same logically unified work is “The Source of Knowledge” by St. John of Damascus, consisting of three relatively independent treatises - “Philosophical Chapters”, “On a Hundred Heresies” and “An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith”. So, the author of the “Guide”, even only part of it (the so-called “genuine work”), cannot be either St. Anastasius I of Antioch, neither schmch. Anastasius II of Antioch. What can we glean about the author’s personality from the text of the Guide itself? Autobiographical details are rare in the work. We draw conclusions: the author was a diphysite, a monk and presbyter in Sinai (III, 1, 9; 191. IV, 3; 195); he spent some time in Babylon (now Cairo - VI, 1, 120; 211. X.1, 2, 36; 244). The author testifies to his departures from the monastery to polemicize with heretics: he held a series of debates in Alexandria with the Monophysites (X; 241–275. XII; 276–282. XIII; 283–314), including with the monk John Zyga and Gregory Nistazon (X.2; 251–269), with Monophysite bishops in the presence of Augustal - the imperial prefect of Egypt (X.3; 270–271), with presbyter George Klyuchar (X.4; 271–272), entered into dialogue with the Jewish sophist Kollut in Antinopolis in Thebaid (XIV, 1, 37–39; 315). The author tells us that he compiled the “Guide” in the desert (X.1, 2, 197–204; 250). He also demonstrates knowledge of monothelitism (I, 2; 150–155. XIV, 2, 96–133; 319–320. XV, 4–15; 321) and Islam (I, 1, 46; 150. VII.2, 117–120; 221. X.2, 4, 1–16; 257). These autobiographical data and the date of compilation of the work allow us, following Uthemann, to identify the author of the “Guide” with the Monk Anastasius Sinaite, who owns the works described in paragraph 1.2, critical editions of which have appeared recently. 1.4. Structure of the Guide The Guide consists of 24 chapters of varying length, some chapters are divided into parts. The text of the treatise itself is preceded by the author's Table of Contents. The first three chapters of the “Guide” (According to the author’s Table of Contents, with the titles: “1. A brief preliminary reflection that must be given so that anyone who wishes to correctly express faith in God. 2. Dogmatic definitions according to Church Tradition. 3. Introduction before the sections”) are a general methodological introduction for the entire book, explaining the logical rules and foundations of the study of Christology and theological polemics with heretics, in particular with the Monophysites. The first part of the first chapter (70 lines in the critical edition of K.-N. Uthemann 129) explains to the Orthodox “hard worker” (φιλόπονος – I, 1, 2; 148) the spiritual foundations and general methods of conducting theological debates. In the second part of Chapter I (144 lines) - “A Brief Statement of Faith” (Ἔκθεσις ἐν ἐπιτομῇ - I, 2, 1; 148), St. Anastasius formulates the Orthodox teaching about two natures, about two natural wills (δύο φυσικὰ θελήματα – I, 2, 17; 151) and two natural actions (δύο φυσικαὶ ἐνέργειαι – I, 2, 17; 151) as about two natural properties (δύο φυσικαὶ ἰδιότητες – I, 2, 7; 151) in Christ. The third part of Chapter I (89 lines) is a preface to one of the most important parts of the “Guide” - the “Book of Definitions”, and shows the need for a clear and unambiguous definition of basic theological concepts to reveal the church faith. Chapter II (886 lines) is precisely the “Book of Definitions.” This part of the work of the Monk Anastasius contains definitions of basic theological concepts (nature, person, will, action, property, connection, corruption and others). Some of these concepts are explained in great detail, while for others only definitions are given. In the first part of Chapter III (92 lines), which is the end of the general methodological introduction for the entire book, the Monk Anastasius formulates spiritual and moral requirements for the Orthodox exegete. In the second part of this chapter (32 lines), Sinait speaks of fundamentals that can be equally acceptable to both sides of Orthodox-Monophysite disputes. The Reverend Father lists the Nestorian errors that the Orthodox must anathematize before starting a polemic, and gives a list of selected Holy Fathers, equally revered by both the Orthodox and their Monophysite opponents. Chapter IV (145 lines, according to the Table of Contents - “A summary of the origins of heresies up to Nestorius and Sevirus”), which contains “Anastasius, the most humble presbyter of the holy Mount Sinai, a message about faith in the Economy of Christ the Son of God to the Holy Catholic Church in Babylon” 130 (IV, 3-6; 195), describes the history of the fall of Satan and his role in the seduction of man into the fall, in the murder of Abel by Cain, in the emergence of idolatry, in the invention of heresies from the heresy of Simon the Magus to Nestorianism, equally condemned by both Orthodox and Monophysites. Chapter V (81 lines, according to the Table of Contents - “On the Holy Councils”) is a brief summary of the history of the Ecumenical Councils (up to V) with a description of the heresies anathematized by them. Talking about the emergence of Monophysitism, the author of the Guide briefly mentions the Council of 448 in Constantinople under St. The Flavians, who condemned Eutyches, and the Second Ephesian “Robbery” Council, which deposed St. Flavian. At the same time, the Monk Anastasius testifies that St. Flavian died from blows received from participants in the “robber” council (V, 56–57; 207). Chapter VI, entitled in the author’s table of contents “Where does the teaching of Eutyches and Sevirus come from” (200 lines), sets out the history of the emergence and development of Monophysitism up to its Sevirian version, and in the second part of the chapter, the Monk Anastasius points to the Aristotelian origins of this heresy, as well as Arianism, the heresies of Sabellius and Paul of Samosata. In Chapter VII, “Proof that Severus rejected the Holy Fathers and legitimized that their quotations were abolished” (258 lines), the Monk Anastasius ridicules and refutes Severus, who claims that after the condemnation of Nestorianism, the Diphysite expressions of the Holy Fathers became “useless, unsuitable and blasphemous” (ἄπρακτοι καὶ ἀργαὶ καὶ βλάσφημοι – VII, 1, 107) and that Christological dogmas should be changed in general. In Chapter VIII, “Proof from the Old and New Testaments and from Moses and Solomon himself, that nature and person are not the same thing” (line 381), the reverend father provides numerous evidence from the Holy Scriptures that “nature” (φύσις) and “person” (πρόσωπον) are not identical concepts. Continuing the theme, chapter IX, “Also excerpts from the Holy Council of Nicaea, that nature, or essence, and hypostasis are not the same thing, as Severus believes,” shows the difference between the concepts of “nature” and “hypostasis” (ὑπόστασις), based on the Nicene Creed (first part - 120 lines) and the patristic tradition (second part of the chapter - 95 lines). The first four parts of Chapter X (according to the Table of Contents - “Exposition of four conversations that we held in Alexandria with the Theodosians and Guyanites, in which we exposed them that if nature and hypostasis are one and the same thing, then they define all the holy fathers as Nestorians, and Saint Cyril himself. It also talks about the “One nature of God the Word incarnate””) provides a record of four debates that took place between the Monk Anastasius and Monophysites in Alexandria (X.1 – 286 lines, X.2 – 600 lines, X.3 – 62 lines, X.4 – 49 lines). The fifth part of Chapter X (69 lines) interprets the expression of St. Cyril of Alexandria “one incarnate nature of God the Word” (μία φύσις τοῦ Θεοῦ Λόγου σεσαρκωμένη). Chapter XI “Note on the expression calling nature hypostasis. Where is it from? (46 lines) interprets those expressions of St. Kirill, where he calls natures hypostases. Chapter XII “On the saving passion of Christ and the “Holy, Immortal Crucified...”” (224 lines) is devoted to polemics with the Monophysite understanding of theopaschism (Θεός - God, πάσχω - I suffer). Using the example of the insertion of “crucified for us” (ὁ σταυρωθεὶς ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν) into the Trisagion by the Monophysites, the Monk Anastasius accuses his opponents of assimilating the Divine nature of Christ’s suffering, crucifixion and death. In polemics against the theopaschism of heretics, the holy father formulates the doctrine of the communion of the properties of the Divine and human natures of Christ. In the XIII “Joint discussion of the quotations of the fathers that the Sevirians give us against the Council of Chalcedon, and a pious refutation of them” (1117 lines) and XIV “Ammonius of Alexandria against the Monophysites” (212 lines) chapters, the Monk Anastasius leads an extensive polemic against the heresy of the Aphthartodocetes (ἀφθαρτοδοκῆται 131). In the XV “Another chapter against their new festive [message]” (96 lines), XVI “On the words in Christ dwells all the fullness of the Divinity, 132 pious interpretation” (52 lines) and XVII “Proof that the Father or the Holy Spirit was not incarnate with the Son” (59 lines) chapters, the author of the “Guide” polemicizes with Damianism. This heresy actually repeats the heresy of Sabellius within Monophysitism, which merges the Three Hypostases of the Trinity into one. As a result of this, the Damianites taught that all properties confessed in the One Christ of the Holy Trinity should be equally assimilated to both the Father and the Holy Spirit. Sinaite shows that not only the Christology, but also the triadology of the Monophysites is heretical. St. Anastasius Orthodoxy explains how the incarnation of the Word is combined with the immutability of the Divine nature. Chapters XVIII “Against the Misunderstanding of the Anthropological Image for Christ” (66 lines) and XIX “The Chapter of the Wicked Paulianist” (45 lines) address the problem of the use of the so-called “anthropological paradigm” in Christology. In the XX chapter “Basic conclusions against the insane Sevirians” (94 lines), the reverend father, in the form of brief aporia questions directed to the Monophysites, refutes their assertion that after the union of Divinity and humanity in Christ, one can speak of only one nature in Him. Chapter XXI “Another short chapter in which is proof that dogmas cannot be reversed” (201 lines) summarizes the argumentation of chapters VI–X, testifying that the Holy Fathers who lived both during the time of Nestorius and before him piously (since they professed union by hypostasis) used diphysite expressions, despite the fact that such heretics as Artemon, Origen, Paul Samosata, Theodore of Mopsuestia and Diodorus of Tarsus, basing their teaching on the separation of natures and persons in Christ, actively used the language of “two natures” in Christology. For better persuasiveness, the Monk Anastasius shows the unanimity of Nestorius to Paul of Samosata by parallel quotation. At the end of the chapter, Sinait briefly formulates the Orthodox confession of the two perfect natures of Christ: pure Divinity and sinless humanity, inseparably hypostatically united. In Chapter XXII “Recording the main aporia to us from non-believers. And the chapter of Andrew the Nestorian” (328 lines) of his work, the Monk Anastasius discusses the problems of interpretation of Holy Scripture and the Holy Fathers that arose during the debates with the Monophysites. In the first and second parts of Chapter XXIII, “A Concise Exposition Against the Guyanites” (251 lines), Sinait returns to the polemic with the Aphthartodocetes, including a record of the theological debate that took place in Alexandria. In the scholium ending Chapter XXIII, the Monk Anastasius returns to the polemic with the Monophysites, which is reflected in the fifth part of Chapters X and XI, regarding Cyril’s expression “one incarnate nature of God the Word.” In the last, XXIV chapter (140 lines, according to the Table of Contents - “Denial from Saint Dionysius, saying that “The Father or the Holy Spirit did not participate in any way in the Incarnation of the Word, except through good will.” This is regarding Sevier’s phrase that the Father and the Holy Spirit became incarnate with the Son”) the reverend father again returns to the topic covered in chapters XV-XVII. With the help of the words of Dionysius the Areopagite from the chapter “On United and Separate Theology” of the work “On the Divine Names” and the comments to it by St. Maximus the Confessor, Sinait reveals the Orthodox teaching about the influence of the Incarnation of God the Word on intra-Trinitarian relationships. At the conclusion of the chapter and the entire work (XXIV, 93–140; 359), the author asks readers to forgive him for possible errors - “after all, only God is infallible” (XXIV, 133–134; 359) - and again refers to the authority of the fathers of the I and II Ecumenical Councils, who approved the difference between the concepts of “nature” and “hypostasis”, and also warns against changes and insertions that may be introduced into his work during rewriting and may distort the dogmatic meaning of the Guide. So, although the structure of the Guide is quite complex, it cannot be denied that it is well thought out. The first three chapters formulate the philosophical and theological apparatus and the spiritual and moral foundations of Christological theology, as well as anti-heretical polemics. In the following chapters, the terminology is abundantly illustrated with references to Holy Scripture and Patristic Tradition. A historical description of the emergence of heresies up to Nestorianism and Monophysitism in all its diversity is given, their philosophical and theological roots are indicated. The expressions of the Holy Fathers, on the basis of which the Monophysites formulated their Christology, are examined in detail, and their Orthodox interpretation is given. The main part of the work contains a polemic with all the main movements of Monophysitism, during which their arguments are examined in detail and refuted. Most of this polemic is a description of the actual debates between the Monk Anastasius and the Monophysite theologians. II. Christological terminology of St. Anastasius Sinaite 2.1. Fundamentals of polemics with the Monophysites Already in Chapter I of the “Guide”, in its first part, called by the author “A brief preparation that clarifies for the hard worker what should first be studied and known” (I, 1, 1–3; 148), the Monk Anastasius Sinaite formulates the foundations of polemics with the Monophysites and thereby defines the task of all his work: to give the Orthodox a methodological theological and philosophical apparatus, to formulate the spiritual and moral foundations for knowledge of faith and for polemics with heretics, to convey to the Orthodox their experience of the anti-Monophysite struggle. But the basis of preparation for such polemics is not only and not so much knowledge of the fundamentals of philosophy, book theology and polemical methods, but the need to “first live holy and have the indwelling Spirit of God within you” (I, 1, 4–5; 148), because the cause of heresies is the passion of vanity, love of money, people-pleasing and arrogance (III, 1, 56–79; 193). In these words, the author briefly formulated the patristic teaching about the stages of knowledge of God, most fully presented in the works of St. Gregory of Nyssa “On the Life of Moses the Lawgiver” and “An Accurate Explanation of the Song of Solomon.” In words about the knowledge of Orthodox dogmas not with the intellect, but with the soul or heart (in St. Anastasius, literally “with the chest” - ἐκ στήθους - I, 1, 7; 148), the author of the “Guide” briefly refers to the role of the heart as an “epistemological principle”, which was especially emphasized by church writers of the ascetic direction, 133 and also speaks about the role of dogmas in the knowledge of God and spiritual life, prophetically rejecting adogmatism. 134 The very title of the work, which the Monk Anastasius gives and explains in the third part of Chapter I, “Ὁδηγός” (“Guide”), is taken from the words of the Savior: When He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide (ὁδηγήσει) you into all truth (John 16:13). The author explains to his readers who want to resist many forms of Monophysitism, especially in Alexandria (I, 3, 29; 156), that neither the teaching of the Holy Scriptures and the Holy Fathers, nor the knowledge of philosophical and theological definitions and polemical methods will help them in the least either in the fight against the Monophysites, or in spiritual life, if the Holy Spirit does not dwell in them as a guide (ὁδηγός). The theological basis for interviews with opponents can only be a basis that is an indisputable authority for both sides. This is, first of all, Holy Scripture. St. Anastasius briefly formulates the foundations of biblical exegesis. First, the study of the Holy Scriptures must be done “with fear” and “in simplicity of heart” (I, 1, 13–14; 149). Secondly, one should not examine what is passed over in silence in Scripture (I, 1, 15-17; 149). True, right there in the scholia of Sinait it is stipulated that “the Church also accepted some traditions in unwritten form” (I, 1, 22–24; 149). Finally, among the statements (both of Scripture and the Holy Fathers) one should distinguish between “words that are said definitely, and at other times somehow in between, and again imprecisely and innocently” (I, 1, 18–20; 149). For example, the words of the Psalmist, every man is a lie (Ps. 116:2) speak about the moral fall of man, and not about the original sinfulness of human nature, which is why, allegedly, according to the Aphthartodocetes, the sinless Christ cannot have the properties of human nature. Calling here on the Orthodox to study Scripture “with fear” and “in simplicity of heart,” the Monk Anastasius further accuses the heretics of doing this “with evil intent” (κακούργως – I, 1, 14; 149). Thus, Sinait testifies that Sevier uses in his polemics with the defender of the Council of Chalcedon, John the Grammar of Caesarea (early 6th century) 135 the translation of the Old Testament made for the Jews by Aquila, who removed from it many so-called “messianic” passages 136 (VI, 1, 31-36; 208-209. VI, 1, 81–85; 210), and generally misinterprets the entire Holy Scripture, imitating Arius’s heretical interpretation of the words of John the Theologian. In the beginning was the Word (John 1:1) (XXII, 1, 3–23; 340. XXII, 2; 340–343). We examined examples of the interpretation of Holy Scripture by the Monk Anastasius himself in our diploma work, 137 dedicated to “Three Words about the creation of man in the image and likeness of God.” In addition to Scripture, the generally accepted basis for theological dispute with the Monophysites are the works of the Holy Fathers who lived before the Council of Chalcedon (I, 1, 53–56; 150). The goal of the Orthodox is to refute the main argument of the Monophysites, which is that the religious definition of this Council contradicts the previous patristic tradition. At the end of the third chapter of the Guide, St. Anastasius gives the names of those Holy Fathers whose works constitute this pre-Chalcedonian tradition (III, 2, 18-32; 194-195), and to whose opinions Sinait refers throughout the entire text of the Guide. This does not mean that the reverend father is limited to the ancient Fathers. He actively uses the achievements of post-Chalcedonian Orthodox theology: the already mentioned John the Grammar of Caesarea, Leontius of Byzantium, and St. Maximus the Confessor. So that the very name of these defenders of Orthodox teaching does not provoke the Monophysites to immediately reject their argumentation, the Monk Anastasius cites their terminology and theological arguments without reference to authorship. The Monk Anastasius says that before starting a debate it is necessary to anathematize the heresies and errors falsely attributed by the Monophysites to the Orthodox, and above all Nestorianism (I, 1, 44–52; 150. III, 2; 194–195). The need to anathematize Nestorianism before communicating with the Monophysites arises from the fact that the latter accused the Orthodox followers of the Council of Chalcedon of Nestorianism. Indeed, the history of the Church testifies that the structure of this Council was also interpreted in the Nestorian sense, as if it spoke of a certain new hypostasis of Christ, which included the Hypostasis of God the Word and the human hypostasis. The Monk Anastasius speaks about the danger of Nestorianism and the Nestorian understanding of the Council of Chalcedon without sparing his emotions: It was then, not having the strength to fight against the Divine nature, he (the devil - I. A.) turned his troops against the flesh of Christ, after the Arian chorus, digging up the Charybdis of division, separating the flesh of Christ from the Divinity by cutting the one Christ in two. The founders of this division were Theodore of Antioch and Diodorus of Tarsus. From them, like some kind of hellebore root, sprang the Chaldean pig - the Assyrian Nestorius, who to this day emits his [heretic] impurities through his followers. Expelled from Constantinople into exile in Mesopotamia, he continued there to spread poison and impurity [of his heresy], so that, spilled from this destructive [source], they desecrated almost the entire East. We have compiled a book against him, pillorying his cunning and cunning, and we are sending hardworking brothers there. And yet we must admit that today there is nothing more harmful than the heresy of Nestorius, and reveal its poison. For often, for the sake of shameful self-interest and glory, they hypocritically call Christ God and the Holy Virgin the Mother of God, they anathematize Nestorius and reject the expression “two persons in Christ.” At the same time, whoever wants to expose their deceit, let him remind them of the Council of Blessed Cyril against Nestorius: do they accept it with all their hearts, because everything is clearly said there. This is the case with Nestorius, the Judaizing wicked and the Chaldean Assyrian pig. After all, the Holy Church rejects him because of the division of natures in Christ, just like Sevira with his [followers] because of the fusion of natures (IV, 114-145; 200-203). Before the interview, it is also necessary to clearly define the most important theological concepts on the basis of Tradition and Scripture, and not philosophy (I, 3; 155-158). The author of the Guide solves this problem in Chapter II of his work, the so-called “Book of Definitions.” Next, the Monk Anastasius lists the methods of conducting theological disputes. These methods were tested by Sinaite in numerous Orthodox-Monophysite discussions, some of which are described and reproduced verbatim in the Guide. Firstly, when starting a debate with heterodox opponents, it is necessary to carefully study their writings and way of thinking. The Monk Anastasius himself calls for “to know with accuracy the wisdom of our opponents and to immerse ourselves in their writings, since we can often, based on them, put them to shame” (I, 1, 8–10; 148), for “it will not hurt to have knowledge from the [works] of these heretics, [written to other] heretics, and, in conformity with them, knock out the wedge of the wicked with a wedge” (XIX, 43–45; 331). Sinaite, thus, often reduces their arguments to the old heresies - Manichaeism, Docetism, Sabellianism and Apollinarianism, the condemnation of which even the Monophysites did not deny. Often the Sinaite cites the arguments of the Nestorians and Jews in order to refute the teachings of the Monophysites, not shying away from using the weapons of some heretics against others. Secondly, an Orthodox polemicist should know the history of the Church and the chronology of the emergence of heresies (I, 1, 34–36; 149). For this purpose, the author of the Guide places in chapters IV–VI the history of the emergence of heresies and the history of the Church’s struggle against them. Knowledge of the historical context allows the Monk Anastasius himself to refute Sevier’s assertion that after the emergence of Nestorianism it is necessary to reject Diphysite expressions as inaccurate, even if they belong to the Holy Fathers. 138 Thirdly, the Monk Anastasius calls for meeting for conversations only with knowledgeable heretics, so that they and the people listening to the debate, after the victory of the Orthodox side, could not justify themselves by the fact that their other representatives, more competent in theology, would find stronger arguments in defense of their teaching. At the same time, opponents should have a need to know our faith (I, 1, 11–12; 149), and not an empty desire to prove that they are right at any cost. To do this, “before the interview, it is necessary to demand an oath from the opponent that he does not violate his conscience in a single word he utters” (I, 1, 41–43; 150), and not allow the opponent, in case of difficulty, to change the topic of conversation (I, 1, 38–40; 149). Finally, the Monk Anastasius calls on Orthodox polemicists not to shy away from some cunning. We see examples of such “Greek” cunning in the disputes between the Monk Anastasius and the Monophysites described in Chapter X of the Guide. Thus, during the first debate (X.1; 241–250), the Monk Anastasius, allegedly under the pressure of Monophysite arguments, pretended to make a concession to them and signed a compromise definition with them that wherever there is nature, there is also a person, “for there is no impersonal nature” (X.1, 1, 36; 242). In fact, Sinaite did this not for the sake of economy for the unification of churches, but acting in accordance with the words of the prophet with the evil one - according to his wickedness (Ps. 17:27) and “with a certain pretense and pious wickedness” (X. 1, 1, 26-27; 242). The Reverend Father then cited numerous Diphysite quotations from the pre-Chalcedonian Holy Fathers, including St. Irenaeus of Lyons, Athanasius the Great, Gregory the Theologian, Gregory of Nyssa, Amphilochius of Iconia, Ambrose of Milan, John Chrysostom, Proclus of Constantinople, Ephraim of Antioch, St. Isidore Pelusiot and St. Cyril of Alexandria (X.1, 2; 243–250). After this, a scandalous situation arose among the Monophysites - the leaders “went mute, fell silent, covered their mouths, became confused, frightened, embarrassed” (X. 1, 3, 7–8; 250), and the common people from the Monophysite churches shouted and made noise, indignant that their leaders accused such respected Holy Fathers - including St. himself. Cyril - in Nestorianism. The crowd itself, without the participation of its shamed and silent leaders, but not willing to repent, began to shout that the definition of the Council of Chalcedon about the two perfect natures of Christ, united by hypostasis, is completely correct and corresponds to the teaching of the Holy Fathers (X.1, 3; 250). During the second debate (X.2; 251-269), the Monk Anastasius proposed to his Monophysite opponents - monk John nicknamed Ziga 139 and Gregory nicknamed Nistazon 140 - a definition of faith compiled by Sinaite from quotes from the same pre-Chalcedonian Holy Fathers, but presented by him as the “dogmatic tomos of Flavian the bishop of Constantinople, which was written to Pope Leo about the Incarnation of Christ our true God” (X.2, 7, 80–82; 265). The leaders of the Monophysites immediately rejected this definition of faith, not so much because of the content itself, but because of the names of the hated fighter against Eutyches and Dioscorus, St. Flavian and St. Leo, whose Tomos formed the basis of the Chalcedonian oros. After this, the situation of the first dispute was repeated. When it turned out that John and Gregory anathematized not Flavian, but the Holy Fathers - including St. Cyril of Alexandria, whose quotes were included in the definition of religion compiled by Sinaite, then “a simple citizen stood up from the last place, covering them with shame and threatening to stone them” (X.2, 7, 170–171; 268). Thus, this interview also ended in “national triumph” (X.2, 7, 172; 268) of the Monk Anastasius and “national shame” (X.2, 7, 173; 268) of the Monophysites - opponents of Sinaite. During the third debate, which took place in the presence of the representative of state power Augustal, 141 in which some bishops also participated on the part of the Monophysites this time, the Monk Anastasius once again deceived his opponents. “Wanting to discover and make public the poison hidden in their hearts and in their entire church” (X.3, 32–34; 270), he wrote on papyrus: “I, Anastasia the monk of the holy Mount Sinai, confess that God the Word Himself, born of God the Father before all ages, Himself was crucified, was beaten, suffered and was resurrected” (X.3, 36–40; 270). Having given this papyrus to the Monophysites and seeing their approval of what was written, Sinait promised to serve with them as soon as they signed this confession. Imagine their confusion when the Monk Anastasius declared to them: “Christ suffered for us in the flesh (1 Pet. 4:1), theopaschyta, and not in the Divine; He suffered in the flesh, as the Apostle Peter theologizes, and not in the Divine, as Sevier blasphemes and as you have now signed. For, wishing to expose all the slander in your soul, I wrote, indicating in papyrus the naked Divinity of God the Word, without remembering either the flesh, or the incarnation, or the Nativity of the Holy Virgin” (X.3, 50–57; 271). Sinaite kept the papyrus with the signatures of the Monophysites under a dubious confession, and promised to testify with its help against the heretics at the Last Judgment. For a modern person, such methods of “pious cunning” (X.1, 1, 27; 242) of fighting opponents seem to be very dubious deceptions, forgeries and provocations. However, the Monk Anastasius understood from his own experience that almost nothing could force the leaders of heretics to renounce their false beliefs, while ordinary people, seeing the wrongness of their leaders, are capable of repentance and union with the Orthodox Church. Such “pious tricks” include the use of arguments of some heretics and even opponents of Christianity against other heretics, “for you can destroy enemies with the help of enemy weapons” (XIV, 1, 70–72; 316). Thus, he uses against the Monophysites the arguments of the Nestorian Maron of Edessa, who argued with the Sinaite (XIII, 10, 101–111; 314). Similarly, the Monk Anastasius directs against the Monophysites the argument of a certain Jew Collutus, which he used against Sinaite himself in a conversation in Antinopolis (XIV, 1, 37-67; 315-316). The Holy Father cites two Nestorian quotations, indicating that these two opposing heresies converge in the understanding of the terms “nature” and “hypostasis” (XXII, 4, 18-69; 346-347. XXII, 5, 2-25; 348-349). And with the help of the arguments of the Jew Philo of Alexandria (XIII, 10, 23–79; 311–312) 142 and the Neoplatonist Porphyry (XIII, 8, 14–22; 304), 143 who tried to prove that Christ is not God, the Monk Anastasius, in polemics with the Aphthartodocetes, proves the corruption of the flesh of Christ until His Resurrection. 2.2. Collections of theological and philosophical definitions Chapter II of the Guide, which the editor of the modern edition Karl-Heinz Uthemann called Definitionensammlung 144 (“Book of Definitions”), is a set of philosophical definitions with a theological commentary. Before discussing and arguing with heretics about the sacrament of the House of God, the Monk Anastasius suggests defining the basic theological concepts, for “he who begins to present dogmatic questions without knowing the definitions is likened to a blind man...” (II, 1, 22-24; 159). The history of dogmatic disputes is rich in examples illustrating how the same terms, the same dogmatic formulas can be understood in different ways. The clearest example is long-term triadological disputes, in which the philological component occupied an important part: disputes about the term consubstantial (ὁμοούσιος), adopted at the First Ecumenical Council, but previously compromised by the heresiarch Paul of Samosata and condemned by the Antioch Council in 268, different understandings of the meaning of the terms essence (οὐσία), hypostasis (ὑπόστασις) and face (πρόσωπον). It was only thanks to the great Cappadocian Fathers that the Church received a clear and generally accepted understanding of these definitions. In the era of Christological disputes, the situation was largely repeated. Even then there was no unambiguous understanding of these and other fundamental theological terms in their Christological application. This was especially evident in connection with the interpretation of the legacy of the indisputable church authority of St. recognized by both Orthodox and Monophysites. Cyril of Alexandria, who allowed some terminological inaccuracy in his works. Many theologians—both Orthodox and their opponents—realized that traditional terminology did not allow the Christological teaching to be presented with sufficient depth and accuracy. Therefore, there was a growing need to streamline theological language. The Egyptian monk Nephalius with his “Apology” was, apparently, the first who tried to combine in a dialectical synthesis the Diphysite Christology of Chalcedon and the theological language of the “single nature” of St. Cyril of Alexandria. 145 “Apology” Nephaly has not survived, but some idea of ​​it is given by fragments preserved in two polemical “Words to Nephaly” by Sevirus of Antioch. 146 At the beginning of the 6th century, a lengthy “Apology” appeared in the East, written by Presbyter John the Grammar of Caesarea, which also has not survived, but can be partially reconstructed based on the answer to it by the same Sevier. 147 John the Grammar, who, following the monk Nephalius, sought to defend the Chalcedonian doctrine of two natures in Christ, undertook serious work to clarify theological concepts and streamline Christological terminology. His main merit was the proposal to use in Christology the language developed by the great Cappadocians for triadology. The Monk Anastasius Sinaite testifies in the “Guide” that - besides Nephalius and John the Grammar of Caesarea - there were others, not named by him, supporters of the Council of Chalcedon, who compiled their own collections of philosophical and theological definitions applicable to Christology (VI, 1, 21-23; 208). For example, another such work was “Preparations” by presbyter Theodore of Raifa, 148 written in 580–620. 149 Sevier of Antioch responded to John the Grammar with his fundamental work “Against the Impious Grammar,” in which he formulated his Christological terminology. 150 This dogmatic work became in the eyes of the Monophysites a kind of “theological sum”, according to which many subsequent generations of Sevier’s followers studied theology. 151 So, both Orthodox and non-Orthodox authors, starting from the 6th century, began to preface their theological treatises with collections of basic terms and concepts. Subsequently, on the same principle, the Monk John of Damascus built his work “The Source of Knowledge,” beginning with “Philosophical Chapters.” In this he was not original. One of his predecessors, who preceded the exposition of church doctrine with philosophical and logical introductions, was the Monk Anastasius of Sinaite. The importance of such a collection of philosophical and theological definitions is also confirmed by the fact that the “Book of Definitions” - that is, the second chapter of the “Guide” - as we said above, has in a sense a fate “independent” from the rest of the text of the “Guide”. 152 2.3. Method for constructing definitions Starting to discuss basic theological concepts, the author of the Guide formulates a method that is also accepted in modern theological (and not only theological) dictionaries: 153 first give a definition of the term, then its etymology and, finally, with the help of examples, explain how this term must be understood and how it relates to other concepts. Every serious subject or question of inquiry involves some three tests and questions that we ask the opponents, such as “What is God?”, “Why is He called God?” and “In how many ways can the concept “God” be thought of?” And when we ask: “What is God?”, it is clear that we are looking for the definition of a thing; when we ask “Why is He called God?” – we require the etymology of the name; and when we say: “In how many ways can the concept “God” be thought of?” – we demand from our opponents an answer to the question of how many ways we can talk about God. (II, 1, 8–18; 158). The Monk Anastasius will strictly adhere to this methodology, formulating in the “Book of Definitions” all the most important philosophical and theological concepts, and even those completely far from theology. Before giving definitions to certain concepts, Sinait defines the very concept of “definition”, that is, it formulates a requirement for the definition of a particular thing. As an example, St. Anastasius uses the definition of the concept “person”: A definition is a short statement that reveals the underlying essence in a thing οὐσίας τῷ πράγματι). They are called definitions, 154 because they are like eyes, 155 the eyes of things and, as it were, determine, 156 that is, they briefly close the power of thought. For example, instead of saying: “Man is an entity made of flesh, soul, mind, blood, elements and much more,” we give the following definition: “Man is a living, rational, mortal being who can accommodate intelligence and knowledge.” 157 δεκτικόν) (II, 1, 27–36; 159). This definition of definition goes back to the formula given by Aristotle in his “Topic”: “Definition is speech denoting the essence of being [a thing].” 158 The Neoplatonist Porphyry also says that a definition should reveal the essence of a thing in his “Introduction to Aristotle’s Categories”: “... a defining statement and a statement expressing the essence, which is a definition.” 159 St. John of Damascus repeats the thought of St. Anastasius of Sinaite, while literally reproducing the definition of a person: “A definition is a short statement expressing the nature of the subject thing, that is, a statement denoting this nature in a few words. 160 For example, man is a mortal and intelligent living being who can accommodate intelligence and knowledge.” 161 Thus, the person who tries to define this or that thing is faced with the task of indicating in a few words the essence of this thing. In agreement with the general church teaching on the knowledge of God, developed by the great Cappadocians in polemics with Eunomius, the Monk Anastasius asserts that God is unknowable in essence and therefore cannot be defined (II, 1, 52–59; 160). God Himself, as the Creator of everything, is the “Definition of definitions (Ὅρος τῶν ὅρων)”, He “defines everything,” that is, only He fully knows the essence of each thing, and He Himself “is not determined by anything” (II, 1, 47–48; 160). Difficult to know and therefore difficult to define are the essences of immaterial creatures: angels, souls and demons (II, 1, 59–60; 160). 2.4. Various sayings No theology is possible without the use of judgments, which St. Anastasius, following Aristotle, who formulated the doctrine of judgments in the treatise “On Interpretation,” 162 divides into the following types: affirmations and denials. Affirmation (κατάφασις) is a positive judgment about something; each such statement is opposed by its negation (ἀπόφασις): “A statement is an opinion or judgment expressed about something; for example, when we say: “a river begins” or “a ruler enters.” Denial is a refutation of an affirmation; for example, “the river does not begin” or “the ruler does not enter”” (II, 7, 73–77; 182). The Monk John of Damascus in his “Philosophical Chapters” (chapter LXIV) 163, following the Monk Anastasius, reproduces Aristotle’s teaching about two opposing types of judgment. In theology one often has to deal with the use of words in the improper sense of the word (κατάχρησις). The Holy Scriptures, which are characterized by figurative language, far from the terminological precision and certainty necessary for philosophical treatises, are especially replete with such statements. Using images from Holy Scripture as precise theological definitions can often lead to heretical errors. Therefore, the Monk Anastasius introduces another type of judgment - inaccurate statements (καταχρηστικόν): “An expression in the improper sense is everything said by someone not as a definition, but out of simplicity and good-naturedly; it cannot be elevated to a law or a definition. For example, “then they spat in the face of Christ” 164 - on the basis of such a statement we cannot call the holy body of Christ a “special person,” but a nature” (II, 7, 81–86; 182). Here the word face (τὸ πρόσωπον) was used by the Evangelist Matthew in the usual understanding - the front part of the head, and not in the actual theological understanding as a synonym for hypostasis, that is, what Aristotle calls the first (private) essence. 165 Identifying the word “person” in this place with the term “hypostasis” would mean Nestorianism, that is, the presence of two hypostases in Christ: human, subject to spitting, and Divine, not subject to either spitting or any other human influence. 2.5. Nature as true reality The most important concept in Christology, nature, nature (φύσις), is defined by the Monk Anastasius Sinaite as follows: ? τούτων ἐνούσιον. (The Church calls nature the reality of existing things, that is, their actualization) (II, 3, 9–10; 163). Defining nature in this way, the Monk Anastasius - as he himself testifies in the title of Chapter II (II, 1, 3; 158) - almost literally repeats the definition of Clement of Alexandria: ἀλήθεια ἢ τούτων ἐνούσιον. 166 Usually the attribution of this fragment to Clement of Alexandria is questioned, but the testimony of the Monk Anastasius may be an additional argument in favor of its authenticity. Answering the question “Why is it called nature?” (II, 3, 1–2; 162), the reverend father reveals the etymology of the word φύσις: “Φύσις δὲ εἴρηται διὰ τὸ πεφυκέναι καὶ εἶναι. (It is called nature because it happened and exists)” (II, 3, 10–11; 163). And here the Monk Anastasius follows Clement of Alexandria, who derives the word φύσις from the perfect πεφυκέναι of the verb φύω - to be born, to grow: Φύσις λέγεται παρὰ τὸ πεφυκέναι. 167 Other church writers also speak about this origin of the word φύσις, for example Leontius of Byzantium 168 and the Monk John of Damascus. 169 In other chapters of the Guide, the definition of nature as the true reality of things (ἡ τῶν πραγμάτων ἀλήθεια) is repeated repeatedly and often verbatim. 170 Such terminological constancy, despite the outwardly seemingly compilative nature of the Guide, testifies to its internal unity, which presupposes a single author. In the great scholium located immediately in Chapter II (II, 3, 18–49; 163–164) and in Chapter VIII, the Monk Anastasius confirms his definition with numerous references to the authority of Holy Scripture. To illustrate the thoughts of the author of the Guide, we will cite only three biblical quotations from those on which he relies: And we were once by nature (φύσει) children of wrath (Eph. 2:3) (II, 3, 26; 163. VIII, 5, 23–24; 232); And uncircumcised by nature (ἐκ φύσεως), fulfilling the law (Rom. 2:27) (VIII, 2, 45–46; 225); All people who have no knowledge of God are truly vain by nature (φύσει) (Wis. 13:1) (II, 3, 23–24; 163. VIII, 2, 7–8; 224). St. Anastasius understands expressions from the Holy Scriptures “by nature” (φύσει, ἐκ φύσεως or φυσικῶς) according to the Alexandrian tradition as “in truth,” “naturally,” “naturally,” “really,” “undoubtedly”: “What are [the children of] wrath by nature, if not [children] of wrath truly (ἐν ἀληθείᾳ)?” (VIII, 5, 24–25; 232), - St. Anastasius comments on the words of the Apostle Paul from the Epistle to the Ephesians. On this interpretation of the words of Holy Scripture, Sinaiti bases the understanding of nature as a real existence: “According to the Divine Apostle, nature is everything that truly exists (τὸ ἐν ἀληθείᾳ ὄν), and not what is expressed as a figment of the imagination (ἐν φαντασίᾳ λεγόμενον)" (II, 3, 6–8; 163). This understanding of the word "nature" is rooted in the local Alexandrian dialect of Greek: Moreover, the common use among the Egyptians and Alexandrians of the word “naturally” (φυσικά) means precisely the truth of things; therefore, one to another in a conversation for confirmation says: “Naturally (φυσικά) I tell you,” that is, truly (ἀληθινά) (VIII, 5, 40–44; 232–233). And relying precisely on this understanding of nature as a truly existing reality, the Monk Anastasius bases his accusations against the Sevirians in docetism. Because, recognizing in Christ there is only one - Divine - nature, they give His humanity only the role of a “figment of the imagination”. 2.6. Nature and essence. Nature and hypostasis The definition of nature as a truly existing reality could give rise to identify this concept with the term hypostasis, that is, with a specific existing thing. But the Monk Anastasius, actively using for his own purposes the philosophical apparatus developed by Aristotle, separates these two concepts. The most important thought of the Sinaite is the identification of the concepts of nature (φύσις) and essence (οὐσία): “To designate nature, four concepts are used: “essence”, “nature”, “genus” (γένος) and “species” (μορφή)” (II, 3, 16–17; 163). It was Aristotle, criticizing Plato’s teaching about ideas as original essences, separated from the world of sensory things, who thought of the essences of things not in abstraction from reality, but as concepts realized in reality itself. 171 Therefore, defining nature as the true reality of existing things, the Monk Anastasius, indirectly through Clement of Alexandria, who is well acquainted with the heritage of ancient philosophers, is based precisely on Aristotle. In addition, by identifying nature and essence, the reverend father transfers to the concept of “nature” the understanding of the “general” as opposed to the “particular”, which is defined by the concept of “hypostasis” (ὑπόστασις): “According to the Holy Fathers, a person or hypostasis is special (τὸ ἰδικόν) in comparison with the general (τὸ κοινόν), for nature is common to every thing, and hypostases are special” (II, 3, 58–61; 164). In his Categories, Aristotle defined the difference between the first and second, or secondary, essences as between the particular and the general. The primary essence is an indication by means of language of a separately existing object: “An essence so called in the most basic, primary and unconditional sense is one that is not spoken of by any subject and is not in any subject, such as, for example, an individual person or an individual horse.” 172 Aristotle calls second essences concepts that, in relation to individual objects, are specific or generic concepts about them: “And second essences are those to which, as species, belong the entities called so in the primary sense - both these species and their genera; for example, an individual person belongs to the species “man,” and the genus for this species is “living being.” Therefore they are spoken of as second entities, for example “man” and “living being.” 173 These categories of Aristotle were adopted by the Holy Fathers of Cappadocians during triadological disputes, putting the term “hypostasis” in correspondence with the first Aristotelian essence, simultaneously identifying it with the term “person” (πρόσωπον), and the second with the actual term “essence”. St. Basil the Great in his letter (236) to St. Amphilochius of Iconium writes: “Essence and hypostasis have the same difference between themselves as there is between the general and the individual.” 174 This terminology was accepted by the Church, which contributed to the overcoming of triadological heresies. True, the Cappadocians themselves did not apply the distinction between hypostasis and essence as between the particular and the general to the human nature of Christ. Only in the VI century. Orthodox theologians defending the Chalcedonian definition of faith began to actively apply the triadological terminology of the Cappadocians in relation to the sacrament of the Incarnation of Christ, clearly and clearly identifying the concepts of “essence” and “nature” and contrasting them with the concepts of “hypostasis” and “person”. In this case, the nature-essence corresponds to the Aristotelian general essence, and the hypostasis-person corresponds to the particular essence. This is the merit of Presbyter John the Grammar of Caesarea 175 and other authors, as evidenced by the Monk Anastasius in Chapter VI of the Guide (VI, 1, 21–23; 208. VI, 1, 117–120; 211). Among the Orthodox authors not named by Sinaite who defended the Council of Chalcedon with the help of Cappadocian terminology, it should be noted Leontius of Byzantium, whose work the Monk Anastasius also uses. Note that the Monk Anastasius, who, as already mentioned, actively used the Aristotelian conceptual apparatus adopted through the Cappadocians, throughout the entire text of the “Guide” does not cease to accuse certain heretics of being carried away by Hellenic philosophy, insisting on renouncing the legacy of Aristotle: The Catholic Church of God teaches about Christ not in Aristotelian and not in Hellenic, but, as I have said many times, according to the evangelists and apostles, not in the convincing words of Pythagorean wisdom (cf. 1 Cor. 2:4), so as not to abolish the cross of Christ (1 Cor. 1:17). After all, Aristotle says that nature is the beginning of movement and rest, and the pious Apostolic Tradition recognizes that in the Divine nature there is neither the beginning of movement nor rest, that is, the completion [of movement] (VIII, 5, 113-120; 234-235). Here the Monk Anastasius Sinaite refers to Aristotle’s definition of nature from the treatise “Physics”: “Of existing objects, some exist by nature, others by virtue of other reasons. By nature, we say, there are animals and their parts, such as earth, fire, water, air. All the mentioned bodies obviously differ from what is not formed by nature: after all, each of them carries in itself the principle of movement and rest, be it in relation to place, increase and decrease, or qualitative change... Nature is a certain beginning and cause of movement and rest for what it is inherent in primarily.” 176 Here Aristotle, based on the etymology of the word “nature” (φύσις), refers it only to changing natural objects. Even such objects as a bed and a cloak do not exist, according to Aristotle, by nature, since “they are formed artificially and do not have in themselves any innate desire to change.” 177 Moreover, Aristotle could not relate the word “nature” to immaterial, spiritual entities. Note that during triadological disputes the term φύσις was used irregularly. 178 Although the Monk Anastasius, identifying the terms “nature” and “essence”, refers to the authority of St. Basil the Great: “The God-wise Basil says, turning to Amphilochius: “Nature and essence, in accordance with church dogmas, are one thing”” (I, 3, 69–71; 157), this statement is not found in the authentic works of the Archbishop of Caesarea of ​​Cappadocia. Because of its origins, the word φύσις, implying change and growth, was rarely thought of as synonymous with ούσία as applied to the unchangeable Divine substance. “”Οὐσία” denotes a constant and unchanging substrate of being (τὸ εἶναι). “Φύσις” is, rather, the totality of its essential properties, expressed in external manifestation.” 179 However, as already said, starting from the 6th century, the word “nature” began to be applied to the Divine essence. Moreover, the Monophysites did not recognize the humanity of Christ as a full-fledged perfect nature, applying this term to His Divinity. The accusations by the Monk Anastasius, who perfectly knows the etymology of the word φύσις (see II, 3, 10–11; 163), of opponents of adhering to Aristotle can be understood both as an incorrect polemical device - which, as we showed above, he does not shy away from - and as a reproach for the fact that they do not want to transfer the triadological terminology of the Cappadocian saints to Christology. In addition, in these words one can see a hint of the doctrine of the relationship between philosophy and theology. The Church accepts the terminology of ancient philosophers to the extent necessary for the expression of Church teaching. The very teaching of pagan philosophers is not the doctrine of the Church. But, even perceiving their terminological constructions, the Church adapts them to its needs. Thus, the philosophy (or rather, terminology) of the same Aristotle is only a “handmaiden” of the theology of the Holy Fathers, including St. Anastasius. So, the author of the “Guide” insists on the difference between nature-essence and hypostasis-person, as well as the general from the particular. Angelism is called nature, and hypostases are the names of each Angel: Gabriel, Michael, Uriel, Raphael. And again, nature is a single and common humanity, and the hypostases are Peter, Paul, Thomas and other persons and images. So, nature is the mistress, the cause and the parent of the hypostases included in it; they are called hypostases because they are subordinate to nature, their source (II, 3, 80–87; 165). Here the Monk Anastasius mentioned the etymology of the word ὑπόστασις. It comes from the verb ὑφίστημι (from ὑπό + ἵστημι) - to substitute, to put in the base, and has the main meaning - support, foundation, support. A little lower, the Monk Anastasius sometimes admits his inherent inaccuracy in wording, referring the words “bird” and “cattle” to essence, and “dove”, “peacock”, “swan”, “horse”, “lion”, “dog” - to hypostases (II, 3, 93-97; 165). According to Aristotle and the Cappadocian saints, a hypostasis is a specific dove, a specific peacock, a specific swan, etc. However, this inaccuracy is most likely an accidental slip made in haste and not corrected due to lack of time and the weakness of the author. Regarding such inaccuracies, the Monk Anastasius asks for forgiveness at the very end of the Guide (XXIV, 122-140; 359). In Chapter VIII, the Monk Anastasius confirms the difference between nature and hypostasis with the authority of Holy Scripture: So, let us again, by rearranging words, consider the expression of the blessed Apostle James: every nature (φύσις) of beasts and birds, reptiles and sea creatures is tamed and tamed by human nature (James 3:7). He did not say: “a human face,” because humanity is not one person, but many faces, but nature is one. And therefore he says: by human nature (VIII, 2, 25–31; 224). By similarly replacing the word “nature” with the word “person” in many quotations from the Old and New Testaments, the reverend father shows the absurdity and logical inconsistency of the resulting expressions in order to prove that “nature is not the same thing as face and hypostasis” (VIII, 2, 77–78; 226). He formulates similar thoughts in the form of questions and answers: Question: God, cursing Cain, cursed all human nature or one hypostasis, that is, the face? Answer: Obviously, only the face of the sinner Cain, because nature and face are not the same thing (VIII, 3, 2-6; 226-227). So, throughout the entire text of his work, the Monk Anastasius insists, firstly, on the fact that really existing things are necessarily nature-essence, and secondly, on the distinction between nature-essence and hypostasis-person as the general from the particular, perceiving the triadological terminology of the Cappadocians to describe the sacrament of the Incarnation of God the Word. 2.7. Natural and hypostatic properties. Attributive properties (accidents) Although the Nestorian disputes were provoked by an incorrect understanding of the communication of properties (due to the term “Mother of God”), and the problems of natural properties were introduced into the theological language by Pope Leo the Great in the Tomos to the Archbishop Flavian of Constantinople - which was reflected in the Oros of the Council of Chalcedon: “... the union does not in any way abolish the difference of natures, but rather preserves the property (ἰδιότητος) of each nature...” - the polemic about the properties of Divinity and humanity in Christ acquired particular relevance in connection with the theology of Sevier, who saw the fullness of humanity in Christ in the presence in His one nature of a particular human property, in the presence of a common property corresponding to this one complex nature of Christ. Since the time of Sevier, the theological polemic between Orthodox and Monophysites, as well as between various movements within Monophysitism, has switched from a polemic about natures to a polemic about natural properties. Therefore, the Monk Anastasius, polemicizing with the theology of Sevier and his followers, as well as opponents from among Monophysitism in the person of the Aphthartodocetes and Damianites, cannot ignore the doctrine of natural properties. The origins of this doctrine are formulated by Aristotle in Topeka. Aristotle gives the following definition of a proper property, or simply “proper” (τὸ ἴδιον), without which the existence of a thing is inconceivable: “Proper is that which, although it does not express the essence of being [of a thing], but which is inherent only in it and is interconnected with it. For example, what is proper for a person is that he is able to learn to read and write. Indeed, if [this creature] is a man, then it is capable of learning to read and write, and, conversely, if it is capable of learning to read and write, it is a man.” 180 To this “proper” Aristotle contrasts the incidental, a random attribute, or accident (τὸ συμβεβηκός), which a given thing may or may not have: “The incidental is that which... one and the same thing can be inherent and not inherent, for example, being sitting can be and not be inherent in one and the same thing. The same goes for paleness. For nothing prevents the same thing from sometimes being pale and sometimes not pale.” 181 Christian theologians drew Aristotle's ideas from the treatise of the Neoplatonist Porphyry, Introduction to Aristotle's Categories, also known as On the Five Sounds. Porphyry's treatise was repeatedly commented on by both philosophers and theologians, for whom Porphyry's apparatus turned out to be in great demand. 182 Porphyry, having adopted Aristotle’s teaching about proper property (τὸ ἴδιον) and accessory property (τὸ συμβεβηκός), 183 transferred Aristotle’s distinction between general and private essence to these properties. According to Porphyry, all things have not only general and particular essences, but also properties that can be general and can be private: συμβεβηκότα καθόλου ἢ συμβεβηκότα ἐπὶ μέρος. 184 The Monk Anastasius accepts the main ideas of Porfiry, making some adjustments to the terminology and slightly clarifying the philosopher’s teaching. Thus, Sinait gives the following definition of peculiar or essential properties (τὸ ἴδιον, τὸ ἰδίωμα or ἰδιότης). “A peculiar property, that is, a property (ἰδιότης), is that which is authentically and especially recognized in a certain nature, but is not found in another” (II, 4, 26–28; 167–168). Thus, for the Divine nature such essential properties are, in particular, “pre-eternity, uncreatedness and indescribability” (II, 4, 29–30; 168). These properties, Sinait points out, are absent in any other nature, including in the body of Christ, which by nature “is neither pre-eternal nor uncreated and will never be indescribable” (II, 4, 32–33; 168). The peculiar properties of man are “the combination of mortal and immortal natures” (II, 4, 36; 168), that is, a mortal body and an immortal soul, as well as rationality, the ability to breathe, walk, work, etc. (II, 4, 45–48; 168). From these natural properties (ἰδιώματα φυσικά), common to all hypostases of a given nature, one should distinguish hypostatic or characteristic properties (ἰδιώματα ὑποστατικά, ἰδιώματα χαραστηριστικά 185), characterizing only a specific hypostasis, and not the whole nature (in Porphyry’s terminology, these are inseparable random properties, or inseparable accidents (τὸ ἀχώριστον συμβεβηκός) 186 ). So, for a particular person, the hypostatic properties will be his hair color, voice, skin, his facial features, height, weight, his character traits, abilities, preferences, etc. For the Persons of the Most Holy Trinity, such “peculiar properties of the hypostasis” are “the ungeneracy of the Father, the birth of the Son and the procession of the Holy Spirit” (II, 3, 130–132; 166). Based on these characteristic properties, the Monk Anastasius defines hypostasis as “a peculiar combination of characteristic properties ἰδιωμάτων)" (II, 4, 43–44; 168). This definition goes back to the 38th Epistle of St. Basil the Great, in which hypostasis is defined as "συνδρομὴ τῶν περὶ ἕκαστον ἰδιωμάτων". 187 Synonymous for the expression “natural property” is, according to St. Anastasius, the term ἐνούσιον (realized), and for the expression “hypostatic property” is the term ἐνυπόστατον (hypostatic) in its second meaning 188 (II, 3, 126–130; 166). In addition, synonyms for the terms ἴδιον, ἰδίωμα and ἰδιότης are the terms ποιότης (quality) and διαφορά (difference): “Quality, property, difference and peculiar property mean the same thing” (II, 7, 50–51; In addition to natural and hypostatic properties, the Monk Anastasius - following Aristotle and Porphyry - also defines random, incidental properties, or accidents (τὸ συμβεβηκός), as changing properties (in Porphyry’s terminology, these are separable random properties, or separable accidents (τὸ χωριστὸν συμβεβηκός) 189. Thus, one of the random properties of a person is “infancy, which arises and disappears as he matures” (II, 4, 50; 168), the presence or absence of illness (II, 4, 50; 168). In the case of infancy, Sinait is not as accurate as in the case of illness. It is clear that the property of being a baby is a changing property. Over time, a person's age and corresponding properties change. But on the other hand, this change is an integral part of human nature. In general, only the Divine nature is unchangeable. According to Porphyry, such changing properties are natural; the same natural property for a person is “the ability to laugh - after all, even if he does not always laugh, he is nevertheless designated as a being capable of laughing, and not because he always laughs, but because it is natural for him to laugh; and this property always remains innate to him.” 190 However, during the polemics, the Monk Anastasius is more precise than when interpreting his own definitions. Thus, proving the fullness of the human nature of Christ, Sinait, among the properties of the bodily nature perceived by the God-Man, names His growth from infancy to maturity. According to the Monk Anastasius, to doubt the fullness of the human nature of Christ is “the same as not believing the testimony of the evangelists that Jesus advanced in wisdom and age (Luke 2:52), leaving the age of an infant and passing into the age of a child, youth, teenager, youth, young man and into the age of perfection according to the Law” (XIII, 7, 153-157; 304). Later, the Monk John of Damascus would repeat Porphyry’s terminology almost verbatim, formulating in his “Philosophical Chapters” the doctrine of random properties, as well as other philosophical categories. According to Porfiry and others. John of Damascus, accident is contrasted with a natural property. Therefore, what the Monk Anastasius simply called an accidental property, in the Monk John (as well as in Porphyry), is called a separable accidental property, or a separable accident (τὸ χωριστὸν συμβεβηκός) 191 . And by inseparable random properties, or inseparable accidents (τὸ ἀχώριστον συμβεβηκός) 192 Damascene, following Porphyry, calls what the Sinaite calls hypostatic, or characteristic properties. It is interesting that both reverend fathers cite the snub nose of a person as one of the examples of such an inseparable accident (according to Damascene) or hypostatic property (according to Sinait). 193 In the further text of the Guide, the Monk Anastasius discusses only natural properties, without touching on either hypostatic or accessory properties. The question of hypostatic properties was relevant in the era of triadological disputes, and the dispute about accidents will begin only in the era of the Reformation in the West in connection with Luther’s teaching on the Eucharist. 194 Only in the definition of the concept of “will” did Sinait mention the gnomic will, which is an attribute of a person, and not of nature. We will cover this issue in more detail in paragraph 3.7. The most important properties of any nature is action, and of personal nature is also will. The controversy about the energies and wills of Christ came to the fore precisely during the life of the Monk Anastasius. And although in the main text of the “Guide” he tries not to depart from polemics specifically with Monophysitism, the time of the second edition of this work coincided with the time of the Church’s opposition to monoenergism and Monothelitism. Therefore, Sinaite, in the second chapter (“Book of Definitions”) of the Guide, heavily revised during the second editing of this work by the Monk Anastasius between 686 and 689, carefully studies these categories - actions and wills. Thus, the Monk Anastasius builds a theoretical theological and philosophical basis not only to refute Monophysitism, but also Monothelitism - this new synthetic heresy, which verbally agrees to recognize the humanity of Christ as nature, but denies in it natural action and will. Let us note that in the theology of the same Sevier, the categories “action” and “will” play an important role. According to Aristotle, action is the ninth of ten categories. 195 However, in the logical treatises of Aristotle that have come down to us, this category is only mentioned, while only the first four categories are more or less thoroughly considered: essence, quantity, quality and relation. There are reports that the philosopher wrote a special treatise on the categories of action and suffering, but it has not reached us. True, the action of objects on each other is considered by Aristotle in his treatise “Physics”, but this happens precisely in the context of physics, and not logic and the doctrine of categories. 196 The Venerable Anastasius of Sinaite, defining natural action as movement, a natural force inherent in nature, is based on the words of St. Gregory of Nyssa from the “Homily to the Grammarist Xenodorus”, currently preserved only in fragments: “energy is the natural force and movement of every essence, which only non-existence lacks. What is involved in any essence also fully applies to the energy that manifests it. For true teaching determines the boundaries of entities according to their non-false energies” (II, 4, 77–81; 169). This fragment from the "Words to the Grammarian Xenodorus" is published in Doctrina Patrum. 197 The etymology of the word "action" (ἐνέργια) is quite transparent. It comes from the words “acting” (ἐνεργητικόν), “result of action” (ἐνέργημα) and “acting” (ἐνεργεῖν), that is, “committing” (πράττειν) (II, 4, 176–186; 173): “Action is called so because it exists in deeds (ἐν ἔργοις 198), that is, it manifests itself” (II, 4, 176–181; 173) Action is characteristic of all nature - both material things and rational nature: “Action is thought of in two ways: I mean rationally and sensually. The sensible is that which is visible, felt, heard and subject to decay; and the intelligible is incorruptible and eternal, for the rational is that which contemplates the invisible intelligibles” (II, 4, 181-185; 173). Action expresses nature. Nature that does not have its own action does not exist: “natural science has established that the designation and definition of any nature is its energy, and with its cessation, nature is completely destroyed and perishes; after all, with the cessation of heat, the fire goes out; when a living being is deprived of movement, it dies; and when [a person] ceases to think, then the thinking and reasoning [property] of his soul perishes” (II, 4, 86–92; 170). The Venerable Anastasius of Sinaite, in agreement with the patristic Tradition - which is especially clearly expressed in the doctrine of the knowledge of God by the great Cappadocians and, later, St. Gregory Palamas, - proves that everything that is associated with nature is actually associated with natural action. And the very name of a particular nature is determined by natural action: “Most of the names of any existing thing are related to action, and not to nature, for they have names derived from their own actions” (II, 4, 113–115; 170). Thus, the name “God” (Θεός) “represents to us not the very incomprehensible and nameless essence of the Creator” (II, 4, 117–119; 170), but expresses His contemplative action (θεωρητικὴ 199 ἐνεργεία – II, 4, 119; 170), the name “angel” (ἄγγελος) “reveals not the very essence and being of the nature of angels, but they have the name Angel from their announcing (ἀναγγελτικὴ) energy and service” (II, 4, 120–123; 170–171), that is the ministry of messengers, messengers (also ἄγγελος from the verb ἀναγγέλλω - to proclaim, report). The name “man” (ἄνθρωπος) is also derived by the Monk Anastasius from the action characteristic of people and thereby distinguishing them from animals - “looking upward” (ἄνω-θρώπος - II, 4, 128–129; 171 - from ἄνω - upward and ἀθρέω - look, examine), which is also associated with the action of upright walking, which is distinctive from animals (II, 4, 129–132; 171). The same origin of the word άνθρωπος is given by St. Gregory of Nyssa. 200 Plato gives a similar etymology of the word ἄνθρωπος, deriving it from the word ἀναθρέω - to carefully consider. 201 In addition to the three we have indicated, the Monk Anastasius gives many more examples where the connection between the name of a thing and its action is clear, as a rule, only in the original in Greek. Let us give only an example with the soul, which is understandable even when translated into Russian: “And the soul is called “soul” (ψυχή) from its own action, for “to breathe” (ψύχειν) means “to give life” (ζωοποιεῖν); therefore, the name “soul” comes from the life-giving action, since it gives life to the body” (II, 4, 169172; 173). In the “Book of Definitions,” the Monk Anastasius of Sinaite also gives a definition of will (θέλημα, θέλησις): “Will is the striving of a thinking and rational entity towards what is desired” (II, 4, 3–4; 167). If each nature corresponds to a natural action characteristic of it, then the rational nature - that is, God, angels and people - is also inherent in will: “For everything that thinks is obviously also willing; after all, will, as a kind of breath and life, is essentially inherent in every rational nature... Will is considered in three types: Divine, angelic and spiritual” (II, 4, 5–10; 167). The etymology of the word “will” (τὸ θέλημα, ἡ θέλησις), like the word “action”, is extremely clear. According to the Monk Anastasius, it comes from the verbal adjective “desired” (τό θέλητον - from the verb ἐθέλω, θέλω - to desire, want, strive): “It is called will because nature strives strongly towards what it desires or to receive, that is, to possess what it desires” (II, 4, 6–8; 167). 2.9. The term "hypostatic" Since the humanity of Christ does not constitute a hypostasis separate from the Hypostasis of God the Word - for otherwise “it would turn out that we affirm that Christ accepted and saved a certain one person” (II, 3, 115-117; 166), and to deny the reality of human nature means falling into docetism - then St. Anastasius, following Leontius of Byzantium, calls the humanity of Christ “hypostatic.” The term “hypostatic” (ἐνυπόστατον) is used by the Monk Anastasius in two senses. The first is what truly and really exists. In this sense, ἐνυπόστατον is the opposite of “non-hypostatic” (ἀνυπόστατον): “non-hypostatic is existing (τὸ ὑπάρχον), just as non-hypostatic is that which does not have existence or essence; for example, a dream is non-existent, non-hypostatic and ghostly” (II, 3, 120–123; 166). This understanding of the term ἐνυπόστατον, not used in antiquity and introduced by Christian authors, is found among schmch. Irenaeus of Lyons, Origen, St. Gregory of Nyssa, St. Epiphany of Cyprus, St. Basil the Great, Didymus the Blind, St. John Chrysostom. 202 In this meaning, this term is almost identical to the term “realized” (ἐνούσιον) and it is better to translate it into Russian with the word “hypostatic”. The Monk Anastasius follows St. Basil the Great, who also put the terms ἐνούσιον, ὑπάρχον and ἐνυπόστατον in one row. 203 In the meaning of “true, really existing”, the Monk Anastasius uses the term “hypostatic” in Chapter XII of the Guide, where Sinaite describes his polemic with the Monophysites against their addition to the Trisagion hymn of the words “crucified and suffered.” The Monk Anastasius calls the image of the Crucifixion “παράδειγμα καὶ σχῆμα ἐνυπόστατον,” that is, “an image and a real diagram” (XII, 3, 7–8; 279). This expression can be translated as “true image.” In Chapter XIII, the term “hypostatic” is referred to by the Monk Anastasius as the flesh of Christ: “the hypostatic flesh of God” (XIII, 7, 152; 304). Based on the context in which Sinait insists on the reality of human properties in Christ, this expression can also be translated as “the true flesh of God.” The contrast between hypostatic (i.e., really existing) and non-hypostatic is illustrated by the Monk Anastasius with the following definition: “non-hypostatic, non-existent (ἀνύπαρκτον) and non-existent (ἀνούσιον) is something that is often spoken of, but which is not recognized either in essence or in hypostases, such as hell, death and disease” (II, 3, 123–126; 166). This understanding of the non-hypostatic nature of evil is also found in other Holy Fathers, for example, in St. Epiphany of Cyprus, St. John Chrysostom and St. Macarius of Egypt. 204 The expression “hypostatic Word” (ἐνυπόστατος 205 Λόγος), in the sense of “the Word existing as a Hypostasis,” is used by many Holy Fathers of the era of triadological disputes. This word ένυπόστατον as a synonym for the word “hypostasis” was then applied to both the Father and the Holy Spirit, as well as to man. 206 In the era of Christological disputes, new accents appeared in the meaning of the term ἐνυπόστατον. One of the first to place them at the beginning of the 6th century was Presbyter John the Grammar of Caesarea. Applying the triadological terms developed by the Cappadocian Saints to Christology, he realized that the term ἐνυπόστατον in relation to the humanity of Christ required clarification. On the one hand, human nature in Christ really and truly exists, and therefore can be called hypostatic. On the other hand, identifying – as was the case with the Persons of the Trinity – the term ἐνυπόστατον with the term “hypostasis” in Christology leads to Nestorianism. Therefore, in the Apology of the Council of Chalcedon, John the Grammar explains: “If someone... characterizes essences as hypostatic, that is, as existing, then no one will deny this. Because hypostasis differs from essence not just in being, but in being in general, by which I mean essence. On the contrary, hypostasis is a particular being, when, together with the general, it also has its own existence. Thus, we do not characterize our essence in Christ that it is hypostatic, in the sense of a hypostasis that exists independently in its characteristics and is a person, but in the sense that it is and exists.” 207 This understanding of the term ἐνυπόστατον as a synonym for essence, opposed to the concept of hypostasis, was also adopted by another theologian of the 6th century, Leontius of Byzantium, in his treatise “Against the Nestorians and Eutychians”: “Hypostasis and the hypostatic are not the same thing, just as something else is essence and something else is materialized.” (ἐνούσιον). For hypostasis means someone specifically, and hypostatic means the essence.” 208 The most clear teaching of John the Grammar of Caesarea and Leontius of Byzantium about the hypostatic nature of the human nature of Christ as an essence that received a private and concrete existence in another hypostasis (the Hypostasis of the Word) is expressed by St. John of Damascus: “In addition, nature is called hypostatic when it has assumed another hypostasis and received its being in it. Hence the flesh of the Lord, which did not exist independently at any point in time, is not a hypostasis, but rather something hypostatic; for, being perceived by the Hypostasis of God the Word, she exists in it and had it, and has it as her hypostasis.” 209 So, Leontius of Byzantium accepted the clarification of the term ἐνυπόστατον by Presbyter John the Grammar of Caesarea and, in addition, clarified the term ἐνούσιον, which he understands as a synonym for hypostasis. Following this clarification, the Monk Anastasius of Sinaite writes: “The word is spoken of in three senses: God the Word is the Word realized (ἐνούσιον); there is the inner word of the Angels and pronounced in our thinking; there is a word pronounced by the tongue” (II, 6, 15–18; 179), and in another place: “The prophets herald the coming of a separate Divine Person, that is, One of the Holy Trinity, that is, God the Word, and not of a common nature; and if it needs to be said more clearly, they herald the coming of the realized Face of God, and not the general incarnation of the Three Persons of the Trinitarian Trinity” (VIII, 4, 98–103; 231). So, if in the era of triadological disputes the Holy Fathers used the expression “hypostatic Word,” then in the era of Christological disputes the expression “incarnate Word” becomes more accurate. However, in another place, the Monk Anastasius calls the Word “the hypostatic God (ἐνυπόστατος Θεός)” (XXII, 2, 95; 343), without abandoning the understanding of the term ένυπόστατον as a synonym for hypostasis. Note that Sinait also uses the term ἐνούσιον in the old meaning, repeating after Clement of Alexandria the definition of the concept of “nature”: “The Church calls nature the reality of existing things, that is, their actuality” (II, 3, 9–10; 163). The second meaning of the term ἐνυπόστατον for St. Anastasius coincides with the term ἰδίωμα (peculiar property). But if the second meaning of the term ἐνούσιον (realized) is a natural property, then the second meaning of the term ἐνυπόστατον is a hypostatic property: “we call realized either the existing itself, or a peculiar property recognized in essence: for example, rationality and corruption are the realized things of man. In the same way, the word “hypostatic” is used in two ways: either [it denotes] a truly existing or a unique property in hypostasis, such as, for example, ungeneracy in God the Father, birth in the Son and procession in the Holy Spirit” (II, 3, 126-132; 166). As stated above, the Monk Anastasius gives several more synonyms for the term ἐνούσιον (realized): quality, property, difference and peculiar property (II, 7, 48–51; 181). So, the Monk Anastasius distinguishes between the second meanings of the terms ἐνούσιον and ἐνυπόστατον, while, for example, St. Gregory of Nyssa identifies them. Thus, in the third book “Against Eunomius” St. Gregory says that the good and eternal will of God is always inherent in His eternal nature. 210 III. Christology of St. Anastasius Sinaite 3.1. Christ is perfect God and perfect man The Church originally believed that Christ was a perfect God and a perfect man. This teaching is indicated by the messianic passages of the Old Testament, which the Jews did not like so much and forced them, when translating Scripture into Greek, to distort the meaning of the original text, as did, for example, Aquila, mentioned by the Monk Anastasius (VI, 1, 31-36; 208-209. VI, 1, 81-85; 210). The teaching about the equality of Christ with God the Father (I and the Father are one - John 10:30) and that He is like [us], tempted in all things except sin (Heb.4:15), that is, about the perfection (in the sense of completeness) of His humanity, is clearly expressed in the New Testament. However, Satan, who rebelled against his Creator and carried away with him a whole order of angels into the fall (IV, 19–23; 195–196), deceived through envy (IV, 23–29; 196) Adam “through Eve and the tree” (IV, 29–30; 196), killed “through Cain Abel” (IV, 38–39; 196), who rejected the sons of Seth to the daughters of Cain (IV, 39–40; 196) and “to worship man-made idols as gods instead of God” (IV, 40–41; 196), even after the coming into the world of the Son of God - “born without seed from the Ever-Virgin Woman of Man” (IV, 58–59; 197) - wanted to refute the truth about the perfection of Christ as God and at the same time as man. “Having taken possession of certain people as his vessels and instruments” (IV, 62; 197), the evil one erects various heresies, the history of which the Monk Anastasius briefly describes in chapters IV and V of the Guide. The Church had to respond to these machinations of the devil by formulating its original teaching about the perfection of the Divinity and humanity of Christ with the help of clear and unambiguous theological provisions. In this description of the history of heresies, the Reverend Father says that the inspirer and true leader of this entire struggle against the Church is the enemy of the human race. This is also consistent with the teaching of St. Anastasius about the three states of the human will, which we will talk about in paragraph 3.7. It is not for nothing that the Holy Father called the will of the devil in an unnatural, sinful state. By sinning, a person actually becomes an instrument in the hands of the devil, doing his will. The Monk Anastasius conveys this idea using expressions like: the devil “kills through Cain (διὰ τοῦ Κάϊν - through Cain, with the help of Cain, by Cain) Abel” (IV, 38–39; 196). Eve appeared as the same instrument in the hands of Satan, through whom Adam was deceived (IV, 29–30; 196). So, the evil one wants, “first, to immediately refute the coming of Christ” (IV, 109–110; 200). The Monk Anastasius with these words hints at the docetism characteristic of many Gnostics. The founder of Gnosticism, according to Sinaite, is “Simon, the Samaritan sorcerer from the village of Giton” (IV, 64–65; 197), who “was the first to assert in Rome under the supreme [apostle] Peter” (IV, 64–66; 197) his heretical teaching about the illusory nature of the flesh of Christ. The followers of Simon were the Gnostics, the first of whom were Cerinthus, Nicholas and Marcion (IV, 68–69; 197), as well as Valentinus. Although the latter did not believe that the body of Christ was illusory, he completely denied its consubstantiality with our bodies, arguing “that Christ did not take on our flesh” (XIV, 2, 38–39; 317). He and his like-minded people called the body of Christ heavenly, cosmic, etc. Having failed “to destroy [Christian] preaching through persecution” (IV, 110–111; 200), the evil one, desiring “that people would worship sorcerers instead of the Holy Spirit” (IV, 111–112; 200), already erects “among those born by the power of Christ” (IV, 73–74; 198) many pseudo-church Gnostic communities, the heads of which were “Mani, the ancestor of the Manichaeans, and Montanus, a native of Ardab, and some others” (IV, 80–82; 198). For these heresiarchs, a characteristic feature - along with docetism ("The impious Mani... believed that the body of Christ, which [His contemporaries] saw), was a shadow and appearance, but was not nature" - XIV, 2, 40-41; 317) - was the proclamation of himself as the very Comforter, "whom Christ promised to send to the world" (IV, 79-80; 198). The next stage of the devil’s struggle against the Church was that he “began to blaspheme the Divinity of Christ” (IV, 113–114; 198). The heresy of the Alexandrian presbyter Arius, who argued that “the Son and Word of God is a creature and was not born of the Father before the ages” (V, 15–16; 204), was rejected at the First Ecumenical Council, which took place “in Nicaea under the holy emperor Constantine” (V, 9–10; 203). “The Holy Council determined that the Son is consubstantial and co-eternal with the Father, begotten, not created” (V, 17–18; 204), as it was written in the Creed adopted at the Council. Without the consubstantiality of the Son with the Father, according to St. Athanasius the Great, our salvation is impossible. An axiom for the Church was that for the salvation of man his deification is necessary. But the deification of man is possible only if the Word who became flesh - that is, who accepted humanity in Christ - is Himself perfect God, equal to the Father. This perfection of Christ as God was confirmed by the First Ecumenical Council with the help of the doctrine of His consubstantiality with the Father. A certain new, more subtle variety of docetism became the teaching of Apollinaris of Laodicea. A bright and irreconcilable polemicist with Arianism, he was the first to try to give a theological answer to the question: how is it possible for the coexistence of Divinity and humanity in one Christ? Answering this question, Apollinaris relied on one of the postulates of Aristotle’s philosophy, who argued: “it does not seem possible for an essence to consist of essences that would be in it in [a state of] complete fulfillment: what in this state of fulfillment forms two things can never represent one thing in the same state.” 211 In the era of Christological disputes, this position will be formulated by theologians as follows: “there is no non-hypostatic nature.” The Monk Anastasius will repeatedly touch upon this formulation in his polemics with the Monophysites, which we will discuss below. So, Apollinaris could not allow the coexistence in the one Christ of the fullness of God and the fullness of man. In his opinion, the simultaneous perfection of the Divinity and humanity of Christ would mean that He must be two different beings, which is completely unacceptable. Since for Apollinaris, as an anti-Arian, the perfection of the Divinity in Christ was not in doubt, the Laodicean bishop came to the conclusion that humanity partially exists in Christ. Apollinaris presented the incarnation as a combination of the Word and human flesh, devoid of its own mind (νοῦς), or spirit (πνεῦμα), that is, that “Christ took on man without soul, without mind and without will” (IV, 93–94; 199–200). At the same time, the flesh remained, according to ancient philosophy, only an unreasonable and animal soul, that is, “the vital, warming and driving action of the blood through the material spirit” (II, 5, 62–63; 176) and “a material force, acting, sensing and located in the body” (II, 5, 63–65; 176). Thanks to this union, according to Apollinaris, the unity and integrity of Christ were preserved. The flesh and the Word constituted the one nature of Christ, which Apollinaris defined as “the one incarnate nature of God the Word” (μία φύσις τοῦ Θεοῦ Λόγου σεσαρκωμένη). The Divinity in Christ is the dominant principle, while the flesh is only an instrument of the Divine, passively subordinate to it. This formula, adopted by St. Cyril of Alexandria, the Monk Anastasius comments in the fifth part of X and in Chapter XI, as well as in the scholium ending Chapter XXIII of the Guide. We will address these comments below. Through the efforts of St. Gregory the Theologian and other Cappadocian Fathers, the heresy of Apollinaris was refuted. In the First Epistle to Kledonius, St. Gregory offers a soteriological argument against Apollinaris’s teaching about the incompleteness of humanity in Christ, which will later play an important role in the formation of the Christological doctrine of the Church: “If anyone puts his trust in a person who does not have a mind, 212 then he really does not have a mind and is not worthy to be completely saved, for what is not received is not healed, but what is united with God is saved.” 213 This expression became the key in resolving all issues related to the fullness of humanity received by Christ. So, the heresy of Apollinaris, like its author, was condemned at the Second Ecumenical Council in Constantinople. The Orthodox Church confesses that God the Word, having become incarnate, assumed flesh endowed with a rational soul (XII, 4, 4-38; 281-282. XIII, 6, 42-91; 297-298), that is, it teaches about the perfection of Christ as a man. This was clearly stated by the Church during the condemnation of the Constantinople Archimandrite Eutyches, who, in response to Nestorianism, in a sense resurrected the argumentation of Apollinaris, and became the founder of Monophysitism. Eutyches, who insists on the Monophysite formula “one nature,” also argued “that the body of Christ was sent down from heaven, and it is of a different essence from ours and that Christ is all one nature” (V, 46–49; 206). The Church at the Council of Constantinople in 448 under Patriarch Flavian condemned the heresy of Eutyches and determined “that the body of Christ is of one essence with ours” (V, 52; 206–207). According to the definition of the Monk Anastasius, “consubstantial is that which invariably exists from the same essence and energy” (II, 5, 21–22; 174). Since, according to Sinait, the concepts of “essence”, “nature”, “genus” and “species” are synonymous (II, 3, 15-17; 163), then the concepts of “homogeneous”, “related”, “one-natural” and “one-tribe” are also synonymous with the word “consubstantial” (II, 5, 26-27; 175). So, the Orthodox Church teaches that without the double consubstantiality of Christ - the Father according to Divinity and us according to humanity - our salvation is impossible. Being perfect God, the Word becomes perfect man without ceasing to be perfect God. As it was said in the oros of the Council of Chalcedon: “perfect in the Divinity and also perfect in humanity” ἀνθρωπότητι – V, 61–62). The perfection of Christ in Divinity and His perfection in humanity, His consubstantiality with the Father in Divinity and consubstantiality with us in humanity was confessed by both Severus of Antioch and even Julian of Halicarnac. The teachings of Apollinaris and Eutyches were equally rejected by both Orthodox and anti-Chalcedonians. However, Sevier, Julian and their followers refused to call the humanity of Christ nature and did not accept the Diphysite formulas of the Council of Chalcedon, accusing it of resuscitating Nestorianism and of departing from the teachings of St. Cyril of Alexandria. 3.2. The Teaching of the Pre-Chalcedonian Fathers on the Natures of Christ The Monophysites, starting with their true founding father Eutyches, whom they strenuously disowned for his denial of Christ’s consubstantiality with us in humanity, insisted that after the Incarnation one can speak of only one nature in Christ. If we can talk about two natures, then only until the Incarnation of God the Word. Eutyches' formula "of two natures before the union, one nature after the union" ἕνωσιν) was accepted by all movements of Monophysitism. Sinaite claims that the Diphysite formulas are not an invention of the Nestorians, and especially of the Council of Chalcedon. The Monk Anastasius cites in the first and second parts of Chapter X, in XXI and other chapters of the Guide, numerous quotes from the pre-Chalcedonian Holy Fathers, where the doctrine of two natures in Christ after the Incarnation is clearly and clearly expressed. Let us list striking quotes from only four Holy Fathers, representing various theological schools. Here the Monk Anastasius quotes a Western father - St. Амвросия Медиоланского , почившего в 397 году, – задолго до несторианских споров, из его второй книги трактата «О вере» (De fide): «Мы будем сохранять различие Божества и плоти. Ибо в каждом из них говорит один Христос, поскольку в Нем есть та и другая природа» (Х.1, 2, 64–66; 245). One of the great Cappadocians, St. Григорий Нисский († после 394 г.), в третьей книге своего творения «Против Евномия» ясно говорит о различии двух природ, что явно проявляется в их действиях: «Какая природа Христа во время страсти ударяема, а какая от вечности прославляема?» (Х.1, 2, 77–78; 246). St. Иоанн Златоуст († 407 г.), яркий представитель антиохийского богословия, в «Слове на Вознесение» называет человечество Христа природой: «К какой природе обращается Бог: седи одесную Меня ( Пс.109:1 ; Мф.22:44 )? К той, которая слышала: ибо прах ты и в прах возвратишься ( Быт.3:19 )» (Х.1, 2, 96–98; 246). Here, finally, are the words of St. Isidore Pelusiot, who calls St. Cyril adhere to the teachings of the founding father of the Alexandrian theological school, St. Athanasius the Great: “With all caution, guard your heart so as not to accept in Christ after the Incarnation one nature, for the recognition of only one is the denial of the other” (X. 1, 2, 123–125; 247). The Monk Anastasius testifies that Sevier, who knew well all these Diphysite quotes from the Holy Fathers, deliberately commits a forgery. Sinait quotes words from the first Epistle of Sevier to Nephalia, where he explains his approach to the patristic Tradition. According to Sevier, the words of the ancient Holy Fathers, in which they clearly name two natures in Christ, in the mouth of these Fathers were true and impeccable. But “many of the so-called impeccable expressions of the ancient Fathers after Nestorius began to be considered unsafe,” even if these are the words of St. himself. Cyril of Alexandria. The prohibition of Diphysite expressions is necessary as a cure for the ulcer, that is, for the “ulcer of the idle talk of Nestorius” that struck the Church (VII, 1, 3-23; 214). Having quoted this phrase from Sevier, the Monk Anastasius does not spare sarcasm and irony, refuting the heresiarch. Sinaite is ready to applaud this speaker overthrown by the Church, who “unintentionally benefited the Church and the Council of Chalcedon, like those who crucified Christ on the tree” (VII, 1, 26–27; 214–215). The Reverend Father derives “three benefits” from these words of the Monophysite theologian. Firstly, Sevier himself testified that the Holy Fathers speak of two natures in Christ (VII, 1, 27-30; 215). Secondly, according to Sevier, among these Fathers is St. Cyril of Alexandria (VII, 1, 31–35; 215). Finally, “the third benefit comes to us from this loud speaker, who claims that it is necessary to prepare medicines against diseases and against discovered heresies, that is, change dogmas” (VII, 1, 37–39; 215). According to Severus, the Holy Fathers began to use Diphysite expressions against the heresy of Arius (VII, 1, 39–42; 215). With these words, Sevier himself gave the Monk Anastasius an argument to refute his Christological errors, for “through the words of his mouth the sinner was caught” (VII, 1, 43–44; 215). The very correction and distortion of quotations of the Holy Fathers, the selection of acceptable expressions and the rejection of objectionable ones, which Sevier committed in his work “Philalethes” (Φιλαλήθης) 214 (VI, 1, 36–48; 209. VI, 1, 88–89; 210), is completely unacceptable for the Monk Anastasius. By this, Sevier “chose himself as a judge of the living and the dead” (VI, 1, 87–88; 210), that is, he took away from the Son of God the judgment that the Father had given Him (cf. John 5:22 – VI, 1, 39–41; 209), and all power in heaven and on earth (cf. Matt. 28:18 – VII, 2, 136–137; 221), and thus became none other than an imitator of the Antichrist (VI, 1, 41–42; 209) and “a kind of new modern Antichrist” (VII, 2, 137; 221). The Monk Anastasius repeatedly uses the ironic epithets “legislator” (VI, 1, 54; 209. VII, 2, 65; 219. X.2, 6, 27; 261. X.2, 7, 2; 263) and “judge” in relation to Sevier, and also ironically calls his activity “lawmaking.” The disciples and followers of Sevier, according to the testimony of the Monk Anastasius, do not accept quotations from the Holy Fathers if they are not in the book “Philalethes” (VI, 1, 100–110; 211). Another epithet from the lips of the Monk Anastasius - “lunatic” (σεληνιαζόμενος) - Sevier “deserved” precisely because he allows the Christological teaching to change: “with the periodicity of the lunar phases and according to the lot, the lunatic Sevier, betraying Christ, then likens Him to the flawed, then the full moon, then He turns out to be bi-natural, then He turns out to be one in nature; for no reason, no reason, He changes and becomes different” (VII, 1,109–113; 217). Such inconsistency in dogma leads to the overthrow of our entire faith. If in connection with the heresy of Nestorius, who divided Christ into two hypostases, it is necessary to reject the expressions of the Holy Fathers about two natures, then in connection with the heresy of Eutyches, who denied that Christ is one in essence with us in humanity, it is necessary to reject the expression of St. Cyril “the one incarnate nature of God the Word” (VII, 2, 120–133; 221). Then no theology is possible: “and preaching will become empty, and faith will be vain (cf. 1 Cor. 15:14–17), and piety will perish, becoming corrupt” (VII, 2, 133–135; 221), exclaims the Monk Anastasius. None of the Holy Fathers expressed a similar desire to change dogmatic definitions depending on new heresies. Moreover, the Monk Anastasius says that the heresies that divided Christ in two - into a simple man and the power of God (Logos, Holy Spirit), which dwells in this man - appeared long before Nestorius. This is the triadological heresy of the monarchist dynamists, the founder of which was Artemon, 215 and the most prominent representative and spokesman was Bishop Paul of Samosata, condemned at the two Councils of Antioch in 264–265 and 269. 216 Origen, who lived before Paul of Samosata, also “taught of Christ as a simple man” (XXI, 1, 73–74; 335–336). Saints Athanasius the Great, Basil the Great, Gregory the Theologian and Gregory of Nyssa, as the Monk Anastasius Sinaite notes, lived during and after Artemon, Origen, Paul of Samosata and the founders of Nestorianism Diodorus of Tarsus and Theodore of Mopsuestia, but were not afraid to use Diphysite expressions. As is known, one of the arguments for condemning Nestorius at the Third Ecumenical Council in Ephesus was that his teaching was consonant with the teaching of Paul of Samosata. To prove the identity of the teachings of Nestorius and Paul of Samosata - regarding the division of Christ into two persons - the Monk Anastasius in the second part of the XXI chapter provides a parallel quotation of these heretics, who unanimously speak of Christ only as a church in which God the Word dwells (according to Nestorius) or the non-hypostatic power of God (according to Paul of Samosata), and that the Virgin Mary is not the Mother of the Word, and etc. So, Sevier says: “Against ulcers that have arisen, that is, heresies, it is necessary to prepare medicines of dogmas, because if a certain doctor during a plague ... forbids drinking water, then someone can say to this: “The previous doctors did not forbid us to drink water.” After all, then,” says Sevier, “he would immediately hear from the doctor: “Mad man! Look - the disease is spreading. Do you want to determine your attitude towards the disease based on a healthy life?" (XXI, 3, 4-11; 338). This opinion of Sevier is not at all based on the Patristic Tradition. Moreover, the Holy Fathers, through the experience of polemics with heretics, had already encountered their practice of changing doctrinal formulations, and sharply condemned it. The Monk Anastasius quotes the words of St. Basil the Great from his Epistle to Olympius. The Caesarea saint writes about the Arians: “However, they have a certain cunning rule about changing the words of faith, just as doctors once changed [medicines] for an existing illness. It is not for me to expose the depravity of this sophism, but for you to understand for yourself. May the Lord give you understanding (cf. 2 Tim. 2:7) to understand which word is right and which is false and distorted. After all, if it is necessary, depending on the circumstances of the time, to change the rules of faith and write down new ones, then the statement is false: One Lord, one faith (Eph. 4:5)” (XXI, 3, 17–25; 338). And the overthrower of Nestorius himself, St. Cyril of Alexandria, whose follower Sevier considered himself, used Diphysite expressions. The Monk Anastasius cites them in Chapter X of the Guide when describing the first dispute with the Monophysites. Particularly indicative here is the famous conciliatory “Epistle of Cyril, Archbishop of Alexandria, to John, Bishop of Antioch, sent with Paul, Bishop of Emesa” (“To the Eastern,” Epistle 39). The Monk Anastasius describes the events that occurred in 432, when he went to Alexandria for personal negotiations with St. Cyril arrived as the envoy of the Antiochian Church and its head John, Bishop Paul of Emesa. 217 The Monk Anastasius puts into the mouth of the Alexandrian saint the words about the holy source of living water - faith, from which Sevier forbids drinking: Blessed Cyril himself approved of the Holy Fathers, who called two natures in Christ, as I said a little earlier, and especially Paul of Emesa: when he arrived in Alexandria on behalf of all the bishops of the Eastern Churches, rose to the pulpit in the Alexandrian Church and proclaimed that in Christ two natures are united in one hypostasis, Blessed Cyril, greatly rejoiced, said: “Let the heavens rejoice, let them rejoice.” earth! Here, listen! We drew the water of life from the holy spring of the pious Father Paul, who explained to us the great mystery of truth.” 218 Behold, the divine Cyril calls the words about two natures the water of life, from which the sophist-doctor Sevier forbids us to drink (VII, 2, 91-104; 220). The result of the negotiations was the reconciliation of the Alexandrian and Antiochian Churches, which is recorded in the Epistle, the beginning of which was given by the Monk Anastasius. In this Epistle of St. Cyril agrees with the Diphysite expressions of the eastern bishops, for whom these expressions were more organic and acceptable, and textually repeats them. 219 The Monk Anastasius quotes an expression precisely from this part of the Epistle: “It is known that famous theologians usually make some of the evangelical and apostolic sayings about the Lord common as belonging to one person, while others, due to the difference in the two natures, accept them separately” (X.1, 2, 2–5; 243). So, even St. Kirill did not allow the possibility of editing the Holy Fathers, as Sevier does. Moreover, he accuses his Orthodox opponents of forgery, in particular Presbyter John the Grammar of Caesarea, who wrote the “Apology” in defense of the Council of Chalcedon (VI, 1, 116–121; 211). It is significant that Sevier’s followers knew nothing about his correction of patristic quotations, which was supposedly necessary in order to overthrow Nestorianism. This is evidenced by the reaction of the common people of the Monophysite churches, who were present at the debates, to the fact that the Monk Anastasius shows truly patristic Diphysite expressions. We mentioned the scandalous ending of the first and second disputes for the Monophysites, described in Chapter X of the Guide, in paragraph 2.1. Already in Chapter III of the Guide, the Monk Anastasius says that before polemics with the Monophysites, the Orthodox, along with rejecting Nestorian opinions, must anathematize anyone who “does not recognize the expression “the one incarnate nature of God the Word” (μία φύσις τοῦ Θεοῦ Λόγου σεσαρκωμένη), as Saint Cyril interpreted it” (III, 2, 9–13; 194). This recognition - along with Diphysite expressions - and the expressions of the Holy Fathers, speaking about the same nature of Christ, but with their Orthodox interpretation, is the essence of neo-Chalcedonism. A similar thought is expressed by the Monk John of Damascus in the seventh chapter of the third book of “An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith”: “We also confess “one incarnate nature of God the Word,” the expression “incarnate” denoting the essence of the flesh, according to Blessed Cyril.” 220 With the help of this expression, which all theologians of that era attributed to St. Athanasius the Great, St. Cyril expressed a different Christology than his author, Apollinaris of Laodicea. Firstly, Apollinaris thought of Christ’s humanity as incomplete (without a rational soul) and not consubstantial with us. After Apollinaris's refutation, all theologians recognized the fullness of Christ's humanity. Secondly, for St. Cyril - unlike Apollinaris and the Monophysites, who considered themselves his followers - the humanity of Christ is an active dynamic principle, that is, nature (in the already Chalcedonian sense of this term). The Monk Anastasius cites the expression of St. Cyril from the second Epistle to Suckens, where the Archbishop of Alexandria speaks about this activity: “It is just and entirely sound that your perfection expounds the word about saving suffering, affirming that it was not the only-begotten Word of God Himself, insofar as He is conceived and is God, who suffered in His own, superior nature, but that He suffered by a mortal nature” (X. 1, 2, 19–23; 244). It was in the context of the suffering of Christ that St. Cyril usually calls His humanity nature: Christ suffers according to human nature, or human nature. For St. Cyril’s formula “the one incarnate nature of God the Word” is a way, in contrast to Nestorianism, to emphasize the unity of Christ. According to the interpretation of the Monk Anastasius, the word “incarnate” in this expression is St. Cyril has already pointed to the human nature of Christ: “Meanwhile, as Blessed Cyril himself teaches us in his letter to Sukkens, he does not point to anything else, saying “incarnate,” but only to our human nature” (X.5, 4-9; 272-273). Here the Monk Anastasius, like later the Monk John of Damascus in the seventh chapter of the third book of the “Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith,” refers to the words of St. Cyril, commenting on this formula in his second Epistle to Sukkens. The Alexandrian saint says that the entire doctrine of the Economy is included in the word “incarnate”: the fullness of human nature (the Word assumed flesh, animated by a rational soul), and the perfection of Christ not only in Divinity, but also in humanity, and His double consubstantiality (to the Father according to Divinity and to us according to humanity), and the presence of impeccable passions, and denial theopaschism (the Son suffers not according to His Divine nature, but through the flesh, that is, through human nature), and the fact that humanity became the Word’s own. 221 Thought of St. Cyril, who called Christ “the one incarnate nature of God the Word,” the Monk Anastasius comments with the help of the following image: When, for example, in the firmament there are certain three consubstantial and unlimited luminaries, no one of common sense will call these three lights natures, but will call the three lights consubstantial hypostases, having a co-natural, homogeneous, homogeneous, akin and indivisible light, and in the Trinity they do not call God the Word nature, but the Hypostasis of the Word, like the Father and the Holy Spirit. Again, if it turns out that one of these lights is connected and indefinitely enveloped in a certain cloud, then this luminary in the cloud is called hypostasis as one of the existing three hypostases of light, and is also called nature due to the addition of a foreign and different essence of the cloud connected with the light (XXIII, 3, 20-34; 354-355). Well, and, in addition, for the Alexandrian dialect of the Greek language, according to the Monk Anastasius, it is typical not to distinguish the terms “nature” and “essence” from the term “hypostasis”. Sinaite refers to the controversy around these terms in the era of triadological disputes precisely in the Alexandrian Church under St. Athanasius the Great (XI, 7–35; 275–276). Council of Alexandria in 362, headed by St. Athanasius ruled that both the party, led by Eustathius, which speaks of one Hypostasis, but Three Persons in God, and the one, led by Meletius, which called Three Hypostases in the Trinity, think Orthodox, but differ only in their understanding of terminology. 222 In this context, the use of St. Kirill, who is generally characterized by inaccuracy in terminology, expressions like “the natures or hypostases of Christ remained unfused.” Therefore, according to the Monk Anastasius, the expression “one incarnate nature of God the Word” as used by St. Cyril means “one incarnate Person of the Holy Trinity” (X.5, 17–18; 273). This interpretation of the expression of St. Cyril was one of the first to offer St. Proclus of Constantinople, speaking in the Tomos to the Armenians about “the one hypostasis of the incarnate God of the Word” Λόγου ὑπόστασιν). 223 3.3. Hypostatic union of the two natures of Christ According to the Monk Anastasius, there is no need, as the Monophysites do, to be afraid of calculating nature. The number denotes the number of things, and not their division; it indicates the distinction of the countable, and not its division. Monophysites, even allowing for the plural in indefinite expressions of “nature” and “hypostasis,” do not use numbers in relation to them. Such vague expressions, according to the ironic remark of the Monk Anastasius, can mean more than two the number of natures in Christ, which is obvious absurdity (X.2, 3, 68–79; 255). The teaching of the Holy Fathers, who spoke about the two natures of Christ, is fundamentally different from Nestorianism: So, the Holy Fathers who lived under Artemon, Paul, Diodorus and Theodore, piously named (like us) the two united natures of Christ, and Artemon, Paul, Theodore and Nestorius - separated, since evil does not lie in naming two [natures], but in dividing them into parts and not putting the hypostatic union in the first place (XXI, 2, 44-50; 337). The Orthodox do not recognize the humanity of Christ as a hypostasis separate from the eternal Hypostasis of the Logos: We call the holy flesh of Christ not a person, but an essence, in order to indicate that He received and saved our entire nature. For if we called it hypostasis, it would turn out that we are asserting that Christ accepted and saved a certain one person. It is impossible to call it a hypostasis, since this flesh is inseparable from God the Word; for an individual person is called a hypostasis (II, 3, 113–119; 166). Another St. Gregory the Theologian, in his polemic with Apollinaris, clearly formulated precisely this understanding of Diphysite expressions. The Monk Anastasius cites the thought of St. Gregory from his letter to Presbyter Kledonius. Condemning those who introduce two Sons - one from the Father, the other from the Virgin Mary - Nazianzus says: “in Christ there is not One and Another (ἄλλος καὶ ἄλλος), but there is another and another (ἄλλο καὶ ἄλλο)” (XV, 35–36; 322). So, the Holy Fathers, insisting on the presence in Christ of two perfect natures (other and other), unlike the Nestorians, did not allow for the presence of two active subjects in Him (Other and Other). The true founding father of Nestorianism was not Nestorius, but Bishop Theodore of Mopsuestia. The main thing for him was to show the fullness of humanity in Christ, which Apollinaris of Laodicea denied. For Theodore, this fullness means, first of all, the active manifestation of humanity in Christ. Therefore, he does not accept the Apollinarian concept of the passive and subordinate humanity of Christ to the Divinity. It, according to Theodore, is a full-fledged nature, possessing its own action and will. But Theodore did not stop at this completely Orthodox teaching. Both natures in Christ were thought of by the Mopsuestian bishop as having their own specific private existence, that is, their own hypostases, that is, faces (IV, 136–137; 202). According to Theodore, the natures of Christ are united with each other by means of a relative union (ἕνωσις σχετική), or a union by good will (ἕνωσις κατ’ εὐδοκίαν), into a common person of union (πρόσωπον ἑνώσεως), having a common action and a common will. According to Theodore, the concept of “face” has two meanings. One is the hypostasis, and the face of the union of Christ means common honor, greatness and worship, that is, a single way of revealing God through the human hypostasis of Christ. The presence of a common face of union, a common action and a common will of Christ does not negate the presence of two natures of their own persons, wills and actions: without them, the natures would lose their completeness. The teaching of Theodore of Mopsuestia, adopted and preached by Nestorius in the capital of the empire, leads to the fact that Christ appears to us in the Gospel as a single Person only subjectively: in relation to an external observer He is a single Being, a single Person, but in Himself He contains two persons - Divine and human. Thus, it turned out that the Son of God and the Son of the Virgin Mary are separated, between them there is only a moral connection, similar to the one that existed between God and the Old Testament righteous. With such a union of God and a specific person, deification is impossible for all people. To explain the image of the union of two natures in Christ, Theodore of Mopsuestia uses the image according to which the Divinity and humanity in Christ are united like the union of husband and wife into one flesh. In Nestorius, the main image is the image of a house or church, which means a person in whom God dwells. This image, used by the Holy Fathers, in combination with the Nestorian teaching, shows rather external unity - the unity of power, honor, strength or benevolence, than internal unity - the unity of the acting subject, as expressed in the words of St. Gregory the Theologian: “in Christ there is no Other and Another” (XV, 35–36; 322). In the most adequate theological language this thought of St. Gregory the Theologian managed to express St. Cyril of Alexandria. According to him, the Divinity and humanity of Christ are united by hypostasis (καθ’ ὑπόστασιν), that is, much more closely than with the relative union conceived by the Nestorians. This hypostatic union of the natures of Christ is an exceptional case of the union of two things. The definition given to this union by the Monk Anastasius is in fact not a definition, but precisely an indication of the uniqueness in the nature of such a close union: “The hypostatic union is a real combination of two natures in the womb of the Holy Mother of God” (II, 5, 9-11; 174). At the same time, the Church teaches that with an inseparable hypostatic union of natures, they remained in their perfect and unchangeable state, did not merge, did not mix, and did not form a new nature. Each nature remained just nature, that is, a really existing true thing. So, the Monk Anastasius says that we confess “two true things united by hypostasis, that is, perfect Divinity and perfect humanity, unfused, unchangeable, indivisible in the one Person of Christ; for there is one Person, Christ, one Hypostasis” (I, 2, 22–28; 151). None of the five types of union existing in nature, listed by the Monk Anastasius (I, 5, 5-8; 174), can be compared with this hypostatic union. Thus, a mixing (συγχυτική) compound changes the natures being combined, such as, for example, diluting wine with water. Against this understanding of the union of natures in the Chalcedonian definition of faith stand the adverbs “unconfused” (ἀσυγχύτως) and “unchanging” (ἀτρέπτως), which are cited by the Monk Anastasius. But this is exactly how the Monophysites thought about the union of Divinity and humanity in Christ, citing as an argument the image of a drop of vinegar and the abyss of the sea, which St. uses. Gregory of Nyssa. It is interesting that St. Cyril of Alexandria - an indisputable authority for Monophysites (as well as for Orthodox Christians) - in the expression “the natures, or hypostases of Christ, remained unfused” insists precisely on the unfused union of Divinity and humanity in Christ. The other two types of unions that Sinait lists - separate (διαιρετή), such as the union of people, and relative (σχετική), such as the unity of faith - leave people in a state of separate hypostases. Relative union (ἕνωσις σχετική) is a term introduced, as we have already said, by Theodore of Mopsuestia to designate the union of natures in Christ. This term, according to Sinait, is more suitable to illustrate an organization of people united by common ideas, interests or beliefs. Then the leader of the organization can represent in the outside world the interests of all people included in the organization, that is, be the “face” of this organization; all members of the organization, to one degree or another, collaborate for a common goal. However, each person does not lose his private being (person, hypostasis); each member of the organization can work against it within it or leave it. It is clear that such a relative union cannot adequately express the closest unity of the Divine and human natures in the single hypostasis of Christ. The Chalcedonian adverbs “indivisible” (ἀδιαρέτως) and “inseparable” (ἀχωρίστως) are directed against such a Nestorian understanding of the union of natures, separating them according to their particular existences. The last, fifth type of union - definite (θετική), such as the merging of two bars of gold into one - is also not suitable for describing the union of the different natures of Christ, since it unites hypostases of the same nature into one. It is the doctrine of the hypostatic union of natures that allows us to speak about the mutual communication of the properties of these natures, including the correct understanding of theopaschist expressions. In contrast to the hypostatic union of natures, when they remain unchanged and unfused, the natural union that the Monophysites professed does not adequately express the communion of properties. The term “natural compound” was also used by St. Kirill, but in his use it was synonymous with the formula “hypostatic connection”. The Monophysit understanding of natural connection led to the emergence of aphthartodocetism and triadological heresies within Monophysitism. As a prototype of the hypostatic union of natures in Christ, the Monk Anastasius, following St. Cyril of Alexandria cites the combination of soul and body in a person (II, 5, 14–18; 174. XXI, 4, 6–10; 338–339). 3.4. Anthropological paradigm. Complex Hypostasis of Christ The use of the anthropological paradigm (τὸ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου παράδειγμα – XVIII, 5; 327) to explain the mystery of the union of Divinity and humanity in Christ had already had quite a long history by the time of St. Anastasius. At St. Gregory the Theologian in the Epistle to Kledonius there is an image of the “soul-body”: “So, there are two natures, God and man, as well as soul and body, but not two sons, not two Gods.” 224 To explain the union of two natures in Christ, one of the founders of Nestorianism, Diodorus of Tarsus, also resorted to the analogy of the union of soul and body in man: “Just as one man is immortal as far as his soul is concerned, and mortal as far as his body is concerned, so in Christ, one and the same is the one who existed before the age and also from the seed of David.” 225 But if before St. While Cyril's anthropological paradigm was used rather as a rhetorical device, the Archbishop of Alexandria filled it with theological content, illustrating the hypostatic union of natures, just as the soul and body are hypostatically united in man. In his Christological polemic against Nestorius, St. Kirill most often uses an anthropological image. “We maintain and define,” he writes in his Epistle to Nestorius on excommunication, “that the Word, having become flesh, dwelt in Christ not at all in the same way as it is said He dwelt in the saints, but, having become one with human nature in hypostatic existence and not turning into flesh, the Word established such a dwelling as, one might say, the soul of a person has with its own body.” 226 This image, according to St. Cyril, more adequately reflects the special unity of Divinity and humanity in Christ, their mutual communication and mutual penetration within the single Hypostasis of God the Word, than the Nestorian image of the church in which God dwells (as God dwells in holy people), or, even more so, the image of the union of husband and wife into one flesh, used by Theodore of Mopsuestia. For St. Cyril, with the help of the anthropological paradigm, as well as with the help of the expression “μία φύσις τοῦ Θεοῦ Λόγου σεσαρκωμένη,” it was important to show that the Word and flesh, as well as soul and body, form an essential unity, that is, a single living being. Thus, the unity of soul and body in man can help in part to understand the nature of the unity of Divinity and humanity in Christ. The Alexandrian saint understood the difference between the hypostatic union of soul and body in man, and the hypostatic union of Divinity and humanity in Christ. Indeed, using the anthropological paradigm and calling the humanity of Christ nature (see the above quote), St. Cyril does not call Christ a single complex nature, which is man. The concept of the “complex nature” of Christ was common among opponents of the Council of Chalcedon. It seemed to them that it allowed, on the one hand, to talk about the fullness of humanity in Christ, about His consubstantiality with us, and thereby avoid the heresy of Apollinaris and Eutyches, and on the other hand, to avoid the recognition of two natures in Christ, which would, as it seemed to them, lead to the Nestorian division of Christ into two hypostases. To confirm his understanding of the single complex nature of Christ, Sevier of Antioch cited an anthropological paradigm: “We consist of body and soul and contemplate two natures: body and soul. However, the human being, by virtue of the union, is one of two. That it consists of two natures does not enable us to conclude that he who is one is two. He remains one single person, as I have already said, being composed of body and soul. And a person just like us can serve as an example for us. For in it we understand two natures: souls and bodies. Nevertheless, although we distinguish with weak understanding or with the imagination of the mind we perceive the difference [of body and soul], we still do not oppose the two natures to each other and do not allow the power of separation to fully manifest itself in them. On the contrary, we understand that they belong to a single being in such a way that from now on the two are no longer two, but from the two a single living being was formed.” 227 So, according to Sevier, just as in man the soul and body, which before the union represented two different natures, united and formed one complex nature of man - each retaining its natural properties - so in the God-man after the incarnation the Divine nature remained unified, but became complex, containing full humanity. The Monk Anastasius Sinaite discusses the limits of applicability of the anthropological paradigm in Christology in chapters XVIII and ΧΙΧ of the Guide. He says that the Holy Fathers used an anthropological model to explain the mystery of the Incarnation of Christ, “wishing, as in a certain sketch (literally - shadow writing, σκιογραφία. - I. A.), to show His visible and invisible, mortal and immortal, tangible and intangible" (XVIII, 7-10; 327). Further, he calls the correspondence between man and Christ in the anthropological paradigm “figurative” (τυπικὸς εἰκών – XVIII, 12; 327). With the words “sketch” (shadow writing) and “figuratively,” Sinait wants to show that all the images we use in Christology, including the anthropological one, can be likened to a rather vain attempt to cognize real objects by reflecting their shadows (XVIII, 8; 327). Here it is appropriate to recall the image of the cave from the seventh book of Plato’s Republic. 228 In the era of triadological disputes, the Holy Fathers were also very careful about various analogies of the Most Holy Trinity taken from the created world. 229 To the humble patristic understanding of the inequality of the image (soul-body in man) and the Prototype (Divinity-humanity in Christ), Sinait contrasts the literal - “in accordance with natural equality” (XVIII, 12; 327) - the understanding of the anthropological paradigm by Sevier and his followers: “Sevier says that just as in the unified nature of man, part of it is the soul, and part is the body, so in Christ The divinity is a part, and the body is a part of His one nature” (XVIII, 14-17; 328). For the Orthodox followers of the Council of Chalcedon, the concept of a single complex nature of Christ was unacceptable. But in relation to man, the concept of “single complex nature” is quite acceptable. Otherwise, if we consider that there are two natures in man, and not one complex nature, then we must consider that there are already three natures in Christ. The Orthodox heard this accusation precisely from the Monophysites. 230 The Monk Anastasius turns this argument against the Monophysites themselves. Arguing that the anthropological paradigm should be treated as an image, and not as an exact correspondence (soul + body = Divinity + humanity), he ironically notes that, following Sevirov’s logic, with no less reason can we consider that Christ “consists not of two, but of many natures. After all, the body consists of four simple essences, that is, the elements, the soul is another essence, another is the essence of God the Word” (XVIII, 61-65; 329). In a sense, not only humans are complex natures, but also all bodies consisting of four elements: earth, water, fire and air (II, 8, 120–137; 190). Later, the Monk John of Damascus, in his treatise “On Complex Nature, or Against the Acephalians,” dedicated to refuting the Monophysite teaching about the complex nature of Christ, defining complex nature as arising from the combination of other natures, but at the same time not being or bearing the name of any of its component parts, following Sinait, he speaks of bodies consisting of four elements as an example of complex natures. 231 Post-Chalcedonian Orthodox theologians presented various arguments against the doctrine of the complex nature of Christ. Leontius of Byzantium proceeded from the difference between the Aristotelian concepts of the first, or private essence (hypostasis, person) and the second, or general essence (essence, nature). Each specific person, although consisting of soul and body, has one nature, since he participates in a form common to all people. But Christ does not have a single nature, since He does not belong to any kind of “Christ”, being the only and unique Being. 232 Aristotle in his “Categories” just said that particular entities existing in the singular do not belong to any general entity. 233 It is interesting that the Monk Anastasius, in the Book of Definitions (Chapter II of the Guide) very clearly and in detail defining the differences between nature and hypostasis, 234 does not cite this argument in polemics with the Monophysites, although Leontius’ term “hypostatic” is cited (II, 3, 113–133; 166). Apparently for the Sinaite this argument is too philosophical and cannot be substantiated based on Scripture. It is the doctrine of human nature as hypostatic, that is, firstly, really existing (as opposed to non-hypostatic), and secondly, having a private existence not in its own, but in someone else’s hypostasis - the Hypostasis of God the Word - that allows us to speak simultaneously about two perfect natures and about one Hypostasis of Christ. St. Maximus the Confessor adds to the arguments of Leontius of Byzantium several of his arguments against the teaching of the Monophysites about the complex nature of Christ. One of these arguments of St. Maximus is that all parts of a complex nature must begin their existence simultaneously. In the complex nature of man, this is exactly what happens, given the almost unanimous teaching of the Holy Fathers about the simultaneous emergence of the human body and soul. However, in this, the union of the soul with the body in man does not at all coincide with the union of Divinity and humanity in Christ. The eternally existing Deity is incommensurable with humanity that appeared in time. 235 The Monk Anastasius of Sinaite repeats this argument of the Monk Maximus, among others, proving that the anthropological paradigm [turns out to be] dissimilar to Christ. For man consists of two created things (I’m talking about soul and body), and Christ is made up of uncreated Divinity and created humanity; man is from two limited ones, and Christ is from a limited body and an unlimited Divinity; man is from a combination of material and mental, and Christ is from God the Word and rational man, who initially had a mind, since neither the body was formed before the soul, nor the soul before the body, but God the Word was before all ages, both souls and bodies (XVIII, 39-50; 328-329). Here the Monk Anastasius speaks of the ontological abyss between Divinity and humanity, which cannot in any way be thought of within the framework of a single nature, in contrast to man, who has a single complex nature. Several original provisions against the doctrine of the single complex nature of Christ, expressed in the form of aporia, are given by the Monk Anastasius in the XX chapter of the Guide. Firstly, if Christ, in Whom the Divinity is hypostatically united with humanity, is one nature, then the Mother of God, while carrying Christ in Her womb, constituted together with Him, and therefore with all the fullness of the Divinity (cf. Col. 2:9) one nature, which is absurd. But since during pregnancy the Mother of God and the Infant God did not constitute one nature (otherwise Christ would not have been separated from Mary), then in Christ after the hypostatic union two natures can be preserved (XX, 5-42; 56-63; 331-332). Secondly, if the Holy Spirit descended essentially and hypostatically on Christ during Baptism, then why did the Word, the humanity of Christ and the Holy Spirit not become one nature (XX, 43–55; 332). Thirdly, if the inseparability of the Word and humanity entails the recognition of one nature, then the Divinity and the throne of the Cherubim on which God sits must be the same one nature (XX, 64-68; 332). Fourthly, if we recognize as one nature the union of two things - Divinity and humanity, separated by an ontological abyss, then why do we not recognize as one hypostasis the three consubstantial and indivisible Hypostases of the Trinity? (XX, 69–85; 333). Finally, if Christ has one Divine nature, which has assumed only the properties of humanity, then He must be omnipresent throughout His single nature; He cannot fail to be present somewhere. But Christ Himself speaks of Lazarus: He died, and I rejoice that I was not there (John 11:15). (XX, 86–93; 333). The Monk Anastasius also notes that the Monophysite formula “Christ is of two natures before the union, but one nature after the union,” which was first voiced by Eutyches, can also be interpreted in the sense of the pre-existence of the flesh of Christ in the womb of Mary separately from God the Word. And this, if we also take an uncritical attitude towards some terminologically inaccurate expressions of St. Cyril of Alexandria, is in complete agreement with Nestorian teaching. In confirmation, Sinait in the fourth part of the XXII chapter of the “Guide” cites the words of a certain Nestorian named Andrei, who, based on two phrases of St. Cyril - “the natures, or hypostases, remained unfused” and “Christ from two natures” - proves that the Archbishop of Alexandria shared the Nestorian teaching, “that the body of Christ pre-existed and was previously formed in the womb of the Virgin and immediately the Person of God the Word was united with it” (XXII, 4, 50-52; 347). Indeed, according to the Monophysites, the humanity of Christ, not being a general human nature, must then be a particular human nature, that is, the humanity of the human individual (hypostasis); in other words, when speaking about human nature “before union,” the Monophysites always meant private nature, that is, hypostasis. In this, the most fundamental difference between Monophysite Christology and Orthodox Christology, Monophysitism and Nestorianism converge, for in Nestorianism the humanity of Christ is also a hypostasis, that is, the humanity of the individual. In the same XXII chapter of the Guide, the Monk Anastasius cites the words of another Nestorian, Bishop Maron of Edessa, confirming the similarity of Sevirianism with Nestorianism in this matter. Referring to the words of St. Cyril that “the natures or hypostases of Christ remained unfused,” he writes: “We, bringing the light of piety from the East, do not turn away from Dioscorus, Sevirus and Theodosius as much as we deservedly hate the blasphemous Council of Chalcedon. For he did not name the hypostases in Christ at all, but Sevier, Father Cyril himself, Dioscorus and Theodosius completely agree with us that there are hypostases in Christ, confessing Him from two hypostases, or persons, but they also say that the hypostases of Christ are not fused” (XXII, 5, 2-11; 348). It turns out that both Christologies (both Nestorian and Monophysite) lead to the impossibility of saving every person. Although Monophysitism speaks of the closest (hypostatic and even natural) union in Christ of the Divine and human natures and hypostases, and Nestorianism only speaks of their subposition, it still turns out “as if Christ accepted and saved a certain one person” (II, 3, 115–117; 166). In addition, the Monk Anastasius says that from the Monophysite teaching about the single complex nature of Christ, confirmed by the literalist understanding of the anthropological paradigm, it logically follows “the assertion that Christ is from two imperfect things: from imperfect Divinity and from incomplete humanity, and He is not perfect in Divinity and perfect in humanity, but half God and half man” (XVIII, 18-22; 328). Sinait here relies on the words of St. Ephraim, Patriarch of Antioch († 545) from his “Homily on the Pearl (μαργαρίτης)”: “And God-bearing Ephraim in the book “Margarit” says: “The invaluable Margarit is involved in two natures,” that is, Christ. And again he says: “He has a dual nature, let him not lose two, for it was not a demigod who descended to earth, and not a half-man who ascended to heaven”” (X. 1, 2, 111–115; 247). These words of St. Anastasius Sinaite and St. Ephraim of Antioch must be understood as follows. Neither the body nor the soul of a person individually are perfect natures. A body without a soul is dead and undergoes complete decay (in the sense of the disintegration of its essence). 236 The soul exists separately after the death of a person, but this existence is unnatural, since it is a consequence of sin. This is a state of death, and the state is temporary. The souls of the righteous “anticipate the resurrection of the dead,” await eternal life, which they will live in the fullness of their human nature. Unlike soul and body, Divinity and humanity are perfect natures, each of which has its own particular existence: the first in the three Persons of the Trinity, the last in humans. So, for the Orthodox - as for Sevier - the concept of a complex Christ is important: “For if he were simple, how could he suffer and die? How was he struck, beaten and crucified, if not by a body subject to suffering, and by earthly nature? (X.2, 7, 101–103; 266). But if the Monophysites spoke about the complex nature of Christ, then the Orthodox, categorically rejecting the doctrine of the single complex nature of Christ, spoke about His single complex Hypostasis (as, according to the thought of St. Anastasius, the Third Ecumenical Council in Ephesus teaches - V, 37-45; 206), consisting of two perfect natures. Moreover, “the own properties of these natures were unfused, invariably, inseparably preserved in a single complex Person” (XXI, 4, 33–34; 339). St. Maximus the Confessor says that during the Incarnation some new hypostasis was not formed, consisting of the Hypostasis of the Word and human nature (or hypostasis). It is the Divine Hypostasis of God the Word that became proper to our nature in Christ, and therefore became complex: “For we say that the one Hypostasis of Christ, consisting of flesh and Divinity through a natural union, that is, through a true and genuine union, became through this ineffable union a common Hypostasis for the flesh and the Divinity. I say “common” because one and the same Hypostasis arose from the union; or, it would be better to say, she is, both now and before, one and the same Hypostasis of the Word. However, previously it existed without cause and was simple and uncomplicated, and later causally it became truly composite without change, having received flesh having a rational soul.” 237 This thought expresses the Christology of St. Cyril, to which the Monk Anastasius refers with the words “One and the Same.” It is to Cyril’s understanding of the complex Hypostasis that Sinait points, saying that the Third Ecumenical Council in Ephesus (V, 37–45; 206) teaches about the complex Hypostasis, the inspirer and author of all decisions of which was the Alexandrian saint. Finally, this is evidenced by the words of the Monk Anastasius that before polemics with the Monophysites, the Orthodox, along with the rejection of Nestorian opinions, must anathematize anyone who “does not recognize the expression “the one incarnate nature of God the Word,” as Saint Cyril interpreted it” (III, 2, 9-13; 194) in the Epistles to Sukkens (X.5, 4-9; 272–273). At the end of the second Epistle to Suckens, St. Cyril says that he is wary of Diphysite expressions because of the possibility of their interpretation in the Nestorian sense: “Therefore, even if they say that Immanuel has the nature of humanity and [the nature of] Divinity, yet this humanity has become proper to the Word, and we understand that with him the Son is one. However, since the inspired Scripture says that He suffered in the flesh (1 Peter 4:1), then it is better for us to say so, rather than to say that He suffered “by human nature,” although there is no doubt that, if some had not so stubbornly insisted on this, (the latter expression) would not have harmed the doctrine of the sacrament in the least. After all, what else could the nature of humanity be if not flesh, intelligently animated? So we say that the Lord suffered in the flesh. Therefore, when they assert with excessive zeal that He suffered “by human nature,” as if completely separating him from the Word and placing him outside Him, separately, their goal is to see two [beings], and not just one Word incarnate and made man from God the Father. And the added “indivisible”, although it looks like our indication of the true view, they do not think like that. After all, this inseparable, in accordance with the idle talk of Nestorius, is understood in a different way by them, for they say that the person into whom God’s Word has infused is indivisible with Him in terms of equality of honor, identity of will and power, so they do not just utter these expressions, but with a certain slyness and malicious intent.” 238 The main polemics of the Guide are directed against various movements of the Monophysites, and it is with them that the Monk Anastasius prepares his readers for polemics. For Monophysites, the words of St. Cyril of Alexandria that “humanity became proper to the Word” were well known, so Sinait only points to them. These words are equally accepted by both Monophysites and Orthodox Christians. Only the Monophysites refused to conceive of the humanity of Christ as a complete and perfect nature. We showed how St. Anastasius relates to the Nestorian interpretation of the Council of Chalcedon in paragraph 2.1. Similar to St. St. John of Damascus also teaches Maximus the Confessor about the complex Hypostasis of Christ in the seventh chapter of the third book of the “Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith”: “So, we affirm that the Divine Hypostasis of God the Word existed before, timelessly and eternally, simple and uncomplicated, uncreated and incorporeal, invisible, intangible, indescribable, having everything that the Father has, as being of one substance with Him, different from the Fatherly Hypostasis; in the last days (Heb. 1:2) the Word, without leaving the Father’s womb, indescribably dwelt in the womb of the Holy Virgin, seedless and incomprehensible, as It Itself knows, and in the most eternal Hypostasis realized for Himself flesh from the Holy Virgin. And even being in the womb of the Holy Mother of God, He was in everything and above all, but through the action of the Incarnation - precisely in Her. So, He became incarnate, receiving from Her the firstfruits of mixture, flesh, animated by a rational and thinking soul, so that the Hypostasis of God the Word itself became a hypostasis for the flesh, and the formerly simple Hypostasis of the Word became complex; complex - from two perfect natures, Divinity and humanity...” 239 The Monk Anastasius also speaks about the same complexity of Christ, relying on St. Gregory the Theologian, Cyril of Jerusalem and Cyril of Alexandria: “After all, all the Gospel and Apostolic [Scripture] teaches and testifies about Emmanuel in two different images, somewhere showing His single face, and somewhere clearly testifying to His two natures. For there was and is dual - One and the same Son and Christ, and the speech about Him is dual (not before the union, but after the incomprehensible union), the same one perfect both in Divinity and in humanity” (X. 2, 7, 90-96; 266). At first glance, the disputes between the Orthodox and the Sevirians may seem to be just disputes about terminology. Sevier speaks about two essences in Christ, about the fullness of His Divinity and humanity, about His dual consubstantiality - the Father according to Divinity and us according to humanity - about the preservation of the properties of Divinity and humanity. It would seem that this is fully consistent with the essence of Orthodox Christology, expressed in the formula “two unfused, inseparable, invariably, inseparably united according to the hypostasis of nature.” The Venerable Anastasius's accusations of docetism, which are built on his definition of nature as “the true reality of existing things” (II, 3, 9–10; 163) and which are repeated countless times in the Guide, seem far-fetched. However, what may seem like too much of an exaggeration is actually just a rhetorical device to prove the truth. The rhetorical device consists in reducing the opponent’s opinion to absurdity – to a heresy already refuted by the Church. This method was always used by the Holy Fathers when condemning a new heretical teaching: Eutyches was condemned for Apollinarism, although, strictly speaking, he was not an Apollinarian; among the accusations against Nestorius was the accusation that his teaching was consistent with the teaching of Paul of Samosata. The truth is that Sevier and all Monophysites do not recognize the humanity of Christ as nature, not only because they consider the terms “nature” and “hypostasis” to be synonymous and see a Nestorian division in the formula “two natures”. By refusing to call Christ's humanity nature, they quite deliberately deprive it of its own dynamics, turning it only into a passive instrument in the hands of the Divine. This was manifested in Sevier’s teaching about the single, albeit complex, divine action of Christ and about His one (only Divine) will. The heretism of the Monophysites is also manifested in the incorrect understanding of theopaschytic expressions. Let us return to the reasoning of St. Anastasius Sinaite about the use of the human image in Christology. Following the Holy Fathers, the reverend father confirms his theological reasoning about the cautious attitude towards the anthropological paradigm in Christology with the authority of Holy Scripture. True, Sinait’s proof turns out to be “proof by contradiction.” The Sinaite says that even in Scripture “the types are not completely likened to images” (XVIII, 25; 328). He provides references to the messianic passages of the Old Testament and parallel passages of the New Testament, where Christ is typified by the examples of a worm (I am a worm, and not a man (Ps. 21:7)), a lion (cf. Gen. 49:9; Rev. 5:5), a sheep and a lamb (cf. Is. 53:7; Acts 8:32; Jer.11:19; Rev.5:6–12), phoenix (date palm - The righteous shall flourish like the phoenix (Ps.91:13)), lilies and apple trees (cf. Song 2). “But none of them are similar [to Christ] in their natural essence” (XVIII, 28–29; 328), says the author of the Guide. The Monk Anastasius concludes his argument “by contradiction,” citing in Chapter XIX a quotation from one Nestorian author who rejects the use of the anthropological paradigm in Christology because of its non-biblical origin (XIX, 4–10; 329–330). In contrast to the anthropological model, this Nestorian cites images from Scripture, which, in his opinion, prove the presence in Christ of two “heterogeneous persons” (XIX, 15; 330), two “different natures, or hypostases” (XIX, 24–25; 330). Among such images, the heretic mentioned Isaac and the ram sacrificed in his place (cf. Gen. 22:1-13), Moses and the basket in which he was placed by his mother after birth and carried into the waters of the Nile (cf. Exod. 2:3), the Ark of the Covenant, consisting of rotten wood and gold (cf. Exod. 25:10-12), a golden vessel with manna from heaven (cf.: Ex.16:33; Heb.9:4), two turtle doves (for a burnt offering and a sin offering - cf.: Lev.12:8; Luke 2:24), two goats (for a scapegoat and a sin offering - cf.: Lev.16:8-10). So, the anthropological paradigm allows us to clearly illustrate the teachings of St. Cyril of Alexandria about the hypostatic union in Christ of Divinity and humanity: “I confess the humanity of Christ, immaculate from soul and body, hypostatically united to His pure Divinity, just as our completely perfect soul 240 is united to our body” (XXI, 4, 6–10; 338–339). In this paradigm, the ontological abyss separating the uncreated Divine and created human nature (XVIII, 39–50; 328–329) corresponds to the greatest difference that exists in the created world - the difference between soul and body, spiritual and material. 241 However, the Monk Anastasius notes “that the anthropological paradigm [turns out] dissimilar in relation to Christ” (XVIII, 39–40; 328). Of the “many other images” that better show the union of two natures in Christ, Sinait uses the following. This is an image of the union of one of the three homogeneous lights with a cloud enveloping it (XXIII, 3, 20–43; 354–355). The second image is the image of a red-hot iron often used by the Holy Fathers (XIII, 1, 34–36; 283). Another image is the image of the Son of God, who is among the three youths in the Babylonian furnace and engulfed in fire (XXI, 4, 12–35; 339). St. Anastasius Sinaite, speaking about the limitations of the anthropological paradigm, does not call for a complete abandonment of it in Christology. On the contrary, with the help of a correct understanding of the anthropological paradigm, the Holy Father calls on the followers of Sevier to recognize two natures in Christ: if the image of Christ consisted, as you tell us, of a certain one and a certain other [i.e. that is, from soul and body], and the One who appeared into the world took upon Himself precisely this, then immediately correct [your absurd confession] by taking something reasonable in this [image]. Since the paradigm itself (I’m talking, of course, about the anthropological one) has united in hypostasis our two partial, as you say, essences, then you are thereby free from censure, as those who confess in Christ two natures: one - the perfect God of the Word, and the other - from two halves - from our soul and body (XVIII, 30-38; 328). From “Three words about the creation of man in the image and likeness of God” St. Anastasius of Sinaite dedicated the second word to a Christological interpretation of the words of the Holy Scripture Let us make man in Our image and in Our likeness (Gen. 1:26). Marveling at “my structure of soul and body, at my dual mixture and combination, at my human union of the invisible and visible, at my hypostatic unity of the material and the immaterial, [which occurred] in my mother’s womb,” 242 the reverend father sees in man the image of Christ, “for man is mortal and immortal, imprinting Thy with his thinking and immortal soul, Christ, Divinity, and in [his] passionate body bearing the true image of Your humanity, consubstantial with him.” 243 In “Questions and Answers” ​​(question 5), Sinait also uses an anthropological paradigm: “God is disposed towards humanity more than any other creature in two respects: firstly, because [man] is the work of His own hands and a pre-image of His Economy, being, like Christ, an invisible and visible, mortal and immortal living being; and secondly, because [Christ] became a man, akin and of the same essence, of the same tribe and of the same kind with us.” 244 Thus, St. Anastasius uses not only the anthropological paradigm in Christology, but also the Christological paradigm in anthropology. These are also positive aspects of the anthropological paradigm. Due to its simultaneous appeal to both Christology and anthropology, it allows us to illustrate the organic unity of these aspects of Orthodox theology. However, according to the thought of the Monk Anastasius, when using it, like all other Christological images, it is necessary to be careful, for the sacrament of the union of two natures in the single Hypostasis of God the Word is a unique case that cannot be revealed in its entirety with the help of any analogies and philosophical constructions. As we showed in paragraph 3.3, the definition given by the Monk Anastasius to the hypostatic union is in fact not a definition, but an indication of the uniqueness of such a close union: “The hypostatic union is the result of the union of two natures in the womb of the Holy Mother of God” (II, 5, 9–11; 174). Let us note that the parallels of the corresponding passages of the “Guide”, the Second Word from “Three Words about the Creation of Man in the Image and Likeness of God” and “Questions and Answers” ​​are further evidence in favor of the fact that the author of the “Guide” is the Venerable Anastasius of Sinaite. The Christological era itself began with disputes about the communication of properties (communicatio idiomatum), namely with disputes about the term “Theotokos”. According to Nestorius, such names of our Savior as “Christ,” “Son,” “Lord” signify both of His natures. The names “God”, “Word” mean only His Divine nature, and “man”, “baby” - only human. The first names include all the facts from the life of Christ, and the second and third names include only one part (each has its own) of facts and names. Therefore, we can say that Christ is eternal, that Christ died, but we cannot say: “The Eternal Child,” “God is crucified.” Equally theologically unacceptable, from the point of view of Nestorius, was the term “Theotokos” (Θεοτόκος), since “Mary did not give birth to the Divinity” (XXI, 2, 16–17; 336). According to Nestorius, the term “mother of man” (ἀνθρωποτόκος), proposed by presbyter Anastasius, of course, was accurate, but Nestorius himself proposed the terms “mother of Christ” (Χριστοτόκος) and “receiver of God” (Θεοδόχος). So, Nestorianism in principle rejects the communion of properties, admitting only that, since Christ is the God-man, communication was established between His Divine and human natures, hypostases and persons within the person of unity. 245 The problem of natural properties was introduced into theological language by St. Leo the Great, Pope of Rome in the Tomos directed to St. Flavian, Archbishop of Constantinople. The emphasis in the Tomos is not so much on unity as on diversity in Christ. Therefore St. Leo speaks of keeping the properties of both natures of Christ unchanged. In addition - and precisely St. Leo speaks clearly about this for the first time - both natures retain their actions. St. Leo says this in such a way that his words can also be understood in the Nestorian sense: “Each nature acts (forma agit) in communion with the other, doing what is characteristic of each.” 246 Such expressions were perceived with hostility by the Monophysites - it is not for nothing that the Tomos of St. Leo the Great and the very name of the Roman saint are still perceived by them sharply negatively. However, for St. Leo, the presence of natural actions in Christ does not violate His unity: “He who is true God is also true man, and in this unity there is no falsity.” 247 Thanks to this unity, the properties of natures - with all their immutability - can be attributed to another nature. So St. Leo consolidates in Christological usage the concept of communication of natural properties. In the oros of the Council of Chalcedon, emphasizing the teaching of St. Cyril about the unity of Christ, was also reflected in the teaching of St. Lev on the preservation of natural properties: “... the union does not in the least abolish the difference of natures, but rather preserves the property (ἰδιότητος 248) of each nature...”. Sevier categorically did not accept the presence of human nature in Christ - as it seemed to him, the duality of natures introduced the duality of hypostases into the one Christ - but said that the God-Man contained within Himself full humanity (which was expressed in the presence in Him of all the natural properties of human nature) and, thereby, was consubstantial with us. In Sevier's teaching on properties there is no strict connection between property and nature, which was necessarily thought by his opponents (both the Orthodox followers of Chalcedon and opponents within Monophysitism - for example, the Aphthartodocetes). According to Sevier, the One Subject Christ, His one nature-hypostasis, corresponds to a single property. But it is not monolithic. It includes divine and human properties in their entirety. Although some of the properties are of a Divine nature, and some are of a human nature, the distinction between them is conditional, and they are not combined into two natures. Moreover, because of the unity of Christ, they cannot be characterized as either purely Divine or purely human. The Divine can be called human, and the human - Divine. Thus, that is, as a direct transfer of the properties of one nature to another, Sevier and his followers very specifically understood the “communication of properties.” Thus, according to Sevier, in Christ the Divine nature, which became complex during the Incarnation, took on the properties of human nature. 249 This understanding of the communication of the Divine and human properties of Christ as the perception of His Divine nature by the properties of the flesh emerged during the period of theopaschytic disputes in Constantinople in the first years of the 6th century under the Patriarch of Macedonia (495–511). The text of the Trisagion Song, which was also sung at the Council of Chalcedon, was changed by the Monophysite Patriarch of Antioch Peter Gnatheos, or Knafeos (Γναφεύς, or Κναφεύς (for St. Anastasius) - fuller, fuller - VI, 2, 13; 212. XII, 3, 53; 280). He added to the Trisagion hymn before the words “have mercy on us” the words “crucified for us” (σταυρωθεἰς ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν – XII, 2, 28; 278), which caused confusion among the people. Since this song was always perceived as addressed to the Holy Trinity, the Orthodox suspected the Monophysites of professing the suffering of the Three Persons of the Trinity or the Divine nature, that is, they were theopaschites. 250 The Monk Anastasius calls them that: “theopaschites.” In particular, in the third debate, described in Chapter X of the Guide and which took place in Alexandria “in the presence of Augustal and a large people” (X.3, 2–3; 270), Sinaite gave his opponents a confession: “I, Anastasius the monk of the holy Mount Sinai, confess that God the Word Himself, born of God the Father before all ages, Himself was crucified, was beaten, suffered and was resurrected” (X.3, 36–40; 270), and “cunningly” promised to join their church and serve with them if they signed this papyrus. Having signed it, they immediately received accusations of theopaschism from the Monk Anastasius: “Having accepted the papyrus after signing, going up to who was considered the wisest of them and lightly touching his beard with my hand, I said: “Christ suffered for us in the flesh (1 Pet. 4:1), theopaschites, and not in the Divine; He suffered in the flesh, as the Apostle Peter theologizes, and not in the Divine, as Sevier blasphemes and as you have now signed. For, wishing to expose all the slander in your soul, I wrote, indicating in papyrus the naked Divinity of God the Word, without remembering either the flesh, or the incarnation, or the Nativity of the Holy Virgin” (X.3, 47–57; 271). The Monk Anastasius devoted the twelfth chapter of the Guide to the polemics with the Monophysites regarding their insertion into the Trisagion. The Monophysites justified this insertion by the fact that they attributed the Trisagion hymn to God the Word (XII, 2, 27–31; 278) and by the fact that such theopaschytic expressions were firmly established in the Holy Tradition of the Church. These are the words of the Apostle Paul: they would not have crucified the Lord of glory (1 Cor. 2:8), and smch. Ignatius the God-Bearer: “Let me imitate the sufferings of my God,” and St. Melito of Sardis: “God suffered at the hands of Israel,” and St. Gregory the Theologian: “Small drops of God’s blood sanctified the whole world,” and the expressions of St. Cyril of Alexandria: “passion of God”, “Cross of God”, “death of God”, “Resurrection of God” (XII, 2, 4–23; 278). Firstly, the Monk Anastasius reminds the Monophysites that the Trisagion is understood in many churches as a song addressed to the Trinity, and not only to the incarnate Word: “and the expression “passion of God” must be taken with all caution, since there may be some bad understanding, blasphemous in relation to God and the Father, similarly in relation to the Holy Spirit, since the Holy Spirit is God, like the Father and the Son” (XII, 2, 31–36; 278–279). But even if we agree that the Trisagion is addressed only to the incarnate Word, then even then the Monophysites are worthy of reproach. The Monk Anastasius says that Monophysites understand theopaschist expressions in the sense that the Divine nature, having accepted humanity, also accepted the properties of human nature, becoming passionate. Indeed, from Sevier’s teaching about particular properties included in the single property of Christ as a single complex nature, this is exactly the conclusion that follows. The Sinaite uses a polemical technique, which he calls “material” (πραγματικός) evidence, as opposed to direct quotation of Scripture or the Holy Fathers. Having depicted the Honest Cross on the tablet, he wrote above it: “God the Word, the rational soul and body” (XII, 3, 11–12; 279) and asked the Monophysites a question: “Which of these three perished, died, became inactive and motionless?” (XII, 3, 20–21; 279). When they answered that the body perished, but the Word and soul remained immortal, the Monk Anastasius accused his opponents of calling the soul of Christ immortal, and making God the Word - that is, the Divine nature - passionate, which follows from their Trisagion song. Archpriest John Meyendorff sees in such accusations a Nestorian bias in the division of natures, a misunderstanding of their hypostatic union, and believes that the insertion, carried out by Peter Gnatheus, of “an expression borrowed from the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, was intended to reveal an essential point in the theology of St. Kirill. Since the Word is the only “subject” in Christ, He is also the subject of death “in the flesh,” which was “His own.” It is obvious that the Trisagion was interpreted as a hymn to the incarnate Word, and the expanded version of the hymn was formally Orthodox.” 251 However, accusations of misunderstanding the essence of the doctrine of the hypostatic union of natures and the resulting Orthodox understanding of theopaschytic expressions cannot be attributed to the Monk Anastasius. He immediately formulates the correct understanding of these expressions. It consists in the fact that the properties of human nature are acquired and attributed to the Divine nature, and the properties of the Divine nature are attributed to the human nature, according to the economy and by virtue of being together within one hypostasis: Therefore, as soon as you hear: the Lord of glory is crucified (cf. 1 Cor. 2:8), or “God suffered at the hands of Israel,” or “Let me imitate the sufferings of my God,” or “Drops of God’s blood,” or “God’s death, the tomb and the Cross,” in no way say that the passion and death of God the Word were by nature, but that they were according to His flesh, united by hypostasis. For just as the flesh, due to the ineffable and inseparable union with God the Word, is assimilated into the divine, so often the human, passionate and mortal is assimilated to the God Word who is in it; having assimilated to Himself, in a certain respect, by the economy and by the joint existence of the passions of His own flesh, He, as God by nature and in truth, remains impassive and immortal (XII, 3, 65-77; 280-281). Another understanding of theopaschite expressions, including the term “Theotokos,” is that the human nature of Christ, remaining human nature and retaining its natural properties, again, due to the hypostatic union with the Divine nature, rose in its properties to the state of deification. This is exactly how we must understand some patristic expressions: “The Holy Fathers in these expressions said not “by nature” (οὖ τῇ φύσει), but “by deification” (τῇ θεώσει) and “by union” (τῇ ἑνώσει); after all, the divine Gregory did not say that the body is God by nature, but says: “because it too is God by deification,” just as iron, after combining with fire, radiates heat and is called fire, of course, not by nature, because iron is not absent” (XIII, 1, 29-36; 283). However, the current of aphthartodocetism, born in the midst of Monophysitism, considered the deification of Christ’s humanity as the complete dissolution of human properties in the Divine nature. We will say more about the controversy regarding the heresy of aphthartodocetism in the next paragraph, but now we will turn to another heresy within monophysitism, which misunderstands the doctrine of the communication of properties. The heresy of the Sevirian Patriarch of Alexandria Damian was a response to the current of tritheism that emerged within Monophysitism, which, in turn, is a consequence of the terminological inconsistency of Monophysite Christology. Monophysites, identifying the terms “nature” and “hypostasis” in Christology, left behind them different meanings in triadology, as was clearly reflected at the Second Ecumenical Council. The Monk Anastasius argues with this position of the Monophysites in the Guide, as we showed in the second chapter of our work. Most Monophysites came to terms with this contradiction, but a small sect of Tritheites still formed. Leontius of Byzantium considers the following incident to be the reason for the emergence of this sect. In a debate with the Orthodox, the Monophysites accused them of Nestorianism, since if there are two natures in Christ, then in Him there are two hypostases, two persons, since there is no non-hypostatic nature. The Orthodox answered - as St. Anastasius does in the Guide - that there are Three Persons in the Trinity, but in It there is one nature. Consequently, nature and hypostasis are not the same thing. The Monophysites, in the interests of self-defense, were forced to admit that in a certain sense one could speak of three natures, of three beings in the Trinity. 252 The heresy of tritheism in the bosom of monophysitism is a completely logical consequence of Sevier’s Christology. If the Orthodox said that God the Word assumed a common human nature, and not a private nature (that is, hypostasis), and, accordingly, the common Divine nature was fully, but only in the Hypostasis of the Word, incarnated in Christ, then Sevier says that in both cases we must talk about a private nature (hypostasis). Regarding Christology, this teaching of Sevier is an identification of Monophysitism. But in triadology, the assumption of some other, and not complete, connection with humanity of the Divine essence directly leads to tritheism. It became a natural consequence of Sevirov’s view of the triadological aspect of Christology and appeared no more than forty years after Sevirov. Around 585, Damian published an essay against the Tritheites, and the Sevirian Patriarch of Antioch, Peter of Callinicus, first came out with cautious criticism and, in the end (after Easter 588), announced a severance of Eucharistic communion. Damian argued that the three Persons of the Trinity differ in reality only as three hypostatic properties. To do this, he identified the properties of ungeneracy, birth and originality with the Hypostases of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, respectively. Thus, Damian denied the reality of the distinction between Hypostases (that which has independent existence - in contrast to properties that have existence only “in another”). Peter tried to defend the traditional theology of the Cappadocians while distancing himself from the tritheism of which Damian accused him. Although the dispute was formally resolved in Peter's favor at the Council of Alexandria of the Sevirian Church in 616 (however, without condemning Damian), the heresy of Damianism triumphed among the Monophysites - at least in Egypt, after the Islamic conquest in 641. 253 This is precisely evidenced by the polemics with her by the Monk Anastasius of Sinaite, described in chapters XV-XVII and XXIV of the “Guide”. The Monk Anastasius polemicizes with the two Paschal Epistles of the Sevirian Patriarch of Alexandria John III (680–689), who clearly professes the teachings of Damian. These “Egyptian in mind” (οἱ αἰγυπτιάζοντες τὸν νοῦν – XV, 37–38; 322) heretics say: “Everything that is said about Christ is said about the Father and the Holy Spirit” (XV, 18–20; 321), or rather, “only that which in Christ concerns the essence (τὰ οὐσιωδῶς) applies equally to the whole Trinity” (XV, 71–72; 323). “Those who are Egyptian in mind,” in support of their teaching about the perception by the entire Trinity (which, in their opinion, is a single nature-hypostasis) of the natural properties of Christ’s humanity, referred to His words: I am not alone, because the Father is with Me (John 16:32), the Spirit of the Lord is on Me; for He anointed Me (Luke 4:18) and especially on the words of the Apostle Paul about the Savior: in Him dwells all the fullness of the Divinity bodily (Col. 2:9): “If the Holy Trinity has one nature, and this very nature in the contemplated Hypostasis of the Son is separately contemplated as perfect and immaculate, and the Son is incarnate, then it turns out that all the fullness of the Divinity is certainly embodied according to what has been said: in Him dwells all the fullness of the Divinity is bodily” (XVII, 3–8; 325–326). So, we see that among the Monophysites, in response to tritheism, the old heresy of Sabellius was actually resurrected, who taught about the one incarnate God, changing only the face masks (Father - at Sinai, Son - at the Incarnation and Spirit - on the day of Pentecost). If Sabellius spoke of a single nature, a single hypostasis and three faces (masks) of God, then the Damianites, speaking of three hypostases, thought of them only as properties. Therefore, the Monk Anastasius rightly calls their teaching “Sabellian fusion” (XVII, 11; 326). “Those who are Egyptian with their minds” did not recognize the mystery of the Holy Trinity: “After all, in the Trinity there is Another and Another, but in Christ there is no Other and Another, but there is another and another, but in the Trinity there is no other and another” (XV, 34-37; 322). In response, St. Anastasius clearly articulates the Orthodox triadology formulated by the Cappadocian Fathers, as well as the consequences of the hypostatic union of the natures of Christ in relation to intra-Trinitarian relationships. It is necessary to clearly understand the differences between the natural and hypostatic properties of the Persons of the Trinity: In the Word’s own Hypostasis the integrity of the Trinity being is not contemplated, as Sabelli’s fusion asserts. For the Word is neither unbegotten, nor begetting, nor uncaused, nor has He who sits on His right hand (cf. Ps. 109:1), nor does He exist in His bosom (cf. John 1:18), like the Father; does not have the procession of the Spirit and nothing else from the hypostatic properties of the Father and the Holy Spirit, for the Son is not unborn, like the Father, the Son is not a Parent, like the Father; again, the Son is not without cause, not emanating (XVII, 9-19; 326). Therefore, the Incarnation, in which the fullness of the Divine nature - in the Hypostasis of only the Word, and not the Father and not the Spirit - was seamlessly and invariably united with the fullness of human nature, did not change the relationship between the Persons of the Trinity: And therefore, the Hypostasis of the Son is incarnate; neither the ungeneracy of the Father nor the outgoing Hypostasis of the Holy Spirit is incarnate with Him. But since all the natural properties of the Trinity, that is, originlessness, uncreatedness, unlimitedness, immutability, goodness, life-giving and all the like, without changing and remaining the same nature, just as in the Father and in the Holy Spirit, are contemplated in the Son, therefore it is said: in Him dwells all the fullness of the Divinity bodily (Col. 2:9) and therefore it is said that Christ is perfect in the Divinity (XVII, 20-30; 326). The other Persons of the Trinity participated in the Incarnation “by a common will, that is, by favor and overshadowing” (XVI, 30–32; 324). The Father favors and sends the Son into the world, and the Holy Spirit assists and overshadows Him (XVI, 21-24; 324). The Son becomes Christ, that is, the Anointed One, “whose anointing is done by the Father, and His anointing is the Holy Spirit” (XVI, 37–40; 325). In this collaboration, the single will and single action of the Anointing (Father), the Anointed (Son) and the Anointing (Spirit) are manifested (XVI, 42-45; 325). So, as the logical development of Sevier’s Christology showed, the suspicions of Chalcedon’s supporters towards the Monophysites in theopaschism were not groundless. Only the Orthodox understanding of theopaschist expressions, based on the doctrine of the hypostatic (but not natural, that is, within one nature) union of natures, allows us to get away from theopaschism - from the confession that the Divine nature became passionate during the Incarnation - and from tritheism. 3.6. Impeccable passions. Deification of the Human Nature of Christ If the Christology of Sevier of Antioch led his followers to two opposing triadological heresies after the death of Sevier himself, then the heresy of Aphthartodocetism appeared during his lifetime. The teaching in opposition to Severus was formulated in polemics with him by the Monophysite bishop of Halicarnassus in Caria, Julian, during their joint stay in Alexandria, where they retired due to the persecution of opponents of the Council of Chalcedon, erected by Emperor Justin I. 254 The years of the reign of Justin I were 518–527, which means that the theological dispute within Monophysitism arose no earlier than 518. The Monk Anastasius speaks about the exile of Sevirus to Alexandria as follows: “when Sevirus of Antioch was accused because of his nasty teaching directed against the Council of Chalcedon, he appears in Alexandria, in the den of snakes, the enemies of the Universal Church” (VI, 1, 23–26; 208). According to Julian, the fact that Sevier and his supporters “although they say that Christ is precisely one nature, but confess in Him two properties, divine and human” (XXIII, 1, 14-18; 349), introduces a Nestorian division in Christ. Julian formally recognizes the consubstantial humanity of Christ to people, but does not consider it possible to consider the human component in Christ not only as human nature, but also as a human property. The divine and human properties in the God-man are so mixed that there can be no separation, distinction or duality. Julian speaks of “indistinguishable difference” (διαφορὰ ἀδιάφορος), so that in Christ there are neither actions nor properties that could be considered as only Divine or only human. Hence follows Julian’s teaching about the incorruptibility of the flesh of Christ, which received the name aphthartodocetism (from ἄφθαρτος - incorruptible, δοκέω - to seem, to appear correct). By the way, this term first appears around 515 in John the Grammar of Caesarea, who wrote a special polemical treatise against the supporters of the doctrine of the incorruptibility of the body of Christ. 255 Thus, the doctrine of aphthartodocetism - and even the term itself - existed even before Julian's polemic with Sevirus, but our knowledge of this doctrine is based mainly on the study of surviving fragments of the writings of the Halicarnac theologian. The Monk Anastasius makes Guyana (Γαιανός) the founder of the new heresy: Sevier and Guyan were previously of the same mind and stayed together in Alexandria for 18 years. And then one day Guyan asked Sevier: “How should one confess the body of Christ, corruptible or incorruptible?” When Sevier said that the body is perishable until the Resurrection on the third day from death, Gayan immediately interrupted him: “If you say that the body is perishable, then with all necessity you name two natures in Christ.” This became the reason for the division between them (XXIII, 1, 2–22; 349). Gaian was the Monophysite Patriarch of Alexandria for a short time in 535, having been elevated to the see by an indignant crowd that expelled the newly ordained Patriarch Theodosius, a supporter of Sevirus living in Alexandria and an opponent of Julian. Before this, Guyan was an archdeacon, and 103 days after his accession to the see, he was deposed and exiled to Carthage, following a complaint by Theodosius to Emperor Justinian I. 256 So, according to Julian’s thought, it is impossible for Christ, as God incarnate, to acquire any property that contains an element of any imperfection. The property of corruption can only be attributed to humanity, but not to the Divine. The assimilation by Christ of a certain human property, not attributable to His Divinity, was thought by Julian as the opposition of the flesh to the Divinity, which for the Halicarnak bishop is equivalent to the Nestorian division. 257 “If we do not recognize the body of Jesus Christ as incorruptible, but corruptible,” writes Julian, “then it is necessary to admit a difference between the body of Christ and the Word of God; If we allow this difference, then it is necessary to recognize two natures in Christ (δύο φύσεις 258), and in this case, where is the basis to further resist the definition of the Council of Chalcedon.” 259 The theological dispute resulted in a church schism among the Monophysites. Julian became the founder of one of the many hierarchies, separate from Sevirov’s. 260 Julian gave his theological opponents the name phtartolatrov (perishable worshipers, from φθαρτός - perishable, λατρεύω - to serve, worship). The words “corruptible” and “incorruptible” (ἄφθαρτον) can be understood in different ways. In the proper sense of the word, “incorruptible is that which cannot be damaged by another entity, incorruptible is that which is not at all fluid, has no defect and is invulnerable” (II, 5, 117–120; 177). Therefore, only immaterial nature can be incorruptible (in this theological and philosophical sense): “incorruptible in the proper sense of the word is impassive, immaterial and intangible” (II, 5, 116–117; 177). Corruption, which was the subject of the discussion, should be distinguished from complete decay, destruction, death (καταφθορά - II, 5, 131; 178), to which the body of Christ could not be subjected after death due to its union with Life itself - God the Word. Christ's body could not be destroyed, He could not remain in a state of death, He had to be resurrected. This position was shared by all sides of the theological dispute - Sevier, Julian, and the Orthodox. The Monk Anastasius of Sinaite cites the opinion of Julian of Halicarnak that the body of Christ could experience suffering states only if He allowed it: “Some say that the most holy body of Christ was corruptible in possibility, that is, it accepted corruption, but in the tomb it was preserved incorruptible by the action of the Divinity of the Word” (II, 5, 123-126; 177). These words briefly express the teaching of the Aphthartodocetes about the voluntariness of Christ’s suffering. According to this teaching, Christ, unlike any other person - a sinner who suffers (perishable) as a result of sin out of necessity and against his will - endures suffering and death voluntarily. He is not enslaved by passions, He commands them, otherwise His sufferings would not have any redemptive meaning. 261 So, according to the aftartodokets, Christ voluntarily accepts suffering, although he might not have experienced hunger after a forty-day fast in the desert, just as he might not have suffered physical torment from scourging and crucifixion. When His body is in the tomb, then, according to the testimony of the Monk Anastasius, Julian considers it not to undergo corruption. Here the monoenergism of the aphthartodokets is clearly manifested (single energy is the most important single property of the single nature of Christ). It is the Word, as an active principle, that allows (or does not allow) the human component of Christ to undergo passionate states. The Monk Anastasius shows that the presence in Christ of human nature together with natural properties - including the properties of corruption - does not contradict the voluntariness of Christ's passions. He incarnated voluntarily, and, having incarnated, along with human nature, he perceived all natural properties. Because of the voluntariness of the Incarnation, the Word and all His passions are voluntary. If the passions of Christ, due to their voluntariness (and, therefore, redemptiveness) cannot be attributed to nature, as the aphthartodocetes taught, then, based on the definition of nature as true reality, “one cannot call His body nature, His Christmas - Christmas, His age - age, His race - race, His passion - passion, His death - death, His Resurrection - Resurrection, His Ascension - Ascension. After all, He, having incarnated on earth, accepted all this voluntarily, and not forced. And this is an invention of the Manichaeans” (XXIII, 3, 7–15; 354). The fact that the teaching of the Aphthartodocetes actually means that Christ is not consubstantial with us was said not only by the Orthodox - as the Monk Anastasius does, accusing them of docetism - but also by the Sevirians. The Monk Anastasius describes in detail and repeatedly the suffering states (the so-called “immaculate passions”) of Christ. By the very ultra-natural description of these passions, he proves their truth, and, therefore, their naturalness. Here is a characteristic passage, or rather, part of a very lengthy quote from Philo of Alexandria. And how are Christian preachers not ashamed to call Jesus God? After all, it is said: The Lord... is a consuming fire (Deut. 4:24). Tell me, is the fiery God hungry? Is the Fire God thirsty? Does the Fire God spit? Is the Burning God crying? The Fiery God is circumcised, bleeds and throws the circumcised flesh, blood and excrement from the abdomen to the ground? All this, at that time thrown by Jesus to the earth, was eaten and devoured by dogs or wild animals and birds, all that was circumcised from His flesh was trampled by cattle; separated and discarded, be it saliva, be it nails, be it hair, be it blood, be it sweat, be it tears - all these certain parts are co-essential with the essence of the body, and due to growth they are cut off and discarded. After all, you say that Jesus in His flesh became like men in everything except sin, and therefore you preach that, having been dead for three days, He is God. And what kind of God is this – “a consuming fire” – Who can die when neither angels, nor evil demonic spirits, nor the souls of people can die? What kind of God is this, tell me, who has power over life and death, Who runs away, as Jesus ran away from Herod, so as not to be killed as a Child? What kind of God is this, Who is being tempted by the devil for 40 days?.. If He is God, then why did He pray that the cup of death would pass from Him, and was not heard? If He is God, then why, abandoned by God, said: My God, My God! Why have you forsaken me? (Matthew 27:46). Is God abandoned by God? God asks God: Do not leave My soul in hell (cf. Ps. 15:10; Acts 2:27)? Is God tied up, slapped, spat on, and killed? So, if He was God, then He needed to defeat those who wanted to arrest Him, as during the time of Lot the Angel struck the Sodomites, but you call the powerlessness of Jesus patience (XIII, 10, 45-79; 312-313). 262 With the help of these examples, the Jew Philo proves that Christ is not God. For the Sinaite, these words are proof that the humanity of Christ is full human nature. Such words, very difficult to translate (for example, about the physiological secretions of Christ), belong not only to the detractors of Christianity - whom St. Anastasius quotes - but also to the Holy Father himself. Thus, according to the Monk Anastasius, the border between the Orthodox and the Aftartodokets does not follow the principle of “voluntary - involuntary”, but according to the principle of “natural - unnatural”. If the cause of Christ's suffering states is in His humanity, then these passions are natural, natural, even though they were completely voluntary. If passions have their cause in the Divine will, which allows or does not allow the Savior’s humanity to experience them, then such passions are unnatural. The Monk Anastasius, describing his dispute with the Aphthartodoket in Chapter XXIII of the Guide, gives a “Eucharistic” argument against their teaching. Having agreed with the opponent that they confess the Eucharistic Gifts in exactly the same way - not as simple bread and not as an image (ἀντίτυπος - “in place of”) of Christ’s body, but as “the very Body and Blood of Christ the Son of God, incarnate and born of the Holy Mother of God and Ever-Virgin Mary” (XXIII, 1, 48-50; 350), Sinait invites the aftartodokets to put their Holy Gifts in a certain vessel and see what happens to them in a few days. If it does not decay, change or deteriorate, then it will become obvious that you rightly preach that Christ from the very moment of union exists completely incorruptible, and if it does decay or deteriorate, then it is necessary for all of you to admit one of the following: either what you eat is not the true Body of Christ, but only an image, or that because of your evil faith the Holy Spirit did not descend on it, or that the body of Christ before the Resurrection is perishable as offered in a sacrifice subject to death and wounds, crushed and eaten (XXIII, 1, 66–76; 351). With the help of the “Eucharistic” argument, St. Anastasius proves not only the perishability of Christ’s body before the Resurrection, but also insists that His humanity can and should be called nature. And not just name it. It truly is nature, which we can understand from the experience of communion with it: “We not only believe in the nature of His body, but also with real experience we see and touch it and partake of it, daily by nature and truly tasting it” (XIV, 2, 6-10; 317). The Eucharistic Gifts are indeed not an image (ἀντίτυπος) of the Body and Blood of Christ, but the very Body into which the Word was incarnate. The Monk Anastasius quotes the words of St. Ammonius of Alexandria: Indeed, perhaps among those who condemn the Council of Chalcedon and deny the nature of the flesh of Christ, there is indeed confusion: after all, it is this visible body, in need of care, growing, swaddled, circumcised, touched, imprisoned, struck, pierced, killed, carried, buried, anointed with incense, mourned, crushed, they refuse to call what is tasted, crumbled, passed on [to believers for communion] nature, that is, true reality, and the invisible Word, Which they have not seen and will not see, have not touched and will not touch, have not comprehended with the mind and will not comprehend, have not described, have not subjected to death, have not crushed, have not eaten (absolutely nothing from Him can be comprehended by the mind: neither nature, nor form, nor appearance, nor color, nor appearance, nor size, nor movement, nor change, nor descent, nor coming [to earth] or departing [to heaven], nor anything else that exists in God the Word), - they confess Him to be the essence (XIV, 1, 3-18; 314-315). This understanding of the Holy Gifts is fully consistent with the definition of nature as true reality, which St. Anastasius gives in Chapter II of the Guide. If we call the Gifts the true Body and true Blood of Christ, then it means that they are by nature, and not by image (ἀντίτυπος). Otherwise they could not be called true. The words of St. Anastasius about the perishability of the Holy Gifts may raise the question of which body of Christ they correspond to - before the Resurrection or after. The fact that with the help of their corruption Sinait proves the corruption of the Savior’s human nature before the Resurrection is suggested by the first answer. It is precisely this opinion that we partake of the Body of Christ in a state of corruption, that is, in the state in which it remained before the Resurrection, was expressed by a certain Michael Sikidit 263 in the 1190s. Opponents of Sikidite said that in the Eucharist we partake of the incorruptible Body of Christ, that is, in the state in which it remains after the Resurrection. From the course of Sikidite's reasoning emerged the doctrine of the multiple and daily repetition of the Sacrifice of Christ. This opinion was condemned at the Councils of Constantinople in 1156–1157, convened against Sotirich, and the condemnation was confirmed by the Council convened in Constantinople under Patriarch John Camarita (1198–1206) and Emperor Alexius III Angelus Komnenos (1195–1203). The Sacrifice of Christ is offered once, and at each liturgy bread and wine are given into the offered Sacrifice of the Body of Christ. And although the Council of the 1190s did not reach unity and did not make any decision regarding the corruption or incorruptibility of the Eucharistic Body, subsequent tradition (for example, St. Nicholas Cabasilas) testifies that in the communion of the Holy Gifts we partake of the risen Body of Christ. 264 However, we note that St. Anastasius in the “Guide” does not build a doctrine of the Eucharist; he only uses the “Eucharistic argument” in polemics with the Monophysites. If we take a literal approach, then he calls only the Gifts of the Aftartodokets perishable. Using the “Eucharistic argument” against the rest of the Monophysites, as applied to the Holy Gifts of the Orthodox Church, Sinait shows that they are crushed, tasted, etc., that is, insists on their created, and not Divine, nature, but does not talk about corruption. After all, even after the Resurrection, Christ’s humanity remained a created nature, as we will discuss below. Responding to the aftartodokets that many Holy Fathers called the flesh of Christ incorruptible, the Monk Anastasius argues that these words must be understood in the sense of the Savior’s sinlessness: “In the Divine Scriptures, corruption is spoken of in two senses: bodily and mental. For example, the Lord God saw, and behold, the whole earth was corrupted by sin (cf. Gen. 6:12); again it is said about people: They have become corrupt and disgusted in their iniquities (Ps. 52:2) and in their morals. Finally, when you hear the teacher that the body of Christ was incorruptible before the Cross, then understand this in such a way that it was incorruptible and pure relative to the corruption of sin (κατὰ τὴν φθορὰν τῆς ἀμαρτίας), but not in the sense of some subtlety or alienness to our bodies" (II, 5, 107–116; This argument is repeated in chapter XXIII (XXIII, 2, 3–21; 351–352). In the XIV chapter of the Guide, the Monk Anastasius of Sinaite shows that the aphtartodocets, who deny in Christ the presence of a full human nature on the basis of its sinfulness, do this due to their extreme sinfulness: I believe that all who reject and deny nature and everything that relates to the nature of the body of Christ, and all the natural properties of the body, from that vile Mani to the present [heretics], have deviated from [the confession of the nature of the body in Christ] and avoid [this confession] only because the life of all of them is completely unclean due to fornication, dissipation, lust and pleasure, due to irritation with the pleasures of the body, mind and their souls, due to the fact that night and day they are defiled by the thoughts and deeds of lust, depravity, sodomy, womanizing, pleasure and carnal debauchery, due to the fact that in themselves they constantly feel the kindling of the fleshly flame, as if some kind of flame from a terrible furnace, and the kindling of dissolute lust (XIV, 2, 10-23; 317). Thus, they become disciples of Mani, who “taught that our flesh is not the creation of God, but the creation of the devil: “And for this reason,” he says, “it is so strongly inflamed and fought by the demon who created it, for it does not live in us, that is, in our flesh is good” (XIV, 2, 41-45; 317-318). Thus, they also deny the image of God in man: “So, they are clearly exposed as hating our nature, [created] in the image and likeness of God, condemning and insulting our body, created and formed by the hands of God and animated by God’s breath; mocking man as unclean according to the teachings of the Manichaeans, they insult the creation and the likeness of His image” (XIV, 2, 89–95; 319). As proof of their teaching, the Monophysites also cited the image of the union of two natures in Christ, which is found in St. Gregory of Nyssa - the image of a drop of vinegar and the abyss of the sea. This image is especially suitable for the aphthartodokets, who deny in Christ the presence of not only human nature, but even human properties. The Monk Anastasius gives their argument: “Through some subtle reasoning or with the help of imagination, we understand that Christ is one incarnate nature out of two natures. After all, “after the union” there are no longer two natures, for “deified and immortalized flesh is like a drop of vinegar in the sea, and such [flesh] was born, and only one [Deity] deified it” 265 "(X.5, 43–48; 274). So, the Monophysites understood deification in the sense that humanity in Christ became part of the Divine nature, ceasing to be nature, and even (for the Aftartodokets) losing its natural properties. St. Anastasius calls on heretics to understand the words of the Holy Fathers based on the general context of their teaching. The same St. Gregory of Nyssa says the following words, which can also be understood in the Nestorian sense: “What nature of Christ is struck during the passion? And which one is glorified from eternity? And without explanation it is clear, the father says, that the blows relate to the servant, in whom the Lord is, and honor - to the Lord, with whom the servant is” (XIII, 3, 110-114; 290). The Sinaite interprets the image of a drop of vinegar and the abyss of the sea as follows: “the divine Gregory used the name vinegar and the sea not to speak of the destruction of the properties [of the nature of the body], but to compare the properties, showing the pitiful state of our nature in comparison with the boundless greatness of the incomprehensible abyss of the Divine” (XIII, 3, 105–108; 290). The Orthodox understanding of the deification of human nature better explains the image of a certain fourth among the three youths of Babylon, whom Nebuchadnezzar saw (cf. Dan. 3:92). This Someone was in the form of man completely perfect and fiery, co-fiery, completely fiery and completely burning, just as the humanity of Christ was completely perfect and completely deified (ὅλη δι’ ὅλου ὁλόθεος), deified (ἔνθεος) and co-divine (σύνθεος). And just as if someone, having entered this furnace, would have tried to behead [with a sword], strike, bind, wound or kill Him who is in the form of the Son of God, then the fire would not have been separated from Him and would not have been quenched due to His completely perfect union with the fire, so in Christ the Son of God, as the angel said: Rejoice, full of grace! The Lord is with You (Luke 1:28), the fire of the Divine can never, in any way, and under any circumstances be separated from His humanity, and will not be separated forever. However, we confess that this most holy body and soul of Christ differ in glory and majesty from our souls and bodies, just as the image in the furnace differed from the rest of the bodies that were outside the fire and furnace. As a result, we call His most holy body deified and all the properties of the body deified, and His pure soul deified and all its properties deified and monotheistic (ὁμόθεα), and we say that the proper properties of these natures are unfused, unchangeable, inseparably preserved in a single complex Person, as the blessed Fathers piously conveyed to us (XXI, 4, 12-35; 339). A similar image of the deification of the human nature of Christ is the image of a red-hot iron or sword often used by the Holy Fathers (XIII, 1, 34–36; 283). Thus, the humanity of Christ, although it was in a humiliated state before His Resurrection, enduring sinless passions, by virtue of its hypostatic union with the Divine nature, remains mysteriously deified. It accepted as many perfections as it could contain. The natural properties of Christ’s humanity, remaining unfused with the properties of the Divine nature and remaining within the framework of their nature, nevertheless rose to the highest possible heights: “Deification is an ascension to a higher one, and not a diminution or change of nature... To be deified means to be elevated to greater glory, but not a change in one’s own nature” (II, 7, 8-13; 180). After the Resurrection, Christ left the sinless passions, which are the consequences of Adam’s fall, and from the state of His humiliation, humanity passed into a glorified state: Because of the union with the Divine and the three-day Resurrection, His most holy body passed into a better state, and no longer has the same properties: it is no longer mortal, corruptible, fluid, subject to weariness, or deprived of [circumcised flesh, cut hair, nails, flowing blood, etc.], but has changed from mortal to immortal, from corruptible to incorruptible, and the material has become immaterial, carnal - spiritual, passionate - dispassionate, fluid - not fluid, needing food and drink - not needing them, deprived of [cut flesh, cut hair, nails, bleeding blood, etc.] - not deprived of them, plump - subtle, temporary - eternal; however, it became neither unlimited, nor incorporeal, nor unchangeable, nor intangible, nor invisible, nor uncreated, nor beginningless; for these are the properties of one Divinity. So, the pious Orthodox teaching of the Fathers does not recognize that the most holy body of Christ now has our natural properties, crept in due to disobedience, but has God-created properties that Adam had before sin in the image and likeness of God (XIII, 3, 61-78; 289). So, even after the Resurrection, the human nature of Christ remained human nature. She did not turn into the Divine nature, did not acquire Divine properties. But she is in a glorified state. 3.7. Doctrine of Actions and Wills in Christ The polemic about the energies and wills of Christ came to the forefront of theological polemics precisely during the life of St. Anastasius Sinaite, when monothelitism appeared - a new synthetic heresy, verbally agreeing to recognize the humanity of Christ as nature, but denying natural action and will in it. The Monk Anastasius dedicated the “Third Word, or the Word against the Monothelites”, “Florilegies against the Monothelites” and “Chapters against the Monothelites”, first published in Uthemann’s publication, to direct polemics with this heresy. 266 The main text of the “Guide” did not include disputes and polemics with monothelitism, but Chapter II of the work (“Book of Definitions”) provides the philosophical and theological foundations for the fight against this heresy. However, these foundations are also important for refuting Monophysitism, because in the theology of the same Sevier, the categories of action and will play an important role. Sevier spoke about the single, but complex “god-masculine” energy of Christ, that is, he saw in it the presence of two “particular” components - Divine and human, which, as it seemed to him, testified at the same time to the “double consubstantiality” of Christ and His one nature. 267 To prove the uniqueness of the energy and will of Christ, the Monophysites used the anthropological paradigm. If Christ is a single complex nature, then His action must be a single complex (“divine”), just as the action in man of body and soul is one and inseparable, although it includes mental and physical components. The term “divine action” of Christ has its own theological historical development. Both opponents and supporters of the Council of Chalcedon, speaking about the complex action of Christ, referred to the fourth letter of Dionysius the Areopagite to the minister Gaius: “He (Christ - I.A.) was neither a man, nor as if He was not a man, but He became like one of the people, being beyond human boundaries, and became truly a man, exceeding man. As for the rest, He did not do divine works according to Divinity and human ones according to humanity, but, being God incarnate, He performed for us some new divine action.” 268 Sevier and his followers understood this expression as evidence of the sole action of Christ. In the 7th century, one of the first to propose an Orthodox interpretation of the expression of Dionysius was St. Sophronius of Jerusalem. He distinguished between three activities in Christ: Divine, human and divine. This can be represented in the form of two intersecting circles, where the intersection is the divine action, and the “pure” parts of the circles are the Divine and human actions of Christ. According to St. Sophronius, the godly action was not single, but consisted of two different and unmixed actions. When the Lord healed the centurion's servant from a distance (cf. Matt. 8:5-13), He acted only as God, only as a man when he ate and suffered, and, finally, performed a godly action when he healed by touch, anointing, etc. For St. Sophrony to say that in Christ there is only a godly action means to be a monoenergite. 269 The Monk Anastasius of Sinaite, discussing the expression of Dionysius the Areopagite about the new godly act in Chapter XIII of the Guide, repeats the teaching of St. Sophronius, which was reproduced by St. Maximus the Confessor in his comments on Dionysius the Areopagite: “Christ speaks either in the Divine, or in the human, or in both images, that is, in the divine manner; So, He performs all actions without fail either according to Divinity, or according to humanity, or jointly, according to the integrity of His person, that is, [when in action] Divinity [manifests] inseparably with the flesh, and humanity inseparably with Divinity” (XIII, 5, 112-113; 296). The Monk Anastasius explains in detail what exactly Christ does according to human nature, and what is above it, even if it concerns His flesh. So, if Christ in all human properties, including human actions, “was not like a man, but above a man, then how, finally, can we call Him consubstantial with us in humanity? After all, consubstantial in the proper sense of the word is the unchangeable identity of the natural properties of the same nature. So, if Dionysius does not deny the consubstantial body of Christ to us, then why did he say: “He is above nature in all our natural properties (ὑπὲρ φύσιν),” 270 and: “not as a man does human things (οὐ κατὰ ἄνθρωπον ἐνεργεῖν τὰ ἀνθρώπινα)", 271 – what do you, heretics, think? But because not from the seed, but from God the Word and hypostatically with God the Word in the Mother’s womb, the perfect human leaven of our soul and flesh existed” (XIII, 4, 39–51; 291–292). The Monk Anastasius names as such purely human actions of Christ His impeccable passions, without which He would not be consubstantial with us (the entire thirteenth chapter of the “Guide”), and as a divine action (“above human nature”) he names His supernatural single conception, the preservation of the virginity of the Mother of God at the moment and after the Nativity, the Virgin’s breastfeeding of the Infant of God: For example, to form a human being in the womb of the Blessed Virgin without a material seed is an action higher than ours, a Divine action, truly an action of God. And the nine-month growth of the baby in the womb and the enlargement of the belly of the Mother of God Mary is an action according to our nature, the same for all pregnant bellies and for all growing bodies [babies in the mother's womb]. And again, preserving the intact seal of virginity after birth is a Divine matter and above ours. And to pass through the womb and be born - this Christ accomplished in our likeness, truly being a baby in the womb, being born and appearing as God incarnate. Therefore, he immediately showed that He is God, since He was fed with milk from the Virgin’s breast, which is higher than nature, but also attributed to the breast its proper use - for feeding a baby, but also cried according to the law of infancy of our nature, but also in our likeness underwent traditional circumcision and throwing away the flesh (XIII, 5, 9-25; 293-294). In the “Third Word, or Word against the Monothelites,” the Monk Anastasius of Sinaite sees the image of Christ in man and in the way of action of the human soul. The divine action of Christ corresponds to a spiritual-male, or bodily-spiritual action, and the purely divine action of Christ corresponds to a purely mental action, not requiring the assistance of the body. With this action, the Monk Anastasius explains the possibility of spiritual growth and salvation for people who are weak in body: a purely spiritual action manifests itself in a dream, it is present at the moment of death and after it. It is characteristic that the body cannot act without a soul, since it becomes dead when the soul departs, for man has no analogue of human action in Christ. This also shows the incomplete correspondence of the anthropological paradigm with Christology, as we discussed in paragraph 3.4. Correction of the opinion of St. Sophronia on the three modes of action of Christ - purely Divine, purely human and divine - was completed at the Lateran Council of 649 thanks to the works of St. Maximus the Confessor. After the Lateran Council, pure divine and human actions in Christ are no longer spoken of. All the actions of Christ are divine, for it is only Christ who acts. However, these actions retain features of both natures. Dionysius's “new godly action” was interpreted in the sense of the unity of two natural actions. The way actions are manifested is uniform: actions manifest themselves one in the other and through each other. 272 We see that the Monk Anastasius, although he edited the Guide much later than the Lateran Council, accepts the concept of St. Sophronius, and not St. Maximus the Confessor. This concept is also reflected in the “Third Word, or Word against the Monothelites,” written even later - no earlier than 701. Sevier said that the complexity of the single energy of Christ was manifested only in the results of His single, namely Divine action. In Christ one can distinguish between Divine and human results, but both are accomplished by His single Divine energy. Divine energy is refracted in humanity, like light passing through a glass prism, and produces human results, but these are accomplished not by the human energy of Christ, but by the Divine energy of the Word. To demonstrate this complexity in the single action of Christ, Sevier turns to terminology attributed to St. Basil the Great of the fourth book “Against Eunomius”, which, as modern pathological science has established, does not belong to St. Vasily. St. Anastasius reproduces the thought from this text about the various aspects of action: “The action (ἐνέργεια), the agent (ἐνεργητικόν) and the result of the action (ἐνέργημα) are not the same. After all, the actual thing itself or the object of essence is called active. The result of an action is the final result of the action of the actor; for example, the results of God’s action are heaven, man, Angel and all creation” (II, 4, 176–181; 173). So, there is a subject of action, its source, or “actor” (ἐνεργητικόν) and there is action, in which the Holy Father distinguishes two aspects: movement, the action itself (ἐνέργεια) and the result of the action (ἐνέργημα or πρᾶγμα). Thus, we get a triad: We must understand that in this triad the active subject is any thing, since action is inherent in every nature, and not just in animate nature. Using the anthropological paradigm and this terminology from the fourth book of Against Eunomius, Sevier explains the simultaneous unity and complexity of Christ's actions: “Man is one, consisting of soul and body, and there is one energy, for there is only one active movement... but the actions are different, since some are spiritual, while others are sensory and bodily... We can see the same thing in Immanuel, because there is only one active, that is, the incarnate Word of God, and one energy, but the deeds are different, that is, what is produced by the action... Nevertheless, we do not talk about the duality of natures due to the difference in deeds, because the one incarnate Word performs, as we have already said, both those and other deeds.” 273 So, this triad illustrates the difference between Orthodoxy and Nestorianism and Monophysitism (as well as from Monothelitism). For Nestorianism, the duality in the actions (and wills) of Christ begins at the very top of the triad - at the level of the subject - and extends to the bottom. Despite the theology of the “person of union” of Theodore of Mopsuestia, which means only the unity of honor, greatness and worship of the two natures of Christ, in Him there are two hypostases, two subjects with their own actions and wills. For Monophysitism, duality appears only at the lowest, third stage of the triad. Only the results of the single Divine action of Christ can be human. Orthodox theology conceives of Christ as a single Subject, Who is characterized by His two natural actions - Divine and human - with their own results. As with the attribute of action, the will is also characterized by a triad - subject, will and desired object: “The will (τό θέλημα), the willing (τὸ θελητικόν) and the desired (τὸ θελητόν) are not the same thing. For will is the rational desire of a rational being; willing – that very thing that has will; and what is desired is the object of love” (II, 4, 187–190; 174). For Orthodox thinking there are two wills in Christ. For Sevier, the single will of Christ does not contain any complexity. This is only Divine will. The position expressed by Sinaite, that every nature has its own natural action, and rational nature also has a will, is one of the fundamental foundations of Orthodox diopheliteism. This position was defended in a conversation with Pyrrhus by St. Maximus the Confessor, drawing on the conceptual apparatus developed by the Cappadocian Fathers for triadology. The Monothelites and, in particular, Pyrrhus affirm the unity of will in Christ on the basis that there is one subject of volition: “So, if Christ is one, then He, of course, willed as one, and if He willed as one, then He, of course, has one will, and not two.” To the objection of the Monk Maximus that Christ is both God and man, and that “He willed as God and man... willed in a dual, and not a singular way... willed and acted in accordance with His natures...”, Pyrrhus replies: “It is impossible that the owners of wills should not be introduced along with wills.” Thus, the Orthodox are accused of Nestorianism. In response to Rev. Maximus refers to the triadology of the Cappadocians: “If we assume that along with wills the owners of wills are also introduced, then the opposite is also legitimate: together with the owners of wills wills will also be introduced. And it turns out, in your opinion, that the most essential and most good and blessed Deity, because He has one will, also has one hypostasis, according to Sabellius; and because He has three Persons, He also has three wills, and therefore three natures, according to Arius...” 274 To Pyrrhus’s objection: “It is impossible for two wills to coexist in one person without confrontation,” St. Maximus the Confessor objects that there are two wills in Christ, but they do not oppose each other, since the reason for such a struggle of the human will against the Divine will is sin, and Christ is free from sin. And the human will, in agreement with nature (κατὰ φύσιν) - that is, in a God-created state - cannot contradict God. 275 In agreement with these words of St. Maximus and relying on the terminology of the Apostle Paul, St. Anastasius speaks about three states of mental (i.e., human) will: “Again, in Scripture we find statements about three types of wills: divine (θεϊκόν), natural (φυσικόν), that is, average (μέσον) and third – carnal (σαρκικόν); which means the devil” (II, 4, 10–13; 167). The natural, natural, or average state of the human will is the state in which it was created by God: “The natural God-created (θεόκτιστον) will of a person is the rational movement of the desiring part of the soul towards that with which, in accordance with nature (κατὰ φύσιν), a person wants to unite” (II, 4, 13–16; 167). The state of the human will in a supernatural state is “the haste of natural and rational desire from the natural to the supernatural (ὑπὲρ φύσιν)” (II, 4, 16–18; 167). The third state of the will is a sinful state, contrary to nature itself: “And the carnal passionate will is the deviation of the natural to the unnatural (παρὰ φύσιν) for the soul” (II, 4, 18–20; 167). The name “carnal will” for the sinful state of the human will has its origin from the Apostle Paul: To be carnally minded is death, but to be spiritually minded is life and peace, because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for they do not obey the law of God, and indeed cannot. Therefore those who live according to the flesh cannot please God. But you do not live according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit, if only the Spirit of God dwells in you. If anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His. And if Christ is in you, the body is dead because of sin, but the spirit is alive because of righteousness (Rom. 8:6-10). These three states of the human will relate differently to the will, law, and commands of God: “The divine will is the commands of God. The natural will of rational nature is to do the will of God. The carnal will is disobedience to the law of God” (II, 4, 71–73; 169). So, the Monk Anastasius sees the human will in three states: 1. Natural, natural God-created will; will, consistent with nature; 2. Supernatural, Divine state of will; 3. The will is in a sinful state, unnatural, carnal, or devilish. St. Petersburg also speaks about these same three states of the human will - a) natural, when it is in agreement with God, b) unnatural, when the will is in conflict with Him, and c) supernatural, when there is complete unity of the human will with the Divine. Maximus the Confessor: “If it is formed and moves naturally, then it remains, if not in unity, then still in convergence, and not in conflict with God. After all, in nature there is no basis for either the supernatural or the unnatural and rebellious.” 276 From the above words of the Apostle Paul from the Epistle to the Romans, it is clear that, despite the Fall, the carnal, unnatural state of the will is not obligatory for a person. Based on the fact that natural and supernatural states of the will are possible for a person, the Monk Anastasius builds a soteriological argument in polemics with the Monothelites in the “Third Word, or Word against the Monothelites” from “Three Words about the structure of man in the image and likeness of God.” 277 If Christ does not have a human will due to its sinfulness, then human salvation is impossible. Indeed, in the presence of a natural God-given will lies the ability of a person to do good, to fulfill the commandments of God, to do the Divine will. The presence of a person’s natural God-given will is the basis of his ability to work out his salvation in collaboration with God. Without natural will and action, asceticism is impossible. What is the essence of the natural will of man, common to all people, if we all have a common nature, to which the same will must correspond: “The essential will (θέλημα οὐσιῶδες) is common, equally contemplated in nature” (II, 4, 54–55; 168). The Monk Anastasius gives the answer to this question: “The natural will of man... after all, every person by nature loves life and loves to see the light - this is the general will” (II, 4, 60–63; 169). This position became the basis for the Monk Anastasius when interpreting the Gethsemane sufferings of the Lord in the “Third Word, or Word against the Monothelites.” According to Sinait, Christ, by His human will (natural and divinely created), feared death, since it is inherent in the human will, even in a natural, sinless state, to desire immortality and fear death. When Christ agrees to voluntary death for the sake of saving humanity, then his human will is already in a supernatural state, submitting and merging with the will of the Father and Christ Himself as God. 278 In this interpretation, the Monk Anastasius follows St. Maximus the Confessor. 279 Natural will, based on the search for immortality, which we lost in the Fall and will return only in the next century, is common to all people. But how it is realized in each person, what hypostatic concretization it acquires, depends on the person himself: Gnomic wills (γνωμικὰ θελήματα) in our nature are multiple: one person wants to live separately, another wants to build houses, another wants to engage in agriculture, the next wants to swim, and so on. We have many gnomic wills, but one natural will - the love of life. Man does not love life at random, but nature indicates that she loves and seeks what she has possessed since the beginning of creation (that is, her immortality) (II, 4, 63–70; 169). Gnomic will (from γνώμη - opinion, inclination, will, desire), which is mentioned by the Monk Anastasius, “denotes the moment of making a certain decision after a previous struggle of motives.” 280 If the human will is in a state of nature, according to Rev. Maximus the Confessor and St. Anastasius of Sinaite, exists in accordance with nature (κατὰ φύσιν), then gnomic will is a state of constant fluctuation between good and evil, between natural (natural) and unnatural (anti-natural) states of will. In this sense, it determines not nature, but person and hypostasis. Since the gnomic will corresponds to the face, and the face of Christ is the Face of God who became man, then there can be no talk of any variability in Him and choice (γνώμη). The presence of a gnomic will in Christ presupposes the hypothetical possibility of sin for Him, which is completely unacceptable. Therefore, Rev. Maximus and the Monk Anastasius recognized in Christ, along with the Divine, only natural human will - a will in a natural state - rejecting the presence of a gnomic will in Him. 281 As we have already said, a detailed polemic against monothelitism is contained in the “Third Discourse, or Discourse against the Monothelites,” in the “Florilegia against the Monothelites,” and in the “Chapters against the Monothelites.” In the Guide itself, for St. Anastasius, the presence of two natures in Christ is necessarily interconnected with the presence in Him of the corresponding two natural actions and two natural wills. Sinaite does not comment on the Monoenergetic and Monothelite formulas - “two natures, one action”, “two natures, one will” - in this treatise, limiting himself to refuting various variations of Monophysitism. But the theological and philosophical foundations of the polemic with the new heresy of Monothelitism are given precisely in the “Book of Definitions,” that is, in Chapter II of the “Guide.” Numerous parallels of the “Third Word...”, the attribution of which to St. Anastasius Sinaite was proven by Karl-Heinz Uthemann in the critical edition of 1985, chapters 282 and 2 of the “Guide” are further evidence in favor of the attribution of this treatise to the pen of Sinaite. The etymology of the words “God” and “man,” which St. Anastasius cites in Chapter II of the “Guide,” 283 gives him another argument in his polemics with Monophysitism: “if both names of the essences of Christ, I mean “God” and “man,” have names from their natural energies, then why are some not ashamed to deny two energies in Him? They, without any other reference from Scripture or the Fathers, are put to shame by the very names of Christ, that is, “God” and “man”” (II, 4, 133-139; 171). The main argument of St. Anastasius against monoenergism and monothelitism - in favor of the presence in Christ of human action and will, if there is human nature in Him - we commented in detail in the corresponding paragraph of the second chapter of our work. It consists in the fact that without natural actions no nature exists and cannot be known. That is why the Monophysites, according to the Monk Anastasius from the “Third Word, or Word against the Monothelites,” boasted of their victory over the Orthodox after signing union documents based on Monothelitic formulas: “It was not we and Chalcedon, but Chalcedon with us who entered into communion, confessing one nature of Christ through one [His] action.” 284 However, this argument also works against Monophysitism. As we said in paragraph 2.9, the Monk Anastasius, defining natural action as movement, as a natural force inherent in nature, is based on the words of St. Gregory of Nyssa: “energy is the natural force and movement of every essence, of which only non-existence is deprived” (II, 4, 77–78; 169). Sevier, although he speaks about the consubstantiality of Christ with us in humanity (that is, about the human essence, but not the nature, of Christ), about His perfection in humanity, denies the presence of human action in Him. But the absence of its action, according to St. Gregory, there is a sign of non-existence. Therefore, the Monk Anastasius is not at all far from the truth when he reduces the Christology of Sevier to docetism. 285 Despite its complex structure, the Guide is not a compilation of the works of various authors, but an integral work of authorship. After the critical edition of this treatise, all doubts about its ownership by the Monk Anastasius Sinaite can be considered refuted. Our analysis of the terminology and teaching expressed in the Guide also confirms the integrity of this work and its attribution to St. Anastasius. Refuting the Christological teachings of the Nestorians and Monophysites, the Monk Anastasius of Sinaite shows strict adherence to Orthodox Christology as expressed in Chalcedon. At the same time, he tries to show that the Chalcedonian creed is based on the teachings of previous Ecumenical Councils and the pre-Chalcedonian Holy Fathers. The Christology of the heretics, according to Sinaite, contradicts this patristic Tradition, and therefore they fall under the anathema of the first three Ecumenical Councils. This also applies to the Christology of the Monophysite theologian Sevirus of Antioch, who seems to be closest to Orthodoxy - the Monk Anastasius insists that Sevier is not a successor to St. Cyril of Alexandria, but an undoubted heretic, whose Christology contradicts the Christology of the great Alexandrian saint. However, the Monk Anastasius does not limit himself to simply listing Diphysite quotations from the pre-Chalcedonian Fathers. Proving the correctness of the Council of Chalcedon, he actively uses the developments of the so-called neo-Chalcedonian theology, represented, first of all, by John the Grammar of Caesarea, Leontius of Byzantium, St. Sophronius of Jerusalem and St. Maximus the Confessor. The merit of the Monk Anastasius is that he was one of the first to attempt to systematize Orthodox Christology. In this sense, he is the predecessor of St. John of Damascus with his “Source of Knowledge.” However, the Monk Anastasius not only uses the achievements of the Orthodox theologians who preceded him and systematizes them, but he himself introduces original arguments into the polemics with heretics, which allows him to more fully sanctify the Christological teaching of the Church. Venerable Anastasius Sinaite "Guide" 1. A brief preliminary reflection that needs to be given so that anyone who wishes to correctly express faith in God. 2. Dogmatic definitions according to Church Tradition. 3. Introduction before sections. 4. A brief summary of the origins of heresies up to Nestorius and Severus. 6. Where does the teaching of Eutyches and Sevirus come from? 7. Proof that Sevier rejected the holy fathers and legalized that their quotations were abolished. 8. Proof from the Old and New Testaments and from Moses and Solomon themselves that nature and person are not the same thing. 9 . Also excerpts from the Holy Council of Nicaea that nature, or essence, and hypostasis are not the same thing, as Sevier believes. 10. An account of four conversations that we held in Alexandria with the Theodosians and Guyanites, in which we exposed them that if nature and hypostasis are one and the same, then they define all the holy fathers as Nestorians, and St. Cyril himself. It also talks about “the one nature of God the Word incarnate.” 11. A note about the expression calling nature hypostasis. Where is it from? 12. About the saving passion of Christ and about the “Holy, Immortal Crucified...”. 13. A joint discussion of the quotations of the fathers that the Sevirians give us against the Council of Chalcedon, and a pious refutation of them. 14. Ammonius of Alexandria against the Monophysites. 15. Another chapter against their new holiday [message]. 16. On the words in Christ dwells all the fullness of the Godhead 286 pious interpretation. 17. Proof that the Father or the Holy Spirit did not become incarnate with the Son. 18. Against the misunderstanding of the anthropological image for Christ. 19. The head of the wicked Paulianist. 20. Basic conclusions against insane Sevirians. 21. Another short chapter, which proves that dogmas cannot be reversed. 22. A record of the main aporia to us from non-believers. And the head of Andrew the Nestorian. 23. A condensed statement against the Guyanites. 24. Denial from Saint Dionysius, saying that “The Father or the Holy Spirit did not participate in any way in the Incarnation of the Word, except through benevolence.” This is in reference to Sevier's phrase that the Father and the Holy Spirit became incarnate with the Son. 1. With God. A brief preparation that makes it clear to the hard worker what he should first study and know. – that one must first live holy and have the Spirit of God indwelt within oneself; 287 – that you should know the definitions, especially the most necessary ones, from memory; - that we should know with precision the wisdom of our opponents and immerse ourselves in their writings, since we can often, based on them, put them to shame; - that one should in no way meet with the uninitiated and unreasonable, but with those with whom it is appropriate and when it is appropriate, and on those issues that are appropriate to discuss about faith; – that one should immerse oneself in all Scripture with the fear of God, but not with evil intent, but in simplicity of heart; - that we should not touch the depths of our [nature], as well as what the Divine Scripture has passed over in silence: for this means “not to crush a bone,” 288 that is, not to touch the solid; - that one should carefully examine those words that are said definitely, and at other times somehow in between, and again imprecisely and innocently, such as, for example, the following saying: “Every man is a lie” 289 and “there is no one who does good, not even one.” 290 Scholia. It should be noted that the Church also accepted some traditions in an unwritten form, such as, for example, taking communion after fasting, praying facing the east, and that the Mother of God remained a Virgin after giving birth, as well as that She gave birth in a den, and much more. The purpose of the conversations is twofold, the first is through written sayings, the other is through the given facts, which is stronger and truer, for the sayings of the scriptures are possibly corrupted. From this we can see that if you give a quotation to an opponent, he immediately gives another quotation, both a heretic and a Jew; as a result, strengthened by factual evidence 291 is better armed against opponents. You should also know the chroniclers, and at what time this father, and when such and such a heresy occurred. Let the following also not be hidden from you: - that if we confuse the enemy with a question, he tries to move the conversation to another question - this should not be allowed; - that before the interview it is necessary to demand an oath from the enemy that he does not violate his conscience in a single word he utters; - that before any conversation we should anathematize the numerous false opinions that the enemy has about us, for example, that we are going to talk with the Arabs; Let us first anathematize the one who speaks of two gods, or the one who says that God begot the Son in a carnal way, or the one who worships any creature in heaven or on earth as God; In the same way, other heresies must first be anathematized; they have numerous false assumptions about our faith; because, having heard this, they perceive more diligently and so on; - that we must first say to any Monophysite: “We are not objecting to you from the Council of Chalcedon, but from the fathers before this Council, who are recognized by both you and us as Orthodox”; - that we should first shackle the Monophysite and firmly anathematize the one who does not confess Christ as the true God, as if to adopt the guise of a Jew or Paul of Samosata and demand from him: how is it clear that Christ is the Most High God? Ammonius did a similar thing in relation to [Julian] Halicarnassus; you will find these objections in the twenty-first notebook. 292 It should be noted that the Monophysites in the chalice do not offer mixing, bringing wine undiluted, without water, and by this they clearly expose themselves as professing that Christ is only one naked Divinity, devoid of, untouchable and not at all mixed with any admixture of flesh or soul. 2. Summary of Faith We must know and not be mistaken that we should not utter any dogmatic statement without checking and thoughtlessly. After all, one can say piously and impiously that in Christ there are two natures, 293 just like will and energy, 294 like any other dogmatic statement. In the same way, let those who say that there are two natural properties in Christ explain how they understand the word “natural.” After all, it can be pronounced both piously and impiously. After all, the word “natural” is pronounced in the common spoken language of ordinary people and does not contain anything surprising; in this sense it cannot be applied to a nature or property in Christ. In the same way, whoever wants to proclaim that there is one will and energy in the Divinity and another in the humanity of Christ, let him not shout madly, shamelessly and without examining, as happened because of some ignoramuses, about two natural wills and two natural energies. For it is easy to be tempted (especially by the simple-minded) from hearing that in Christ there are two natural [wills and energies], one and the other. However, let it be said, explained and answered with the fear of God and all reverence to those who can comprehend, 295 what is thought and how nature is thought in Christ, that is, the true thing, 296 and not the hypostatic nature, that is, the personal, not the natural part of the flesh, but two true things united by hypostasis, that is, the perfect Divinity and the perfect humanity, unfused, unchangeable, inseparable in the one Person of Christ; after all, there is one Person Christ, one Hypostasis. I also ask about the wills to warn the listener and tell him: “I am not saying (let it not be!) that in Christ there are two wills, as you think, at war with each other and opposing, nor in general about the will of the flesh, passionate or evil, because even demons do not dare to say this in relation to Christ. But since He took on perfect man in order to save him all, and He is perfect in humanity, as well as in Divinity, therefore we call the Divine will in Christ the sovereign care of His commandments and commandments, and under the human will in Him we think of the willful power of the intelligent soul, which in the image and likeness of God was given to it and breathed in by God when it was created, 297 in order that through this very volitional power to desire, obey and fulfill God’s will, Divine commands.” If the soul of Christ is deprived of rational, volitional, discriminating, creating, active and desiring power, then it is not in fact in the image of God, but is consubstantial not with our souls, but with weak-willed, desireless, unwise, unreflective, unreasonable souls. And, therefore, it cannot be said that Christ is perfect in humanity. Therefore Christ, “being the image of God,” 298 has, according to the Divinity, a sovereign will, which is common to the Father, His Son and the Holy Spirit; there is, since He “took the form of a servant,” 299 and the will of His thinking and pure soul, in the image and likeness of God, fills the will of the Master. If the will of His holy and thinking soul is destroyed, then it will be discovered that [by Him] according to Divinity, the will of the Father is slavishly fulfilled. After all, this is how Arius, Diodorus and Theodore slandered, speaking about two wills according to the Divinity of the Father and the Son - the dominant one of the Father and the slave one of the Son. [Arius] says: “And therefore the Son says, like a servant to the Master: “Not My will be done, Father, but Yours” 300 and “I do not seek My will, but the will of the Father” 301.” Therefore, when heretics say this, then our Holy Fathers interpret it rather regarding the humanity of the Lord. If the soul of the Lord was deprived of a thinking will, then it is clear that the law of the wordless was involuntarily prescribed to God the Word. It won't happen! For if He is perfect in Divinity, and equally perfect and consubstantial with us in humanity, then He has perfect both Divine and our properties. In the same way one should think and interpret regarding the two energies of Christ. We call His Divine energy the creation of miracles and signs, especially in which His all-holy flesh was not touched, not touched; such were the healing of the Canaanite daughter, who did not approach Christ, 302 and the centurion's servant, 303 and the tearing of the veil [in the church], 304 and the eclipse of the sun, 305 and the splitting of stones, 306 and the opening of tombs and the raising of the dead; 307 for when the all-holy body was dead and did not touch any of this, then the Divine energy of God the Word abiding in it alone accomplished and did this. Human energy in Christ, pure, holy, impeccable, God-given, God-created and vital, we call the life-giving energy of His holy soul, thanks to which His all-holy body was given life; when, during the passions, the soul separated and left the body, the body immediately became dead, then the Divine energy did not separate from it. The fact that through the vital energy of the thinking soul the body is given life is also testified by Scripture, through the inhalation of God’s life soul created and given to our earthly body, 308 about which Solomon speaks, addressing certain lawless people and idolaters: “Their life is despicable; for they did not know Him who created them and breathed into them an active soul and breathed into them the spirit of life.” 309 Now we are clearly taught that the body is given life by the action of the soul, just as the Lord speaks about the flesh and soul in the following words: “The Spirit gives life; the flesh does not profit at all.” 310 If the opponent says: “God the Word was the life-giving body,” then he necessarily counts, saying: “Because of the deprivation and separation of God the Word Himself, His body died.” But if this is so, then what was the need to even perceive and have a vital rational soul itself? Some say: “Every increase, or decrease, or separation, or need of the holy flesh of Christ is by nature inconceivable, and in the Divinity the energy of Christ is called human.” By divine energy we understand what is accomplished by Christ and contemplated together: these were the sight of a blind man through spitting, 311 the resurrection of the daughter of the ruler of the synagogue by the imposition of His holy hand, 312 the blessing of the loaves, 313 the healing of the deaf and dumb through His fingers, 314 the resurrection of Lazarus by His voice, 315 the flow of blood from a rib from a dead body, 316 procession on the sea, 317 transmission of the Spirit through His Divine lips. 318 Heretics, looking at this common godly energy of Christ, turn away from confessing in Him a certain Divine, as well as spiritual, vital human energy. At the same time, we need to know precisely and unequivocally that the opponents, based on observation of their own will and the action of their own soul and body, are constantly and continuously fought and defiled by the kindling and action of the devil, and therefore they and Nestorius refused to talk about human will and energy in Christ, but invented the same-natural identity of will and identity of action [in Him]. But we will talk about this in more detail in subsequent [chapters] and in other [works]. Scholia. Let industrious workers not forget that since we are in the habit of calling those who are under their influence possessed by demons, therefore heretics, when they hear about the actions in Christ, immediately, considering them to be the actions of those suffering [from possession], become indignant and reject such an expression, as if they themselves were truly under the influence, that is, possession. 3. With God. A preliminary examination of the basis of the book of definitions, the name of which is “Guide” The composition of our entire mortal essence from the rational and thinking soul and from the accumulation of elements, which is flesh, was given from the all-wise Creator; the beauty of impeccable moral deeds, based on pious faith and observance of the Divine commandments, is strengthened, because neither a body devoid of a soul has life in itself, nor will keeping the commandments without right faith bring benefit to a person. After all, what the soul is to the body, right faith is to the spirit. So, first of all, let us, if you wish, cherish, assimilate and cherish the dispassionate thought of God and the divine, so that, as a pure and unshakable foundation previously laid, Christ, piously revered by us as the corner stone, 319 strengthens our entire building, impeccable in everything, and makes it unshakable under all the blows and onslaughts of heretical divination. Since the solid foundation and unshakable cornerstone of all judicious wisdom has been the preliminary comprehension and discernment of factual definitions, they must precede as certain reliable guides in the development of the topic. For few (especially in our generation) were born with zeal and effort in comprehending and distinguishing definitions. But many of the heretics with whom we met tried to dogmatize about Christ, as if fighting a night battle, or rather a blind battle, so that indeed we could hardly contain our laughter, especially [in the debates] in the city of Alexandria. For what could be more ridiculous? They dogmatized about nature, but did not know what the definition of nature was; They argued passionately about hypostasis, but did not know what hypostasis was. And the like. But we, with the assistance of Christ from a young age, having received piecemeal from the Fatherly Tradition the instruction in definitions and, thanks to this, seeing all opponents defeated and turned to God, we exhort, first of all, to take care of the knowledge of definitions, especially those that relate to the teaching of Christ, so that you will not be blind barbarians, and so that the one who speaks to you will not be a barbarian to you. 320 First of all, one must know that the Tradition of the Catholic Church does not at all follow, does not follow in everything the definitions of Hellenic philosophers, especially when it comes to the sacrament of Christ and triadology, but God-like follows its Gospel and Apostolic canon. For the mystery of the Divine is above physical definitions and laws; Not understanding this difference, the heretics, dogmatizing about God in generally accepted and natural philosophical [concepts], fell into error. As a result, [the Apostle] Paul said that he preaches Christ “not in the convincing words of the wisdom of this age,” 321 because the generally accepted philosophy is “foolishness before God.” 322 Now, notice that the first definition of this philosophy reads: “[Things] opposite to each other by nature are impossible to enter into union; 323 for example, fire cannot be combined with hay without damaging [it].” And the first definition of our salvation refutes this philosophical definition, proclaiming communion and unity [in the Mother of God] of virginity and birth, and [in the Lord] of divine fire with the opposite nature of the flesh. The second definition of philosophy says: “The single hypostasis, which embraces everything, is indescribable: after all, it is impossible to say that the two or trinity is indescribable, for the two is known through the description of the unit.” 324 And the Holy Church confesses an indescribable God in three Persons. Again Plato says: “Paternity is the pre-existence of sonship.” 325 The Church says that the Son, before the ages, coexisted and was without beginning together with the Father. God-wise Basil, who knows this, says, turning to Amphilochius: “Nature and essence, in accordance with church dogmas, are one thing.” 326 The Father, speaking “in accordance with church dogmas,” indicated that among the Hellenes, essence and nature are not the same. Therefore, Clement [of Alexandria], abundant in wisdom and knowledge, created in a special way definitions of church dogmas, being a student and true pet of the assistants of the holy apostles Peter and Paul, the more all-wise; hearing how the latter rejects, disgusts and mocks Hellenic wisdom. Our first question to the heretics who are trying to argue against us about the Economy of Christ’s Incarnation is this: where or from which author of Holy Scripture did the Holy Church receive, first of all, [the concept of] “nature”? Who named the energy itself? Where did [the Church] learn about [the concept of] “genus”? Who started talking about freedom first? Where does [the concept] “hypostasis” come from? Where did [the Church] first hear about the entity? When the enemy is in difficulty from such questions, his first defeat will occur. 1. With God. Various definitions pronounced in accordance with Tradition and the faith of the holy catholic Church, collected from Clement and other pious Fathers, which should be presented before any other teaching to those who wish, with God's help, to defend the teaching of piety For a more accurate transmission of Tradition, it should be known that every serious subject or question of study involves some three tests and questions with which we ask opponents, for example, “What is God?”, “Why is He called God?” and “In how many ways can the concept “God” be thought of?” And when we ask: “What is God?”, it is clear that we are looking for the definition of a thing; when we ask “Why is He called God?” – we require the etymology of the name; and when we say: “In how many ways can the concept “God” be thought of?” – we demand from our opponents an answer to the question of how many ways we can talk about God. Scholia. When the first question is asked, a definition is revealed; when the second, the etymology becomes clear, and when the third, the ways [of comprehending the subject] are indicated. Anyone who begins to present dogmatic questions without knowing the definitions is like a blind man intending to go somewhere. So, to begin with, one should, in the above-mentioned manner, carry out a threefold study of definitions: “What is a definition?”, “Why is it called a definition?” and “In how many ways can a definition be thought of?” A definition is a short statement that reveals the underlying essence of a thing. 327 They are called definitions, 328 because they are like eyes, 329 the eyes of things and, as it were, determine, 330 that is, they briefly close the power of thought. For example, instead of saying: “Man is an entity made of flesh, soul, mind, blood, elements and much more,” we give the following definition: “Man is a living, rational, mortal being who can accommodate intelligence and knowledge.” 331 So, there are countless definitions of every thing, but due to the negligence of modern people, we present only some of them, the most important. In addition, one must know and believe that one who diligently comprehends definitions in disputes can easily lead to the silence of rhetoricians and big talkers. For when the questions are asked: “What is a word?”, “Why is it called a word?” and “In how many ways is a word [thought]?”, then the opponent will be stumped, since he will not be able to give definitions and, in the end, will be disgraced as an ignoramus. The definition of definitions is the One who determines everything, but He Himself is not determined by anything; such only Definition of definitions is God. In essence, the undesignated is the undefinable, God. What is difficult to define is that which is known only in part, and not entirely, such as, for example, the Tree of Life. For people, there are three unknowable in essence and indefinable: God, Angel and soul - only known by God in essence. Finally, the one who asks the right question addresses the opponent like this: “What is the limit? 332 ", "What is undefinable?", "What is difficult to define?" Easily defined is something that is tangible and subject to decay, such as bread and the like. The limit is a state that cannot be surpassed. The indefinite is the only uncreated thing, God. And what is difficult to define is the created and invisible, that is, the Angel, the soul, the demon. 2. What is God? Why is He God? In how many senses is the word “God” used? God is an uncaused Essence, an omnipotent Cause, a kind of super-essential Cause of every essence. God is the nameless and inexpressible Being of people, who creates all being. For Solomon said that God is an “incommunicable Name,” 333 and the “incommunicable Name” is that which is not perceived by the hearing or thought of either people or angels. In how many senses is the word “God” used in Scripture? It is clear that in two: by nature and by sacrament: by nature there is a Creator, and by sacrament and by grace, the righteous are called “gods.” 334 Question: Does the word "God" refer primarily to an entity, a person, an energy, or is it an image or a metaphor? Answer: It is clear that it is energetic, for it does not reveal to us the essence of God (after all, it is impossible to know it), but the word “God” reveals to us only His energy accessible to contemplation. What is the Father? Why is it called Father? In how many ways is Fatherhood in God [thought of]? Father in the proper sense of the word is the causeless Hypostasis, the begetter and the unbegotten. She is called the Father, because she either protects everything or protects her own children, which is what the word “father” means. 335 God is called Father in two senses: by nature and by grace; by nature He is the [Father] of the Word's own and consubstantial God, and by grace He is the [Father] of us, for [it is said]: “I said: you are gods, and you are all sons of the Most High.” 336 What is the Son? Why is it called the Son? And in how many ways is the Son conceived? A son in the proper sense of the word is either a doubling of hypostasis with the identity of nature, or a homogeneous multiplication of persons, or an output of nature, cognizable in kinship. Also, in the proper sense of the word, a son is spoken of as if he were “like,” for as the father is in essence, so is the only begotten son: from the Uncreated - Uncreated, from a mortal - mortal, and from a man - man. Finally, sonship in God is spoken of in two senses: by nature and by grace; God the Word is Son by nature, and the righteous by grace. 337 What is spirit? Why is it called spirit? And in how many senses does Scripture speak of the spirit? Spirit 338 is a subtle, immaterial, imageless and outgoing being. The spirit is spoken of as if it were “every wave,” 339 because, like a certain wave, it gives a sign to everything, and everything is set in motion. It is spoken of in Scripture in four senses: Spirit - the Holy Spirit, Angel - spirit, and soul - spirit, and wind - spirit; sometimes the mind is also called spirit. The Trinity is, according to natural inference, a combination of units, and according to the Divine essence, a being greater than number. Eternity 340 is that which “always continues,” 341 that is, that has no beginning and never ends: not everything that is completely endless is also beginningless, because Angels and souls have a beginning of being, but have no end. A peculiar property 342 is something that is truly recognized in some nature, but is in no way present in another essence. For example, the ability to laugh in a person, which is absent in any other nature. 343 3. About nature. What is nature? In how many senses is nature spoken of? Why is it called nature? Nature, in accordance with the church way of thinking, is the true existence of a thing, but according to Aristotle and other Hellenes, nature is defined in many different ways, and the Sevirians got lost in these definitions. 344 According to the divine Apostle, nature is everything that truly exists, and not what is expressed as a figment of the imagination - we will talk about this later in more detail. The Church calls nature the reality of existing things, that is, their actualization. 345 It is called nature because it occurred 346 and exists, just as essence is recognized as truly existing. According to church teaching, nature, essence, genus and species are one and the same, just as bread, a piece (of bread) and a cake are one and the same. 347 Therefore the natural 348 and the realized are one and the same. 349 As already mentioned, four concepts are used to designate nature: “essence”, “nature”, “genus” and “species”. Scholia. As for the expression “by nature,” 350 then, based on the Old and New Testaments, we can say that the words “Christ by nature is God and by nature is man” mean the same as the words “He, being truly God, truly becomes invariably man.” In fact, the wise Solomon says about wicked people: “All people who do not have the knowledge of God are vanity.” 351 And the divine Apostle speaks of us [who came to the Church] from the pagans: “we were once by nature children of wrath.” 352 So, if the wicked were naturally vain, that is, by their very nature, they would be blameless. After all, what is inherent in us by nature and in a natural way is impeccable and impeccable, since it was naturally created in us by God, such as, for example, the ability to breathe, eat and sleep. Then it will be discovered that God naturally created vanity in people. Again, if we were by nature children of wrath, then the reason for this would go back to God, who created us by nature children of wrath. After all, “by nature” means that which exists in an essential way, as, for example, it is inherent in the nature of light to shine, fire by nature is created by burning, and the earth is formed by vegetating [plants]. So, heretics are asked to say one of two things: either that God created the nature of vanity and wrath, or that the expression “by nature” means nothing more than “what truly exists.” Therefore, our words are impeccable: “Christ is by nature God and by nature man,” that is, “truly God and truly man.” Such is this tradition and definition about nature, which we derive from the Old and New Testaments, and no teacher, and no Angel from heaven can either introduce innovation [in this tradition] or destroy [it] forever. 353 About hypostasis. What is hypostasis? Why is she a hypostasis? In how many senses is hypostasis spoken of? Hypostasis, according to Church and Apostolic Tradition, is a person or image; 354 Paul speaks about this, saying that the Son is “the radiance of the glory of the Father and the image of His hypostasis,” 355 that is, the consubstantial Person of the image and hypostasis of the Father. We call the Persons and images in God incorporeal, indescribable and formless. According to the Holy Fathers, a person, or hypostasis, is special in comparison with the general, for nature is the general of each thing, and hypostasis is special. For example, nature, or essence, is one Deity, and there are three Hypostases: Father, Son and Holy Spirit - three Persons, or Images, but one essence and gender. 356 When you said: “The Divine will preserve us,” you designated the entire Holy Trinity; and if he said: “The Son of God is with us,” then he named one of the Hypostases and the whole Divinity. Listen to this again: Divinity is the general and totality of essence, and Fatherhood is one Person, that is, Hypostasis; Sonship is another Hypostasis, and the Holy Spirit is another Hypostasis. Three hypostatic properties in the Godhead: the ungeneracy of the Father, the birth of the Son and the procession of the Holy Spirit; neither the Father is begotten, nor the Son is he who proceeds, nor is the Holy Spirit begotten. There are five designations for hypostasis: “hypostasis,” “person,” “image,” 357 “special,” 358 and “individual.” 359 Again about nature. Angelism is called nature, and hypostases are the names of each Angel: Gabriel, Michael, Uriel, Raphael. And again, nature is a single and common humanity, and the hypostases are Peter, Paul, Thomas and other persons and images. So, nature is the mistress, the cause and the parent of the hypostases included in it; they are called hypostases because they are subordinate to nature, their source. We are talking about the same thing again. If you said: “An angel is a beautiful nature,” then you designated their entire essence, and if you said: “Great is Gabriel,” then you spoke about one hypostasis of all. The phrase “Man is pitiful” denotes a whole essence, and Conon, Simon and Philo are hypostases. When he said: “The bird is light,” he spoke about the whole essence, and the words “dove,” “dove,” “nightingale,” “peacock,” and “swan” denote their hypostases. 360 The word “cattle” implies the whole essence of animals, and the words “horse”, “lion” and “dog” imply their hypostases, images and faces. This canon of definitions applies not only to thinking, rational and animate things, but also to any inanimate, insensitive and motionless nature. For example, when we said: “God created the light,” 361 we designated the entire essence of the luminaries. This very essence is divided into its hypostases, and these hypostases of the nature of light are the following: the moon and stars, Orion, the evening star, 362 Ursa Major, the morning star, 363 the constellation Cancer and the rest. The same is true with the winds; when he said “wind,” he designated the entire nature of the winds, and he said “Not,” “Boreas,” and “Lib,” then these are their hypostases. Also, fire is a single essence, which is divided into hypostases, that is, lamps, candles, lamps, ovens and fireplaces. In the same way, all of humanity, as was said earlier, is one essence, but there are many persons. And so we call the holy flesh of Christ not a face, but an essence, in order to indicate that He accepted and saved our entire nature. For if we called it hypostasis, it would turn out that we are asserting that Christ accepted and saved a certain one person. It is impossible to call it a hypostasis, since this flesh is inseparable from God the Word; for a single person is called a hypostasis. Therefore, we do not call it hypostasis, but hypostatic, for the hypostatic is what exists, just as the non-hypostatic is that which does not have existence or essence; for example, a dream is non-existent, non-hypostatic and ghostly. And what we would definitely say is that the non-hypostatic, non-existent and non-existent is that which is often spoken of, but which is not recognized either in essence or in hypostasis, such as, for example, hell, death and illness. In turn, we call realized either the existing itself, or a peculiar property recognized in essence: for example, rationality and perishability are the realized of man. In the same way, the word “hypostatic” is used in two ways: either [it denotes] a truly existing or a unique property in hypostasis, such as, for example, unbornness in God the Father, birth in the Son and procession in the Holy Spirit, as discussed above. Property 364 is a certain strength of each nature, which distinguishes and separates it from other entities, which is what the divine Dionysius says: “For corruption is the weakness of nature and the lack of natural properties, energies and forces.” 365 4. About will. What is will? Why is it called will? In how many ways can the will be conceived? Will is the striving of a thinking and rational entity towards what it wants; for everything that thinks is obviously also willing; after all, will, as a kind of breath and life, is essentially inherent in every rational nature. It is called will because nature strongly strives 366 for what it desires or for receiving, that is, possessing what it desires. Will is considered in three types: Divine, angelic and spiritual; for only these three natures are willing. Again, in Scripture we find statements about three types of wills: divine, natural, that is, average, and third - carnal, which means the devil. The natural divine will of man is the rational movement of the desiring part of the soul towards that with which, in accordance with nature, man wishes to unite. The divine will of people is the haste of natural and reasonable desire from the natural to the supernatural. And the carnal passionate will is a deviation of the natural to the unnatural for the soul. About a peculiar property. 367 What is a peculiar property? In how many ways can a peculiar property be conceived? Why is it called a peculiar property? Etymology of a peculiar property. It is called a peculiar property from “especially to be,” as existing from its own nature without mixture with other entities; or from “to be visible together,” for their properties are inseparable from their natures and hypostases. A peculiar property, that is, a property, 368 is that which is authentically and especially recognized in a certain nature, but is not found in another. For example, in the divine nature there is pre-eternity, uncreatedness and indescribability, which are absent in any other essence; they are not in essence even in the all-holy body of Christ: after all, it is neither pre-eternal nor uncreated and will never be indescribable. A peculiar property of the angelic nature is the dispassionate nature and incessant praise; Immortality of a given nature is also called dispassion. The uniqueness of man in the proper sense of the word is the combination of mortal and immortal natures, which is not observed in any other entity. There are peculiar natural properties, which were just mentioned, and there are hypostatic ones, for example, whiteness, snub nose, blackness, height, mutilation, light-eyedness, zeal, laziness and the like - they are not found equally in all people; After all, not everyone is snub-nosed, not everyone is zealous, and not everyone is bright-eyed. Therefore, some call a hypostasis a peculiar combination of the characteristic properties that were discussed. And natural peculiar properties are found in the same and similar way throughout the whole race; for example, all mortal people are equally mortal, intelligent, all breathe, sleep, walk, have wide nails 369 and are capable of agriculture. The adventitious property 370 is called the arising and disappearing; for example, infancy, which arises and disappears with maturity. Health, illness, heat and dryness change in the same way; and in general, everything capable of change is called an accessory property. The essential will is the general, equally contemplated in nature. So, if the flesh of Christ, as the Holy Fathers say, voluntarily did not want to die, and the same will would have been revealed both in the Father and in the Holy Spirit, then it goes without saying that there is one will of the flesh and the Divine. 371 The natural will of man, as St. Basil and Cyril assert, is love of life; After all, every person by nature loves life and loves to see the light - this is the general will. Gnomic wills in our nature are multiple: one person wants to live separately, another wants to build houses, another wants to engage in agriculture, the next wants to swim, and so on. We have many gnomic wills, but one natural will - the love of life. Man does not love life at random, but nature indicates that she loves and seeks what she has possessed since the beginning of creation (that is, her immortality). The divine will is the commands of God. The natural will of rational nature is to do the will of God. The carnal will is disobedience to the law of God. About energy. 372 What is energy? Why is it called energy? In how many ways can energy be thought of? As St. Gregory of Nyssa says, “energy is the natural force and movement of every essence, which only non-existence lacks. What is involved in any essence also fully applies to the energy that manifests it. For true teaching determines the boundaries of entities by their non-false energies.” 373 For example, thinking is the action of the thinking, feeling is the feeling, motion is the moving, flight is the flying, 374 swimming is the floating, 375 growing is the plant, reptile is the reptile, glow is the luminous, combustion is the burning, flow is the flowing, vision is the sighting, birth is the giving birth; Generally speaking, natural science has established that the designation and definition of any nature is its energy, and with its cessation, nature is completely destroyed and perishes; after all, with the cessation of heat, the fire goes out; when a living being is deprived of movement, it dies; and when [a person] ceases to think, then the thinking and reasoning [property] of his soul perishes. That is why we speak of two wills and energies in Christ, so as not to speak of His inanimate body and unreasonable soul; for the energy of the animate body is walking and labor, and the energy of the rational soul is its volitional, logical and judicious consciousness. Natural energies are found not only in animate and moving things, but also in inanimate and motionless things, as evidenced by scammonia 376 and purifying [plants] that have a laxative effect; mercury, which produces a deadly effect, and hemlock, also destructive. It is surprising that some very different natures, often deprived of their natural energies, give rise to other energies. For example, a hot stone loses its cooling effect, but acquires (being inextinguishable) the ability to burn bodies. In the same way, cedar, when burned, loses its vegetative, growing and generative effect, but [fire] endows the cedar with a certain healing and worm-destroying effect. So, for those who knowledgeably and judiciously approach the examination and judgment of the names of existing things, it is not difficult to discover that most of the names of any existing thing are related to energy, and not to nature, for they have names derived from their own energies. To prove this, we should start with God’s very title and name. After all, the word “God” 377 does not represent to us the very incomprehensible and nameless essence of the Creator, but God is so called due to His contemplative energy. 378 Likewise, the word “Angel” does not reveal the very essence and being of the nature of Angels, but they have the name Angel from their announcing 379 energy and service. In the same way, man 380 is called a man not from his essential quality, but because he, directing his gaze upward and called “upward looking,” 381 is the only one of all living beings looking at the ground who lifts his eyes to the mountain; due to his “upward looking” action, he is called a man. Others say that he is called a man, because of all living creatures that walk bent and with their heads down, he alone has the effect of walking upright. 382 So, if both names of the essences of Christ, I mean “God” and “man,” have names from their natural energies, then why are some not ashamed to deny the two energies in Him? They, without any other reference from Scripture or the Fathers, are put to shame by the very names of Christ, that is, “God” and “man.” For, as we have just said, almost every nature is named from its essential energy. For example, “maiden,” 383 that is, “putting to death the fire,” 384 comes from “putting to death the kindling of the flesh.” 385 And again, when we say “dove,” 386 we do not designate the nature of this living creature or the quality of its flesh, but the action that it performs - after all, the name “dove” comes from “to fly steadily.” 387 And other names refer to energy, and not to nature. In particular, “deer”, 388 “snake-like”, 389 [comes] from “to slay snakes”, 390 “swallow” 391 – from “to shake the beak while chirping”, 392 “serpent” 393 - that is, “who spoke,” 394 or who once addressed Eve with a speech, “antelope” 395 – from “to look and see vigilantly”, 396 "dove", 397 or "preserving the fruit", 398 [so called] because she preserves her race, never entering into [a second] marriage, “nightingale” 399 [comes] from “always sing”, 400 that is, in summer and winter, “kite” 401 – from “circling in the heights”, 402 “horse” 403 – from “to damage the hoof”, 404 “Hereboil” 405 – from “affecting or killing food” 406 (since “food” is called “food”), “eagle” 407 – “eternal year”, 408 since it is often renewed and lives a lot, “feathered” 409 – “spreading feathers”, 410 “river” 411 as having a drinking 412 effect, “stormy stream” 413 – because it flows in winter, 414 “nature” 415 – from “to produce hypostases”, 416 “grass” 417 – from “to go up”, 418 like “flower” 419 – from “to move up”, 420 that is, to rush. And the soul 421 is called “soul” from its own action, for to breathe 422 means “to give life”; therefore, from the life-giving action the name “soul” comes, since it gives life to the body. And you can find countless other things, if not everything, that receive their own name according to their energies, for energy is a force of nature. Not the same action, 423 the actor 424 and the result of the action. 425 After all, the actual thing itself or the object of essence is called active. The result of an action is the final result of the action of the actor; for example, the results of God's action are heaven, man, Angel and all creation. Action is called so because it exists in deeds, that is, it manifests itself. Action is thought of in two ways: I mean rationally and sensually. The sensible is that which is visible, felt, heard and subject to decay; and the intelligible is incorruptible and eternal, since the rational is that which contemplates the invisible intelligibles. Action is called so from “to act,” 427 that is, to perform. The will, the 428 driving 429 and the desired are not the same thing. 430 For the will is the rational desire of a rational essence; driving – the very thing that has will; and what is desired is the object of love. 5. About connection. 431 What is a connection? Why is it called a connection? And in how many ways can connection be conceived? A connection is a unifying combination of different things. It is called connection because it pushes together, 432 that is, it drives things together. It speaks of five types of connection: mixing, like mixing wine and water; separate, like person to person; relative, as a union of peoples in faith; basic, like the combination of gold with gold; the union of Christ exceeds all this and is called hypostatic. And the hypostatic union is a real combination of two natures in the womb of the Holy Mother of God. After all, neither body nor soul existed there before God the Word, but together the flesh and together God the Word; together God the Word and together rational animate flesh arose in Him, just as it seems to me that our conception is a prototype of Christ’s union (soul and body are actually combined, for neither the body exists on its own, nor the soul precedes the body). About the consubstantial. What is consubstantial? Why is it called consubstantial? In how many ways can the consubstantial be conceived? Consubstantial is that which invariably exists from the same essence and energy; for example, a person is from the [essence] of a person, an Angel is from the [essence] of an Angel, an animal is from the [essence] of an animal, a flame is from the [essence] of a flame: one essence in different forms. That which has similar essence and power is called consubstantial. It speaks of five types of consubstantial things: consubstantial, homogeneous, akin, same-natural and same-tribal. Consubstantial is that which has more or less power in the same essence; for example, cracked stone and cut stone, as well as date wood and ebony, the flesh of fish and the flesh of camels. Another thing is something that is in all respects unlike another, such as fire and water; man, God and Angel; clay and sun in relation to grass. Some people call dead flesh separated from life “half-existing.” The alien, heterogeneous and foreign is the being of a different essence. Scholia. It speaks of each of the two, that is, of this and that, or of both. Renewal is something that has completely departed from the law of general nature and is not likened to any human custom. This definition should be known because of those who misunderstand renewal in Christ. After all, if He renewed his nature, being born without seeds, however, after birth he grew, [had] everything bodily, absorbed food and excreted it, was circumcised, moved from place to place, had an external appearance and members, He grew hair, teeth and nails, He babbled and moved like a child - all this was not due to renewal, but “like us, except sin,” 433 as He says Pavel. About the soul. What is the soul? Why is it called soul? In how many senses is the soul spoken of? The Old Scripture speaks of the soul in two ways, that is, of the rational and the irrational - of cattle and other animate [creatures]. The rational soul is a thinking, nameless, unknowable, verbal entity that gives life to the body and resides in it. The soul is a subtle, immaterial, formless essence, the image and imprint of God. The soul is called so from “to breathe,” that is, to give life to the body with its energy. The irrational soul is the vital, warming and driving action of the blood through the material spirit. The bestial soul is a material force, acting, sensing and located in the body. The rational mind is the contemplating feeling of the immortal and thinking soul. The mind is non-corporeal vision, tirelessly penetrating everything. How many types of mind? We say that there are three: the Mind of God, and the Angel - the mind, and also our mind. Scholium. “Who has known the mind of the Lord?” 434 The intelligible is that which is thought by the mind; the thinking 435 is called so from “thought seeing.” 436 About the body. The body, according to externals, is everything that has three dimensions, that is, having length, width and thickness; According to the Church, the body is everything that is brought from non-existent into being; for “there are celestial bodies and terrestrial bodies,” 437 and the celestial ones do not have thickness. You should know that all flesh is obviously called a body, but not every body is called flesh: after all, the stars are also called “celestial bodies,” and not celestial flesh. The body is spoken of in two ways: one is material, the other is subtle. The material body is tangible and subject to decay, but the subtle body is inviolable and intangible. Flesh is a combination of elements. Flesh is a fluid essence, consisting of blood, mucus, bile and juice, or from air, earth, fire and water, that is, from warm, cold, wet and dry; the sun gives rise to the warm and vital element, air - the cold element, earth - dry, and water - wet. The element is a simple essence, the fourth part of creation. Therefore, when you hear Paul saying: “We no longer know Christ according to the flesh,” 438 then know that he called corruption flesh. For he did not say: “We no longer know Christ according to the body,” but “according to the flesh,” that is, no longer in a fluid essence. 439 About feeling. We have five senses: sight, hearing, smell, taste and touch, that is, feeling. So, the sensible is everything that falls under any one of these five senses; The sensory organ is an integral organ of the body that observes feelings; and a sentient being is every living being that has a sense of fear and death. And therefore, the intelligible is that which is inaccessible to our five senses. About perishable things. What is perishable? Why is it called perishable? In how many senses is corruption spoken of? So, in the Divine Scripture, corruption is spoken of in two senses: bodily and, conversely, spiritual, as when it is said “and the Lord God saw, and behold, the whole earth was corrupted by sin,” 440 again, it is said about people: “They have become corrupt and disgusted in their iniquities” 441 and in their morals. Finally, when you hear the teacher that the body of Christ was incorruptible before the Cross, then understand this to mean that it was incorruptible, that is, pure relative to the corruption of sin, but not in the sense of some subtlety or alienness to our bodies. For incorruptible in the proper sense of the word is impassive, immaterial and intangible; incorruptible is that which cannot be damaged by another entity, incorruptible is that which is completely non-fluid, without defect and invulnerable; the most holy body of Christ suffered, and wounds were inflicted on it with nails and a spear, and blood and water flowed out of it, and from living it became dead. Scholium. Some say that the most holy body of Christ was potentially corruptible, that is, accepting corruption, but in the tomb it was preserved incorruptible by the action of the Divinity of the Word. Corruptible is everything that is subject to death and is separable from life. As Saint Dionysius says, “corruption of nature is weakness and lack of natural properties, actions and powers.” 442 The destruction of 443 is complete destruction; corruption 444 is when one entity is destroyed by another, such as a body by worms. Form, 445 as an interweaving of parts, is called form or essence; parts of a form are called its hypostases, that is, shares. Man is a rational, upright living creature with wide nails; 446 or - a rational, material and laughing living being, simultaneously and ineffably combined from opposite essences; or - “a rational and mortal living being capable of containing intelligence and knowledge.” 447 Interpretation of this definition: “living being”, since it differs from an irrational creature; “reasonable” because it differs from an unreasonable entity; “mortal” because it differs from the immortal existence of Angels; “containing intelligence and knowledge,” since it is by grace created in the image of God. Scholium. Scripture speaks of man in four senses: man is God, Angel, [Satan], the internal and our external man. 448 An angel is an intelligent, glorifying, fiery and never-sleeping living being. 6. About faith. What is faith? Why is it called faith? In how many ways can the right faith be conceived? Faith is voluntary consent. Scholium. Faith is an inner being. It is called "faith" 449 from "to be convinced of something." 450 Right faith is understood in two senses: after all, there is faith “from hearing” 451 sermons, and there is a stronger faith - “the realization of expected” 452 benefits. All people can have faith “from hearing,” but only the righteous can acquire the second. Faithfulness is a true opinion about God and creation; or – the true thought about everything; or – the idea of ​​beings as they are. About the word. What is a word? In how many senses is the word understood? Why is it called a word? The word is spoken of in three senses: God the Word is the Word made flesh; there is the inner word of the Angels and pronounced in our thinking; there is a word pronounced by the tongue. The word is called so from “to speak”. 453 The spoken word is the messenger of thought. The Christian is the true rational dwelling of Christ, founded on good deeds and pious dogmas. A heretic is a slanderer and a denier of truth, and heresy is the false acceptance of something that does not exist. 7. The unchangeable is that which always remains the same. Natural is either that which is in nature; or happening in accordance with general and complete custom; or that which is truly known to be true. What is unnatural is either something that God did not create that way, or something that He did not create at all - for example, sin and death; the supernatural is the assimilation of that which surpasses the created; for example, marriage is natural, fornication is unnatural, and the birth of Christ is supernatural. Deification is an ascent to something higher, and not a diminishment or change of nature. Oikonomia is a voluntary condescension of power performed for the sake of saving some. To be deified means to be elevated to greater glory, but not to change one's nature. Mixing sometimes means connection, and sometimes reveals fusion. Sadness is a lack of desire, and desire is the movement of the desirable part of the soul; The desirable is also the willing. Therefore, Christ voluntarily accepted praiseworthy sorrow into the willing part of the soul. Sadness 454 is so called from “disappearance.” 455 And Christ truly grieved over the destruction of Judas, the Jews and Jerusalem, 456 and while grieving, he mourned them with a sincere feeling of soul, revealing Himself by nature to be a lover of mankind. Melancholy is a certain gloomy disposition of the soul that arises from some failure to achieve what is desired. Anger is the action of the furious part of the rational soul. Timidity is a contraction of the soul within itself; it arises when expecting something unwanted. Autocratic 457 is not subject to control, because what is under someone’s authority is not autocratic. If autocracy is truly free and unhindered domination over what is dear, then autocracy of the thinking soul is the unhindered aspiration and movement of our desired [beginning] towards virtue or vice. Therefore, there is no turning to evil or to virtue where the autocracy of the soul cannot be known. For how will autocratic will be revealed when there is no recourse to the opposite? Scholium. These definitions must be noted; after all, they relate to Christ and everything connected with Him. So, only Christ’s mind and His most holy soul were impervious and did not experience any turning to the evil one, for the “form of a servant” 458 was curbed and submitted to God the Word, united with him hypostatically. Therefore, man, mentally comprehended in the Savior, said: “I cannot create anything of Myself.” 459 For He, transcending the limits and laws of our nature, was born without seed, existed as the body and soul of God and, as deified, willingly submitted to the beck of the Master. Quality 460 is realized power; for example, humidity - water, heat - fire, hardness - stone, and dryness - earth. Quality, property, 461 difference 462 and peculiar property 463 mean the same thing. A four-part body, made of four elements, like a kind of cosmos, consisting of; the soul is tripartite, transforming in itself the Holy Trinity, which was to be revealed in the dead world, as if in some kind of body, and to revive it with the knowledge of God. The soul is called tripartite, because it has certain intelligent elements, its parts, of which it consists; meaning intelligent, willing and fierce. Through reasonable virtue she reflects on virtue, through desirable virtue she loves God, and through fierce virtue she becomes angry with demons and bravely resists them. And just as the existence of the body is unthinkable without the four elements, so the soul is unthinkable without its three parts from which it was formed. About attitude. Nature is the mistress and source-mother of all things. Finally, everything that comes from nature is designated as relations, for hypostases, sonship, property, quality, simplicity and everything else from nature have a cause and outcome, and therefore are called relations, that is, grafted onto the root of nature. Of these there is both will and energy. A statement is an opinion or judgment expressed about something; for example, when we say: “a river begins” or “a ruler enters.” Denial is a refutation of an affirmation; for example, “the river does not rise” or “the ruler does not enter.” A judgment is expressed not only regarding the bad, but also regarding the good, for a judgment is any defining explanation regarding any thing; for example, “God is good by nature,” “the devil is cunning,” “the fox is cunning,” “the ferret is a thief.” An expression in the improper sense is everything said by someone not as a definition, but out of simplicity and good-naturedly; it cannot be elevated to a law or a definition. For example, “then they spat in the face of Christ” 464 - on the basis of such a statement, we cannot call the holy body of Christ a “special person,” but a nature. Etymology is an explanation of the true meaning of a term through interpretations of that term. In particular, what is [the meaning of the word] world 465? – “calm the mind”; 466 as again: the word excitement 467 [comes] from “to spread more easily,” 468 and deception 469 from “to change the mind.” 470 The word prudence 471 [comes] from “to think sensibly” 472 or from “to protect the body from dirt”; 473 word fornication 474 – “fiery”, 475 that is, “fire of youth” or “fiery mind, that is, blind” or from “to gravitate into the distance”; purity 476 – from “strive for a childless life.” 477 The word love 478 [comes] from “to appreciate everything,” 479 that is, “to unite and combine with like-mindedness”; virtue 480 - something pleasing to God, 481 chosen, that is, pleasant and beloved; baptism, 482 “vaptesma” 483 - into which he plunged, that is, died to sin; good 484 – very Divine 485 or love of God. 486 The word death, 487 “phenotos” 488 [comes] from “to lay on the back of the deceased”; 489 hell 490 – from “unknown”, 491 since hell is the unknown west; resurrection 492 - from “above peace” 493 (“rebellion”), that is, awakening; corruption 494 – from “to perish gradually”, 495 that is, to calmly decompose, for corruption is rotting; coffin 496 – from “the body flows”, 497 that is, destroyed; body 498 – from “healthy blood” 499, healthy blood in all members; members 500 – so that you say “parts”; 501 community 502 – from “to be a part in general.” 503 The word cross 504 "hundred-breadth" comes from "standing" 505 and "breadth", 506 that is, length and width, because it is length and width; altar 507 – from “to make a sacrifice”; 508 sacrificial 509 sheep is called from “to bring wool”; 510 finally, priest 511 - from “burning sacrifice”, 512 that is, offering and therefore he is called a priest. Names that have the prefix “voz-” (“vo-”, “above-”) 513 mean “above.” For example, ascension 514 - raising the offering 515, resurrection 516 - rising from rest, 517 east 518 - rising 519 sun, inscription 520 - record above, 521 reading 522 - knowledge from above, 523 eruption 524 and the like: ascension, 525 renewal 526 (highest renewal), rest, 527 liberation , 528 cooling . 529 The word old age, 530 “honor”, 531 that is, honor or “sees the earth”; 532 lamp 533 – from “to dispel the night,” 534 that is, darkness; sadness, 535 “to be deprived” 536 – from “to remain deprived”; 537 wind 538 – the one blowing “awaits” again; 539 masculine 540 – from “to win”; 541 sign 542 – from “to lay a sign 543”; dog 544 – from “permanently pregnant 545”; wax 546 – ​​from “to flow from fire” 547, like cedar 548 – from “to sweat from fire” 549; cloud 550 – from “to hide moisture” 551; bishop 552 – “observer”. 553 The word heart 554 [comes] from “to tremble,” 555 that is, to move continuously; kidneys 556 – from “located from the back” 557; back 558 – that which is on the other side of the head, that is, “towards the entrails,” 559 because there are entrails in the head. Scholia. For the forehead 560 is called from “under which the mind is located.” 561 Neck 562 – “spine nail” 563; mustache 564 – “into which the nostrils flow” 565; [the word] hips 566 [comes] from “division 567 of the body”; and the shoulder 568 is that which is “of the same 569 width and length”; knee 570 – from “bend to the ground” 571; loop 572 – from “it has a concavity at the top” 573; hairstyle 574 – from “strand 575 hair”; teeth 576 – “living on food” 577; hands 578 – from “it’s easier to throw” 579 and “to help with business”; 580 legs 581 – from “to trample the floor”; 582 womb 583 – from “to bear babies”; 584 intestines 585 – from “to spread inside”; 586 lungs 587 – from “there is breath in them 588”. Of course, you need to know that some terms are foreign and cannot be explained [based on the Greek language], for example, in Syriac σακελλάριος comes from “σακέλ,” 589 which means “to accept.” Similarly, in Roman λάτος sounds like “λάτος”, 590 which is consonant with the Greek πλάτος, that is, “width”. The word lord 591 [comes] from “certain connection” 592, that is, to surround and detain everyone; master 593 – power is called “force” 594; messenger 595 – from “faster movement” 596; Almighty 597 – from “above” 598; sky 599 – from “ὁρανός” “vision above” 600; moon 601 – from “radiance”, 602 that is, light or from “young radiance”; 603 sun 604 – from “the dawn strives”, 605 that is, to bring light, because sunrise is dawn. Pleiades 606 - that is, “from many stars” 607; morning star 608 – from “coming with the dawn”, 609 that is, with the rising. Πομάριν is a Roman word, because “πομάρια” 610 means “gardens”; the word Egypt "ἐγγύποτος" [comes] from "approaching water or river"; Nile - from “rejuvenate the bush”; Babylon - from the Hebrew word “βαβέλ”, which means “confusion” or “confusion.” Groom 611 – “now loving the bride” 612; νοτάριος is a Roman word, for “νότα” 613 in Roman means “writing”; baby 614 – “fat child” 615, that is, well-fed; junior 616 – “young in appearance” 617; sailor 618 – “someone from the ship” 619; girl 620 – “lack of flow” 621, that is, the time before the possibility of having children or before blood; pupil of the eye 622 – that is, “a tear flows from the recess” 623, hence eye ointment 624, which means “obstacle to the flow”; 625 eyes, 626 this is “damp, cloudy vision,” 627 that is, difficult; the word scholia 628 comes from “during classes 629 attach a commentary on incomprehensible thoughts or expressions.” Scholia. Let the inquisitive person have no doubt that the hardworking person, peering at the proposed definitions, will easily grasp the meaning of everything contained in the dogmas. You should know that the two names of Christ, that is, God and man, come from energies and are named so from their own energies. After all, the word God does not designate the essence of the Divine, for it is incomprehensible and unnameable for us, but the word God comes from His contemplative energy, as Saint Dionysius says, 630, or from “to run,” 631 that is, to spread, or from “to burn,” 632 and “to ignite.” Likewise, the word “man” does not express nature itself, but comes from “to turn one’s gaze upward,” that is, “to turn the action of our eyes upward.” So, if the two names of the natures of Christ come from the names of their essential energies, one is amazed at the rudeness of the heretics, how they are not ashamed to deny His essential energies. About what house-building is 633. The word economically in relation to Christ can be thought of in three ways, that is, either for the sake of economy; for example, when we say: “In economy Christ was suckled, was a child, grew, slept and was hungry,” that is, [we speak out] about His economy according to the nature of the flesh. Again, we speak in oikonomia 634 when an event occurs that should not have happened, but occurs out of condescension and for the sake of the salvation of some. For example, when Paul circumcised Timothy 635, wanting to attract the Jews; thereby bringing himself closer [to them]. The circumcision of Christ 636 in the same way took place economically, so that He would not appear to abolish the law 637. It is also economical that [Christ], being hungry in the morning, approached the fig tree, and it withered 638; or, when He came to the disciples at night, walking on the waters 639 for the sake of some hidden Economy. But the heretics refuse to think of the word “economically” in such ways, but say that by economically one should understand that which was illusory and apparent. Scholia. You should know that complex natures, being complex, arose and are easily dissolved, as the great Gregory says: “Complexity is the beginning of dissolution” 640. Therefore, the bodies of people and animals are easily destructible and mortal, since they consist of four natures and elements, and these elements are opposite to each other and rebel against each other. But simple and uncomplicated things are very stable and remain indissoluble to the end; for example, the human soul, the sun, light, luminaries, air, water, fire, spirit and all simple, unique, unalloyed and uncomplicated [things]. As a result, plants and trees, as consisting of four elements (I mean earth, water, sun and air) do not remain ageless, incorruptible and unfading, but die, like bodies. And the earth is composed in a similar way; make a brick consisting of earth and water, and it will easily fall apart. Refutation and destruction of the well-known question of all Monophysites, which states that there is no non-hypostatic nature. Orthodox question: “Speaking of two births regarding Christ, that is, the birth before the ages from the Father according to the Divinity and the birth in recent times from the Virgin according to humanity, answer us whether the birth is non-hypostatic, and then we will tell you whether nature is non-hypostatic.” Indeed, in the proper sense of the word, birth is the addition of a hypostasis to the identity of nature. Therefore, just as the two births that took place in the single Hypostasis of God the Word did not result in the addition of a hypostasis to Him, so He did not accept the addition of a person from two natures united by hypostasis. Therefore, when heretics pose a difficulty to us, saying: “Is there a non-hypostatic nature?”, they should answer: “Is there an impersonal birth?” For where there is a new birth, there the addition of a face is also known. Scholium. We ask everyone who turns to this book to thoroughly read the scholia attached to it. If the book contains, naturally, some errors, then we apologize; for it was presented hastily, often the purpose was to indicate speculation, while linguistic errors and carelessness in punctuation were despised. 1. Anastasia, the most insignificant monk, a work on the Orthodox faith, collected from the Holy Scriptures and teachers [of the Church] The beginning of Your words, O Christ, is truth, and You Yourself, God the Word, are the true Truth, since You are truly the Origin of the super-true Fatherly Truth 641 and the Truth, and You promised to send the Spirit of Truth to the zealots of Your Truth, saying: “The Comforter whom I will send to you in the name of My Father, the Spirit of Truth, He will guide you into all truth, so that you will speak, but the Spirit of Truth will speak the Truth in you" 642. For those who extract luminous and precious pearls from invisible depths for people and want to show them to people strip themselves of all clothing, fill their mouths with oil and, having taken a sufficient breath, go into the terrible and dark abyss. Thus, I think, they set an example that every person who explores the depths of spiritual waters and dogmas and wants to fish out divine and pure pearls from them should be naked from all the clothing of passionate [thoughts], breathe in the Holy Spirit through the nostrils of the soul and have [Him] according to the expression of the saint: “The Spirit of God is in my nostrils” 643, “The Breath of the Almighty teaching me "644 and "My mouth was opened and the Spirit was drawn" 645, He is the "oil of joy" 646, so that the Divine saying may be fulfilled regarding such people, which says: "A good man brings forth good from the good treasure of his heart, just as a passionate man brings out evil from the passionate treasure of his heart" 647. And the danger is not for those who dare [to rush] into the depths of the waters, but for those who, having passions, strive to carefully explore the depths of the Holy Scriptures. For only the Holy Spirit, as God, can “pierce into the depths of God” 648. Therefore, a certain sage says: “First you should purify yourself, and then communicate with the pure” 649. After all, if he who has the speaking Christ within himself, was caught up to the third heaven, recognized in paradise the ineffable words 650 and said: “It is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me,” 651, turning to the Corinthians, declares: “We speak in part and we know in part,” 652 then who can say: “I speak completely and I know completely, especially what pertains to the incomprehensible God”? Again, a certain Theologian, speaking by the Holy Spirit, said: “When I talk about God, I tremble with my tongue, and my hearing, and my thought” 653. For it is not safe to talk about God. But some who do not understand this and do not reason (being in ignorance, they seem to dwell inside their belly, falling into the passions of dishonor and the filth of pleasures; they slander me, and also create without fear the desires of the flesh and sweets, not knowing that the Holy Spirit dwells in people) ridicule the sacraments of Christ and make them the subject of mockery in taverns, brothels, bathhouses and bazaars And they do so that the unbelievers spew blasphemies; having stolen two or three random phrases from the Fathers and uttered them, they immediately put forward their own teachers, not God-ordained, but driven by passions. For those, prompted by a vain and voluptuous will and driven by shameful greed, often, in the Jewish manner, sell the divine pearls of the Word to pigs and the unworthy. 654 After all, as you can learn from the church chroniclers of your time, most heresies arose from vain lust for power, love of money, people-pleasing and arrogance. They would not have become so blind if, through exercise, practice and dispassion, they [were] worthy of the indwelling of the Most Holy Spirit in them. After all, if, without acquiring the Divine Spirit, “we do not know what to pray for as we should” 655, then how much more can we explore the mysteries of God? But, of course, the new theologians tell me: “We do not express anything from ourselves, but we speak from the Holy Scriptures and the pious Fathers of the Catholic Church.” To this I answer: “And all heretics claim the same thing, which is why they seem to object to us on the basis of the Holy Scriptures and the teachers [of the Church].” After all, as it seems to me, a person cannot unfalteringly and unswervingly comprehend either the Scripture or the words of the Fathers, if he does not acquire the Holy Spirit, who will speak in him and become his Guide 656. After all, the words of Christ: “The Spirit of truth will guide you into all truth” 657 clearly pointed to the Scriptures and the Fathers. 2. Provisions that an Orthodox Christian must refute and anathematize before a conversation when he wants to arrange a debate about faith with the Theodosians and Guyanites 658 First of all, Nestorius and his faith must be anathematized, and then in order: those who do not confess the Holy Ever-Virgin Mary to be the Mother of God by nature and above nature; speaking of two persons, or two hypostases, or two divided natures in Christ, and also not accepting hypostatic unity in Christ; not recognizing the expression “the one incarnate nature of God the Word,” as Saint Cyril interpreted it; speaking or inventing two natures in Christ - male and female; claiming that the Divinity of Christ was separated from His holy flesh on the Cross, in the tomb, or in some other similar place; not confessing the Body of God and the Blood of God, with which we partake. But, first of all and mainly, one should anathematize the one who preaches or has a new faith and a new teaching, different from the faith of the 318 Fathers of Nicaea [Council], 150 Fathers of Constantinople [Council] and 200 Holy Fathers of the First Ephesian [Council]. Also, the one who from the Council of Chalcedon invents and extracts a new faith, in addition to the way of thinking of the Holy Fathers: Dionysius, Irenaeus, Clement, Ambrose, Julia, Eustathius, Athanasius, Basil, Gregory and Gregory, Amphilochius, Joanna, Epiphanius, Theophilus, Proclus, Ephraim, Isidore, the blessed father and teacher Cyril and the rest of the Holy Fathers, their like-minded people. Those who do not follow these holy teachers we consider condemned and alien to Christ. In the name of the Father and the Son and the All-Holy and Life-Giving Spirit! Anastasius, the most humble presbyter of the holy Mount Sinai, a message about faith in the Economy of Christ the Son of God to the Holy Catholic Church in Babylon, 659 written at the request of Christ-loving Orthodox brothers in Christ. In the beginning was God, and God was in the beginning and before the beginningless beginning; God has always been and is and will be. I call God the Holy and Consubstantial and Uncreated Trinity, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. 660 This is our God, Who is always existing and pre-existent and above all pre-existent, at His Eternal, all-unknown Divine Council, before all creation, plans and creates holy angelic powers; He knows when, and knows where, and understands how [to create them], and only One knows how: their essence, and rank, and number, and manner of service, and properties are known by One God, their Creator. The commander of this incorporeal army, having become proud against the Creator, as the prophets Isaiah and Ezekiel say, was rejected and fell along with his rank. He is now called the devil, and those who are with him are called demons. 661 So, when God created the visible world (I mean heaven and earth and everything on it), the devil, as one of the teachers says, considered that “God intends to make him king and ruler of the visible creation.” 662 When he saw that Adam, who came into being and was created by God, dominates the earth, being annoyed and envious of man, 663 the evil one deceived him through Eve and the tree, 664 whether by God's permission, or by some special, more mysterious vision - God knows; for we do not need to waste time on what is unspoken in the Divine Scripture, but I am talking about paradise and the tree, and nakedness, and vestments of leather, and about some other similar thing that is not clearly revealed to us in the Holy Books. So, as I said earlier, Satan has been against the human race from the beginning. Then he kills Abel through Cain 665, then deviates people to fornication with the daughters of Cain 666, and then to worshiping man-made idols as gods instead of God 667. Therefore, God punishes through the flood, then, being philanthropic, renews the world through the seed of Noah 668. However, even after this, people did not come to their senses, but obsessedly indulged in idols and evil. Finally, God reveals certain lights that become examples of worship of God (I mean blessed Abraham, Isaac and Jacob), but even then the world did not come to its senses. Then the Lord brings various and varied punishments upon the creature, then gives the written Law, with signs and wonders, and with power revealed to Israel, but even then people did not escape from error. After the Law, he sent miracle-working prophets, but the apostate people killed them too. 669 At the end of all, “when the fullness of time had come” 670 - God’s ancient plan, a Sacrament happened, which God predestined before the ages for our glory: He sent His Son, born without seed from the Ever-Virgin Woman, a Man Who “appeared on earth and spoke among people” 671. However, even then the evil [chief] of the shameless did not cease to confuse the world, but, having taken possession of some people as his vessels and instruments, he hastened even more to completely refute the coming of Christ. Simon, a Samaritan sorcerer from the village of Giton, was the first to assert in Rome under the supreme [apostle] Peter: “Jesus who [once] came was a liar and a deceiver, but I am the true Christ.” Those who appeared after this, Cerinthus, Nicholas and Marcion, were likened to Simon. But then God's judgment destroyed them and their teachings. 672 However, even then the evil serpent did not cease to antagonize the Church, but even more incited persecution against it from the Hellenes and the wicked. But even among those born by the power of Christ, a manifold serpent invents a certain third type of lie: for, having heard in the Gospels the words of the Lord: “If I go to the Father, I will pray to Him, and He will send you another Comforter,” 673 little by little he began to instill in some wise men and sorcerers the words: “I am the Comforter whom Christ promised to send to the world.” Of these were Mani, the founder of the Manichaeans 674, and Montanus, a native of Ardab, and some others 675. Since they did not succeed, for the enemy saw that day by day the preaching of Christ was expanding and growing and he was no longer able to persuade the race of people to idolatry, from now on he began to spread various tares to the world, so that people in worshiping God would have the same enmity and discord that they had acquired in idolatry. 676 Therefore, after some time, the demon-singer organized this Arian chorus from Mani, Montanus and Novatus 677 and their imitators: Apollinaris 678, who claims that Christ took on man without a soul, without mind and without will, Eunomius and others who call the Word of God a creation, and those who teach about His one - Divinity and humanity - nature, will and action. Afterwards, not calming down, again the hater of goodness takes up arms against the Holy Spirit through the Doukhobor Macedonius. But the power from above destroyed all these crafty and godless tricks, and nowhere among those who argue about the Divinity is there today any mention of the Arians, Macedonians or Eunomians: so that the serpent, having received this deadly ulcer, becomes more and more powerless every day, so that the devil, defeated by Christ the Son of God, after the lapse of time found himself out of work. Indeed, look: he wanted, firstly, to immediately refute the coming of Christ - and he could not. Then he wanted to destroy the preaching through persecution - and was deceived; wanted people to worship sorcerers instead of the Holy Spirit - and did not achieve the goal; began to blaspheme the Divinity of Christ - and was stopped. Then, not having the strength to fight against the Divine nature, he turned his troops against the flesh of Christ, after the Arian chorus, digging up the Charybdis of division, separating the flesh of Christ from the Divinity by cutting the one Christ in two. 679 The founders of this division were Theodore of Antioch and Diodorus of Tarsus. 680 From them, like some kind of hellebore root, sprang the Chaldean pig - the Assyrian Nestorius, who to this day emits his [heretic] impurities through his followers. Expelled from Constantinople into exile in Mesopotamia, 681 there he continued to spread poison and impurity [of his heresy], so that, spilled from this destructive [source], they desecrated almost the entire East. We have compiled a book 682 against him, pillorying his cunning and cunning, and sending hardworking brothers there. And yet we must admit that today there is nothing more harmful than the heresy of Nestorius, and reveal its poison. For often, for the sake of shameful self-interest and glory, they hypocritically call Christ God and the Holy Virgin the Mother of God, they anathematize Nestorius and reject the expression “two persons in Christ.” At the same time, whoever wants to expose their deceit should remind them of the Council of Blessed Cyril against Nestorius: do they accept it with all their hearts, because everything is clearly said there. 683 This is the case with Nestorius, the Judaizing wicked and the Chaldean Assyrian pig. After all, the Holy Church rejects him because of the division of natures in Christ, just as Sevira and his [followers] because of the fusion of natures. It is necessary for the hardworking brother to know the following: namely, about the four Holy Ecumenical Councils, because of what and against what heresies they took place; however, both before and after them, other Local Councils were held in various places regarding various issues. So, the Holy First Ecumenical Council of the Fathers took place in Nicaea under the holy Emperor Constantine against Arius, a minister in Alexandria, who had previously been anathematized by Saint Peter, martyr and bishop, who said that “Arius, both in this century and in the future, is excommunicated from the glory of the Son of God Jesus Christ.” 684 For Arius himself declared that the Son and Word of God is a creature and was not begotten of the Father before the ages. 685 The Holy Council determined that the Son is “consubstantial” and co-eternal with the Father, “begotten, not created.” 686 This godly Council, proclaiming three Hypostases, the same essence, 687 also condemned Sabellius the Libyan, who argued that the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are one hypostasis. 688 Therefore, the followers of Theodosius and Jacobites 689 can be all the more put to shame when they, as we intend to show, say that essence or nature is the same as hypostasis. The Holy Council also rejected the heresy of Photinus, which asserts that Christ has the beginning of both Divinity and flesh from Mary and that He is not pre-eternal according to His uncreated Divinity. 690 The Second Holy Ecumenical Council of the Holy One Hundred and Fifty Fathers in Constantinople was held under the Emperor Theodosius the Great against the Archbishop of Constantinople Macedonius, who claimed that the Holy Spirit is a creature. The Holy Council, having condemned Macedonius, declared that the Holy Spirit is consubstantial with the Father and the Son, adding in the Creed [the words] “and in the Holy Spirit” [the words] “the Lord the Giver of Life” and so on. 691 Fifty years after the [Council] in Constantinople there was a Holy Council of two hundred (at the beginning of the meeting) of the Holy Fathers in Ephesus under the Emperor Theodosius the Younger against Nestorius, the wicked bishop of Constantinople, calling the Most Holy Theotokos the Mother of Man, and also wickedly cutting Christ into two faces and two hypostases; Having condemned Nestorius, the Holy Council determined that the All-Glorious Holy Virgin is truly and truly the Mother of God, and piously taught about the one complex hypostasis of Christ. 692 Just ten years later, Eutyches appeared, a certain archimandrite in Constantinople, saying that “the body of Christ was sent down from heaven and it is of a different essence from ours and that Christ is all one nature.” Against him, Blessed Flavian, who was then the Bishop of Constantinople, convened a Local Council, which condemned Eutyches and determined that “the body of Christ is of one essence with ours.” Then, having conveyed the request to the emperor, Eutyches convinced him, and he, sending for Pope Dioscorus of Alexandria, convened the Council of Ephesus against Flavian II, nicknamed the Robber Council; On it, blessed Flavian was beaten to death and died. As a result, under the emperor Marcion, a Holy Council was convened in Chalcedon against the heresiarchs Dioscorus and Eutyches, who said that Christ is one nature. The Holy Council proclaimed that Christ is “perfect in Divinity and equally perfect in humanity,” that He is “one Lord in two unfused and inseparably” united natures, confirming the overthrow of Nestorius, which Blessed Cyril had previously committed at the Holy Council in Ephesus, glorifying Blessed Cyril himself and singing: “Eternal memory to Cyril.” A hundred years after the Council of Chalcedon, under the Emperor Justinian there was a Fifth Ecumenical Council against Origen, Didymus and Evagrius, who were mad that our souls, together with demons, fell from heaven into our bodies and that torment has an end, and that through it the devil will be restored to his original angelic rank. This Ecumenical Council condemned both Sevier and his thoughts, and all those who say that our souls preexist our bodies. Scholia. It should be known that there were many other Local Councils in various places on various church issues. Scholium. As for... forever. 693 1. Where did the one-eyed faith of Sevier come from? Finally, for the sake of knowledge, it is pious for the hardworking brother to briefly say where the Monophysite heresy, teaching about the merging [of Divinity and humanity in Christ], began to spread and with the poison of what heresies and ancient serpents. In fact, having looked into the Manichaean, Valentinian, Marcionite and Arian books, Eutyches, who was [subsequently] condemned by the Holy Council of Chalcedon, learned from them fantasies and opinions that proclaim the one nature of Christ, Divinity and humanity. Then Dioscorus received this very disease from Eutyches; and after the condemnation of Dioscorus in Chalcedon, the Churches of Constantinople and Alexandria were divided. But a few years later, Timothy became the bishop of the Alexandrian Monophysites, and he soon wrote an essay against the Council of Chalcedon and the Tomos of Leo of the Pope. 694 Scholia. For at the Council Timothy was at one with Dioscorus. Then John the Grammar of Caesarea 695 and many others came out in defense of the Council, composing truthful writings. And so, when Severus of Antioch was exposed to accusations because of his nasty teaching directed against the Council of Chalcedon, he appeared in Alexandria, in the den of snakes, the enemies of the Universal Church, and having examined the writings of [John] of Caesarea and other authors in defense of the Council, compiled from many patristic and biblical quotations, teachings and arguments, first of all he immediately wrote against John of Caesarea; 696 and Sevier thereafter did what that same Aquila did with the Old Testament, translating it, distorting or removing many expressions and testimonies about Christ, and leaving the distorted result for the Jews to perish due to their aversion [to Christ]. 697 For seeing that the writings defending the Council are composed of quotations from the Fathers and reverend teachers, saying that Christ is in two inseparable natures in one Person, this Sevier, who has forgotten that “the Father gave all judgment to the Son,” 698 like the Antichrist, steals from Christ the power of the court, and sits as the first judge and arbiter of the Holy Fathers and teachers: he perverted their quotations, and was able to distort some pass them off as truly fatherly; he called other quotations false and counterfeit, since the books are rare either because of the remoteness of the country where they were written, or because they were written in other languages. Again, he also discovered those quotations that speak of two natures - from [the two] Gregori, John, Cyril, Athanasius, Ambrose, Proclus and other famous teachers, whose books and quotations cannot be rejected, since they are known to the whole world - regarding them again, the “legislator and judge” Sevier announced the definition and sentence, once writing to the one whom he calls Nephaly, 699 that he “excuses” the Saints Fathers for the expression “two natures”, since “they were forced to use the expression “two natures” in the fight against the Arians,” another time, expressing himself even more shamefully, he does not even honor the forgiveness of the Holy Fathers, but he himself destroys and refutes their inspired instructions, speaking in his own dry words, as we will say in more detail below and quote his words, namely: “The Holy Fathers have unacceptable expressions about two natures united in Christ, even starting with Cyril himself,” and again: “For the sake of benefit and because of the fight against heresies, the teaching about Christ was forced to change; for which reason, when the Arians say “one nature in Christ,” the Fathers did justly when they said “two natures,” and I excuse them; when Nestorius says “two natures in Christ,” these same words of the Fathers are unacceptable, even if [these are the words] of the blessed Cyril himself.” 700 So, [Sevier concludes]: Christ is one nature and He is devoid of another. For perhaps [due to fear of heresy] Nestoria, the most holy flesh of Christ, united with Him by hypostasis, was separated by Sevier and fell away from God the Word, appeared non-existent, unreal and invisible and, in the end, left God the Word naked, according to the teachings of Mani. After all, he says: “In the sun God placed the Word as the dwelling place of His flesh, 701 while He was lifted up into heaven.” Having decided this, Sevirus, having learned from Aquila and from his own people of Alexandria what the Jews call "deuterosis" 702 and which cancels the correct text of the seventy interpreters and destroys the Divine law, attacking, publishes for them a book called Philalethes, 703 or rather "The Lover of Fables", in which he himself chose himself as a judge of the living and the dead, collected a list of quotations and an exposition Fathers, some willingly accepted, others ordered to be expelled. So, this book, both in Egypt and in Syria, is revered by the disciples of James, Sevirus, Theodosius, Timothy and Dioscorus, and by the enemies of the Church more than the Holy Gospel of John itself. And just as the children of the Jews, as I briefly said before, who, under the guidance of the teaching of Aquila, rejected the whole heritage of Moses and the prophets, are based on their tradition and temptation, so the disciples of Sevier and Jacob rather try to distort and reject quotations from the Gospel, Scriptures and Fathers than the “lawmaking” of Sevier in this book. If you give them a quotation or sentence from Peter, Paul, Eustathius, Gregory, Basil, John, Athanasius, the most famous Cyril or any other father, then they will not accept it until they look in the “code of laws” of Sevirus, that is, in the book he compiled called Philaletus. And in accordance with his interpretation, judgment and sentence, they accept or reject the teacher and his word, appointing Sevier as a teacher of teachers, a judge of miracle workers, an explorer and an evaluator of God-bearing men. We write this not from hearsay, but from experience, having discovered many times in Syria, Egypt, Alexandria and other countries teaching about one nature in Christ, judging and interpreting every word of Scripture and the Fathers in accordance with the “legislation” of Sevier. For he “legislated” for them in his book called Philalethes: supposedly it was the creed of Chalcedon, [expressed] in the Apology, which John of Caesarea composed in his defense, that distorted 230 quotations of the Holy Fathers; This very [book] was presented to us in Babylon by the notary Athanasius. 704 So, when in relation to the words of the Fathers they, “like a deaf asp who stops his ears,” 705 stopped the ear of their heart so as not to hear the voice of the Singing One, their camp is poisoned in every possible way, poisoned by the “sage”; We have prepared ourselves against them in another way through the cooperation of Christ, whom they have rejected, in whom they do not believe; and we will attack those who are strangers to the truth with the help of another path of piety, which they have not entered upon, and have not even known. “For if they had known, they would not have cursed the Lord of glory”; 706 or rather, they knew and of their own free will showed impiety towards Him. 2. So, first of all, about what was seen and not known: after all, all those who teach that there is a single essence of Christ - Divinity and humanity, inherited this very [opinion] precisely from the words of Aristotle and other Hellenic successors, [claiming] that nature is a person, and equally the face is nature. After all, Aristotle says that a person is a private entity. 707 Then, following this nonsense rule, Arius said that the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit have three essences. Following this wicked definition, Sevier said that Christ is a perfect unified nature of two particular essences and half hypostases. In the same way, Eutyches and Dioscorus, Timothy and Gaian, Julian 708 and James, Peter Knatheus 709 and Barsanuphius 710 and Theodosius - this ten-horn of deception, not from the Scriptures and Gospels, but from Aristotle's Categories, inherited the expression that nature is a person and that there is no impersonal nature. Scholia. And Sabellius, who also calls nature a hypostasis, said that the Holy Trinity is one hypostasis. They did all this, intending to offend the Council of Chalcedon, which, by defining two inseparable natures of the One and the Same Christ God, they believe, allegedly disgraces Him, since it seems to say that there are two faces in Christ and reveals four faces in the Holy Trinity: two faces in the Father and the Holy Spirit and two other faces in Christ. These are precisely the heretics. But since in the Pauline Epistles Christ destroys and expels Hellenic wisdom, we believers will not accept the preaching of the dogma about Christ in accordance with Hellenic and Aristotelian teachings. And not like Paul of Samosat, but like Paul of Tarsus, we will preach Christ “not in the wisdom of speech, lest the cross of Christ should be made void,” 711 who said: “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise... when the wisdom of this age has turned into foolishness and the world through [its] wisdom does not know God.” 712 He deigned, through the ignorance of the disciples, to save those who believed in Him in the Gospel, “not in convincing words ... of wisdom,” 713 because “the wisdom of this world is foolishness in the sight of God,” 714 both this wisdom and those who follow it. So, when someone from the herd of the mentioned ten-horns approaches us, practicing words about Christ, we will not give him an answer until we ask him what he thinks about nature and how he interprets it, what is nature and what is hypostasis, what is essence and how he defines person, and according to what rule he imagines the genus. And if he brought you Aristotelian and Homeric definitions and laws, saying that nature is a person, then get away from him and leave him below with the devil, or rather even below the devil. For even the devil does not dare to value Hellenic wisdom above the teachings of Moses, prophetic, evangelical and apostolic. So, since we are adherents of the Holy Spirit, we will preach all the dogmas of Christ together with the Holy Catholic Church according to the tradition of the Old and New Testaments. Let us interpret essence, genus, nature, hypostasis, person according to Moses, the prophets and the Gospel, to which no one can object. First of all, because the whole law and the apostolic word is the lord and master of all other church and patristic writings, secondly, because it is impeccable and indisputable, and, finally, thirdly, for this reason, from the Old and New Testaments it is necessary to discover from the Old and New Testaments what concerns the nature, hypostasis, person, race and essence, since Sevier carried out the refutation and, as it were, the destruction of the Holy Fathers, as we will now show [on the basis words] of that epistle to Nephalius and to some others. 1. The story of how the wicked Sevier rejected the Holy Fathers. “If the opponents (that is, the Chalcedonians) say: “And we give you the words of the Fathers, in which they clearly name two natures in Christ,” I will defend myself so meekly and without the intention of winning at any cost: let us assume that the expression “there are two natures in Christ” was not rejected by any of the ancient Fathers, but all (that is, the Holy Fathers) clearly and impeccably used this expression.” What else is he, that is, Sevier, saying? “Many of the so-called impeccable expressions of the ancient Fathers after Nestorius began to be considered unsafe.” And a little lower he says again: “And don’t tell me again that the expression about two natures was used by some of the Fathers; it is you who say that you used it; but let us agree with this assumption. But during the time of Blessed Cyril, when the plague of Nestorius’s idle talk struck the Church, 715 this expression was especially rejected. And indeed, “for illness there is medicine.” The sayings of other Fathers, if they are discovered (I say again presumably), cannot be cited against St. Cyril, who found a cure for the illness that happened; I’ll say more: even if these were the expressions of Kirill himself, said by himself.” 716 This is what Sevier wrote. Who would allow me to applaud such a speaker because he unintentionally benefited the Church and the Council of Chalcedon, like those who crucified Christ on the tree? For the fact that he says that the Holy Fathers impeccably recognized two natures in Christ, we cannot acquire even for ten thousand talents; after all, we discovered that he is of the same mind with us against those who recognize one nature in Christ. The second benefit for you has been discovered, since Blessed Cyril himself teaches about two natures in Christ. For isn’t this what [Sevier] said meant: “Even if these were the expressions of Cyril himself, said by himself.” And the third benefit comes to us from this loud speaker, who claims that against diseases and against discovered heresies it is necessary to prepare medicines, that is, to change dogmas. “For the blessed Fathers, he says, who arrayed themselves against the heresy of Arius, refuting him, who proclaimed one nature in Christ, clearly confessed two natures in Him.” Truly, “How sweet are Your words to my throat, better than honey to my mouth.” 717 For I see that by the words of his mouth the sinner has been caught. For if because of the illness of Arius, who preached one nature in Christ our God, the Holy Fathers, who overthrew this dogma as impious, proclaimed two natures, much more now because of Eutyches, Dioscorus, Peter [Cnatheus], Timothy, Theodosius, Julian, Guyana, Barsanuphius, James, the majestic leader of this ten-horned choir of Sevirus and the rest of the heresiarchs, who teach in the Arian way about one nature in Christ, it is prudent, timely and just to proclaim two natures, inseparably united by hypostasis in the one person of Christ. It is very funny how the speaker went unnoticed, with his expression ridding the Council of Chalcedon of any reproach: “it is necessary to prepare medicines against the disease that has arisen.” How is it, wise one, that you do not defend this decision together with those who gathered in Chalcedon, but are their severe accuser? For when the illness of Eutyches arose, he said that the Incarnation of Christ is illusory and that His body descended from heaven, and as if in the shadow and in the imagination it is contemplated on earth and it is not of our essence, but rather has no essence at all. What medicine was fatal for this disease, if not the words that His most holy soul and flesh is an essence united with God the Word by hypostasis, and the confession that He is perfect in Divinity and He is perfect in humanity, in another nature? I am amazed that Sevier did not tremble at all with his shameless face and vile tongue, condemning many of the Holy Fathers and not wanting to spare Saint Cyril himself, but believing that “After the time of Nestorius, the sayings of the ancient Holy Fathers, speaking about two natures in Christ, turned out to be unsafe and completely incorrect.” As a result, this wicked man declares the opinion and judgment of the ancient Fathers, considering their instructions to be ineffective and rejected, “even if these were the expressions of Cyril himself.” 718 Christ, according to Paul, “ordained in the Church, first, apostles, secondly, prophets, thirdly, teachers.” 719 And the Antichrist destroys and casts out those whom God has appointed in the Church as Fathers and Shepherds; so the orator Sevier, being a kind of teacher of teachers, says that “the words of the Holy Fathers are no longer safe.” However, let the apostolic husband Dionysius be silent, let Irenaeus, the ax of heresies, be silent, let Clement, the vine of Christ, not speak. Further, let Justin begin to remain inactive, having sealed the nature of Christ with his own blood of martyrdom. This wise accuser of the teachers did not spare anyone: he was not ashamed of the martyrdom of Eustathius, he was not ashamed of Gregory the Wonderworker, he was not in awe of the exploits of Athanasius, he was not embarrassed by the residence of Basil, before whom the demons were in awe, he did not honor the [two] Gregori, whom the Greeks were ashamed of, nor did he honor Epiphanius, whom the spirits feared, nor did he revere John, before whom even the kings trembled, spared neither Amphilochius, nor Ambrose, nor the virtuous Ephraim, nor Proclus, nor Cyril himself, the seal of the Fathers, nor any other father whom we mentioned and whom we did not mention. But he made a departure from everyone, saying that “Up until the time of Nestorius, Christ, according to the words of the Holy Fathers, was known in two natures, but after Nestorius Christ became one nature; and the words of the ancient Fathers, who formerly called Christ two natures, became useless, unsuitable and blasphemous"; 720 with the periodicity of the lunar phases and according to lot, the lunatic Sevier, betraying Christ, now likens Him to the flawed, now to the full moon, now He turns out to be two-natural, now He turns out to be of one nature; for no reason at all He changes and becomes different, like hares; or, I’ll say something blasphemous, He is like pregnant women who either have two souls, then, after giving birth, have one again. 2. It is reasonable, I believe, in this too to expose the maliciousness and lies of Sevier, the head of the ten-horned choir, and to point out that even before Nestorius there appeared the founders and leaders of the heresy of the division of Christ, dividing Christ in two and calling Him a simple man; their foundation and head is Artemo, 721 as can be learned from the Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius Pamphilus, written before the Holy Council of Nicaea. Then, after Artemon, in the time of the Arians, Paul of Samosata, Diodorus and Theodore of Antioch appeared, contemporaries of the [two] blessed Gregori, Athanasius and Basil, wickedly dividing [Christ] in two, from them Nestorius drew the wicked doctrine of the division of [Christ], as both Saint Proclus and blessed Cyril testify. Scholium. You, lover of knowledge, will discover the above at the Holy Council of Ephesus, because the Council established agreement between the teachings of Nestorius and Paul of Samosata, who lived 160 years earlier and wickedly divided Christ. 722 So, let the lover of wisdom, Sevier, tell me why the blessed Fathers, being contemporaries of the heresiarchs Theodore and Diodorus, spoke of two natures in Christ God; after all, both [Paul] of Samosata and the expressions of Theodore and Diodorus “two persons,” “hypostases,” “common man” blasphemed Christ even before Nestorius. But because the Fathers did not formulate the teaching about Christ for a time, in accordance with the lunar phases, so as not to call Him in the imagination changing various images, forms and appearance like a chameleon. After all, they heard Him say: “You see now that it is I,” 723 and “I do not change.” 724 However, this arrogant chief of the ten-horned Sevier did not understand these words. Therefore he said: “After Nestorius, the expressions of the Holy and ancient Fathers are excluded and rejected.” 725 Who, tell me, the wisest, excluded and rejected them? After all, the divine Cyril did not say anything like that, but proclaims them as his Fathers and agrees to follow their teaching; and at that same Holy Council against Nestorius, he cited quotations from the Fathers, proclaiming that Christ is two natures in one person, including the words of the great Ambrose, who said that “In Christ there is another nature.” 726 And not only, but also highly praises Proclus, his contemporary, for in the “Interpretation of the Creed” he says this: “The Christ-loving host of the Holy Fathers and our most pious and God-fearing brother in the bishopric, Proclus, who now rules on the throne of the holy Church of Constantinople, thinks the same way with us.” 727 It was the divine Cyril who said: I will exclaim to him on behalf of Sevier: what are you doing, blessed Cyril, praising Proclus, after Nestorius speaking about Christ: “He was born incorruptibly and entered unhindered, although “the doors... were locked,” 728 Whose conjugation of natures, seeing, Thomas exclaimed: “My Lord and my God!” 729 » 730 ? And again he says in [interpretation of the words] “A Child is Born to Us” 731: “Mentally separate the natures and theology the mysterious union.” 732 And again Proclus: “And one Son, since natures are not divided into two hypostases, but the terrible Dispensation united two natures into one hypostasis.” 733 Although Proclus teaches this after Nestorius, Saint Cyril is unanimous with him, calls him most holy and pious and clearly approves of the words that there are two natures in Christ. Finally, let the “legislator” Sevier show us who excluded the words of the Holy Fathers about two natures, and which of the Fathers taught him to say that against the plagues of heresies that have arisen, it is necessary to change the teaching about Christ: then He has two natures, then one; sometimes we must say that Christ is knowable as perishable, sometimes as incorruptible; sometimes He is one person, sometimes He is two; Sometimes He is of one type, sometimes He is of two; and thus, until the end of time, carry Christ back and forth, like a kind of ball that playing children throw from side to side. And this speaker is not ashamed in establishing this [changeability of Christ], but presents in his next word the following reasoning and images: “If a certain best doctor forbids those sick with a plague that has gripped a certain city from drinking a certain water, no one can speak out against his words: they say, the doctors of our fathers allow them to drink this water.” 734 These words of Sevier mean approximately the following: “Since the ulcer of Nestorius was discovered, I, as the best and only wise doctor, do not allow you to drink the water of life, which is the teaching of the Fathers, which affirms two natures in Christ, even if the doctors from the Holy Fathers commanded you to drink this life-giving water.” If he were here, I would say to him: “O man! Blessed Cyril himself approved of the Holy Fathers, who called two natures in Christ, as I said a little earlier, and especially Paul of Emesa: when he arrived in Alexandria on behalf of all the bishops of the Eastern Churches, rose to the pulpit in the Alexandrian Church and proclaimed that in Christ two natures are united in one hypostasis, Blessed Cyril, greatly rejoiced, said: “Let the heavens rejoice, let them rejoice.” earth! Here, listen! We drew the water of life from the holy spring of the pious Father Paul, who explained to us the great mystery of truth.” 735 Behold, the divine Cyril calls the words about two natures the water of life, from which the sophist-doctor Sevier forbids us to drink.” When I said this, Sevier, coming to the middle, said: “But that’s why I, along with the other fathers, rejected even the teachings of Cyril, calling them unacceptable after Nestorius, even if they were uttered by the lips of Cyril himself.” “And where do you get such authority and such audacity that, when you are plotting against us, you can use the words of St. Cyril, citing to us here and there the saying he expressed: “the one incarnate nature of God the Word”?” “We rejected not these words,” says Sevier, but others, speaking of two natures in Christ.” 736 Sevier learned well from Jewish, Hellenic and Arab teachers, accepting some of the Holy Scriptures, and rejecting some of them, as the children of the Manichaeans do. And yet, if the teaching about Christ and truth must be changed against the plagues of emerging heresies, and because of Nestorius the words about two natures have become unacceptable, then the expression “one incarnate nature of God the Word” will now become completely unsuitable and useless because of the ten heresies of the said ten-horned one, preaching the belittlement, unreality and denial of the humanity of Christ. Woe is me! What a disaster and I don’t know what to do! “For because of the plague of Nestorius,” says [Sevirus], “the two natures of Christ were rejected and became unacceptable”; in turn, because of Eutyches, Dioscorus and Theodosius, the expression speaking about the same nature of His Divinity and humanity will be completely rejected. And then the sermon will become empty and faith vain, 737 and piety will disappear, becoming corrupt. So, since Sevier, who is exposed as a kind of new modern Antichrist, saying: “All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me,” 738 has overthrown the Holy Fathers, then let us defeat his ten-horned one, establishing from the prophetic and evangelical Scriptures that one is nature, and the other is face, and that nature and face are not the same thing. 1. Proof from the Old and New Testaments that nature and face are not the same thing. At the all-royal seat of Christ God on the high and glorious throne in the holy universal and apostolic Orthodox Church of ours, with all the highest angelic powers standing before Him, surrounded by all the holy patriarchs, prophets, evangelists and apostles from the ages, carrying in their hands the sacred and divine writings of the Old and New Testaments, first, as the first [of the Holy Scriptures], the first book of the law Moses, and going to the middle, we will discover that the Holy Church, not in the Aristotelian way, but in the theological way, teaches about the race, that is, about nature: “And God said: Let the earth produce greenery, grass, seed-sowing fruitful trees, bearing fruit according to its kind, in which is its seed on the earth. And so it became. And the earth brought forth grass, grass yielding seed according to its kind, and tree yielding fruit, in which is its seed according to its kind.” 739 And again further: “And God said: Let the water bring forth living things; and let the birds fly over the earth, across the firmament of heaven. And God created the great fish and every living creature that moves, which the waters brought forth, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind.” 740 And again: “And God said, Let the earth produce living creatures after their kinds, cattle and creeping things and wild beasts of the earth after their kinds. And so it became. And God created the beasts of the earth according to their kinds, and cattle according to their kinds, and every creeping thing that creeps on the earth according to their kinds.” 741 These are the words of the Lord and God! The Creator of everything, in theological style, called the different beings of objects (both animate and inanimate, and feathered, and swimming, and reptiles) different genera, that is, natures, and not in the Aristotelian and Homeric manner different persons, as if teaching us that there is a different genus, that is, a different nature among herbs, and a different genus, that is, a different nature among reptiles, and another generation, that is, a different nature among animals, and another generation, that is, a different nature among people, and another generation, that is, a different nature among demons, as Christ says about them: “this generation is driven out only by prayer and fasting.” 742 As a result of which Paul speaks of the consubstantiality of us and Christ in the flesh, instructing the Athenian philosophers: “we are His generation.” 743 However, Sevier refuses both Moses and Paul, not accepting the naming of nature by genus. So, through us, God’s brother James puts him to shame in his Catholic Epistle, as the brother of God, proclaiming what is brotherly and in agreement with God; for what God through Moses called species, Jacob called nature: “all the nature of beasts and birds, reptiles and sea creatures is tamed and tamed by human nature.” 744 So clearly the brother of Christ called you different kinds of different natures. As a result of this, the entire host of Holy Fathers can call [things] of different essence and different nature [things] “of different kinds.” Therefore, those who say that in Christ after the union there is one nature, that is, one species, in every way say that either the Divinity is akin to the flesh, having turned into a creature, or, on the contrary, the flesh has become akin and consubstantial to the Holy Trinity, which is unimaginable and impossible. “If the body is not consubstantial with the Word, then in Christ there is one and a completely different nature,” 745 as the all-wise Cyril, defending himself before the Easterners, pointed out to Eulogius in Constantinople. Scholium. Cyril in the Treasure says that a different essence means a different kind, and Gregory [Theologian] in the Homily on Epiphany, 746 [beginning with the words] “Again my Jesus,” testifies to the kinship 747 of the Holy Spirit and God the Word, just as Gabriel says to the Mother of God: “Here is Elizabeth, your relative 748.” 749 2. However, let's end here so we can move on to the next one. Namely, following Moses, going out into the middle of the most divine and sovereign meeting of the holy prophets and apostles, the all-wise Solomon himself clearly set out for us in the Old Testament the doctrine of nature in his book Wisdom: “All people who have no knowledge of God are vain by nature.” 751 What does “by nature” mean? Same as “truly”; 752 for nature, as the inspired Scriptures say, is the truth of things. For the sake of the foolish, I change the words of Solomon and say: “All people who have no knowledge of God are vanity in appearance”; However, the expression “vain in appearance”, as opposed to “vain in nature,” is completely absurd. Because nature and face are not the same thing. And we have already said this in the Tomos of Justification to the people, and I have not forgotten this. But since I am talking about a wound, about lingering putrefaction and about a splinter that caused a fetid ulcer (especially in the ditches and ditches of Tolonam 753 and the Egyptian countries), then one should not be afraid to say the same thing in order to convince the foolish by replacing the words from the Holy Scriptures that nature and face are not the same thing. So, let us again, by rearranging words, consider the expression of the blessed Apostle James: “every nature of beasts and birds, reptiles and sea creatures is tamed and tamed by human nature.” 754 He did not say: “with a human face,” because humanity is not one person, but many faces, but nature is one. And that’s why he says: “by human nature.” As I was saying this, the divine rhetorician of the universe, Paul, came into the middle, carrying the Epistle to the Romans, in which he teaches us: “For when the Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature 755 do what is lawful.” 756 What does “by nature” mean if not “truly” 757? Let's change the expression: "for when the Gentiles, who do not have the law, do according to the law what is lawful." But what has been said is completely absurd, because nature is not a person. Scholium. No one fulfills God's law by nature, 758 but by free choice, although if the fulfillment of God's commandments were natural, 759 then everyone would agree. Because here, instead of “truly,” 760 it is said “by nature.” 761 For again it is said: “And he who is uncircumcised by nature 762 who fulfills the law (that is, he who is uncircumcised among the Gentiles truly 763 who fulfills the law) will not condemn you, a transgressor of the law at... circumcision.” 764 And again: “For if God did not spare the natural 765 branches (that is, truly 766 connected to the root), then see if He will also spare you,” 767 who has gained the truth. Again, let us cleverly change this expression and say: “For if God did not spare the personal 768 branches.” What kind of personal ones, tell me? Where is the meaning and agreement in this expression? So, nature is not a person. “For if you were cut off from a wild olive tree by nature (that is, truly 770 from unbelief) and were not grafted into a good olive tree by nature, then how much more will these natural ones be grafted into their own olive tree.” 771 Scholia. Unbelief is called a “wild olive”; no one is an unbeliever by nature, but by free choice. Because here, too, “by nature” stands instead of “truly.” When I said this and tried to establish by various proofs from Scripture that nature and person are not the same thing, the holy Apostle again took my hand, handing over his First Epistle to the Corinthians, in which he again clearly teaches us that nature signifies nothing other than the very truth of things. 772 Condemning some women who pray with their heads uncovered, he says: “Judge for yourself, is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her [head] uncovered? Isn’t it nature itself that teaches you,” 773 that is, isn’t it circumstance itself 774? If we change things up and say instead of “nature”: “does not the hypostasis itself teach you?”, does this expression even have style and consistency? Of course not, because nature is not the same thing as face and hypostasis. However, the rhetoricians - the leaders of Sevirov's ten-horn - did not think about this at all: in their words about nature, hypostasis and person, they did not mention either Moses, or Solomon, or Christ, or James, or Paul. For if the wicked had known them, then, perhaps, they would not have slandered the Christ of glory, saying: “There is no impersonal nature, because nature and person are one and the same.” They believe that the Council of Chalcedon, or rather the Holy Fathers, who spoke of two inseparable natures in Christ, certainly speak of two persons in Him, which is in agreement with Nestorius, and therefore the righteous judge Sevier destroyed them. So, that nature is not a person, the word from the Old and New Testaments has sufficiently shown. So, the change of words even in the Holy and Divine Scripture itself has demonstrated that a person cannot be called nature. Many madmen say that nature and face are one and the same, but listen to those who speak intelligently. 3. Let's read the following questions and answers. Question: God, cursing Cain, 775 cursed all human nature or one hypostasis, that is, the face? Answer: Obviously, only the face of the sinner Cain, because nature and face are not the same thing. Question: Noah, who said to his son, who revealed his nakedness: “Cursed and the servant of servants will be Canaan” 776, did he curse the common nature of the three sons or one of the three persons? Answer: It is clear that only the face of Ham, because nature and face are not the same thing. Question: When Enoch was lifted up by God, 777 was the whole human nature taken up or just the face? Answer: There is no doubt that only the face of Enoch, because nature and face are not the same thing. Likewise, Christ, overthrowing Judas, 778 did not overthrow the entire apostolic nature, but one person, because nature and person are not the same thing. So that opponents do not think that we are telling fables, let us move on to the very use of the word “person” in relation to God in divine Scripture. For it is written that after that extraordinary struggle, Jacob, inspired by God, called that place “The View of God; 779 for I have seen God face to face, and my soul is preserved.” 780 Let the philosopher Sevier tell me now, who says that nature and face are one and the same, was it possible for Jacob, instead of the words “I saw God face to face,” to say: “I saw God by nature to nature, and my soul was preserved”? It’s absolutely impossible, because nature and face are not the same thing. Receive, Jacob, also the other stone thrown by Jacob, for he said to his brother Esau: “I have seen your face, as if one had seen the face of God.” 781 Here again he said “face”; It would be impossible to say: “I saw your face as if someone saw the nature of God,” because nature and face are not the same thing. It is said again in Exodus: “And the children of Israel saw the face of Moses shining, and they put a veil on it.” 782 So, by covering the face of Moses, did they cover his entire nature (that is, the entire race of Israel)? No, because nature and face are not the same thing. And again, when he says that near the thorn bush “Moses covered his face because he was afraid,” 783 it was impossible to say that “Moses covered his nature,” because nature and face are not the same thing. And when the prophet turns to God: “Illuminate Your face, and we will be saved,” 784 he could not say: “Illuminate Your nature, and we will be saved,” because nature and face are not the same thing. But again turning in prayer to the Lord and saying: “My face has been sought after Thee,” 785 he could not say: “My nature has been sought after Thee”; for it was not human nature that sought God then, but David, because nature and person are not the same thing. And again speaking to God: “But I will appear to Thy face in righteousness,” 786 he could not change the phrase and say: “But I will appear to Thy nature in righteousness,” for this is impossible. So, nature and face are not the same thing. And Isaiah, saying: “I did not hide My face from reproach and spitting,” 787 could not say: “I did not hide My nature from reproach and spitting,” because nature and face are not the same thing. And when he says: “I hold my face like flint,” 788 he could not say: “my nature,” because nature and face are not the same thing, as Sevier talks idlely. 4. I am not saying that the nature of God is invisible, but His face is visible (down with the absurdity), but I only want to show the heretics the difference between words: not always when “nature” is said, one can say “face” and, again, not always when “face” is said, one can say “nature”. I will try to show this now from the Gospel and Apostolic, and not Hellenic, traditions. After all, the Son of God said: “See that you do not despise one of the least of these; for I tell you that their angels always see the face of My Father who is in heaven.” 789 If nature and face are one and the same, I change the expression and say: “Their angels always see the nature of My Father, who is in heaven.” But this is impossible and completely incredible, since God the Word Himself teaches us: “No one has ever seen God; The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has revealed.” 790 Saying: “no one has seen God,” He spoke not only about people, but also about angels. So, let the acephalus say, how, seeing the face, do the angels not see the nature of the Father, if in fact, as you say, nature and face are one and the same? Listen again to Paul, who clearly teaches, and abandon your nonsense oft-repeated expression that nature and face are one and the same. After all, he speaks to the Corinthians about the pure in heart: now they see God “as in a dark glass,” but in the next century “face to face.” 791 Tell me now, you who say that nature and face are one and the same, is it possible to change the expression and say: “Then by nature to nature the righteous will see God”? Down with! After all, the divine Paul himself testifies about God: “Whom no man has seen or can see.” 792 Because nature and face are not the same thing. And many other similar places where it is said about the face and in which it is said that God is revealed as if in a certain image and transformative vision are in the Divine Scripture, but nowhere is it said about His nature or essence; after all, in the entire Old and New Testament you will not find names or indications of the nature or essence of God, but all the appearances of the invisible God, which symbolically and covertly revealed the image of the face, did not reveal the nature or essence of God; so, for example, Daniel saw the face of “the Ancient of Days and another face: one like the Son of Man walked with the clouds of heaven,” 793 and Isaiah in the form and form of a human face saw the appearance of “the Lord sitting on a high and exalted throne,” 794 not contemplating the Divine nature, but as if in a certain image, so that they could see and because of this comprehended the appearance to them in human form of the invisible and indescribable God. If nature and face are one and the same, then why does the prophet not say to God: “Turn not Thy nature away from me,” but: “Turn not Thy face away from me,” 795 and again: “Illuminate Thy face upon Thy servant” 796; and again: “Do not cast me away from Your presence” 797; and again: “The light of Your countenance shines upon us, O Lord” 798? And in general, Divine Scripture, while naming the face of God in many places, nowhere speaks of the nature of God. Because it is clear that nature and face are not the same thing. The Heretic's Objection. “But Divine Scripture also uses words not in the proper sense,” he says, “so that we can hear that it attributes to God, for example, a face, as well as hands, wings, eyes, lips and other members, although the Deity is incorporeal, has no face and is indescribable.” When the heretic says this, I agree with this, but in turn I ask again: “Why in many places, while naming the face of God in a non-proper and allegorical way, does the divine Scripture in no way name the nature or essence in Him, neither in a non-proper sense, nor allegorically, nor symbolically, although, as you say, nature and person are one and the same? Because it is perhaps clear to everyone that nature and person are not the same thing, as we have shown with the help of the divine Scriptures of the Old and New [Testaments]. If you ask: “For what reason did the blessed prophets in all the divine Scripture seek, prayerfully ask and expect the appearance and coming of the Face of God, and not nature?”, then listen to the fatherly word about this, and believe, and do not object; for this unusual “word is truly worthy of all acceptance.” 799 After all, the blessed prophets and patriarchs, through the action of the Holy Spirit, knew that not the common nature of the Holy Trinity, not the entire fullness of the Three Persons - the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit - intends to appear on earth and become incarnate in the last times, but one Person, namely God the Word; Therefore, they did not say that the Trinity essence of God would come down to people, but they proclaimed and prayerfully asked for the appearance of the Face of God, clearly and distinctly seeking the Face of God the Word and His coming to earth, and turning to Him: “Illuminate Your face, and we will be saved,” 800 “I will seek my face to You, I will seek Your face, O Lord,” 801 “Be merciful to us and bless us, illuminate us ", 802 and again: "Make Thy face shine upon Thy servant," 803 that is, on the man whom He created. The prophets herald the coming of a separate Divine Person, that is, One from the Holy Trinity, that is, God the Word, and not of a common nature; and, if it is necessary to say more clearly, they announce the coming of the realized Person of God, and not the general incarnation of the Three Persons of the Trinitarian Trinity. Because nature and face are not the same thing, as I have said many times.” 5. After the words I cited from the Divine Scripture and the prophets, I fear, worry and fear, lest Sevier, irritated by such denunciations, would jump out of the grave with the dead, convene his decahorn, convene a council and refute, reject Christ, Moses, Paul, the prophets and evangelists, as he did earlier with the teachers, and would not legislate like this: “Before Nestorius, the words of Christ, the prophets and the apostles were faithful and reliable, but from the time of Nestorius they were rejected; and the Old and New Testaments are no longer reliable, not saying that nature and person are one and the same. For against the heresies that have arisen, it is necessary to change and abolish the divine Scripture, as well as the writings of the Fathers—either accept or reject it.” Groaning and embarrassed, Sevier, however, does this; It is in this way that he will declare invalid the words of the Holy Fathers about the two natures of Christ: not in the apostolic way, but in the Hellenic way, representing nature. Because if he, like the Holy Church, had followed Paul, he could not have said anything else except that nature is the truth of things; 804 after all, how can we understand the words of the apostle: “and we were by nature 805 children of wrath” 806? What does “children of wrath by nature” mean if not “children of wrath truly 807”? Regarding this, I could even confirm from the Holy Fathers the expression that nature signifies nothing else but truth. But I am afraid that Sevier will tell me that because of Nestorius this expression has also been rejected. Then let us from this time, shaken by the wicked Nestorius, bring out the luminary itself - blessed Cyril, glorified by the host of Fathers, who teaches in an apostolic manner that nature is truth. This is why he is a luminary because, in various places speaking about Christ: “natural birth” and “natural union”, in response to Theodoret’s objections to these words, the godly wise Cyril says in an apostolic manner in the Apology for twelve anathematisms that true means natural. Moreover, the common use among the Egyptians and Alexandrians of the word “naturally” 808 means precisely the truth of things; therefore, one to another in a conversation for confirmation says: “Naturally I tell you,” that is, truly. Can we change this expression and say: “I am telling you with my face”? In no case, because the phrase is not at all consistent. Because nature and face are not the same thing. Don't mock what was said. After all, from the Apostolic Tradition I accepted that nature means truth and that nature and person are not the same thing. You told me that the blessed martyr Peter cursed the wicked Arius in Alexandria, saying: “Arius, both now and in the next century, is separated from the glory of the Son of God.” 810 So, tell me, is this curse directed at one person or at the general nature? Obviously, only Aria is on the face. By saying that nature and face are one and the same, you truly find yourself under this general curse, and equally under all other curses sent down on the faces of pagans or heretics; but this is not the word of truth. After all, if one person’s face is covered with leprosy, it cannot be said that the whole human nature is sick with leprosy; and when the general human nature is submerged in a flood, it cannot be said that the face of only a certain person is drowned; again, if the owner has lost property, 811 it cannot be said that he has lost face. For face, as I have said many times, signifies the particular, and nature the general, and also the truth of things, as we have established from the Tradition of the Law, the prophets, the Lord, the evangelists, the apostles, teachers and preachers [of the Church]. Following this rule, the Catholic Church says that in Christ God there are two unfused and inseparably united natures in hypostasis, that is, two true things - Divinity and humanity. So, if, as the Word has variously and repeatedly established, nature is truth, then all who do not call the humanity of Christ nature, but only His Divinity, affirm that the flesh and soul of Christ are not true. If they are true, then it is clear that they are nature, and if they are not nature, then they are not true. If Christ was truly man, then He is man by nature and God by nature and after union, by nature, that is, truly created and by nature, that is, truly the Creator Himself. Do not deny, heretic, the nature of the flesh, for you deny its reality. After all, nature is truth, it is reality. If Christ has a homogeneous, monotonous nature, then He truly, really exists in one image, and falsely in another image; and if He truly, really exists both in Divinity and in humanity, then it is clear that He has two true, real natures, that nature is truth, is reality. The wicked Arius and Sabellius were previously punished for something in triadology, for which then Nestorius and Sevirus were punished in the doctrine of the Economy. Indeed, Sabellius, having come up with a merger, said that in the Divinity there is one hypostasis of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, and the wicked Arius, on the contrary, thinking of fighting with Sabellius, said that the consubstantial Trinity has three heterogeneous essences. The Holy Church, having chosen the royal, God's path, rejected the Sabelliian merger and the Arian division, and says that the Holy Trinity is three Persons, and not one person, piously defining that They have one essence, and not three essences. When then again the wicked Nestorius taught that there are two persons in Christ, and the ill-fated Severus spoke of the one nature of Christ, then the Holy Church equally rejected the Nestorian division, preaching the one person of Christ, and in the same way rejected the Severian fusion, teaching that the one and only Christ the Son of the Lord Jesus is two unfused and inseparably united by hypostasis of nature, equally rejecting both the Sevirian fusion and the division of the wicked Nestoria. So, the Catholic Church of God teaches about Christ not in Aristotelian and not in Hellenic, but, as I have said many times, according to the evangelists and apostles, “not in the convincing words of Pythagorean wisdom,” 812 “so as not to abolish the cross of Christ.” 813 After all, Aristotle says that nature is the beginning of movement and rest, 814 and the pious Apostolic Tradition recognizes that in the Divine nature there is neither the beginning of movement nor rest, that is, the end [of movement]. Therefore, the Evangelical faith says that nature is the thing itself, truly, really existing; After all, what does not exist in truth and in essence is obviously what is in the imagination and fantasy, that is, what does not exist. We have already shown how far this is within our power, by comparing what is written about nature and things, that one is nature, and the other is hypostasis, that is, a person. However, the enemy will certainly refute our reasoning and evidence, thinking to confuse us with his own considerations, comparing difficult passages from the Fathers. But so that we do not follow the same Sevirian path, which leads away from the host of the Holy Fathers, by refuting their words, let us prove, with the help of the Fathers and, at the same time, with the help of the Councils, that one thing is common to every nature of everything that exists, that is in heaven and on earth, and, on the contrary, something else is particular to a personal hypostasis. We will present evidence not from the holy lips alone, not from a hundred, but from the lips of three hundred and eighteen Fathers, among whom there were many martyrs of Christ, many confessors. Perhaps Sevier and his like-minded people who blame us will fall silent, ashamed of such numbers. 1. On nature and hypostasis: from the Holy Council of Nicaea. Once upon a time, a certain pair of tares (as if certain Annas and Caiaphas or Pilate and Herod) gave birth to evil fruit - heresiarchs who slandered God; I mean Arius and Sabellius, the teachers of Sevirus (they say that nature and face are one and the same: Sabellius says that in the Holy Trinity there is one person and one essence, and Arius - that there are three persons and three essences; while both claim that nature and face are one and the same). Their wickedness and such way of thinking were refuted by the Holy and Blessed One, the first of those born of the Holy Spirit, 815 Ecumenical Council of Nicaea of three hundred and eighteen glorified Fathers, who clearly instructs us that one is essence or nature, and the other is hypostasis, and proclaimed: “But those who say that there was a time when there was no Son of God, that He did not exist before His birth and that He came from something that does not exist, or those who claim that the Son God from another hypostasis or essence, or that He is transmutable or changeable – such are anathematized by the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.” 816 Finally, Sevira and Dioscorus, and the entire Sanhedrin of their vain decahorn, who say that nature and hypostasis, that is, person, are one and the same, fall under the condemnation of this Holy and Blessed Council as guilty and deserving of punishment for their own slander. After all, the angelic host of the Holy Fathers teaches that one is essence, and hypostasis is another: they did not say: “those who say: from another hypostasis, that is, 817 essence,” but “those who say: from another hypostasis or 818 essence,” clearly teaching us that one is hypostasis, and essence is another. And they did not stop the speech there, but again repeated the same expression, doubling it and strengthening it: “For we contemplate the Father as Father, the Son as Son and the Holy Spirit as the Holy Spirit, one essence, three Hypostases.” 819 They did not say: “three essences, that is, three hypostases,” they did not say: “three natures and three persons,” as madmen say, but: “one essence, three hypostases,” thereby saying that one is an essence, and a hypostasis is another. 820 This is the basis of the faith of the Fathers! This is the root, the beginning and the cornerstone of godliness! Here are the lights and heralds of truth! Here are the unshakable pillars and invincible fighters! Behold, spirit-bearing prophets and men equal to angels! They say that one thing is nature, and hypostasis is another. Who can refute this canon, oros and law? I am convinced and believe that at this Holy Council there were present God-bearing men who had a prophetic and apostolic degree and authority from God and who could say with all boldness: “if an Angel from heaven began to preach to the Church a gospel other than what we preached and preached to her, let him and his preaching be anathema.” 821 So, let not the Catholic Church, which has three hundred and eighteen holy defenders and like-minded people, be afraid, who say that one is nature, and hypostasis is another: for “the gates of hell will not prevail” 822 and will not destroy this oros and law. And therefore, as before God, I impartially and impartially say that right-thinking people will discover that the Holy Council of Nicaea was against Sevirus and Dioscorus and everyone who calls nature a face; and not only, but also against the wicked Nestorius, for he, like Severus, calls nature a person. If nature is a person, then in vain the Holy Council of Nicea condemned Sabellius, who said that in one essence of the Holy Trinity there is one person. If nature is a person and a person is nature, then why is Arius anathematized when he says that the three persons of the Godhead have three natures? If nature means person, then I proclaim that Sevirus and Theodosius are a great misfortune for all their followers, who say that Christ is of two natures; 823 for if indeed nature and person are one and the same, then they say that Christ is made of two persons. So, how can those who think the same way as Nestorius blame Nestorius? After all, if Christ is made of two persons, then it is obvious that the human face pre-existed in the womb, and then it was united into the very Divine Person of God the Word. If Christ is of two personal natures, and the name of one person is God the Word, then those who say that nature and person are one and the same give us also a name, the name of another person of Christ; After all, there absolutely cannot be a face without a name. If you sincerely and impartially maintain that nature and person are one and the same, then use the expression that in the same essence of the Deity there is one person, and we will stop arguing. If according to the number of natures and the number of persons, then say that the three Persons of the Trinity have three natures, and we will no longer bother you. If essence and person are one and the same, then say, you who call Christ consubstantial with the Father in Divinity and consubstantial with us in humanity, that He is one person with the Father in Divinity and one person with us in humanity, and we will stop fighting with you. If nature and face are one and the same, and the number of human faces is countless, then say that our natures are also many, and we will fall silent in the argument. 824 Declare me weak, heretic, and you will suddenly die from a stone, like Goliath. You, Sevier, confessing that Christ is made up of two hypostases, that is, persons, obviously say that He consists of Divinity and humanity, for they, that is, Divinity and humanity, which you call hypostases, exist. So, when you say that He, that is, Christ, after the union was perfect in Divinity and perfect in humanity, then, obviously, you are blaspheming by confessing that He is from two hypostases, that is, persons, if, as you assert, nature, hypostasis and person are one thing. Scholium. A brief word from an Orthodox Christian to a Theodosian: the expression “Christ is perfect from Divinity and from humanity” protects good thinking, for this saying points to two natures. Scholium. When the heretic said: “[The expression] “He is of two natures” rather shows that he is of Divinity and of humanity,” the Orthodox, smiling, said: “Consequently, most kind, [the expression] “He is perfect in Divinity and in humanity,” of course, means “He is in two natures.” 2. Quotes from the Holy Fathers who say that nature is one thing, and hypostasis is another. So that it does not seem to our opponents that we are speaking on our own, let us invite into the middle the Holy Fathers, who say that nature is one thing, and face is another. I cannot imagine that, fearing the overthrow of Sevier, they would no longer dare to mention the expression about two natures. Firstly, as the chosen one, I will prefer the divine Cyril, since, as they believe, with the help of him they are trying to argue with us. After all, he said [in the Epistle] to the Eastern: “It is known that famous theologians usually make some of the Gospel and Apostolic sayings about the Lord common as belonging to one person, while others, due to the difference in the two natures, accept them separately.” 825 Here the father clearly says that nature and face are not the same thing. “But Cyril, they say, made excuses [in his letter] to Eulogius regarding this expression.” Scholium. You can see that in this letter to Eulogius, Saint Cyril said that there is one and there is another nature of the Divinity and flesh of Christ. 826 What was his justification, tell me, the heretic? Show that the wonderful Cyril avoided communicating with the Easterners after this expression, but you will not be able to show this. 827 Consequently, being in communion with those who professed two united natures, he himself obviously thought in the same way. But let it be that he was making excuses because of this Eastern expression. Did he deny Proclus, who clearly preaches two natures to everyone? Did he reject Ambrose, who in his teaching used the expression about two natures, quotes from which were given at the Council of Ephesus? Did he reject Isidore Pelusiot, who wrote to him about the two natures of Christ and whom Saint Cyril proclaimed to be his father? In addition, not only in the letter to the Eastern, but also in [the letter] to Hermias, Father [Cyril], asking whether one is nature, and the other is hypostasis, so clearly says: “Truly different, and also having a very strong difference.” 828 In exactly the same way, the godly Basil says to Amphilochius: “Hypostasis in relation to the essence has the same difference as the particular has in relation to the general.” 829 Having perceived this, Saint Amphilochius therefore says of Christ: “Double in essence, but not double in hypostasis.” 830 After all, this quotation was again cited by Amphilochius by the epiphany Cyril in Ephesus against the wicked Nestorius. Likewise [in the letter] To Seleucus, son of Trajan, Amphilochius needed this expression, saying: “Two natures are contained in one Person.” 831 You hear the agreement of the Fathers and Blessed Cyril, who say that nature is one thing, and face is another. And why do you, who whisper in vain and say: “There is no impersonal nature, because nature and face are one and the same,” in the end, will not be silent? Show me which of the Fathers you received this expression from. You cannot show it, except Aria, Sabellia and Nestoria, who say that nature and face are one and the same. Therefore, refuting this teaching, all the blessed Fathers (and especially those close to Ambrose, Gregory and Athanasius) preach in three Persons, that is, Hypostases, the one nature of God and not three essences, but one, as the blessed Nicene Council of three hundred and eighteen God-bearing Fathers taught. However, these wise men and new orators preferred to overthrow themselves with numerous heaps of slander, while they, in their opinion, insulted the Holy Council of Chalcedon and the Catholic Church of Christ. If you want, I will tell you something more important. Many, according to the definition of Hellenic philosophy in Aristotle, call natures hypostases and persons; they cannot name three Hypostases in the Holy Trinity without discovering, like Arius, three natures; again, they do not have the opportunity to recognize two natures in Christ God, so as not to be forced in the Nestorian way to recognize in Him two persons and two hypostases; after all, from Aristotle Nestorius accepted the naming of natures as hypostases. And the Holy Church, avoiding Aristotelian and Hellenic empty chatter, believing in Christ, as we said above, according to the evangelists and apostles, does not say that nature and hypostasis are one and the same. But what will the Sevirians certainly say to this? They will say something like this: “In the doctrine of the Trinity, nature and hypostasis are not the same thing, but in the incarnation of Christ, one of the Holy Trinity, nature and person, that is, hypostasis, are one and the same, for there cannot be an impersonal nature.” When they say this, I listen diligently to this word and welcome this definition with raised hands, I do not reject it, but I follow it. So, what kind of wickedness is born from this? And into what abysses of destruction and slander do they fall? Listen, faithful one, to some of our presentation and sketch of the events that we had in Alexandria with the Theodosians and Guyanites, who there insisted that in the Economy of Christ nature and person are one and the same. For I will add this below to the knowledge of the pious faith of the holy Catholic Church proposed above. 1, 1. The goal that we pursued in dogmatic conversations with the heterodox in Alexandria. Certain quotations are included in some books calling natures hypostases, inscribed with the name of St. Cyril. Whether [these books are] truly his or someone else’s, we will investigate after this, because having studied some other dogmatic expressions of Cyril himself in the books in Alexandria, we found them corrupted and distorted, the Lord God is my witness. Given that, as I said earlier, all the teachers [of the Church] say that nature is one thing, and hypostasis is another, certain books of St. Cyril are brought, calling natures hypostases. In fact, the followers of Sevirus and Theodosius, Guyana and Dioscorus and all those who profess one nature of Christ, neglecting the entire plurality and completeness of the Holy Fathers, persist in those quotations in which, supposedly on behalf of St. Cyril, natures are called hypostases. Because they believe that with their help they refute us who speak of two united natures in Christ as allegedly speaking of two hypostases in Him, that is, persons. In fact, having been, as I said earlier, in Alexandria and seeing their empty goal, which is directed not towards God, but towards hatred of the Church, and hearing a certain prophet say: “with the evil one according to his wickedness,” 832 with a certain pretense and pious guile, I tell the heretics confidentially: “As the truth testifies, it cannot be known or even named in heaven or on earth.” nature that has no face at all. But what can we do if the assertion that there are two natures in Christ, one hypostasis, has destroyed communication in the Church? But if you do not insist that I anathematize the bishop or the Council, then we jointly sign the definition: “when nature is named, this certainly means a person, for there is no impersonal nature.” And when we sign this, then you also receive equality by mutual consent and some kind of agreement can be reached, and the saints of the Church are united.” And so, not understanding the deceit of this drama, or rather, being blinded by God, they signed: “When the nature in Christ is named, this certainly means the face, for there is no impersonal and hypostatic nature.” And before these events and the signing, I collected books in advance from various people, mainly from the Theodosians, took from them quotes from the Holy Fathers calling the flesh of Christ nature, and wrote them out completely in the book. One day later, we and numerous people, the clergy of the Catholic Church and all the heterodox communities of Theodosians, Guyanites and Semidalites, gathered publicly, in the presence of the first persons and rulers of the city. 833 Then the written word is read: “Every nature named in Christ signifies a person,” and, taking out their books, I read in front of everyone the quotations that are given below, first of all St. Cyril, on whom they most counted on relying. 1, 2. Blessed Cyril, Pope of Alexandria, from a letter written to the Eastern: “It is known that famous theologians usually make some of the Gospel and Apostolic sayings about the Lord common as belonging to one person, while others, due to the difference in the two natures, accept them separately.” 834 I immediately tell them: ““Two natures,” that is, two persons; for there cannot be a nature that does not reveal a face, as we have signed.” The same God-wise Cyril from the Epistle to Sukkens: “Thus, we affirm - as far as the mental representation and only contemplation with the eyes of the soul of how the Only Begotten became man - is concerned - that there are two natures.” 835 “Or rather, two faces of Christ, for there is no impersonal nature, but nature is named here, which, in any way, also means a face, as you signed.” 836 Scholia. This quotation is found distorted in all the books in Alexandria. The same holy and wise Cyril to the same Sukkens: “Justly and quite soundly, your perfection expounds the word about saving suffering, asserting that not the only-begotten Word of God Himself, insofar as He is conceived and is God, suffered in His own, superior bodily nature, but that He suffered by His mortal nature,” 837 that is, His mortal face, for there is no nature that does not show a face. The same pious Father Cyril: “I do not accept confusion in Christ, for confusion produces the destruction of natures,” 838 that is, the persons of Christ, for there is no impersonal nature. The same Blessed Cyril: “We in no way claim about the natures that there was some kind of confusion between them.” 839 “Here again the father calls natures, that is, persons in Christ according to the definition that you signed.” The same famous Cyril from the Scholium: “The natures or hypostases remained unmerged,” 840 that is, the faces of Christ. Having cited this quotation, I asked Athanasius in Babylon: “The natures or hypostases of Who remained unmerged?” He says to me the following: “It is obvious that the hypostases of Christ.” To this I, laughing heavily and clapping my hands, say: “And why, in the end, do you reproach the Council of Chalcedon, which speaks of two united natures in Christ, while you yourself, like Nestorius, call Him two hypostases?” The same all-wise Cyril: “Although natures are different, truly united, one of both is Christ” 841 [I say:] “Again the teacher, having named the different natures, clearly revealed the different persons in Christ, as it seems to you.” This is from the [message] to the princesses: “So, we say that we should not divide the one Christ the Lord Jesus into man in himself and God in himself, but that there is one and the same Jesus Christ, knowing the difference of natures and keeping them unfused with each other.” 842 His same from the message Against Nestorius: “The difference of natures was not destroyed due to the union.” 843 “Here, the father repeatedly recognizes in Christ natures, that is, persons, since you say that there is no impersonal nature. And not only those like Saint Cyril, but also all the other Holy Fathers, who name various natures in Christ our God, are exposed as like-minded with Nestorius because of your new law, which says: “When natures are named, then the persons are certainly designated, for no, there is no impersonal nature.” Saint Ambrose, Bishop of Milan: “We will maintain the distinction between the Divine and the flesh. For in each of them one Christ speaks, since in Him there is both natures,” 844 that is, each of two and different persons; for when nature is named, then it signifies a face. Why then, tell me, did Saint Cyril quote this quote at the Council against the wicked Nestorius, if different natures really mean different persons? And further in this quotation Ambrose says: “As God Christ speaks the Divine, since He is the Word, as a man He speaks the human, since He speaks in my essence,” 845 that is, in my fleshly face, if nature means face. The sweetest light of Gregory Bishop of Nyssa from [the work] Against Eunomius: “Which nature of Christ is struck during the passion, and which from eternity is glorified?” 846 From his same Word: “So, how can two natures be one?”, 847 that is, two persons, because there is no impersonal nature. The same wonderful Gregory of Nyssa: “So, Christ, being two natures and known in each of them perfect...”. 848 Here again is the duality of persons, since he speaks of two natures. His same from [interpretation] on “Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness” 849: “For Christ, having fasted forty days, was at last hungry, 850 for He, when He desired, at the appropriate time allowed nature to do its thing.” 851 Calling the body nature, he also points to the face. Again, it turns out that the Theologian Gregory, according to your definition, calls the two persons in Christ, saying this: “For there are two natures - God and man.” 852 Likewise, Chrysostom, who has golden lips mentally and physically, in the Word for the Ascension says: “To what nature is God addressing: “sit at My right hand”? 853 To the one who heard: “For you are dust and to dust you will return” 854 » 855 . And again, in the first book of Matthew, he calls Christ “God hidden in human nature.” 856 So, the father, in these two quotations calling the body of Christ nature, of course, called body and face, if there is no impersonal nature. Likewise, Proclus of Constantinople, in the Word addressed to the Mother of God, speaks of Christ: “Born without corruption [of the Mother’s womb] and entering through closed doors, seeing the union of whose natures, Thomas exclaimed: “My Lord and my God” 857 858. This is the conjugation of natures, that is, persons, since there is no impersonal nature. And God-bearing Ephraim in the Word of Margarit says: “The invaluable Margarit is involved in two natures,” that is, Christ. And again he says: “He has a dual nature, let him not lose two, for it was not a demigod who descended to earth, and not a half-man who ascended to heaven.” 859 “These are two natures, that is, according to what you signed, righteous Ephraim named two persons.” Likewise, blessed Amphilochius speaks of Christ in his Homily to Seleucus, a descendant of Trajan: “Since two natures converge into one person.” 860 And Isidore Pelusiot, who adorned the Church, teaching as the father of his son, the all-wise Cyril, writes to him: “Guard your heart with all precaution so as not to accept one nature in Christ after the Incarnation, for the recognition of only one is the denial of the other. And more: having numerous evidence of this from our holy father Athanasius, a man who completely mastered Divine [subjects].” 861 “So Amphilochius and Isidore, naming two natures, discovered in Christ two, as it seems to you, faces. Let us make an even more complete quotation about Christ from [The Homily] of Amphilochius To Seleucus: “The perceived nature suffers, but the perceived nature remains dispassionate. But God the Word dispassionately assimilates what is characteristic of His church: the cross, death, and so on, as far as this is accomplished and contemplated by Him; he assimilates, although God the Word Himself does not suffer at all, but he assimilates what is characteristic of the church, since two natures converge into one person.” 862 Here the father in the Gospel called one face of two natures, since nature and face are not the same thing, as the Hellenes say.” Scholia. Three hundred and eighteen fathers [in Nicaea] and two hundred in Ephesus benefit the Catholic Church, testifying that nature and hypostasis are not the same thing. The same Amphilochius from the Word [on the words of Christ] “My Father is greater than I” 863: “However, distinguish between the natures: both Divine and human, because He became man not as a result of falling away from God, and God not as a result of the advancement of man.” 864 “Look: again the teacher confesses natures in Christ, and not persons. If nature and face are one and the same, then why did Blessed Cyril, citing this quotation at the Council of Ephesus, speaking of two natures, but one person in Christ, add, speaking to the Holy Council like this: “So, look, why did the divine Fathers call Christ consubstantial with the Father in Divinity and Him consubstantial with us in humanity, double in essence, that is, in nature, but not double in hypostasis, that is, in face?” 865 Here is the “spiritual sword” 866 - the words of the theologian Cyril, at the Council of Two Hundred Holy Fathers, he said that nature is different in comparison with the face, that is, hypostasis.” Scholium. Therefore, I refuse to believe that Cyril, who said at the Council that nature is one thing, and hypostasis another, called natures hypostases, otherwise it will turn out that he contradicts himself. His same on [the words of Christ] “Destroy this church” 867: “And when He wanted, the church of the body was destroyed during the passion for a three-day burial, and again He erected it, and was united [this church] with the ineffable and indescribable Word Himself, not mixing with it and not being reincarnated, but preserving in Himself unfused the properties of two dissimilar natures.” 868 His from [the epistle] To Eulogius, when he was justified because of the words of the East about two natures in Christ: “If the body is not of the same essence as the Word, then there is certainly one and another nature,” 869 that is, as you say, one and another person. “However, you are also silenced by the divine Proclus, who writes the following: “There is One Son, not that the natures were divided into two hypostases, but the terrible Dispensation united the two natures into one hypostasis” 870.” And again he speaks on [the words of the prophet Isaiah] “A child is born to us - a Son” 871: “Mentally separate the natures and theology the mysterious union.” 872 Again you turn the teacher’s phrase around and say about Christ: “Mentally separate the persons and theology the union.” Saint Irenaeus from the Word against Valentine: “As the ark was covered inside and outside with pure gold, so the body of Christ was pure and bright, inside adorned with the Word, and outside protected by the Spirit, so as to show clear signs of natures from both.” 873 Antiochus Bishop of Ptolemais On the Nativity of Christ: “Do not confuse natures, and then you will not become numb about the Economy.” 874 “Behold, according to your definition and law, the divine Irenaeus and Antiochus taught about different persons, that is, natures in Christ, if there is no impersonal nature.” Scholia. Since the race of heretics is a slanderer, you should know that we, sitting in the desert and suffering from a lack of books of teachers, wrote these quotations from memory. And we call on numerous uncorrupted fatherly books for help; if anything in these quotations is unnecessary, it is corrected; After all, we did not intentionally make some insertions or deletions, the Lord is my witness. 1, 3. When we cited and interpreted these and many other words of the Holy Fathers according to the written rule that nature is a person, and, finally, according to this law of yours, all these blessed Fathers were convicted of Nestorian thinking, as if they were saying that there are two persons in Christ, then all the opponents became numb, fell silent, covered their mouths, became confused, frightened, embarrassed; after all, they did not speak, they did not correct themselves, because they were ashamed of the entire church people, who made noise and told them all: “If nature is a person, then take away, burn [the words] of the Holy Fathers, who speak of two natures in Christ. And if nature is not a person, then the Council of Chalcedon is impeccable, speaking about two natures united in one hypostasis of Christ.” And again the crowd began to shout, repeating these words in simple Alexandrian dialect: “If nature points to a face, then take it away, burn first of all St. Cyril, who says: “The natures of Christ remain unmerged.” 875 And if nature is not a person, then in vain you are talking nonsense against the Church, calling nature a person.” They shouted this for a considerable time and at the same time uttered a statement worthy of attention: “Give the Theodosian and Guyanite what he seeks and immediately loses,” that is, leave it to him [to consider] that nature denotes a face; with the help of this expression, he is forced either to shame the Holy Fathers as proclaiming Nestorianism, or to recognize as irreproachable the Council of Chalcedon, preaching in Christ two natures united by hypostasis. 2, 1. Another interview. Preparing for an interview. Again wanting to know each other’s opinion, we held an interview another time, also with the permission of the state. In this meeting there was also tall among them, huge, like some advanced fighter of the Danaans, monk John, nicknamed Ziga, 876 eighteen. 877 The intelligent Gregory Nistazon 878 the Syrian Egyptian was present with him, as well as the people with the clergy; for there was such a meeting in accordance with order and direction. Then, following our example, they set before us aporia, not to say cold and fireless problems: 879 “There is no non-hypostatic nature, and no impersonal one; So Blessed Cyril says in various places that natures are hypostases; and therefore the Council of Chalcedon, which named two natures in one Christ, thereby shows two hypostases and two faces in Him.” Therefore, we again told them in a cunning manner: “Fear stops us from believing that the triblessed and truly God-bearing Cyril declared that in Christ God the natures are hypostases.” 2, 2. Firstly, against this, the Holy Council in Nicaea has the following saying: nature must mean something one thing, and hypostasis something else. Secondly, how under Nestorius could Cyril, who overthrew him precisely because of the expression about two hypostases in Christ, himself preach the hypostases in Christ, even if implicitly? Thirdly, quotes from various Fathers, which St. Cyril himself cited at the Council of Ephesus; he brought them not for anything else, but because they say that in Christ there is one hypostasis. Fourthly, Theodoret, preaching one hypostasis in Christ, could well have taken [the definition of hypostasis] from the word about hypostases in the Categories [of Aristotle], with the help of which he compiled [the “Refutation”] of the Twelve Anathematisms of St. Cyril. In the same way, in the Apology, the teacher [Cyril] could explain this very expression and say for what purpose he says “hypostases”; however, he did not mention anything like this, and we do not find it. Fifthly, if Saint Cyril accepted the expression under Nestorius that there are hypostases of nature, then he did not refute Nestorius. Sixthly, just as the East differs from the West, so the expression about two hypostases differs from the “one incarnate nature of God the Word.” Seventhly, the expression about hypostases refutes unity by hypostasis. For how is it possible that there is a coincidence [of the meaning of the expressions] “of two hypostases” and “the union of essences according to hypostasis”? Eighth, the Holy Fathers did not say that Christ is of two hypostases, that is, persons. Ninth, if Christ is of two hypostases, then the Holy Trinity is no longer trinitarian, but of four persons, having two hypostases of Christ, the other two being the Father and the Holy Spirit. Tenthly (most important) [I speak with cunning], the God-bearing Cyril himself says that in Christ the hypostases are persons, for he says in the fourth anathematism of the Twelve: “If anyone divides Christ into two persons, that is, hypostases, let him be anathema.” 880 Similarly, at the Council of Ephesus, he himself says that Christ is double in essence, but “not double in hypostasis or face”; So he believes that hypostasis is a face. And, finally, O men, how could he, who calls hypostases persons, call natures hypostases and say that “Natures remained unmerged, that is, the hypostases of Christ” 881, and did not say here: “The hypostases from which Christ are unfused,” but “Natures remained unmerged, that is, the hypostases of Christ”? So, if the hypostases remained unfused even after the union, then it is clear that they exist; and if they exist, it is obvious that they are knowable; and if they are knowable, then it is clear that they are countable; and if they are not countable, 882 then they do not exist; and if they do not exist, then the natures, that is, the hypostases, did not remain unfused; 883 and if they remain, then they remain in eternity. 2, 3. If you, Sevirians, tell me: the godly wise Cyril said that the hypostases are not personal, but he believes that the hypostases are the essence of being, that is, the foundation and truth of things (I’m talking about the Divinity and humanity of Christ), 884 then we could contrast this and say: when the teacher says in the fourth chapter of the Twelve [anathematisms] that the hypostases are persons, as I quoted a little higher, then [these words] were more appropriate and were more necessary for the definition and expression in which the teacher follows in spite of your allegories. And yet, so that it does not seem that we are blaming the basis of faith and light [Cyril], let [the heretic] show that the all-wise father argued, in accordance with your definition, that the hypostases of Christ are the essence of being. So, when you deny that the flesh of Christ corresponds to both nature and hypostasis, then obviously you affirm that it is non-existent, hypostatic and immaterial. And I, turning around and looking at the monk John, said: “What are you saying against this, philosopher? “The hypostases of Christ remained unfused,” 885 – exclaims God-bearing Cyril, as you testify; Do you deny that the natures in Christ remained unfused? Do you accept hypostases, but deny nature? Indeed, your speeches are nothing but laughter and fables! We ask you: Whose hypostases remained unfused? And you fearlessly answer: the hypostases of Christ. And as soon as you hear us say: “The natures of Christ remain unfused,” you become indignant, slander, shout, run away and do a lot of evil. Indeed, I say again, your ridicule is [like] any stage, orchestra and theatricality! You acknowledge the hypostases of Christ, but deny His nature; You openly preach hypostases, but because of us you hide natures; you reject perfect expression and embrace easily vulnerable expression. For if the expression about two hypostases in Christ is suitable and completely impeccable, then the word about two natures is much more acceptable and impeccable. If, as you say, there is no impersonal nature, then even more so there is no impersonal hypostasis, as Cyril also seems to think. If you are impeccable when speaking about the hypostases in Christ, then we are all the more impeccable when speaking about natures, for you have one like-minded person regarding the hypostases [Cyril], while we are the 318 Holy Fathers and all the other teachers who say that in Christ there are two natures, but not two hypostases. If we, who speak of two perfect natures in Christ, think in a Nestorian way, then much more do you, who speak of two hypostases. If it is possible to piously think and interpret the hypostases [in Christ], then even more so is it possible to piously interpret the two natures; for from two natures it is possible to form one hypostasis, just as a person consists [of soul and body], but from two personal hypostases it is impossible to obtain a hypostatic union. When the condemning Council of Chalcedon and our words was truly at a dead end, you say that although the God-bearing Athanasius and Cyril call the natures of Christ hypostases, the Council and we avoid calling two hypostases. The fact is that if you pour out such streams of dirt on us, supposedly Nestorian-minded, when we talk about the perfect natures in Christ, [united] by hypostasis, then what evil would you want to do if you heard that Chalcedon, Leo or someone from our Catholic Church said that Christ is different hypostases and that “The natures remained unmerged, that is, His two hypostases” 886 " When I said this and other things at the meeting, the monk John Ziga replied: “We do not say that the two hypostases remained unfused, and we do not designate duality by number, but we say in an indefinite way: “The natures, that is, the hypostases, remained unfused” 887.” When he said this, I said to him, smiling: “Oh, if only you could name two hypostases, and no more. Yes, you do not name the number, but you say vaguely: “The natures remained unmerged, that is, the hypostases,” thereby thinking and naming not only two, but also a greater number of natures and hypostases.” Further, John [answers]: “This is the expression of the holy fathers Athanasius and Cyril, and no one can reject it.” To this I replied: God, for the sake of us - [members of] the Catholic Church - planned and did the best for the most holy primates of Alexandria to pronounce this expression due to the [activity] of the dragons of all troubles who now have a lair in it, as if in armor in which they think to fight with us, in which Goliath also [fought] with David, from whom he was killed; for, wanting to show that the Nestorians call two natures in Christ, they, unnoticed by themselves, because of the expression calling the natures hypostases, drew a sword against the Holy Fathers. “For when you say that natures are hypostases and, finally, that “the hypostases remained unfused,” and the theologian Cyril said that the hypostases are faces, then it is obvious that you are disgraced, claiming nothing more than that the faces of Christ remained unfused. And not only this, but you viciously insult the famous Cyril himself, claiming that nature is a person. For if nature means person, then how should we perceive his words to Sukkens: “We say that there are two natures,” 888 as not in the following [sense]: “we say that there are two faces of Christ” (if nature is a person).” Further, John again answered this: “Blessed Cyril piously confesses that there is one and only one Christ from two natures, that is, hypostases.” I said to him again: “If there are such words of St. Cyril, as has already been said, only God knows, because in one place he says: “Christ consists of two hypostases,” 889 then the other 230 quotations signed with his name do not say “of two,” but sometimes they say: “Perhaps the ark is an image of the hypostases of Christ,” 890, and sometimes: “If someone separates the hypostases after an indescribable union” 891 , as in his Scholia [about the Incarnation of the Only Begotten], he says this: “And that the natures, that is, the hypostases, remained unfused, we will see from here. Indeed, behold, pure gold covered the tree that was, and the tree was enriched with the glory of gold, but the tree is not separated from it.” 892 Listening to this, I shudder, because, undoubtedly, it turned out that he, who calls the hypostases persons, affirms, even if implicitly, the presence of various hypostases in Christ God. However, he says, Cyril does not claim that hypostases are persons, but I, like the Council of Chalcedon, do not say that natures are persons, but as the divine Cyril thinks, hypostases are the essence of being, that is, the foundation of things, then I also say that natures are the essence and the foundation of things. For just as you think that hypostases are the foundations, so I think that natures are the foundation. However, you immediately wanted to tell us that natures, as Saint Cyril said, are hypostases, meaning beings, and he is impeccable; and the natures that Chalcedon preaches in Christ are certain natures of the emerging winds or the mortal nature of camels and mules.” This, smiling meekly, I said to monk John. 2, 4. And, turning to the church people, I said: “I swear my love for you! Hearing how the Sevirians fearlessly and imprudently preach and confess the hypostases in Christ, I know what hypostases they mean. As soon as they hear the word "nature", they think that it is something inappropriate and absurd, including male and female genital organs; and because of this they avoid the word, like the disciples of the Saracens. For when they hear about the divine generations and the birth of God, they immediately slander him, implying marriage, reproduction and carnal union. If this is not what the Sevirians mean, why, calling the body of the Lord by different names, alien and unworthy of God and the angels, do they refuse to confess human nature in Him? Look, really. They call the body of the Lord mortal, they call it perishable, they call it passionate, fluid, material, consisting of earth and dust, thirsty, hungry, tired - these names, as I said, cannot be attributed to either angels or spirits; they refuse to call it only nature, that is, true reality. Isn’t, I say, what you say more rude? They confess that Christ became a curse and became sin because of the flesh, as the Scripture says. 893 They confess that He was tempted forty days by the devil; 894 but they are not allowed to name [human] nature, that is, true reality. We ask them: What nature of Christ grew? Which one died? Which one was abused? Which one was tired? Which one was crying? And in general, we ask about all the derogatory words and actions of Christ: according to what nature were they made and spoken? [The heretics] answer: according to visible flesh, consisting of dust, according to the need for food, according to humanity, according to the body of Christ. Calling the humanity of Christ by these and other names, they do not dare to confess His nature, although, as I said earlier, they call Him hypostasis. Have you ever seen more stubborn people? 2, 5. Opponents said: “If we call the body of Christ nature, then we will necessarily prove ourselves to be followers of the Council of Chalcedon, which confesses in Him two natures, that is, two persons, for there is no impersonal nature.” “On the contrary, men,” I said. – There is no impersonal hypostasis. For all the Fathers, both in triadology and in the doctrine of the Economy, say that hypostases are persons. And if, according to you and Sevirov’s institution, the one who calls the Lord’s flesh nature thinks in a Nestorian way, as if he supposedly calls Him two natures and persons, then all the Holy Fathers again turn out to be deserving of contempt, as supposedly like-minded people of Nestorius; for the whole host of them clearly preached the humanity of Christ by nature. And the first - the blessed Paul the Apostle himself - is the light of the world: for he calls the Savior of man “the image of a servant.” And the image is nature - this is how nature [is defined] by the host of holy teachers. In the same way, Dionysius, a disciple of Paul in his letter to Gaius, calls the humanity of Christ the essence, 896 likewise Irenaeus, a close interlocutor of the apostles, as we showed in the quote above. If it is really impious, Nestorian and contemptible to call the humanity of Christ nature, then, I say again, the whole multitude of the Holy Fathers is overthrown and rejected because of you; and their teaching is useless and useless because of you. Finally, John of Constantinople is a liar, calling “God hidden in human nature” 897 and saying that “Nature, which heard on earth: “For dust you are, and to dust you will return” 898 itself heard in heaven: “Sit at my right hand” 899.” 900 Scholia. From the Word on the Ascension. And again he says: “Nature, from which the cherubim protected paradise, today itself has become higher than the cherubim.” 901 And if it is impious to call the humanity of Christ after the union nature, then you are clearly exposed as anathematizing the Holy Fathers: Ambrose, who said that “Christ speaks in my essence,” 902 Gregory [Nyssa], who said: “What nature is struck during the passion?” 903 and “Christ in His time allowed His bodily nature to operate.” 904 Scholia. Against Eunomius; from On the Beatitudes. Then you overthrow Athanasius for the words from the book Against the Arians: “the flesh of the Lord, as His own nature, received passions.” 905 To what punishment will you sentence Basil, who says about Christ in the Word for Lent that “Ascending into heaven, He touched food in order to confirm the nature of the resurrected body?” 906 In agreement with him, Athanasius again speaks about Christ in the Word on the Incarnation: “So, the body had a common nature with all [people], for the body was a man.” 907 Just as Gregory the Theologian said in his Homily on the Epiphany about the body of Christ: “And he hungered, and thirsted, and wept—according to the law of nature.” 908 Again, unanimously, Ambrose speaks about the passion of Christ to the Emperor Gratian: “For He is involved in different natures, that is, human and Divine; for He endured passion by human nature.” 909 And again he said in the Word for the Incarnation: “The flesh suffered as His own nature.” 910 As [Gregory] of Nyssa speaks with them unanimously: “What nature is struck during passion?” 911 I will conclude what has been said as if with the royal finger and seal - the famous Cyril; however, I see that you also reject him, who calls the body of the Lord Christ nature, according to the teachings of Severus. After all, Cyril wrote to Sukkens [about Christ]: “He suffers and is crucified on the cross with a nature consisting of the dust of the earth,” 912 and again told him that “the carnal nature has not passed into the nature of the Word.” 913 And again in another [place] he said: “The contemplation is devoid of all blame, that it is the flesh that is another proper nature along with God the Word.” 914 Likewise, he said to Eulogius: “If the body is not consubstantial with God the Word, then there certainly is one and another nature,” 915 - as all this was said above. The Father, saying “one and another nature” in Christ, obviously calls the Divinity and humanity of Christ equally nature; in the same way, when he says: “We say that there are two natures,” 916 it is obvious that he calls the flesh one of them, just as the divine Ephraim, Isidore, Proclus, Atticus and all the other Fathers who speak of different natures in Christ call His body one of them. And why do you object so rudely and disobediently, saying that it is impossible to call the Lord’s humanity nature?” 2, 6. To this John and Gregory Nistazon said: “Before the union we confess two natures, but after the union Christ is one nature incarnate.” And I answered them: “I believe that after the indescribable union of Christ in Nazareth, which was in the womb of the Holy Mother of God, and after the Nativity, and after His Ascension to the Cherubim throne, Sevier, who gathered his and your ten-horn, came up with another connection for Christ. And therefore he allowed you to say that after the union which he conceived in Christ, His body should no longer be called nature, and two perfect natures should not be confessed in Him. Although (oh, if only he had not come up with this) all the blessed Fathers, as stated above, named after Christ’s union in Nazareth He has two natures: at Christmas in Bethlehem, at the Meeting with Simeon, at Baptism; Other [Fathers], like Cyril, called Him the struck and suffering nature, consisting of the dust of the earth. Proclus, [interpreting] Thomas’s touching of the ribs, preaches the union of the two natures of Christ. Vasily, [interpreting the eating] of food after the Resurrection, calls the body of the Lord nature. John, [interpreting the sitting] on the cherubim throne after the holy Ascension into heaven and the words of the Father: “Sit at my right hand,” 917 also named our nature in Christ. And if the most holy body is confessed by nature, it is obvious that two natures are known in Christ. So, as I said, your “legislator” Sevier invented in Christ a certain second union after the holy Ascension; and therefore he forbids you to name the two natures after the union.” “But Cyril,” he says, has an expression: “After the union, Christ is one nature incarnate”; and therefore we do not recognize two natures in Him.” When John and the dissenters [gathered] with him said this, I shouted loudly and joyfully: ““Eternal memory to Cyril,” 918 as the Council of Chalcedon also proclaimed. For none of the Holy Fathers expressed like the divine Cyril the omniholiness, victoriousness, eternity and immutability of the natures of Christ. After all, the blessed Fathers named the number, and tri-blessed Cyril, along with the number, also the unchangeable, always preserved constancy of the natures of the Lord after the union. Thus, in [the interpretation of the words of Christ] “Destroy this church” 919 [Cyril] said: “Christ, preserving in Himself the unfused property of two different natures.” 920 And in [the letter] to Sukkens he says: “we say that there are two natures.” 921 And again, in the Commentary of the Epistle to the Hebrews he says the following: “it is not necessary to pronounce wickedness, such as: that by the formation of natures something [new] is obtained, that perhaps the nature of the Word has changed into the nature of man, or that, in turn, man’s nature has changed into His; but it is better to say that there has been a union of natures, so that each is comprehensible and exists within its own boundaries.” 922 Likewise, in the sixth volume of his Commentary, he again simply proclaims: “we do not pronounce impiety, that one of the natures has changed into another, but we say rather that each remains as it is.” 923 As in the Scholia, he says: “The natures remained unfused.” 924 You have done good, torch and pillar of truth, Cyril! Truly, I repeat, “eternal and blessed memory to Cyril,” 925 who does not want us to get lost by moving away from the truth, but who teaches us about the goodness and immutability of the essences of Christ, who writes and again proclaims to those who reign: “we recognize the difference of natures that remain unfused with each other.” 926 So, you, men, interpreting one certain quote from Blessed Cyril, claim that he names one nature in Christ after the union. Here above and below [we show] how the preacher of piety confesses that the two natures are preserved, and observed, and known, and counted even after the union. Pay attention, I advise, to the precision of your father’s expression. He said: “the unfused property of two different natures is preserved in Christ”; 927 likewise said again: “we say that there are two natures”; 928 said: “each of them is comprehensible and exists within its own natural boundary”; 929 said: “Every nature remains in Christ as it is”; 930 said: “the natures remained unfused, that is, the hypostases of Christ.” 931 Above all this, he teaches: “let us recognize the difference of natures that remain unfused with each other.” 932 So, the divine rhetorician Cyril, as shown, here teaches us in six ways about the good existence and immutability of the number of the two natures of Christ, saying that they were preserved in Christ, saying that they are, saying that they exist, saying that they remained unchanged in Him; further he said that they remained unfused, and again he teaches: we recognize the difference of natures, and they remained unfused. This is the teacher. 2, 7. Finally, according to your love for mankind and the righteous “judge and legislator” Sevier, proclaim the boundary of time and term for Christ and tell us: until what years did two natures remain unfused in Him, and until what months do we say that there are two natures in Him, and until what time should it be seen that there is a difference of natures, and until what days does He retain in Himself the unfused property of two different natures, and until what appearance must be preserved? contemplation of the differences in the natures of Christ and their unity. And when we have been asking this for a long time, judge Sevier announced the answer and verdict regarding Christ, saying in his writings: before Nestorius, the natures of Christ were unfused, but after Nestorius there was a confusion and reduction of natures. After the Council of Chalcedon, Cyril, who said: “We call the two natures of Christ,” 933 became a liar. After the release of the Tomos of Leo, Christ no longer preserves the unfused properties of natures of different essences; Dioscorus cleansed [Him] from this [unfusion]. We must no longer see in Christ the difference of natures and keep them unfused; for against the heresies that have arisen, one must change one’s faith and add to the Divine Scripture and the instructions of the Fathers.” So, when the dissenters [those gathered] with him were saddened and very angry at the words of John, I again said to them: “As in the presence of the Lord I say that it is so: trusting the admonition and instruction of Severus, who orders you after Nestorius to attribute expressions to the respected Fathers, even to St. Cyril about two natures in Christ, therefore you do not accept the quotations of the Fathers, but prefer, perhaps, to reject them yourself the holy Gospels, the Old and New Testaments, patristic writings and expressions, and follow Sevier, as if you were some new Aquila. However, who among you does not know that the Fathers accurately expressed themselves when they said that two good natures are preserved in Christ? Who among you does not testify that there are quotes from St. Cyril about the fact that two inseparable natures in Christ exist, are preserved, are knowable, are observed, do not merge and are counted in one person? Who among you does not see that nature and face are not the same thing? For here we are, who are here, there are many persons, but the nature of all is one.” When this and other things were said at a meeting in more detail, like-minded people of Sevier, both from ancient times and now, always say that they are disciples of Blessed Cyril and often present his quotes, while the rest of the blessed Fathers are not so often quoted. A few days before the interview, having heard that the Theodosians, in preparation for the conversation with us, had sent for their singers - that is, John and Gregory, we drew up a dogmatic tomos, as if on behalf of Flavian, Bishop of Constantinople, who was killed by Dioscorus because of his confession in Christ of two natures, inseparably united in one complex hypostasis. In this tomos, I preserved the intentions, way of thinking and the exact meaning of the expressions of the Holy Fathers, sometimes for some necessity changing some words to some others synonymous with them, for clarity to everyone, for example, instead of “type” - “essence”, instead of “consisting of dust” - “earth-born” and instead of “passion” - “cross”; because with strong hatred and disgust, but not following the truth, they oppose the Council of Chalcedon, Blessed Flavian and the Tomos of Saint Leo. For I knew that if they only heard the name of Flavian or Leo in the tomos, they would foolishly anathematize it, without asking whether the statement of faith in it is correct or distorted. So, I again told them: “If you wish us not to talk and listen much, this is our faith and that of the Council of Chalcedon. Listen and read: either you follow him or anathematize.” Scholia. We place it so that hard workers can use it as an image [of polemic] against opponents. So Blessed Paul knows that such an image must be used, which is why he said to some: “I took from you by wickedness.” 934 From the dogmatic tomos of Flavian, Bishop of Constantinople, which was written to Leo the Pope, about the Economy of the Incarnation of Christ our true God. It is said: “And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us.” 935 One is a certain dwelling and another is the One who dwells in it: I do not say one and another as about two persons, but one and another as about two natures. 936 Scholia. This is a quote from the eloquent Paul, Bishop of Emesa in Alexandria, he said this in the presence of St. Cyril. After all, all the Gospel and Apostolic [Scriptures] teach and testify about Emmanuel in two different images, somewhere showing His one face, and somewhere clearly testifying to His two natures. 937 For there was and is dual - One and the same Son and Christ, and the speech about Him is dual (not before the union, but after the incomprehensible union), the same one perfect both in Divinity and in humanity. 938 Scholia. Gregory the Theologian in his Homily on the Epiphany, Cyril of Jerusalem, just like Cyril of Alexandria in his First Homily on the Holy Trinity. For if He were simple, how could He suffer and die? How was he struck, beaten and crucified, if not by a body subject to suffering, and by earthly nature? 939 Scholia. Against Eunomius Gregory of Nyssa and the Epistle to Succens of Cyril of Alexandria. For, being of one essence with God and the Father, He is God perfect from perfect, and being of one essence with us, He is a perfect man. 940 For, being “the image of God,” 941 took from us “the form of a servant”; 942 the image of God signifies the essence of God, so the image of man reveals human nature. 943 Scholia. From the Commentary [on the Epistle] to the Philippians by John Bishop of Constantinople. When the tomos was written and read, John and Gregory turned away from it, rejected it, and anathematized what was written in it. And after the rejection and anathematization, we brought into the middle the books of the Holy Fathers, from which all the quotes that are in the tomos were taken, for we brought them here, keeping each quote ready to prove the reported [information]. And when we showed them from their own books that they rejected and anathematized not Flavian, but the Holy Fathers, a simple citizen stood up from the last place, covering them with shame and threatening to stone them. This was our national triumph and the national shame of John and his like-minded people. Let hard workers know the following well. So, the members of the Conciliar Church gathered in Alexandria told us that after the blessed Pope Eulogius Augustal 949 there was a certain Sevirian, who for a sufficient time appointed 14 scribes who were like-minded with him, and appointed his vicar over them, so that they would correct the dogmatic books of the Fathers, first of all St. Cyril. So, when we gave them a quotation from [the Epistle] to Sukkens: “We name two natures,” 950 we did not find it in the Alexandrian books, but instead it was “We say that two natures are united” or “We say that two natures are implied.” And when we were very depressed, Mr. Isidore the Librarian brought us a book by the Patriarch [Kirill], in which this quote turned out to be uncorrupted. Likewise, Blessed Ambrose was distorted, for instead of [the words] “We will preserve the difference between Divinity and flesh,” 951 they said: “We will maintain the difference of knowledge.” And again they distorted the blessed Proclus, speaking about Christ: “He, born without corruption 952 [of the Mother’s womb] and entering through closed doors, seeing the union of whose natures, Thomas...” 953 The word “without corruption” the Guyanites rewrote and say “incorruptible,” 954 and instead of the pronoun “the union of whose natures” 955 they use negation: “Thomas, not seeing the union of natures” 956 and so on. Likewise, [and interpreting] the words “destroy this church, and in three days I will raise it up,” 957 [the heretics] call the assembly of the apostles the church of Christ: they were scattered and then gathered again. 2, 8. With these shameless lips they were not ashamed to say that they allow the Chalcedonites to say that in Christ there are two hypostases, but not two natures. “For nature, they say, reveals many hypostases.” When they said this, I said to them: “Then you do not confess any nature in Christ?” The heretics said: “So, we confess one nature in Him, as the Fathers teach.” When they said this, I said in more detail: “So, shame on you, as those who profess in Christ one nature and different hypostases, because, as you say, nature marks different hypostases.” 3. Another interview with the Theodosians, for which we again gathered in the presence of Augustal and a large crowd. Therefore, after the heretics in interviews with us were sufficiently and indisputably put to shame, and no longer had a face that would open their mouths to the Catholic Church, they sent people to Egypt for certain bishops who seemed to be scholars, including from the city of Kinopolis. They turned to Augustal with a request to organize for us a new interview about Christ. And indeed, we were summoned on behalf of Augustalus to the praetorium, and when we arrived, we were informed: “Certain Theodosian bishops wish to talk with you about the faith in the presence of Augustalus.” So, when we entered, Augustal said: “These bishops wish to talk with your piety about the difference between the Church and the Theodosians.” After these words from the ruler, the bishops began to reproach me for allegedly disturbing the city, the people and their church. So, understanding from their words that they had not seen me before, I speak to them in a meek voice, smiling: “Most worthy fathers, have you ever seen me, met me, listened to my religion or my thoughts from my lips?” They answered: "No." “So, fathers, listen to my confession. I trust in God that all of you will not find any accusation against me and will be reconciled with me.” I said this, wanting to discover and make public the poison hidden in their hearts and in their entire church. Taking a sheet of papyrus and a pen from the Augustal notaries present, I wrote this: “I, Anastasy the monk of the holy Mount Sinai, confess that God the Word Himself, born of God the Father before all ages, Himself was crucified, was beaten, suffered and was resurrected.” I wrote this, not naming either [His] flesh, or life [on earth], or incarnation, but only one naked Deity of God the Word. Then, getting up, I gave it to them so that after reading it they would approve. Therefore, noticing their approval, I say: “If I saw that you think like this, sign, and immediately I will serve with you.” For it was the day of our Lord, 958 about the third hour. They took it and signed it. Having accepted the papyrus after signing, approaching who was considered the wisest of them and lightly touching his beard with my hand, I said: “Christ suffered for us in the flesh,” 959 theopaschita, and not in the Divine; He suffered in the flesh, as the Apostle Peter theologizes, and not in the Divine, as Sevier blasphemes and as you have now signed. For, wishing to expose all the slander in your soul, I wrote, indicating in papyrus the naked Divinity of God the Word, without remembering either the flesh, or the incarnation, or the Nativity of the Holy Virgin.” So, when they heard this, they seemed to sober up from intoxication and everyone began to argue about this papyrus, which they took from me. I shouted to everyone: “I will not give it up until I bring it to Christ on the day of judgment [as evidence] against you.” 4. Description of another interview, in which we again took part, in Alexandria with Gentiles, among whom was Presbyter George, nicknamed Klyuchar, a preacher of their church. When we sat in the stenographers’ room at the prefect’s residence, they, based on typical problems, said: “There is no non-hypostatic nature; therefore, the Council of Chalcedon, having named two natures in Christ, also discovered two hypostases, that is, persons in Him. And in the Holy Trinity there are no longer three Persons, that is, Hypostases, but four.” To this we again [say]: “In what way are we damaging the truth if we even call two hypostases in Christ? After all, a hypostasis is not a face.” So, again not seeing the trick in our words - after all, when we say this, we do not think so - they, indignant, began to object, citing more quotes and testimonies from all the Holy Fathers and from Blessed Cyril himself, saying that the hypostases are persons both in the Holy Trinity and in the doctrine of the Economy of the Incarnation. So, when for quite a long time they objected and argued that in every hypostasis they are persons, then I say to them: “Indeed, if hypostases reveal persons, then you insult Saint Cyril by exposing him and yourself in Nestorianism because of his words: “The hypostases of Christ remained unfused,” 960 that is, the faces of Christ remain unfused. For the word “remained” means that their state is eternal, unmerged and internally stable; It is remarkable that he did not say: “The hypostases remained inseparable,” but “unfused,” that is, clearly visible, easily noticeable, cognizable, countable and preserved. Finally, when you say that Christ is composed of two hypostases, then, according to this definition and law, you say that He is of two persons; and if He is composed of two persons, then it is clear that [His] flesh pre-exists and God the Word dwelt in it when it already existed. And if this is so, then how do you, who think Nestorian, fight Nestorius? Truly, heaven and earth will pass away, but these definitions will not pass away, 961 which say that if the hypostasis shows a person, then the expressions are useless: “The hypostases of Christ remained unmerged”; 962 “If someone separates the hypostases after an indescribable union”; 963 “The ark is for us an image of the natures, or hypostases of Christ.” 964 For these quotations, which, according to you, belong to St. Cyril, and many others speak of the hypostases in Christ.” This is the interview. Thus the heretics are quickly put to shame. 5. About the expression “The one incarnate nature of God the Word,” which heretics everywhere present to us. Since the all-wise Cyril himself interpreted this expression, I consider it unnecessary to doubt its authenticity. Meanwhile, as Blessed Cyril himself teaches us in his letter to Sukkens, he does not point to anything else when he says “incarnate” but to our human nature. 965 Based on this, when [the heretic] speaks to us against the expression “The one incarnate nature of God the Word,” tell him: “Who of the right-thinking can even name the two incarnate natures of God the Word? After all, then there will be four natures in Christ. But it won’t be like that!” So, the wise father himself interprets the words “one incarnate nature” in another place, using the expression “one incarnate nature of Christ” instead of “one incarnate Person of the Holy Trinity.” 966 For “the Word became flesh,” 967 as the evangelist says. When they so hold on to what was said by their father [our Cyril]: “one nature incarnate,” [ask them:] why do you not hold [within the framework] of such an expression, but introduce a new teaching, saying: “Christ is one nature, for the nature of Christ, although incarnate, is only Divine”? Which Father did you hear this from? Which of the teachers [said] that after the union the Divinity and the flesh of Christ constitute one nature, or one race? How is it possible for created and uncreated things to become completely of the same nature and homogeneous? For where it is said “one nature,” it certainly means “one generation,” either a perfect created principle, or a perfect uncreated principle. So, if Christ is one nature, then He is certainly half God and half man, as the Manichaean fables teach. “If the body [of Christ] is not consubstantial with God the Word,” but is of another essence, and, as the divine Cyril says [in the Epistle] to Eulogius, “there is another and different nature,” 968 then it is clear that Christ is truly perfect in Divinity and perfect in humanity according to the Patristic Tradition.” O true troops, O advanced fighters of the Holy Church and truth! Protect during the battle, as soon as someone from the pack of those wolves approaches you, bringing these empty fables about Christ, turning the word about the Economy into fiction and appearance, saying: “Through some subtle reasoning or with the help of imagination, we understand that Christ is one nature incarnate out of two natures. After all, “after the union” there are no longer two natures, for “the flesh deified and made immortal is like a drop of vinegar in the sea, and such [flesh] was born, and only one [the Divine] deified it.” 969 And “the Word became flesh,” 970 so that the flesh also became the Word; for the will of the Divine is one, likewise the essence of the Word is one, 971 and “Christ has not two natures, [of which] one is worthy of worship, and the other unworthy of worship,” 972 and the rest, beautifully said by the Fathers, but wickedly interpreted by heretics. When they cite these and similar words about the illusory and visible nature of [the Incarnation of God the Word], remember the words of Solomon: “answer a fool according to his folly,” 973 and you also say: “The hypostases of Christ remained unfused even after the union. And “if anyone shares the hypostases of Christ after the union, he is anathema,” 974 as the godly Cyril says. “For in the Law the ark is a type of the persons of Christ.” 975 What are hypostases? It is obvious that the faces, as taught, again, by the divine Cyril himself and a whole host of Holy Fathers.” In this way, faithful one, with the help of your opponents, confront your opponents, and then begin to fight with them. Using their own weapons, stab the wicked Sevier, throw down Dioscorus, defeat Theodosius, Guyan, Julian and the entire ten-horned world of those who dogmatize one nature in Christ. Chapter in which the exegete reveals why the teacher [Cyril] of nature was called hypostases. So that anyone is not blinded by the expression we uttered above, infected by the thoughts of Nestorius and the impious confession of two persons and hypostases in Christ, it is necessary to say the reason [for our use of this expression]. The language of the inhabitants of Africa, the Roman world and the [rest of] the West, which does not yet have a dogmatic vocabulary and the beginning of profundity, as tribal and barbarian, in the ancient times of [Christian] preaching did not achieve the distinction of essence and nature from hypostasis, but considered the essence to be hypostasis, denoting both words [with the term] “being”, 976 not being able to completely express [the meaning of the word] “hypostasis”, but calling the three Persons of the Holy Trinity three “beings.” [And the term] “being” can be used in a certain way both instead of essence and instead of hypostasis: being as existing, 977 essence as existing, 978 hypostasis again as existing. 979 So, suffering from a lack, as mentioned above, [of dogmatic terms] the West called the three Hypostases in the Holy Trinity three essences. Therefore, some other countries, who know the Greek language well and can distinguish between dogmatic expressions, argued heatedly [with the West]: Blessed Athanasius [in his Epistle] to the Western [bishops] states that one should not say “three essences in the Holy Trinity.” The Western [bishops], again, not knowing the word “hypostasis,” resolutely insisted on the expression “three essences,” saying: “so that [by denying this expression] we should not be foolishly calling the Father, the Son, or the Holy Spirit insubstantial, that is, non-existent.” So, when the greatest opposition and schism occurred [in the Church], Blessed Athanasius, being the son of God's reconciliation, carried out his authoritative investigation, inspired by the inspired interpretations of [the Holy Fathers]. Having questioned both convened parties and realizing that the Western [bishops] correctly think about the unity [in the Trinity], but argue due to the poverty of language, he pacified the Church and in letters to the African [bishops], resolving their perplexities, he called the essence [what they called the word] hypostasis. 980 So, even if it is typical for Saint Cyril to call natures hypostases, he accepted this from that time. Saint Gregory of Nazianzus testifies to this in his funeral homily to Saint Athanasius, as does Bishop Eulogius, Pope of Alexandria [in his response] to the Tomos of Leo. I again tell the heretics that what is said rarely and out of necessity, [an expression] is neither an obligatory law nor a kind of prejudice for the Church. But the piety of Chalcedon is also revealed in this, that when it was possible to speak among the Fathers of “hypostases,” none of them used this word, and did not say that He [consists] of two hypostases. 1. About the passion of Christ the Savior and that those who say “The Holy Immortal crucified and suffered” 981 are theopaschites. The wonderful definition of the wisest men says that factual objections and evidence are stronger, truer and more durable than those that follow from biblical sayings. After all, factual evidence cannot be rewritten in any way and cannot be ignored, and written evidence often undergoes insertions and abbreviations from malicious men, which, perhaps, the industrious person knows - as has already been said - from many altered copies [of the books] not only of teachers, but also of Moses, the prophets and evangelists. So, this year, studying various copies of the book of the prophet Jeremiah, I did not find in them [the prophecy] about thirty pieces of silver - the price for Christ, nor [the prophecy] about the sale of the potter's land. 982 So, if the evil believers did not spare the Holy Scripture itself, then, as we previously spoke in detail, much less the words of the teachers [of the Church]. So, through facts, we have greatly disgraced the heretics and unbelievers. When we again talked with them about the passion of the Savior and about the Cross of Christ, we saw from looking at the quotations that they brought that they were trying to show that God the Word is passionate and mortal along with His own flesh, then we no longer through sayings [from Scripture and the Holy Fathers], but through obvious facts and images, used for them a certain image on a certain tablet of the Cross of the Lord with a certain inscription; We placed this image after the quotes. 2. Some of the many quotations cited by the Theodosians and Guyanites in an attempt to show that the impassive God the Word became passionate with and in the flesh. From 1 Corinthians: “But we preach the secret wisdom of God... which none of the authorities of this age knew; for if they had known, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.” 983 Saint Ignatius Bishop of Antioch: "Let me imitate the sufferings of my God." 984 Julia Bishop of Rome: “The Jews, having crucified the body, crucified the Word.” 985 Regarding this particular quotation, I immediately responded, telling them: “If the Jews, by crucifying the body, killed the Word, then the Trinity was not a Trinity, but a two was in heaven until God the Word rose from the death of three days.” Saint Gregory of Nazianzus: "So that you do not stumble in thought when you hear about the blood of God." 986 From the Word on the Passion of Melito, Bishop of Sardis: “God suffered at the hands of Israel.” 987 St. Gregory: “Small drops of God’s blood sanctified the whole world.” 988 St. Cyril vs. Nestorius: "The Passion of God, the Cross of God, the Death of God, the Resurrection of God." They claim that Gregory also speaks at the same time with their theopaschism: “Let him who denies the Divinity of Christ stand with the deicides of the Jews.” 989 That is why the meaning of their Trisagion hymn “The Holy Immortal One crucified for us” means nothing other than: “The Holy Immortal God the Word, who suffered and died for us”; After all, they call God the Word “Immortal,” for He is immortal. Likewise, the expression “passion of God” must be taken with all caution, since there may be some bad understanding, blasphemous in relation to God and the Father, as well as in relation to the Holy Spirit, because the Holy Spirit is God, like the Father and the Son. 3. Therefore, when the followers of Sevirus, Guyana and Theodosius brought us these and many other quotations about the passion, in order, as we said, to reveal the Divinity of Christ, we, desiring to reveal the deceit and poison hidden in their souls, opposed them no longer with the help of Scripture and the words [of the Holy Fathers], but by means of facts, images and real schemes, 990 because of which they were greatly disgraced. For, as I said, on a certain tablet we depicted the Holy Cross along with a certain inscription and, laying our finger on them, we asked them questions. And the inscription was: “God the Word, rational soul and body.” Scholium. And we propose to swear by the Son of God, described in the Bible, using the image of this image of the Honest Cross. Having shown this image, we asked them: “Here is Christ, the Son of the Living God,” 991 flawless and inseparable on the Cross, that is, God the Word, the rational soul and body united with Him by hypostasis. Which of these three perished, died, became inactive and motionless? Answer according to the exact meaning. Didn't I tell you that he was crucified? But which of these three perished in Christ and died for three days?” Immediately, the heretics, extremely confused by our question, say: “The body of Christ has perished.” Again we say to them: “His soul was not lost, died, or suffered?” They say: “Probably not.” Then we, ridiculing them and mocking them, said: “And you are not ashamed of the fact that you call His soul, created by Him, impassive and immortal, and call God the Word Himself, the Creator, “The Holy Immortal One who suffered and died for us,” thereby insulting the Creator in comparison with the creation? You call angels immortal and passionless, you call our souls immortal, and you call demons passionless and immortal. And you are not embarrassed, I say again, their Creator, who is one by nature impassive, calling Him passionate and mortal and thereby humiliating the Creator in comparison with the creation? Listen to what I say. On the Cross when Christ was nailed to it, the following five were present. There was the sun, which first discovered the nails and the spear, and remained inseparable from the Cross and impassive to the nails. There was the most holy body of Christ, there was His holy soul, there was God the Word, there was the tree of the cross. Four of them are created, and God the Word is uncreated and their Creator. Two created things - the sun and the holy soul of Christ - remained impassive. And how, after all, could His Divinity die? Therefore, Christ is immortal by two - [Word and soul], and mortal by one flesh. Therefore, your, acephalus, believers are separated from Peter and Paul, the pillars, leaders and lights of the universe, the chosen preachers of the faith? Therefore, no longer according to your Peter Knatheus sing: “The Holy Immortal God who suffered the Word,” but according to the fisherman Peter: “Christ suffered for us in the flesh.” 992 No longer according to Paul of Samosat, but according to Paul of Tarsus, preach that Christ “having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the Spirit.” 993 Christ died in mortal flesh, not in immortal spirit. And those who sing “The Immortal Holy One crucified and suffered for us” call either the immortal God of the Word or His immortal soul mortified, but the tomb of Christ shames them, containing not the mortified God of the Word, not the rational soul who died, but a deified dead body. Therefore, as soon as you hear: “The Lord of glory is crucified,” 994 or “God suffered at the hands of Israel,” 995 or “Let me imitate the sufferings of my God,” 996 or “Drops of God’s blood,” 997 or “God’s death, tomb and Cross,” in no way say that the passion and death of God the Word were by nature, but that they were according to His flesh, united by hypostasis. For just as the flesh, due to the ineffable and inseparable union with God the Word, is assimilated into the divine, so often the human, passionate and mortal is assimilated to the God Word who is in it; Having assimilated to Himself, in a certain respect, by the economy and by the common existence of the passions of His own flesh, He, like God by nature and in truth, remains impassive and immortal.” Scholium. Just as the nature of the fire did not in any way harm the body of Azariah and the [two other] young men thrown into the oven, 998 so the impassive God the Word, who was in it, was inseparable from the passionate flesh of Christ. 4. Not only the above imprint and image of the Cross and the inscription of the three names (God the Word, the rational soul and the most holy body) help us express the doctrine of Christ's passion, but also all the other problems and difficulties that opponents pose before us. For again, when they bring us the patristic random phrases and expressions taught by Sevier, refined concepts, that is, mental fantasies about Christ, [talking] about the visibility, fusion, mixing, combination and denial [of humanity in Christ], images of a drop of vinegar and the sea (and in general, in all their premises they deny the expression about the two inseparably united natures of Christ), then we mentioned putting to flight enemies invincible [sign] - this Honest Cross and the inscription above it of three names, ridiculing the heretics and chanting, and placing our finger on each of the three names, and asking them: “What do you say to us, “apologizing for sinful deeds,” 999 and give us many confused expressions, torn and random phrases, saying: “After the ineffable union, the flesh is no longer called nature, for it was she who became the Word who deified it. And, finally, it no longer has its properties, but because of the victory of the Best, everything in Christ became one nature, for the body, mingling with the abyss of the Divine, became God due to deification? Why do you here and there pull out these and similar expressions for us, said well by the Holy Fathers, but understood poorly by you? Look at the displayed image of the Cross, and at the inscription on it of the three names of Christ, and tell us, did after the union of God the Word become consubstantial with the flesh? Has a rational soul ceased to be a soul? Has the body become consubstantial with the Word? Has one of these three lost its properties? Has the body of Christ become indescribable? Has His rational soul become mortal? Has God the Word become passionate and fluid? No way. So, if even after the union everything in Christ remained unchanged and unfused, how can two immortal [His parts - God the Word and soul] and His mortal body be called one nature? 5. Question to those who are disgraced by theopaschism. Orthodox: Do you call Him dead or not, Whom you call crucified? Heretic: Yes, [to the dead,] for there is one Christ, and not two. Orthodox: Okay. So, when you say, “The Holy Immortal One who was crucified and suffered for us and died,” Whom Immortal One do you call dead? If you call God the Word, then you speak badly, because He is immortal. If you call His immortal soul mortified, then you speak badly. If you call the flesh that died on the Cross “Holy Immortal,” then you speak badly, for the flesh was not immortal on the Cross. And again, if you call the entire fullness of Christ “the Holy Immortal who suffered and died,” then you speak badly, for “Immortal” is not combined with the body, as we have already said. But death is alien to the immortal Word and His co-immortal soul, so no matter what the understanding, this hymn of yours is blasphemous along with you and your deeds. 1. Research, that is, a joint practical discussion of the Orthodox and Akefal of some sayings that are presented as [words] from the Holy Fathers, calling one - the flesh and the Divinity - the nature of Immanuel, to which all heresies refer that want to reject the Incarnation and Economy of Christ, that is, the heresies of Valentinus, Mani, Marcion and further, up to Eutyches, Dioscorus, Sevira, Feodosia and Guyana. Naturally, we note in advance that if these expressions were inserted by one of the heretics, then only God knows (after all, we have cited the words of the Holy Fathers themselves, which on various issues are inconsistent and contrary to these expressions); and if indeed some of these expressions are patristic, then we note that the Holy Fathers could say them in some improper sense and simply out of [their] meekness or understood them according to the holiness of the soul and flesh of Christ; those who reject the doctrine of the incarnation interpret these expressions not according to the patristic meaning, but denying this essence [of the soul and flesh of Christ] and saying that after an incomprehensible union there became one nature of flesh and Divinity, as if the nature of the holy flesh of Christ, as a result of mixing, changed into the nature of Divinity; they give us the word of Blessed Gregory [the Theologian], speaking about the body of the Lord: “And it is God by deification,” 1000 similar to Blessed Cyril [of Alexandria]: “The Cross of God, the passion of God, the death of God, the Resurrection of God” and many other similar expressions. But, unfortunate and ignorant, they do not know that the Holy Fathers in these expressions did not say “by nature,” but “by deification” and “by union”; after all, the divine Gregory did not say that the body is God by nature, but says: “because it too is God by deification,” just as iron, after combining with fire, radiates heat and is called fire, of course, not by nature, because iron is not absent. Thus, the all-wise Cyril did not say: the death of the Divine, the passions of the Divine (as if the fullness of the Trinity Divinity turned out to be passionate and mortal), but said: the passions of God. For it is possible, as has already been said, to piously call the Lord the Man “God” because of the excellent union [with the Divine], even if ordinary people who are not united with the Divine are called gods; 1001 but one cannot call the most holy body, which is created, “Divinity”, so as not to call the Divinity of the Holy Trinity consubstantial with creation. As a result, we repeatedly call the entire fullness of Christ God according to the excellent union, but we do not call Him in its entirety “Divinity,” but, due to the difference of natures, “Divinity and humanity.” And I will repeat again about the passion of Christ and about their Trisagion song in order to ask them: “When you sing and say: “Holy Immortal One, crucified and suffered for us,” how is it clear that you are saying this about Christ? For if you were to say: “Holy Immortal One, crucified in the flesh for us,” then it would be clear that this hymn refers to the incarnate Christ. When you do not name the flesh, body and incarnation at all in this hymn, but simply say: “The Immortal Holy Crucified,” then one can reasonably object to you and say that you do not call Christ crucified, but the immortal God the Father or the immortal Holy Spirit. Since on the Cross there was not an immortal body, but a mortal one, it turns out that you call crucified, passionate and mortal either the immortal Father, or the immortal God of the Word, or the immortal Holy Spirit. 2. Akefal: Why do we again find the words of Blessed Athanasius, who wrote to the Emperor Jovian: “The Word became flesh, so that the flesh also became the Word.” 1002 So, if the flesh also became the Word, how can you then call the two natures? Orthodox: As I have already said and say again, I doubt whether these words even belong to the Holy Fathers. So, I will boldly say, even if an angel from heaven said this expression, 1003 it is impossible and he could not have said it. Both Blessed Athanasius and Cyril themselves said that it is impossible and completely unimaginable for the flesh to change into the nature of the Word. For how is it possible that, created after many centuries and years by the eternal God the Word, she became of the same nature and akin to the uncreated God the Word? And if “the Word became flesh, so that the flesh also became the Word,” then, obviously, it is necessary to recognize that the flesh also has the properties of the Word, that is, unlimitedness, uncreatedness, originlessness, ugliness and co-eternity with the Father. And if it is in no way possible to say this about the holy flesh of Christ, then it is clear that the flesh did not become the Word. If she did not become the Word (as, indeed, she did not), then he who said that “the Word became flesh, so that the flesh also became the Word” lied. Do not tell me, acephalus, that the teacher meant that the flesh became the Word not by nature, but by glory. To this I can tell you that by glory all people can become gods, according to the words: “I said: you are gods, and the sons of the Most High are all of you,” 1004 but in the teacher’s work [presented by you] there are no words “according to glory,” but without reference: “The Word became flesh, so that the flesh also became the Word.” They present not only this quotation, as supposedly from Saint Athanasius, but also another: “Christ was incarnate apart from sin and the carnal will: “For only the will of the Divine,” as is the essence only of the Word.” 1005 I don't know who said it; However, I believe and confess that every person who proclaims the one essence of God the Word in Christ has no lot or part in Christ, 1006 as denying our leaven and our nature, which He received from the Holy Virgin and Mother of God Mary. For if in Christ there is only Divinity, then why do we blame the Manichaeans, who say: “In the shadow, imagination and visibility was the flesh of Christ, and, ascending, He placed in the sun the shadow of the flesh, 1007 which remained in the imagination”? The arrogant Timothy follows the path of deception and accompanies the Manichaeans in this, saying: “The nature of Christ, although incarnate, is only Divinity.” 1008 To this, by the way, someone objects: “If “the nature of Christ is only the Divine,” then accordingly we can say that the birth of Christ is the birth of only the Divinity, the growth of Christ is the growth of only the Divinity, the childhood of Christ is the childhood of only the Divinity, the swaddling of Christ is the swaddling of the Divine only, the touch of Christ is the touch of only the Divinity, the baptism of Christ is the baptism of only the Divinity, hunger, thirst, fatigue, mental struggle, spitting, blood and tears of Christ - all this only Divinity, the crucifixion of Christ is the crucifixion of only Divinity. Tell me, what kind of person or demon would dare to say something like that? Therefore, Timothy blasphemes when he says that “The nature of Christ is only Divinity even after the Incarnation.” For if Christ is only the Divinity, and the Divinity is invisible, intangible, not offered as a sacrifice, indivisible and not communed, then it is clear that Timothy, like the Jews, denies the sacrifice and communion of the Holy Sacraments of the Body and Blood of Christ, not believing and not confessing that the Body and Blood of Christ are truly visible, created and tangible, offered up and taught to the people with the words: "The Body and Blood of our Lord and God and Savior Jesus Christ." For if Timothy says that the nature of Christ is one Divinity, and that what is touched, refracted, crushed, crumbled, drunk, changed, chewed with teeth and consumed is alien to the Divine nature, then he falls into one of two pits: either he says that the Divine is passionate and fluid, or he denies the Body and Blood of Christ, which he brings and partakes of in the Mysterious Sacrifice and teaches to the people with the words: “The Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ.” Then it is better for him to say to the participants: “There is one Divinity of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.” So, Timothy's teaching about the Incarnation is a fable, away with it! For the flesh is not the Divinity, as Triblessed Athanasius says: “The body did not become the Word, but became the body of the Word.” 1009 And again, preaching the difference of the essences of Christ, he exclaims: “What hell spewed out the word that the body and God the Word are of the same essence?” 1010 “If they are not of the same essence, then there certainly is one and the other nature”; 1011 This is what the all-wise Cyril said to Eulogius of Constantinople. And if in Christ one and the other nature is cognizable, then His essence is not only the essence of the Word; and if the nature of Christ is not only the nature of the Word, then Timothy, who says that “The nature of Christ, although incarnate, is one Godhead,” is a liar. 3. The heterodox says: Timothy and Sevier do not deny the Incarnation of Christ, preaching that He has one nature, but they follow the Holy Fathers. For Blessed Gregory the Theologian says: “The body became one with God the Word, became completely the same as the One who deified it.” 1012 And the godly Gregory of Nyssa needs an image to describe the deification and change of the most holy body of Christ, says: “Just as a drop of vinegar immersed in the abyss of the sea loses its own properties of vinegar, but mixes and assimilates the properties of sea water, so that most holy body, mixed with the Divine, does not have the properties of flesh.” 1013 Scholia. If the abyss of the Godhead is invisible and intangible (for “no one saw God” 1014), and the body of Christ is mixed with the abyss and became it, then the doctrine of the Economy has become a fantasy, then Christ did not truly and in reality appear on earth. Orthodox: When you again expose us to this saying, which refutes the Economy of the Incarnation, we need to respond immediately. After all, if the holy body became such as God the Word who deified it 1015 and does not have the properties of human nature, then it is obvious that it is no longer limited, no longer walking, no longer tangible, no longer visible, Christ no longer has the image of a man, no parts of the body, no arms, no legs, no mouth, no ribs. Why is it said: “They will look at Him whom they have pierced” 1017? For if the body of Christ no longer has any human properties, but has acquired the properties of the abyss of the Divine, why does He say to the disciples after His three-day Resurrection and after the body has acquired immortality: “Handle Me and see; for a spirit does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have” 1018? How did Thomas feel the marks of the nails 1019? [Gregory] of Nyssa himself speaks about this: “Look: since the spear entered the rib, the student’s hand felt [the wound].” 1020 The godly Epiphanius thinks the same way: “Tell me, Marcion, how was the breaking of the bread? By a ghostly image or by the action of an earthly body?” 1021 If the opponent asks: “Why do some of the Fathers, for example, [Gregory] of Nyssa, say that the flesh of the Lord no longer has its human properties?” then let this ignoramus understand that he does not understand as it should, for the Holy Fathers, having said these words, meant something else. Created by God incorruptible and immortal in the beginning, man, because of sin, became doomed to destruction, mortal, material, fluid, multi-passionate, subject to sadness, fatigue, tears and sleep. And so, having become incarnate and taking on our nature, God the Word cleansed and freed it from all the passionate properties acquired by it due to sin. Every time you heard a teacher saying that the flesh of Christ no longer has the properties of the flesh, understand this: the humanity contemplated in Him no longer has the properties of corruption acquired by our body due to sin, but because of the union with the Divine and the three-day Resurrection, His most holy body passed into a better state, and no longer has the previous properties: it is no longer mortal, nor corruptible, nor fluid, nor subject to fatigue, nor deprived of [circumcised flesh, cut hair, nails, flowing blood, etc.], but changed from mortal to immortal, from corruptible to incorruptible, and the material became immaterial, the carnal - spiritual, the passionate - impassive, the flowing - not flowing, needing food and drink - not needing them, deprived of [circumcised flesh, cut hair, nails, flowing blood and etc.] - not deprived of them, plump - subtle, temporary - eternal; however, it became neither unlimited, nor incorporeal, nor unchangeable, nor intangible, nor invisible, nor uncreated, nor beginningless; for these are the properties of one Divinity. So, the pious Orthodox teaching of the Fathers does not recognize that the most holy body of Christ now has our natural properties, crept in due to disobedience, but has God-created properties that Adam had before sin in the image and likeness of God. Thus, one must piously perceive and understand the words of the Fathers. For the most holy body received from the Divinity of the Word, with Which it was united by hypostasis, that which was possible to receive, so that we recognize the unity of the face of Christ, but it remained alien to certain properties, so that we recognize the difference of natures. Therefore, the flesh, although united with the unlimited Word of God, did not become unlimited; although she began to live together with the eternal, she did not become eternal; although she carries the invisible inside, she has not become invisible; although perceived into incorporeal existence, it did not become incorporeal; although from uncreated [being God] came into creation and the flesh bears the unlimited, it did not become uncreated. But if you pay attention to dry and unexamined Scriptures and the words of teachers, then you fall into many and harmful absurdities. I will quote the above-mentioned phrase of the all-wise Gregory [Nyssa]. So he believed that our nature is like drops of vinegar mixed with the abyss of the Divine; It is obvious that every drop that falls into the abyss of the sea becomes invisible, intangible and non-existent. So, if the body of the Lord became invisible due to its connection with the abyss of the Divine (and the abyss of the Divine is by nature invisible and intangible by existence), did it really turn out that the entire life of Christ on earth from His birth from the Virgin until His Ascension into heaven was just fantasy and imagination? Consequently, the divine Gregory used the name vinegar and sea not to speak of the destruction of the properties [of the nature of the body], but to compare the properties, showing the pitiful state of our nature in comparison with the boundless greatness of the incomprehensible abyss of the Divinity, because he who speaks against Eunomius did not intend to preach the confusion and destruction of the natures of Christ: “What nature of Christ is struck during the passion? And which one is glorified from eternity? And without explanation it is clear, says the father, that the blows refer to the slave, in whom the Lord is, and honor - to the Lord, with whom the slave is.” 1022 How could a teacher who calls the flesh, that is, the image of a slave, a slave, call it invisible and dissolved, like drops of vinegar in the sea? Because he wants to contemplate His image not by merging, but by a higher union. 4. Heretic to this: The Fathers said these words, not wanting to deny the flesh of the Lord, but to show the victory of the better and deification, as a result of which the apostolic husband Dionysius the Areopagite says that in Christ everything that is human, natural and impeccable is above nature and not according to nature. After all, he said this about Christ in his Fundamentals of the Theology of His Holiness Hierotheus: “He was the newest of everything new; among what is natural to us, supernatural; among those belonging to the super-essential being, having everything that is ours from us above us in abundance" 1023 As a result of which, in the Epistle to Gaius, this father says: “Christ did not perform the human actions of our nature as a man, but above a man he performed the human" 1024 Orthodox: When reading all Divine and Holy Scriptures, a person needs reverence and fear of God, especially when reading words and preaching about God. But the children of heretics, perceiving their Fathers in a distorted form, look like one-eyed people. After all, this father, who said: “Christ had everything above us,” 1025, in the chapter On united and separate theology, he said that “He was incarnate from virgin blood.” 1026 And although to some extent the rude word seems heavy to the common people, none of the other teachers said anything like that. Therefore, one must piously understand all the expressions of the father. For if Christ had nothing of our nature in likeness with us, but everything is above us, then Paul is lying when he called Him a man, “who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh” 1027 without seed, and: “as children He shared flesh and blood,” 1028 and: “tempted in all things like us, except one sin” 1029 Scholia. “As children partake of flesh and blood” 1030 – it seems to me that Dionysius, being a disciple of Paul, took this expression from here [“Incarnated from virgin blood”] 1031 So, if Jesus became a man like us and like men, 1032 if, as Paul teaches, He was “in all points tempted as we are, except with one sin,” 1033 then not everything that is ours in Him was above us. And if in all human properties He was not like a man, but above a man, then how, finally, can we call Him consubstantial with us in humanity? After all, consubstantial in the proper sense of the word is the unchangeable identity of the natural properties of the same nature. So, if Dionysius does not deny the consubstantial body of Christ to us, then why did he say: “He is above nature in all our natural properties,” 1034 and: “not as a man does what is human,” 1035 - what do you heretics think? But because not from the seed, but from God the Word and hypostatically with God the Word in the Mother’s womb, the perfect human leaven of our soul and flesh existed. So, the human, existing with God, became deified and co-divine 1036; it bodily and without contradiction carried in the single person of Christ not only human, but divine-human, nevertheless preserving unfused the own properties of both, and clearly demonstrating that in His Incarnation Christ performed all of our natural and impeccable actions above man, and everything human and corresponding to the general law of our nature, including something baser of our actions, He performed in His own flesh in order to stop the lips of heretics. For, as Isaiah says, contemplating the sight of Christ on the cross, that He “was despised and humbled more than the sons of men,” 1037 and again [the evangelists say] that they contemplated the angel who strengthened Him, 1038 and that He, before the robbers, voluntarily died painfully, being nailed, 1039 and that He showed wounds and ulcers on the immortal body, 1040 and that the nature of the immortal and spiritual body was contemplated in the pitiful form of a gardener, 1041 and that the pure, deified, lacking in nothing, subtle and immortal nature of the Lord’s body after the Resurrection for forty days communicated, ate, drank and lived together with mortal and passionate people. 1042 But in fact, no deficiency, dishonor, humiliation and humiliation were connected with the immortal nature of the most holy body of Christ [after the Resurrection]. However, all this is not higher than man, but more inglorious than our nature, for none of the people in the resurrection, having risen from death in the future, will drink and eat baked fish and honeycombs, and not a single righteous person, not a single sinner will be resurrected, having ulcers, scars and wounds in their bodies from blows, and not a single righteous person will rise from death in the pitiful form of a gardener, because “then the righteous will shine like the sun.” 1043 And if you, heretic, tell me that Christ did this according to the economy and for the sake of the faith of the disciples, and not according to the law [of nature], then I will immediately tell you that according to the economy He came down and became incarnate. Perhaps [the heretic], calling His incarnation economical, does not consider it true. For, starting with Mani, [the heretics] have adopted the expression “according to the economy” instead of the expression “in a ghostly manner,” as Mani coined. 5. So, when we have shown that Christ, although being the true God, voluntarily did more humiliating things than were characteristic of us, then it is necessary to say that He did this in our likeness and according to the law of nature; and vice versa, as God and the Creator of nature, who invented the norms, laws and structure of our human nature and existence, He also needs to do what is higher than man, higher than nature and higher than our natural properties. For example, to form a human being in the womb of the Blessed Virgin without a material seed is an action higher than ours, a Divine action, truly an action of God. And the nine-month growth of the baby in the womb and the enlargement of the belly of the Mother of God Mary is an action according to our nature, the same for all pregnant bellies and for all growing bodies [babies in the mother's womb]. And again, preserving the intact seal of virginity after birth is a Divine matter and above ours. And to pass through the womb and be born - this Christ accomplished in our likeness, truly being a baby in the womb, being born and appearing as God incarnate. Therefore, he immediately showed that He is God, since He was fed with milk from the Virgin’s breast, which is higher than nature, but also attributed to the breast its proper use - for feeding a baby, but also cried according to the law of infancy of our nature, but also in our likeness underwent traditional circumcision and throwing away the flesh. After all, if you were to say that Paul speaks the truth about Christ, that He was “tempted in all our points, except sin only” 1044 and who came, of course, for the sake of us all, to deify and sanctify everyone through union with Himself as God! So, being, thanks to this supreme union, God incarnate, Christ voluntarily humbled Himself and appeared into the world, [taking on] all the pitiful and weak properties of my slave image, without ceasing to be God. Voluntarily, in our likeness, he remained in the womb [of the Mother of God] for nine months, in the likeness of people he was born a pitiful baby, in our likeness he desired Mother’s milk and sought breasts, voluntarily in the likeness of people after birth he uttered indistinct childish sounds from his lips like a baby, in our likeness he crawled on the floor like a baby, [and only then] was taught by the Mother to walk and talk, cut his hair, like us, after a certain time and nails, had, like us, growth, limitation and whiteness of the body. [His] age increased, and all parts of the body grew, not in spite of us, so that His Incarnation could not be considered a fantasy and appearance. The formation of the body was not alien, not superior to man, and the appearance of the members of the body was not contrary to man. For the Lord took on the form of a slave, and therefore the body of a slave, and the plumpness of a slave, and the appearance of a slave, and the physicality of a slave, and the carnal corruption of a slave, and the mortality of a slave, and the physiological secretions of a slave - [tears] from the eyes, [saliva] from the mouth, skin secretions, sweat, and discharge after digesting food and drink. After all, He did not accept the body intact and incorruptible, [as it was] before the fall of man, since intact, incorruptible and immortal does not need treatment. So, God the Word bore my bodily illness and infirmity: corruption, fluidity, fatness, limitation, mortality, passion, desire for food and drink, fatigue, in order to free the body from all this. Therefore, there is no need to distort the words of the Fathers and Dionysius for me. For if, as you, a heretic, think, Christ did not accept any properties of our human nature and did not act like us, then He was no longer consubstantial with us in the flesh, His body did not have the same appearance as a human, the members of the body did not correspond to humans, and infancy was not like ours, and growth, and fetus in the Mother’s womb, and age were not like ours; He did not truly eat, nor, as befits a baby, grow, nor did He do, have, or create anything else that was God-created and impeccable from our nature. Finally, His sleep was not a true dream, nor death a true death, nor perforation by a true perforation, nor the separation of His soul from a pure body by a true separation, and the wounds in the members of the body and side were not bodily blows and wounds. For if He accomplished and endured everything that is ours above, that is, in spite of us, then you should not at all say that in Him there was anything in accordance with the law of nature: neither body, nor appearance, nor members of the body, nor sleep, nor image, nor the number of years, nor life, nor movement, nor the outline of the body, nor death. But this is not what the Divine Scriptures and [the Apostle] Paul teach, for we have heard him in all his divine epistles, and you will see that he calls our death a sleep 1045, but does not call the death of Christ a dream, but calls it the death of the Lord. For about us he says: “I do not want to leave you, brethren, ignorant about the dead” 1046, “we will not all die” 1047, “we will not warn the dead” 1048, and so on, but about Christ: “died” 1049 ... “according to the Scriptures, we proclaim His death 1050”, “having been put to death 1051 according to the flesh “, and in general, [the Apostle Paul] calls our death a sleep in various places in order to show that our resurrection will be, as it were, [a rising] from sleep, and he calls the death of Christ death in order to shame the heretics who say that the Incarnation and all the human properties of Christ were a ghostly image. It was not Paul who declared this, but Christ who dwells in him; His own death was called “death” by the One who, both after death and after His incorruptible Resurrection, as was said, [using baked fish and honey] for food and [showing] wounds from nails, assured us [of the truth of] the doctrine of the Incarnation. So, if Christ voluntarily and according to economy manifested in Himself not only what is ours, but also what is more inglorious, how can we say that He did not do anything at all on earth according to human nature? And if it is necessary to say this more precisely, we will say it, following the wise Cyril. After all, he says: “Some words about the Savior speak of Him as God, some as a man, others in some middle way.” 1052 Therefore, Christ speaks either in the Divine, or in the human, or in both images, that is, God-husband; So, He performs all actions without fail either according to Divinity, or according to humanity, or jointly, according to the integrity of His person, that is, [when in action] Divinity [manifests] inseparably with the flesh, and humanity inseparably with Divinity. 1053 6. If this is so, then why does your foremost fighter Timothy, condemning the Tomos of Leo, say in his instructions: “The nature of Christ, although incarnate, is one Divinity” 1054? In the same way, Sevier and all of you dogmatize in Christ one nature - the Divine. So, tell us, wise men, is that same honest, holy and worshiped nature, which you confess in Christ the Son of God Divine, after being united forever, everywhere and in everything, no matter what Christ does, remains perfect, whole and impeccable, or not? To this the Sevirians and Guyanites unanimously answer: “Certainly, the nature of Christ after the union is perfect, flawless and indivisible forever, everywhere and in all actions, having no division, cutting, diminution or distinction, for Christ is one and He has one nature, and not two.” Scholium. So you ask them, and so set yourself up against them according to the following plan: ask the Jacobites about nature, and the Armasites 1055 about divine action. Our answer to this. After all, if we recognize that Christ is one nature and all of it is known to be Divine, then He cannot at all undergo any decrease, deficiency, deprivation, division, damage or replenishment; for the Divine nature always and forever, completely and unchangeably remains equal to itself, since it cannot suffer either deficiency or addition, but always, everywhere and in all actions remains equal, whole and impeccable; So, if the nature and action of Christ alone are Divine, then Christ as God must certainly be recognized in everything as unchangeable and impeccable. Finally, listen to me, you heretic! Carefully follow the four main moments of the passion of Christ: when His dead body was in the tomb of Joseph, then when He descended from the tomb into hell for my sake, when from hell we were raised to heaven, and when from paradise He again went out into the garden outside the tomb, where Mary Magdalene saw Him in the form of a gardener. After all, if Christ, as you say, is only Divine, then He is conceived as God completely unchangeable and impeccable, for the Divine is impeccable. Then why is Christ not whole in the tomb, since the rational soul separated from Him when He said: “Father! into Your hands I commend My spirit" 1056 ? Let us go down to hell and see Christ there as He empties the prison. Let's ask Adam, let's ask the bodies and lips of the resurrected saints, so that they tell us how they saw Christ in hell, by what body, by what nature, by what form did He descend into the underworld, how did He enter into the exploration of the abyss, by what terrible nature did He open the gates of death, by what form did the guards of hell tremble? Have they seen the naked Divine nature? Away! After all, “No one has ever seen God” 1057 Then what? Have they seen the flesh of the Lord? No way! After all, she, deified, lay in the coffin, dead and motionless. So, on the cross, as the prophet says, “we saw Christ, and He had no bodily form, nor beauty, but His body was despised and made low before the sons of men.” 1058 In the tomb we saw Him, and He had neither the soul nor the spirit of man. In hell we saw Him, and He had no body, no blood, no bones, no corporeality, no material image, but one rational, deified soul, separated from the body. In paradise, we saw Him with the thief, and He had neither soul nor body, but only being present everywhere as Divinity, He was together with the thief, just as [previously] the disembodied and incorporeal God was together with Adam, being visible to him and [at the same time] remaining invisible, as only God can. Then we saw Christ risen after a three-day burial, “returned to himself,” 1059 as Gregory [Nyssa] says, and seen in the garden first by Mary [Magdalene], and again body, soul, mind and God were together. Even after Christ accomplished and fulfilled this, the heretics have now established that Christ is one nature, and all of it is Divine, although they heard the Apostle James theologize about the Divine nature: “The Divine nature has no change.” 1060 So, if the Divine nature has no change, but complete identity, equality, impeccability, unshakable perfection, then in what nature of Christ, tell me, we invariably count such many changes: deficiencies, replenishments, divisions, restoration, separation of the soul from the body, a brief descent into hell, the return of the deified [soul] to its own co-divine body? “God, my King! “You are the same,” 1061, exclaims the prophet about God the Word; just as God the Word Himself says: “You see, you see that it is I” 1062 and: “I do not change” 1063 So, if the unique properties of God the Word are adopted by man, united to Him by hypostasis, why on the Cross He has neither form nor beauty, why in the tomb was imperfect and without a rational soul, why in hell the soul was not having its own body, why in paradise on the day of passion, being there with a robber, had neither body nor soul, was in hell? In short, if the heretics show us that the completely blameless Christ on the day of passion in the tomb, in hell and in heaven was together with soul and body, then it will become obvious that there is one essence and energy, and not two, as they said above: “Forever and everywhere and in all actions the nature of Christ is presented in fullness.” To this I will in turn say: “If Christ is one Divine nature, then what parts left it when He lay dead in the tomb? And in general, if it is possible for the Divine nature to suffer a deficiency, then in what part do you include His soul and in what part do you include the body? For if Christ is one essence, then it stands to reason that one part of it is the Word, the second is the body, and the third part is the soul. That is why, so that we do not get carried away by this lie and madness of yours, discovering in the Lord, the deified Man, these numerous constant changes, additions, deprivations, changes, improvements, visibility, transfiguration, growth, remodeling, and wanting to show that the unchangeable Divine nature of God the Word is free from all changes, transformations, shortcomings, growth and mortification, we call the humanity of Christ nature, that is, true reality, and we decisively consider the words of Severus and Severus blasphemous. Timothy, that “The nature of Christ is only Divine” 1064.” 7. What, however, do these arrogant heretical rhetoricians answer for us again? “If not all of Christ is Divinity, then how did His saliva heal the blind 1065, how did His tears raise Lazarus 1066, why, wanting to drink in Samaria, He did not drink 1067, why, being hungry after a forty-day fast, He did not eat 1068? But we did not hear in the Gospel that He slept, except [only once] in the boat 1069, nor that He drank. All this proves that the flesh became Divine and had no human properties. Therefore, the whole Christ is one nature.” Orthodox answer. It is timely for us to say to you now: “Oh, foolish ones and slow of heart to believe everything that the apostles and prophets predicted about Christ” 1070! For, wishing, as you assert, to show that the whole of Christ is Divinity, you insult His very Divinity, considering it, like the Manichaeans and Arians, to be passionate and changing, like the creation. In fact, the divine and all-wise among teachers, Melito [of Sardis], in the Third Homily on the Incarnation of Christ, greatly condemns any interpreter who wants, with the help of what Christ accomplished after Baptism, to instill or assure that not only His soul, His body or His natural and sinless actions (that is, hunger, thirst, sleep, fatigue, tears, saliva, sweat, skin secretions, physiological secretions after consumption and digested food and drink) are true in nature, but also our impeccable natural spiritual properties, that is, sadness, anxiety and despondency. So, in composing [this work], the godly Melito speaks out against Marcion, for Marcion, like Sevirus and Gaian, denies the Economy of the Incarnation of Christ, exposing, turning to Saint Melito, these Gospel sentences and quotations, which these disciples of Marcion of Pontius now show us. Meliton very judiciously answers them: “Those who believe that Christ after Baptism acted out of necessity only of our human nature, revealing the truth and reality of His soul and body, are completely insane. For what Christ did after Baptism, and especially the signs, revealed and assured the world of His Divinity hidden in the flesh. For He, being at the same time God and perfect Man, assured us of His two essences: in His Divinity through signs for three years after Baptism, and in His humanity for thirty years before Baptism, when He, although being the true eternal God, hid the sign of His Divinity through weakness in the flesh." 1071 And, as the Gospel says, after His Baptism and before the miracle with wine at a wedding in Cana of Galilee 1072 He did not openly perform a sign among people on earth, but for a whole 30 years, as [the Apostle] Paul testifies, he lived in everything in our likeness except sin, 1073 although both before and after the Incarnation He is the true God. Scholia. It should be noted that those who talk about the childish miracles of Christ are deceitful and despicable. So, if Christ was tempted for 30 years in all of our attributes, as [the Apostle] Paul says, 1074 then let the heretics know that He, born voluntarily as God from the Holy Virgin, as a man, wept as a child. And throughout His first three years, Jesus was tempted in everything in our likeness: by nature he cried many times as a child, many times he was hungry and thirsty and voluntarily, by childish nature, he ate and drank, many times he slept in a natural and sinless sleep, many times he spat and through his skin and lips showed the fluidity of the body, many times he became tired, voluntarily and in the form of a slave, as the Evangelist Luke says, he was subject to his parents, 1075 many times, like a child, but without passion and sin, I was worried and burdened; “For Christ had a body free from sin, without being freed from bodily needs,” 1076 as John Chrysostom teaches in his interpretation of the Gospel of Matthew. After all, if He had rejected the natural and impeccable weaknesses and needs of our nature, then He would have rejected nature itself, as Chrysostom himself again points out to us. This godly father said this not on his own, but having been taught by [the Apostle] Paul, because he heard in his [Epistle] to the Hebrews about Christ: “As children share in flesh and blood, He also received them.” 1077 Let the heretic finally tell me what the passionate natural impeccable properties of the flesh of children are, which the Word attributed [to Himself] shortly before [at the time of the Nativity] and to which Was Christ involved if not food, drink, sleep, fatigue, etc.? The apostle says about Christ: “For He does not receive angels, but He receives the seed of Abraham. Therefore, He had to be like the brethren in everything, in order to be merciful and faithful,” 1078 ff.: “For we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but who has been tempted in all things like [us], yet without sin.” 1079 Tempted in what? It is clear that in our flawless natural infirmities, because of which He voluntarily became man. So, when [the Apostle] Paul testifies that “Christ was tempted in all the weaknesses of our nature except sin,” you are no longer indignant because of our words that, having been born, Christ took on all our natural childhood properties of the body and impeccable passions. That is why I cited these testimonies, in which it was not me who said: “How is it clear that Christ, having become a man without seed and without sin, took on all our pure and impeccable natural actions?” In fact, look at the fact that the Mother of God and Mother of God Mary herself, who immeasurably received from the Holy Spirit and gave birth to Christ God Himself, right up to His Ascension from the earth, always called Him Her Son and Child, although she saw Him performing Divine signs and raising the dead. But since She saw that in Her childhood and all 30 years before Baptism He was tempted in everything like us, She called Him Her Son, although He was the true God. If what was said seemed harsh, unbearable and doubtful to you, tell me why then did the women bring myrrh to the tomb of Christ? After all, it is not the Divinity that needs a fragrant and fragrant world, but a material body, smoldering and stinking, therefore Nicodemus, thinking humanly, covered the deified body of Christ with myrrh and aloes. Therefore, having our like-minded people and true witnesses who were eyewitnesses, ministers and contemporaries of Christ in the flesh, we will obey them more than anyone else. After all, they tell us about the birth of the infant Jesus, about feeding on breast milk, about lying in a manger with the small body of the ancient great God, about infant tears, about sleep, about the silence of the mouth, as Isaiah says, “before the child can say: my father, my mother,” 1080 about the growth of hair, nails and body parts, about the formation of a more specific appearance in the image of our body, about the deprivation of childhood infirmities in tendons, bones, arms and legs, about the growth of teeth in due time according to nature, about the loss of milk teeth and the growth of mature teeth, about learning to walk with the help of the Mother’s hands. Scholium. We confess that this is in Christ according to the energy of the body. If, after what has been said, you, a heretic, are indignant and tremble, what will you do if you hear about the discarded flesh and flowing blood after the circumcision of Christ on the eighth day, or about various cuttings and discarding of hair and nails carried out by Him? After all, the Law of God commands the Jews to cut their hair and not let their hair grow. For your sake, I deliberately remain silent about the clots of blood that flowed onto the earth from the side of Jesus, and about the cutting off from the hypostatic flesh of God. This is the same as not believing the testimony of the evangelists that “Jesus increased in wisdom and stature,” 1081 leaving the age of an infant and passing into the age of a child, a youth, a teenager, a youth, a young man, and into the age of perfection according to the Law. 8. For if God voluntarily assumed the impeccable properties of bodily nature not according to natural law (especially before Baptism), then why was He, being omnipotent, not immediately after birth placed in a manger; why didn’t he start walking immediately after birth? why didn’t he immediately start saying “mom” and “dad”; why didn’t he immediately have perfect teeth, hair and other parts of his body; why was he not covered with some appearance, better and more glorious than human appearance? For if this were so, then the parents and the world would immediately know that He is God and not a man. And if they knew this, they would not call Him their Son, would not subjugate Him to themselves and would not teach Him to obey. [Porphyry] Bataneot 1082 the younger says: “Moreover, if Jesus wanted to assure that He is a Man above man, then why did He not again gather Jews and Greeks from all nations in Zion, as was the case at Pentecost, and Man did not descend from heaven so that everyone could see, just as He is going to descend at His Second Coming, and so that He was surrounded by tongues of fire, just as He descended in the form fire on Mount Sinai, and all Israel saw it; 1083 Then, when the people saw it, would they believe?” 1084 This is what Ammonius of Alexandria writes to [Julian] Halicarnassus: “If Christ wanted His body to be known and proclaimed to be completely above the human, then why was He in complete submission to the Wife and Mother Mary; why did it settle in the womb? After all, without a wife and mother He created Adam from non-existence into existence, and without birth He could create a man for Himself, dwell in him and live in the world. Again, if He did not at all want to be like us in the flesh except for sin, 1085 why was He not covered with a starry, sun-shaped or crystal-shaped body, why did He not have a radiant face, like Adam when he was just created, and Moses on Mount Sinai? 1086 For, being God, he must have the most magnificent appearance in order to assure the world that He is God. Why didn’t he appear and communicate with us in the same form in which he appeared and communicated with Adam [in paradise], when he did not eat, did not drink, did not sleep, did not get tired, did not spit, did not cry, did not suffer? 1087 For He could appear to us in the same form in which He communicated with Adam, without frightening or confusing him, and in which He again appeared face to face to Abraham 1088 and Jacob, whom He did not overcome [during the struggle] 1089 Likewise, the prophets, Nebuchadnezzar, Moses, and many others saw the appearance of God without a body; and not only they, but all human nature desires to see Christ walking in the glory of His Father; and He communicated with the apostles for 40 days, being in immortality after His Resurrection. Why did He appear to the world not in an angelic nature, but in corruptible, passionate and mortal flesh? 1090 Orthodox: If Christ had appeared in some more glorious and unusual form, they would have immediately believed that He was God. We will try to compile examples from the historical books [of the Old Testament]. God, having created Adam in the beginning in the image and likeness of God, sent into his face through inspiration the grace, splendor and radiance of the Most Holy Spirit. 1091 Then, through disobedience and sin, having removed this grace from his face, he gave birth to Cain, and gave birth to Abel. 1092 After this, listen to what the Scripture says: “Adam lived two hundred and thirty years and begat a son in his own likeness in his own image,” 1093 that is, he had the image and luster of his face like the one who was created by God in the beginning. “And he called his name Seth,” 1094 that is, resurrection, 1095 when he saw on his face the renewed original and unusual same appearance, grace and brilliance of the Most Holy Spirit; and all the people, seeing it on the face of Seth, immediately called him god. And therefore the Scripture said about his sons: “The sons of God (that is, the sons of Seth) saw the daughters of men (from the line of Cain)... and they took [them] as their wives” 1096 For they were involved in the grace of the Holy Spirit until God said: “My Spirit should not be despised by men.” 1097 Moreover, Seth, having such an unusual appearance of his face, remained among people for 905 years 1098 and everyone called him god. And Nebuchadnezzar, for his unusual appearance, called the fourth [man in the oven] the son of God 1099 And Manoah called the special appearance of the Angel God 1100 Likewise, Jacob called the Stranger Who made him lame the appearance of God 1101 And the ventriloquist, seeing the unusual image, called them gods 1102 And Moses remained for forty years in this unusual image of the face. 1103 And why did not Christ appear to people with a face as glorious as theirs, so that people would believe that He was truly God; and why does He not have an image superior to this material, earthly and corruptible image, but humbled and humbled Himself, voluntarily taking on the image of a servant, 1104 as a result of which He most humbly humbled Himself in this humility? After all, He was not the son of a king on earth, not the son of a high priest, not the son of a ruler, not the son of a queen, but [came] from poor parents, from the miserable village of Nazareth, and not from some capital and not from Jerusalem, but from a poor area, from poor Joseph, this miserable carpenter; their life was poor. As a result, in Bethlehem “there was no room for them in the inn,” 1105 and they did not have many slaves, animals and mules. Therefore, the whole life of Christ on earth passed in poverty, and He walked, the Lord of heaven and earth was on foot and without servants, walked from house to house, lived as a guest [not having His own home], all his life he received food and care [only] from the women who followed Him. 1106 Christ did all this, characteristic of dishonor, not rashly, but since because of the exaltation of man [promised by the serpent] to become a god, then with such indescribable humility Christ accomplished everything that concerns the House of His Incarnation, so humbled that His funeral shroud itself was not brought from his parental home, but Joseph [of Arimathea] voluntarily brought it. 1107 Therefore, having learned the purpose of the voluntary humility of Christ, who humbled and humbled Himself in order to destroy the arrogance of the enemy, we are not afraid to follow [the Apostle] Paul in saying that “Jesus was tempted in all our infirmities except sin only.” 1108 And especially what was said about Him before Baptism: removal [to Egypt from the wrath of Herod], growth from infancy to man, perfect, food, thirst, fatigue, tears and the rest of our properties, which we oppose against the heretics (I’m talking about what He voluntarily fulfilled for 30 years), I’m not talking about the fact that after Baptism, Christ, fighting with the human, no longer openly shows these properties: no sleep, no need for food and drink, no fatigue, no tears, no sadness, no anxiety, or anything else material. After all, if for three years after Baptism He did nothing human at all: did not eat, did not drink, did not sleep, did not get tired, did not spit, did not cry, then the heretics, perhaps, help us confirm the whole truth and reality of His humanity, which He showed by manifesting our properties 30 years before Baptism. And yet there is a transmitted law from the apostolic canons that an opinion on all questions and dogmas concerning Christ must be formed, taking into account many testimonies and quotations. 9 . However, having examined with the help of the holy evangelists, that Christ, even after His Baptism, voluntarily endured and accomplished something even more humble, more pitiful and more inglorious than everything human that He did before His Baptism, although He is the true God both before and after the Incarnation. So, tell me, what can be more humble, more pitiful and more inglorious for God than the following: Creator of heaven and earth, “being the radiance of the glory of the Father and the image of His hypostasis and upholding all things by the word of His power,” 1109 being the God of all, the consubstantial and monoglorious Word of the Father, coeternal with the Most Holy Spirit, the uncreated, unchangeable, self-shining only begotten Son, voluntarily from evildoers, as an evildoer among villains, 1110 betrayed by the flesh to a shameful death, captured at night like a robber, imprisoned in chains, was beaten, had his clothes torn off, spit on, strangled, scourged, was, like a condemned man, crucified naked on a tree, his arms, legs and ribs were pierced, and did not defend himself, although He is the omnipotent God, but humbly, like a sheep, accepted for us death. 1111 Whereby then we truly knew that He was in our likeness, when He became truly dead, then we saw His face in our likeness, “and there was neither form nor majesty in Him... but He was despised and made low before men.” 1112 Scholia. “There was no form in Him,” says [the prophet Isaiah], “but He was despised and despised before men,” 1113 that is, more than all condemned people. Then God truly became dead in the likeness of dead people, was laid in a tomb in human likeness, and we saw Him lying dead, the deified body, separated from the soul, was truly dead, inanimate, silent, lifeless, not speaking, motionless, unseeing, not teaching, insensitive, truly the dead body of God, like all the dead. Contemplating this great sight of the death of the Divine body, we are amazed; and repeating the previously spoken words that heretics usually put forward to us, we, looking at the most holy body of Christ, ask them: “If “the Word became flesh, so that the flesh also became the Word,” 1114 then why does the body, which shortly before spoke on the Cross, now in the tomb not utter a word, although it carries within itself the silent God of the Word? If Christ did not do anything human according to man, then why did He suffer death in the likeness of men? And if He was above nature in all our natural properties, then why did He appear to be separated from the soul according to our nature? For if “the Body was created the same as God the Word who created it,” then it is obvious that it was not mortal in the grave, but immortal, like God the Word, and dead only in a ghostly way. And if “the flesh, like a drop of vinegar mixed with the abyss of the Divine, no longer has human properties,” then Nicodemus and Joseph or a ghost and a shadow were wrapped in a shroud and placed in a coffin, or the abyss of one Divinity, tied up, wrapped in a shroud and imprisoned [in a coffin]; and if the nature of the Deity was limited in the grave, transforming and changing the body into its own nature, then why did He who gave the inanimate sky the ability to make the sounds of thunder did not give the dead, inanimate body in the grave the opportunity to make the sounds of speech; why did He who moves the inanimate earth from its place 1115 not stir His inanimate flesh, who is in the grave; Why did He who opened the mouth of the dead, [rising] from the tombs, 1116 not open His mouth in the tomb? If the body of Christ became Divinity through deification, then why does He who contemplates everything as God does not contemplate and see, but He who has in Himself “the Light... Which enlightens every man,” 1117 has his bodily eyes closed; why is He who holds the life of the world in Himself not alive; Why does He who is inseparable from God, the Breath and Life of all, not breathe? After all, the power and action of God the Word in Him is stronger and prevails over the power and action of the soul separated from Him when He said on the Cross: “Father! into Your hands I commend My spirit.” 1118 So, if the Creator of nature created all the natural properties of nature and did something human not like a man, then He had to accomplish the death of the body not like us. And if you truly proclaim the true death of Christ, the true separation of the soul from the body, the three-day death in a false tomb, and truly proclaim the silence, blindness and immobility of the dead body, then know for sure, children of heresies, that Christ, even after the union, did not perform everything that was ours above us - the body did not become the same as the Word that created it: unlimited, invisible, uncreated and without beginning, did not mix, did not change and did not turn into unlimited the consubstantial abyss of the Divine, like a drop of vinegar; but even after the union, the Divinity remains invisible in its own properties of nature, and the body remains visible, limited and created.” Scholium. This can also be asked of the Armasites in order to confuse them. Preserve for me, faithful one, during the war with strangers, like the best Thracian double-edged sword, this Cross of Christ and this coffin. And when they expose their crafty theopaschytic nonsense, bring them to this Cross, so that, having penetrated, you can stab them. When they dogmatize the illusory nature and denial of our nature in Christ, transfer them to the Holy Sepulcher, so that, having killed them, hand them over to hell. 10. And so Ammonius of Alexandria, one of the most experienced exegetes, thus struck [Julian] of Halicarnassus. When he saw that Julian was leaning towards the ghostly form [of humanity in Christ], and here and there he spoke of the deification and change into the abyss of the Divinity of the holy flesh of Christ, likening it to drops of vinegar, then, trying on the face of [Paul] of Samosata, as if gnashing and attacking those who deviate from the truth, Saint Ammonius said to Julian: “It is clear to everyone, one way or another, that Christ the Son of God is true God, and His holy body is truly Divine through deification, and “in Him dwells all the fullness of the Divinity.” 1119 The thinker is not so alien and hostile to His holy Divinity. And yet, because you often and bitterly argue, denying the human nature of Christ, I adapt and put on the face of [Paul] of Samosata, or better than the unbelieving Jew Philo the philosopher. After all, he, objecting to the apostolic disciple Mnason, at one time asked Mnason about the deity of Christ: "Has anyone in any way proven that Christ is God? For even if you call His birth from the Virgin unfamilyless, the more glorious and unusual is the origin of Adam, created by God with His own hands, animated by Divine inspiration; 1120 it is more pure than the nine-month dwelling of Jesus in a woman's womb, among excrement, food and uncleanness. Even if you call the signs that He performed after His Baptism, then I tell you that no one on earth performed such signs and wonders as Moses did for 40 years. Even if you again point out to me the risen dead Jesus, then the prophet Ezekiel raised an immense multitude of dead people from dry bones, 1121 and Jesus himself said that some people will do greater signs than He. 1122 If you tell us that how. God Jesus was taken into heaven, and the prophet Elijah was taken with even greater glory onto a fiery chariot with fiery horses, 1123 therefore calling Jesus “Divine Heaven” is your greatest blasphemy. After all, God Himself said to Moses: “Man cannot see My face and live.” 1124 And your Scripture testifies: “No man has ever seen God,” 1125 God, “Whom no man has seen, nor can see.” 1126 And how are Christian preachers not ashamed to call Jesus God? After all, it is said: “God... is a consuming fire.” 1127 Tell me, is the fiery God hungry? Is the Fire God thirsty? Does the Fire God spit? Is the Burning God crying? The Fiery God is circumcised, bleeds and throws the circumcised flesh, blood and excrement from the abdomen to the ground? All this, at that time thrown by Jesus to the earth, was eaten and devoured by dogs or wild animals and birds, all that was circumcised from His flesh was trampled by cattle; separated and discarded, be it saliva, be it nails, be it hair, be it blood, be it sweat, be it tears - all these certain parts are co-essential with the essence of the body, and due to growth they are cut off and discarded. After all, you say that Jesus in His flesh became like men in everything except sin, and therefore you preach that, having been dead for three days, He is God. And what kind of God is this – “a consuming fire” – Who can die when neither angels, nor evil demonic spirits, nor the souls of people can die? What kind of God is this, tell me, who has the power over life and death, Who runs away, as Jesus ran away from Herod, so as not to be killed when he was a Child? What kind of God is this, Who is being tempted by the devil for 40 days? What kind of God is this who has become “a curse,” 1128 as Paul speaks of Jesus? And what kind of infallible God is this who makes sin? After all, you say that Jesus became “sin.” 1129 If He is God, then why did He pray that the cup of death would pass from Him and was not heard? If He is God, then why, abandoned by God, said: “My God, My God, why have you forsaken Me?” 1130 Is God abandoned by God? God asks God: “Do not leave My soul in hell”? 1131 Is God tied up, slapped, spat on and killed? So, if He was God, then He needed to defeat those who wanted to arrest Him, just as during the time of Lot the Angel struck the Sodomites, 1132 but you call the powerlessness of Jesus patience.”1133 Scholia. Excommunication and curse upon you, 1134 because the demons themselves confessed Christ as the Son of God. 1135 Listen to this, choirs of heretics, who wish to glorify Christ and because of this refuse to confess the nature of His most holy body. In fact, the wicked Philo showed dissatisfaction not at all with the word “nature,” however, tempted by the passions and reproaches of Christ, he struck not only all the pagans, but also the unbelievers. So, if you want to glorify this inglorious glory, saying that the flesh died because of the victory of the stronger, became equal to the abyss of the Divinity, and became like the Word that created it, then you do not profess any of the specified passions listed in the offensive (or rather self-accusatory) words of the wicked Philo about Christ. After all, the presence of these most inglorious passions is higher than the expression of human nature, will or energy in Christ Himself. The follower of Nestorius, the wicked Maron of Edessa, who follows Philo along this path of destruction, writing against those who confess Christ as God, says this in his wicked work: “Those convinced by the Egyptian Cyril philosophize this way: “The Divinity was inseparable from the body of Jesus in the tomb, changing it from destruction to immortality.” Like children participating in a theatrical performance, someone will ask them: “Is there a place, foolish ones, where the unlimited Divinity is not present?” After all, filling heaven and earth and being present everywhere, It was certainly present in the tomb of Jesus, as well as in all creation. And the fact that the body of Christ passed from destruction to immortality is not surprising; for unbelievers and pagans are raised from death, having incorruptible bodies.” 1136 Scholia. Anathema to you 1137 forever. 1. From the Word 15 of Ammonius the Presbyter of Alexandria on the heresy of Eutyches and Dioscorus. “Indeed, perhaps, among those who condemn the Council of Chalcedon and deny the nature of the flesh of Christ, turmoil does arise: after all, it is this visible body, in need of care, growing, swaddled, circumcised, touched, imprisoned, struck, pierced, killed, carried, buried, anointed, mourned, crushed, they refuse to call what is tasted, crumbled, passed on [to believers for communion] nature, that is, true reality, and the invisible Word, Which they have not seen and will not see, have not touched and will not touch, have not comprehended with the mind and will not comprehend, have not described, have not subjected to death, have not crushed, have not eaten (absolutely nothing from Him can be comprehended by the mind: neither nature, nor form, nor appearance, nor color, nor appearance, nor size, nor movement, nor change, nor descent, nor coming [to earth] or departing [to heaven], nor anything else that exists in God the Word), - They confess Him to be the essence. And so (I said to them as if recklessly) they trust more in visible and tangible things and are more likely to confess that they have an essence than in invisible and intangible things, but they believe the word by hearing. 1138 For we have received faith in the Divinity of Christ by hearing, and faith in His flesh by the experience of seeing and touching things. It is more useless to convince only unbelievers who ask our proofs about the nature of the Divinity of Christ, and what His nature is, and whence it is clear that God the Creator of all things was in His flesh; To this vainly zealous one we can only say: “Believers received all [knowledge] about the Divinity only through faith, faith simple, artless, not evil, even if they were certified through the divine signs of Christ in the truth of His Divinity.” 1139 However, you briefly heard one of the opponents compare the miracles of Christ with the countless signs of Moses. In fact, I once talked in Antinopolis with the Jewish sophist Collutus, and he compared the miracles of Christ and the signs of Moses; further I say: “Moses, as a prophet, performed signs by prayer, and Christ, as God, of his own free will, performed miracles without prayer,” to which the Jew said: “And Christ raised up Lazarus by prayer, 1140 and by prayer multiplied the five loaves, 1141 and He prayed that the cup would pass from Him, 1142 and on the mountain alone He prayed to God as a man, 1143 and prayed to God for those who crucified: “ Forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.” 1144 And if without prayer he did some signs, but not miracles, then Moses also performed miracles both with prayer and without prayer, and Elijah also multiplied oil and flour without prayer, 1145 divided the Jordan without prayer, 1146 and Elisha blessed the oil without prayer, 1147 destroyed death in the cauldron, 1148 without prayer cleansed the leprosy of Naaman, 1149 and the [already] dead Elisha raised the dead man. 1150 And if you tell me that Moses and the prophets were sent by God as servants, and I will tell you that Christ also said that God sent Him and that He could do nothing without God, 1151 and what He proclaims, He received orders from God to say this and to proclaim this, 1152 and not to do His will, but of Him who sent Him. 1153 And if, as you say, there was an earthquake and darkness when Jesus was crucified, 1154 then there were signs and earthquakes even when other saints were often unlawfully killed by certain wicked people.” Scholium. It is not thoughtlessly that we present here [the opinions of] the wicked Philo, Maron and Collutus, for it is possible to destroy enemies with the help of enemy weapons. It is suitable against all heresies, so that they will not be associated with us. 2. When unbelievers and atheists in this and the like way talk a lot and blaspheme the Divinity of Christ, let the opponents, who say that the flesh of the Lord was swallowed up and became like the abyss of the invisible Divinity, tell us why they are convinced that Christ is God, if only not by simple faith. We not only believe in the nature of His body, but we also see and touch it through real experience and partake of it, daily by nature and truly tasting it. So, I believe that everyone who rejects and denies nature and everything that relates to the nature of the body of Christ, and all the natural properties of the body, from that vile Mani to the present [heretics], have deviated from [the confession of the nature of the body in Christ] and avoid [this confession] only because the life of all of them is completely unclean due to fornication, dissipation, lust and pleasure, due to irritation with pleasures their bodies, minds and souls, due to the fact that night and day they are defiled by thoughts and deeds of lust, depravity, sodomy, womanizing, pleasure and carnal debauchery, due to the fact that in themselves they constantly feel the kindling of the carnal flame, as if some kind of flame from a terrible furnace, and the kindling of dissolute lust; therefore they think that the nature of the body is unclean and completely unworthy, even if they simply confess in one word that Christ took on our body, human flesh, energy, will and all the properties that are consubstantial with us, for these completely defiled and unclean pigs believe that since their flesh is drowned in luxury and vice, which gives pleasure, then all flesh and every human body acts in the same way: it is at enmity against nature, is desecrated, goes berserk and burns due to unclean carnal lust and insane luxury. You will find that Valentine, being in such an unclean state and carnal inflammation, was the first after the apostolic times to proclaim that Christ did not take on our flesh. The wicked Mani, overcome by such carnal impurity, believed that the body of Christ, which [His contemporaries] saw, was a shadow and appearance, but was not nature. Therefore, he taught that our flesh is not the creation of God, but the creation of the devil: “And for this reason,” he says, “it is so strongly inflamed and fought by the demon who created it, for good does not live in us, that is, in our flesh, therefore “the flesh desires what is contrary to the spirit, and the spirit is contrary to the flesh,” 1155 “the carnal mind is enmity against God,” 1156 “Who will deliver me from this body of death? ", 1157 "that flesh and blood will not inherit the Kingdom of God" 1158 and "those who live according to the flesh cannot please God" 1159." 1160 The wicked Mani then wrote and distorted [the Holy Scriptures] in this and similar way, just as after a long time, enchanted and delighted by the books of Mani and Valentine and, at the same time, having passionate and unclean excitement of the flesh and shameful movements that suppressed and darkened their minds, Archimandrite Eutyches and Dioscorus, Timothy and Sevirus and especially Julian of Halicarnassus, in a Manichaean manner, refused and They still refuse to recognize the nature and all the natural properties of the most holy body of Christ, and because of this they say that He is only Divinity, believing that those who confess His flesh by nature confess in God something vicious, unclean and unworthy. I now state this not from conjecture, but from my own experience, having heard it in Alexandria and other places from heretical lips, and especially from the Guyanites, who, hating and condemning the nature of our body as something unclean and vicious, did not accept the confession of our body as consubstantial or suffering equally [with the body] in Christ; they, mentioning the natural infirmity of the flesh, which due to lawless disobedience we have suffered (i.e., fetid putrid discharge from the womb after digestion of food and drink, sweat, foul odor from the teeth, ejection of excrement, pus, stench and worms in the wounds), they say that the nature of such a body is completely unworthy even to touch God; having lost their reason, they do not know that God the Word, the heavenly “Consuming Fire,” 1161 became human in no other way, namely through such our passions, so that, uniting them with the Own nature of the rational fire of the Divine, as if through purification by fire, restore man to the initial state of incorruptibility, dispassion, immortality, the absence of internal currents and the need for food and incense. Therefore, because of such weakness and impurity of our earthly flesh, Christ said: “I have come to bring down fire on the earth,” 1162 that is, to unite the Divinity with our earthly nature. So, they are clearly exposed as hating our nature, [created] in the image and likeness of God, condemning and insulting our body, created and formed by the hands of God and animated by God's breath; By mocking man as unclean according to the teachings of the Manichaeans, they insult the creation and the likeness of His image. Indeed, if the image of the invisible God is unclean, why is everything that God created “very good”? 1163 However, heretics suffer this punishment, as stated above, because of the inherent impurity of their carnal nature and because of the conquering action of the devil in their souls and bodies. After all, none of them is pure in heart, so that, according to the word of Christ, they can see God dwelling within themselves. 1164 None of them knew or contemplated the Kingdom of Heaven within themselves. 1165 None of them has the treasure of the Spirit in a clay vessel of the body. 1166 None of them bore the image of the heavenly God in their hearts. 1167 None of them became like the Son of God in glory. 1168. For if they knew that he who unites with the Lord, as the apostle says, himself becomes one spirit with the Lord, 1169 and himself becomes the Lord, if they knew that the worthy become gods and sons of the Most High, 1170 if they believed that Christ and the Father will come and make an abode with man, 1171 if they knew how man becomes the church of God and the Spirit of God lives in him, 1172 and, I say briefly, if they had put on Christ according to the words: “all of you who were baptized into Christ have put on Christ,” 1173 then Christ Himself, living in them, would have taught them how He lives in their flesh as God and walks [in them], 1174 and how this clay body, by the fire of the Spirit, has already become like the glory of the image of Christ, 1175 and how it has been cleansed from all uncleanness and has become in the image and the likeness of God as it was from the beginning through union and communion with the Divine. After all, where the Divine lives, especially in essence, everything is immaculate, everything is holy, everything is pure, everything is worthy of God, nothing deserves contempt, nothing is unclean, nothing is hostile to God: neither body, nor soul, nor mind, nor nature, nor will, nor energy. But, as has been said, because the heretics, as they themselves assert, were not created dispassionate in the flesh and pure in nature, and that all flesh, in their likeness, acts in subordination to the impurity of pleasures, they refused to confess that in Christ is human nature and all natural properties. “Well then,” says [the heretic], Nestorius and those who confess with him that in Christ our nature with all its properties participate in the Holy Spirit? Down with absurdity! After all, they are all the more [unparticipated in the Spirit] because the Divinity does not live in them, and because they refuse to confess that Christ is truly God and that the Holy Mother of God Mary is truly the Mother of God. About the festive, or rather sad [because of the heretical teaching it contains], 6 epistle of the current Theodosian bishop in Alexandria, sent to Babylon. 1176 However, what do those who call Christ have one nature again tell us? After all, they say: “If we name two natures in Him, then with all necessity we must recognize two natures in the Holy Trinity. For if anything is united with Christ, one of the Holy Trinity, then it is numbered among the whole Trinity.” How truly excellent is the great wisdom of madmen! What a wonderful statement from Mani's new students! “Therefore,” he says, we did not name in Christ either two united natures, or will, or, again, energy, since, perhaps, everything that we confessed in Christ, one of the Holy Trinity, we should have meant all this in the entire Holy Trinity. Scholium. The Theodosian Bishop John 1177, five years earlier, in two of his holiday [epistles] declared: “Everything that is said about Christ is said about the Father and the Holy Spirit.” Then the first [message] fell into our hands; a year later he said the same thing again. The ill-fated rhetoricians are clearly at enmity with Gregory the Theologian, for he says in the Word about the Son: “What is said about the Trinity in the singular, in the incarnation of Christ it is the other way around [dual], and again - what is plural in the Trinity is singular in the Economy”; So, we are taught to confess one essence of the Holy and consubstantial Trinity, one will, one energy, and in the incarnation of the One from the Holy Trinity - two willing and acting natures, united by hypostasis. Therefore, following the divine Gregory, we wisely call the difference of energies and wills in Christ, for he says: “What is said about the Trinity in the singular, in the Incarnation it is the other way around [dual].” After all, in the Trinity there is Another and Another, but in Christ there is no Other and Another, but there is another and another, but in the Trinity there is no other and another. 1178 However, the Egyptians did not recognize this with their minds, did not understand it. Those who say: “If anything is added and said about Christ, it is united with the whole Trinity,” they pass into darkness [heresies]. Come on, listen to your tragedy, which you, as two united theatrical choirs of comrades, sing antiphonally to each other: you apply expressions concerning Christ to the Trinity. And if it is necessary for me to play along and dance for you, then I will begin the tragedy now. I say: “The Word became flesh.” 1179 The Sevirians answer: “The Trinity became flesh. For everything that belongs to Christ is united with the Trinity.” I say: “Mary is the Mother of Christ.” The Sevier Choir proclaims: “Mary is the Mother of the Trinity.” We say that the Nativity of Jesus was in Bethlehem in a manger. The theater proclaims: “The Trinity-baby is laid in the manger.” I play the flute again for you to dance, and I sing sad songs for you to weep. 1180 I say, “Christ was tempted according to the flesh.” You who dance say: “The Trinity is tempted in the flesh.” I say that Christ is circumcised in the flesh, the Sevirians answer, playing the flute, that the Trinity is circumcised. I say: “We strike Christ.” The choir sings: “The Trinity is struck.” I say: “Christ has become a curse.” 1181 The Sevirians answer: “The Trinity has become an oath.” The Church says: “Christ is betrayed.” The Sevirians say: “The Trinity is betrayed.” We say: “Christ according to the flesh wept and was weary.” The Sevirians say: “The Trinity wept and became weary.” I say: “Christ suffered in the flesh.” The Sevirians say: “The Trinity suffered.” The Church says: “Christ died.” The Sevirians say: “The Trinity is dead, since everything that is said about Christ applies to Her.” Having written this, I fear that I have drowned in the depths of blasphemy. However, the acephalus, rightly rejecting the above, says: “Only that which concerns the essence in Christ applies equally to the whole Trinity.” But, objecting to this, I will say: “This is your teaching that is wicked and lawless. For how can you say: “one incarnate nature of the Trinity,” how can the Trinity be one hypostasis of two natures, how can there be two births in the Trinity: [pre-eternal and in time from the Virgin Mary], how can there be two natures in the Trinity with their own properties, how can the Trinity, like Christ, be visible and invisible? And if everything that is in Christ is conceived both in the Father and in the Spirit, then it is clear that everything that is in them is also conceived in Christ. Then Christ is one nature, existing in three hypostases and persons, Himself both begotten and unbegotten, and proceeding, and Parent and Child, according to the wickedness of the criminal Sabellius, into which those who say that nature and hypostasis are one and the same fall in every way, for for them it is equally the same to say that the Hypostasis of God is incarnate, and to say that the nature of the Trinity is incarnate, if nature and hypostasis are one and the same.” But, as one would expect, the heretics chose to throw numerous mountains at each other and carry nonsense and blasphemy against our Orthodox faith, which has established the unshakable and unshakable rock of Orthodoxy at its foundation, against which the gates of hell, that is, the words of the heretics, are at enmity, but they will not overcome it by the grace of Christ, the Son of God, who founded it, 1182 To whom be glory eyelids. Amen. The words of the Sevirian bishop Gavalon on the apostolic expression about Christ: “in Him dwells all the fullness of the 1183 Divinity bodily.” 1184 “Of course, if the Divinity is unlimited and immeasurable, then it is impossible to say that in Christ there is completeness, and all of it. After all, it is obvious that what is filled has completeness, has quantity, and limitation, and place in space; whenever it is said that Christ is “the fulfillment of the 1185 law,” 1186 that is, “the end of the law is Christ,” 1187 and again: “the fullness of time,” 1188 and “the full [number] 1189 of the pagans of the earth,” 1190 it is impossible for Him to be above all, for everything listed means: everything from the temporal, and everything from the world, and everything from the heavenly, and everything from the water. But the Divinity is and is called above all things, not having fullness, but having overflowing. So how do we think about the “fullness of the Godhead” in Christ? Namely in the sense that He Himself said: “I am not alone, but My Father is with Me” 1191 and “The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me; for He has anointed Me" 1192 ". 1193 So, we ask: how, did the fullness of the three Hypostases, that is, the Persons [of the Holy Trinity] “become flesh and dwelt among us”? 1194 No way! After all, the Word became flesh was revealed on earth. But since the Mystery of the Incarnation of the Son was accomplished by the good will and message from the Father, and by the assistance and overshadowing of the Most Holy Spirit, that is why it is said: “the whole fullness of the Divinity” 1195 with all the natural, and not hypostatic, properties of the Trinity Divinity, for the Person of the unborn Father and the Hypostasis of the outgoing Holy Spirit were not incarnate, but the sacrament of the Trinity is inseparable. Scholium. So Saint Dionysius said that the Father and the Holy Spirit were in Christ by a common will, that is, by favor and overshadowing. 1196 For the Father, the Son and the Spirit have neither spatial limitations and divisions, nor three separate spatial dwellings, like Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, but the mystery of the Trinity is that They come from each other, being closely united and dwelling in each other. But since in the indwelling and manifestation of the Word the Son Himself and the Word became Christ, 1197 whom the Father anoints, and His anointing is the Holy Spirit, therefore it is said: “in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily.” 1198 For in each one performing the anointing, there was a collaboration and meeting of certain Three, that is, the Anointing One, the Anointed One and the Anointing, which are not united hypostatically, but are cognizable in joint collaboration. Therefore, one of the Holy Fathers says: “Thanks to this, it was not the Father or the Holy Spirit who became incarnate, but the Son, so that the fusion of hypostatic properties did not occur in the Holy Trinity. For if a Father is born on earth, then a Son is obtained.” 1199 Therefore, the Son, as befits the Divinity, was born from above, and He is the Son, born below, so that even after this birth, the ungeneracy of the Father, the birth of the Son, and the emanation of the Holy Spirit were preserved in the Trinity. The aporia, or rather the expiration, of 1200 Sevirians to the Universal Church. “If the Holy Trinity has one nature, and this very nature in the contemplated Hypostasis of the Son is separately contemplated as perfect and immaculate, and the Son is incarnate, then it turns out that all the fullness of the Divinity is certainly incarnate according to what has been said: “in Him dwells all the fullness of the Divinity bodily” 1201" 1202 Orthodox answer. In the Word’s own Hypostasis the integrity of the Trinity being is not contemplated, as Sabelli’s fusion asserts. For the Word is neither unbegotten, nor begetting, nor uncaused, has neither one who sits on His right hand, 1203 nor one who exists in His bosom, 1204 like the Father, nor has the procession of the Spirit and none of the other hypostatic properties of the Father and the Holy Spirit, for the Son is not unbegotten, like the Father, the Son is not a Parent, like the Father; again, the Son is not without cause, neither proceeding nor sending the Father, but is sent by the Father [into the world]. And therefore, the Hypostasis of the Son is incarnate; neither the ungeneracy of the Father nor the outgoing Hypostasis of the Holy Spirit is incarnate with Him. But since all the natural properties of the Trinity, that is, originlessness, uncreatedness, unlimitedness, immutability, eternity, goodness, life-giving and all the like, without changing and remaining of the same nature, just as in the Father and the Holy Spirit, are contemplated in the Son, therefore it is said: “in Him dwells all the fullness of the Divinity bodily” 1205 and therefore it is said that Christ is perfect in the Divinity. And so, like this, He, called perfect in humanity, did not combine in His Incarnation all the hypostatic properties of people: He was not unborn, like Adam, was not born from a rib, like Eve, did not have the height of giants or the appearance of Ethiopians, but they had these hypostatic properties. But since He voluntarily assumed all the common natural properties of man, that is, he became created, visible, corruptible, mortal, and so on, but, unlike us, immaculate, 1206 as Paul says, therefore we recognize Him as perfect in humanity. So, in Christ “all the fullness of the Divinity” 1207 and humanity is contemplated by natural properties. For if one nail is colored red, then the flesh and bone of the finger are not colored with it, although all three are inseparable from each other. So, the Father and the Spirit were not stained by hypostasis and did not bleed along with the Son. Once again, as before God, I proclaim the good news that a great misfortune comes to all who say that nature is a hypostasis: they fall into the wickedness of Sabellius, Arius and Nestorius. After all, if Venus alone is covered with a cloud, it cannot be said that all the stars, as special hypostases, are covered with it, but we can only say that each has a common property of the nature of light. Scholium. The last notebook 1208 [of our essay] contains the corresponding [argument]. Scholium. Heretics fall into these wickednesses because they believe, in Aristotle's way, that nature is hypostasis, for he said that hypostases are their own natures. The chapter is about the example of the structure and combination [of soul and body] of man and that like-minded people of Sevier think poorly, preferring [to say] that, according to the anthropological paradigm, in Christ from two partial and imperfect natures there became one nature - Divinity and humanity. So, the blessed Fathers, in accordance with the imprinted image, take the [dispensation] of man in accordance with Christ, wanting, as in a certain sketch, to show His visible and invisible, mortal and immortal, tangible and intangible. The foolish children of the Monophysites, taking their starting point from the Holy Fathers, then no longer in accordance with them in accordance with a certain image, but in accordance with the natural equality [of the image] with Christ, needed the example of man [for Christ]. For they heard Sevier say that “just as in the one nature of man part of it is the soul, and part is the body, so in Christ the Divinity is a part, and the body is a part of His one nature.” 1209 And this means nothing more than the assertion that Christ is from two imperfect things: from an imperfect Divinity and from an incomplete humanity, and He is not perfect in Divinity and perfect in humanity, but half God and half man. We, refuting their absurdity, will confront them in this way. First, let us agree on the following: the types are not completely similar to the images, for the Scripture says that the worm is the image of Christ, 1210 and the lion, 1211 the sheep and the lamb, 1212 and the palm tree, 1213 and the lily and the apple tree, 1214 but none of them are similar [to Him] in natural essence. Secondly, we will again tell them the following: if the image of Christ consisted, as you tell us, of a certain one and a certain other [i.e. from soul and body], and the One who appeared into the world took upon Himself precisely this, then immediately correct [your absurd confession] by taking something reasonable in this [image]. Since the paradigm itself (I’m talking, of course, about the anthropological one) has united in hypostasis our two partial, as you say, essences, then you are thereby free from censure, as those who confess two natures in Christ: one - the perfect God of the Word, and the other - from two halves - from our soul and body. And in many other ways you will find that the anthropological paradigm [turns out to be] dissimilar to Christ. For man consists of two created things (I’m talking about soul and body), and Christ is made up of uncreated Divinity and created humanity; man is from two limited ones, and Christ is from a limited body and an unlimited Divinity; man is from a combination of the material and the mental, and Christ is from God the Word and rational man, who initially had a mind, since neither the body was formed before the soul, nor the soul before the body, but God the Word was before all ages and souls and bodies. Thus you will find many things in the Divine that do not correspond to either the soul or the body. Scholium. Christ consists of two immortals (the Word and the soul) and a mortal body. However, how can such heterogeneous and various unfused [things] have a single nature? If Sevier still persists in proving the equality between the combination in man [of soul and body] and the ineffable union in Christ [of Divinity and humanity], then let this ignoramus realize that whoever wishes to think more accurately about the structure of man will discover that Christ consists not of two, but of many natures. After all, the body consists of four simple essences, that is, the elements; the soul is another essence, and another is the essence of God the Word. Therefore, one should think of the [dispensation] of man [only] as an example, but not as equality [of the ineffable union of Divinity and humanity] in Christ. Antithesis of the wicked Paulianist 1215 regarding the saying of the Sevirians that the union in man [of soul and body] is equal to [the union of Divinity and humanity] in Christ. Paulianist: “In the heat of argument, Sevier, proving that Christ is partial God and partial man and that from two imperfect natures a single nature is formed, everywhere brings and presents to us the image of man, while neither the Scripture of Moses, nor the prophets or evangelists anywhere testified that the soul and the human body exist in the image of the combination in Christ [Divinity and humanity]. So, leaving the images of the Divine Scriptures [speaking] about Christ, he is blinded and invents his own fables. For the image, prototype and Divine mark of Christ in Divine Scripture is precisely the divine Isaac and the ram sacrificed in his place, 1216 clearly prefiguring the image of His two dissimilar persons. However, the host of glorified Fathers knows not only this image, pointing to Christ, but also many others: I will also name the ark of Saint Moses, in which he was placed and thrown by his mother in the riverbed; 1217 Divine Scripture again through Moses and the ark preaches to us the two hypostases of Christ, just as the other ark, consisting of “unrotten trees” 1218 and gold, clearly shows us the image of different natures, or hypostases of Christ. In fact, what does Sevier think the golden vessel containing heavenly manna alludes to, 1219 if not to the special and diverse hypostases of Christ? In the same way, the two turtle doves (for burnt offering and not for burnt offering) 1220 obviously reveal the two faces of Christ, that is, His impassive Divinity and His passionate flesh. Just as, again, the two goats (for slaughter and for sending into the wilderness) 1221 obviously proclaim to us the difference in the characteristic hypostases of Emmanuel, existing in the form of God and in the form of man.” If Sevier, as well as with him those who reject the incarnation of the Savior, are tormented and cut into pieces hearing this, then they, of course, will say that the paradigms are not completely similar to their prototypes. Therefore, foolish one, speak and proclaim that the example of man cannot be indistinguishably equal to the union [of Divinity and humanity] and the incarnation of Christ, due to the fact that this abolishes both of His natures. Scholium. It will not hurt to have knowledge from the [works of] these heretics, [written to other] heretics and, in accordance with them, knock out the wedge of the wicked with a wedge. Aporia-syllogisms about the ineffable union of Christ in the form of questions and answers to these acephals regarding their words that after the union it is impossible to speak of two natures. Question from the Orthodox: Do you confess that in the incarnation God the Word is inseparably and ineffably united in hypostasis with the entrails and breast of the Immaculate Ever-Virgin Mother of God Mary, or, as Nestorius says, that [God the Word] simply dwelt [in Her] in the likeness of other people, as in a certain tabernacle and abode? Akefal: We confess quite clearly that God the Word is inexpressibly and inseparably united according to the hypostasis of Her essence, womb and entrails, as the Holy Fathers preached. Orthodox: This is the truth, and this is how we believe and this is how we preach. Finally, I ask: tell me, most noble one, when God the Word was united by hypostasis with the entrails, flesh and bowels of the all-praised Mother of God, when He was inseparably incarnated and coexisted in Her all-pure being, Who bore Him in the womb, united by Her hypostasis for nine months, the Virgin and God the Word, united by the hypostasis of Her flesh, were one nature, or two natures? And if you are talking about one nature of Woman and God the Word, then tell me, what part of this one nature did Christ separate from Her, taking at birth, and what part did He leave in Her? If the Virgin and God the Word, after the hypostatic union in Her womb, are not one, but two natures, then why do you falsely assert in your defense that after the hypostatic union there cannot be two natures? Another [question]. Unlimited nature does not tend to change and move from one form to another, because the Word and God fill heaven and earth. So, having become incarnate and born of the Holy Virgin, how did Christ come out and separate from Her? According to one flesh or according to the flesh and Divinity? If you say that at birth He was separated from the Mother according to one flesh, then you are thinking Nestorian. If separation from the Mother occurred through the flesh and the Divinity, then how did the Divinity, united by hypostasis with the entrails and breast of the Holy Virgin, separate from Her at birth? Another question about Him: How do you suppose how the All-Holy Spirit on the Jordan descended on Christ and remained on Him? In essence and truly hypostatically or by some kind of grace and sanctification, as if one of the prophets and ordinary people, as the heretics say? Akefal: We confess quite clearly that the All-Holy Spirit dwelt and dwelt in Christ essentially, and not as in one of the prophets. Orthodox: Finally, I ask: tell me, if the Holy Spirit dwelt hypostatically in Christ, as you say, then the Word, the flesh and the Holy Spirit are one nature or two? Another [question] for them. The Divine Apostle says: in Christ “dwells all the fullness of the Divinity bodily.” 1222 So, it is clear that during the union that then took place in the Holy Virgin, the whole fullness of the Divinity inexpressibly infused into Her. So, when all the undivided fullness of the Divinity was in Her, did the Virgin and all the fullness of the Divinity have one nature due to the union, or two natures? Another [aporia]. If because of the inseparability and indivisibility of God the Word and His inspired flesh, God the Word and flesh are one nature, then because of His inseparability from the throne of the Cherubim, of course, the throne and God the Word Who is on it are one nature. Another [aporia]. A more suitable, easier and more inseparable union is the union of the incorporeal with the incorporeal and the immaterial with the immaterial (as of the same nature, spiritual and consubstantial) than the union of the incorporeal with the material, the immortal with the mortal, the impassive with the passionate, the unlimited with the limited. So, if, due to the inseparable union of limited and mortal flesh and God the Word unlimited in it, there became one nature, then rather there should be one hypostasis of God the Father and the only begotten Son, inseparable from His bosom, if only you believe that the Son is inseparable from the bosom of the Father. After all, if you name the numerous connections of the created with the uncreated, I do not think that this connection is stronger than the existence of each other of the same-natural, closely related and immaterial Hypostases of God, if we, of course, believe in the Consubstantial Trinity in three unfused Hypostases. Another [aporia]. Sevier, Timothy and you say that Christ has one divine nature, but Christ tells the disciples about Lazarus: “He died, and I rejoice that I was not there.” 1223 How could He, being God, not be there? Where is there no God? Of course, there is truly no God in the heart of Sevier and in your hearts. That is why the holy angel says about your hearts: Christ “has risen, He is not here,” 1224 that is, in your souls. Scholium. Brief, but useful. 1. As for the notorious and despised Monophysites, we need to repeat the words of the Holy Fathers addressed to them. So, let us again briefly say what [we said] in the second dialogue with them (located in the thirteenth notebook [of our work] 1225). They asked us about every evangelical, apostolic, prophetic, and Mosaic word of disparagement consistent with the humanity of Christ. Here they are: “The Lord will raise up for you a prophet,” 1226 “I have become like a man without strength,” 1227 “Behold, My Child will understand,” 1228 “Man is, and who can know him?” "; 1229 Gospel words: “My Father is greater than I”, 1230 “I can do nothing of Myself” 1231, “But you do not always have Me” 1232, “Why do you seek to kill Me, the Man who told you the truth” 1233, “Lazarus is dead; and I rejoice... that I was not there" 1234, the words of the angel: "He is risen, He is not here" 1235, "The child Jesus increased in wisdom and age and obeyed his parents" 1236, "God raised the Lord" 1237, [God] "glorified His Son Jesus" 1238, that is, His Servant; and immediately, as soon as I have listed these derogatory expressions about Christ from the Divine Scripture, let us ask them regarding what nature of Christ these derogatory words were spoken? They, avoiding calling the flesh of Christ nature, say that this is said regarding the humanity of Christ, regarding the acceptance [of the flesh by God the Word], regarding the visibility [of Christ], regarding the body, regarding the flesh; and in general they call many other names for His humanity, but they do not allow us to call [Christ’s] humanity nature. Then we ask them, “Why do you refuse to call the humanity of Christ nature?” They answer: “If we call the humanity [of Christ] nature, then with all necessity we also call the person and therefore we discover two faces, agreeing with Nestorius. After all, there is no impersonal nature.” The Orthodox question to them: “So, why, O man, is everyone who calls the flesh of the Lord nature, as the Council of Chalcedon called it, a Nestorian?” The Sevirians respond to this: “Well, yes! After all, there is no impersonal nature.” So, when they say this, then we give them the above quotations of the Holy Fathers, who even after the union call the flesh of Christ nature, and we cover them with shame for the fact that they do not follow the Holy Fathers, but, following the legislation of Severus, reject the words of the Holy Fathers, exposing them in Nestorianism due to the fact that they call the flesh of Christ nature. They do all this out of hostility to the Council of Chalcedon, rejecting the Holy Fathers because of it, and more following their own teacher Severus, who maliciously decreed for them: “Even if there is the word of St. Cyril himself about two natures in Christ, do not accept it.” Since, as stated above, Sevier knew that the word about two indivisible natures was truly paternal and impeccable, and, needing to refute it, he “justified himself in sinful deeds” 1239, speaking to Nephalius and Simplicius: “Before Nestorius, the word about two natures was pleasant, but after Nestorius this word was rejected,” so that Christ from two-nature became one nature, “and it is necessary, - he says, “according to circumstances and because of heresies that have arisen, change and remake the dogmas about Christ.” 1240 Therefore, I tried to humbly reveal the cunning and cunning of Sevier, showing from [the materials of] the Holy Council in Ephesus, which took place under the divine Cyril, that heresies impiously speaking about the division in Christ appeared 200 years before Nestorius, and the blessed Fathers who lived under these heresiarchs did not in any way reject the speech about two inseparable natures in Christ. After all, the heresiarch Artemon, 1241 who was 200 years before the Council of Nicaea, was the first to divide Christ in two. After him, Origen taught about Christ as a simple man, 1242 after him, Paul of Samosata, 80 years before this Holy Council, renewed the heresy of Artemon. Again, after Paul and after the Holy Council [in Nicaea], Theodore [of Mopsuestia] of Antioch, the teacher of Nestorius, and Diodorus [of Tarsus] taught that Christ was [divided] in two, after which the wicked Nestorius also [affirmed]. So, why did none of the great and recognized Fathers who lived under Artemon and Nestorius reject the expression about two united natures in Christ? 2. And that this is so, listen to the content of the main material of the Holy Council in Ephesus. “Evidence presented by the clergy of Constantinople in front of all the people and shown in the Church that Nestorius thinks alike with Paul of Samosata. I conjure the Holy Trinity to familiarize themselves with this charter of bishops, presbyters, deacons, readers, the people of Constantinople, in order to bring to shame the heretic Nestorius as thinking alike with Paul of Samosata, anathematized by the Orthodox Fathers and bishops 160 years ago. Both of them said the following: Paul said, "Mary did not give birth to the Word." Nestorius unanimously said: “Mary did not give birth to the Divinity, most noble one.” Paul said, “He was not from eternity.” Nestorius said: “To the Creator of times, the Divinity, they give a Mother who lived in time.” Paul said, “Mary conceived the Word, but she did not become older than the Word.” Nestorius said: “How did Mary give birth to one more ancient than She?” Paul said, “Mary gave birth to a man equal to us.” Nestorius said: “Man is born of a Virgin.” Paul said, “This was better in all things, since grace was upon Him, as the Scripture testifies, from the Holy Spirit.” Nestorius said: “For [John the Baptist] says: “I saw the Spirit descending... like a dove, and remaining on Him,” 1243 and the Spirit gave Christ ascension and thus great glory (it is said: “Having given commands to the Apostles whom He had chosen, He was ascended by the Holy Spirit” 1244).” Paul said: “So that the Descendant of David, the Anointed One, would not be alien to Wisdom, so that Wisdom would not dwell completely in a stranger [to her]. For it was also in the prophets, especially in Moses, and in many rulers 1245, especially in Christ, as in the church." And in another place he says that One is Jesus Christ, and the Other is the Word. Nestorius said: “Can He who was born before all ages be born another time, and also as a Divinity?”" 1246 Here, by reference to the Holy Council [in Ephesus], the lying Sevier is disgraced, saying that the wicked Nestorius was the first to introduce division [in Christ]. So, the Holy Fathers who lived under Artemon, Paul, Diodorus and Theodore, piously named (as we do) the two united natures of Christ, and Artemon, Paul, Theodore and Nestorius - separated, since evil does not lie in naming two [natures], but in dividing them into parts and not putting the hypostatic union in the first place. 3. Refutation of the insane and impious statements and statements of Sevirus, which he set forth [in letters] to Nephalius and some others, saying: “Against ulcers that have arisen, that is, heresies, it is necessary to prepare medicines of dogmas, because if a certain doctor during a plague,” says Sevier, “forbids drinking water, then someone can say to this: “The previous doctors did not forbid us to drink water.” After all, then,” says Sevier, “he would immediately hear from the doctor: “Mad man! Look, the disease is spreading. Do you want to determine your attitude towards the disease based on a healthy life?”" 1247 The noble Sevier asserted something similar, but he is prophetically subverted and silenced by the godly [Saint] Basil [the Great] in his Epistle to the scholastic Olympius the Arian and others like him who are trying to connect the word 1248, to which Sevier can also be included. The divine holy Basil speaks to him in a word like this: “However, they have some cunning rule about changing the words of faith, just as doctors once changed [medicines] for an existing illness. It is not for me to expose the depravity of this sophism, but for you to understand for yourself. May the Lord give you understanding 1249 to understand which word is right and which is false and distorted. After all, if it is necessary, depending on the circumstances of the time, to change the rules of faith and write down new ones, then the statement is false: “One Lord, one faith” 1250 1251 [The Holy] father prophetically said this long before the life of Sevier, as if to desecrate and overthrow his teaching. 4. A short conclusion containing the confession of the exegete on the Economy of Christ. So that someone foolish, using the above insane opinion of the wicked Nestorius, does not distort the confession of Christ by my soul, body and spirit, I will briefly outline it. I confess His humanity, most immaculate from soul and body, hypostasically united to His pure Divinity, just as our completely perfect soul is united to our body. Just as the One seen by Nebuchadnezzar in the furnace in the image of Christ in the likeness of the Son of God, 1252 was in the form of man completely perfect and on fire, co-fired, completely fiery and completely burning, so the humanity of Christ was completely perfect and completely deified, deified and co-divine. And just as if someone, having entered this furnace, would have tried to behead [with a sword], strike, bind, wound or kill the One who exists in the form of the Son of God, then he would not have separated from Him and would not have extinguished the fire due to His completely perfect union with the fire, so in Christ the Son of God, as the angel said: “Rejoice, full of grace! The Lord is with You,” 1253 the fire of the Divine can never, in any way, and under any circumstances be separated from His humanity, and will not be separated forever. However, we confess that this most holy body and soul of Christ differs in glory and majesty from our souls and bodies, just as the image of the one who was in the furnace differed from the rest of the bodies that were outside the fire and the furnace. As a result, we call His most holy body deified and all the properties of the body deified, and His pure soul deified and all its properties deified and monotheistic, and we say that the proper properties of these natures are unfused, unchangeable, inseparably preserved in a single complex Person, as the blessed Fathers piously conveyed to us. However, we confess that the soul and flesh, united by hypostasis with God the Word, are subordinate to Him and controlled by Him, and that all their properties are in a higher state in comparison with the properties of all created things, since they are the properties of that which is higher than all created things due to the union with God the Word. 1. Introduction to the following chapters. The same name and participant in the Kingdom of Heaven [Saint] Basil [the Great] says that the word of truth is simple, that is, ingenuous, unpretentious and uncunning. After all, all the obvious and simple Divine words advise the wise and meek to seek the Lord in a righteous heart; The wisdom of God will not enter into foolish hearts, and therefore, whatever they hear and learn, they easily and quickly rush to scold and cancel because of man-pleasing and arrogant knowledge. For what is, tell me, more convincing, more divine and more true than the saying of [the Apostle John] the Theologian: “In the beginning was the Word” 1254? But Arius, drawing [thoughts] from the devil, received in return for such theology the following: “John rightly said: “In the beginning was the Word,” 1255 that is, the speech of God; for he did not say, “In the beginning was the Son,” but the spoken word of God.” 1256 Because, my beloved brothers, he who is led by the spirit of the devil is ready to attack all the words of Scripture and the [holy] teachers. And it is absolutely clear that “just judgment on such” 1257 and inevitable punishment for those who in the future, out of evil will, will attack this presentation of ours, which I will immediately try to compose here. 2. A trick for use in a dispute with those who maliciously distort and reinterpret the Gospel and patristic writings about Christ our God. The Word of Wisdom tells those who wish to wisely proclaim the wise words of God: “Do not answer a fool according to his folly, ... but answer a fool according to his folly, so that he does not seem prudent to himself.” 1258 This is what the wise Solomon himself says. If someone, madly wanting to distort Divine Scripture, collects everything that is inexpressible and incomprehensible [in Scripture], saying: “Whence is it clear that the Son of God is born, and the Holy Spirit proceeds? Or how is it possible for the Begotten to be co-begotten with the Parent?”, and in general, when he insidiously explores the incomprehensible and believes only the imagination, and rather not the imagination, but what [only the heretics themselves] accept, then do not imitate him and do not answer him because of his fussy unbelief, plunging into all the depths of the search and exploring the unknowable for the whole creation, but answer him “against his stupidity ") bring him what all Christians profess, what they artlessly believe in, what the Church preaches and proclaims, but what they doubt and ask us about in the East who are now moving away from Christianity. These are some of their questions regarding the [Old Testament] Law and the words of the Gospel. Aporia of apostates from the Church to Christians. 1) How is it clear that our soul is created or that it will remain immortal, if nowhere does the Old Testament Scripture testify to this? 2) Who tells me that Genesis is the work of Moses? Likewise, the rest of the books of the prophets are not inscribed. Besides this, there is still much that seems untrue: for example, God's prohibition on food 1259 and the prediction of four hundred years of hardship for Israel in Egypt, 1260 after all, they endured suffering for one hundred and forty years, that is, after the death of Joseph. 1261 Also, the period that God prescribed for human life was not fulfilled on Noah, because it is said that people lived one hundred and twenty years before the flood. 1262 3) Again, having introduced numerous blood sacrifices [as stated] in the book of Leviticus, God subsequently says through Isaiah and Jeremiah that Israel should not worry about sacrifices or burnt offerings. 1263 4) Again, He declared that the law is an eternal statute, 1264 why did not His legal precept remain eternal? 1265 5) Having determined to give the descendants of Israel possession from Egypt to the Euphrates, 1266 He did not give them even a tenth of what was promised. This is from the Old Testament; and here are the controversial questions from these unbelievers from the New Testament. 1) Why do you claim that Christ was resurrected while in a sealed tomb, although the Gospel does not say this? 2) Why don’t you call Joseph the husband of Mary, although the Gospel speaks of this everywhere? 1267 3) The Gospel speaks of the unfamily conception of Christ, 1268 but why does it not speak, as you say, of the incorruptible pregnancy of the Virgin? 4) Although [the evangelist] John speaks of Mary, the sister of Mary, the Mother of Jesus, 1269 why don’t you talk about it? 5) Why, Christ, saying that he would spend three whole days and three nights in hell like Jonah, 1270 did not do it like Jonah, as he predicted? 6) And again, why with one evangelist does He command you to wear only simple shoes and a staff, 1271 and with another evangelist does He forbid both staff and shoes? 1272 7) Although the evangelists do not say anywhere, why do you know that Christ was born in a cave? This is not said in the Gospels. 8) Why did Jesus refuse to do what He Himself taught: when struck on the cheek, He did not offer the other, but reproached the one who struck? 1273 9) Although the Gospel says that Christ is created, or born, why do you say that part of Him is created and part is uncreated? After all, Matthew says: “The book of the kinship (or creation) of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.” 1274 10) If you say that God is the simplest, filling heaven and earth equally, then how did the Word descend from heaven and ascend there again? 11) If God the Word was Divine in the world even before the Incarnation, as the Evangelist John says, then why do you call Him descended from heaven into the womb of Mary? After all, if He was here before the Incarnation, then it is clear that He did not descend. And if He descended at the Incarnation, then it is clear that He was limited to heaven, like the angels. 12) If the Son and the Holy Spirit are from the Father, then it is clear that He is the Father of One and the Other, and the Begotten and the Holy Spirit. And if you do not accept this confession, tell us who first and who second came from the Father: the Son or the Holy Spirit? If They occurred simultaneously, then it is clear that the Father is the Parent of twins, and the Son and the Spirit are God-brothers. After all, in what way can there be a difference between birth and procession for the unlimited, unchangeable and indivisible Deity? 13) How is it clear that the Word of God is a hypostatic God and that the Spirit of God is also God and the Hypostasis of God, and neither the mind of God, nor the heart of God, nor the right hand of God, nor the hand and the rest that Scripture attributes to God is another God and another Hypostasis? 14) Why, although there were eleven disciples before Christ's Ascension, does Paul say that after rising from the dead, He "appeared... to the twelve" 1275 disciples? After all, Matthias was not yet numbered with them, and neither was Paul. 15) Why, Christ, who promised to give those who denied for His sake in this age land, wives, children and property a hundred times more, 1276 did not give it to them, as promised? Scholium. This weapon is intended for the prudent [to fight] against the insane, when you see that they talk and appear to you with evil will and with evil will they attack this very book. 3. So, Christianity is a simple faith; it is necessary to listen and perceive all Divine Scripture and especially the works of teachers in the simplicity and directness of the heart. After all, the Gospel and the Apostolic Scriptures, as we see and as we have already written about this, are uncorrupted, because distortions, losses [parts of the text] or insertions cannot remain in them for a long time, since the Gospel is distributed and written down in seventy-two languages. After all, even if someone tries to spoil one or two translations of the Bible, his dishonor will be refuted by other, correct seventy translations. In fact, look how someone tried to remove [the passage] from the Gospel of Luke about the clots of the bloody sweat of Christ 1277 and could not. For those [copies of the Gospel where] this [place] did not exist were rejected, since in all translations [of the Gospel] among other nations and in most Greek [lists] it is there. The works of the Holy Fathers, especially dogmatic ones, have not been translated into all languages ​​of peoples and have not been distributed to all countries. And once upon a time, heretics could make various insertions and damages to them, which we discovered by testing them. To prove what has been said, we will cite some of the harmful changes in the books of teachers made by heretics. Unbornness, or uncreatedness, is characteristic only of the Divine. And so we found that in Saint Dionysius, in the chapter inscribed “On the names “Great” and “Small”,” it is said about God like this: “Undiminished, ungenerated; not as if not yet born, or incompletely, or as if not born in some way or in some capacity, and not as if it had never existed in any way; but as the highest of all unborn.” 1278 By saying “above all the unborn,” he designated the many unborn or uncreated. And really, how is this possible? After all, there is nothing unborn, only God. Therefore, a certain Manichaean distorted this quote for me, wanting to prove that angels, the soul and the water element are uncreated, that is, not born. Again, although the Church claims that all holy angels have one essence, the divine and Equal-to-the-Apostles Dionysius names many essences of the highest powers. 1279 After all, the great of the rhetoricians, Bishop Dionysius of Alexandria, in the Scholia, which he compiled for his namesake blessed Dionysius, says this: “External philosophy had the habit of calling all invisible nature “unborn”, as well as “essences” of the hypostasis; and therefore these expressions were spoken by Saint Dionysius in an improper sense, in accordance with external ones.” 1280 Therefore, in our opinion, we should not rashly interpret the words of the Holy Fathers, as some still do today. Again, it is said by Blessed [Saint] Basil [the Great] in the Word on the Sixth Day: “Absolutely everything had a reason and has a purpose, for as soon as you tell me the reason, do not doubt the purpose.” 1281 The mad Origenists again mention this quotation to us, wishing to prove the pre-existence of souls in heaven before the existence of bodies, just as well as the universal restoration from punishment, referring to small quotations supposedly belonging to the wise Gregory of Nyssa and [Gregory] the Theologian, and interpreting them according to their ideas. Scholium. Origenists quote from the Words of [Gregory] The Theologian on the Epiphany and from the Words of [Gregory] of Nyssa On Virtue, On the Origin of [Christ], On the Beatitudes, On the Song of Songs and other passages [of Scripture]. I say this for a reason, not in vain, but I point out that they insult the [Holy] Fathers with these words and quotes, that they do not have the light of knowledge, but darken this light and fall out of it, that they compose a nonsense essay against the Universal Church, denying and refuting the Incarnation of the Virgin of God the Word. 4. Chapter of Andrew the Nestorian. For a more complete proof that it is necessary to listen and study the words of the Holy Fathers with the fear of God and the integrity of the soul, I will add the following to what has been said. Since the Guyanites, Theodosians and Eutychians constantly expose Saint Cyril, who allegedly named one nature in Christ and allegedly argued with those who name two natures, a certain Nestorian-minded wicked and villain named Andrew objected and wrote against them, that is, those who call one nature in Christ, arguing in his work that Cyril rather speaks in concert with Nestorius, “as if [Cyril] was unnoticed by himself,” says [Andrey], “completely caught in the net that he avoids.” Andrei quoted words directly from the beginning of the fourth chapter of the Twelve Chapters of St. Blessed Cyril: “If anyone divides Christ into two persons, that is, hypostases, let him be anathema.” 1282 And to this Andrei says: “What a truly excellent true interpretation and what a wonderful presentation of the dogmas of the pious Cyril! For the Fathers and even the Council established that the hypostases are persons - the Holy Fathers in Nicaea, who named three Hypostases, or Persons in the Holy and Consubstantial Trinity. So, if it is rightly stated that hypostases are persons, then why did [Cyril] say in almost all his instructions that natures are hypostases? After all, calling natures hypostases, and hypostases persons, what else is he preaching if not different persons in Christ, when he says, “The natures, or hypostases, remained unmerged”? 1283 Whose hypostases, noble Cyril? It is clear that they are Christ's. And if you speak at all about the various hypostases in Him, then why, in the end, is it determined that the hypostases are persons? For, if you do not agree with this definition that hypostases are persons, then perhaps someone, defending you, will be able to say: “Cyril considers hypostases not to be persons, but to be the existence of certain realized things.” If you brought this rule against yourself, then there is no justification for you. Therefore, when you say: “Christ’s natures, or hypostases, remained unfused,” you are saying nothing more than: “Christ’s hypostases, or persons, remained unfused.” As a result, according to this rule and law of yours, which says that nature is a hypostasis, or person, three natures are found in the three Persons of the Trinity, that is, Arianism, and two persons in the two natures of Christ, which you confess when you say, for example, in the Word “On the service in the spirit”: “The ark is for us the image of Christ’s natures, or hypostases,” 1284 and again in another place you simply say: “Christ from two natures, or hypostases." Now, if you agree that Christ is of two hypostases or persons, then it is clear that you say that the body of Christ was pre-existent and pre-formed in the womb of the Virgin, and immediately the Person of God the Word was united with it, as you again say in the third chapter of the Twelve [anathematisms]: “If one divides the hypostases after an indescribable union.” 1285 In numerous other places you call natures hypostases, but in [the epistle] “To Hermenius” you contradict yourself, saying that one is nature, and the other is hypostasis, or person. Why, although you objected to Theodoret in the Twelve Chapters, in your apologies you did not justify yourself in any way regarding these hypostases in Christ, which you spoke about in the third chapter? So, you hypocritically contradict yourself, either by saying that Christ is one nature, or by two persons. After all, in the “Scholia” you wrote, interpreting [the place] in the Gospel when Peter found a statir in the mouth of a fish, 1286 you say this: “So, the true statir 1287 is Christ, for He is two characteristics.” 1288 So, many thanks to the compiler of the speeches, Cyril, who in different ways fully confessed the various characteristics and hypostases in Christ.” 1289 Scholia. When we taught this in Alexandria, the heretics were completely unable to defend themselves against us, but were put to shame. Listen, brothers, [the speech] of the vile snake Andrei, which he spewed out of the poisonous Nestorian heart against the all-wise teacher Cyril regarding the expression that called natures hypostases. Whether these are really the words of the holy father [Cyril] or someone else, I cannot say. After all, a whole host of Fathers and the great Cyril himself say in various places that nature is one thing, and hypostasis something else; and, following this rule, the Universal Church says that Christ is two united natures, but does not allow it to be said that He has two hypostases, or persons, and does not preach that He consists of two hypostases, or persons. For hypostasis is actually His Face. We do not recognize the holy flesh completely separately from God the Word, because it did not pre-exist in the womb, but at the same time the Divinity and rational animate flesh are united. It is this connection that is called hypostatic. So, as I said, the wicked Andrei made these accusations against the God-wise Father Cyril. 5. Again, the Nestorian-minded Maron of Edessa, composing an Epistle against Sevirus, says the following: “We, bringing the light of piety from the East, do not turn away from Dioscorus, Sevirus and Theodosius as much as we deservedly hate the blasphemous Council of Chalcedon. For he did not name the hypostases in Christ at all, and Sevier, Father Cyril himself, Dioscorus and Theodosius completely agree with us that there are hypostases in Christ, confessing Him from two hypostases, or persons, but they also say that the hypostases of Christ are not fused. After all, Cyril of Egypt himself stated: “The hypostases of Christ remained unmerged.” 1290 And if the hypostases of Christ, that is, the faces, remained unfused, then it is clear that they are both knowable and forever preserved. However, how did they remain unmerged? It is surprising that [Cyril] did not say “inseparable,” but “unfused,” that is, clearly visible and numerically cognizable as two, and did not add that we supposedly introduced such a number of hypostases in Christ in 1291. After which he, verbosely describing the Nativity from the Virgin, blasphemed [Her] honor, either calling the Nativity from Her natural, or saying in his Twelve Chapters: “[The Virgin] in the flesh gave birth to the Word who became flesh.” To this we object: “The Virgin, who fought against God, did not give birth according to the flesh, but in a manner similar to God.” 1292 Scholia. I found this quote in Alexandria from the Theodosian presbyter George, nicknamed Klyuchar, the compiler of the speeches of their church. These are the wicked heretics [speaking] against the God-wise Father [Cyril], but we proclaim him the torch and pillar of the Church. Scholium. Sevier and Guyan were previously of the same mind and stayed together in Alexandria for 18 years. And then one day Guyan asked Sevier: “How should one confess the body of Christ, corruptible or incorruptible?” When Sevier said that the body is perishable until the Resurrection on the third day from death, Gayan immediately interrupted him: “If you say that the body is perishable, then with all necessity you name two natures in Christ.” This caused division between them. The Guyanites, Julianists and Agranites have the same faith as the Sevirians, Jacobites, Theodosians and Dioscorians. However, although they (that is, the Sevirians and Jacobites) say that Christ is precisely one nature, they confess two properties in Him, divine and human, and say that His body was corruptible before the Passion. And the Guyanites say that the body of Christ from the very moment of union is completely incorruptible and divine and that He has one property - divine and impassive. Know: it is impossible to prove that the recognized Fathers asserted that Christ from the very moment of union exists completely incorruptible; and these thieves reason based on their own considerations and their teachers and, as I have often said, they cite torn pieces from the expressions of [the Fathers]. Therefore, we have armed ourselves with factual evidence against them in accordance with the following presentation. Dispute between Guyanite and Orthodox, which took place in Alexandria. Orthodox: Are things truer than words or are words more reliable than things? Guyanite: Obviously, things are more trustworthy than words. Orthodox: You answered fairly according to the law of truth and piety. Then please tell me that both the Divinity and the body of Christ from the very moment of union exist completely incorruptible; Is this Communion, this sacrifice of the most holy Body and Blood of Christ, which you offer and eat, the true Body and Blood of Christ the Son of God, or is it simple bread that is sold and eaten at home, or is it an image of the body of Christ, like the goat that the Jews sacrifice? 1293 Guyanite: We cannot call Holy Communion an image of the body of Christ or simple bread. But we truly taste the very Body and Blood of Christ the Son of God, incarnate and born of the Holy Theotokos and Ever-Virgin Mary. Orthodox: And so we believe and so confess according to the word of Christ Himself, which He said to the disciples at the Last Supper, handing them the life-giving bread: “Take, eat: this is My Body” 1294 and, passing the cup to them, said: “This is My Blood.” 1295 He did not say: “This is the image of My Body and Blood.” And in many other places Christ indicates: “He who eats My Flesh and drinks My Blood has eternal life.” 1296 So, if Christ Himself testifies that what we believers offer up and eat is truly His Body and Blood, then give us from the Communion of your supposedly Orthodox church, as you call it in spite of the rest of the church; and we will put this holy Body of Christ and Blood into a vessel with all reverence; and when several days have passed, if it does not decay, change or deteriorate, then it will become obvious that you rightly preach that Christ from the very moment of union exists completely incorruptible, and if it decays or deteriorates, then it is necessary for all of you to admit one of the following: either what you eat is not the true Body of Christ, but only an image, or that because of your evil faith the Holy Spirit did not descend on it, or that the body of Christ before the Resurrection perishable as something sacrificed, subject to death and wounds, crushed and eaten. After all, incorruptible nature, like the incorruptible nature of angels and souls, is neither sacrificed, nor pierced in the ribs and hands, nor crushed, nor subject to death, nor tasted, nor tangible, and it is completely impossible to digest [the stomach] like food. 2. Guyanite: Why do we find that many of the Holy Fathers call the body of Christ incorruptible? Orthodox: The incorruptible and perishable, as we said in the definitions, are spoken of in the Divine Scripture in two senses: now bodily, now spiritually. As a result, Genesis says: “And God looked, and behold, the whole earth was corrupt,” 1297 that is, all people are lawless, about whom David says: “They were corrupted and became abominable in iniquities and morals.” 1298 So, therefore, the corruption of sin is incorruptible, that is, sinless - we say this about the most holy and immaculate body of Christ, because none of the Holy Fathers ever said [about it]: “perfectly incorruptible,” as you say. As a result, Triblessed Athanasius says this about the body of the Lord: “The body was corruptible, since Mary was created.” 1299 How can one say that the body of Christ is of one essence with ours, or: “As children share in flesh and blood,” 1300 or: “He took on Abraham’s seed,” 1301 or: “He, like us, was completely tempted,” 1302 if He is supposedly incorruptible from the very moment of union, as you preach? And therefore we teach that before the passion the most holy body of Christ was corruptible, but after the three-day Resurrection it is incorruptible; and I, in addition, say that before the passion [in His body] there were various flows of fluids: blood, sweat, saliva and tears; after His Resurrection from the dead, if He ate, it was only out of economy for the sake of the faith of the disciples, we also do not find any separations, movements or losses in Him: He does not spit, does not cry, does not sweat, does not shed blood; It is not connected with anything else that is a consequence of sin: it does not sleep, does not thirst, does not suffer from hunger; after the Resurrection, He ate as fire eats wax and as the angels ate with Abraham. 1303 Therefore, before the Passion, Christ did not change his appearance and the appearance of his face, as was the case when, after the Resurrection, He was discovered with a different appearance by Magdalene, 1304 and appeared with a different appearance to Cleopas 1305 and then to others at the Sea of ​​Tiberias, 1306 [so that he was not recognized by them]. Again, although before the Passion he could, but did not appear simultaneously in different places, so that later they would not teach about the illusory nature of [His Incarnation], but according to the general bodily nature he moved through space, after His Resurrection from the dead, when His most holy body was finally resurrected and became light, spiritual, subtle and incorruptible, He left the sealed tomb without hindrance, and entered through the locked doors and appeared to the disciples in Jerusalem and in Emmaus at the same hour in the evening of the day he was resurrected. If from the very moment of the union Christ was completely and invariably incorruptible, then why did He never appear as flesh at the same time in different places and with different appearances and types of face before the Passion? Why did he never spit or cry after His Resurrection? Therefore, it is absolutely clear that the holy body of Christ before the Passion was corruptible, and after His Resurrection it is incorruptible. Guyanite: However, note: if Christ mourned Lazarus, then His incorruptible and divine tears erected a dead body. 1307 Even if He spat, His saliva opened the eyes of the blind man. 1308 If blood flowed from a rib, then by this He saved the world. 1309 If He was crucified, then how did God cover the sun with darkness. 1310 Orthodox: There should be no doubt that His immaculate body, due to its union with God the Word, is holy, divine, omnipotent and creative. However, we hear the great Gregory of Nyssa speaking against Eunomius: “It is not human nature that gives life to Lazarus, and it is not an impassive essence that mourns the dead, but tears are characteristic of man, and life is characteristic of True Life.” 1311 If, as you assert, miracles were performed not by the Divine, but by the body of Christ, then He should have shown miracles immediately from the swaddling clothes. After all, He wept countless times like a child, countless times He spat like a man, for, as Paul says, He was tempted in everything like we are, except sin. 1312 In fact, having received circumcision, He did not seek to perform any miracle through the bleeding of divine flesh. 1313 Regarding the [words of the prophet] mentioned by you, “below let your venerable one see corruption,” 1314 [let us say that] corruption 1315 is the complete destruction of the essence; The body of the Lord in the tomb did not undergo this, preserved [from decay] by the Divinity in it, changed by Him into incorruption and restored to what Adam’s body was before the crime. From the Word on the Resurrection and Incorruption of Hippolytus, Bishop of Rome. “People in the resurrection will, of course, be like the angels of God - incorruptible, immortal and not fluid. For the incorruptible essence does not give birth, is not born, does not grow, does not sleep, does not suffer from hunger and thirst, does not get tired, does not suffer, does not die, is not pierced by nails and spears, does not sweat, does not lose blood. Such essences are either angelic or [the essences] of the souls of dead people, since they are both foreign and alien to the visible, corruptible world of this created world.” 1316 3. However, the opponent objects: “Christ accepted the passions voluntarily and for the sake of edification; but what is done voluntarily and for the sake of edification in the law does not belong to nature.” The Orthodox responded to this: “Consequently, since God the Word descended from heaven voluntarily, His descent cannot be called true. Since He incarnated voluntarily, one cannot call His body nature, His Nativity - Christmas, His age - age, His race - race, His passion - passion, His death - death, His Resurrection - Resurrection, His Ascension - Ascension. After all, He, having become man on earth, accepted all this voluntarily, and not forced. And this is an invention of the Manichaeans.” Scholium. A certain other apology and a clear explanation of the expression “one incarnate nature of God the Word” directed to the Sevirians. When, for example, in the firmament there are certain three consubstantial and unlimited luminaries, no one of common sense will call these three lights natures, but will call the three lights consubstantial hypostases, having a co-natural, homogeneous, homogeneous, akin and indivisible light, and in the Trinity they do not call God the Word nature, but the Hypostasis of the Word, like the Father and the Holy Spirit. Again, if it turns out that one of these lights is connected and indefinitely enveloped in a certain cloud, then this luminary in the cloud is called a hypostasis, as one of the existing three hypostases of light, and is also called nature due to the addition of a foreign cloud connected with the light and a different essence. This is how I perceived the expression of the wise Cyril when, in relation to carnal union, he says: “one incarnate nature of God the Word.” If you foolishly criticize this expression, trying to call the Hypostasis of the Word a nature, then in the same way it is necessary to call the Father God the Word a whole nature of one’s own, just as the Holy Spirit is another special nature. The arrogant Sevier, who affirms this and thinks so, is, in fact, stuck in the Arian quagmire of tritheism. And a person, being naked, is called one of all hypostases, and if he is dressed in clothes, he can be called nature because of the different nature of the foreign clothes that he put on. And, for example, Gabriel is one of the angelic hypostases, and if he dresses in flesh, he can also be called nature due to his connection with flesh foreign to him. And the rational soul, for example, of Paul, which now exists naked without its body, is called one hypostasis of the general essence of human souls, and not nature; If now, before the resurrection, it were united with its own body, then perhaps, due to the different essence of the earthly body, it would be called nature in some pious way. Therefore, the blessed Fathers said that man was created in some way, as it were, “from two natures.” But the acephalus scolds us in this too: “If man was created from two natures, and God the Word accepted him, then it turns out that you confess three natures in Christ.” To this we must say: “Then you are disgraced as denying that the Word is incarnate, not confessing that God the Word truly took on body and soul. And if you generally call Him perfect in humanity, as well as in Godhead, then it turns out that you are asserting that Christ is of three natures. However, just as a tree, which has many different components: root, branches, leaves, flower, fruit, is called one nature, so is a whole person, as the brother of God James says: “every nature of living creatures, birds and reptiles, is tamed by human nature” 1317.” Refutation, that is, destruction of the Monophysite position, which says: “If the hypostasis of the incarnate God of the Word is the perfect Divinity and in it the entire fullness of the Trinity is contemplated, then all the properties discovered in the Son during the Economy [Incarnation] are assigned to the entire Trinity, be it two natures, two wills, two energies. Those who think this way discover in the Holy Trinity three particular natures and one common one.” He told us briefly about this, and we will not compose our own fables, like heretics, but will fall down to the pure Divinity, who says: “Woe to those who prophesy from their hearts, and not from God,” 1318 just as David struck Goliath with one stone and destroyed the entire camp of foreigners, 1319 so we, with one word and one proof of the apostolic man and the light of the universe, Dionysius, let us defeat the entire camp foreign heretics, shutting up their mouths, saying: “If something is added to Christ, the One of the Holy Trinity, this also applies to the whole Trinity.” From the Chapter on the united and separate theology of the holy apostolic teacher Dionysius the Areopagite: “Likewise (to use an example from the sensory sphere close to us) how the light of each of the lamps located in one room completely penetrates the light of the others and remains special, preserving its differences in relation to others: it unites with it, differing, and is different, uniting. And when there are many lamps in a room, we see that the light of them all merges into one indivisible glow, and I think that no one is able, in the air permeated with the general light, to distinguish the light of one of the lamps from the light of another and to see one of them without seeing the other, since they are all incomprehensibly dissolved in each other” 1320 Scholia. [The words] “united” and “separate” say that in the Holy Trinity what is common refers to the essence, and what is different refers to the Hypostases. These are [the words of] Dionysius, but we will accept what was said to refute [the heretics]. The father's perfect mind takes on this image. For the Holy Trinity, he gave an image of certain three lamps or wax candles, lit in a certain church or house, separated by hypostasis from each other (for both are lamps that separately send [light]), but, united by light, they have an inseparable community of nature and action, and no one can distinguish in the air of the house: this is the light from this lamp or from another. Having said this, the teacher then moves from the triadology to the doctrine of the Economy and to the exodus of God the Word from the Father [into the world] according to His words: “I have come forth from My Father and am going to My Father” 1321 Dionysius: “If someone takes one of the lamps out of the house, then all its light will come out, without taking any of the other lights with it and without leaving its others.” 1322 He claims that the Son, having left the Father and settled in the world, did not bring either the Father or the Spirit with Himself and, having left, did not leave anything of His own to Them, but accomplished an indivisible exodus only through His Hypostasis. Then in the sixth part [of this chapter] Dionysius says: “Separated from the general beneficent action of God in our nature is the full and true perception from us of our essence, accomplished for us by the super-essential Word.” 1323 Interpretation: “Separately,” that is, separate from triadology and theology 1324, “the complete and true perception from us of our flesh,” that is, the meaning of the incarnation and Incarnation of Christ consisted in “His deeds and sufferings - the best, excellent deeds of His human divine activity.” He says: “the best, the excellent,” that is, pure and immaculate, corresponding to His human nature. These are the essence: birth, infancy, growth, hunger, thirst, suffering, sorrow, tears, saliva, sweat, blood, perforation, decay, flow [of blood from wounds], death, mortification, voicelessness, immobility. Then he adds, saying: “In this, neither the Father nor the Spirit participated in any way with the Word” 1325 Shame on Sevirus, shame on Dioscorus, Timothy and Eutyches, shame on Theodosius and Jacob, shame on the ten-horned forerunner of the Antichrist, who said: “Everything that applies to Christ also applies to the whole Trinity.” For clearly the apostolic luminary of the universe [Dionysius] says that God the Father and the Holy Spirit did not in any way participate together with Christ in what was accomplished in the flesh, what was united [with Him] in the flesh, “unless someone says that only thanks to a plausible and humane will” 1326 Only, he says, by will, glory and consent the Father and the Holy Spirit were connected with the meaning and image of the Incarnation of Christ, but they do not take part in their own Hypostases and remain alien, being outside of everything that, having become incarnate, God received the Word from the Virgin. To her be glory and strength forever and ever! Amen. We ask forgiveness from the hard workers, “for we, as Paul says, know in part,” 1327 we comprehend in part, we proclaim in part, and we affirm in part. For the divine, as much as it is knowable, is much more unknowable, since even the holy angels do not know perfectly everything that concerns God. I will also add the following to the book, as if I would put on some kind of solemn wedding crown. The Divine Old and New Law convinces through the mouth of two and three witnesses to confirm every word. 1328 So, at the Holy Council of 318 Holy Fathers in Nicaea it was said that nature and hypostasis are not the same thing, as we established above. Likewise, the First Ephesian Holy Council of 200 Holy Fathers, through the all-wise Cyril, established in front of all the people that essence and nature are different in comparison with hypostasis, that is, face. So, the 518 Fathers are the defenders of our Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church against the acephalous; after all, neither man nor all the powers of heaven can ever cancel or refute what the Fathers of these Holy Councils determined and predicted. Finally, when the acephalians repeatedly give us one or two sayings calling nature a face, we offer them a host of 518 Holy Fathers. After all, a greater number of votes has a greater significance regarding any thing, as the rules of the Holy Apostles of Christ established. To him be power and glory forever and ever! Amen. We urge those who are about to read the book to forgive us for many corrections or repetitions, for constant infirmities do not allow us to work on it as we would like. After all, these dogmas about Christ must be preceded by an introduction, typos corrected, punctuation marks placed and then rewritten in beautiful handwriting, but our like-minded people, due to negligence and indecisiveness, did not have the appropriate diligence and diligence in this. That's why, after finishing this notebook, we submitted [our essay] with grammatical errors. Naturally, if we expressed ourselves in a certain word or thought in an inappropriate way, we ask for forgiveness, because only God is infallible. In addition to all this, we fear that the future copyist will also introduce scholia, diligently interpreting accents, periods, commas and typos, because on another occasion, and out of ignorance, certain private changes made to our dogmatic manuscript filled it with blasphemous expressions. From the Editors of the ABC of Faith. The printed edition contains a significant number of typos in the Greek text, which we corrected in cases that were obvious to us, as a rule, without noting it. In case of more significant typographical errors, the corrections we made are indicated in the notes. Week H.-G. Kirche und theologische Literatur im byzantinischen Reich (Byzantinisches Handbuch, Zweiter Teil, Bd. I). München, 1959. S. 442. See, for example, the article devoted to the term φύσις in the dictionary ed. Lampe: A Patristic Greek Lexicon/Ed. by G. W. H. Lampe. Oxford, 1968, pp. 1497–1502. See, for example, Darling R., Griffith S. H. Anastasius of Sinai, the Monophysites and the Quran // Eighth Annual Byzantine Studies Conference. Chicago, 1982. P. 13–14; Griffith S. H. Anastasius of Sinai, the Hodegos and the Muslims // The Greek Orthodox Theological Review 32 (1987). P. 348–349; Sahas D. J. Anastasius of Sinai on Islam // Contacts between Cultures. V. I, 1990. P. 332–338; Lurie V. M. Theology of “Egyptians with the mind” // URL: http://hgr.narod.ru/dami.htm (access date: 05.14.18); Maksimov Yu. Reverend Anastasius Sinait about Islam // URL: http://www.pravoslavie.ru/put/apologetika/anastasijsinait-islam.htm (access date: 05.14.18). See, for example, Lebon J. La christologie du monophysisme syrien. Wurzburg, 1951; Govorun S. N. One complex Christ // Theological Bulletin. No. 4. Sergiev Posad, 2004. pp. 150–176. Spačil T. La teologia di santo Anastasio il Sinaita. Roma, 1923. Uthemann K.-H. Anastasios Sinaites. Berlin, Boston, 2015. URL: http://www.anastasiosofsinai.org (access date: 05.14.18). Νικηφόρος Κάλλιστος Ξανθόπουλος. See: Nikephoros Callistus Xanthopoulos. Synaxari Lenten and Colored Triodion / Trans. from Greek priest M. Pokrovsky. Sergiev Posad, 2008. P. 131. Sedova R. L. Alexy, Saint, Metropolitan of All Rus' And the Orthodox Encyclopedia. T. I. M., 2000. P. 639. See: Σάκκος Σ.Ν. Περὶ Ἀναστασίων Σιναϊτῶν. Θεσσαλονίκη, 1964. Σ. 23; Acta Sanctorum DataBase. Apr. II. Main volume text. XXI Aprilis. De s. Anastasio Presbytero monacho Sinaita in Arabia et s. Anastasio Patriarcha Antiociae in Syria [Commentarius] // URL: http://acta.chadwyck.co.uk/all/fulltext?ALL=Y&ACTION=byid&warn=N&div=4&id=Z400052880&FILE=../session/1223812373_2246&SOURCE=config.cfg&CURDB=acta (access date: 05.14.18) Menologii Graecorum // Patrologiae cursus completus. Series Graeca (hereinafter – PG) / Ed. par J.-P. Migne. Patrologiae cursus completus (series Graeca). En 161 t. Paris, 1847–1866. T. 117. Col. 413. See: Acta Sanctorum DataBase. Prologue. Book two. Months March-August. St. Petersburg, 1896. Sheet 112 vol. Macarius, Met. All-Russian. Great Menaion of Chetia. Column 637. Ἐν τῇ ἐμῇ πατρίδι Ἀμαθοῦντι. Quote by: Sidorov A.I. Venerable Anastasius Sinaite and his creations // Anastasius Sinaite, Venerable. Selected creations. M., 2003. P. 6. Here and below, a link to words from the “Guide” is given according to the critical edition (Anastasius Sinaita. Viae dux. Turnhout, Leuven, 1981), and after the semicolon there is a link to the page of this publication. Demetrius of Rostov, St. Lives of the saints in Russian, presented according to the guidance of the Chetiih-Mineas. Book 8. April. M., 1906. P. 301. Filaret (Gumilevsky), Archbishop. Historical teaching about the Fathers of the Church. T. 3. Sergiev Posad, 1996. P. 232; Filaret (Gumilevsky), Archbishop. Lives of saints revered by the Orthodox Church with information about the feasts of the Lord and the Mother of God and about the miraculous icons revealed. April. St. Petersburg, 1885. P. 135. See: Bibikov M.V., Loseva O.V. Anastasy Sinait // Orthodox Encyclopedia. T.II. M., 2001. P. 250. So in the publication. – Editorial of the ABC of Faith. See: Uthemann K.-N. Anastasios Sinaites. Berlin, Boston, 2015. S. 12. Levi della Vida G. Sulla versione araba di Giovanni Mosco e di Pseudo-Anastasio Sinaita secondo alcuni codici vaticani, in: Miscellanea Giovanni Mercati, III. Letteratura e storia bizantina (ST 123). Vatican, 1946, pp. 109–110. Binggeli A. Anastase le Sinaïte. Récits sur le Sinaï et Récits utiles à l'âme, Édition, traduction, commentaire. Paris, 2001. P. 356. Sidorov A.I. Venerable Anastasius of Sinaiti and his creations. S. 5. Demetrius of Rostov, St. Lives of the saints in Russian, presented according to the guidance of the Chetiih-Mineas. Book 8. April. P. 302. See: Uspensky F.I. History of the Byzantine Empire. VI–IX centuries M., 1999. S. 402, 444. John Moschus, blessed. Spiritual Meadow. Sergiev Posad, 1915. pp. 63–68. In chapters 48 and 49, presbyter Anastasius, sacristan of the Church of the Resurrection of Christ in Jerusalem, is mentioned, and in chapter 50, Abba Anastasius of Scythopolis is mentioned. Acta Sanctorum DataBase. Arg. II. Filaret (Gumilevsky), Archbishop. Historical teaching about the Fathers of the Church. T. 3. P. 233–234; Filaret (Gumilevsky), Archbishop. Lives of the Saints... April. P. 136. Sergius (Spassky), Archbishop. Complete Months of the East. T. III. M., 1997. P. 149. Anastasius Sinaita. Sermones duo in constitutionem hominis secundum imaginem Dei, necnon Opuscula adversus monotheletas. Turnhout, Leuven, 1985. Let us note, for example, the ascetic works of St. Basil the Great: “Rules set out at length in questions and answers” ​​and “Rules set out briefly in questions and answers”, as well as “Questions and answers to Thalassius” by St. Maximus the Confessor. Anastasius Sinaita, episcopus Antiochenus. Interrogationes et responsiones // PG 89. Col. 311–824. Anastasius Sinaita. Quastiones et responses. Turnhout. Leuven, 2006. Anastasius Sinait, St. Questions and answers. M., 2015. Bibikov M.V. Byzantine prototype of the oldest Slavic book (Svyatoslav's Collection of 1073). M. Monuments of historical thought, 1996. 403 p. Anastasius presbyter Sinaita. Sermo III // PG 89. Col. 1151–1180. Anastasius patriarcha Antiochenus. E sermone: Secundum imaginem, fragmentum // PG 89/ Col. 1143–1148. Gregorii Nysseni. Ad imaginem Dei et ad similitudinem // PG 44. Col. 1327–1346. See, for example, Cyprian (Kern), archimandrite. Anthropology of St. Gregory Palamas. M., 1996. pp. 157–159, 208. Anastasius Sinait, St. From the Word about the Image of God (Excerpt). Anastasia Presbyter on Mount Sinai Sermon 3. Anastasia Presbytera Word about God's creation in the image and likeness (Excerpt) / Trans. from Greek student Valentin Metallov // Proceedings of students of the Imperial Moscow Theological Academy. Vol. II. Sergiev Posad, 1915. Anastasius Sinaita. Sermones duo in constitutionem hominis secundum imaginem Dei, necnon Opuscula adversus monotheletas. Turnhout. Leuven, 1985, pp. 1–83. Anastasius Sinait, St. Three words about the structure of man in the image and likeness of God // Alpha and Omega. M. No. 4 (18), 1998. P. 89–118; No. 1 (19), 1999. pp. 72–91; No. 2 (20), 1999. pp. 108–146. Anastasius Sinait, St. Selected creations. M., 2003. pp. 25–189. Adrian (Pashin), priest. Anthropology of St. Anastasius Sinaita: Thesis / Typescript. M., 2005. Adrian (Pashin), priest. The image of the Trinity in the division of humanity into hypostases. Part 1 And URL: http://www.pravoslavie.ru/put/070221172013 (access date: 05.14.18); The image of the Trinity in the division of humanity into hypostases. Part 2 URL: http://www.pravoslavie.ru/put/070222144718 (access date: 05.14.18); Anthropological analogy in the Christology of St. Anastasius Sinaita And URL: http://www.pravoslavie.ru/put/070223153428 (access date: 05.14.18); The Creation of Adam // URL: http://www.pravoslavie.ru/put/070226113432 (access date: 05.14.18); Adam's dream, Eve's creation // URL: http://www.pravoslavie.ru/put/070227121157 (access date: 05.14.18); The Fall, leather vestments. Part 1 // URL: http://www.pravoslavie.ru/put/070228145835 (access date: 05.14.18); The Fall, leather vestments. Part 2 // URL: http://www.pravoslavie.ru/put/070301105445 (access date: 05.14.18). Anastasius Sinaita. Sermones duo in constitutionem hominis secundum imaginem Dei, necnon Opuscula adversus monotheletas. P. 84–96 and P. 97–157. See: Clavius ​​Patrum Graecorum. V. III. A Cyrillo Alexandrino ad Iohannem Damascenum. Cura et studio Mauritii Geerarrd. Brepols, 1979. P. 458. [Here and below in the edition Clavius ​​instead of Clavis. – Editorial of the ABC of Faith] See: Clavius Patrum Graecorum. V. III. P. 458–462. Nau F. Le texte grec des récits du moine Anastase sur les saints pères du Sinai // Oriens Christianus 2 (1902). P. 58–89; Nau F. Le texte grec des récits utils à l’âme d’Anastase (le Sinaite) // Oriens Christianus 3 (1903). P. 56–88. Binggeli A. Anastase le Sinaite: Récits sur le Sinai et Récits utiles à l’âme. Edition, traduction, commentaire. Ihese. Paris. 2001. See: Uthemann K.-H. Anastasios Sinaites. Berlin, Boston, 2015. S. 333. Anastasius Sinaita. Oratio in Sextum psalmum // PG 89. Col. 1077–1116; Anastasius Sinaita. Homilia dicta in Sextum psalmum PG 89, 1115–1144. See: Clavius ​​Patrum Graecorum. V. III. P. 456. Uthemann K.-H. Anastasios Sinaites. Berlin, Boston, 2015. S. 364–372; Bibikov M.B., Loseva O.V. Anastasy Sinait // Orthodox Encyclopedia. T. II. P. 250; Sidorov A.I. Venerable Anastasius of Sinaiti and his creations. pp. 11–13. The Russian translation by M. V. Nikiforov with comments is given in the publication: Anastasius Sinait, St. Selected creations. pp. 273–300. Published in: Guillou A. Le monastère de la Théotokos au Sinaï. Homélie inedited d'Anastase le Sinaïte sur la Transfiguration // Mélanges d'archéologie et d'histore 67 (1955), p. 216–258 (textus, p. 237–257). Wed. Matthew 17:1-4; Mark 9:1–5. See: Uthemann K.-N. Anastasios Sinaites. Berlin, Boston, 2015, pp. 358–364. Such emphasis in the publication. – Editorial of the ABC of Faith Anastasius Sinaita. Oratio de Sacra Synaxi // PG 89. Col. 825–849. Uthemann K.-H. Anastasios Sinaites. Berlin, Boston, 2015, pp. 372–378. Anastasius Sinait, St. Selected creations. pp. 301–319. See: Clavius ​​Patrum Graecorum. V. III. R. 456–457. Anastasius Abbas. Adversus Judaeos disputatio // PG 89. Col. 1203–1282. Uthemann K.-H. Anastasios Sinaites. Berlin, Boston, 2015, pp. 378–390. Σάκκος Σ. N. Περὶ Ἀναστασίων Σιναϊτῶν. Θεσσαλονίκη, 1964. S. 194–199. Anastasius Sinaita. Sermo in defunctos perutilis // PG 89. Col. 1191–1202. Ephraim the Syrian, St. Creations. T. 3. M.: Publishing Department of MP, 1994. P. 236–250. Bibikov M.V., Loseva O.V. Anastasy Sinait // Orthodox Encyclopedia. T. II. pp. 250–251; Sidorov A.I. Venerable Anastasius of Sinaiti and his creations. P. 14. Prologue. Book two. Months March–August. Sheet 46–46 vol. Prologue. Book two. Months March–August. Sheet 72 vol.–73. Prologue. Book two. Months March–August. Sheet 112 vol.–113. Prologue. Book two. Months March–August. Sheet 113–113 vol. See: Clavius ​​Patrum Graecorum. V. III. R. 462–465. Diekamp F. Doctrina Patrum de Incarnatione Verbi. Ein griechisches Florilegium aus der Wende des siebenten und achten Jahrhunderts, Münster i. W., 1907. Anastasius Sinaita. Libri duodecim // PG 89. Col. 851–1078. Baggarly J. D. The Conjugates of Christ-Church in the Hexaemeron of Ps.-Anastasius of Sinai: Textual Foundation and Theological Context. Roma, 1974. Kuehn S. A, Baggarly J. D. Anastasius of Sinai. HEXAEMERON, OCA 278. Rom, 2007. Uthemann K.-H. Anastasios Sinaites. Berlin, Boston, 2015, pp. 738–769. Adrian (Pashin), abbot. “Eucharistic” argument in the polemics of St. Anastasius Sinaite with the Aftartodokets // Theological Bulletin. No. 16–17. Sergiev Posad, 2015. pp. 56–68. See, for example, Gratsiansky M.V. Anastasius I Sinaite // Orthodox Encyclopedia. T. II. M., 2001. P. 243. Anastasius Sinaita, episcopus Antiochenus. Viae dux adversus acephalos // PG 89. Col. 35–310. See: Pauline A. Reviews // Vigiliae Christianae, Vol. 36, No. 3. (Sep., 1982), E.J. Brill, Leiden. P. 294. Cave G. Scriptorum ecclesiasticorum historia literaria, Genevae, 1720. Oudinus S. Commentarius de scriptoribus ecclesiae antiques, I–II, Lipsiae, 1722. Fabricius J. A. Biblioteca Graeca sive Notitia Scriptorum Veterum Graecorum, Editio noua curante Gottlieb Christophoro Harles, X, Hamburgi, 1807. S. Anastasius Sinaita, Antiochenus patriarha.Notitia // PG 89. Col. 9–18. Kumpfmüller J. De Anastasio Sinaita. Dissertatio, Würzburg, 1865. Maspero J. Histore des patriarches d’Alexandre depuis la mort de l’empereur Anastase jusqu’à la réconciliation des églises jacobites (518–616). Ouvrage revu et publié après la mort de l'auteur par Adrian Fortescue et Gaston Wiet (Bibliothèque de l'École des Hautes Études, 237), Paris, 1923, pp. 336–342. Jülicher A. Zur Geschicte der Monophysitenkirche // Zeitschbrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschbaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche 24 (1925). Giessen-Berlin, 17–43. Richard M. Anastase le Sinaïte, l’Hodegos et le Monothélisme // Revue des Études Byzantines 16 (1958). Paris, 29–42. Beck H.-G. Kirche und theologische Literatur im byzantinischen Reich (Byzantinisches Handbuch im Rahmen des Handbuchs der Altertumswissenschalft, Zweiter Teii, Erster Band), München, 1959. S. 442–446. Weiss G. Studien zum Leben, zu den Schriften und zur Theologie des Patriarchen Anastasius I von Antiochien (559–598), in: Studia Anastasiana, I. (Miscellanea Byzantina Mjnacensia, 4), München, 1965. S. 74–84. Clavius ​​Patrum Graecorum. V. III. A Cyrillo Alexandrino ad Iohannem Damascenum. Cura et studio Mauritii Geerarrd. Brepols - Turnhout, 1979, pp. 313–319, 453–465. See: Anastasius Sinaita. Viae dux. P. XXXIII. Χρυσός E.K. Νεώτεραι ἔρευναι περὶ Ἀναστασίων Σιναϊτῶν, Κληρονομιά 1 (1969). S. 121–144. Σάκκος Σ.Ν. Περὶ Ἀναστασίων Σιναϊτῶν. Θεσσαλονίκη, 1964. Σ. 108. Athanasius. Liber de definitionibus // PG 28. Col. 533–554. Anastasius Sinaita. Viae dux. P. XL–XLIX. Σάκκος Σ.Ν. Περὶ Ἀναστασίων Σιναϊτῶν. Θεσσαλονίκη, 1964. Σ. 187–221. Anastasius Sinaita. Viae dux. P.CCX. See, for example, Bolotov V.V. History of the Church during the period of the Ecumenical Councils: History of theological thought. M., 2007. P. 522. Σάκκος Σ.Ν. Περὶ Ἀναστασίων Σιναϊτῶν. Θεσσαλονίκη, 1964. Σ. 125. Schwyzer E. Griechische Grammatik, Ι–ΙΙ (Handbuch der Altertumswissenschaft, Zweite Abteilung. Erster Teil. Erster und Zweiter Band), München, 1968. Anastasius Sinaita. Viae dux. P.CCVIII. Athanasius. Liber de definitionibus II PG 28. Col. 533–554. Anastasius Sinaita. Viae dux. P. CCXXI–CCXLIII. . About definitions / Transl. V. V. Baskakova // Alpha and Omega. No. 4 (38). M., 2003. P. 63. Anastasius Sinaita. Viae dux. P. CCIX–CCXLIII. Weiss G. Studien zum Leben, zu den Schriften und zur Theologie des Patriarchen Anastasius I von Antiochien (559–598) // Studia Anastasiana, I. (Miscellanea Byzantina Mjnacensia, 4), München, 1965. S. 74–84. . About definitions / Transl. V. V. Baskakova // Alpha and Omega. No. 4 (38). M., 2003. P. 64. Chaîne M. La chronologie des temps chrétiens de l’Égypte et de l’Éthiopie, Paris, 1925. Theodosius was installed at the See of Alexandria by Severus in 535 in opposition to Guyan, who was installed by Julian of Halicarnassus. Thus, Theodosius, together with Sevier, became the hierarchical founder of the Jacobite Church (Bolotov V.V. History of the Church during the period of the Ecumenical Councils: History of Theological Thought. M., 2007. P. 396). Anastasius Sinaita. Viae dux. P. LXV–CCV. Anastasius Sinaita. Viae dux. Turnhout. Leuven, 1981. We have corrected a typo in the publication: ἀφθαρτοδοκῆτοι. – Editorial of the ABC of Faith. See, for example, Zarin S. Asceticism according to Orthodox Christian teaching. M., 1996. pp. 392–394, 577–582. Vladimir Lossky discusses the importance of dogmas and dogmatic systems in the spiritual and mystical life of a person in his work “Essay on the mystical theology of the Eastern Church”: Lossky V.N. God-vision. M., 2003. pp. 113–115. We know about this theologian mainly only from Sevier’s book “Against Grammar,” published in 519 after the overthrow of Sevier from the see of the Patriarch of Antioch (512–518). The “Apology of the Council of Chalcedon” itself by Presbyter John the Grammar has not survived and can be partially reconstructed precisely based on the polemic against it by Sevier. John the Grammar was one of the first Orthodox theologians who began to apply the triadological terminology developed by the Cappadocians in Christology. (Grillmeier A. Christ in Christian Tradition. V.2: From the Council of Chalkedon (451) to Gregory the Great (590–604). Part 2: The Church of Constantinople in the sixth century. London, Louisville (Kentucky): Mowbray, WJK, 1995. P. 24–25). The most detailed information in Russian about this apologist of the Council of Chalcedon can be found in the candidate’s dissertation prepared at the Moscow Theological Academy and defended in the All-Church graduate and doctoral studies - Kozhukhov S. A. Terminology of John of Caesarea Grammar. M., 2013. The publication of a monograph based on this dissertation is expected in the near future. According to the testimony of St. Epiphany of Cyprus (On Weights and Measures, Chapters 14–15. About the Seventy Interpreters and Those Who Falsely Interpreted the Holy Scriptures) Aquila came from pagans and was the father-in-law of the Roman Emperor Hadrian (117–138). Having become a Christian, he did not abandon his previous studies in astrology. The reproofs and admonitions of Christian teachers led him not to repentance, but to a renunciation of Christianity and conversion to Judaism. It was then (about 125) that he compiled his translation of the Old Testament into Greek. Aquila’s tendentious, anti-Christian translation of the messianic passages of the Old Testament is also evidenced by schmch. Irenaeus of Lyons (Against heresies. III 21. 1). Origen placed this translation in the third column of his Hexaples (See: Tov E. Textology of the Old Testament. M., 2003. pp. 140–141). Adrian (Pashin), priest. Anthropology of St. Anastasius Sinaita: Thesis / Typescript. M. Sretenskaya Theological Seminary, 2005. We will talk about this in more detail in paragraph 3.2. Νυστάζων - lazy, dozing. Αὐγουστάλιος - imperial prefect of Egypt. The Monk Anastasius uses a secondary source: he takes a quote from Philo from the polemic of the now little-known defender of the Council of Chalcedon, Ammonius of Alexandria (5th or 6th century) against the founder of Aphthartodocetism, Julian of Halicarnax. Works of St. Ammonium survived only in fragments. See: E.P.G. Ammonius of Alexandria // Orthodox Encyclopedia. T. II. M., 2001. P. 174. Porfiry's anti-Christian works have not survived. Some phrases from these works were preserved by the Holy Fathers, who polemicized with Porfiry. See, for example, Oleg Davydenkov, priest. Christological system of Sevirus of Antioch: Dogmatic analysis. M., 2007. P. 18. Severi Antiocheni orationes ad Nephalium, ed. et trad. J. Lebon. Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium 119, 120; Scryptores Syri 4, 7. Louvain, 1949. Richard M. Iohannis Caesariensis presbyteri et grammatici opera qui supersunt. Turnhout, 1977, pp. 6–58. Theodore Raifsky. Preparation // Anastasius Sinait, St. Selected creations. M., 2003. pp. 375–458. Sidorov A.I. Presbyter Theodore of Raifa and his work // Anastasius of Sinaite, St. Selected creations. M., 2003. pp. 371–374. Severi Antiocheni liber contra impium Grammaticum, ed. et trad. J. Lebon. CSCO 93, 94; 101, 102; 111, 112; Scryptores Syri 45, 46; 50, 51; 58, 59. Paris, Louvain, 1929–1938. Davydenkov O., priest. Christological system of Sevirus of Antioch: Dogmatic analysis. M.: PSTGU, 2007. pp. 19–20. See, for example, A Patristic Greek Lexicon / Ed. by G. W. H. Lampe. Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1968. XLIX, 1586 p. ὅρασις (in the text ὁράσεις) ὁρίζω – literally: to limit, to determine (that is, to set limits). Hence the word "horizon". The classical ancient definition of man, also adopted by Christian authors. See, for example, Porfiry. Introduction to Aristotle's categories, ch. 7: “There is one genus for each species, for example, for a person there is a living being, and there are several distinguishing characteristics, for example, rationality, mortality, the ability to have thought and knowledge, how (what properties) he (a person) differs from other living beings.” ἕστι δ’ ὅρος μὲν λόγος ὁ τὸ τί ἦν εἶναι σημαίνων (Thesaurus linguae graecae on-line (hereinafter – TLG): Thor 101b.38). This is a translation from the academic edition of Aristotle (Aristotle. Works in four volumes. T. 2. M., 1978. pp. 352–353). A. F. Losev translated the Aristotelian term “τὸ τί ἦν εἶναι” (literally, “that which came to be”) with the word “whatness,” which also indicates the essence of a thing (see: Losev A. F. History of Ancient Aesthetics. Aristotle and Late Classics. M., 1975, pp. 94–95). Ὁριστικός λόγος καὶ ὁ τῆς οὐσίας δηλωτικὸς λόγος, ὅστις ἐστὶν ὁρισμός (TLG: In Aristotelis categorias expositio per interrogationem et 4,1.65.10) Ὁρισμός ἐστι λόγος σύντομος δηλωτικὸς τῆς φύσεως τοῦ ὑποκειμένου πράγματος τουτέστιν ὁ λόγος ὁ δι’ ὀλίγου σημαίνων τὴν φύσιν τοῦ ὑποκειμένου πράγματος. “A statement is the saying of something about something. Negation is a statement [taking away] something from something” (Aristotle. Categories 17a. 25–27). John of Damascus, St. Source of knowledge. M." 2002. P. 113. Aristotle. Categories 2a.11–14. TLG: Fragmenta 37.6–7 (ex. Maximus Confessor Opp. ed. Combefis. Paris 1675. II p. Ἀλεξανδρείας ἐκ τοῦ Περὶ προνοίας). See: Sokolov V., priest. Leonty of Byzantium: his life and literary works // Leonty of Byzantium: Collection of studies. M., 2006. P. 291. John of Damascus, St. Philosophical chapters. Ch. XLI. I, 2, 22–23; 151. VIII, 2, 9–10; 224. VIII, 2, 69–70; 226. VIII, 5, 22; 232. VIII, 5, 27; 232. VIII, 5, 33; 232. VIII, 5, 49; 232. VIII, 5, 68–69; 233. VIII, 5, 77; 233. VIII, 5, 80–82; 233. VIII, 5, 85–86; 234. VIII, 5, 90; 234. X.2, 4, 21–22; 257. X.2, 4, 27; 257. XIII, 6, 118; 299.XIV, 1.11; 315.XX, 45; 332. See: Asmus V.F. Ancient philosophy. M." 1998. pp. 195–203. Aristotle. Categories 2a.14–18. TLG: Epistulae 236.6.1-2: ἔχει τὸ κοινὸν πρὸς τὸ καθ’ ἕκαστον. Ἡ γὰρ φύσις, ὅ ἐστιν οὐσία, ἐν πολλοῖς ἐξ ἴσου θεωρεῖται, ὡς ἀποδέδεικται (Apologia concilii Chalcedonensis. TLG: Work #001 10–11). Aristotle. Physics 192b.l0–24. Aristotle. Physics 192b.15–19. See, for example, Spassky A. History of dogmatic movements in the era of the Ecumenical Councils (in connection with the philosophical teachings of that time). M., 1995. pp. 496–497. Spassky A. History of dogmatic movements in the era of the Ecumenical Councils. P. 497. Aristotle. Topeka 102a.18–23. Aristotle. Topeka 102b.4–9. See, for example, Mayorov G.G. Philosophy as a search for the Absolute. Theoretical and historical experiments. M., 2004. S. 53–54, 281; Asmus V.F. Ancient philosophy. M., 1998. P. 392. Chapters 4 and 5 "Introduction to Aristotle's Categories." TLG: In Aristotelis categorias expositio per interrogationem et 4,1.71.20–22. We have corrected a typo in the publication: χαραστηριστική. – Editorial of the ABC of Faith. TLG: Isagoge sive quinque voces 4,1.12.26. We will talk about the meaning of the term ἐνυπόστατον by the Monk Anastasius below. TLG: Isagoge sive quinque voces 4,1.12.17–21. TLG: Dialectica 13.13–14. TLG: Dialectica 13.19–20. The Monk Anastasius - II, 4, 39–42; 168; St. John has Philosophical Chapters. Ch. 13. The Monk Anastasius uses the “Eucharistic” argument in the dispute with the Aphthartodocetes, which took place in Alexandria and is described in the twenty-third chapter of the Guide. At the same time, Sinait does not talk about accidents. We will discuss in more detail the polemics of the Monk Anastasius with aphthartodocetism in paragraph 3.6. Aristotle. Categories 1b.25–2a-10. See: Asmus V.F. Ancient philosophy. M., 1998. P. 268. Diekamp F. Doctrina Patrum de Incarnatione Verbi. Ein griechisches Florilegium aus der Wende des siebenten und achten Jahrhunderts, Münster i. W., 1907. S. 14–15. We have corrected a typo in the publication: ἔργος. – Editorial of the ABC of Faith. Here and below we have corrected typos in the edition: θεωρητικὰ and ἀναγγελτικὰ. – Editorial of the ABC of Faith. “The appearance of a man is straight and stretching towards the sky, and he looks up. And this signifies his superiority and royal dignity. After all, the mere fact that of all beings, only man is such, and that of all the others, the bodies have sunk to the ground, clearly shows the difference in the dignity of those who bowed to dominion and the power that has risen above them” (Gregory of Nyssa, St. On the Structure of Man. St. Petersburg, 2000. P. 30). “The name “man” means that, while other animals do not observe what they see, do not make comparisons, do not compare anything, a person, as soon as he sees something, or one might say “catch it with his eyes,” begins to look closely and reflect on what he caught. That is why he alone, of all animals, is correctly called “man,” because he is, as it were, a “person” of what he sees” (Plato. Cratylus 399 pp. 1–6). See: Govorun Sergius, deacon. On the history of the term ἐνυπόστατον “hypostatic” // Leontius of Byzantium: collection of studies. M." 2006. pp. 655–656. TLG: Adversus Eunomium 29.713.30–31. See: Govorun Sergius, deacon. On the history of the term ένυπόστατον “hypostatic”. P. 656. We have corrected a typo in the publication: ἐνυπόστατον. – Editorial of the ABC of Faith. Quote By: Govorun Sergius, deacon. On the history of the term ένυπόστατον “hypostatic”. pp. 657–658. Leontius of Byzantium. Against Nestorius and Eutyches. Exposure and refutation of the opposing teachings of Nestorius and Eutyches about the deity and humanity of Christ // Church and Time. No. 2 (15). M." 2001. P. 232. TLG: Dialectica 45.17–22. Πάντοτε γὰρ ἐνεργὸν καὶ ἐνούσιον καὶ ἐνυπόστατον τῇ ἀϊδίῳ (TLG: Contra Eunomium) 3.6.17.8–10). Aristotle. Metaphysics 1039. a.9–10. That is, Christ, deprived of his human mind. Gregory the Theologian, St. Collection of works in two volumes. T. 2. Minsk, M., 2000. P. 12. That is, “Lover of truth”, “Lover of truth” - this is what Sevier calls St. Kirill. The Monk Anastasius says that the title “Φιλόμυθος” (lover of fables, chatterbox – VI, 1, 87; 210) is more consistent with the content of the book. The Monk Anastasius refers to the “Church History” of Eusebius Pamphilus (VII, 2, 6–9; 217) Book V, Chapter XXVIII. Davydenkov O., priest. Dogmatic theology: a textbook. M., 2005. P. 106. See for more details, for example, Bolotov V.V. History of the Church during the period of the Ecumenical Councils: History of theological thought. M., 2007. pp. 273–278. Cyril Bishop of Alexandria about Paul, who spoke before, and about the Incarnation of the Lord. Acta Conciliorum Oecumenicorum (hereinafter referred to as ACO) / Ed. par E. Schwartz. Series prima. En 4 t. (28 parts). Berolini, 1914–1974. Series seconds. Berolini, 1984 – . S I, t 1, v. 4, p. 15; Acts of the Ecumenical Councils (hereinafter – AC). In 4 volumes. Kazan, 1908–1913. T. 1. P. 540. See the Russian translation of the Message: Eastern Fathers and Teachers of the Church of the 5th Century: An Anthology. Cyril of Alexandria, Theodoret of Cyrus, "Corpus Areopagiticum". M., 2000. pp. 110–113. Expositio fidei 51.45–47. See: Cyril of Alexandria, St. Memorial note from the most God-loving and holy Archbishop Kirill to His Beatitude Sukkens, Bishop of Diocaesarea, Isaurian Diocese // Theological Bulletin. No. 10. Sergiev Posad, 2010. pp. 17–24. See, for example, Bolotov V.V. History of the Church during the period of the Ecumenical Councils: History of theological thought. M., 2007. pp. 118–120. 216 ASO 4, 2, 191, 20–21. Gregory the Theologian, St. Collection of works in two volumes. T. 2. Minsk, M., 2000. P. 11. Quote by: Seleznev N. Christology of the Assyrian Church of the East. Analysis of basic materials in the context of the history of the formation of religious doctrine. M., 2002. P. 44. Eastern Fathers and teachers of the Church of the 5th century. Anthology. Cyril of Alexandria, Theodoret of Cyrrhus, "Corpus Areopagiticum". M., 2000. P. 43. Quote by: Govorun S.N. One complex Christ // Theological Bulletin. No. 4. Sergiev Posad, 2004. P. 154. Plato. State. 514a–517d. “What I did not consider with myself in my loving mind, what I did not enrich my mind with, where I did not look for similarities for this, but did not find anything to which God’s nature could be applied. If some small similarity is found, then much more eludes... Following the example of others, I imagined a spring, a spring and a stream and reasoned: don’t the Father have similarities with one, the Son with another, and the Holy Spirit with a third? For the spring, the spring and the stream are not separated by time and their coexistence is continuous, although it seems that they are separated by three properties. But I was afraid, firstly, so as not to allow some kind of flow in the Divinity that never stops, and secondly, so as not to introduce numerical unity with such a similarity. For the spring, the spring and the stream are one in relation to number, but they are different only in the image of representation. I again took into consideration the sun, the ray and the light. But here, too, there is a fear lest in the uncomplicated nature of God we introduce any complexity noticeable in the sun and in that which is from the sun; secondly, so that, by attributing essence to the Father, we do not deprive the other Persons of their independence and make them the powers of God, which exist in the Father, but are not independent. Because both the ray and the light are not the sun, but some solar outpourings... Thirdly, so as not to attribute to God both existence and non-existence (to what conclusion can this example lead), and this is even more absurd than what was said before... Finally, I concluded that it is best to retreat from all images and shadows, as deceptive and not reaching the truth, and to adhere to a more pious way of thinking, focusing on a few sayings (of Scripture), to have as a guide Spirit, and what illumination was received from Him, then, preserving to the end, with Him, as with a sincere accomplice and interlocutor, go through the present century, and, to the best of your ability, convince others to worship the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit - the one Divinity and the one Power.” (Gregory the Theologian, St. Collection of works in two volumes. T. 1. Minsk, M., 2000. P. 560–561. From Word 45). See, for example, Govorun S.N. One complex Christ. P. 155. See: Govorun S.N. One complex Christ. pp. 157–158. Leontius of Byzantium. Against Nestorius and Eutyches. Exposure and refutation of the opposing teachings of Nestorius and Eutyches about the deity and humanity of Christ. Both the Church and the time. No. 2 (15). M., 2001. P. 234. Aristotle. Categories 1b:6–7. See: Govorun S.N. One complex Christ. P. 157. Here are other arguments of St. Maximus against the teaching about the complex nature of Christ. We will discuss the concept of “smoldering” in paragraph 3.6. Max. Conf. Er. XV, PG 91, 556CD. Transl. by: Govorun S.N. One complex Christ. pp. 162–163. Cyril of Alexandria, St. Another memorial note, written in response to questions to us about the same thing, and also to Sukkens // Theological Bulletin. No. 10. Sergiev Posad, 2010. pp. 30–31. That is, the whole is against Apollinaris. For more details on the positive and negative aspects of the anthropological paradigm, see: Chursanov S. A. Anthropological analogy in Orthodox Christology and the Church and time. No. 1 (38). M., 2007. pp. 208–220. Anastasius Sinait, St. Selected creations. M., 2003. P. 82. Anastasius Sinait, St. Questions and answers. M., 2015. P. 50. See: Bolotov V.V. History of the Church during the period of the Ecumenical Councils: History of theological thought. M., 2007. pp. 230–231. Probably means the form named after. case ἰδιότης. – Editorial of the ABC of Faith. For more details, see: Grillmeier A. Christ in Christian Tradition. V. 2: From the Council of Chakedon (451) to Gregory the Great (590–604). Part 2: The Church of Constantinople in the sixth century / In collaboration with Theresia Hainthaler, translated by John Cawte & Pauline Allen. London, Louisville (Kentucky), 1995, pp. 83–87; Davydenkov O., priest. Christological system of Sevirus of Antioch: Dogmatic analysis. M., 2007. P. 209–218; Davydenkov O., priest. The great mystery of piety: God appeared in the flesh. M., 2002. pp. 74–78. See: John Meyendorff, prot. Christ in Eastern Orthodox theology. M., 2000. pp. 38–39. For more details, see: Bolotov V.V. History of the Church during the period of the Ecumenical Councils: History of theological thought. pp. 412–416. Lurie V. M. Theology of “Egyptians with the mind” // URL: http://hgr.narod.ru/dami.htm (access date: 05.14.18). Troitsky I. Exposition of the faith of the Armenian Church, inscribed by Nerses, the Armenian Catholicos, at the request of the God-loving sovereign of the Greeks Manuel: Historical and dogmatic exposition in connection with the question of the reunification of the Armenian Church with the Orthodox. St. Petersburg, 1875. pp. 147–148. Adversus Aphthartodocetas // Richard M. Iohannis Caesariensis presbyteri et grammatici opera qui supersunt // Corpus Cristianorum. Serie greaca. Turnhout, 1977 (trad. Latine). P. 69–78. Gratsiansky M.V. Gayan // Orthodox Encyclopedia. Τ.Χ. M., 2005. pp. 276–277. Davydenkov O., priest. Aftartodoketism // Orthodox Encyclopedia. T. IV. M., 2002. pp. 193–194. Corrected by us. In the edition - δύο φύσις. – Editorial of the ABC of Faith. Quote by: Troitsky I. Statement of the Faith of the Armenian Church... P. 148. For the family tree of the Monophysite sects, see: Bolotov V.V. History of the Church during the period of the Ecumenical Councils: History of theological thought. M., 2007. pp. 418–420. Davydenkov O., priest. Aphthartodocetism. pp. 193–194. Works of St. Ammonium of Alexandria survives only in fragments. The work of Philo of Alexandria, which is quoted by St. Ammonium. Constantinople monk, writer. In his youth he practiced magic, but then repented and took monastic vows. During the reign of the Patriarch of Constantinople George II Xiphilinus (1191–1198), without encountering opposition from the spiritual authorities, began to develop in his writings and disseminate his false teaching about the corruption of the Eucharistic Body of Christ. He had many followers. Anathematized by Patriarch John X Kamathir of Constantinople (1198–1206). Some historians identify him with the historian Mikhail Glika (died before 1204). See: Ermilov P.V. Dogmatic disputes about the Eucharist in Byzantium in the 12th century: Report at the V International Theological Conference of the Russian Orthodox Church “Orthodox teaching on the Church Sacraments.” Moscow, November 13–16, 2007. 6 p. [typescript]. The image of the union of humanity and Divinity in Christ, in the likeness of a drop of vinegar dissolving in the abyss of the sea, belongs to St. Gregory of Nyssa Preserved in fragments. Anastasius Sinaita. Sermones duo in constitutionem hominis secundum imaginem Dei, necnon Opuscula adversus monotheletas. P. 84–157. See, for example: Davydenkov Oleg, priest. Christological system of Sevirus of Antioch: Dogmatic analysis. M., 2007. pp. 139–142. Translation from: Govorun S.N. One complex Christ. P. 169. Compare: Dionysius the Areopagite. On Divine Names, 2, 10. Compare: Dionysius the Areopagite. Message 4, Gaius the servant. See: Govorun S.N. One complex Christ. pp. 169–173. Quote by: Davydenkov O., priest. Christological system of Sevirus of Antioch: Dogmatic analysis. P. 146. Dispute with Pyrrhus: St. Maximus the Confessor and Christological disputes of the 7th century. M., 2004. pp. 148–151. Opuscula Theologica et Polemica 20. 236C. Translation cit. by: Maximus the Confessor: polemics with Origenism and monoenergism. St. Petersburg, 2007. P. 39. Anastasius Sinaita. Sermones duo in constitutionem hominis secundum imaginem Dei, necnon Opuscula adversus monotheletas. Turnhout. Leuven, 1985. Anastasius Sinaita. Sermones... “And again the movement was shown by the One who put death to death in the flesh, so that He who began to possess nature as a man would reveal in Himself that which is being saved, and as God - the ineffable and great counsel of the Father and God, fulfilled bodily, for He first became a man not in order to suffer, but to save. That is why He says: My Father! if possible, let this cup pass from Me; however, not as I want, but as You want (Matthew 26:39). Through tightness He reveals the movement of human will, which is imprinted and carried out together with the Divine will...” (To Marin, from an essay on actions and wills, chapter 51)). With these words, St. Maximus the Confessor points out “the direction of the movement of the human will of the Savior, which, from a state of natural fear, having overcome it, strives for suffering that saves us” (Dionysius (Shlenov), hierome. Gethsemane prayer in the light of the Christology of St. Maximus the Confessor and Dispute with Pyrrhus: St. Maximus the Confessor and Christological disputes of the 7th century. M., 2004. P. 352). Dionysius (Shlenov), priest. Gethsemane prayer in the light of the Christology of St. Maximus the Confessor // Dispute with Pyrrhus: St. Maximus the Confessor and Christological disputes of the 7th century. M., 2004. P. 356. Anastasius Sinait, St. Selected creations. M., 2003. P. 127. For a more detailed analysis of the ontological status of Christ’s humanity in Sevier’s Christology, see: O. Davydenkov, priest. Christological system of Sevirus of Antioch: Dogmatic analysis. pp. 231–242. Compare: Matthew 5:8 (Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God); Athanasius the Great, St. Word on the Incarnation of God Word 57, 1-8 (But for the study and correct understanding of the Holy Scriptures, a good life and a pure soul and Christian dignity are needed to lead the mind through understanding, as far as human nature allows, the truth about God's Word. It is impossible to understand the teaching of the saints unless a person has a pure mind, but tries to imitate their life. Anyone who wants to look at the sunlight will naturally rub his eyes, having cleansed them first, so that a little come closer to the purity he is looking at). Wed: Exodus 12:46; Numbers 9:12; Proverbs 23:15; Isa.33:3; John 19:36. An example of such factual or material (πραγματικός) evidence is given by the Monk Anastasius in chapters XII and XXIII of the Guide. The eighth part of the thirteenth chapter of the Guide. We will translate the word φύσις and derivatives from it with the words “nature” and “nature” and derivatives from them. We will try to translate the word ἐνέργεια (action) and its derivatives in translation with the word “energy” and its derivatives. Wed: Matthew 15:21–28; Mark 7:24–30. Wed: Mark 8:22–26; John 9:1–7. Wed: Matthew 14:13–21; Mark 6:31–44. Wed: Matthew 14:25–34; Mark 6:48–53; John 6:19–21. Compare: Ps.117:22–23; Matthew 21:42; Mark 12:10; Luke 10:17; Eph.2:20; 1 Pet. 2:6–8. That is, in order to understand the fatherly teaching about Christ through knowledge of Christological definitions. See, for example, Aristotle. Physics 1, 9: “opposites destroy each other”; Physics 8, 8: “opposites destroy each other and interfere with each other.” Another postulate of Aristotle’s philosophy that is important for the history of theology: it is impossible “for an essence to consist of essences that would be in it in [a state of] complete fulfillment: what in this state of fulfillment forms two things can never represent one thing in the same state” (Metaphysics 1039. a.9–10). In the era of Christological disputes, this position was formulated by theologians as follows: “there is no non-hypostatic nature.” Perhaps the Monk Anastasius refers to the fifth hypothesis from Plato’s dialogue Parmenides, according to which the One is not knowable and does not even exist (160b–163b). Or the Monk Anastasius points to Aristotle’s position that the general principle of things of the same nature is cognized and exists in the thing itself. Therefore, the unique, “single hypostasis, which embraces everything in itself (that is, all of nature, which no longer exists in other things - Ig. A.), is indescribable.” Things are known through comparison with things of the same nature (“the two are known through the description of the one”). This saying does not appear in the surviving works of Plato. The Monk Anastasius further (the second part of the ninth chapter) attributes these words to St. Basil the Great. However, this statement is not found in the saint’s authentic works. In the Epistle 236 mentioned by the Monk Anastasius, “Additionally to Amphilochius,” St. Vasily writes: “Both essence and hypostasis have the same difference between themselves as there is between the general and the individual, for example, between a living being and such and such a person.” The identification of the concepts of “essence” and “nature” among Orthodox theologians occurred only in the era of Christological disputes (in the 6th century). Cm.; Aristotle. Topika 7, 3:153 a 15–16: “definition is speech that expresses the essence of the being of a thing.” Πατήρ from παῖς - child, boy, child and τηρέω - protect, protect. Wed: Athanasius the Great, St. Epistle on the Arian, III, 19: “One is the Son by nature, true and only begotten, but we also are made sons, not like Him, not by nature and not in reality, but by the grace of Him who called, and being earthly people, we are called gods, not as God is and as His true Word is, but as God who gave this willed, so like God we become merciful, not through this we come into equality with God, without becoming by nature and true benefactors, because to do good is not ours, but God’s invention, but since what is done by grace for us by God Himself, we make it common to others, without reasoning, but simply extending charity to everyone.” Πᾶν (all) νεῦμα (sign with head or eyes, nod, wave). See: Aristotle. On parts of animals, 3, 10:673 a 8.23: “And that only man is ticklish, the reason for this is, on the one hand, the thinness of his skin, and on the other, the fact that of all animals he alone is capable of laughing.” According to Porfiry, the ability to laugh is a person’s own, natural attribute, just as the ability to neigh is a natural attribute of a horse (see: Porfiry. Introduction to Aristotle’s categories). Sevirus of Antioch (c. 456–538) - Monophysite theologian, founder of “Sevirianism,” one of the two main (along with Julianism) movements in the history of Monophysitism. The Monk Anastasius quotes almost verbatim the definition from the work “On Providence” (Περὶ προνοίας), signed with the name of Clement of Alexandria, but, according to modern researchers, does not belong to him. The traditional theological explanation of the etymology of the word nature (φύσις) is from the word to occur, to be born (πεφυκέναι). The Monk Anastasius gives three synonyms for the word “bread” (ἄρτος, ψωμίον and βουκίν). Compare, for example, Basil the Great, St. Letter 236 (228), also Amphilochius, 6. In these and further examples, the Monk Anastasius is mistaken, since the hypostasis is a specific dove, a specific nightingale, etc., and not the entire species. Dionysius the Areopagite. On divine names, 4, 25. The word θέλημα is derived by the Monk Anastasius from the consonant expression θέειν λίαν - “to rush strongly.” According to legend, Diogenes of Sinope, in response to Plato’s definition “Man is a living creature with two legs, devoid of feathers,” plucked a chicken and announced: “Here is Plato’s man!” To which Plato was forced to add “... and with broad nails” to his definition. συμβεβηκός, in Latin – accidentia The Monk Anastasius reduces the Monothelite position about one will in Christ to absurdity - the recognition of the carnal will in the Trinity. We repeat that in translation we will try to convey the word ἐνέργεια (action) and its derivatives with the word “energy” and its derivatives. Quote from the unsurvived work of St. Gregory of Nyssa "Word to the grammarian Xenodorus." The quote was preserved in the works of St. Anastasius and St. Maximus the Confessor. Those. birds (πτηνός - bird, flying - comes from πέτομαι - to fly). Those. fish (νηκτός - fish, floating - comes from νήχω - swim). Convolvulus scammonea, a species of bindweed whose juice was used as a laxative. ἀναγγελτικός from ἀναγγέλλω – to proclaim πύρωσιν θανατοῦν τῆς σαρκός χείλη δονεῖν ἐν τῷ λαλεῖν ἐλοῦσα ἤγουν θανατοῦσα βρῶσις Isa.40:13; Rom.11:34; 1 Corinthians 2:16. Οὐσίᾳ ῥευστῇ. The Monk Anastasius says that in the body of Christ after the Resurrection there ceased to be flows of blood and so on. So, no blood flowed from the wounds that Thomas touched. As already mentioned, once Diogenes of Sinope, in response to Plato’s definition “Man is a living creature with two legs, devoid of feathers,” plucked a chicken and declared: “Here is Plato’s man!” To which Plato was forced to add “... and with broad nails” to his definition. See, for example, Porfiry. Introduction to Aristotle's categories, ch. 7. Wed: Rom.7:22; 2 Cor.4:16; Eph.3:16. This is the transcription in the publication. – Editorial of the ABC of Faith. τίθεσθαι κατὰ νώτου τὸν θνῄσκοντα ἐν ᾧ οἱ μυκτήρες στάζουσιν The Greek word σακέλ is consonant with the Syriac active participle ͫ̇ͩ͠/šāqel (from ͫͩ͠/šqal "to lift, carry; take, receive"). Pomarius - fruit, fruit, pomarium - orchard. Notarius - cursive writer, secretary, nota - sign, letter, letter. See: Dionysius the Areopagite. About divine names. 12, 2: “Divinity is an all-seeing (θεωμένη) Providence...” Wed: Matthew 14:25; Mark 6:48; John 6:19. Gregory the Theologian, St. Homily 40, For Holy Baptism. 7. ἐκ τῆς ὑπεραληθοῦς πατρικῆς ἀληθείας γέννημα Wed: John 14:26; 15:26; 16:13 ; Matthew 10:20. Gregory the Theologian, St. Homily 39, on the holy lights of the appearances of the Lord, 9. Compare: Gregory the Theologian, St. Homily 39, on the holy lights of the appearances of the Lord, 11: “For I will begin to speak not only the same, but also about the same, having a trembling tongue, and mind, and heart, every time I speak about God...”. The word ὁδηγός (guide), referred here by the Monk Anastasius to the Holy Spirit, became the title of this entire work. Currents in Monophysitism. The first received its name from the Monophysite Patriarch of Alexandria Theodosius (d. 566) and was moderate, identical to “Sevirianism.” The second was named after Guyana, a supporter of the founder of Aphthartodocetism, Julian of Halicarnac. Guyan acted as an opponent of Theodosius when elected to the See of Alexandria in 536. The Monk Anastasius, with the help of an allusion to the words “In the beginning was the Word” (John 1:1), briefly formulates the teaching of the First and Second Ecumenical Councils on the consubstantiality of the Persons of the Most Holy Trinity. Wed: Isa.14:12–15; Ezekiel 28:1–10. This expression is not found in the surviving works of the teachers of the Church who lived before St. Anastasius. Considering the further thought of the Sinaite, it is possible that he is referring from memory to the words of St. Basil the Great from Discourse 11 “On Envy”: “What armed the culprit of evil, the demon, to fight against man? Isn't it envy? The God-fighter clearly exposed himself in envy when he was indignant at God for His generous gifts to man, but took revenge on man because he could not take revenge on God.” Compare: Wisdom 2:24: “Through the envy of the devil, death entered the world.” Tradition testifies to the murder of three Old Testament prophets: by order of the Jewish king Manasseh, the prophet Isaiah was sawn in two, the prophet Jeremiah was stoned by his own people for his denunciations, the prophet Amos died from a blow to the head inflicted on him by the son of the Bethel priest Amaziah. The prophet Jeremiah (cf. Jer. 2:39), the prophet Nehemiah (cf. Neh. 9:26), the Savior (cf. Matt. 23:29–35; Luke 11:47–51) and the first martyr Stephen (cf. Acts 7:52) accuse the Jewish people of killing the prophets without calling them by name. The desecration of the prophets by the Jews is also attested in 2 Chronicles 36:15–16. The Monk Anastasius briefly touched upon the history of Gnosticism. The first Gnostic, according to Tradition, is Simon the Magus, who was baptized in Samaria by Philip, and then offered money to the apostles Peter and John for the opportunity to bring down the Holy Spirit on others, that is, for ordination (cf. Acts 8:9-25). Information about Simon's opposition to the Apostle Peter in Rome is based on the testimony of the martyr. Justin the Philosopher (Apology I, 26) and schmch. Irenaeus of Lyons (Against Heresies I, 23). About Cerinthos, a younger contemporary of the Apostle John the Theologian, the schmch speaks. Irenaeus of Lyons (Against heresies I, 26, 1; III, 3, 4). Nikolai, according to the testimony of Sschmch. Irenaeus of Lyons (Against heresies I, 26, 3), was one of the seven deacons appointed by the apostles (cf. Acts 6:5). The Nicolaitan sect is mentioned in the Apocalypse (cf. Rev. 2:6; 2:15). Schmch speaks about Marcion as his contemporary and preacher of dualism and debauchery. Justin the Philosopher (Apology I, 26). Gnosticism, as a set of religious and philosophical movements of the 1st–3rd centuries, was an effort of philosophical thought to transform Christianity from a religion into a simple religious philosophy and was characterized by the following main common features: dualism, complex cosmogony, docetism and the understanding of salvation as participation in secret knowledge (gnosis), to which only the elect are called. The father of the founder of Manichaeism, Mani (Μάνης, c. 216 - c. 277), converted from Parsism to Christianity. Therefore, the Monk Anastasius says that Mani himself came from “among those born by the power of Christ,” i.e. was baptized. However, then Mani began to preach his teachings in Persia, Central Asia and India. Manichaeism, like Gnosticism, adopted dualism from the same Parsism: evil (darkness) is a principle as independent as good (light); man is dual: a creation of the devil, he also contains elements of light. Manichaeism was widespread, in fact to the extent of a world religion. Works of the blessed Augustine, who belonged to Manichaeism for eight years before converting to Christianity, are sources on the history and doctrine of this religion. Repeatedly calling the Monophysites Manichaeans in subsequent chapters of the Guide, the Monk Anastasius thereby accuses them of dualism for their belittlement of humanity in Christ. Montanism is a heretical schismatic movement with its own strict church hierarchy, named after the founder Montanus (II–III). Montanism is known to us from the works of Tertullian, who converted to it from Christianity. Montanus and other leaders of Montanism presented themselves as prophets of the Holy Spirit - this is what St. Anastasius testifies to when he says that they call themselves “the Comforter whom Christ promised to send to the world.” The Montanists introduced their prophecies and other apocrypha into Scripture, which pushed the Church to determine the canon of Holy Scripture. Montanism was distinguished by strict rigorism (prohibition of second marriage, forgiveness of mortal sins only through martyrdom, etc.). After the Church was not defeated through persecution and through the struggle against it with pseudo-Christian teachings (Gnosticism, Manichaeism, Montanism, etc.), the devil set out to fight it with the help of internal enemies: schismatics and heretics. Novatus in the middle of the 3rd century led a schism in the Carthaginian Church against its primate St. Cyprian. The reason was disputes about the possibility and methods of receiving into the Church those who had fallen away during persecution and about the recognition or non-recognition of baptism in schismatic and heretical communities. For more details, see: Bolotov V.V. Collection of church historical works. T. 3. Lectures on the history of the Ancient Church. History of the Church in the period before Constantine. M., 2001. pp. 405–414. Apollinaris of Laodicea (d. c. 392) was a bright and irreconcilable polemicist with Arianism. He was the first to try to give a theological answer to the question of how the coexistence of Divinity and humanity in one Christ is possible. Answering this question, Apollinaris was based on one of the postulates of Aristotle’s philosophy, who argued that the existence of a perfect entity consisting of several perfect entities is impossible. In the era of Christological disputes, this position will be formulated by theologians as follows: “there is no non-hypostatic nature” (in further chapters of the Guide, St. Anastasius will repeatedly comment on this position). Thus, for Apollinaris in Christ the fullness of God (and he insisted on this in his polemics with Arianism) could not coexist with the fullness of man. Therefore, Apollinaris came to the conclusion that humanity in Christ exists only partially. At the same time, he proceeded from the Platonic anthropological scheme, according to which a person consists of body, soul and spirit. So, Apollinaris presented the incarnation as a union of the Logos and the flesh, animated by the unreasonable soul, i.e. deprived of its own mind-spirit, whose place was taken by the Logos, thanks to which the unity and integrity of Christ were preserved for Apollinaris. Flesh and Logos constituted the one nature of Christ, which Apollinaris defined as “the one incarnate nature of God the Word” (μία φύσις τοῦ Θεοῦ Λόγου σεσαρκωμένη). This formula later, under St. Cyril of Alexandria, will become key in the teaching of the Church about Christ (the Monk Anastasius also speaks about it later). Parts of a single nature - flesh and Logos - are not equivalent. The divine part dominates over the human and is the source of life and movement in Christ: only the Logos is self-moving (αὐτοκίνητος), while animate flesh passively submits to the Divine and is unable to move on its own. Flesh and Divinity together constitute a perfect unity of passive and dynamic components, complementing each other and forming a single dynamic nature. For Apollinaris, dynamism was an important characteristic of nature (this position regarding nature, formulated by Apollinaris, was accepted by the Church). The humanity of Christ, according to Apollinaris, was passive and did not have its own active principle and that is why it could not be a separate nature. Apollinaris and his heresy were condemned at the Second Ecumenical Council. In this description of the history of heresies, the Monk Anastasius says that the inspirer and true leader of this entire struggle against the Church is the enemy of the human race. This is consistent with the teaching of St. Anastasius about the three states of the human will, which he speaks about in the fourth part of the second chapter of the Guide. It is not for nothing that the Holy Father called the will of the devil in an unnatural, sinful state. By sinning, a person actually becomes an instrument in the hands of the devil, doing not his natural will, given to him by God, but the will of the devil. The Monk Anastasius conveys this thought using expressions like: the devil “kills through Cain (διὰ τοῦ Κάϊν - through Cain, with the help of Cain, by Cain) Abel.” Eve appeared as the same instrument in the hands of Satan, through whom Adam was deceived. The Monk Anastasius names the true founders of Nestorianism - Diodorus of Tarsus (305-310 - up to 394) and Theodore of Mopsuestia (360-428). Without accepting the Alexandrian "Word-Flesh" paradigm, Theodore of Mopsuestia followed another paradigm, of which he was largely the author, which is defined in modern science as the "Word-Man" (Λόγος-ἄνθρωπος). The main premise of this paradigm is the fullness of humanity in Christ. For Theodore, this fullness means, first of all, the active manifestation of humanity in Christ. He does not accept the Apollinarian concept of the passive and subordinate humanity of Christ, devoid of his own actions and will. At the same time, however, he fully shares the Apollinarian idea of ​​nature as an active being, filled with its own and “self-propelled” dynamics. What Apollinaris attributed only to the Divinity of Christ, Theodore extends to humanity. Thus, Theodore comes to the conclusion that in Christ two natures coexist, each having its own specific private existence within the framework of its hypostasis. Theodore found the answer to the complex question of how this is combined with the fact that Christ remains a single being in the concept of “relative union” (ἕνωσις σχετική) of Divinity and humanity “by good will” (ἕνωσις κατ’ εὐδοκίαν). Having united “by good pleasure,” the natures of Christ acquired a single common person, action and will. The concept of “person” (πρόσωπον) is of decisive importance in Theodore’s Christology, since it allows him to preserve the unity of Christ despite the distance of the two natures from each other. Theodore explains what he meant by face in his treatise against Eunomius: “Face has a double meaning: it means either hypostasis and what each of us is, or it refers to honor, majesty and worship. For example, "Paul" and "Peter" signify the hypostasis and person of each of them, but the face of our Lord Christ signifies honor, majesty and worship." Thus, Theodore recognized that πρόσωπον is synonymous with ὑπόστασις and means concrete being. However, when applied to Christ, the term “person of union” (πρόσωπον ἑνώσεως) has for Theodore a completely different meaning: the single honor, majesty and worship of the two natures of Christ, as well as the manner of manifestation and revelation of God through humanity. The same unifying role is played in Theodore’s Christology by the single action and single will of Christ. It should be noted that the presence of a common face of union, a common action and a common will in Christ does not at all abolish the own persons, wills and actions of the two natures, which without them would lose their completeness. Natures, each having its own face (= hypostasis), energy and will, are united by a common and united face, energy and will. In other words, Christ appears to us in the Gospel as a single Person only subjectively, in relation to an external observer He is a single Being, a single Person, but in Himself He contains two persons - Divine and human. Thus, it turned out that the Son of God and the Son of Mary are separated, between them there is only a moral connection, similar to the one that existed between God and the Old Testament righteous, and, therefore, the path to real deification for all people is still closed (the Monk Anastasius will talk about this detail of not only Nestorian, but also Monophysite Christology below). To explain the image of the union of two natures in Christ, Theodore of Mopsuestia cites the image according to which the Divinity and humanity in Christ are united like the union of husband and wife into one flesh. In Nestorius, the main image is the image of a house or church, meaning a person in whom God dwells. In any case, this unity turns out to be external, it is the unity of power, honor, strength or benevolence. Both founders of Nestorianism were condemned after their death: Diodorus of Tarsus was condemned at some Local Councils of the 5th–6th centuries, and Theodore of Mopsuestia - at the V Ecumenical Council. After his condemnation and deposition at the Third Ecumenical Council, Nestorius was sent into exile to Antioch, from there to Petra Idumea, and then to the Great Oasis in the Libyan Desert. Then, already quite old and sick, Nestorius was forced, at the insistence of the Archbishop of Alexandria Dioscorus (the head of the “robber” council of 449), to change his place of exile several more times in upper Egypt, where he died in 451 (See, for example, Kartashev A.V. Ecumenical Councils. St. Petersburg, 2002. pp. 262–263). The Monk Anastasius here speaks of a certain book that he wrote specifically against the Nestorians. However, among his known works there is no special anti-Nestorian polemical creation. Therefore, in one of the manuscripts the copyist wrote in the margins: “Notice that this father also wrote a book against the heresy of Nestorius, which is unknown to us.” The Monk Anastasius points to the Nestorian understanding of the Council of Chalcedon: as if the Chalcedonian oros speaks of a certain new hypostasis (that same Theodore “face of union”) of Christ, which included the Hypostasis of God the Word and a separate human hypostasis. St. constantly spoke about the danger of such division, which, despite the denial of it in words, exists among the Nestorians. Cyril, to whose authority the Monk Anastasius refers here. Thus, in the Second Epistle to Suckens, St. Cyril writes: “Consequently, when they (Nestorians - Ig. A.) assert with excessive zeal that He (Christ - Ig. A.) suffered “human nature,” as if completely separating him from the Word and placing him outside Him, separately, their goal is to see two (beings), and not just one incarnate and incarnate Word from God the Father. And the added “indivisible”, although it looks like our indication of the true view, they do not think like that. After all, this inseparable, in accordance with the idle talk of Nestorius, is understood by them in a different way, for they say that the person into whom the Word of God has indwelled is inseparable from Him in terms of equality of honor, identity of will and power, so they do not just pronounce these expressions, but with a certain slyness and malicious intent” (Cyril of Alexandria, St. Another memorial note, written in response to questions to us about the same thing, to to the same Sukkens // Theological Bulletin. No. 10. Sergiev Posad, 2010. pp. 30–31). The Monk Anastasius is not entirely accurate here. The Alexandrian Archbishop Peter I excommunicated Arius, who was then still a deacon, for his sympathy with the Melitian schism, and not for the triadological errors that he began to preach later. After the martyrdom of Peter in 311, Arius united with the Alexandrian Church and was ordained to the priesthood by Peter's successor Achilas. After Akhila, he was, along with Alexander, a candidate for the See of Alexandria. The Arian turmoil began already in 318, when Arius, in a dispute with St. Alexander began to deny the Divinity of Christ. According to Arius, God is a closed, perfect, unchangeable and immovable monad. God is the beginningless Absolute, Who can only be one. Only the Father is without beginning, therefore only the Father is God in the proper sense. Everything else is foreign to God and has a different essence, including the Son, who is born, that is, changes, and, therefore, is not God, but a creature. Therefore, the Son is alien and not like the Father, born “from things that do not exist” (ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων), “there was a time when He did not exist.” The Son is a creature, albeit a higher one, he is the Father’s mediator in the work of creation, which God, who is absolutely transcendent to all created things, needs. The Incarnation of the Son is another proof of His dissimilarity to the Father, for God, who is transcendent to His creation, cannot in any way unite with it. The Monk Anastasius refers to the Symbol of the Council of Nicaea: “We believe in one God the Father, Almighty, Creator of everything visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father, that is, from the essence of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one essence with the Father, through whom all things came into being, both in heaven and on earth, for the sake of us men and for the sake of our salvation, who descended, became incarnate and became man, suffered and rose again on the third day, ascended into heaven and comes to judge the living and the dead. And in the Holy Spirit." An anathematism was added to this Symbol, which lists the main provisions of the teachings of Arius: “Whoever says that “there was when He was not,” and “before His birth He did not exist,” and that He came “from things that do not exist,” or who say that the Son of God “is from another Hypostasis” or “essence,” or that He is “created,” or “changeable,” or “changeable,” are anathematized by the Catholic and Apostolic Church." Triadological terminology was developed after the First Ecumenical Council by the holy Cappadocian Fathers Basil the Great, Gregory the Theologian and Gregory of Nyssa. This terminology, transferred by Orthodox theologians to Christology, is formulated by the Monk Anastasius in the second chapter of the Guide. It was the Cappadocian Fathers, who separated the concepts of “essence” and “hypostasis” and compared the first concept of Aristotle’s “general essence”, and the second – “particular essence”, and developed the doctrine of a single essence and three Hypostases in God. The fact that the First Ecumenical Council had not yet worked out the meaning of the words “essence” and “hypostasis” is evidenced by the history of the Alexandria Council of 362, chaired by St. Athanasius the Great. Those who taught about three Persons in God were accused of Arianism, and those who traditionally identified essence with hypostasis and spoke of one essence, one hypostasis and three Persons in God were accused of Sabellianism. Upon examination, it turned out that both of them think the same way, putting different meanings into these terms. Sabellius is the most prominent representative of the modalist monarchist heresy. In Sabellius we see the complete completion of the teaching of modalism. God Himself is a closed Unit - Monad (Μονάς). Thinkable outside of relation to the world, God who does not reveal himself is a silent God. But God, who reveals himself to the world, is already a speaking God. For this, God posits Himself as the Word (the usual idea among apologists: the Logos is born to create the world). But this speech of the Word to the world has the character of a trilogy, embracing the entire economy. The Logos is revealed in three persons: as Father, as Son, as Spirit. So, for Sabellius the Monad is not the Father, the Logos is not the Son: the Logos precedes the Father. He associates the Trinity with the history of the economy: the prerogative manifestation of the Father was the creation of the world and the Sinai legislation, the Son - the incarnation, and the Holy Spirit - His descent on the apostles. The One God appears to us successively, now as Father, now as Son, now as Spirit. The image of the Father ceases to exist when the image of the Son appears, and the Son ceases to exist when the image of the Holy Spirit appears. The Πρόσωπον of the Holy Spirit is also not eternal and will have its end. The Holy Spirit will return to the Logos, the Logos will again shrink into the Monad, the speaking God will again become a silent God, and everything will be plunged into silence, for Sabellius the face is not a hypostasis, but rather only a name (ὄνομα); hypostasis is essence. God is one essence, one hypostasis, one subject. There can be no place for subordinationism in Sabellius’ system. However, Savellius thinks of the face only as an actor’s mask, a guise. Thus, modalism is a return to Jewish strict monotheism and thus is a denial of the Trinity dogma. James Baradeus, Bishop of Edessa (d. 578) - founder of the Monophysite hierarchy. Before him, Monophysite and Orthodox (Diphysite) bishops often replaced each other in the same see, but did not simultaneously occupy the same see. According to the teachings of Photinus, Bishop of Sirmite, Christ was born a simple man, and His deity is the result of personal merit due to the fact that the power of the Father descended on Him at the moment of Baptism and dwelt in Him. The condemnation of Photinus and his teachings did not take place at the First Ecumenical Council, but later at the Council of Antioch in 344, at the Councils of Milan in 345 and 347, and at the Council of Sirmit in 351. Macedonius was deposed from the See of Constantinople at the Council of Constantinople in 360. He himself was a Homiusian, but the party of the Doukhobors - the extreme Arians - was designated by the name of the Macedonians rather by accident. About Macedonia, Doukhoborism and the judgments of researchers regarding the formation of the Creed, see, for example, Bolotov V.V. History of the Church during the Ecumenical Councils: History of Theological Thought. M. 2007. pp. 116–155. Having anathematized Nestorius and some provisions of Nestorianism, the Third Ecumenical Council did not accept any positive dogmatic formulas. The doctrine of the complex hypostasis of Christ was formulated later. The lengthy scholia from the second chapter is repeated here verbatim. Timothy II Elur - Patriarch of Alexandria from March 457 to January 460 and again from late 475 to July 31, 477. One of the most prominent figures of the anti-Chalcedonian party in the Church. Elur (Αἴλουρος - cat) received his nickname for his cunning. John the Grammar of Caesarea (1st third of the 6th century) - Byzantine theologian. The most important work is “Apology of the Council of Chalcedon”. One of the first Orthodox theologians who began to transfer Cappadocian triadological terminology to Christology. “Against the Impious Grammar” is the most important dogmatic work of Sevier in three books (words), compiled no earlier than 519 and which in the eyes of Sevier’s followers became the theological “sum of faith.” Aquila (1st half of the 2nd century AD) - Jewish translator into Greek. He converted to Christianity, but then converted to Judaism. The translation has clearly anti-Christian tendencies (for example, in the translation of Is. 7:14 he used the word νεᾶνις - young woman, and not παρθένος - Virgin). Aquila's work was used by the Jews until the 7th century. Nephalius of Alexandria is an Orthodox theologian who spoke at the beginning of the 6th century in Alexandria in defense of the Council of Chalcedon and against the teachings of Sevirus of Antioch. A dispute took place between them in 508, after which Sevier was expelled from the city and went to Constantinople to enlist the support of Emperor Anastasius, who pursued a policy of supporting Monophysitism. Nephaly followed him. He published the treatise "Apology of the Council of Chalcedon." Sevier responded to him with the composition “To Nephalius”. These words are not found in the surviving works of Sevier. δευτέρωσις – here: Jewish tradition, legend. The Monk Anastasius says that Sevier is likened to the Jews, who with their interpretations distort the true meaning of the Old Testament. Φιλαλήθης - “Lover of truth.” This is what Sevier calls St. Cyril of Alexandria. The essay appeared as follows. During Sevirus's stay in Constantinople in 508–511, he came into possession of the Florilegium, compiled around 482 in Alexandria by a supporter or group of supporters of the Council of Chalcedon in order to show that St. Cyril of Alexandria was not an opponent of the doctrine of two natures, but recognized two natures in Christ. "Florilegium" included 244 fragments of Diphysite content from the works of St. Kirill. In Philalethe, Sevier provides alternative excerpts from the works of St. Kirill, and tries to interpret the expressions given in the “Florilegia” in a Monophysite way. Notary - an employee of the Byzantine chancellery, various departments in Constantinople and in the provinces. Notaries were engaged in correspondence and drafting of documents. See: Aristotle. Categories. 5. Julian is the bishop of Halicarnassus in Caria, the founder of Aphthartodocetism, who expressed his views in a polemic (520–527) with Sevirus of Antioch. Peter Knafeos – Patriarch of Antioch (471–488), supporter of non-Chalcedonian Christology. He received his nickname Κναφεύς (Γναφεύς) - fuller, fuller - from the obedience he carried out in the Monastery of the Never-Sleeping in Constantinople. He is considered the author of adding the words “crucified for us” at the end of the Trisagion. The head of one of the groups of Egyptian Monophysites. That is, when, according to Sevier, the Church was struck by an ulcer from the teachings of Nestorius. The Monk Anastasius quotes the words of Sevier from 1 Epistle to Nephalius. Words of Sevier from 1 Epistle to Nephali. There is no such phrase in the surviving works of Sevier. Most likely, the Monk Anastasius in his own words ironically expresses the thought of the heresiarch. Artemon, like Paul of Samosata, is mentioned in the “Ecclesiastical History” of Eusebius Pamphilus in chapter 28 of book 5. Artemy is one of the founders, and Paul is the pinnacle of dynamic monarchianism, the essence of which is that Christ by nature is not God, but a man upon whom at the moment of baptism the Spirit of God, the Word, the Wisdom of God descends (the power of God, and not the Person of the Trinity, hence the name - dynamists: δύναμις - power), as previously descended on the prophets, only with an advantage, to a greater extent and strength. Actually, the dynamists cannot even talk about incarnation. It was only the coexistence of the Wisdom of God, the Logos (the power, not the hypostasis of God) with Christ - “relative union”, “union by good will”. Later, such a relative union by the good will of humanity, but only with a perfect God, will be spoken of in Nestorianism. See: Testimony of the Constantinople clergy, publicly proclaimed to the entire Church, that Nestorius is of one mind with Paul of Samosata, who 160 years before Nestorius was anathematized by Orthodox bishops. ASO I, 1, 1, p. 10lsq. ICE.T. 1. pp. 156–157. Deut.32:39. Wed: Luke 24:39. There is no such phrase in the surviving works of Sevier. Probably, here too is the irony of St. Anastasius. Ambrose of Milan, St. On Faith, II, 9, 77. Cyril of Alexandria. Epistle 55 (Cyril, Archbishop of Alexandria on the Holy Symbol). ACO I, 1, 4, r. 60. ICE. T. 1. P. 580. Proclus of Constantinople, St. Homily 2 (Discourse of Proclus of the Bishop of Cyzicus, spoken in the presence of Nestorius in the great Church of Constantinople, about the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ, that the Holy Virgin Mary is the Mother of God and that the one born of Her is not only God and not only man, but Immanuel, who is together God and man, unfused and immutable). ACO I, 1, 1, r. 104. ICE. T. 1. P. 138 Proclus of Constantinople, St. Commentary on Isaiah 9:5. Proclus of Constantinople, St. On the Incarnation, II. Sevier of Antioch. 1 Epistle to Nephali, I, 13-17. Cyril Bishop of Alexandria about Paul, who spoke before, and about the Incarnation of the Lord. ACO I, 1, 4, r. 15. ICE. T. 1. P. 540. The dialogue is composed of the words of Sevir of Antioch from 1 Nephalius, I. Memorandum from Archbishop Kirill to Presbyter Eulogius, who is in Constantinople. ACO I, 1, 4, r. 36. ICE. T. 1. P. 552. The Monk Anastasius means “Sermon 39. On the Holy Lights of the Apparitions of the Lord,” dedicated to the Feast of the Epiphany, in which St. Gregory the Theologian clearly formulated trinitarian theology. Those. unity of the race, or nature (Divine). τῶν θολονάμων. Here either the now unknown proper name of a certain region, or a typo and should stand instead of this word, as in some manuscripts of the Guide: “filled with dust and dirt.” In Greek and Slavic text. In Hebrew and Russian text: "Penuel". τὴν τοῦ πράγματος ἀλήθειαν Sschmch. Peter of Alexandria (310) excommunicated Arius from the Church because he admitted that the Melitians were right. Aristotle. Physics II, 1:192b 13–21; VIII, 3:253b 8–9; Metaphysics VI, 1:1025b 20. πρωτότοκος τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος Conciliar statement of faith of the First Ecumenical Council. ICE. T.I.S. 70. Compare: About how one should understand the three Persons in the One Divinity of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. (DVS. T. I. P. 70–71). The Monk Anastasius in this paragraph reproduces the argumentation of St. Basil the Great from his Epistle 125. Basic Monophysite formula: ἐκ δύο φύσεων πρὸ τῆς ἑνώσεως, μία φύσις μετὰ τήν ἕνωσιν (from two natures before the union, one nature after the union). The Monk Anastasius uses a method by contradiction: he reduces the arguments of his opponents to old triadological heresies or outright absurdity. Epistle of Cyril, Archbishop of Alexandria, to John, Bishop of Antioch, sent with Paul, Bishop of Emesa. ACO I, 1, 4, r. 17. ICE. T.I.S. 541. See: Memorandum from Archbishop Kirill to Presbyter Eulogius, who is in Constantinople. ACO I, 1, 4, r. 36. ICE. T.I.S. 159–161. On the contrary, this Epistle is evidence of the restoration of communion between the Churches. The Monk Anastasius quotes the first of the seven Dialogues on the Trinity by St. Kirill. True, St. Cyril speaks of the difference not between nature and hypostasis, but between essence and hypostasis. Basil the Great, St. Message 236 (228). In addition, Amphilochius, 6. These words are contained in one of the fragments of the unsurvived works of St. Amphilochia. Amphilochius of Iconium, St. Letter to Seleucus, 6. One of the names of the followers of the monophysite Barsanuphius. Cyril of Alexandria, St. Epistle of Cyril, Archbishop of Alexandria, to John, Bishop of Antioch, sent with Paul, Bishop of Emesa. ACO I, 1, 4, r. 17. ICE. T.I.S. 541. Cyril of Alexandria, St. Memorial note from the most God-loving and holy Archbishop Kirill to His Beatitude Sukkens, Bishop of Diocaesarea, Isaurian Diocese // Theological Bulletin. No. 10. Sergiev Posad, 2010. P. 20. Here and below, in quotation marks, the Monk Anastasius quotes his words from the debate described. Cyril of Alexandria, St. Another memorial note, written in response to questions to us about the same thing, and also to Sukkens // Theological Bulletin. No. 10. Sergiev Posad, 2010. P. 28. Cyril of Alexandria, St. Interview with the Alexandrians about faith. Cyril of Alexandria, St. Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews. Cyril of Alexandria, St. Scholium, 11. ACO I, 5, p. 190. Cyril of Alexandria, St. Second Epistle to Nestorius. ACO I, 1, 1, r. 27. ICE. T.I.S. 145. In fact: Cyril of Alexandria, St. Scholium, 13. Lat. ACO I, 5, p. 194. Cyril of Alexandria, St. Second Epistle to Nestorius. ACO I, 1, 1, r. 27. ICE. T. I. P. 145. Ambrose of Milan, St. On Faith, II, 9, 77, p. 84. Gregory of Nyssa, St. Refutation of Eunomius. III, III, 66. In fact: Gregory of Nyssa, St. Against Apollinaris, 40. Gregory of Nyssa, St. Commentary on Philippians, 195. Gregory of Nyssa, St. Homily IV On the Beatitudes. Gregory the Theologian, St. Epistle 101. To the presbyter Kledonius, against Apollinaris first. John Chrysostom, St. Word for the Ascension. John Chrysostom, St. Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, Homily 2. Proclus of Constantinople, St. Word 2. Ephraim "Greek". On Margarit, 263. Amphilochius of Iconium, St. Letter to Seleucus, 15. Isidore Pelusiot, St. Epistle I, 370 Amphilochius of Iconium, St. Commentary on John 14:28. Cyril of Alexandria, St. Memorandum from Archbishop Kirill to Presbyter Eulogius, who is in Constantinople. ACO I, 14 4, r. 36. ICE. T.I.S. 552. Proclus of Constantinople, St. On the Incarnation, II. Proclus of Constantinople, St. Commentary on Isaiah 9:5. This phrase is preserved only in quotes from church writers. Antiochus Bishop of Ptolemais. Interpretation For Christmas. Perhaps the Monk Anastasius indicates his height - two arshins and 18 vershoks (about 2.20 m). Play on words: ἄπορα, ἵνα μὴ λέγω ἄπυρα καὶ ψυχρὰ προβλήματα. Cyril of Alexandria, St. Epistle of Cyril Bishop of Alexandria to Nestorius on excommunication, 11. ACO I, 1, 1, p. 40. ICE. T.I.S. 198. Monophysites (like Orthodox Christians) profess one hypostasis of Christ. We came to a contradiction: the hypostases (that is, of nature, according to the Monophysites) remained unfused and they did not remain unfused. That is, according to Sevier, in Christology hypostasis is synonymous with nature, not person. Compare: Cyril of Alexandria, St. Scholium, 11. ACO I, 5, p. 190. In the surviving works of St. Kirill does not have this phrase. Compare: Cyril of Alexandria, St. Of Worship and Service in Spirit and Truth, IX. Cyril of Alexandria, St. Epistle of Cyril Bishop of Alexandria to Nestorius on excommunication, 11. ACO I, 1, 1, p. 40. ICE. T.I.S. 198. Dionysius the Areopagite. Message 4, Gaius the servant. John Chrysostom, St. Discourses on the Gospel of Matthew, 2. John Chrysostom, St. Word on the Ascension, 446. John Chrysostom, St. Word on the Ascension, 445. Ambrose of Milan, St. On Faith, II. Gregory of Nyssa, St. Refutation of Eunomius, III. Gregory of Nyssa, St. Discourses on the Beatitudes, IV. In the surviving works of St. Athanasius does not have this phrase. Basil the Great, St. About the post, 9. Athanasius the Great, St. Word on the Incarnation of God the Word, 20. Gregory the Theologian, St. Homily 38, for Epiphany, or for the Nativity of the Savior. Ambrose of Milan, St. About the incarnation, 5. Cyril of Alexandria, St. Memorial note from the most God-loving and holy Archbishop Kirill to His Beatitude Sukkens, Bishop of Diocaesarea, Isaurian Diocese // Theological Bulletin. No. 10. Sergiev Posad, 2010. P. 23. Compare: Cyril of Alexandria, St. Defense of the 12 Chapters against the Eastern Bishops, 3. Cyril of Alexandria, St. Memorandum from Archbishop Kirill to Presbyter Eulogius, who is in Constantinople. ACO I, 1, 4, r. 36. ICE. T.I.S. 552. Act 1 of the Council of Chalcedon. ICE. T. II. P. 103; Act II of the Council of Chalcedon. ICE. T. II. P. 231. Cyril of Alexandria, St. Interpretation of the Epistle to the Hebrews. In fact: Cyril of Alexandria, St. Scholium, 11. ACO I, 5, p. 190. Act 1 of the Council of Chalcedon. ICE. T. II. P. 103; Act II of the Council of Chalcedon. ICE. T. II. P. 231. In fact: Cyril of Alexandria, St. Scholium, 13. ACO I, 5, p. 222. Cyril of Alexandria, St. Message 45. ACO I, 1, 6, p. 154. Paul Bishop of Emesa. A conversation by Bishop Paul, delivered in the great Church of Alexandria on January 1, about the Incarnation of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and in praise of Archbishop Kirill. ICE. T.I.S. 538. Compare: Epistle of Cyril, Archbishop of Alexandria, to John, Bishop of Antioch, sent with Paul, Bishop of Emesa. ACO I, 1, 4, r. 17. ICE. T.I.S. 541. Compare: Gregory the Theologian, St. Homily 38, on Epiphany, or on the Nativity of the Savior; Cyril of Jerusalem, St. Catechetical Teachings, IV; Cyril of Alexandria, St. About the Holy and Consubstantial Trinity. Compare: Gregory of Nyssa, St. Against Eunomius, III; Cyril of Alexandria, St. Another memorial note, written in response to questions to us about the same thing, and also to Sukkens // Theological Bulletin. No. 10. Sergiev Posad, 2010. pp. 25–31. Compare: Cyril of Alexandria, St. Another memorial note, written in response to questions to us about the same thing, and also to Sukkens // Theological Bulletin. No. 10. Sergiev Posad, 2010. pp. 25–31. Wed: John Chrysostom, St. Commentary on the Epistle to the Philippians. Compare: Gregory of Nyssa, St. Against Eunomius, III. Compare: Ephraim “Greek”. On Margarit, 263. Wed: Amphilochius of Iconium, St. Letter to Seleucus, 6. Wed: Proclus of Constantinople, St. On the Incarnation, 11. Wed: Basil the Great, St. About fasting, 9; Ambrose of Milan, St. On Faith, II. οὗ τὴν συζυγίαν τῶν φύσεων οὐ τὴν συζυγίαν τῶν φύσεων ὁ Θωμᾶς ἑωρακώς Cyril of Alexandria, St. Scholium, 11. ASO I, 5, p. 190. Cyril of Alexandria, St. Epistle of Cyril Bishop of Alexandria to Nestorius on excommunication, 11. ASO I, 1, 1, p. 40. ICE. T.I.S. 198. Compare: Cyril of Alexandria, St. To Euoptius, against the refutation of 12 chapters compiled by Theodoret, 2. Cyril of Alexandria, St. Memorandum from Archbishop Kirill to Presbyter Eulogius, who is in Constantinople. ACO I, 1, 4, r. 36. ICE. T.I.S. 552. The image of the union of humanity and Divinity in Christ, in the likeness of a drop of vinegar dissolving in the abyss of the sea, belongs to St. Gregory of Nyssa. Preserved in fragments. Compare: Markell, Bishop of Ancyra. On the Incarnation, 3. Compare: Pseudo-Athanasius. Against Apollinaris, II. Compare: Cyril of Alexandria, St. Epistle of Cyril Bishop of Alexandria to Nestorius on excommunication, 11. ACO I, 1, 1, p. 40. ICE. T.I.S. 198. Compare: Gregory the Theologian, St. Homily 21, commendable to Athanasius the Great, Archbishop of Alexandria, 35. For more information about the Council of Alexandria in 362, see, for example, Bolotov V.V. History of the Church during the Ecumenical Councils: History of Theological Thought. M. 2007. pp. 122–125. In the first years of the 6th century, the Monophysite Patriarch of Antioch Peter Gnatheos, or Knafeos, changed the text of the Trisagion Song, which was performed at the Council of Chalcedon. He added to the Trisagion hymn before the words “have mercy on us” the words “crucified for us,” which caused confusion among the people. Since this song was always perceived as addressed to the Holy Trinity, the Orthodox suspected the Monophysites of professing the suffering of the Three Persons of the Trinity or the Divine nature, that is, they were theopaschites. The Evangelist Matthew refers to the prophecy of Jeremiah: “Then was fulfilled what was spoken through the prophet Jeremiah, who says: And they took thirty pieces of silver, the price of Him who was valued, whom the children of Israel valued, and gave them for the potter’s ground, as the Lord said to me” (Matthew 27:9–10). However, the book of the prophet Jeremiah does not mention 30 pieces of silver. The only place in the prophet Jeremiah that talks about pieces of silver is this: “And I bought a field from Hanameel my uncle’s son, which is in Anathoth, and weighed out to him seven shekels of silver and ten pieces of silver” (Jer. 32:9). The prophecy about the 30 pieces of silver is found only in the book of Zechariah: “And I will say to them: if it pleases you, then give Me My wages; if not, don’t give it; and they will weigh out thirty pieces of silver as payment to Me. And the Lord said to me: throw them into the church storehouse - the price at which they valued Me is high! And I took thirty pieces of silver and threw them into the house of the Lord for the potter” (Zech. 11:12–13). Ignatius of Antioch, sschmch. Romans 6. Julius I Pope. About faith, 6. Gregory the Theologian, St. Homily 45, for Holy Pascha, 19. Wed: Meliton of Sardis, St. About Easter. Gregory the Theologian, St. Homily 45, for Holy Pascha, 29. Compare: Gregory the Theologian, St. Epistle 3, to the presbyter Kledonius against Apollinaris first. παραδείγματος καὶ σχήματος ἐνυποστάτου In fact: 1 Peter 3:18. Ignatius of Antioch, smch. Romans 6. Gregory the Theologian, St. Homily 39, on the holy lights of the appearances of the Lord, 16. Compare: “I said: you are gods, and you are all sons of the Most High” (Ps. 82:6). This phrase is not found in the surviving works of St. Athanasius the Great. Pseudo-Athanasius. Against Apollinaris, II. Timofey Elur. Objections to the definitions of the Council of Chalcedon. Athanasius the Great, St. Epistle to Epictetus, 6. Athanasius the Great, St. Epistle to Epictetus, 2. Cyril of Alexandria, St. Memorandum from Archbishop Kirill to Presbyter Eulogius, who is in Constantinople. ACO I, 1.4, r. 36. ICE. T.I.S. 552. These words are not found in the works of St. Gregory the Theologian. This phrase in the surviving works of St. Gregory of Nyssa is not there, but this image is present in fragments. Compare: Gregory of Nyssa, St. On the constitution of man, 25. Wed: Epiphanius of Cyprus, St. Against heresies, 42. Gregory of Nyssa, St. Against Eunomius. III. Dionysius the Areopagite. On Divine Names, 2, 10. Compare: Dionysius the Areopagite. On Divine Names, 2, 9. Compare: Dionysius the Areopagite. On Divine Names, 2, 10. Compare: Dionysius the Areopagite. Message 4, Gaius the servant. Wed: Luke 24:39; John 20:20–27. περὶ τῶν κεκοιμημένων (1 Thess. 4:13). κοιμηθησόμεθα (1 Cor. 15:51). τοὺς κοιμηθέντας (1 Thess. 4:15). τὸν θάνατον (cf.: 1 Cor. 11:26). θανατωθείς (1 Peter 3:18). Compare: Cyril of Alexandria, St. Epistle of Cyril to Akakios, Bishop of Melitene, who reproached him with his message for agreeing with the Easterners. ACO I, 1, 4, r. 27. ICE. T.I.S. 550. That is, monothelites. On behalf of a certain Monothelite Armasius, who polemicized around 636 in Alexandria with the Patriarch of Jerusalem Sophronius. Compare: Gregory of Nyssa, St. Discourses on the Lord's Prayer, V. Wed: Mark 8:22–26; John 9:1–9. Wed: Matthew 4:1–4; Luke 4:2. 783 Compare: Matthew 8:24; Mark 4:38. Wed: Meliton of Sardis, St. On the Incarnation of Christ, Homily 3. In fact: John Chrysostom, St. Discourses on the Gospel of John, 67. That is from the region of Batania (bib. Vasan) or from the city of the same name in this region. Porfiry's anti-Christian works have not survived. Some phrases from these works were preserved by the holy fathers who polemicized with Porfiry. Works of St. Ammonium of Alexandria (5th or 6th century) survives only in fragments. In the book of Genesis it is written that Seth lived 912 years (cf. Gen. 5:8). Compare: Exodus 34:29–35; Deut.2:7. Wed: Luke 22:37; Isa.53:12. Wed: Ps.15:10; Acts 2:27. As mentioned above, the works of St. Ammonium of Alexandria (5th or 6th century) survives only in fragments. The work of Philo of Alexandria, which is quoted by St. Ammonium. Wed: Matthew 8:29; Mark 3:11; Luke 4:41. Compare: Maron of Edessa. Against Sevier. Preserved only in fragments. Wed: Matthew 14:19; Mark 6:41; Luke 9:16. Wed: Matthew 26:39; Mark 14:36; Luke 22:42. Compare: John 5:36–38, 6:29–57, 7:29, 8:42, 10:36 and others. Compare: Epiphanius of Cyprus, St. Against heresies, 66. Theodosian Patriarch of Alexandria John III (680–689). Compare: Gregory the Theologian, St. Epistle 101. To the presbyter Kledonius, against Apollinaris first. The works of this Monophysite author have survived only in fragments. Compare: Dionysius the Areopagite. About the divine names, 2, 6: “After all, the Father and the Spirit did not at all participate in this (in the Incarnation and the entire earthly life of Christ - Ig. A.) with the Word, unless someone says that only thanks to the magnificent and humane unity of will and the common highest inexpressible divine action, He who abides as God and God's Word, unchangeable, did all this for us.” This phrase is not found in the surviving works of church writers. Play on words: ἀπορία - aporia, difficulty, bewilderment, ἀπόῤῥοια - flow, stream, outflow, release. This quote is from the work of St. Eulogia of Alexandria (607/8) “Defense” was often used by Severus of Antioch (“Against the Impious Grammar,” etc.) and other Monophysites. This quotation is not found in the surviving works of Sevier of Antioch. Perhaps St. Anastasius is not quoting Sevier verbatim here, but briefly formulating the essence of his understanding of the anthropological paradigm. “I am a worm, and not a man” (Ps. 21:7). Compare: Gen.49:9; Rev.5:5. Compare: Isa.53:7; Acts 8:32; Jeremiah 11:19; Rev. 5:6–12. « Праведник яко финике процветет » ( Пс.91:13 ). That is, a Nestorian - named Paul of Samosata, whose teaching has parallels with Nestorianism. Compare: Lev.8:14–17; Luke 2:24. Sevier of Antioch. 1 Послание к Нефалию, I, 12 и далее. Один из основателей динамического течения в монархианстве. Видимо, преподобный Анастасий указывает на суборнационизм Оригена. Although, according to Origen, the Son is coeternal with the Father and there is no gap between the Father and the Son, there is still no single essence of the Father and the Son and Their complete equality. Only the Father is the true God, while Origen refers to the Son with the term “God”, as a rule, with clarification: God by communion, God by characteristics, second, other, lower God. The testimony of the Constantinople clergy, publicly proclaimed to the entire Church, that Nestorius is of one mind with Paul of Samosata, who 160 years before Nestorius was anathematized by Orthodox bishops. ACO I, 1, 1, r. 101. ICE. T. 1. P. 156. Sevier of Antioch. 1 Послание к Нефалию, I, 8 и далее. Аналогичная русская поговорка: Слово не воробей – вылетит, не поймаешь. In fact: Basil the Great, St. Message 226 (218). To the ascetics under his jurisdiction, 3. This fragment from Arius has been preserved only here. The Monk Anastasius speaks about the problem of dating and duration of Egyptian captivity. Compare: Gen.6:3, 7:6, 9:28. Wed: Isa.1:11; Jer.7:22. Compare: Exodus 12:14–17; 27:21; 28:43; 29:28; 30:21; 31:16. Compare: Ion. 2:1; Matthew 12:40. Wed: Matthew 5:39; John 18:23. Dionysius the Areopagite. On divine names, 9, 4. Compare: Dionysius the Areopagite. On the church hierarchy, 5. Wed: Maxim the Confessor, St. Scholium on Dionysius the Areopagite, 60. Basil the Great, St. Conversations on Shestodnev, I, 3. A fragment from this little-known Nestorian author Andrei was preserved only by the Monk Anastasius. This fragment from Maron of Edessa was preserved only by the Monk Anastasius. Compare: Athanasius the Great, St. Against the Arians, III, 56. This phrase is sschmch. Hippolyta of Rome has survived in fragments. Dionysius the Areopagite. About divine names. 2, 4. Dionysius the Areopagite. About divine names. 2, 4. Dionysius the Areopagite. About divine names. 2, 6. That is from the doctrine of the Holy Trinity. Maxim the Confessor, St. Interpretations. (On: Dionysius the Areopagite. On the divine names. 2, 6.) Dionysius the Areopagite. About divine names. 2, 6. Wed: Deut.19:15; Matthew 18:16; 2 Corinthians 13:1; 1 Timothy 5:19.