Письмо XII. Кубикуларию Иоанну о правых догматах Церкви Божией и против еретика Севира

Having considered it good, God-protected, to inform you without the slightest reticence about everything that comes to me about you yourself - this is prescribed by our law of true love and the legislator and love itself, Christ, who teaches us to consider each other’s deeds as our own - I wrote this letter to announce that in the month of November of the current fifteenth indictment, someone named Theodore, a cancellar, a man of really good family and with a disposition, arrived in these parts. devoid of nobility, as far as I can guess from appearance; he brought a letter, written, in his words, by our common mistress, a God-protected patrician 184 to the blessed servant of God, the all-glorious governor of our province - in order to free the nuns living here and the monastery of Mother Joanna from Alexandria, and the monastery called the Priestly (τῆς ἐπιλεγόμενης μονῆς τῶν Σακερδῶτος), as holding the heresy of Sevirus - the one who opposed the truth with such fury and abundance of lies that to this day the holy Church of God suffers quite a torment from it. Theodore did not bring a single word to anyone else, from any other of the rulers (ἄρχων) appointed there under the God-protected patrician. Why, along with many others, I was surprised, wondering why [260] my God-protected master did not deign to express anything to me through him; and, of course, as usually happens in such matters - as you, sir, know - such a letter caused a strong murmur among the faithful, and almost diminished the respect for the all-glorious lady patrician in the Catholic Church of God, and would have shocked all the inhabitants of this part of Africa, already favorably prejudiced in her favor, if the said most blessed governor, resorting to his usual prudence, had not divulged everywhere that this letter was a lie and a forgery and did not show indignation against the cancellarius, and under the pretext of this letter did not act as it should with the clearly exposed heretics from Alexandria and Syria, punishing some with imprisonment and others with blows, saying not to insult the reputation of our patrician lady. After all, they shamelessly boasted, relying, as I said, on this letter, that she listened to their teachings with pleasure, and they deceived everyone with such words, including Thomas, who is called by them a bishop, one of those who came to her safely and was held in great esteem by her; and this was precisely what excited and seduced everyone the most. So I had to go to the call, and face to face those who dared to say such things, and convince those who listened that, by the grace of Christ the Savior, neither she herself nor her deceased husband had any inclination towards heretics. Likewise, many other of the most God-fearing monks living here, and especially the blessed servants of God and our fathers, called Eucratians, saying the same thing, freed many from the power of this false fiction. And, simply put, the mentioned all-glorious husband tried in every way to show her before everyone completely untainted, and faithful to God, and worthy of respect. I have not yet freed myself from doubt about this, because, being predominantly insignificant and unworthy, I am acquiring opinions from you, the great and worthy of Divine grace; [261] I regret this matter and cannot make a judgment about it. Knowing that our common lady, the all-blessed patrician, was established by her parents on the indestructible stone of faith and taught almost nothing else and not to breathe except the right faith in God according to the teachings of the Catholic Church of God, I cannot believe that this letter belongs to her. And on the other hand, watching how the aforementioned cancellarius confirms with terrible oaths his assertion that it was for this purpose that she alone sent him here, I am afraid not to believe him and hesitate in the middle between two reasonings, unable to determine which one wins and can attract the approval of my soul. However, my blessed lord, in order to express in truth everything that I could reason - and for the sake of my great love for you, accept that out of mental anguish I will say with daring frankness: if indeed, by your will and with your knowledge, God-protected, this letter came from her in defense of the above-mentioned heretics - which I can only be amazed at, but not approve of - then I consider you not innocent. After all, I listen to the Divine Scripture, which teaches that Jehoshaphat, that pious and faithful king of Judah, having become an ally of Ahab, the king of Israel, richly tainted with the filth of idolatry, when he went against Syria, angered God and was accused by Him through the prophet, who said to him: “Are you really helping a man who hates Me and hates the Lord?” God? (2 Chronicles 19:2). If she did this, convinced by the advice of other people, then even then I do not approve of this matter, thinking about Rehoboam, the son of the great Solomon, who, because of the preference he gave to the advice of the young over the council of the elders, lost most of his kingdom (1 Kings 12:13), and knowing, in addition, that it is absolutely impossible for those who are not supposed to approach canonical questions, and especially for women who, as communicates the Divine word, silence is more decent than breathing (1 Cor. 14:34). This means that one should in no way help heretics as heretics, even if everyone were allowed to do everything with impunity, and for the stated reason - so as not to accidentally offend God and because it is not good to give them the freedom to boast of their lies and incite their followers against piety, otherwise, thanks to us, coming into the light, like a snake, they will be able to knock those who are simpler off their solid foundation with the poisonous bites of lies faith, and we, without wanting it ourselves, will also bear part of the punishment that threatens them for this. So, after all, the blessed governor at first treated even these heretics with his characteristic compassion, so that he gave them a house, which was worth a lot of gold, to live in, along with an abundant donation of necessary things, and when he saw that they were maddened by arrogant conceit, he turned away from them. After all, they immediately began to gather assemblies, as if by order, and seduce the daughters of the faithful, hide them and hide them from their parents, who had been looking for them for a considerable time, and were not afraid to atone for sins (ἱλασμούς ποιεῖν) and baptize outside the Church; and he, having visited them many times through numerous appeals and learned about this, often exhorted them to leave such things and unite with the holy Church of God, but achieved nothing; finally, seeing that this evil had already become very great and indomitable, and many of the faithful were beginning to murmur and feared that something bad might happen to the heretics, since the majority of the faithful citizens were seething with anger against them, who could not bear even the mere name of heresy, he decided that the matter legitimately required the advice and guidance of the emperor, and together with the most holy archbishop and the most noble local citizens I reported everything in writing to our most pious emperor and the most holy patriarchs of Rome and Constantinople. And having received from our most faithful emperor the most august and blessed patriarchs a sacred message, ordering the expulsion from the province of all heretics who are ossified in their evil faith, and the mentioned women, if they wish to accept the holy, immaculate and life-giving communion of the Catholic Church, to be allowed to have their dormitories as before, if they rejected the truth and do not obey the imperial decree, to distribute one by one to the monasteries true believers; their property, on which they relied primarily and generously fed those who seduced them 185, according to the law [263] was added to the public treasury - the governor diligently carried out everything as ordered. Having, by the grace of Christ, convinced all the heretics from Syria, Egypt, Alexandria and Libya to join the holy Church of God, he distributed those of the mentioned women who lived in the Priestly monastery and, out of innate arrogance, madly opposed the order of the pious ruler, distributed the faithful among the blessed monasteries for the sake of fulfilling the pious order, convincing some with exhortations, others with by kneeling, for the sake of God, becoming everything to everyone, so that, although it was late, they learned what they should do - to join the Catholic Church of God along with many other communities; and those who were under the leadership of Mother Joanna, prudently and quite deservedly - since they joined in the light of the truth of church dogmas with great joy - returned to everyone, both men and women, their monasteries 186, having acquired a worthy reward for his nobility in divine affairs, for he was adorned with the grace-filled gifts of the apostles, and was called by the true mouth of the Lord, according to the word of the divine soothsayer: “If If you bring out the precious from the unworthy, you will become as My mouth” (Jer. 15:19). Or rather, he acquired only the beginning of the reward awaiting him from God and the surest deposit of future glory with Christ, a great and wonderful thing. I write this not wishing oppression for the heretics and not rejoicing in their misfortune - let it not be! - but rejoicing and rejoicing at their conversion. After all, what is more pleasant for the faithful than to see the scattered children of God gathered together (John 11:52)? And I urge you not to prefer cruelty to philanthropy - may I be delivered from such madness! – but I urge you to act with attention and caution for the benefit of everyone, becoming everything to everyone, as anyone needs what from you; I wish and implore you to be firm and implacable only so as not to assist the heretics in any way in strengthening their insane teaching. After all, I consider attempts to give strength to error, to the greater destruction of those who fall under it, as misanthropy and distance from Divine love [264]. Exposition of the Right Confession First of all and above all, be sober and watchful, and guard the entrances from thieves, so that they do not secretly rob us; Moreover, let us preserve the great and first means of our salvation - I mean the glorious inheritance of faith - confessing openly with soul and mouth, as the Fathers taught us. They, following those who were from the very beginning eyewitnesses and ministers of the Word (Luke 1:2), said that one Person is Holy and consubstantial, immaculate and blessed Trinity, the Son of God, God the Word, the radiance of glory and the image of the Father's hypostasis (Heb. 1:3), the creator of all creation, visible and invisible, limitless, limitless, incomprehensible, super-mental, who made and contains everything by one will, immeasurable goodness - for our sake he became human and incarnated from the holy all-glorious Ever-Virgin Mary, the genuine and true Mother of God, uniting from Her with Himself by hypostasis the animate intelligent and rational soul, consubstantial with our flesh, which before that not a single moment did not exist, but took on being and existence in God Himself and the Word, and, having become completely God, fully became a man, without ceasing to be God due to the fact that he became a man, which he was not before, and to become, which he was not - a man, without an obstacle due to the fact that he remained God, as he was and is, but being one, and becoming another, both fully and truly, and attesting together His Divinity by Divine miracles and His humanity by enduring humanity ( παθήμασιν ἀνθρωπίνοις ) - and by His nature and essence, which relates to the Father, He was uncreated, invisible, limitless, unchangeable, immovable, inaccessible to suffering and corruption, immortal, the creator of everything, but by His carnal [265] and our nature He was created, subject to undergoing, limited, spatially defined (χωρητός), mortal and one and the same, but not by the identity of the source and realm of being: He is consubstantial with God and the Father in Divinity, and He is consubstantial with us in humanity, dual in nature or essence; after all, as a mediator between God and man (1 Tim. 2:5) He must completely preserve the natural affinity with those mediated through being, both of them, so that, by the very truth in Himself and through Himself, having united the earthly with the heavenly, material human nature, which became hostile due to sin, could be brought to God and the Father saved, friendly and deified not by the identity of nature, but by the ineffable the power of incarnation, and to make us, as in the beginning, participants in the Divine nature through His holy flesh, received from us. Therefore, He is still the same both by God and by man in the thing itself, and not by name alone, without being divided into two by hypostasis or face, for He was one and the same before the incarnation, and remains after the incarnation, without any addition or subtraction in the Holy Trinity due to the incarnation of the Word; the same He suffered in the flesh for our sake, the same He remained in the Divine, inaccessible to suffering, so that our salvation was accomplished in the death of the only begotten Son of God - oh incredible and ineffable mystery! - and His Divine essence, glory and identity with the Father, remained all the time without diminishment. On the difference and how one should piously confess the two natures in Christ after their union Since, based on sound reflection, the holy teachers of the Church wisely decided so, it is completely pious for us, following them, to confess two natures, different in essence, that came together in an ineffable union, but consider that they remained unfused even after they were united; and by saying that they remained unfused, not the slightest division is introduced - may there never be such a thing! - and it means [266] that there remains an unchanged difference between them. After all, difference and separation are not the same thing. Distinction is a reasoning according to which the things in question differ from each other, and it explains the way of being, that is, that something is what it is, being flesh by nature and essence, and something else is what it is, being God the Word by nature and essence. Separation is a dissection from edge to edge, or completely dissecting those things in question, and positing them as existing separately, separately and independently, and disconnected from each other. This means that if even after the union such a judgment is preserved, showing that the Word did not turn into flesh, and the flesh did not go beyond the limits of its nature, and asserting that both remained in essence what they were originally, although their union took place, then is it not entirely correct to confess that the difference of the converged natures is preserved even after the union? If this is undoubted, for it is attested by the truest truth, then it is clear to everyone and obvious that the united natures remain unfused - neither the Divinity is converted into flesh, nor the flesh is transformed into the nature of the Divinity. What other reasoning after this - if only we want all people to be guided by the fear of God and in everything to consider the truth itself as the rule of Divine doctrine, and not our own erroneous speculations - can prove that it is unreasonable to profess the preservation of nature? In addition to everything that has been said, the Fathers constantly teach that the logoi of the united natures remain unchanged: they themselves, as they are, united, together form both one Person of the Son and one hypostasis. And if so, isn’t it necessary, again, in agreement with the Fathers, knowing that the mental principles remain unchanged, to affirm the difference and preservation in its natural property of each nature after the union, and, confessing that both united natures form one Person of the Son and one hypostasis, to understand exactly that they have become inseparable? And that there is a difference between the united natures [267] and that they themselves remain unchanged after the union without any transformation or fusion is convincingly testified by the most holy light of the Church, Cyril, whose special adherents pretend to be those who fight in vain against the Holy Church; in the second volume against the blasphemies of Nestorius, he writes this way: “In the mystery of Christ revealed among us, unity does not shun difference, but excludes division, not merging or confusing natures, but in such a way that the Word of God, having received part of both flesh and blood, is still thought of and called the one and unchangeable Son of God” 187 . And in the “Apology against Andrew,” in which he condemns the third of his “Chapters,” he says this: “It would be absolutely impeccable to know that the flesh, which has its own nature, is something other than the Word, begotten of God the Father, and the Only Begotten, according to the logoi of its own nature, is again something else. But knowing this does not mean dividing natures after union” 188. These words: “after the union” were clearly stated by the great Cyril, and after him the faithful piously think and speak like this. After all, the fact that the logos of being of the united natures through the union was not damaged at all shows that, although they both formed one hypostasis, they did not mix with one another, but are preserved and remain what each is in essence. Knowing this, the wise Cyril says quite clearly: “The natures did not merge with each other, forming one hypostasis of the Son, and did not separate from each other in essence due to the fact that after the union they both remain and are thought of as different,” and each has its own natural distinctive feature, according to which the Word is God by nature, and not flesh, although it appropriated flesh to Himself by dispensation; flesh is flesh by nature, and not God, although by unity assimilated to God the Word. How then is it not necessary, unpious and indecent, according to the teaching of the Fathers, who affirm that the difference remains after the union, to believe that in the one Christ the two natures of which He consists are and are preserved after the union, and between them there is a difference? and to know that those who come together in the same number in the closest [268] connection do not accept the slightest transformation into each other or change? For when certain things differ, it is absolutely necessary that there be a difference, and where it is possible to conceive the existence of a difference, there are certainly things that differ. In this case, they turn out to be in some way mutually converging as a cause and its effect, conceivable in something of the same essence. After all, if the difference in essence of the different natures from which Christ was composed is an efficient cause, then the difference, as caused, certainly shows the difference of the united natures as its cause. For, as has been said, these two things mutually condition each other, and by affirming one, we must certainly recognize the other, and if we eliminate one, then, consequently, the other will also have to be considered non-existent. It is also necessary to affirm that there are two natures, so as not to introduce an empty distinction, and to use number when speaking about one and one, in order to show that the difference of the converged natures remains even after the union, since they remain unchanged and inseparable; besides, it is truly easier to show the difference by uttering words denoting things, than to be convinced only by words that things are different. That number neither divides nor is divided, and in its essence does not at all introduce division into what it is attached to If some people, who value their own opinion above the truth, say that number is something dividing, or separable, or introducing division, and because they fear where there is no fear (Ps. 13:5), they refuse to assert that in Christ after the union two natures are preserved, having converged into one - so as not to bring division and dismemberment into the mystery of the incarnation, I cannot understand what reason they have for such an understanding of the matter. Either in this they show themselves to be wiser than the Holy Fathers, who used precisely these words, without presuming any division, and are deluded, believing that they are capable of penetrating the Divine somewhat more spiritually than them, or they judge the essence of things by themselves, puffed up with conceit because of their conjectures and not knowing the truth hidden from them. However, who, who has studied at least some of the Divine teaching of the Fathers, does not know that any number, according to the thought of the great and God-bearing Gregory 189, explains the countability of the things to which it refers, and not their separation, as it seems to these people? After all, how, I would be willing to ask them, can something that has no true existence separate? after all, the property of true being is to be able to do something with something else. How will that which in its own essence cannot endure be divided? after all, people knowledgeable in these things have proven that this is an accessory property or quality of those things to which the number is applied. And since it cannot divide, a number in its essence cannot be divided. After all, by nature it will not be able to act - for this belongs to an independent essence, nor to undergo - for this belongs to an incidental property, nor necessarily to bring with it divisions to things that, before the counting, had the same nature, position and relationship, retained the same invariably even after they were counted, without undergoing anything new at all because of the counting. After all, when we, for example, talk about ten people or something else that has an independent existence, and designate a separate quantity, we understand that they did not perceive independent existence and separation according to hypostases through counting, but possess both by themselves, and not by number; and we explained how many there are by number, not by division, but by quantity. And one more thing: when we call a stone two-colored or five-colored, or with any other number of colors, we do not divide one stone into two stones or five stones and do not cut off its colors from each other, but we express that it has such and such a number of them without merging, and the stone is not subjected - and this cannot happen - to any cutting or division due to the fact that a continuous series of colors is counted in it, just like colors - merging or mixing from the singularity of the stone. And the stone, having uniqueness, [270] appears to have within itself a certain number of inseparable colors. In the same way, the colors of the stone, differing from each other in quality, have a number that constitutes the singularity of the stone in addition, and each has its own individuality without merging with others; and there is one and the same stone, not divided by the number of colors and not merging them with its individuality. He has a being possessing various logoi; According to one, the number is accepted, but according to the other, it is not allowed. This means that any number does not show the state of things itself - I’m talking about separateness or inseparability - but the quantity of what is attached to it, and introduces quantity, and not an image of being. After all, how can number introduce with itself the state of things, when they exist both before calculation and can be known without it, and number does not show any affinity with them and differs from them only in quantity? Because when we see a multitude of people, or horses, or bulls, and the like, we know that they exist each on their own, and are divided according to their own hypostases, and, as I have already said, they are what they are, and without counting; resorting to number to express their quantity, we in no way assume it to be the cause of their mutual arrangement, so that we would not need it to know it. And, again, looking at a multi-colored stone, or a flower, or an animal, and the like, we in no way use number to comprehend that they are variously colored; If we want to know the number of colors in them, then we do not refuse to use it. How to piously use number to express difference So the explanation of number does not create or introduce division, but explains number and introduces difference. For just as any difference explains the admissibility of some number, introducing the logos of the image of being - after all, the uncountable is certainly and indistinguishable, since it is simple [271] in essence and in quality - so any number relating to a certain number of different things, in relation to the image of being or mode of existence, explains the difference of the countable things, and does not introduce some kind of relationship between them. And that this is exactly so in the truth itself and that every number explains difference, and not division, is again testified in words by His Holiness Cyril, who writes in his letter to Eulogius literally like this: “So it is with Nestorius: although he affirms two natures, denoting the difference between the flesh and God the Word, he does not profess union with us. We, uniting both, confess one Christ, one Son, one Lord, and, finally, the one nature of the incarnate Son” 190. As if he said: “Considering the wise structure of the mystery and wanting to point out that the converged natures retained the difference even after the union, we only in this sense affirm that there are two of them, using number only contemplatively, to express the difference; and in order to most accurately designate the image of the ineffable mystery of union, we affirm the single nature of the incarnate God the Word.” After all, this is precisely what, I think, he wants to express when he says: “We, uniting them, confess one Christ, one Son, one Lord, and, finally, the one nature of the incarnate Son.” That is, we, professing the connection and reverently analyzing its image with precision, do not use the verbal designation of difference to express the connection, but, appropriately choosing some words for difference and others for connection, we preserve the understanding of what is signified without confusion. From here, however, it is clear that both he and Nestorius both affirmed two natures, but differed in their knowledge of the difference. The divergence was in the confession of the union, in these words: “One Christ, one Son, one Lord, and one incarnate nature of the Word,” which Nestorius did not want to utter. After all, the words: “So it is with Nestorius: although he affirms two natures, denoting the difference of the flesh and God the Word, he does not profess union with us,” mean nothing more than the fact that Nestorius professes the difference with us, affirming two natures, but does not profess union [272] with us, for he does not affirm “one Christ, one Son, one Lord, and one incarnate nature of the Word.” And to those who love goodness and wish to adhere to the truth, this is clear from the fact that the teacher forbids not affirming the existence of two natures after the union, but dividing the natures after the union or eliminating the difference between the converged natures after the union, as can be seen in many of his writings. This means that if there is always a connection, and always the united natures remain unfused, and the difference between the united natures is always preserved, for the sake of which, according to the Fathers, number is used, then how can it not be necessary - if indeed the union, and the united natures, and their difference are always preserved, it is pious to affirm the existence of two natures to express the difference of the united natures, and, again, one incarnate nature To confess God the Word to indicate the unity of the hypostasis? Moreover, neither of these two numerals cancels the other (as it seems to some people for whom the reasoning of wisdom becomes nonsense), so that neither fusion nor division occurs. After all, without uttering a word that properly explains the difference, we leave the possibility of fusion; and on the other hand, without using the one that denotes connection, don’t we understand that we are allowing separation? But both numerals are always spoken and applied piously in relation to the same Christ, although not in the same way, because what they denote is not the same. After all, difference and union are not the same thing, although they relate and are applied to the same thing; each of them is expressed separately from the other and is not sufficient to explain the whole mystery if it is not accompanied by another and is not shown to be suspect: one is in division, because of Nestorius, who denies the unity of the hypostasis and does not agree to confess that for our sake the Infinite One deigned to be contained in the flesh; the other is in fusion, because of Apollinaris and Eutyches, who deny the difference of the converging natures after the union and are embarrassed to confess that the Invisible One has become accessible to our senses, allowing in Himself the natural property of His holy flesh taken from us. [273] This means that those who want to be truly pious must, as has been said, both confess one incarnate nature of God the Word, in order to show the completeness of the union, and also affirm two natures, in order to explain the difference of the converged natures, which persist without fusion after the union, and for the sole purpose of this, use number. For the Fathers rightly did not approve of explaining the difference in other words. And if someone, relying on his own mind, can come up with words better suited to explain the difference, then let him not envy our usefulness, and we also will not envy his enlightenment, not to say audacity. How should we understand the saying of St. Cyril in his letter to Sukkens? And that the words “in two” do not contradict those who affirm the one incarnate nature of the Word, if we do not take them impiously in the sense of Nestorius If they say that, nevertheless, the affirmation of two natures, after the union inseparably united, contradicts the affirmation of the one incarnate nature of the Word, as St. Cyril teaches about it in the second reminder to Sukkens, then I will without hesitation consider that this comes from people who either do not know the speeches of the Fathers, or who distort them, and who believe that it is more useful to oppose the truth than to agree with it. After all, knowing that we will give an answer to our righteous Judge about one thought without action, they should, prudently and God-fearingly reading the writings of the Fathers, diligently strive not to make their speeches, teaching peace and unanimity, a pretext for struggle and discord. For who doesn’t understand, if you just look carefully, that Blessed Cyril forbids speaking like this not in general, but according to the malicious meaning of Nestorius, who asserted that the conjunction is copositive (σχετική)? - as Blessed Cyril himself testifies at the end of the same message, explaining to the disputants the purpose of his speech; he says: “And what [274] is added “inseparably” seems to have an Orthodox meaning for us. They don't understand it that way. With them, inseparability, according to the idle talk of Nestorius, is used in a different sense. They say that by equality of honesty, by unity of will, by equality of power, the person in whom He has indwelled is inseparable from God the Word. So they do not simply pronounce these words, but with some deception and distortion” 191. This is how clearly this wonderful teacher outlined the dual meaning of “inseparability”: on the one hand, it denotes a hypostatic union and, taken in this sense, is considered an expression of Orthodoxy; on the other hand, it explains only the contact by position, in what sense it is rejected; and he exhorts the faithful to do the same, for because of the same sound this meaning is often capable of secretly infecting the less experienced with the poison of heretical wickedness. Therefore, he believes that he himself Orthodoxy affirms two inseparable natures, since he spoke about hypostatic unity, and when the followers of Nestorius talk about “inseparability,” this is suspicious, because they teach that union is just a contact in position. Hypostatic union, according to the teachings of the Fathers, is the convergence of natures of different essences into one hypostasis, preserving within itself, without damage, change or division, the natural peculiarity of each in comparison with the other. And the opposite connection is an equal movement of desire and complete identity of the will existing independently and separately in their personal singularities (ἐν μονάσι προσωπικαῖς). This means that whoever professes the hypostatic union, even though he affirms the existence after the union of two natures in Christ, inseparably united, it is clear that by the hypostatic union he does not deviate in the least from the truth. After all, he confesses, in agreement with the Fathers, that the natures that make up Christ are unfused, since the difference remains between them, and in no way can he think separately and outside of the hypostatic unity of natures that are different in relation to each other. But whoever defends the juxtaposed union, even though he speaks [275] thousands of times about inseparability, is worthy of censure for the fact that he claims that - according to the meaning of his speech - the inseparable union occurs through a certain feeling of love, and is in no way able to express the unity of the hypostasis of God the Word in His flesh taken from us with soul and mind. It is impossible, after all, for two separate hypostases, separated by their own logos from homogeneous indivisible essences, to become one hypostasis. So our holy father Cyril condemns and rejects not the assertion of two natures, inseparably united after union, but the thought that is expressed in the same words by those who abuse speech. Since, therefore, it has been proven - albeit moderately, but in my opinion still to a sufficient extent, as far as it was possible to explain in writing - both according to the Holy Fathers, and in the course of generally accepted thought, that number cannot make, endure, or introduce the slightest division, but simply expresses quantity without affecting the mutual arrangement, whatever it may be, then what suspicion of dissection or division still remains among those who rebel against the holy Church of God and at random cuts himself off from the common body? They cause less harm than they themselves suffer, being pitifully killed and ruined by this separation, and they prepare for themselves punishment for indecent behavior towards the body of Christ, because for this they have rejected the right profession of pious faith; unless, out of fear of appearing to dissect the union, they will accept the merger and by cunning contrive not to be caught in an ungodly confession! That in Christ there is a difference of things, or rather of essences, and not of qualities. And that any difference necessarily brings with it the quantity of those entities to which it refers, and quantity is the number expressing it, whether the quantity is continuous or separate After all, they needed, if this were really not so, not only with empty words, as if it had not been established by anyone, deceptively [276] to remember the difference in order to deceive those who are simpler, but to say without hesitation what kind of things differ and in what number, between which they profess a difference. For if they believe that after union the combined natures are preserved, then they would certainly confess that two are preserved. After all, just so many of them came together in an indissoluble connection, without perceiving during the connection the slightest change, nor merging, nor derogation, nor reduction, nor transformation into each other. But now they do not think so, since they deny that after the union two natures are preserved, and, although unwillingly, they incriminate themselves by asserting that difference remains only in quality, and not in the things themselves - and this, quite clearly, people act only when they joke, and are justly offended if they are not laughed at, and clearly invalidate the Gospel, and establish a law according to which qualities can exist without corresponding essences, and teach that difference can be known without quantity. After all, these great sages do not seem to know that any quality necessarily belongs to the corresponding essence, in relation to which it is contemplated and called, and does not at all have independent existence, and that any difference, revealing the dissimilarity and difference of one with another in the way of being, by nature brings with it a number of different things, be they essences, qualities or properties. And in general, in short, they would have to say that there is a difference of something else in those things which they consider different in relation to each other, certainly considering them by quantity and perceiving the difference either by the senses or by the mind. It is impossible to agree that the difference can be clearly demonstrated without quantity. For things which are not entirely identical cannot in any way have the same mode of being. After all, we can never assert that an essence or nature has the same way of being, for example, with another essence, or a quality with another quality, or a property with a property, or something else with something else, when they relate to things that are not completely identical, [277] - and between completely identical things there can be no difference. And the fact that the impossibility of seeing the same logos in everything for the same thing creates difference, rightly proves that things that have a different way of being cannot be [something] one and identical to themselves, and that they do not have the same logos. When we say that one thing is different from another, or some things are different from others, we indicate that we are talking about many things, or at least about two, and not about one; although in a different way and with a different meaning we say that they relate to something one and constitute one: as in one fire - its qualities and properties, and in one Christ - His nature, in which and by the consisting of which He is known, and in one person - those things from which he was composed and in which he is known as being. One in relation to the hypostasis in Christ and in a person similar to us, or in relation to the whole, composed of them as from parts, since it fully accepts both different logos of being of its parts, but not one in relation to nature and essence, because the parts do not accept the logos of each other’s being and we cannot recognize the same logos of being in both. After all, the logos of Divinity and humanity, as well as souls and bodies, is not the same, which is obvious to everyone. Therefore, neither as one by nature, nor as simply one or a composite nature, was Christ ever determined by the mind of truth. Nor does the name ‘Christ’ explain the essence or nature as the essence or nature of a species, which consists of many different indivisible hypostases (ταῖς ὑποστάσεσι ἀτόμων), as Blessed Cyril says in the scholia: “That the name ‘Christ’ has no defining force and expresses not the essence of something, but the hypostasis Words, conceivable, of course, with the acceptance of the flesh endowed with an intelligent soul" 192. But “man” does not express one nature, composed of soul and body, as if the soul had the same essence with the body, but a species: nature, by difference in composition, is separated from other species, and as a species equally refers to the individuals that fall under it and are contained in it. But due to the fact that the soul and body, according to the essential logos, are two things, like the soul itself and the body proper, and different essences according to the logos of being, he did not deny what man is from, in what and what. That it is ungodly to say that Christ is one composite nature, [278] and contrary to the truth After all, in any composite nature that has its own parts, which, upon appearing into being, are contemporary with itself and with each other and from non-existence for the sake of replenishing the universal dispensation are brought into being by the power that created everything and maintains the existence of everything, these parts, of course, necessarily contain each other, as is the case in man and in other creatures to whom a composite nature has been inherited. The soul, after all, does not of its own will take possession of the body and falls under its control, and without intention gives it life based on what is in it, and by nature becomes an accomplice of suffering and pain thanks to its inherent ability to perceive them; and although there are, in fact, some people who have departed from the true teaching of the Church about the soul, who tell tales that the soul - in the Hellenic manner - begins to exist before its own body, or - in the Jewish manner - later, and do not believe that the creation of visible things was preceded by a good Divine principle, and are hostile to the above reasoning, but I, having judged that the refutation of their empty and powerless arguments is neither the time nor the place, I return to discussed. And since, in fact, this is the case with all composite nature, as was said above, no one who has learned to think reverently about the Divine will ever dare to assert that Christ is one composite nature, lest, having decided to say this, he would not express by some natural interweaving and sequence of reasoning that He is all created and created from nothing, limited and subject to undergoing, and is not consubstantial with the Father, and the Word is contemporary with the flesh - after all, this is precisely the meaning of every composite nature - and not fall under terrible accusations because of this. After all, that which has a composite nature is itself obviously composite by nature. But what is composite by nature will never be of the same nature and consubstantial with that which is simple by nature. This means that it is not suitable for pious people to say that Christ is one composite nature, not only because of the absurdity introduced by such words, but also because [279] none of God’s chosen Fathers ever said such a thing, but one should confess the one composite hypostasis of Christ and two natures, so that He may be known to the Father as consubstantial and consubstantial in nature by Divinity, and as consubstantial and consubstantial with us in the flesh. was comprehended, and by faith was thought of in the same way in relation to the Father and to us as a mediator between God and people. If, however, because it has been proven that the proper parts of any composite hypostasis are contemporaneous with it and with each other, and we do not refuse to consider Christ a composite hypostasis, our opponents can say that in this we cannot avoid censure, since we incriminate ourselves with our own speeches. We will say that it would really be so if we taught that it is composite, since it is assigned to belong to a certain species. And since we do not say this, we do not deserve any blame, for we clearly understand that every composite hypostasis included in any species is not composite in itself, but by nature, which is composite and contains the species to which it is raised, just as the partial or separate completely contains the universal, or the general and the generic, and the separate does not devote anything from itself to the generic; which none of the wise teachers of piety from ancient times to the present day has clearly thought about Christ, and no one can discover the genus or species to which Christ belongs. For the Divine Word appeared to us in the flesh not according to the logos of nature, but, according to the economy, being completely united with it in hypostasis, it renewed our nature. So, returning somewhat back in our discussion of the issue under consideration, their great caution did not bring them any benefit, because their wisdom again turned to quantity, which they avoided, and were unable to assert a qualitative difference without number. For it is absolutely necessary that there be several, or at least [280] as already said, two qualities, between which a difference is supposed. About one quality that exists completely separately in comparison with another, no one in their right mind would ever say that it is different from itself. This means that it remains for them either to abandon this very powerless difference, having learned that difference certainly explains the number of some different things, or to accept with us the confession of truth, and we, in agreement with the Fathers, piously use number only for the sake of difference, in order to recognize the unfused existence of convergent natures. If they are so kind, let them tell us - if they have a not entirely wretched understanding of wisdom - how, while affirming that two natures came together in a union, and not denying that both remained the same after the union, without merging, so that neither went beyond the limits of its own nature and its logos, and both together constituted one Person of the Son and one hypostasis - how come they do not confess two natures, recognizing, if only they speak the truth, that both are they saved? and what reason do they have for such a decrease? and for what reason and how did both natures become one with them? Or, if the combination remains free from diminution, for what reason do they not admit that natures are preserved without diminution? - and we will humbly agree to decrease by one nature and marvel at their high education: after all, they will seem to us the only people capable of accommodating the knowledge of these ineffable secrets! However, they can never give a convincing reason for this. A brief refutation of Sevier's objection to the expression "in two" If they resort to the last refuge - the senseless and empty invention of Sevier, which he spreads everywhere and praises as something wise, and they say that it is ridiculous to say that from two natures - by union two natures are again obtained, as if deducing what they want from the statement we have admitted - then from whom did they hear from those brought up in the teaching of the Divine Church that the union supposedly creates two natures from two natures? Yes, they will never be able to say that they heard, if only they care about the truth [281]. We affirm that from two natures a union occurs, and a single composite hypostasis of Christ is formed from the two natures of which it consists and which it retains in itself completely and contains without change, as a whole, its own parts, together with natural properties, and itself is preserved and contained in them, as a whole in its parts. This means that from two natures, we say, not two natures are obtained, but one composite hypostasis of Christ, containing these natures and embracing them as its component parts and existing and cognizable in them as in parts. After all, as long as the converging natures are considered to remain unfused - and they eternally remain without fusion - it is impossible that they should not be two, since they exist, because each exists according to its essence, just as it is impossible that they should not constitute one according to the logos of hypostasis, while the union continues - and according to the pious confession of the faithful, it remains forever. Therefore, considering the same thing to be one and two, we do not use both words in relation to the same thing for the same reason, but in different ways. For example, according to the logos of nature, we say that it is a combination of two. After all, we recognize God the Word not as identical to our own flesh by nature, but by the one logos of hypostasis, since we know that by hypostasis God the Word is identical to our own flesh. This means that we do not foolishly merge natures into one nature, asserting that in Christ the difference of natures is eliminated, so as not to introduce in this way the transformation of the Word into flesh and flesh into the Word, and we do not foolishly divide into two independent natures, also positing a difference according to the logos of hypostasis, so as not to destroy our own salvation, as Apollinaris did with Eutyches and Nestorius, dividing wickedness among themselves in ways far from each other: one - not knowing the difference of natures in Christ, and the other - adding difference in face, they fell away from the truth. And we, knowing that in the hypostatic union the property of nature remains unchanged, we reject equally [282] both fusion and division, not making a merger out of the union, as if we did not know what came together in it, nor out of difference - separation, as if we believed that differing natures exist independently and separately. This is exactly what, I think, the great Gregory the Theologian taught in his great apology, saying: “One from both, and both by one,” 193 as if he had said: “As one from both, that is, from two natures, one, as a whole from parts according to the logos of the hypostasis, so one according to the hypostasis, as a whole, both parts according to the natural logos, that is, two natures.” Setting this out even more clearly in the second speech about the Son, he says: “If both are one, it is not by nature, but by descent” 194 . Blessed Cyril wisely expresses the same thing in his letter to Sukkens, in which he says, using the example of a person: “So two are no longer two, but from both one animal is made up,” 195 almost shouting, explaining that the parts that make up a person like us - the soul and body, and those that make up the mystery of Christ - the Divinity and humanity, are not deprived of the logos being of two essences, but also diversity of essence still does not remain. After all, the independent existence of two essences in different monads is completely unacceptable to pious reason, so as not to divide one person or animal into two people or two animals, and one Christ into two Christs or two Sons. And if Blessed Cyril did not know perfectly that one should think, feel, and teach this way, he would not have argued that the difference of natures is not eliminated due to union and would not have taught that natures are different, unequal, unfused and both form one Christ. He would not believe that the Word does not pass into the nature of the flesh, and the flesh does not transform into the nature of the Word Himself. I would not have known that the evangelical and apostolic expressions relating to the Lord were used by wise men, either in generalization, when they spoke about one Person, or in division, when they spoke about two natures. I would not refuse to say that the whole - that is, Christ - is one nature, if [283] I considered it pious. He would not define human nature as flesh animated by the mind and would not argue that therefore the nature of humanity was perfect in Christ. I would not say that by adding the word “incarnate” an explanation of our human essence is introduced. I would not define that the affirmation of two inseparably united natures means right faith, unless this expression is pronounced insidiously in the sense of the opinion of Nestorius. Not only this, but also many other things he would not have stated, which are clear to diligent people in his writings. Why, and by whose teaching will these people prove that the faithful should not piously confess the preservation of two natures in Christ after the union, of which He consists and which they themselves acknowledge? After all, there is not a single recognized Teacher who would prophesy this - on the contrary, they all themselves used these expressions and taught them to the faithful; unless, out of habit, for the sake of deceiving those who are simpler, they present their arbitrary inventions as the words of the Fathers. But they seem to be ashamed to succumb to persuasion and prefer to Divine love partiality for the people who initially seduced them, and the passion for contradiction is valued above the piety and respect that would be shown to them as priests by those to whom they inspire empty lies, acting against us by deception, and taking evil for evil - I mean perishable goods, the reward for their deception - value it above honor and praise from God for unanimity in faith, and incessantly They oppose the truth, trying to turn as many people away from it as possible. Therefore, I, most insignificant, call on you, as true children of the holy Apostolic Church, in which, having been enlightened by the Divine font of regeneration, you have been deemed worthy to be adopted as sons of God in the Spirit - to distance yourself from these false teachers, remembering that the holy Apostle Paul wrote to the Romans: “I beseech you, brethren, beware of those who cause divisions and temptations, contrary to the teaching to which you learned, and avoid them. For such people serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly, and with flattery and eloquence they deceive the hearts of the simple” (Rom. 16:17-18). And about the same people who were skilled at sowing discord in the Church of God, he wrote to the Corinthians like this: “For such false apostles, deceitful workers, disguise themselves as apostles of Christ. And no wonder: because Satan himself takes the form of an angel of light. This means that it is not a great thing if his servants take on the appearance of servants of truth; their end will be according to their works” (2 Cor. 11:13-15). The Lord also has in mind their insidious intentions and deceit, warning the faithful against them in the Gospels and strengthening them with these words: “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. By their fruits you will recognize them” (Matthew 7:15–16). The holy evangelist John speaks about them in his first conciliar letter, calling the pious to increased sobriety and vigilance: “Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have appeared in the world. Know the Spirit of God this way: every spirit that confesses Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God. But every spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not from God, and this is the spirit of the Antichrist, about whom you heard that he was coming, and is now already in the world” (1 John 4:1-3). Entreating you, blessed ones, to always remember these words, I wish that you all carefully and diligently adhere to piety, better than which there is no way for people to appease God and draw closer to Him, turning away with all their might from those who do not accept the pious and saving teaching of the Church, and most of all, know that the teaching of the Antichrist is not to confess our Lord and God Jesus Christ who has come in the flesh (1 John 4:3), as the great evangelist John clearly proclaims; and this is precisely what the current enemies of the Church of God openly preach, denying the carnal nature in Christ, since they do not confess that it is preserved and do not admit that it abides in Him; and they are not afraid - which is even more pitiful, or, to put it simply, even more careless - to present themselves as heralds of a creed that is contrary [285] to God. However, these people, who decided to behave so carelessly in matters of faith, reap the worthy fruit of their madness, being shamed by everyone for their obvious wickedness. A brief interpretation of the words of the right confession about Christ according to the teaching of the Catholic Church We, however, who are grazed in the divine and pure pasture of church teaching and who preserve the indestructible glory of piety, with God’s help, boldly confess before God and people all the words spoken by the Fathers about Christ, accepting each with reverent understanding and proper reasoning, as we originally learned the saving meaning of faith from those who became servants of grace. So, we confess that our Lord Jesus Christ is composed of two natures - Divinity and humanity, and we recognize Him as existing in two natures - Divinity and humanity. Just as we, in asserting that He is composed of two natures, believe that He consists of Divinity and humanity, so in affirming that He is in two natures, we rightly declare that He exists in Divinity and humanity, so that after the union of the natures that composed Him, He is not separated from either of them, but exists and is known in the natures of which He always consists. We also confess that He is two natures, inseparably united in hypostasis - truly God and man, and we believe that these names certify the truth of a thing. After all, just as we believe that He is by nature and truth, and is called the Son of God and God through the identity of essence with God the Father, we also affirm that He is both the Son of man and man became, and is, and is called by nature and truth through natural kinship in the flesh with Her who gave birth to Him. After all, if we do not confess that in Him, as in God and at the same time man, there are two natures, then we will be convicted of asserting that He consists of empty names, and not of real things, and is not truly what these names mean. So, according to the teaching of these false teachers, if [286] someone sets out to blaspheme, he will finally be able to even say that what we worship and serve does not exist at all, and this is even worse than the worst wickedness. Beware, therefore, of being subject to accusations of impiety, let us unceasingly confess that Christ is composed of two natures - from the Divinity, as already said, and humanity, and exists in two natures - in the Divinity and humanity, and there are two natures, for we believe that He is at the same time God and man, knowing Him as a whole through parts, not only consisting of them, but also equal to them, and not only equal, but also existing in them, as a whole from parts, and the whole in parts. For since He, having given existence to being, also gave the power to remain, so that individual species would not mix with each other and not turn into each other, but each would remain in accordance with the logos according to which He was created, so that, according to the stability of the natural properties of each species, zealous researchers of the Divine can comprehend the wisdom and skill of the Creator and Ruler of everything, then all the more did He establish in Himself boundless power, remaining what it was, and becoming what it was not, and not destroying what it became, the immutability of what it was - after all, both that and that remained without diminution or change. And we piously confess the one nature of God the Word, embodied in flesh animated by mind and understanding, because we add the word “incarnate,” which introduces an explanation of our human essence. After all, this is a descriptive expression that expresses by name and definition both natures, united in one and the same thing: the name “single nature of the Word” denotes the common essence with His own hypostasis, and the definition “incarnate” - the human essence, as the teacher of the Church says: “What is the nature of humanity if not flesh animated by the mind” 196 . So whoever speaks of the one incarnate nature of God the Word explains that God the Word has animate flesh, and as a true student of impeccable piety, he thinks of the flesh as something completely different in essence from God the Word. And speaking of the hypostatic union, [287] we both think and confess that by the union of natures one hypostasis was created, so that none of them exists at all and is not thought of on its own, but only together with the other, with which it is juxtaposed and akin, but, however, is not mixed in essence and has not suffered any derogation through the union. And again, we confess the natural union as the truth, in accordance with how St. Cyril himself used and interpreted these expressions, and not in the sense of the elimination after the union of the two natures of which Christ consists, or one of them, as Apollinaris, Eutyches and Sevirus declared after Simon the Magus, Valentinus and Mani - those who wish can easily discern from the consonance of speeches in the writings of Sevier himself his identity teaching with the teaching of the said wicked men. In the same way, we talk about two births of one and the same Christ: one - from God the Father until the ages, and the other - for our sake from the Holy Virgin in recent times, and we glorify Him, one and the same, both miracles and suffering. We also confess the holy, glorious Virgin to be truly and truly the Mother of God, who became the mother not of some ghostly man who was transformed at least a moment before the union with the Word and deified by success in business and the highest virtue, but truly of God the Word Himself, one of the Persons of the Holy Trinity, incarnate from Her through a mysterious conception and fully incarnated. With these words the Holy Church of God teaches her faithful to piously express themselves and think, protecting them in the brilliant light of Divine knowledge, and through the mouths of the prophets and apostles, and Christ Himself, who raised and established Her through His sufferings, calls upon them to lead a life that corresponds and befits the great proclamation of faith: “See that this is the will of God, good, acceptable and perfect” ( Rom.12:2) – and be vigilant about this. After all, no less than pious faith, as we have been taught, it is necessary to live a virtuous life to achieve eternal life, so that, due to bad morals, [288] we do not build something inappropriate on the cornerstone of faith and, for contempt for the calling voice and the grace of adoption, we do not undergo eternal fire instead of joy and endless glory. So since we, blessed and intelligent lovers of the blessed beauty of Christ, see the many paths of virtue given to people by the Lord of all, and going towards a single goal, and for the sake of salvation reaching one end, let us not neglect our salvation and let us not miss the time given to us for repentance, because it is impossible to return it again. But before, in the words of the great Job, “we go to a place from which we will not return, to a dark and gloomy land, to a land of eternal darkness, where there is no light and you will not see human life” (Job 10:21-22), let us strive to appease God as much as we have the strength. After all, for the sake of the variegated diversity in the structure of our souls, He, in His goodness, created a corresponding multitude of paths leading to the eternal abodes of those who walk impeccably along them, so that everyone, having chosen the path suitable for themselves and having completed the procession of life along it, can take their desired place in heaven in eternal glory. So, as much strength as we have through the mercy and help of Christ, let us direct ourselves toward fulfilling what is required. Let us compassionately alleviate the misfortune of the beggar and let us not miss the opportunity to moderate his need. Let us not hesitate to cover the nakedness of the naked, sparing the incorruptible robe given to us. Let us sympathize with those who are tormented in prison, and those suffering from bodily illness, and those burdened by life in a foreign land, and try to feel with our own the hardships of other people, so that, by imitating in love for our relatives the One who took our infirmities and bore our illnesses (Matthew 8:17), and through deeds honoring His humane self-deprecation for our sake, we too may become worthy of becoming contemplators and participants of His glory; and we will not do this for the sake of glory from people, for which at the end of our present life we ​​will not have any approval, but we will say and do everything that pleases Him, truly becoming God’s and, like Him, through mutual love for mankind, becoming all things to all (1 Cor. 9:22). [289] Indeed, in this way, gradually advancing in virtue, we, with God’s help, will be able to follow, as we should, Divine philosophy and correct ourselves for a higher life, despising everything earthly and considering the last rank with God much better and more valuable than the first dignity at the court of an earthly king; Having begun to enrich ourselves with it and gradually accustoming our spiritual senses to look at created things with prudent equanimity, we will gain great benefit: divine philosophy will safely lead us through the excitement and impermanence of the visible to the stable and motionless, but will not allow us to remain and linger in it; and then, avoiding the disorder of earthly things and striving for the order of heavenly things, we will call abyss upon abyss (Ps. 42:8) and through the greatness of the visible we will see, as far as is accessible to people, the logoi of intelligent things and, looking in numbness into the most inaccessible sanctuary (τῷ ἀδύτῳ τῶν ἀδύτων), we recognize our own insignificance and through the prophecies of the Spirit we will mysteriously learn how we, dust and ashes (Gen. 18:27), by the grace of the willful God, achieve Divine glory, and what is insignificant and despicable by nature is transformed into so blessed; and thus, amazed by the spectacle of the Infinite, we will reap the fruit of true wisdom, the powerful defense of the virtues - I’m talking about humility, the greatest and primary gift of God, by killing with which the causes of the passions - I mean feelings, coupled with the close proximity of sensory objects to them - we will completely cut ourselves off from the world in order to look at the intelligent with the unclouded eye of the soul, and then our soul, already truly penetrated humility and having finally acquired the ability to accept the reflection of the Divine image, will be met by Divine love, and will make us friends from slaves, granting [290] the most important thing in the law - “you will love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul” (Matthew 22:37), and further, for with courageous severity he will not allow any of our mental powers to be directed towards anything other than God. Let us strive, while there is time (Gal. 6:10), to actually realize the goal of godly Christian proclamation set for us by God. Since “our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the principalities, against the powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world” (Eph. 6:12), invisible tyrants and enemies who are not openly waging battle, but fighting in the secret depths of hearts; “let us put on the whole armor of God,” as God’s apostle calls on us, “so that we may be able to withstand in the day of trouble and, having done everything, to stand; And let us gird our thighs with truth, and put on the breastplate of righteousness, in which all the fiery arrows of the evil one will be quenched" (Eph. 6:13-16). Let us persevere, with “all prayer and supplication” (Eph. 6:18), and we will receive “the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God” (Eph. 6:17) - in short, separating the worst from the best and teaching the godly what is appropriate for Christians to know, and this is a matter of perfect discernment; it is also clarity of vision, restraint of the tongue, strictness towards the body, humility, purity of thoughts, destruction of anger, as the great Basil says somewhere, soaring of the mind to God, and increased resistance to temptations for the sake of preserving the precious, repaying with love for hatred, meekness towards those who persecute, admonishing those who blaspheme, self-mortification of evil, co-crucifixion with Christ, transferring to God completely all the ability to love. I wrote this, my blessed lord, not because I did not know your firmness in the faith of Christ and the worship of Him that is multiplied by the fulfillment of the commandments, but wanting to tell you what and how great a battle I am waging for you, and concern is constantly burning my heart; and I urge you to be more vigilant in observing the main champions of heresies, so that none of them, having seduced you with false arguments, can entice you - let this not happen! – [291] the pure and life-giving source of your faith by the dirty streams of your own wicked teaching. After all, their tongue is like a two-edged sword and a sharpened razor, cutting souls to death, and sending them into a hellish trap and a dark abyss, and depriving them of life in Christ with false sweet talk. Our Lord Himself and God Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son and Word of God the Father, the creator of all creation, visible and invisible, for our sake, out of His inexpressible love for mankind, accepted death, as He Himself willed, and with His own blood delivered us from the power of darkness - May He Himself take you by the right hand and lead you into the fear of God, and into the full knowledge of His will in all wisdom and spiritual understanding, and yes will incline you to act worthy of Himself, to bear fruit in every good work and to grow in the knowledge of His truth, and may He strengthen you with all strength according to the power of His glory for all creation and long-suffering, and may He preserve you, who strive with joy and gratitude according to the Gospel of His grace, and may He honor some of the saints in the light ( Col. 1:9-12 ) with the prayers and supplications of our all-glorious Lady Theotokos and Ever-Virgin Mary and all saints. Amen. Maxim uses this strange title to emphasize that he does not recognize Martina’s rule as legitimate. – Approx. lane “Those who seduced them” is clearly masculine in the Greek text. Apparently, in addition to the heretical nuns, there were also some heretics - probably their teachers. – Approx. lane “...He distributed those of the mentioned women who lived...; and those who were under the command of Mother Joanna... returned to everyone, both men and women, their monasteries” - I kept the incorrect construction during translation, since it does not interfere with understanding. – Approx. lane Acta conciliorum oecumenicorum Ed. E. Schwartz. Berlin, 1927–1929 [hereinafter referred to as ASO]. T. 1. V. 1. Part 6. P. 42, line 34–37 (Schwartz). – Approx. resp. ed. ASO. T. 1. V. 1. Part 7. R. 40, line 7–10 (Schwartz). – Approx. resp. ed. In Min's edition - apparently erroneously - there is an indication of Homily XXX (On Theology IV) of St. Gregory the Theologian. However, in this case, Word 31 (On Theology 5) of St. is more suitable as a source. Gregory. – Approx. resp. ed. ASO. T. 1. V. 1. Part 4. R. 35, line 10–14 (Schwartz). The indicated message is available in the Russian edition of the Acts of the Councils: Memorandum of Archbishop Cyril to Presbyter Eulogius, located in Constantinople / Acts of the Ecumenical Councils: In 4 volumes. St. Petersburg, 1996 [Reprint, from the publisher: Kazan, 1916]. T. 2. pp. 159–161. – Approx. ed. Cyril of Alexandria. Epistle II to Sukkens. ASO. T. 1. V. 1. Part 6. R. 162, line 18–22 (Schwartz). – Approx. ed. The source of the quote is unclear. – Approx. resp. ed. Gregory the Theologian. Sermon II (On the removal to Pontus) [in Russian. lane Word III], PG 35 432 31. – Note. resp. ed. Gregory the Theologian. Homily XXX (On Theology IV), PG 36 113 4446 VII, 10–11 (Barbel). – Approx. resp. ed. Cyril of Alexandria. Epistle II to Sukkens, ASO. T. 1. V. 1. Part 6. R. 162, line 8–9 (Schwartz). – Approx. resp. ed. Cyril of Alexandria. Epistle II to Sukkens. ASO. T. 1. V. 1. Part 6. R. 162, line 14 (Schwartz). – Approx. ed. You might be interested in: