Письмо XIII. Краткое слово к иллюстрию Петру против учения Севира

Truly, my blessed master showed that physical separation from each other cannot in any way reduce spiritual love, when people are spiritually connected by God with love for each other, without considering it unworthy to bestow upon me, insignificant and sinful, in whom there is nothing worthy of his love, with his precious letter. Having received it, I rejoiced and embraced him in spirit as if he had come, and, as usual, thanked the only God and Savior of all Christ [292] for the fact that my master, as I understood, had successfully completed his journey on the water. After all, when present, my blessed master is truly kind, and when absent, he is no less dear to everyone than when he is present, for the sake of the grace of the poverty of the Holy Spirit that illumines him (Matthew 5:3), through which everyone who truly assimilates it to himself as a Divine virtue becomes a holy church into indwelling in the spirit of God, who has humbled Himself to the image of a servant and showed it to people in word and deed; By imitating him, my blessed master himself acquired meekness and humility in his soul. Meekness - because he who extinguishes the passionate movements of anger and lust becomes pleasing to God and people. After all, meekness is nothing more than complete immobility of anger and lust for the sake of the unnatural; whoever has it, God's will becomes clear to him. After all, the great David says in the psalm: “He guides the meek in judgment, and teaches the meek his ways” (Ps. 24:9). And humility - because he who cuts off the rigidity of arrogance becomes pleasing to God and pleasing to people. After all, humility is the knowledge of an all-transcending and creative reason through a comparative comparison of every thing with God, according to which people are kind to each other and forgive the sins of debtors. “Look,” says the same great David, “at my humility and at my exhaustion, and forgive all my sins” (Ps. 24:18). So that my blessed master may lead his life in this way and preserve, in the literal sense of the word, the unshakable steadfastness of faith in Christ, I pray, and be not subject to any stormy waves of heresies as a sincere child of God’s holy catholic and apostolic Church, established in a pious confession, who will not be overcome by the evil lips of heretics, which are opened like the gates of hell (Matthew 16:18 ). I learned about these illegal grafts, illegally grafted from a wild olive onto a good tree, even before you, blessed ones, wrote to me, because, according to the word of the prophet, “like a dog to his vomit” (Prov. 26:11), so they must return to the stinking [293] stench of their faith, like the new Simons [Mages], Demantes and Hermogenes, who decided to prefer deception of the truth, but not in the least offending, no matter what they think, the heralds of piety with their apostasy, but rather deservedly harming themselves and being deprived of grace; and even the present age, for the sake of which they have departed from the truth, they cannot enjoy as they would like, because it is by nature unstable and changeable and always runs away from the one who seems to have mastered it. For truly stinking, and full of stench, and devoid of all grace, is any speech that teaches that by nature in the one Christ, after an inexplicable union, that from which Christ is composed is not preserved, and thereby denies the entire dispensation of God about man, and cuts off from God the Word the rationally animated body received from the most pure and holy, ever-glorious Virgin and truly the Mother of God. Indeed, in fact, he cuts off, even though outwardly he confesses with his lips alone for the sake of seducing those who listen, and completely denies the incarnation who says that after the union the nature of the flesh does not exist, is not preserved and is not confessed, unfused and inseparably united with God the Word by hypostasis - under the pretext of supposed piety, so as not to seem to cut the union by number, but in fact undoubtedly and completely denying the existence after the union of those natures, of which Christ is composed. More natural reasoning about number This happens to them, it seems, because they do not know that any number does not divide according to its own logos, and is not divided, and does not produce either division or connection at all. After all, number is not capable of acting (ποιεῖν) or undergoing, not being an essence or an accessory property to which action (τὸ ποιεῖν) and suffering belong, but only explains the number of things to which it relates, no matter in what relationship they are in relation to each other - whether connection or separation. Number, I will say boldly, is, as it were, a naming of quantity, regardless of the relationship of the things included in it. After all, it does not, by natural necessity, produce division or [294] quantity of things, and does not create homogeneity of things united by one type, and in general is not a sign of any property of individual things of the same type, differing from each other by their inherent properties. After all, to do this belongs to Divine wisdom and power, which created everything and preserves each species unified by natural delimitation from everything else; and number, as I said, expresses only quantity, and not the image of the existence of a multitude, as a name that by nature relates to quantity. A Stricter Discourse on Difference and Quantity, and Their Pious Profession This means that since, according to the Fathers, number expresses the quantity of things, but not their mutual relation, and any quantity is understood in a certain natural otherness and certainly includes difference - natural difference in Christ after the union is recognized by those who contradict the truth - then they have to recognize after the union the number of different things, without which difference is impossible through a number expressing quantity, without which it is generally impossible to know quantity, if only they want to prove their teaching with the correct sequence of reasoning. If they deny the number of natures preserved in Christ after the union, then let them not dare to affirm after the union the difference of the natures of which Christ consists, since they know that any thing containing difference in any way cannot be completely unified in logos and mode of being. And that which cannot be completely united according to logos and way of being, of course, represents, according to some logos and way of being, at least two things, or more. This means that those who claim that after the union there is a difference in Christ cannot say that Christ after the union is completely one in logos and mode of being. If Christ is not completely one after the union according to logos and way of being, then, obviously, after the union Christ is certainly two according to some logos and way of being [295]. And since, according to some logos and mode of being, Christ after the union is two because of the difference in Him of the natures of which He consists and in which He exists, as has already been proven, then it is clear that in vain people blaspheme who after the union recognize the difference of the natures of which Christ consists, and the very natures between which there is a difference are clearly eliminated after the union by silence - after all, the denial of the existence and preservation of natures is a real elimination. For either natures, in their opinion, are not eliminated after the union, but exist and are preserved, and it is right to confess that they are preserved after the union; or, if it is wrong to confess natures after the union, then it is correct to assert that natures, in their opinion, neither exist nor are preserved in Christ, and then natures are eliminated. In my opinion, about something that is incorrect even to name, it is much better and more correct to say that it does not exist at all; or let them convince us by reasoning - how is it fair not to confess in Christ the natures of which Christ is composed, which after union exist and are preserved without any transformation or change, without passing into each other according to the logos of essence? and then we will humbly consent to lose the confession of the natures existing and preserved in Christ. Just as Christ is completely one according to the logos and way of being after the union, so Christ is not two at all according to the logos and way of being after the union. If, according to the logos and mode of being, Christ is not two after the union, then certainly according to some logos and mode of being, because of the hypostatic identity, or the unity of the hypostasis, according to which it cannot contain differences, Christ is one. This means that since, according to different logos and images of being, He, still the same, is both one and two, it is necessary to consider according to which logos He is one, and according to which He is two. That it is blasphemous to assert that Christ is simply one nature [296] If they begin to assert that He is one according to the logos of nature, then it is quite clear that, in their opinion, He as a whole will simply have one nature without any distinction. If we allow them to assert this, then, in their opinion, Christ will be neither God, nor man, and in general - neither a creature nor a creator. After all, nature does not allow any additional meaning for any of these things. And if, avoiding obvious absurdity, they say that Christ has one nature, but a complex one, then they do not understand that the darkness of wickedness leads them to extreme error. A more rigorous discussion about the complex nature and its logos, and about the wickedness of those who claim that Christ is one complex nature First of all, in any complex nature the convergence of parts with each other in addition is involuntary. Then its parts are contemporary with each other and with itself and begin to exist simultaneously, so that none of the parts exists before the other. In addition, it is known that it was created for the sake of a wholeness that majestically embraces everything; and of the above, those who want to be pious do not see anything in Christ, so as not to declare the descent of the Logos with the flesh involuntary and unintentional, or God the Word - coeval with the origin of the flesh, or the flesh - coeternal with the Word in the beginningless being, or this descent - in no way superior to other types, considered in accordance with the universal nature, so that Christ is defined as a part produced for the sake of replenishment universality, the power that created everything. After all, in any complex nature it is precisely such a definition, logos and law, as the very power of truth and the flow of consistent reasoning teaches those who intelligently examine existence to affirm. [297] And who can be counted among the pious if he thinks so about God the Word, who existed before all ages, more precisely, who created all ages, and by His will and desire deliberately diminished to us, and became human for the sake of restoration and renewal, and not for the sake of replenishing universality. After all, God the Word inexpressibly appeared to people in the flesh as a way of dispensation, and not as a law of nature. This means that Christ, who by his way of being is completely not subject to the law of complex nature, is not a complex nature, as it turns out according to the new teaching of those who invalidate the Gospel, but a complex hypostasis, to which, in relation to its species, one cannot in any way attribute a complex nature, although it is strange to consider a complex hypostasis without attributing to it a complex nature in accordance with its species. If, as these people claim, Christ is a complex nature (this is the absurd basis of Sevier’s reasoning), then it is either generic or individual. It is impossible to imagine anything else, intermediate between these. And if Christ is a generic nature, then it is clear that it can be attributed to many things that differ in number, and will exist in them only mentally, without being independently cognized in any hypostasis, without the added properties of individual things that fall under it. Such, after all, is the definition and logos of any generic nature; and we will have many Christs instead of one, who do not at all have any identity with God and people, due to the truth-fighting madness of Sevier, unnecessary and indomitable. If Christ is an individual nature (let us keep silent about the fact that nature cannot be defined by one person at all), and even if, in the end, they cite as some great and irrefutable example the completely fictitious bird Phoenix, about which I am afraid to say anything, lest those in the know laugh at my stupidity, I will have to prove the fictitiousness of the fictitious thing! 197 After all, if the Phoenix is ​​a bird, then it is certainly an animal. And if he is an animal, then, first of all, he is not at all unique, since he is an animal. [298] Then, since he is an animal, he is also an animated sentient body. And if the Phoenix is ​​an animated sentient body, then it is clear that it is subject to birth and death. Let us ask these wise contemplatives of existence themselves: is it possible for any of the animate sentient bodies subject to birth and death to possess a single nature in hypostasis? when the obvious sign of their existence and definition is the alternation of each other within the species. As the Divine Scripture also testifies, giving an unshakable foundation to reason, when God instructs the great Noah in this way: “And the Lord said to Noah: Enter you and all your family into the ark, for I have seen you righteous before Me in this generation. And bring to you every clean animal in sevens, male and female, and unclean cattle in twos, male and female; and all the clean birds of the air in sevens, male and female, and all the unclean birds of the air in twos, male and female, to scatter the seed throughout all the earth” (Gen. 7:13). They - since the Phoenix is ​​counted among the flying animals - according to Divine utterance, do not have a single nature in hypostasis, so, as I already said, we will not say this; I don't enjoy arguing over things that aren't necessary. It is absolutely clear to everyone that if Christ really is a singular nature, then He is not consubstantial with either God and the Father or people. After all, everything that is completely individual in nature is completely alienated from natural affinity with anything else. If, in the opinion of these people, as reasoning has shown, Christ is by nature alienated from all things, we will demand that they themselves say that He is by nature and for what reason do they worship Christ, Who, according to their blasphemous instructions, does not exist at all. Therefore, if such a great and terrible danger, as the power of reasoning has proven, inevitably pursues those who assert that Christ is one by nature, or that there is one nature, whether simple or complex, and complex - [299] or generic, that is, general, or individual, that is, personal, let us most vigilantly keep our hearts pure from this teaching, in order to free ourselves from the coming punishment for it. Let us piously confess in Christ, because of the natural otherness or difference, the duality of natures, which persist even after the union, of which He consists, as a whole of parts, so that the parts do not in any way coincide with each other in nature, while each preserves without damage the logos of its own nature in opposition to the other; and unity due to hypostatic identity, so that in Christ as a whole, due to difference, no division or dissection is possible at all, while it is considered both before union with the flesh and after the incarnation as one hypostasis and is revered by us and glorified as One of the Persons of the Holy Royal Trinity. For the individual hypostasis of Christ as a whole is in no way divided by the extremes according to the peculiarity that distinguishes it, by which it is delimited from them. By extremes I call God the Father, from Whom until centuries Christ was born as God, and the Holy Most Glorious Virgin and Mother, from Whom for our sake He was born as man. Thanks to the kinship of its parts with both extremes, the individual hypostasis retains its identity in essence without diminution; accepting in them the logos of difference, Christ does not leave His individual hypostasis. After all, any wholeness, and especially a complex one, contemplated as consisting of various parts, preserves in its individuality the identity of its own hypostasis and the unfused mutual difference of its parts, thanks to which the essential logos of each part remains unchanged in relation to the other. In the same way, the parts, when added to each other, keeping the natural logos intact, form one indivisible whole, in which the single hypostatic logos remains completely inseparable. This means that since the reasoning accompanying the truth has proven that in all respects it is blasphemous to proclaim that unity in Christ [300] is present according to the logos of nature, as well as the opposite - as if duality is present according to the logos of the hypostasis; after all, one of these provisions is characteristic of the fetid heresy of Apollinaris, who merges and mixes natures into one nature and makes the dispensation completely indistinguishable, because he does not truly recognize the existence of any nature after the union. After all, everything that passes and turns into one another evades its own existence. Another position belongs to the Judaizing insanity of Nestorius, who divides a single hypostasis into two hypostases and denies the entire dispensation by refusing to affirm the hypostatic essential union of God the Word with the flesh; We will speak correctly and as it should be, returning the distorted words to the truth and affirming duality according to the logos of natural otherness, that is, differences, and singularity - according to the logos of hypostasis, so that the diversity of the natures of which Christ consists is preserved in Christ after the union, and the single identity of the hypostasis of the incarnate God-Word in the same way remains without multiplication. After all, the opposite presentation and confession of the matter destroys what is implied by the heretics, since the truth absolutely does not allow the direct names of things to pass into each other. Therefore we confess Christ to have two natures, as I said, according to the logos of the difference between the natures of which He consists and which remain in Him even after the union, for He, one and the same, is both God and man after the union. That he who affirms that after the union Christ is God and man must necessarily confess after the union the corresponding names of nature, if he desires the right to believe If, according to the universal confession, Christ after the union is God and man, it is clear that after the union that which corresponds to these names is truly affirmed. After all, reality is comprehended by thought before its naming, and naming could not possibly exist without reality, which gives affirmation to the naming and receives designation in return. If, however, Christ does not possess the reality to which the names relate, then, according to the teaching of these heretics, he will turn out to be the bearer of empty names [301] without any meaning and reality, and Christ, according to their teaching, will be God and man only in name, and not in reality - and what could be more wicked than this? If they do not want to be so crazy and say that the names of Christ after the union are not without real meaning, then just as they do not refuse to affirm the two names of Christ after the union, so let them affirm after the union the two natures of Christ, of which and in which He consists and to which the names refer, if only in accordance with the truth they truly confess that after the union the united natures are preserved in an actual manner. About the expression “in two,” and the pious confession of the one incarnate nature of the Word according to the teaching of the Fathers, and the denial of the one complex nature And again we believe that He exists in two natures, that is, in Godhead and humanity. After all, just as we, affirming that Christ consists of two natures, think of Him as consisting of Divinity and humanity as a whole of parts, so when we affirm that He exists after union in two natures, we believe that He exists in Divinity and humanity as a whole in parts. The parts of Christ are His Divinity and humanity, of which He consists and in which He exists. On the other hand, we have been taught to believe in the one nature of God the Word, embodied in the flesh with an intelligent and rational soul, and to affirm and proclaim it, according to the teachings of St. Cyril; speaking about “incarnate”, we mean the introduced essence of our human nature. Also, all the same and one Christ, miracles and sufferings, and His two births - the eternal one from the Father in an incorporeal way and the temporary one from the Mother and the Virgin for our sake in a carnal way. That is why we truly and truly confess Her to be the Mother of God, for She gave birth to God the Word, born of the Father before all ages, to those incarnate from Her. We completely refuse to call Christ a single complex nature, not only for the reasons stated above, but also because none of the recognized Fathers to this day have used this expression - it is absolutely clear that it was invented by the heretic Apollinaris and his followers, and Sevier, [302] having accepted their error, of course, flaunts their expressions. After all, Christ is not a natural unit in composition, as Apollinaris and Severus teach, since even after the union the unfused otherness of the natures of which He consists is preserved in Him. He is also not a hypostatic duality, as Nestorius teaches, since the converged parts do not exist independently and separately from each other, but the incarnate God-Word is one even after the incarnation, and He accepted the flesh united with Him, animated by mind and reason, not previously hypostasized by the logos of its own nature; but according to the teaching of the Fathers, He is a single complex hypostasis, in which He is fully God and One of the Persons of the holy all-glorious Trinity with the addition of humanity through Divinity, and fully man and one of the people with the addition of Divinity through humanity. Reasoning about the complex hypostasis, based more on nature, and precise proof that those who profess a single complex hypostasis of Christ do not fall into the same absurdity as those who say that Christ is a single complex nature If, due to the fact that any complex hypostasis supposedly has parts that are contemporary to each other, someone concludes that those who affirm a single complex hypostasis of Christ are inventing the same absurdity, then, in my opinion, he is thinking incorrectly. After all, not in general any complex hypostasis has parts that are contemporary with each other in origin, but clearly only that which falls under the concept of complex nature and belongs to the type assigned to it; it, in general and as a whole, according to the essence attributed to it, that is, nature, possessing a united set of properties inherent in it, is nature with properties. Therefore, if the nature to which it falls is complex, like the species to which it belongs, it is absolutely inevitable that the hypostasis itself will be complex, and its parts will be contemporaneous with each other due to the essence assigned to it, that is, a nature existing in such a way that it coincides with the species, with the exception of its defining characteristics. [303] After all, just as when defining a hypostasis we simply say: “A hypostasis is a certain essence with properties, or a certain essence containing each of all the properties that are present in a separate individuality,” so also about an additionally defined hypostasis, and not simply about a hypostasis, we say: “A complex hypostasis is a certain complex essence with properties, or a certain complex essence containing each of all the properties that are present in a separate singularity." After all, the properties discerned in all individuals of the same species first of all mark the kind of essence or nature in the individual individuals related to it. After all, complexity is a common property of all individual units belonging to a complex species; Consequently, complexity is distinguished primarily by complex nature in its individual units, and not by hypostasis. Moreover, again, every definition of individual units is based on the general properties under which they fall, and the description of everything that falls under them naturally begins with generic properties, since it is clear that what is essential and primary is determined. If this is true - and it is so - it is clear that whoever affirms the complexity of the hypostasis, which is traceable to nature, thereby reveals, by the general genus of the essence, the presence of a hypostasis along with its distinguishing properties. So, whoever speaks of a complex hypostasis falling under nature is talking about nothing else but nature, or essence together with properties. This means that if, as has been proven, any complex nature involuntarily contains parts that converge with each other in composition, and has parts that are contemporary to each other, and arises for the sake of replenishing the wholeness seen in beings in each genus, then it is clear that any hypostasis naturally has an existential structure (πρὸς τὸ εἶναι τὴν σύστασιν) identical with its own genus and species and unchanging. Let these heretics show that the complex hypostasis of Christ is subject to a complex nature, and conclude that its parts are modern, and rightly accuse us of what they themselves blame. So far they have not succeeded, [304] they base their doctrines on quicksand. After all, whoever, out of ignorance, tries to subject Christ to the above-mentioned absurdities, because He is a complex hypostasis, and we piously confess as such, deviates far, wandering, from the path leading to the truth - or rather, from the truth itself. For the great and holy mystery of Christ does not have any general and generic nature attributed to it as a type of singularity, and is not itself a genus or species attributed to the singularities falling under it by nature, so that it could be subjected to any of the above rules, because the union of God the Word with the flesh is not equal in composition and not similar to things that are complex in the mutual convergence of parts. That the union of God the Word with the flesh occurred solely by acceptance, so that He pre-existed and wished to be exhausted for the sake of union with the flesh Indeed, in all generally complex things by nature, the composition of a species as a whole from parts is accomplished not by the union of one with the other by acceptance, but by the cumulative emergence of parts from non-existence by convergence with each other, simultaneously with the emergence, the composition of the whole is accomplished. The mystery of our Lord and God and Savior Jesus Christ did not appear in this way, but God by nature and by nature the Son of God, simple and incorporeal, and co-eternal with the Father, and the Creator of all ages, having willed with a humane will, after receiving flesh he became man and for our sake, simple and incorporeal by nature, by dispensation was born from us in hypostasis complex and incarnate, as the great holy Dionysius the Areopagite says with inspiration in the first chapter of his work On the Divine Names, speaking in these words about the Divine Incarnation: “[The Godhead] as extremely philanthropic, for It truly fully communicated with those like us in one of His hypostases, calling to Himself and elevating human fallenness, from which 198 the simple Jesus was made, and the Eternal One - took on temporal extension, and superessentially surpasses every order of nature - born [305] in our nature" 199 . This means that since, not according to the law and order of the nature of complex things, but according to a different institution than complex things, God the Word was formed inexpressibly with the flesh - namely, as the mind of truth loudly tells everyone, by acceptance, and not by accepting being simultaneously with the flesh at birth for the sake of fulfilling some complex whole in appearance - then in vain the ignorant are trying to lawlessly subordinate to natural laws a complex hypostasis that surpasses all limits and logoi of nature. Therefore, he who affirms that the incarnation was accomplished by the adoption of flesh and the pre-eternal existence of God the Word preserves, and piously confesses His voluntary and deliberate incarnation in time, and maintains a consistent distinction between the receiving Word and the received flesh even after the union. Anyone who confesses that God the Word became man without change, not by taking on the flesh, will in no way be able to truly confess anything that has been said. For how, if God the Word did not preexist without beginning, did He, by His Will, take on flesh, different in essence? That is why, mainly, it seems to me, it is said that the union with the alien occurred through acceptance, and in such a way that the One, in a unique way, without suffering, truly accepted the alien and in every way and in all respects preserved Himself without change or multiplication, and what was accepted remained unchanged, which is impossible for created nature, in which, simultaneously with the emergence of parts for the sake of replenishing a certain whole according to genus, with their combined convergence with each other the whole complex thing arises differently, preserving in general an equal relationship of parts to each other, as is the case in us and in creatures that have been given a complex nature in appearance. After all, our soul has the natural abilities of the body, commensurate with its own actions, since the body by nature is its container, and it arises simultaneously and in conjunction with the flesh. God is the Word, whose own natural actions are in no way [306] proportional to the abilities of the nature He accepted - after all, nature cannot be a measure for the supernatural, and in general, nothing that exists by nature is capable of containing Him 200 . So the One and Only, in an ineffable way, by will, became man through the adoption of flesh, animated by mind and understanding, as being, and pre-existence, and omnipotent, supernaturally renewing nature in order to save man. This is the kind of faith I have come to know and have learned from both our holy and blessed Fathers who have departed before us, and from those still living, to whom the helm of the catholic, holy Church of God has been entrusted, which they have faithfully guided into the harbor of God’s will; in her womb, and through their prayers, I will leave this real life and, instead of all merits, I will offer to God this confession - unsullied, and undefiled, and rising above any storm of heresy. After all, I cannot boast of a life illuminated by deeds of righteousness, because throughout my earthly existence I was a voluntary violator of God’s laws. And I wrote this to you as briefly as possible, my blessed gentlemen, so that you would know, if there is any benefit from writing, how to drive away the wolves, even if partially covered with sheep’s clothing, who frighten the meek divine sheep of the holy flock of Christ with an incomprehensible bark, and not allow yourself to be carried away by deception, maliciously pretending to be the truth; and I have not yet been able to place the words of the Fathers confirming the church faith in a letter due to my extreme paucity of books. You have there, my blessed lord, father and teacher, Abba Sophronius, a truly prudent 201 and wise defender of the truth and an invincible defender of Divine teaching, who can fight all heresies in deed and word; in addition to all other advantages, he is also rich in many divine books, which he generously shares with those who want to learn the Divine. So, by visiting it, you, I am sure, will acquire the right, infallible knowledge of the saving [307] Divine teaching. I wish you good health. Some syntactic incoherence of this sentence is intended to convey the corresponding property of the source text. – Approx. lane At St. Maxim is missing here: “in an indescribable way (ἀρρήτως).” – Responsible editor’s note. Dionysius the Areopagite. On the Divine Names, I, 4 (113, 6–11 (Suchla)). The translation preserves the syntax used when quoting the Areopagite St. Maxim. – Approx. resp. ed. Play on words: Σωφρόνιος – Sophrony, σώφρον – “prudent”. – Approx. lane You might be interested in: