Guidebook (translated by Abbot Adrian [Pashina])

The work “Guide” combines individual treatises written by St. Anastasius Sinaite at different times and brought together around 686–689. This extensive work consists of 24 chapters. The main goal of the Guide is to refute the heresy of Monophysitism, although it also contains elements of anti-Monothelitian polemics. St. Anastasius analyzes the arguments of opponents, identifies contradictions and shows their inconsistency with Holy Scripture and Church Scripture. Chapters 1-3 provide a general methodological introduction to the entire book. Chapter 1 (“A Brief Statement of Faith”) formulates the Orthodox doctrine of two natures, two natural wills and two natural actions as two natural properties in Christ. Chapter 2 (“Book of Definitions”) is an important part of the work and contains definitions of basic theological concepts (nature, person, will, action, property, connection, corruption, etc.). Chapter 4 describes the history of the fall of Satan and his role in the fall of man, in the invention of heresies from the heresy of Simon the Magus to Nestorianism, etc. Chapter 5 contains a brief summary of the history of the first five Ecumenical Councils with a description of the heresies anathematized by them. Chapters 6-9 outline the history of the emergence and development of Monophysitism, and also provide evidence that “nature” and “person” (“hypostasis”) are not identical concepts. Chapters 10-11 contain a record of 4 debates that took place between St. Anastasius and the Monophysites in Alexandria, and also interprets the Christology of St. Cyril of Alexandria. In the 12th chapter of St. Anastasius formulates the doctrine of the communion of the properties of the Divine and human natures of Christ. Chapters 13-17 contain the saint's polemic against the heresy of the Aphthartodocetes and Damianism. Chapters 18-19 reveal the problem of using the “anthropological paradigm” in Christology. Chapter 20 contains brief aporia questions directed at the Monophysites. At the end of chapter 21 Rev. Anastasius briefly formulates the Orthodox confession of the two perfect natures of Christ (Divine and human), inseparably hypostatically united. Chapter 22 discusses problems of interpretation of Scripture and the Holy Fathers. Chapter 23 contains the polemic of St. Anastasia with the Aftartodocets, and again with the Monophysites. Chapter 24 reveals Orthodox teaching about the influence of the Incarnation of God the Word on intra-Trinitarian relationships. Work of St. Anastasia Sinaita played a decisive role in the development and establishment of Orthodox Christological teaching, especially before the VII Ecumenical Council. His argumentation became one of the most important sources for defining the Orthodox doctrine of two wills and two energies in Christ. This publication presents the full version of the translation of the “Guide” into Russian, made by Abbot Adrian (Pashin). (translated by Abbot Adriana [Pashina]) See also: Guide (translated by A.I. Sidorov) Chapter 1. A brief preliminary reflection that needs to be given so that anyone who wishes to correctly express faith in God 1. With God. A brief preparation that makes it clear to the hard worker what he should first study and know. – that one must first live holy and have the Spirit of God indwelt within oneself; 1 – that you should know the definitions, especially the most necessary ones, from memory; - that we should know with precision the wisdom of our opponents and immerse ourselves in their writings, since we can often, based on them, put them to shame; - that one should in no way meet with the uninitiated and unreasonable, but with those with whom it is appropriate and when it is appropriate, and on those issues that are appropriate to discuss about faith; – that one should immerse oneself in all Scripture with the fear of God, but not with evil intent, but in simplicity of heart; - that we should not touch the depths of our [nature], as well as the fact that Divine Scripture has passed over in silence: for this means “not to crush a bone,” 2 that is, not to touch the solid; - that one should carefully examine those words that are said definitely, and at other times somehow in between, and again imprecisely and innocently, such as, for example, the following saying: “Every man is a lie” 3 and “there is no one who does good, there is not one.” 4 Scholia. It should be noted that the Church also accepted some traditions in an unwritten form, such as, for example, taking communion after fasting, praying facing the east, and that the Mother of God remained a Virgin after giving birth, as well as that She gave birth in a den, and much more. The purpose of the conversations is twofold, the first is through written sayings, the other is through the given facts, which is stronger and truer, for the sayings of the scriptures are possibly corrupted. From this we can see that if you give a quotation to an opponent, he immediately gives another quotation, both a heretic and a Jew; as a result, strengthened by factual evidence, 5 is better armed against opponents. You should also know the chroniclers, and at what time this father, and when such and such a heresy occurred. Let the following also not be hidden from you: - that if we confuse the enemy with a question, he tries to move the conversation to another question - this should not be allowed; - that before the interview it is necessary to demand an oath from the enemy that he does not violate his conscience in a single word he utters; - that before any conversation we should anathematize the numerous false opinions that the enemy has about us, for example, that we are going to talk with the Arabs; Let us first anathematize the one who speaks of two gods, or the one who says that God begot the Son in a carnal way, or the one who worships any creature in heaven or on earth as God; In the same way, other heresies must first be anathematized; they have numerous false assumptions about our faith; because, having heard this, they perceive more diligently and so on; - that we must first say to any Monophysite: “We are not objecting to you from the Council of Chalcedon, but from the fathers before this Council, who are recognized by both you and us as Orthodox”; - that we should first shackle the Monophysite and firmly anathematize the one who does not confess Christ as the true God, as if to adopt the guise of a Jew or Paul of Samosata and demand from him: how is it clear that Christ is the Most High God? Ammonius did a similar thing in relation to [Julian] Halicarnassus; you will find these objections in the twenty-first notebook. 6 It should be noted that the Monophysites in the chalice do not offer mixing, bringing wine undiluted, without water, and by this they clearly expose themselves as professing that Christ is only one naked Divinity, devoid of, untouchable and not at all mixed with any admixture of flesh or soul. 2. Summary of Faith We must know and not be mistaken that we should not utter any dogmatic statement without checking and thoughtlessly. After all, one can say piously and impiously that in Christ there are two natures, 7 just as well as will and energy, 8 like any other dogmatic statement. In the same way, let those who say that there are two natural properties in Christ explain how they understand the word “natural.” After all, it can be pronounced both piously and impiously. After all, the word “natural” is pronounced in the common spoken language of ordinary people and does not contain anything surprising; in this sense it cannot be applied to a nature or property in Christ. In the same way, whoever wants to proclaim that there is one will and energy in the Divinity and another in the humanity of Christ, let him not shout madly, shamelessly and without examining, as happened because of some ignoramuses, about two natural wills and two natural energies. For it is easy to be tempted (especially by the simple-minded) from hearing that in Christ there are two natural [wills and energies], one and the other. However, let it be said, explained and answered with the fear of God and all reverence to those who can comprehend, 9 what is thought and how nature is thought in Christ, that is, the true thing, 10 and not hypostatic nature, that is, a personal, not natural part of the flesh, but two true things united by hypostasis, that is, perfect Divinity and perfect humanity, unfused, unchangeable, inseparably in one Face of Christ; after all, there is one Person Christ, one Hypostasis. I also ask about the wills to warn the listener and tell him: “I am not saying (let it not be!) that in Christ there are two wills, as you think, at war with each other and opposing, nor in general about the will of the flesh, passionate or evil, because even demons do not dare to say this in relation to Christ. But since He took on perfect man in order to save him all, and He is perfect in humanity, as well as in Divinity, therefore we call the Divine will in Christ the dominion of His commandments and commandments, and under the human will in Him we think of the willful power of the intelligent soul, which in the image and likeness of God was given to it and breathed in by God when it was created, 11 in order that through this very volitional power to desire, obey and fulfill God’s will, Divine commands.” If the soul of Christ is deprived of rational, volitional, discriminating, creating, active and desiring power, then it is not in fact in the image of God, but is consubstantial not with our souls, but with weak-willed, desireless, unwise, unreflective, unreasonable souls. And, therefore, it cannot be said that Christ is perfect in humanity. Therefore Christ, “being the image of God,” 12 has, according to the Divinity, a sovereign will, which is common to the Father, His Son and the Holy Spirit; there is, since He “took the form of a servant,” 13 and the will of His thinking and pure soul, in the image and likeness of God, fills the will of the Master. If the will of His holy and thinking soul is destroyed, then it will be discovered that [by Him] according to Divinity, the will of the Father is slavishly fulfilled. After all, this is how Arius, Diodorus and Theodore slandered, speaking about two wills according to the Divinity of the Father and the Son - the dominant one of the Father and the slave one of the Son. [Arius] says: “And therefore the Son says, like a servant to the Master: “Not My will be done, Father, but Yours” 14 and “I do not seek My will, but the will of the Father” 15.” Therefore, when heretics say this, then our Holy Fathers interpret it rather regarding the humanity of the Lord. If the soul of the Lord was deprived of a thinking will, then it is clear that the law of the wordless was involuntarily prescribed to God the Word. It won't happen! For if He is perfect in Divinity, and equally perfect and consubstantial with us in humanity, then He has perfect both Divine and our properties. In the same way one should think and interpret regarding the two energies of Christ. We call His Divine energy the creation of miracles and signs, especially in which His all-holy flesh was not touched, not touched; such were the healing of the Canaanite daughter who did not approach Christ, 16 and the centurion's servant, 17 and the tearing of the veil [in the church], 18 and the eclipse of the sun, 19 and the splitting of stones, 20 and the opening of tombs and the raising of the dead; 21 For when the all-holy body was dead and did not touch any of these things, the Divine energy of God the Word abiding in it alone accomplished and did this. Human energy in Christ, pure, holy, impeccable, God-given, God-created and vital, we call the life-giving energy of His holy soul, thanks to which His all-holy body was given life; when, during the passions, the soul separated and left the body, the body immediately became dead, then the Divine energy did not separate from it. The fact that through the vital energy of the thinking soul the body is given life is also testified by Scripture, through the inhalation of God’s vital soul created and given to our earthly body, 22 about which Solomon speaks, addressing certain wicked people and idolaters: “Their life is despicable; for they did not know Him who created them and breathed into them an active soul and breathed into them the spirit of life.” 23 Now we are clearly taught that the body is given life by the action of the soul, just as the Lord speaks of the flesh and soul in the following words: “The Spirit gives life; the flesh does not profit at all.” 24 If the opponent says: “God the Word was the life-giving body,” then he necessarily counts, saying: “Because of the deprivation and separation of God the Word Himself, His body died.” But if this is so, then what was the need to even perceive and have a vital rational soul itself? Some say: “Every increase, or decrease, or separation, or need of the holy flesh of Christ is by nature inconceivable, and in the Divinity the energy of Christ is called human.” By divine energy we understand what is accomplished by Christ and contemplated together: these were the sight of a blind man through spitting, 25 the resurrection of the daughter of the ruler of the synagogue by the laying on of His holy hand, 26 the blessing of the loaves, 27 the healing of the deaf and dumb through His fingers, 28 the resurrection of Lazarus by His voice, 29 the flow of blood from a dead body from a rib, 30 the procession on the sea, 31 transmission of the Spirit through His Divine lips. 32 Heretics, looking at this common godly energy of Christ, turn away from confessing in Him a certain Divine, as well as spiritual, vital human energy. At the same time, we need to know precisely and unequivocally that the opponents, based on observation of their own will and the action of their own soul and body, are constantly and continuously fought and defiled by the kindling and action of the devil, and therefore they and Nestorius refused to talk about human will and energy in Christ, but invented the same-natural identity of will and identity of action [in Him]. But we will talk about this in more detail in subsequent [chapters] and in other [works]. Scholia. Let industrious workers not forget that since we are in the habit of calling those who are under their influence possessed by demons, therefore heretics, when they hear about the actions in Christ, immediately, considering them to be the actions of those suffering [from possession], become indignant and reject such an expression, as if they themselves were truly under the influence, that is, possession. 3. With God. A preliminary examination of the basis of the book of definitions, the name of which is “Guide” The composition of our entire mortal essence from the rational and thinking soul and from the accumulation of elements, which is flesh, was given from the all-wise Creator; the beauty of impeccable moral deeds, based on pious faith and observance of the Divine commandments, is strengthened, because neither a body devoid of a soul has life in itself, nor will keeping the commandments without right faith bring benefit to a person. After all, what the soul is to the body, right faith is to the spirit. So, first of all, let us, if you wish, cherish, assimilate and cherish the dispassionate thought of God and the divine, so that, as a pure and unshakable foundation previously laid, Christ, piously revered by us as the corner stone, 33 strengthens our entire building, impeccable in everything, and makes it unshakable under all the blows and onslaughts of heretical divination. Since the solid foundation and unshakable cornerstone of all judicious wisdom has been the preliminary comprehension and discernment of factual definitions, they must precede as certain reliable guides in the development of the topic. For few (especially in our generation) were born with zeal and effort in comprehending and distinguishing definitions. But many of the heretics with whom we met tried to dogmatize about Christ, as if fighting a night battle, or rather a blind battle, so that indeed we could hardly contain our laughter, especially [in the debates] in the city of Alexandria. For what could be more ridiculous? They dogmatized about nature, but did not know what the definition of nature was; They argued passionately about hypostasis, but did not know what hypostasis was. And the like. But we, with the assistance of Christ from a young age, having received piecemeal from the Fatherly Tradition the instruction in definitions and, thanks to this, seeing all opponents defeated and turned to God, we exhort, first of all, to take care of the knowledge of definitions, especially those that relate to the teaching of Christ, so that you will not be blind barbarians, and so that the one who speaks to you will not be a barbarian to you. 34 First of all, one must know that the Tradition of the Catholic Church does not at all follow, does not follow in everything the definitions of Hellenic philosophers, especially when it comes to the sacrament of Christ and triadology, but God-like follows its Gospel and Apostolic canon. For the mystery of the Divine is above physical definitions and laws; Not understanding this difference, the heretics, dogmatizing about God in generally accepted and natural philosophical [concepts], fell into error. As a result, [the Apostle] Paul said that he preaches Christ “not in convincing words of the wisdom of this age,” 35 because the generally accepted philosophy is “foolishness before God.” 36 Now, notice that the first definition of this philosophy reads: “[Things] opposite to each other by nature are impossible to enter into union; 37 For example, fire cannot be combined with hay without damaging [it].” And the first definition of our salvation refutes this philosophical definition, proclaiming communion and unity [in the Mother of God] of virginity and birth, and [in the Lord] of divine fire with the opposite nature of the flesh. The second definition of philosophy says: “The single hypostasis, which embraces everything, is indescribable: after all, it is impossible to say that the two or trinity is indescribable, for the two is known through the description of the unit.” 38 And the Holy Church confesses an indescribable God in three Persons. Again Plato says: “Paternity is the pre-existence of sonship.” 39 The Church says that the Son co-existed before the ages and was without beginning together with the Father. God-wise Basil, who knows this, says, turning to Amphilochius: “Nature and essence, in accordance with church dogmas, are one thing.” 40 The Father, speaking “in accordance with church dogmas,” indicated that among the Hellenes, essence and nature are not the same. Therefore, Clement [of Alexandria], abundant in wisdom and knowledge, created in a special way definitions of church dogmas, being a student and true pet of the assistants of the holy apostles Peter and Paul, the more all-wise; hearing how the latter rejects, disgusts and mocks Hellenic wisdom. Our first question to the heretics who are trying to argue against us about the Economy of Christ’s Incarnation is this: where or from which author of Holy Scripture did the Holy Church receive, first of all, [the concept of] “nature”? Who named the energy itself? Where did [the Church] learn about [the concept of] “genus”? Who started talking about freedom first? Where does [the concept] “hypostasis” come from? Where did [the Church] first hear about the entity? When the enemy is in difficulty from such questions, his first defeat will occur. Chapter 2. Dogmatic definitions according to Church Tradition 1. With God. Various definitions pronounced in accordance with Tradition and the faith of the holy catholic Church, collected from Clement and other pious Fathers, which should be presented before any other teaching to those who wish, with God's help, to defend the teaching of piety For a more accurate transmission of Tradition, it should be known that every serious subject or question of study involves some three tests and questions with which we ask opponents, for example, “What is God?”, “Why is He called God?” and “In how many ways can the concept “God” be thought of?” And when we ask: “What is God?”, it is clear that we are looking for the definition of a thing; when we ask “Why is He called God?” – we require the etymology of the name; and when we say: “In how many ways can the concept “God” be thought of?” – we demand from our opponents an answer to the question of how many ways we can talk about God. Scholia. When the first question is asked, a definition is revealed; when the second, the etymology becomes clear, and when the third, the ways [of comprehending the subject] are indicated. Anyone who begins to present dogmatic questions without knowing the definitions is like a blind man intending to go somewhere. So, to begin with, one should, in the above-mentioned manner, carry out a threefold study of definitions: “What is a definition?”, “Why is it called a definition?” and “In how many ways can a definition be thought of?” A definition is a short statement that reveals the underlying essence of a thing. 41 They are called definitions, 42 because they are like eyes, 43 the eyes of things and, as it were, determine, 44 that is, they briefly close the power of thought. For example, instead of saying: “Man is an entity made of flesh, soul, mind, blood, elements and much more,” we give the following definition: “Man is a living, rational, mortal being who can accommodate intelligence and knowledge.” 45 So, there are countless definitions of every thing, but due to the negligence of modern people, we present only some of them, the most important. In addition, one must know and believe that one who diligently comprehends definitions in disputes can easily lead to the silence of rhetoricians and big talkers. For when the questions are asked: “What is a word?”, “Why is it called a word?” and “In how many ways is a word [thought]?”, then the opponent will be stumped, since he will not be able to give definitions and, in the end, will be disgraced as an ignoramus. The definition of definitions is the One who determines everything, but He Himself is not determined by anything; such only Definition of definitions is God. In essence, the undesignated is the undefinable, God. What is difficult to define is that which is known only in part, and not entirely, such as, for example, the Tree of Life. For people, there are three unknowable in essence and indefinable: God, Angel and soul - only known by God in essence. Finally, the one who asks the right question addresses the opponent like this: “What is the limit? 46 ", "What is undefinable?", "What is difficult to define?" Easily defined is something that is tangible and subject to decay, such as bread and the like. The limit is a state that cannot be surpassed. The indefinite is the only uncreated thing, God. And what is difficult to define is the created and invisible, that is, the Angel, the soul, the demon. 2. What is God? Why is He God? In how many senses is the word “God” used? God is an uncaused Essence, an omnipotent Cause, a kind of super-essential Cause of every essence. God is the nameless and inexpressible Being of people, who creates all being. For Solomon said that God is the “incommunicable Name,” 47 and the “incommunicable Name” is that which is not perceived by the hearing or thought of either men or angels. In how many senses is the word “God” used in Scripture? It is clear that in two: by nature and by sacrament: by nature there is a Creator, and by sacrament and by grace, the righteous are called “gods.” 48 Question: Does the word "God" refer primarily to an entity, a person, an energy, or is it an image or a metaphor? Answer: It is clear that it is energetic, for it does not reveal to us the essence of God (after all, it is impossible to know it), but the word “God” reveals to us only His energy accessible to contemplation. What is the Father? Why is it called Father? In how many ways is Fatherhood in God [thought of]? Father in the proper sense of the word is the causeless Hypostasis, the begetter and the unbegotten. She is called the Father, because she either protects everything or protects her own children, which is what the word “father” means. 49 God is called Father in two senses: by nature and by grace; by nature He is the [Father] of the Word's own and consubstantial God, and by grace He is the [Father] of us, for [it is said]: “I said: you are gods, and you are all sons of the Most High.” 50 What is the Son? Why is it called the Son? And in how many ways is the Son conceived? A son in the proper sense of the word is either a doubling of hypostasis with the identity of nature, or a homogeneous multiplication of persons, or an output of nature, cognizable in kinship. Also, in the proper sense of the word, a son is spoken of as if he were “like,” for as the father is in essence, so is the only begotten son: from the Uncreated - Uncreated, from a mortal - mortal, and from a man - man. Finally, sonship in God is spoken of in two senses: by nature and by grace; God the Word is Son by nature, and the righteous by grace. 51 What is spirit? Why is it called spirit? And in how many senses does Scripture speak of the spirit? Spirit 52 is a subtle, immaterial, imageless and outgoing being. The spirit is spoken of as if it were “every wave,” 53 because, like a certain wave, it gives a sign to everything, and everything is set in motion. It is spoken of in Scripture in four senses: Spirit - the Holy Spirit, Angel - spirit, and soul - spirit, and wind - spirit; sometimes the mind is also called spirit. The Trinity is, according to natural inference, a combination of units, and according to the Divine essence, a being greater than number. Eternity 54 is that which “always continues,” 55 that is, which has no beginning and never ends: not everything that is completely endless is also beginningless, because Angels and souls have a beginning of being, but have no end. A peculiar property 56 is something that is truly recognized in some nature, but is in no way present in another essence. For example, the ability to laugh in a person, which is absent in any other nature. 57 3. About nature. What is nature? In how many senses is nature spoken of? Why is it called nature? Nature, in accordance with the church way of thinking, is the true existence of a thing, but according to Aristotle and other Hellenes, nature is defined in many different ways, and the Sevirians got lost in these definitions. 58 According to the divine Apostle, nature is everything that truly exists, and not what is expressed as a figment of the imagination - we will talk about this later in more detail. The Church calls nature the reality of existing things, that is, their actualization. 59 It is called nature because it occurred 60 and exists, just as essence is recognized as truly existing. According to church teaching, nature, essence, genus and species are one and the same, just as bread, a piece (of bread) and a cake are one and the same. 61 Therefore the natural 62 and the realized are one and the same. 63 As already mentioned, four concepts are used to denote nature: “essence”, “nature”, “genus” and “species”. Scholia. As for the expression “by nature,” 64 then, based on the Old and New Testaments, it can be said that the words “Christ by nature is God and by nature is man” mean the same as the words “He, being truly God, truly becomes invariably man.” In fact, the wise Solomon says about wicked people: “All people who do not have the knowledge of God are vanity.” 65 And the divine Apostle speaks of us [who came to the Church] from the pagans: “we were once by nature children of wrath.” 66 So, if the wicked were naturally vain, that is, by their very nature, they would be blameless. After all, what is inherent in us by nature and in a natural way is impeccable and impeccable, since it was naturally created in us by God, such as, for example, the ability to breathe, eat and sleep. Then it will be discovered that God naturally created vanity in people. Again, if we were by nature children of wrath, then the reason for this would go back to God, who created us by nature children of wrath. After all, “by nature” means that which exists in an essential way, as, for example, it is inherent in the nature of light to shine, fire by nature is created by burning, and the earth is formed by vegetating [plants]. So, heretics are invited to say one of two things: either that God created the nature of vanity and wrath, or that the expression “by nature” means nothing more than “what truly exists.” Therefore, our words are impeccable: “Christ is by nature God and by nature man,” that is, “truly God and truly man.” Such is this tradition and definition about nature, which we derive from the Old and New Testaments, and no teacher, and no Angel from heaven can either introduce innovation [in this tradition] or destroy [it] forever. 67 About hypostasis. What is hypostasis? Why is she a hypostasis? In how many senses is hypostasis spoken of? Hypostasis, according to Church and Apostolic Tradition, is a person or image; 68 Paul speaks about this, saying that the Son is “the radiance of the glory of the Father and the image of His hypostasis,” 69 that is, the consubstantial Person of the image and hypostasis of the Father. We call the Persons and images in God incorporeal, indescribable and formless. According to the Holy Fathers, a person, or hypostasis, is special in comparison with the general, for nature is the general of each thing, and hypostasis is special. For example, nature, or essence, is one Deity, and there are three Hypostases: Father, Son and Holy Spirit - three Persons, or Images, but one essence and gender. 70 When you said: “The Divine will preserve us,” you designated the entire Holy Trinity; and if he said: “The Son of God is with us,” then he named one of the Hypostases and the whole Divinity. Listen to this again: Divinity is the general and totality of essence, and Fatherhood is one Person, that is, Hypostasis; Sonship is another Hypostasis, and the Holy Spirit is another Hypostasis. Three hypostatic properties in the Godhead: the ungeneracy of the Father, the birth of the Son and the procession of the Holy Spirit; neither the Father is begotten, nor the Son is he who proceeds, nor is the Holy Spirit begotten. There are five designations for hypostasis: “hypostasis,” “person,” “image,” 71 “special,” 72 and “individual.” 73 Again about nature. Angelism is called nature, and hypostases are the names of each Angel: Gabriel, Michael, Uriel, Raphael. And again, nature is a single and common humanity, and the hypostases are Peter, Paul, Thomas and other persons and images. So, nature is the mistress, the cause and the parent of the hypostases included in it; they are called hypostases because they are subordinate to nature, their source. We are talking about the same thing again. If you said: “An angel is a beautiful nature,” then you designated their entire essence, and if you said: “Great is Gabriel,” then you spoke about one hypostasis of all. The phrase “Man is pitiful” denotes a whole essence, and Conon, Simon and Philo are hypostases. When he said: “The bird is light,” he spoke about the whole essence, and the words “dove,” “dove,” “nightingale,” “peacock,” and “swan” denote their hypostases. 74 The word “cattle” implies the whole essence of animals, and the words “horse”, “lion” and “dog” imply their hypostases, images and faces. This canon of definitions applies not only to thinking, rational and animate things, but also to any inanimate, insensitive and motionless nature. For example, when we said: “God created the light,” 75 we designated the entire essence of the luminaries. This very essence is divided into its hypostases, and these hypostases of the nature of light are the following: the moon and stars, Orion, the evening star, the 76 Ursa Major, the morning star, the 77 constellation Cancer and the rest. The same is true with the winds; when he said “wind,” he designated the entire nature of the winds, and he said “Not,” “Boreas,” and “Lib,” then these are their hypostases. Also, fire is a single essence, which is divided into hypostases, that is, lamps, candles, lamps, ovens and fireplaces. In the same way, all of humanity, as was said earlier, is one essence, but there are many persons. And so we call the holy flesh of Christ not a face, but an essence, in order to indicate that He accepted and saved our entire nature. For if we called it hypostasis, it would turn out that we are asserting that Christ accepted and saved a certain one person. It is impossible to call it a hypostasis, since this flesh is inseparable from God the Word; for a single person is called a hypostasis. Therefore, we do not call it hypostasis, but hypostatic, for the hypostatic is what exists, just as the non-hypostatic is that which does not have existence or essence; for example, a dream is non-existent, non-hypostatic and ghostly. And what we would definitely say is that the non-hypostatic, non-existent and non-existent is that which is often spoken of, but which is not recognized either in essence or in hypostasis, such as, for example, hell, death and illness. In turn, we call realized either the existing itself, or a peculiar property recognized in essence: for example, rationality and perishability are the realized of man. In the same way, the word “hypostatic” is used in two ways: either [it denotes] a truly existing or a unique property in hypostasis, such as, for example, unbornness in God the Father, birth in the Son and procession in the Holy Spirit, as discussed above. Property 78 is a certain strength of each nature, which distinguishes and separates it from other entities, which is what the divine Dionysius says: “For corruption is the weakness of nature and the lack of natural properties, energies and forces.” 79 4. About will. What is will? Why is it called will? In how many ways can the will be conceived? Will is the striving of a thinking and rational entity towards what it wants; for everything that thinks is obviously also willing; after all, will, as a kind of breath and life, is essentially inherent in every rational nature. It is called will because nature strongly strives 80 towards what it desires or towards receiving, that is, possessing what it desires. Will is considered in three types: Divine, angelic and spiritual; for only these three natures are willing. Again, in Scripture we find statements about three types of wills: divine, natural, that is, average, and third - carnal, which means the devil. The natural divine will of man is the rational movement of the desiring part of the soul towards that with which, in accordance with nature, man wishes to unite. The divine will of people is the haste of natural and reasonable desire from the natural to the supernatural. And the carnal passionate will is a deviation of the natural to the unnatural for the soul. About a peculiar property. 81 What is a peculiar property? In how many ways can a peculiar property be conceived? Why is it called a peculiar property? Etymology of a peculiar property. It is called a peculiar property from “especially to be,” as existing from its own nature without mixture with other entities; or from “to be visible together,” for their properties are inseparable from their natures and hypostases. A peculiar property, that is, a property, 82 is that which is authentically and especially recognized in a certain nature, but is not found in another. For example, in the divine nature there is pre-eternity, uncreatedness and indescribability, which are absent in any other essence; they are not in essence even in the all-holy body of Christ: after all, it is neither pre-eternal nor uncreated and will never be indescribable. A peculiar property of the angelic nature is the dispassionate nature and incessant praise; Immortality of a given nature is also called dispassion. The uniqueness of man in the proper sense of the word is the combination of mortal and immortal natures, which is not observed in any other entity. There are peculiar natural properties, which were just mentioned, and there are hypostatic ones, for example, whiteness, snub nose, blackness, height, mutilation, light-eyedness, zeal, laziness and the like - they are not found equally in all people; After all, not everyone is snub-nosed, not everyone is zealous, and not everyone is bright-eyed. Therefore, some call a hypostasis a peculiar combination of the characteristic properties that were discussed. And natural peculiar properties are found in the same and similar way throughout the whole race; for example, all mortal people are equally mortal, intelligent, all breathe, sleep, walk, have wide nails 83 and are capable of agriculture. The adventitious property 84 is called the arising and disappearing; for example, infancy, which arises and disappears with maturity. Health, illness, heat and dryness change in the same way; and in general, everything capable of change is called an accessory property. The essential will is the general, equally contemplated in nature. So, if the flesh of Christ, as the Holy Fathers say, voluntarily did not want to die, and the same will would have been revealed both in the Father and in the Holy Spirit, then it goes without saying that there is one will of the flesh and the Divine. 85 The natural will of man, as St. Basil and Cyril assert, is love of life; After all, every person by nature loves life and loves to see the light - this is the general will. Gnomic wills in our nature are multiple: one person wants to live separately, another wants to build houses, another wants to engage in agriculture, the next wants to swim, and so on. We have many gnomic wills, but one natural will - the love of life. Man does not love life at random, but nature indicates that she loves and seeks what she has possessed since the beginning of creation (that is, her immortality). The divine will is the commands of God. The natural will of rational nature is to do the will of God. The carnal will is disobedience to the law of God. About energy. 86 What is energy? Why is it called energy? In how many ways can energy be thought of? As Saint Gregory of Nyssa says, “energy is the natural force and movement of every essence, which only non-existence lacks. What is involved in any essence also fully applies to the energy that manifests it. For true teaching determines the boundaries of entities by their non-false energies.” 87 For example, thinking is the action of those who think, feeling - of those who feel, movement - of those who move, flight - of those who fly, 88 swimming - of those who float, 89 growth - of plants, reptiles - of reptiles, glow - of those who are luminous, combustion - of those who burn, flow - of those who flow, vision - of those who see, birth - of those who give birth; Generally speaking, natural science has established that the designation and definition of any nature is its energy, and with its cessation, nature is completely destroyed and perishes; after all, with the cessation of heat, the fire goes out; when a living being is deprived of movement, it dies; and when [a person] ceases to think, then the thinking and reasoning [property] of his soul perishes. That is why we speak of two wills and energies in Christ, so as not to speak of His inanimate body and unreasonable soul; for the energy of the animate body is walking and labor, and the energy of the rational soul is its volitional, logical and judicious consciousness. Not only in the animate and moving, but also in the inanimate and motionless, natural energies are found, as evidenced by scammonia 90 and purifying [plants] that have a laxative effect; mercury, which produces a deadly effect, and hemlock, also destructive. It is surprising that some very different natures, often deprived of their natural energies, give rise to other energies. For example, a hot stone loses its cooling effect, but acquires (being inextinguishable) the ability to burn bodies. In the same way, cedar, when burned, loses its vegetative, growing and generative effect, but [fire] endows the cedar with a certain healing and worm-destroying effect. So, for those who knowledgeably and judiciously approach the examination and judgment of the names of existing things, it is not difficult to discover that most of the names of any existing thing are related to energy, and not to nature, for they have names derived from their own energies. To prove this, we should start with God’s very title and name. After all, the word “God” 91 does not represent to us the very incomprehensible and nameless essence of the Creator, but God is so called due to His contemplative energy. 92 Likewise, the word “Angel” does not reveal the very essence and being of the nature of Angels, but they have the names of Angel from their announcing 93 energy and service. In the same way, man 94 is called a man not because of his essential quality, but because he, directing his gaze upward and called “upward looking,” 95 is the only one of all living creatures looking at the earth who lifts his eyes to grief; due to his “upward looking” action, he is called a man. Others say that he is called a man, because of all living creatures that walk bent and with their heads down, he alone has the effect of walking upright. 96 So, if both names of the essences of Christ, I mean “God” and “man,” have names from their natural energies, then why are some not ashamed to deny the two energies in Him? They, without any other reference from Scripture or the Fathers, are put to shame by the very names of Christ, that is, “God” and “man.” For, as we have just said, almost every nature is named from its essential energy. For example, “virgin”, 97 that is, “putting to death the fire,” 98 comes from “putting to death the kindling of the flesh.” 99 And again, when we say “dove,” 100 we do not designate the nature of this living creature or the quality of its flesh, but the action that it performs - after all, the name “dove” comes from “to fly steadily.” 101 And other names refer to energy, and not to nature. In particular, “deer”, 102 “snake-like”, 103 [comes] from “to slay snakes”, 104 “swallow” 105 – from “to shake the beak while chirping”, 106 “serpent” 107 - that is, “who spoke,” 108 or who once addressed Eve with a speech, “antelope” 109 – from “to look and see vigilantly”, 110 "dove", 111 or "preserving the fruit", 112 [so called] because she preserves her race, never entering into [a second] marriage, “nightingale” 113 [comes] from “always sing,” 114 that is, in summer and winter, “kite” 115 – from “circling in the heights”, 116 “horse” 117 – from “to damage the hoof”, 118 “hebore” 119 – from “infecting or killing food” 120 (since “food” is called “food”), “eagle” 121 – “eternal year”, 122 since it is often renewed and lives a lot, “feathered” 123 – “spreading feathers”, 124 “river” 125 as having a drinking 126 effect, “stormy stream” 127 – because it flows in winter, 128 “nature” 129 – from “to produce hypostases”, 130 “grass” 131 – from “to go up”, 132 like “flower” 133 – from “to move up”, 134 that is, to rush. And the soul 135 is called “soul” from its own action, for to breathe 136 means “to give life”; therefore, from the life-giving action the name “soul” comes, since it gives life to the body. And you can find countless other things, if not everything, that receive their own name according to their energies, for energy is a force of nature. Not the same action, 137 the actor 138 and the result of the action. 139 After all, the actual thing itself or the object of essence is called active. The result of an action is the final result of the action of the actor; for example, the results of God's action are heaven, man, Angel and all creation. Action is called so because it exists in deeds, that is, it manifests itself. Action is thought of in two ways: I mean rationally and sensually. The sensible is that which is visible, felt, heard and subject to decay; and the intelligible is incorruptible and eternal, since the rational is that which contemplates the invisible intelligibles. Action is called so from “to act,” 141 that is, to perform. The will, the 142 driving 143 and the desired are not the same thing. 144 For the will is the rational desire of a rational essence; driving – the very thing that has will; and what is desired is the object of love. 5. About connection. 145 What is a connection? Why is it called a connection? And in how many ways can connection be conceived? A connection is a unifying combination of different things. It is called connection because it pushes together, 146 that is, it drives things together. It speaks of five types of connection: mixing, like mixing wine and water; separate, like person to person; relative, as a union of peoples in faith; basic, like the combination of gold with gold; the union of Christ exceeds all this and is called hypostatic. And the hypostatic union is a real combination of two natures in the womb of the Holy Mother of God. After all, neither body nor soul existed there before God the Word, but together the flesh and together God the Word; together God the Word and together rational animate flesh arose in Him, just as it seems to me that our conception is a prototype of Christ’s union (soul and body are actually combined, for neither the body exists on its own, nor the soul precedes the body). About the consubstantial. What is consubstantial? Why is it called consubstantial? In how many ways can the consubstantial be conceived? Consubstantial is that which invariably exists from the same essence and energy; for example, a person is from the [essence] of a person, an Angel is from the [essence] of an Angel, an animal is from the [essence] of an animal, a flame is from the [essence] of a flame: one essence in different forms. That which has similar essence and power is called consubstantial. It speaks of five types of consubstantial things: consubstantial, homogeneous, akin, same-natural and same-tribal. Consubstantial is that which has more or less power in the same essence; for example, cracked stone and cut stone, as well as date wood and ebony, the flesh of fish and the flesh of camels. Another thing is something that is in all respects unlike another, such as fire and water; man, God and Angel; clay and sun in relation to grass. Some people call dead flesh separated from life “half-existing.” The alien, heterogeneous and foreign is the being of a different essence. Scholia. It speaks of each of the two, that is, of this and that, or of both. Renewal is something that has completely departed from the law of general nature and is not likened to any human custom. This definition should be known because of those who misunderstand renewal in Christ. After all, if He renewed his nature, being born without seeds, however, after birth he grew, [had] everything bodily, absorbed food and excreted it, was circumcised, moved from place to place, had an external appearance and members, He grew hair, teeth and nails, He babbled and moved like a child - all this was not due to renewal, but “like us, except sin,” 147 as He says Pavel. About the soul. What is the soul? Why is it called soul? In how many senses is the soul spoken of? The Old Scripture speaks of the soul in two ways, that is, of the rational and the irrational - of cattle and other animate [creatures]. The rational soul is a thinking, nameless, unknowable, verbal entity that gives life to the body and resides in it. The soul is a subtle, immaterial, formless essence, the image and imprint of God. The soul is called so from “to breathe,” that is, to give life to the body with its energy. The irrational soul is the vital, warming and driving action of the blood through the material spirit. The bestial soul is a material force, acting, sensing and located in the body. The rational mind is the contemplating feeling of the immortal and thinking soul. The mind is non-corporeal vision, tirelessly penetrating everything. How many types of mind? We say that there are three: the Mind of God, and the Angel - the mind, and also our mind. Scholium. “Who has known the mind of the Lord?” 148 The intelligible is that which is thought by the mind; the thinking 149 is called so from “thought seeing.” 150 About the body. The body, according to externals, is everything that has three dimensions, that is, having length, width and thickness; According to the Church, the body is everything that is brought from non-existent into being; for “there are celestial bodies and terrestrial bodies,” 151 and the celestial ones do not have thickness. You should know that all flesh is obviously called a body, but not every body is called flesh: after all, the stars are also called “celestial bodies,” and not celestial flesh. The body is spoken of in two ways: one is material, the other is subtle. The material body is tangible and subject to decay, but the subtle body is inviolable and intangible. Flesh is a combination of elements. Flesh is a fluid essence, consisting of blood, mucus, bile and juice, or from air, earth, fire and water, that is, from warm, cold, wet and dry; the sun gives rise to the warm and vital element, air - the cold element, earth - dry, and water - wet. The element is a simple essence, the fourth part of creation. Therefore, when you hear Paul saying: “We no longer know Christ according to the flesh,” 152 then know that he called corruption flesh. For he did not say: “We no longer know Christ according to the body,” but “according to the flesh,” that is, no longer in a fluid essence. 153 About feeling. We have five senses: sight, hearing, smell, taste and touch, that is, feeling. So, the sensible is everything that falls under any one of these five senses; The sensory organ is an integral organ of the body that observes feelings; and a sentient being is every living being that has a sense of fear and death. And therefore, the intelligible is that which is inaccessible to our five senses. About perishable things. What is perishable? Why is it called perishable? In how many senses is corruption spoken of? So, in the Divine Scripture, corruption is spoken of in two senses: bodily and, conversely, spiritual, as when it is said “and the Lord God saw, and behold, the whole earth was corrupted by sin,” 154 again, it is said about people: “They have become corrupt and disgusted in their iniquities” 155 and in their morals. Finally, when you hear the teacher that the body of Christ was incorruptible before the Cross, then understand this to mean that it was incorruptible, that is, pure relative to the corruption of sin, but not in the sense of some subtlety or alienness to our bodies. For incorruptible in the proper sense of the word is impassive, immaterial and intangible; incorruptible is that which cannot be damaged by another entity, incorruptible is that which is completely non-fluid, without defect and invulnerable; The most holy body of Christ suffered, and wounds were inflicted on it with nails and a spear, and blood and water flowed out of it, and from living it became dead. Scholium. Some say that the most holy body of Christ was potentially corruptible, that is, accepting corruption, but in the tomb it was preserved incorruptible by the action of the Divinity of the Word. Corruptible is everything that is subject to death and is separable from life. As Saint Dionysius says, “corruption of nature is weakness and lack of natural properties, actions and powers.” 156 The destruction of 157 is complete destruction; corruption 158 is when one essence is destroyed by another, such as a body by worms. Form, 159 as the interweaving of parts, is called form or essence; parts of a form are called its hypostases, that is, shares. Man is a rational, upright living creature with wide nails; 160 or - a rational, material and laughing living being, simultaneously and ineffably combined from opposite essences; or - “a rational and mortal living being capable of containing intelligence and knowledge.” 161 Interpretation of this definition: “living being”, since it differs from an irrational creature; “reasonable” because it differs from an unreasonable entity; “mortal” because it differs from the immortal existence of Angels; “containing intelligence and knowledge,” since it is by grace created in the image of God. Scholium. Scripture speaks of man in four senses: man is God, Angel, [Satan], the internal and our external man. 162 An angel is an intelligent, glorifying, fiery and never-sleeping living being. 6. About faith. What is faith? Why is it called faith? In how many ways can the right faith be conceived? Faith is voluntary consent. Scholium. Faith is an inner being. It is called "faith" 163 from "to be convinced of something." 164 Right faith is understood in two senses: after all, there is faith “from hearing” 165 preaching, and there is a stronger faith - “the realization of expected” 166 benefits. All people can have faith “from hearing,” but only the righteous can acquire the second. Faithfulness is a true opinion about God and creation; or – the true thought about everything; or – the idea of ​​beings as they are. About the word. What is a word? In how many senses is the word understood? Why is it called a word? The word is spoken of in three senses: God the Word is the Word made flesh; there is the inner word of the Angels and pronounced in our thinking; there is a word pronounced by the tongue. The word is called so from “to speak”. 167 The spoken word is a messenger of thought. The Christian is the true rational dwelling of Christ, founded on good deeds and pious dogmas. A heretic is a slanderer and a denier of truth, and heresy is the false acceptance of something that does not exist. 7. The unchangeable is that which always remains the same. Natural is either that which is in nature; or happening in accordance with general and complete custom; or that which is truly known to be true. What is unnatural is either something that God did not create that way, or something that He did not create at all - for example, sin and death; the supernatural is the assimilation of that which surpasses the created; for example, marriage is natural, fornication is unnatural, and the birth of Christ is supernatural. Deification is an ascent to something higher, and not a diminishment or change of nature. Oikonomia is a voluntary condescension of power performed for the sake of saving some. To be deified means to be elevated to greater glory, but not to change one's nature. Mixing sometimes means connection, and sometimes reveals fusion. Sadness is a lack of desire, and desire is the movement of the desirable part of the soul; The desirable is also the willing. Therefore, Christ voluntarily accepted praiseworthy sorrow into the willing part of the soul. Sadness 168 is so called from “disappearance.” 169 And Christ truly grieved over the destruction of Judah, the Jews and Jerusalem, 170 and while grieving, he mourned them with a sincere feeling of soul, revealing Himself by nature to be a lover of mankind. Melancholy is a certain gloomy disposition of the soul that arises from some failure to achieve what is desired. Anger is the action of the furious part of the rational soul. Timidity is a contraction of the soul within itself; it arises when expecting something unwanted. Autocratic 171 is not subject to control, for what is under someone’s authority is not autocratic. If autocracy is truly free and unhindered domination over what is dear, then autocracy of the thinking soul is the unhindered aspiration and movement of our desired [beginning] towards virtue or vice. Therefore, there is no turning to evil or to virtue where the autocracy of the soul cannot be known. For how will autocratic will be revealed when there is no recourse to the opposite? Scholium. These definitions must be noted; after all, they relate to Christ and everything connected with Him. So, only Christ’s mind and His most holy soul were impervious and did not experience any turning to the evil one, for the “form of a servant” 172 was curbed and submitted to God the Word, united with him hypostatically. Therefore, man, mentally comprehended in the Savior, said: “I cannot create anything of Myself.” 173 For He, transcending the limits and laws of our nature, was born without seed, existed as the body and soul of God and, as deified, willingly submitted to the beck of the Master. Quality 174 is realized power; for example, humidity - water, heat - fire, hardness - stone, and dryness - earth. Quality, property, 175 difference 176 and peculiar property 177 mean the same thing. A four-part body, made of four elements, like a kind of cosmos, consisting of; the soul is tripartite, transforming in itself the Holy Trinity, which was to be revealed in the dead world, as if in some kind of body, and to revive it with the knowledge of God. The soul is called tripartite, because it has certain intelligent elements, its parts, of which it consists; meaning intelligent, willing and fierce. Through reasonable virtue she reflects on virtue, through desirable virtue she loves God, and through fierce virtue she becomes angry with demons and bravely resists them. And just as the existence of the body is unthinkable without the four elements, so the soul is unthinkable without its three parts from which it was formed. About attitude. Nature is the mistress and source-mother of all things. Finally, everything that comes from nature is designated as relations, for hypostases, sonship, property, quality, simplicity and everything else from nature have a cause and outcome, and therefore are called relations, that is, grafted onto the root of nature. Of these there is both will and energy. A statement is an opinion or judgment expressed about something; for example, when we say: “a river begins” or “a ruler enters.” Denial is a refutation of an affirmation; for example, “the river has no source” or “the ruler does not enter.” A judgment is expressed not only regarding the bad, but also regarding the good, for a judgment is any defining explanation regarding any thing; for example, “God is good by nature,” “the devil is cunning,” “the fox is cunning,” “the ferret is a thief.” An expression in the improper sense is everything said by someone not as a definition, but out of simplicity and good-naturedly; it cannot be elevated to a law or a definition. For example, “then they spat in the face of Christ” 178 - on the basis of such a statement, we cannot call the holy body of Christ a “special person,” but a nature. Etymology is an explanation of the true meaning of a term through interpretations of that term. In particular, what is [the meaning of the word] world 179? – “calm the mind”; 180 as again: the word excitement 181 [comes] from “to spread more easily,” 182 and deception 183 from “to change the mind.” 184 The word prudence 185 [comes] from “to think sensibly” 186 or from “to protect the body from dirt”; 187 the word fornication 188 – “fiery”, 189 that is, “the fire of youth” or “a fiery mind, that is, blind” or from “to gravitate into the distance”; purity 190 – from “striving for a childless life.” 191 The word love 192 [comes] from “to appreciate everything,” 193 that is, “to unite and combine with like-mindedness”; virtue 194 - something pleasing to God, 195 chosen, that is, pleasant and beloved; baptism, 196 “vaptesma” 197 – into which he plunged, that is, died to sin; good 198 – very Divine 199 or love of God. 200 The word death, 201 “phenotos” 202 [comes] from “to lay on the back of the deceased”; 203 hell 204 – from “unknown”, 205 since hell is the unknown west; resurrection 206 – from “above peace” 207 (“rebellion”), that is, awakening; decay 208 – from “to perish gradually”, 209 that is, to calmly decompose, for decay is rotting; coffin 210 – from “the body flows”, 211 that is, destroyed; body 212 – from “healthy blood” 213, healthy blood in all members; members 214 – so that you say “parts”; 215 community 216 – from “to be a part in general.” 217 The word cross 218 "hundred-breadth" comes from "standing" 219 and "breadth", 220 that is, length and width, because it is length and width; altar 221 – from “to make a sacrifice”; 222 sacrificial 223 sheep is called from “to bring wool”; 224 finally, priest 225 - from “burning sacrifice”, 226 that is, offering and therefore he is called a priest. Names that have the prefix “voz-” (“vo-”, “above-”) 227 mean “above.” For example, ascension 228 - raising the offering 229, resurrection 230 - rising from rest, 231 east 232 - rising 233 sun, inscription 234 - record above, 235 reading 236 - knowledge from above, 237 eruption 238 and the like: ascension, 239 renewal 240 (highest renewal), rest, 241 liberation , 242 cooling . 243 The word old age, 244 “honor,” 245 that is, honor or “sees the earth”; 246 lamp 247 – from “to dispel the night,” 248 that is, darkness; sadness, 249 “to be deprived” 250 – from “to remain deprived”; 251 wind 252 – the one blowing again “awaits”; 253 masculine 254 – from “to win”; 255 sign 256 – from “to lay a sign 257”; dog 258 – from “permanently pregnant 259”; wax 260 – from “to flow from fire” 261, like cedar 262 – from “to sweat from fire” 263; cloud 264 – from “to hide moisture” 265; bishop 266 – “observer”. 267 The word heart 268 [comes] from “to tremble,” 269 that is, to move continuously; kidneys 270 – from “located from the back” 271; back 272 – that which is on the other side of the head, that is, “towards the entrails,” 273 because there are entrails in the head. Scholia. For the forehead 274 is called from “under which the mind is located.” 275 Neck 276 – “spine nail” 277; mustache 278 – “into which the nostrils flow” 279; [word] thighs 280 [comes] from “division 281 of the body”; and the shoulder 282 is that which is “of the same 283 width and length”; knee 284 – from “bend to the ground” 285; loop 286 – from “it has a concavity at the top” 287; hairstyle 288 – from “strand 289 of hair”; teeth 290 – “living on food” 291; hands 292 – from “easier to throw” 293 and “help with business”; 294 legs 295 – from “to trample the floor”; 296 womb 297 – from “to bear babies”; 298 guts 299 – from “to spread inside”; 300 lungs 301 – from “there is breath in them 302”. Of course, you need to know that some terms are foreign and cannot be explained [based on the Greek language], for example, in Syriac σακελλάριος comes from “σακέλ,” 303 which means “to accept.” Similarly, in Roman λάτος sounds like “λάτος”, 304 which is consonant with the Greek πλάτος, that is, “width”. The word lord 305 [comes] from “certain connection” 306, that is, to surround and detain everyone; master 307 – power is called “force” 308; messenger 309 – from “faster movement” 310; Almighty 311 – from “above” 312; sky 313 – from “ὁρανός” “vision above” 314; moon 315 – from “radiance”, 316 that is, light or from “young radiance”; 317 sun 318 – from “the dawn strives”, 319 that is, to bring light, because sunrise is dawn. Pleiades 320 - that is, “from many stars” 321; morning star 322 – from “coming with the dawn”, 323 that is, with the rising. Πομάριν is a Roman word, because “πομάρια” 324 means “gardens”; the word Egypt "ἐγγύποτος" [comes] from "approaching water or river"; Nile - from “rejuvenate the bush”; Babylon - from the Hebrew word “βαβέλ”, which means “confusion” or “confusion.” Groom 325 – “now loving the bride” 326; νοτάριος is a Roman word, for “νότα” 327 in Roman means “writing”; baby 328 – “fat child” 329, that is, well-fed; junior 330 – “young in appearance” 331; sailor 332 – “someone from the ship” 333; girl 334 – “lack of flow” 335, that is, the time before the possibility of having children or before blood; pupil of the eye 336 – that is, “a tear flows from the recess” 337, hence eye ointment 338, which means “obstacle to the flow”; 339 eyes, 340 this is “damp, cloudy vision,” 341 that is, difficult; the word scholia 342 comes from “during classes 343 attach a commentary on incomprehensible thoughts or expressions.” Scholia. Let the inquisitive person have no doubt that the hardworking person, peering at the proposed definitions, will easily grasp the meaning of everything contained in the dogmas. You should know that the two names of Christ, that is, God and man, come from energies and are named so from their own energies. After all, the word God does not designate the essence of the Divine, for it is incomprehensible and unnameable for us, but the word God comes from His contemplative energy, as Saint Dionysius says, 344 or from “to run,” 345 that is, to spread, or from “to burn,” 346 and “to ignite.” Likewise, the word “man” does not express nature itself, but comes from “to turn one’s gaze upward,” that is, “to turn the action of our eyes upward.” So, if the two names of the natures of Christ come from the names of their essential energies, one is amazed at the rudeness of the heretics, how they are not ashamed to deny His essential energies. About what house-building is 347. The word economically in relation to Christ can be thought of in three ways, that is, either for the sake of economy; for example, when we say: “In economy Christ was suckled, was a child, grew, slept and was hungry,” that is, [we speak out] about His economy according to the nature of the flesh. Again, we speak in oikonomia 348 when an event occurs that should not have happened, but occurs out of condescension and for the sake of the salvation of some. For example, when Paul circumcised Timothy 349 in order to attract the Jews; thereby bringing himself closer [to them]. The circumcision of Christ 350 in the same way took place economically, so that He would not appear to abolish the law 351. It is also economical that [Christ], being hungry in the morning, approached the fig tree, and it withered 352; or, when He came to the disciples at night, walking on the waters 353 for the sake of some hidden Economy. But the heretics refuse to think of the word “economically” in such ways, but say that by economically one should understand that which was illusory and apparent. Scholia. You should know that complex natures, being complex, arose and are easily dissolved, as the great Gregory says: “Complexity is the beginning of dissolution” 354. Therefore, the bodies of people and animals are easily destructible and mortal, since they consist of four natures and elements, and these elements are opposite to each other and rebel against each other. But simple and uncomplicated things are very stable and remain indissoluble to the end; for example, the human soul, the sun, light, luminaries, air, water, fire, spirit and all simple, unique, unalloyed and uncomplicated [things]. As a result, plants and trees, as consisting of four elements (I mean earth, water, sun and air) do not remain ageless, incorruptible and unfading, but die, like bodies. And the earth is composed in a similar way; make a brick consisting of earth and water, and it will easily fall apart. Refutation and destruction of the well-known question of all Monophysites, which states that there is no non-hypostatic nature. Orthodox question: “Speaking of two births regarding Christ, that is, the birth before the ages from the Father according to the Divinity and the birth in recent times from the Virgin according to humanity, answer us whether the birth is non-hypostatic, and then we will tell you whether nature is non-hypostatic.” Indeed, in the proper sense of the word, birth is the addition of a hypostasis to the identity of nature. Therefore, just as the two births that took place in the single Hypostasis of God the Word did not result in the addition of a hypostasis to Him, so He did not accept the addition of a person from two natures united by hypostasis. Therefore, when heretics pose a difficulty to us, saying: “Is there a non-hypostatic nature?”, they should answer: “Is there an impersonal birth?” For where there is a new birth, there the addition of a face is also known. Chapter 3. Introduction before sections Scholium. We ask everyone who turns to this book to thoroughly read the scholia attached to it. If the book contains, naturally, some errors, then we apologize; for it was presented hastily, often the purpose was to indicate speculation, while linguistic errors and carelessness in punctuation were despised. 1. Anastasia, the most insignificant monk, a work on the Orthodox faith, collected from the Holy Scriptures and teachers [of the Church] The beginning of Your words, O Christ, is the truth, and You Yourself, God the Word, are the true Truth, since You are truly the Origin of the super-true Fatherly Truth 355 and the Truth, and You promised to send the Spirit of Truth to the zealots of Your Truth, saying: “The Comforter whom I will send to you in the name of My Father, the Spirit of Truth, He will guide you into all truth, so that you will speak, but the Spirit of Truth will speak the Truth in you." 356. For those who extract luminous and precious pearls from invisible depths for people and want to show them to people strip themselves of all clothing, fill their mouths with oil and, having taken a sufficient breath, go into the terrible and dark abyss. Thus, I think, they set an example that every person who explores the depths of spiritual waters and dogmas and wants to fish out divine and pure pearls from them should be naked from all the clothing of passionate [thoughts], breathe in the Holy Spirit through the nostrils of the soul and have [Him] according to the expression of the saint: “The Spirit of God is in my nostrils” 357, “The Breath of the Almighty teaching me "358 and "My mouth was opened and the Spirit was drawn" 359, He is the "oil of joy" 360, so that the Divine saying may be fulfilled regarding such people, which says: "A good man brings forth good from the good treasure of his heart, just as a passionate man brings out evil from the passionate treasure of his heart" 361. And the danger is not for those who dare [to rush] into the depths of the waters, but for those who, having passions, strive to carefully explore the depths of the Holy Scriptures. For only the Holy Spirit, as God, can “pierce into the depths of God” 362. Therefore, a certain sage says: “First you should purify yourself, and then communicate with the pure” 363. After all, if he who has the speaking Christ within himself, was caught up to the third heaven, recognized in paradise the ineffable words 364 and said: “It is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me,” 365, turning to the Corinthians, declares: “We speak in part and we know in part,” 366 then who can say: “I speak completely and I know completely, especially what pertains to the incomprehensible God”? Again, a certain Theologian, speaking by the Holy Spirit, said: “When I talk about God, I tremble with my tongue, and my hearing, and my thought” 367 . For it is not safe to talk about God. But some who do not understand this and do not reason (being in ignorance, they seem to dwell inside their belly, falling into the passions of dishonor and the filth of pleasures; they slander me, and also create without fear the desires of the flesh and sweets, not knowing that the Holy Spirit dwells in people) ridicule the sacraments of Christ and make them the subject of mockery in taverns, brothels, bathhouses and bazaars And they do so that the unbelievers spew blasphemies; having stolen two or three random phrases from the Fathers and uttered them, they immediately put forward their own teachers, not God-ordained, but driven by passions. For those, prompted by a vain and voluptuous will and driven by shameful greed, often, in the Jewish manner, sell the divine pearls of the Word to pigs and the unworthy. 368 After all, as you can learn from the church chroniclers of your time, most heresies arose from vain lust for power, love of money, people-pleasing and arrogance. They would not have become so blind if, through exercise, practice and dispassion, they [were] worthy of the indwelling of the Most Holy Spirit in them. After all, if, without acquiring the Divine Spirit, “we do not know what to pray for as we should,” 369 then how can we even explore the mysteries of God? But, of course, the new theologians tell me: “We do not express anything from ourselves, but we speak from the Holy Scriptures and the pious Fathers of the Catholic Church.” To this I answer: “And all heretics claim the same thing, which is why they seem to object to us on the basis of the Holy Scriptures and the teachers [of the Church].” After all, as it seems to me, a person cannot unfalteringly and unswervingly comprehend either the Scripture or the words of the Fathers, if he does not acquire the Holy Spirit, who will speak in him and become his Guide 370. After all, the words of Christ: “The Spirit of truth will guide you into all truth” 371 clearly pointed to the Scriptures and the Fathers. 2. Provisions that an Orthodox Christian must refute and anathematize before a conversation when he wants to arrange a debate about faith with the Theodosians and Guyanites 372 First of all, Nestorius and his faith must be anathematized, and then in order: those who do not confess the Holy Ever-Virgin Mary to be the Mother of God by nature and above nature; speaking of two persons, or two hypostases, or two divided natures in Christ, and also not accepting hypostatic unity in Christ; not recognizing the expression “the one incarnate nature of God the Word,” as Saint Cyril interpreted it; speaking or inventing two natures in Christ - male and female; claiming that the Divinity of Christ was separated from His holy flesh on the Cross, in the tomb, or in some other similar place; not confessing the Body of God and the Blood of God, with which we partake. But, first of all and mainly, one should anathematize the one who preaches or has a new faith and a new teaching, different from the faith of the 318 Fathers of Nicaea [Council], 150 Fathers of Constantinople [Council] and 200 Holy Fathers of the First Ephesian [Council]. Also, the one who from the Council of Chalcedon invents and extracts a new faith, in addition to the way of thinking of the Holy Fathers: Dionysius, Irenaeus, Clement, Ambrose, Julia, Eustathius, Athanasius, Basil, Gregory and Gregory, Amphilochius, Joanna, Epiphanius, Theophilus, Proclus, Ephraim, Isidore, the blessed father and teacher Cyril and the rest of the Holy Fathers, their like-minded people. Those who do not follow these holy teachers we consider condemned and alien to Christ. Chapter 4. Brief summary of the origins of heresies up to Nestorius and Severus In the name of the Father and the Son and the All-Holy and Life-Giving Spirit! Anastasius, the most humble presbyter of the holy Mount Sinai, a message about faith in the Economy of Christ the Son of God to the Holy Catholic Church in Babylon, 373 written at the request of Christ-loving Orthodox brothers in Christ. In the beginning was God, and God was in the beginning and before the beginningless beginning; God has always been and is and will be. I call God the Holy and Consubstantial and Uncreated Trinity, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. 374 This is our God, Who is always existing and pre-existent and above all pre-existent, at His Eternal, all-unknown Divine Council, before all creation, plans and creates holy angelic powers; He knows when, and knows where, and understands how [to create them], and only One knows how: their essence, and rank, and number, and manner of service, and properties are known by One God, their Creator. The commander of this incorporeal army, having become proud against the Creator, as the prophets Isaiah and Ezekiel say, was rejected and fell along with his rank. He is now called the devil, and those who are with him are called demons. 375 So, when God created the visible world (I mean heaven and earth and everything on it), the devil, as one of the teachers says, considered that “God intends to make him king and ruler of the visible creation.” 376 When he saw that Adam, who came into being and was created by God, dominates the earth, being annoyed and envious of man, 377 the evil one deceived him through Eve and the tree, 378 whether by God's permission, or by some special, more mysterious vision - God knows; for we do not need to waste time on what is unspoken in the Divine Scripture, but I am talking about paradise and the tree, and nakedness, and vestments of leather, and about some other similar thing that is not clearly revealed to us in the Holy Books. So, as I said earlier, Satan has been against the human race from the beginning. Then he kills Abel through Cain 379, then he deviates people to fornication with the daughters of Cain 380, and then to worshiping man-made idols as gods instead of God 381. Therefore, God punishes through the flood, then, being philanthropic, renews the world through the seed of Noah 382. However, even after this, people did not come to their senses, but obsessedly indulged in idols and evil. Finally, God reveals certain lights that become examples of worship of God (I mean blessed Abraham, Isaac and Jacob), but even then the world did not come to its senses. Then the Lord brings various and varied punishments upon the creature, then gives the written Law, with signs and wonders, and with power revealed to Israel, but even then people did not escape from error. After the Law, he sent miracle-working prophets, but the apostate people killed them too. 383 At the end of all, “when the fullness of time had come” 384 - God’s ancient plan, a Sacrament happened, which God predestined before the ages for our glory: He sent His Son, born without seed from the Ever-Virgin Woman, a Man Who “appeared on earth and spoke among people” 385. However, even then the evil [chief] of the shameless did not cease to confuse the world, but, having taken possession of some people as his vessels and instruments, he hastened even more to completely refute the coming of Christ. Simon, a Samaritan sorcerer from the village of Giton, was the first to assert in Rome under the supreme [apostle] Peter: “Jesus who [once] came was a liar and a deceiver, but I am the true Christ.” Those who appeared after this, Cerinthus, Nicholas and Marcion, were likened to Simon. But then God's judgment destroyed them and their teachings. 386 However, even then the evil serpent did not cease to antagonize the Church, but even more incited persecution against it from the Hellenes and the wicked. But even among those born by the power of Christ, a diverse serpent invents a certain third type of lie: for, having heard in the Gospels the words of the Lord: “If I go to the Father, I will pray to Him, and He will send you another Comforter,” 387 little by little he began to instill in some wise men and sorcerers the words: “I am the Comforter whom Christ promised to send to the world.” Of these were Mani, the founder of the Manichaeans 388, and Montanus, a native of Ardab, and some others 389. Since they did not succeed, for the enemy saw that day by day the preaching of Christ was expanding and growing and he was no longer able to persuade the race of people to idolatry, from now on he began to spread various tares to the world, so that people in worshiping God would have the same enmity and discord that they had acquired in idolatry. 390 Therefore, after some time, the demon-singer organized this Arian chorus from Mani, Montanus and Novatus 391 and their imitators: Apollinaris 392, who claims that Christ took on man without a soul, without mind and without will, Eunomius and others who call the Word of God a creation, and those who teach about His one - Divinity and humanity - nature, will and action. Afterwards, not calming down, again the hater of goodness takes up arms against the Holy Spirit through the Doukhobor Macedonius. But the power from above destroyed all these crafty and godless tricks, and nowhere among those who argue about the Divinity is there today any mention of the Arians, Macedonians or Eunomians: so that the serpent, having received this deadly ulcer, becomes more and more powerless every day, so that the devil, defeated by Christ the Son of God, after the lapse of time found himself out of work. Indeed, look: he wanted, firstly, to immediately refute the coming of Christ - and he could not. Then he wanted to destroy the preaching through persecution - and was deceived; wanted people to worship sorcerers instead of the Holy Spirit - and did not achieve the goal; began to blaspheme the Divinity of Christ - and was stopped. Then, not having the strength to fight against the Divine nature, he turned his troops against the flesh of Christ, after the Arian chorus, digging up the Charybdis of division, separating the flesh of Christ from the Divinity by cutting the one Christ in two. 393 The founders of this division were Theodore of Antioch and Diodorus of Tarsus. 394 From them, like some kind of hellebore root, sprang the Chaldean pig - the Assyrian Nestorius, who to this day emits his [heretic] impurities through his followers. Expelled from Constantinople into exile in Mesopotamia, 395 there he continued to spread poison and impurity [of his heresy], so that, spilled from this destructive [source], they desecrated almost the entire East. We have compiled a book 396 against him, pillorying his cunning and cunning, and sending hardworking brothers there. And yet we must admit that today there is nothing more harmful than the heresy of Nestorius, and reveal its poison. For often, for the sake of shameful self-interest and glory, they hypocritically call Christ God and the Holy Virgin the Mother of God, they anathematize Nestorius and reject the expression “two persons in Christ.” At the same time, whoever wants to expose their deceit should remind them of the Council of Blessed Cyril against Nestorius: do they accept it with all their hearts, because everything is clearly said there. 397 This is the case with Nestorius, the Judaizing wicked and the Chaldean Assyrian pig. After all, the Holy Church rejects him because of the division of natures in Christ, just as Sevira and his [followers] because of the fusion of natures. Chapter 5. About the Holy Councils It is necessary for the hardworking brother to know the following: namely, about the four Holy Ecumenical Councils, because of what and against what heresies they took place; however, both before and after them, other Local Councils were held in various places regarding various issues. So, the Holy First Ecumenical Council of the Fathers took place in Nicaea under the holy Emperor Constantine against Arius, a minister in Alexandria, who had previously been anathematized by Saint Peter, martyr and bishop, who said that “Arius, both in this century and in the future, is excommunicated from the glory of the Son of God Jesus Christ.” 398 For Arius himself declared that the Son and Word of God is a creature and was not begotten of the Father before the ages. 399 The Holy Council determined that the Son is “consubstantial” and co-eternal with the Father, “begotten, not created.” 400 This godly Council, proclaiming three Hypostases, the same essence, 401 also condemned Sabellius the Libyan, who asserted that the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are one hypostasis. 402 Therefore, the followers of Theodosius and Jacobites 403 can be all the more put to shame when they, as we intend to show, say that essence or nature is the same as hypostasis. The Holy Council also rejected the heresy of Photinus, which asserts that Christ has the beginning of both Divinity and flesh from Mary and that He is not pre-eternal according to His uncreated Divinity. 404 The Second Holy Ecumenical Council of the Holy One Hundred and Fifty Fathers in Constantinople was held under the Emperor Theodosius the Great against the Archbishop of Constantinople Macedonius, who claimed that the Holy Spirit is a creature. The Holy Council, having condemned Macedonius, declared that the Holy Spirit is consubstantial with the Father and the Son, adding in the Creed [the words] “and in the Holy Spirit” [the words] “the Lord the Giver of Life” and so on. 405 Fifty years after the [Council] in Constantinople there was a Holy Council of two hundred (at the beginning of the meeting) of the Holy Fathers in Ephesus under the Emperor Theodosius the Younger against Nestorius, the wicked bishop of Constantinople, calling the Most Holy Theotokos the Mother of Man, and also wickedly cutting Christ into two faces and two hypostases; Having condemned Nestorius, the Holy Council determined that the All-Glorious Holy Virgin is truly and truly the Mother of God, and piously taught about the one complex hypostasis of Christ. 406 Just ten years later, Eutyches appeared, a certain archimandrite in Constantinople, saying that “the body of Christ was sent down from heaven and it is of a different essence from ours and that Christ is all one nature.” Against him, Blessed Flavian, who was then the Bishop of Constantinople, convened a Local Council, which condemned Eutyches and determined that “the body of Christ is of one essence with ours.” Then, having conveyed the request to the emperor, Eutyches convinced him, and he, sending for Pope Dioscorus of Alexandria, convened the Council of Ephesus against Flavian II, nicknamed the Robber Council; On it, blessed Flavian was beaten to death and died. As a result, under the emperor Marcion, a Holy Council was convened in Chalcedon against the heresiarchs Dioscorus and Eutyches, who said that Christ is one nature. The Holy Council proclaimed that Christ is “perfect in Divinity and equally perfect in humanity,” that He is “one Lord in two unfused and inseparably” united natures, confirming the overthrow of Nestorius, which Blessed Cyril had previously committed at the Holy Council in Ephesus, glorifying Blessed Cyril himself and singing: “Eternal memory to Cyril.” A hundred years after the Council of Chalcedon, under the Emperor Justinian there was a Fifth Ecumenical Council against Origen, Didymus and Evagrius, who were mad that our souls, together with demons, fell from heaven into our bodies and that torment has an end, and that through it the devil will be restored to his original angelic rank. This Ecumenical Council condemned both Sevier and his thoughts, and all those who say that our souls preexist our bodies. Scholia. It should be known that there were many other Local Councils in various places on various church issues. Scholium. As for... forever. 407 Chapter 6. Where does the teaching of Eutyches and Sevirus come from? 1. Where did the one-eyed faith of Sevier come from? Finally, for the sake of knowledge, it is pious for the hardworking brother to briefly say where the Monophysite heresy, teaching about the merging [of Divinity and humanity in Christ], began to spread and with the poison of what heresies and ancient serpents. In fact, having looked into the Manichaean, Valentinian, Marcionite and Arian books, Eutyches, who was [subsequently] condemned by the Holy Council of Chalcedon, learned from them fantasies and opinions that proclaim the one nature of Christ, Divinity and humanity. Then Dioscorus received this very disease from Eutyches; and after the condemnation of Dioscorus in Chalcedon, the Churches of Constantinople and Alexandria were divided. But a few years later, Timothy became the bishop of the Alexandrian Monophysites, and he soon wrote an essay against the Council of Chalcedon and the Tomos of Leo of the Pope. 408 Scholia. For at the Council Timothy was at one with Dioscorus. Then John the Grammar of Caesarea 409 and many others came out in defense of the Council, composing truthful writings. And so, when Severus of Antioch was exposed to accusations because of his nasty teaching directed against the Council of Chalcedon, he appeared in Alexandria, in the den of snakes, the enemies of the Universal Church, and having examined the writings of [John] of Caesarea and other authors in defense of the Council, compiled from many patristic and biblical quotations, teachings and arguments, first of all he immediately wrote against John of Caesarea; 410 and Sevier thereafter did what that same Aquila did with the Old Testament, translating it, distorting or removing many expressions and testimonies about Christ, and leaving the distorted result for the Jews to perish due to their aversion [to Christ]. 411 For seeing that the writings defending the Council are composed of quotations from the Fathers and reverend teachers, saying that Christ is in two indivisible natures in one Person, this Severus, who has forgotten that “the Father gave all judgment to the Son,” 412 like the Antichrist, steals from Christ the power of the court, and sits as the first judge and arbiter of the Holy Fathers and teachers: he perverted their quotations, and was able to distort some pass them off as truly fatherly; he called other quotations false and counterfeit, since the books are rare either because of the remoteness of the country where they were written, or because they were written in other languages. Again, he also discovered those quotations that speak of two natures - from [the two] Gregori, John, Cyril, Athanasius, Ambrose, Proclus and other famous teachers, whose books and quotations cannot be rejected, since they are known to the whole world - regarding them again, the “legislator and judge” Sevier announced the definition and sentence, once writing to the one whom he calls Nephalius, 413 that he “excuses” the Saints Fathers for the expression “two natures”, since “they were forced to use the expression “two natures” in the fight against the Arians,” another time, expressing himself even more shamefully, he does not even honor the forgiveness of the Holy Fathers, but he himself destroys and refutes their inspired instructions, speaking in his own dry words, as we will say in more detail below and quote his words, namely: “The Holy Fathers have unacceptable expressions about two natures united in Christ, even starting with Cyril himself,” and again: “For the sake of benefit and because of the fight against heresies, the teaching about Christ was forced to change; for which reason, when the Arians say “one nature in Christ,” the Fathers did justly when they said “two natures,” and I excuse them; when Nestorius says “two natures in Christ,” these same words of the Fathers are unacceptable, even if [these are the words] of the blessed Cyril himself.” 414 So, [Sevier concludes]: Christ is one nature and He is devoid of another. For perhaps [due to fear of heresy] Nestoria, the most holy flesh of Christ, united with Him by hypostasis, was separated by Sevier and fell away from God the Word, appeared non-existent, unreal and invisible and, in the end, left God the Word naked, according to the teachings of Mani. After all, he says: “God placed the Word as the dwelling place of His flesh in the sun, 415 while He was lifted up into heaven.” Having decided this, Sevirus, having learned from Aquila and from his own people of Alexandria what the Jews call "deuterosis" 416 and which cancels the correct text of the seventy interpreters and destroys the Divine law, attacking, publishes for them a book called Philalethes, 417 or rather "The Lover of Fables", in which he himself chose himself as a judge of the living and the dead, collected a list of quotations and an exposition Fathers, some willingly accepted, others ordered to be expelled. So, this book, both in Egypt and in Syria, is revered by the disciples of James, Sevirus, Theodosius, Timothy and Dioscorus, and by the enemies of the Church more than the Holy Gospel of John itself. And just as the children of the Jews, as I briefly said before, who, under the guidance of the teaching of Aquila, rejected the whole heritage of Moses and the prophets, are based on their tradition and temptation, so the disciples of Sevier and Jacob rather try to distort and reject quotations from the Gospel, Scriptures and Fathers than the “lawmaking” of Sevier in this book. If you give them a quotation or sentence from Peter, Paul, Eustathius, Gregory, Basil, John, Athanasius, the most famous Cyril or any other father, then they will not accept it until they look in the “code of laws” of Sevirus, that is, in the book he compiled called Philaletus. And in accordance with his interpretation, judgment and sentence, they accept or reject the teacher and his word, appointing Sevier as a teacher of teachers, a judge of miracle workers, an explorer and an evaluator of God-bearing men. We write this not from hearsay, but from experience, having discovered many times in Syria, Egypt, Alexandria and other countries teaching about one nature in Christ, judging and interpreting every word of Scripture and the Fathers in accordance with the “legislation” of Sevier. For he “legislated” for them in his book called Philalethes: supposedly it was the creed of Chalcedon, [expressed] in the Apology, which John of Caesarea composed in his defense, that distorted 230 quotations of the Holy Fathers; This very [book] was presented to us in Babylon by the notary Athanasius. 418 So, when in relation to the words of the Fathers they, “like a deaf asp who stops his ears,” 419 stopped the ear of their heart so as not to hear the voice of the Singing One, their camp is poisoned in every possible way, poisoned by the “sage”; We have prepared ourselves against them in another way through the cooperation of Christ, whom they have rejected, in whom they do not believe; and we will attack those who are strangers to the truth with the help of another path of piety, which they have not entered upon, and have not even known. “For if they had known, they would not have cursed the Lord of glory”; 420 or rather, they knew and of their own free will showed impiety towards Him. 2. So, first of all, about what was seen and not known: after all, all those who teach that there is a single essence of Christ - Divinity and humanity, inherited this very [opinion] precisely from the words of Aristotle and other Hellenic successors, [claiming] that nature is a person, and equally the face is nature. After all, Aristotle says that a person is a private entity. 421 Then, following this nonsense rule, Arius said that the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit have three essences. Following this wicked definition, Sevier said that Christ is a perfect unified nature of two particular essences and half hypostases. In the same way, Eutyches and Dioscorus, Timothy and Gaian, Julian 422 and James, Peter Knatheus 423 and Barsanuphius 424 and Theodosius - this ten-horn of deception, not from the Scriptures and Gospels, but from Aristotle's Categories, inherited the expression that nature is a person and that there is no impersonal nature. Scholia. And Sabellius, who also calls nature a hypostasis, said that the Holy Trinity is one hypostasis. They did all this, intending to offend the Council of Chalcedon, which, by defining two inseparable natures of the One and the Same Christ God, they believe, allegedly disgraces Him, since it seems to say that there are two faces in Christ and reveals four faces in the Holy Trinity: two faces in the Father and the Holy Spirit and two other faces in Christ. These are precisely the heretics. But since in the Pauline Epistles Christ destroys and expels Hellenic wisdom, we believers will not accept the preaching of the dogma about Christ in accordance with Hellenic and Aristotelian teachings. And not like Paul of Samosat, but like Paul of Tarsus, we will preach Christ “not in the wisdom of speech, lest the cross of Christ should be made void,” 425 who said: “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise... when the wisdom of this age has turned into foolishness and the world through [its] wisdom does not know God.” 426 He deigned, through the ignorance of the disciples, to save those who believed in Him in the Gospel, “not in convincing words ... of wisdom,” 427 because “the wisdom of this world is foolishness in the sight of God,” 428 both this wisdom and those who follow it. So, when someone from the herd of the mentioned ten-horns approaches us, practicing words about Christ, we will not give him an answer until we ask him what he thinks about nature and how he interprets it, what is nature and what is hypostasis, what is essence and how he defines person, and according to what rule he imagines the genus. And if he brought you Aristotelian and Homeric definitions and laws, saying that nature is a person, then get away from him and leave him below with the devil, or rather even below the devil. For even the devil does not dare to value Hellenic wisdom above the teachings of Moses, prophetic, evangelical and apostolic. So, since we are adherents of the Holy Spirit, we will preach all the dogmas of Christ together with the Holy Catholic Church according to the tradition of the Old and New Testaments. Let us interpret essence, genus, nature, hypostasis, person according to Moses, the prophets and the Gospel, to which no one can object. First of all, because the whole law and the apostolic word is the lord and master of all other church and patristic writings, secondly, because it is impeccable and indisputable, and, finally, thirdly, for this reason, from the Old and New Testaments it is necessary to discover from the Old and New Testaments what concerns the nature, hypostasis, person, race and essence, since Sevier carried out the refutation and, as it were, the destruction of the Holy Fathers, as we will now show [on the basis words] of that epistle to Nephalius and to some others. Chapter 7. Proof that Sevier rejected the holy fathers and legalized that their quotations were abolished 1. The story of how the wicked Sevier rejected the Holy Fathers. “If the opponents (that is, the Chalcedonians) say: “And we give you the words of the Fathers, in which they clearly name two natures in Christ,” I will defend myself so meekly and without the intention of winning at any cost: let us assume that the expression “there are two natures in Christ” was not rejected by any of the ancient Fathers, but all (that is, the Holy Fathers) clearly and impeccably used this expression.” What else is he, that is, Sevier, saying? “Many of the so-called impeccable expressions of the ancient Fathers after Nestorius began to be considered unsafe.” And a little lower he says again: “And don’t tell me again that the expression about two natures was used by some of the Fathers; it is you who say that you used it; but let us agree with this assumption. But during the time of Blessed Cyril, when the plague of Nestorius’s idle talk struck the Church, 429 this expression was especially rejected. And indeed, “for illness there is medicine.” The sayings of other Fathers, if they are discovered (I say again presumably), cannot be cited against St. Cyril, who found a cure for the illness that happened; I’ll say more: even if these were the expressions of Kirill himself, said by himself.” 430 This is what Sevier wrote. Who would allow me to applaud such a speaker because he unintentionally benefited the Church and the Council of Chalcedon, like those who crucified Christ on the tree? For the fact that he says that the Holy Fathers impeccably recognized two natures in Christ, we cannot acquire even for ten thousand talents; after all, we discovered that he is of the same mind with us against those who recognize one nature in Christ. The second benefit for you has been discovered, since Blessed Cyril himself teaches about two natures in Christ. For isn’t this what [Sevier] said meant: “Even if these were the expressions of Cyril himself, said by himself.” And the third benefit comes to us from this loud speaker, who claims that against diseases and against discovered heresies it is necessary to prepare medicines, that is, to change dogmas. “For the blessed Fathers, he says, who arrayed themselves against the heresy of Arius, refuting him, who proclaimed one nature in Christ, clearly confessed two natures in Him.” Truly, “How sweet are Your words to my throat, better than honey to my mouth.” 431 For I see that by the words of his mouth the sinner has been caught. For if because of the illness of Arius, who preached one nature in Christ our God, the Holy Fathers, who overthrew this dogma as impious, proclaimed two natures, much more now because of Eutyches, Dioscorus, Peter [Cnatheus], Timothy, Theodosius, Julian, Guyana, Barsanuphius, James, the majestic leader of this ten-horned choir of Sevirus and the rest of the heresiarchs, who teach in the Arian way about one nature in Christ, it is prudent, timely and just to proclaim two natures, inseparably united by hypostasis in the one person of Christ. It is very funny how the speaker went unnoticed, with his expression ridding the Council of Chalcedon of any reproach: “it is necessary to prepare medicines against the disease that has arisen.” How is it, wise one, that you do not defend this decision together with those who gathered in Chalcedon, but are their severe accuser? For when the illness of Eutyches arose, he said that the Incarnation of Christ is illusory and that His body descended from heaven, and as if in the shadow and in the imagination it is contemplated on earth and it is not of our essence, but rather has no essence at all. What medicine was fatal for this disease, if not the words that His most holy soul and flesh is an essence united with God the Word by hypostasis, and the confession that He is perfect in Divinity and He is perfect in humanity, in another nature? I am amazed that Sevier did not tremble at all with his shameless face and vile tongue, condemning many of the Holy Fathers and not wanting to spare Saint Cyril himself, but believing that “After the time of Nestorius, the sayings of the ancient Holy Fathers, speaking about two natures in Christ, turned out to be unsafe and completely incorrect.” As a result, this wicked man declares the opinion and judgment of the ancient Fathers, considering their instructions to be ineffective and rejected, “even if these were the expressions of Cyril himself.” 432 Christ, according to Paul, “ordained in the Church, first, apostles, secondly, prophets, thirdly, teachers.” 433 And the Antichrist destroys and casts out those whom God has appointed in the Church as Fathers and Shepherds; so the orator Sevier, being a kind of teacher of teachers, says that “the words of the Holy Fathers are no longer safe.” However, let the apostolic husband Dionysius be silent, let Irenaeus, the ax of heresies, be silent, let Clement, the vine of Christ, not speak. Further, let Justin begin to remain inactive, having sealed the nature of Christ with his own blood of martyrdom. This wise accuser of the teachers did not spare anyone: he was not ashamed of the martyrdom of Eustathius, he was not ashamed of Gregory the Wonderworker, he was not in awe of the exploits of Athanasius, he was not embarrassed by the residence of Basil, before whom the demons were in awe, he did not honor the [two] Gregori, whom the Greeks were ashamed of, nor did he honor Epiphanius, whom the spirits feared, nor did he revere John, before whom even the kings trembled, spared neither Amphilochius, nor Ambrose, nor the virtuous Ephraim, nor Proclus, nor Cyril himself, the seal of the Fathers, nor any other father whom we mentioned and whom we did not mention. But he made a departure from everyone, saying that “Up until the time of Nestorius, Christ, according to the words of the Holy Fathers, was known in two natures, but after Nestorius Christ became one nature; and the words of the ancient Fathers, who formerly called Christ two natures, became useless, unsuitable and blasphemous"; 434 with the periodicity of the lunar phases and according to lot, the lunatic Sevier, betraying Christ, now likens Him to the flawed, now to the full moon, now He turns out to be two-natural, now He turns out to be of one nature; for no reason at all He changes and becomes different, like hares; or, I’ll say something blasphemous, He is like pregnant women who either have two souls, then, after giving birth, have one again. 2. It is reasonable, I believe, in this too to expose the maliciousness and lies of Sevier, the head of the ten-horned choir, and to point out that even before Nestorius there appeared the founders and leaders of the heresy of the division of Christ, dividing Christ in two and calling Him a simple man; their foundation and head is Artemo, 435 as can be learned from the Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius Pamphilus, written before the Holy Council of Nicaea. Then, after Artemon, in the time of the Arians, Paul of Samosata, Diodorus and Theodore of Antioch appeared, contemporaries of the [two] blessed Gregori, Athanasius and Basil, wickedly dividing [Christ] in two, from them Nestorius drew the wicked doctrine of the division of [Christ], as both Saint Proclus and blessed Cyril testify. Scholium. You, lover of knowledge, will discover the above at the Holy Council of Ephesus, because the Council established agreement between the teachings of Nestorius and Paul of Samosata, who lived 160 years earlier and wickedly divided Christ. 436 So, let the lover of wisdom, Sevier, tell me why the blessed Fathers, being contemporaries of the heresiarchs Theodore and Diodorus, spoke of two natures in Christ God; after all, both [Paul] of Samosata and the expressions of Theodore and Diodorus “two persons,” “hypostases,” “common man” blasphemed Christ even before Nestorius. But because the Fathers did not formulate the teaching about Christ for a time, in accordance with the lunar phases, so as not to call Him in the imagination changing various images, forms and appearance like a chameleon. After all, they heard Him say: “You see now that it is I,” 437 and “I do not change.” 438 However, this arrogant chief of the ten-horned Sevier did not understand these words. Therefore he said: “After Nestorius, the expressions of the Holy and ancient Fathers are excluded and rejected.” 439 Who, tell me, the wisest, excluded and rejected them? After all, the divine Cyril did not say anything like that, but proclaims them as his Fathers and agrees to follow their teaching; and at that same Holy Council against Nestorius, he cited quotations from the Fathers, proclaiming that Christ is two natures in one person, including the words of the great Ambrose, who said that “In Christ there is another nature.” 440 And not only, but also highly praises Proclus, his contemporary, for in the “Interpretation of the Creed” he says this: “The Christ-loving host of the Holy Fathers and our most pious and God-fearing brother in the bishopric, Proclus, who now rules on the throne of the holy Church of Constantinople, thinks the same way with us.” 441 It was the divine Cyril who said: I will exclaim to him on behalf of Sevier: what are you doing, blessed Cyril, praising Proclus, after Nestorius speaking about Christ: “He was born incorruptibly and entered unhindered, although “the doors... were locked,” 442 Whose pairing of natures, seeing, Thomas exclaimed: “My Lord and my God!” 443 » 444 ? And again he says in [interpretation of the words] “A Child is Born to Us” 445: “Mentally separate the natures and theology the mysterious union.” 446 And again Proclus: “And one Son, since natures are not divided into two hypostases, but the terrible Dispensation united two natures into one hypostasis.” 447 Although Proclus teaches this after Nestorius, Saint Cyril is unanimous with him, calls him most holy and pious and clearly approves of the words that there are two natures in Christ. Finally, let the “legislator” Sevier show us who excluded the words of the Holy Fathers about two natures, and which of the Fathers taught him to say that against the plagues of heresies that have arisen, it is necessary to change the teaching about Christ: then He has two natures, then one; sometimes we must say that Christ is knowable as perishable, sometimes as incorruptible; sometimes He is one person, sometimes He is two; Sometimes He is of one type, sometimes He is of two; and thus, until the end of time, carry Christ back and forth, like a kind of ball that playing children throw from side to side. And this speaker is not ashamed in establishing this [changeability of Christ], but presents in his next word the following reasoning and images: “If a certain best doctor forbids those sick with a plague that has gripped a certain city from drinking a certain water, no one can speak out against his words: they say, the doctors of our fathers allow them to drink this water.” 448 These words of Sevier mean approximately the following: “Since the ulcer of Nestorius was discovered, I, as the best and only wise doctor, do not allow you to drink the water of life, which is the teaching of the Fathers, which affirms two natures in Christ, even if the doctors from the Holy Fathers commanded you to drink this life-giving water.” If he were here, I would say to him: “O man! Blessed Cyril himself approved of the Holy Fathers, who called two natures in Christ, as I said a little earlier, and especially Paul of Emesa: when he arrived in Alexandria on behalf of all the bishops of the Eastern Churches, rose to the pulpit in the Alexandrian Church and proclaimed that in Christ two natures are united in one hypostasis, Blessed Cyril, greatly rejoiced, said: “Let the heavens rejoice, let them rejoice.” earth! Here, listen! We drew the water of life from the holy spring of the pious Father Paul, who explained to us the great mystery of truth.” 449 Behold, the divine Cyril calls the words about two natures the water of life, from which the sophist-doctor Sevier forbids us to drink.” When I said this, Sevier, coming to the middle, said: “But that’s why I, along with the other fathers, rejected even the teachings of Cyril, calling them unacceptable after Nestorius, even if they were uttered by the lips of Cyril himself.” “And where do you get such authority and such audacity that, when you are plotting against us, you can use the words of St. Cyril, citing to us here and there the saying he expressed: “the one incarnate nature of God the Word”?” “We rejected not these words,” says Sevier, but others, speaking of two natures in Christ.” 450 Sevier learned well from Jewish, Hellenic and Arab teachers, accepting some of the Holy Scriptures, and rejecting some of them, as the children of the Manichaeans do. And yet, if the teaching about Christ and truth must be changed against the plagues of emerging heresies, and because of Nestorius the words about two natures have become unacceptable, then the expression “one incarnate nature of God the Word” will now become completely unsuitable and useless because of the ten heresies of the said ten-horned one, preaching the belittlement, unreality and denial of the humanity of Christ. Woe is me! What a disaster and I don’t know what to do! “For because of the plague of Nestorius,” says [Sevirus], “the two natures of Christ were rejected and became unacceptable”; in turn, because of Eutyches, Dioscorus and Theodosius, the expression speaking about the same nature of His Divinity and humanity will be completely rejected. And then the sermon will become empty and faith vain, 451 and piety will disappear, becoming corrupt. So, since Sevier, who is exposed as a kind of new modern Antichrist, saying: “All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me,” 452 carried out the overthrow of the Holy Fathers, then let us defeat his ten-horned one, establishing from the prophetic and Gospel Scriptures that one is nature, and the other is face, and that nature and face are not the same thing. Chapter 8. Proof from the Old and New Testaments and from Moses and Solomon themselves that nature and person are not the same thing 1. Proof from the Old and New Testaments that nature and face are not the same thing. At the all-royal seat of Christ God on the high and glorious throne in the holy universal and apostolic Orthodox Church of ours, with all the highest angelic powers standing before Him, surrounded by all the holy patriarchs, prophets, evangelists and apostles from the ages, carrying in their hands the sacred and divine writings of the Old and New Testaments, first, as the first [of the Holy Scriptures], the first book of the law Moses, and going to the middle, we will discover that the Holy Church, not in the Aristotelian way, but in the theological way, teaches about the race, that is, about nature: “And God said: Let the earth produce greenery, grass, seed-sowing fruitful trees, bearing fruit according to its kind, in which is its seed on the earth. And so it became. And the earth brought forth grass, grass yielding seed according to its kind, and tree yielding fruit, in which is its seed according to its kind.” 453 And again further: “And God said: Let the water bring forth living things; and let the birds fly over the earth, across the firmament of heaven. And God created the great fish and every living creature that moves, which the waters brought forth, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind.” 454 And again: “And God said, Let the earth produce living creatures according to their kinds, cattle and creeping things, and wild beasts of the earth according to their kinds. And so it became. And God created the beasts of the earth according to their kinds, and cattle according to their kinds, and every creeping thing that creeps on the earth according to their kinds.” 455 These are the words of the Lord and God! The Creator of everything, in theological style, called the different beings of objects (both animate and inanimate, and feathered, and swimming, and reptiles) different genera, that is, natures, and not in the Aristotelian and Homeric manner different persons, as if teaching us that there is a different genus, that is, a different nature among herbs, and a different genus, that is, a different nature among reptiles, and another generation, that is, a different nature among animals, and another generation, that is, a different nature among people, and another generation, that is, a different nature among demons, as Christ says about them: “this generation is driven out only by prayer and fasting.” 456 As a result, Paul speaks of the consubstantiality of us and Christ in the flesh, instructing the Athenian philosophers: “we are His generation.” 457 However, Sevier refuses both Moses and Paul, not accepting the naming of nature by genus. So, through us, God’s brother James puts him to shame in his Catholic Epistle, as the brother of God, proclaiming what is brotherly and in accordance with God; for what God through Moses called species, Jacob called nature: “all the nature of beasts and birds, reptiles and sea creatures is tamed and tamed by human nature.” 458 Now the brother of Christ clearly called to you the different generations of different natures. As a result of this, the entire host of Holy Fathers can call [things] of different essence and different nature [things] “of different kinds.” Therefore, those who say that in Christ after the union there is one nature, that is, one species, in every way say that either the Divinity is akin to the flesh, having turned into a creature, or, on the contrary, the flesh has become akin and consubstantial to the Holy Trinity, which is unimaginable and impossible. “If the body is not consubstantial with the Word, then in Christ there is one and a completely different nature,” 459 as the all-wise Cyril, defending himself before the Easterners, pointed out to Eulogius in Constantinople. Scholium. Cyril in the Treasure says that another essence means another kind, and Gregory [Theologian] in the Homily on Epiphany, 460 [beginning with the words] “Again my Jesus,” testifies to the relationship 461 of the Holy Spirit and God the Word, just as Gabriel says to the Mother of God: “Here is Elizabeth, your relative 462.” 463 2. However, let's end here so we can move on to the next one. Namely, following Moses, going out into the middle of the most divine and sovereign meeting of the holy prophets and apostles, the all-wise Solomon himself clearly set out for us in the Old Testament the doctrine of nature in his book Wisdom: “All people who have no knowledge of God are vain by nature.” 465 What does “by nature” mean? Same as “truly”; 466 for nature, as the inspired Scriptures say, is the truth of things. For the sake of the foolish, I change the words of Solomon and say: “All people who have no knowledge of God are vanity in appearance”; However, the expression “vain in appearance”, as opposed to “vain in nature,” is completely absurd. Because nature and face are not the same thing. And we have already said this in the Tomos of Justification to the people, and I have not forgotten this. But since I am talking about a wound, about lingering putrefaction and about a splinter that caused a fetid ulcer (especially in the ditches and ditches of Tolonam 467 and the Egyptian countries), then one should not be afraid to say the same thing in order to convince the foolish by replacing the words from the Holy Scriptures that nature and face are not the same thing. So, let us again, by rearranging words, consider the expression of the blessed Apostle James: “every nature of beasts and birds, reptiles and sea creatures is tamed and tamed by human nature.” 468 He did not say: “with a human face,” because humanity is not one person, but many faces, but nature is one. And that’s why he says: “by human nature.” As I was saying this, the divine rhetorician of the universe, Paul, came into the middle, carrying the Epistle to the Romans, in which he teaches us: “For when the Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature 469 do what is lawful.” 470 What does “by nature” mean if not “truly” 471? Let's change the expression: "for when the Gentiles, who do not have the law, do according to the law what is lawful." But what has been said is completely absurd, because nature is not a person. Scholium. No one fulfills God's law by nature, 472 but by free choice, although if the fulfillment of God's commandments were natural, 473 then everyone would agree. Because here, too, instead of “truly” 474 it is said “by nature.” 475 For again it is said: “And he who is uncircumcised by nature 476 who fulfills the law (that is, he who is uncircumcised among the Gentiles truly 477 who fulfills the law) will not condemn you, a transgressor of the law at... circumcision.” 478 And again: “For if God did not spare the natural 479 branches (that is, truly 480 connected to the root), then see if He will also spare you,” 481 who have gained the truth. Again, let us cleverly change this expression and say: “For if God did not spare the personal 482 branches.” What kind of personal ones, tell me? Where is the meaning and agreement in this expression? So, nature is not a person. “For if you were cut off from the olive tree that was wild by nature (that is, truly 484 from unbelief) and were not grafted into the good olive tree by nature, then how much more will these natural ones be grafted into their own olive tree.” 485 Scholia. Unbelief is called a “wild olive”; no one is an unbeliever by nature, but by free choice. Because here, too, “by nature” stands instead of “truly.” When I said this and tried to establish by various proofs from Scripture that nature and person are not the same thing, the holy Apostle again took my hand, handing over his First Epistle to the Corinthians, in which he again clearly teaches us that nature signifies nothing other than the very truth of things. 486 Condemning some women who pray with their heads uncovered, he says: “Judge for yourself, is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her [head] uncovered? Isn’t it nature itself that teaches you,” 487 that is, isn’t it circumstance itself 488? If we change things up and say instead of “nature”: “does not the hypostasis itself teach you?”, does this expression even have style and consistency? Of course not, because nature is not the same thing as face and hypostasis. However, the rhetoricians - the leaders of Sevirov's ten-horn - did not think about this at all: in their words about nature, hypostasis and person, they did not mention either Moses, or Solomon, or Christ, or James, or Paul. For if the wicked had known them, then, perhaps, they would not have slandered the Christ of glory, saying: “There is no impersonal nature, because nature and person are one and the same.” They believe that the Council of Chalcedon, or rather the Holy Fathers, who spoke of two inseparable natures in Christ, certainly speak of two persons in Him, which is in agreement with Nestorius, and therefore the righteous judge Sevier destroyed them. So, that nature is not a person, the word from the Old and New Testaments has sufficiently shown. So, the change of words even in the Holy and Divine Scripture itself has demonstrated that a person cannot be called nature. Many madmen say that nature and face are one and the same, but listen to those who speak intelligently. 3. Let's read the following questions and answers. Question: God, cursing Cain, 489 cursed all human nature or one hypostasis, that is, the face? Answer: Obviously, only the face of the sinner Cain, because nature and face are not the same thing. Question: Noah, who said to his son, who revealed his nakedness: “Cursed is the servant of servants of Canaan” 490, did he curse the common nature of the three sons or one of the three persons? Answer: It is clear that only the face of Ham, because nature and face are not the same thing. Question: When Enoch was lifted up by God, 491 was the whole human nature taken up or just the face? Answer: There is no doubt that only the face of Enoch, because nature and face are not the same thing. Likewise, Christ, overthrowing Judas, 492 did not overthrow the entire apostolic nature, but one person, because nature and person are not the same thing. So that opponents do not think that we are telling fables, let us move on to the very use of the word “person” in relation to God in divine Scripture. For it is written that after that extraordinary struggle, Jacob, inspired by God, called that place “The View of God; 493 for I have seen God face to face, and my soul is preserved.” 494 Let the philosopher Sevier tell me now, who says that nature and face are one and the same, was it possible for Jacob, instead of the words “I saw God face to face,” to say: “I saw God by nature to nature, and my soul was preserved”? It’s absolutely impossible, because nature and face are not the same thing. Receive, Jacob, also the other stone thrown by Jacob, for he said to his brother Esau: “I have seen your face, as if one had seen the face of God.” 495 Here again he said “face”; It would be impossible to say: “I saw your face as if someone saw the nature of God,” because nature and face are not the same thing. It is said again in Exodus: “And the children of Israel saw the face of Moses shining, and they put a veil on it.” 496 So, by covering the face of Moses, did they cover his entire nature (that is, the whole race of Israel)? No, because nature and face are not the same thing. And again, when he says that near the thorn bush “Moses covered his face because he was afraid,” 497 it was impossible to say that “Moses covered his nature,” because nature and face are not the same thing. And when the prophet turns to God: “Illuminate Your face, and we will be saved,” 498 he could not say: “Illuminate Your nature, and we will be saved,” because nature and face are not the same thing. But again turning in prayer to the Lord and saying: “My face has been sought after Thee,” 499 he could not say: “My nature has been sought after Thee”; for it was not human nature that sought God then, but David, because nature and person are not the same thing. And again speaking to God: “But I will appear to Thy face in righteousness,” 500 he could not change the phrase and say: “But I will appear to Thy nature in righteousness,” for this is impossible. So, nature and face are not the same thing. And Isaiah, saying: “I did not hide My face from mocking and spitting,” 501 could not say: “I did not hide My nature from mocking and spitting,” because nature and face are not the same thing. And when he says: “I hold my face like flint,” 502 he could not say: “my nature,” because nature and face are not the same thing, as Sevier blabbers. 4. I am not saying that the nature of God is invisible, but His face is visible (down with the absurdity), but I only want to show the heretics the difference between words: not always when “nature” is said, one can say “face” and, again, not always when “face” is said, one can say “nature”. I will try to show this now from the Gospel and Apostolic, and not Hellenic, traditions. After all, the Son of God said: “See that you do not despise one of the least of these; for I tell you that their angels always see the face of My Father who is in heaven.” 503 If nature and face are one and the same, I change the expression and say: “Their angels always see the nature of My Father, who is in heaven.” But this is impossible and completely incredible, since God the Word Himself teaches us: “No one has ever seen God; The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has revealed.” 504 Saying: “no one has seen God,” He spoke not only about people, but also about angels. So, let the acephalus say, how, seeing the face, do the angels not see the nature of the Father, if in fact, as you say, nature and face are one and the same? Listen again to Paul, who clearly teaches, and abandon your nonsense oft-repeated expression that nature and face are one and the same. After all, he speaks to the Corinthians about the pure in heart: now they see God “as in a dark glass,” but in the next century “face to face.” 505 Tell me now, you who say that nature and face are one and the same, is it possible to change the expression and say: “Then by nature to nature the righteous will see God”? Down with! After all, the divine Paul himself testifies about God: “Whom no man has seen or can see.” 506 Because nature and face are not the same thing. And many other similar places where it is said about the face and in which it is said that God is revealed as if in a certain image and transformative vision are in the Divine Scripture, but nowhere is it said about His nature or essence; after all, in the entire Old and New Testament you will not find names or indications of the nature or essence of God, but all the appearances of the invisible God, which symbolically and covertly revealed the image of the face, did not reveal the nature or essence of God; so, for example, Daniel saw the face of “the Ancient of Days and another face: one like the Son of Man walked with the clouds of heaven,” 507 and Isaiah in the form and form of a human face saw the appearance of “the Lord sitting on a high and exalted throne,” 508 not contemplating the Divine nature, but as if in a certain image, so that they could see and because of this comprehended the appearance to them in human form of the invisible and indescribable God. If nature and face are one and the same, then why does the prophet not say to God: “Turn not Thy nature away from me,” but: “Turn not Thy face away from me,” 509 and again: “Illuminate Thy face upon Thy servant” 510; and again: “Do not cast me away from Your presence” 511; and again: “The light of Your countenance shines upon us, O Lord” 512? And in general, Divine Scripture, while naming the face of God in many places, nowhere speaks of the nature of God. Because it is clear that nature and face are not the same thing. The Heretic's Objection. “But Divine Scripture also uses words not in the proper sense,” he says, “so that we can hear that it attributes to God, for example, a face, as well as hands, wings, eyes, lips and other members, although the Deity is incorporeal, has no face and is indescribable.” When the heretic says this, I agree with this, but in turn I ask again: “Why in many places, while naming the face of God in a non-proper and allegorical way, does the divine Scripture in no way name the nature or essence in Him, neither in a non-proper sense, nor allegorically, nor symbolically, although, as you say, nature and person are one and the same? Because it is perhaps clear to everyone that nature and person are not the same thing, as we have shown with the help of the divine Scriptures of the Old and New [Testaments]. If you ask: “For what reason did the blessed prophets in all the divine Scripture seek, prayerfully ask and expect the appearance and coming of the Face of God, and not nature?”, then listen to the fatherly word about this, and believe, and do not object; for this unusual “word is truly worthy of all acceptance.” 513 After all, the blessed prophets and patriarchs, through the action of the Holy Spirit, knew that not the common nature of the Holy Trinity, not the entire fullness of the Three Persons - the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit - intends to appear on earth and become incarnate in the last times, but one Person, namely God the Word; Therefore, they did not say that the Trinity essence of God would come down to people, but they proclaimed and prayerfully asked for the appearance of the Face of God, clearly and distinctly seeking the Face of God the Word and His coming to earth, and turning to Him: “Illuminate Your face, and we will be saved,” 514 “I will seek my face to You, I will seek Your face, O Lord,” 515 “Be merciful to us and bless us, illuminate us Your face,” 516 and again: “Make Your face shine upon Your servant,” 517 that is, on the man whom He created. The prophets herald the coming of a separate Divine Person, that is, One from the Holy Trinity, that is, God the Word, and not of a common nature; and, if it is necessary to say more clearly, they announce the coming of the realized Person of God, and not the general incarnation of the Three Persons of the Trinitarian Trinity. Because nature and face are not the same thing, as I have said many times.” 5. After the words I cited from the Divine Scripture and the prophets, I fear, worry and fear, lest Sevier, irritated by such denunciations, would jump out of the grave with the dead, convene his decahorn, convene a council and refute, reject Christ, Moses, Paul, the prophets and evangelists, as he did earlier with the teachers, and would not legislate like this: “Before Nestorius, the words of Christ, the prophets and the apostles were faithful and reliable, but from the time of Nestorius they were rejected; and the Old and New Testaments are no longer reliable, not saying that nature and person are one and the same. For against the heresies that have arisen, it is necessary to change and abolish the divine Scripture, as well as the writings of the Fathers—either accept or reject it.” Groaning and embarrassed, Sevier, however, does this; It is in this way that he will declare invalid the words of the Holy Fathers about the two natures of Christ: not in the apostolic way, but in the Hellenic way, representing nature. Because if he, like the Holy Church, had followed Paul, he could not have said anything else except that nature is the truth of things; 518 after all, how can we understand the words of the apostle: “and we were by nature 519 children of wrath” 520? What does “children of wrath by nature” mean if not “children of wrath truly 521”? Regarding this, I could even confirm from the Holy Fathers the expression that nature signifies nothing else but truth. But I am afraid that Sevier will tell me that because of Nestorius this expression has also been rejected. Then let us from this time, shaken by the wicked Nestorius, bring out the luminary itself - blessed Cyril, glorified by the host of Fathers, who teaches in an apostolic manner that nature is truth. This is why he is a luminary because, in various places speaking about Christ: “natural birth” and “natural union”, in response to Theodoret’s objections to these words, the godly wise Cyril says in an apostolic manner in the Apology for twelve anathematisms that true means natural. Moreover, the common use among the Egyptians and Alexandrians of the word “naturally” 522 means precisely the truth of things; therefore, one to another in a conversation for confirmation says: “Naturally I tell you,” that is, truly. Can we change this expression and say: “I tell you with my face”? In no case, because the phrase is not at all consistent. Because nature and face are not the same thing. Don't mock what was said. After all, from the Apostolic Tradition I accepted that nature means truth and that nature and person are not the same thing. You told me that the blessed martyr Peter cursed the wicked Arius in Alexandria, saying: “Arius, both now and in the next century, is separated from the glory of the Son of God.” 524 So tell me, is this curse directed at one person or at the general nature? Obviously, only Aria is on the face. By saying that nature and face are one and the same, you truly find yourself under this general curse, and equally under all other curses sent down on the faces of pagans or heretics; but this is not the word of truth. After all, if one person’s face is covered with leprosy, it cannot be said that the whole human nature is sick with leprosy; and when the general human nature is submerged in a flood, it cannot be said that the face of only a certain person is drowned; again, if the owner has lost property, 525 he cannot be said to have lost face. For face, as I have said many times, signifies the particular, and nature the general, and also the truth of things, as we have established from the Tradition of the Law, the prophets, the Lord, the evangelists, the apostles, teachers and preachers [of the Church]. Following this rule, the Catholic Church says that in Christ God there are two unfused and inseparably united natures in hypostasis, that is, two true things - Divinity and humanity. So, if, as the Word has variously and repeatedly established, nature is truth, then all who do not call the humanity of Christ nature, but only His Divinity, affirm that the flesh and soul of Christ are not true. If they are true, then it is clear that they are nature, and if they are not nature, then they are not true. If Christ was truly man, then He is man by nature and God by nature and after union, by nature, that is, truly created and by nature, that is, truly the Creator Himself. Do not deny, heretic, the nature of the flesh, for you deny its reality. After all, nature is truth, it is reality. If Christ has a homogeneous, monotonous nature, then He truly, really exists in one image, and falsely in another image; and if He truly, really exists both in Divinity and in humanity, then it is clear that He has two true, real natures, that nature is truth, is reality. The wicked Arius and Sabellius were previously punished for something in triadology, for which then Nestorius and Sevirus were punished in the doctrine of the Economy. Indeed, Sabellius, having come up with a merger, said that in the Divinity there is one hypostasis of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, and the wicked Arius, on the contrary, thinking of fighting with Sabellius, said that the consubstantial Trinity has three heterogeneous essences. The Holy Church, having chosen the royal, God's path, rejected the Sabelliian merger and the Arian division, and says that the Holy Trinity is three Persons, and not one person, piously defining that They have one essence, and not three essences. When then again the wicked Nestorius taught that there are two persons in Christ, and the ill-fated Severus spoke of the one nature of Christ, then the Holy Church equally rejected the Nestorian division, preaching the one person of Christ, and in the same way rejected the Severian fusion, teaching that the one and only Christ the Son of the Lord Jesus is two unfused and inseparably united by hypostasis of nature, equally rejecting both the Sevirian fusion and the division of the wicked Nestoria. So, the Catholic Church of God teaches about Christ not in Aristotle and not in Hellenism, but, as I have said many times, according to the evangelists and apostles, “not in the convincing words of Pythagorean wisdom,” 526 “so as not to abolish the cross of Christ.” 527 After all, Aristotle says that nature is the beginning of movement and rest, 528 and the pious Apostolic Tradition recognizes that in the Divine nature there is neither the beginning of movement nor rest, that is, the end [of movement]. Therefore, the Evangelical faith says that nature is the thing itself, truly, really existing; After all, what does not exist in truth and in essence is obviously what is in the imagination and fantasy, that is, what does not exist. We have already shown how far this is within our power, by comparing what is written about nature and things, that one is nature, and the other is hypostasis, that is, a person. However, the enemy will certainly refute our reasoning and evidence, thinking to confuse us with his own considerations, comparing difficult passages from the Fathers. But so that we do not follow the same Sevirian path, which leads away from the host of the Holy Fathers, by refuting their words, let us prove, with the help of the Fathers and, at the same time, with the help of the Councils, that one thing is common to every nature of everything that exists, that is in heaven and on earth, and, on the contrary, something else is particular to a personal hypostasis. We will present evidence not from the holy lips alone, not from a hundred, but from the lips of three hundred and eighteen Fathers, among whom there were many martyrs of Christ, many confessors. Perhaps Sevier and his like-minded people who blame us will fall silent, ashamed of such numbers. Chapter 9. Also excerpts from the Holy Council of Nicaea that nature, or essence, and hypostasis are not the same thing, as Sevier believes 1. On nature and hypostasis: from the Holy Council of Nicaea. Once upon a time, a certain pair of tares (as if certain Annas and Caiaphas or Pilate and Herod) gave birth to evil fruit - heresiarchs who slandered God; I mean Arius and Sabellius, the teachers of Sevirus (they say that nature and face are one and the same: Sabellius says that in the Holy Trinity there is one person and one essence, and Arius - that there are three persons and three essences; while both claim that nature and face are one and the same). Their wickedness and such way of thinking were refuted by the Holy and Blessed One, the first of those born of the Holy Spirit 529 Ecumenical Council of Nicea of three hundred and eighteen glorified Fathers, who clearly instructs us that one is essence or nature, and the other is hypostasis, and proclaimed: “But those who say that there was a time when there was no Son of God, that He did not exist before His birth and that He came from something that does not exist, or those who claim that the Son God from another hypostasis or essence, or that He is transmutable or changeable – such are anathematized by the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.” 530 Finally, Sevira and Dioscorus, and the entire Sanhedrin of their vain decahorn, who say that nature and hypostasis, that is, person, are one and the same, fall under the condemnation of this Holy and Blessed Council as guilty and deserving of punishment for their own slander. After all, the angelic host of the Holy Fathers teaches that one is essence, and hypostasis is another: they did not say: “those who say: from another hypostasis, that is, 531 essence,” but “those who say: from another hypostasis or 532 essence,” clearly teaching us that one is hypostasis, and essence is another. And they did not stop the speech there, but again repeated the same expression, doubling it and strengthening it: “For we contemplate the Father as Father, the Son as Son and the Holy Spirit as the Holy Spirit, one essence, three Hypostases.” 533 They did not say: “three essences, that is, three hypostases,” they did not say: “three natures and three persons,” as madmen say, but: “one essence, three hypostases,” thereby saying that one is an essence, and a hypostasis is another. 534 This is the basis of the faith of the Fathers! This is the root, the beginning and the cornerstone of godliness! Here are the lights and heralds of truth! Here are the unshakable pillars and invincible fighters! Behold, spirit-bearing prophets and men equal to angels! They say that one thing is nature, and hypostasis is another. Who can refute this canon, oros and law? I am convinced and believe that at this Holy Council there were present God-bearing men who had a prophetic and apostolic degree and authority from God and who could say with all boldness: “if an Angel from heaven began to preach to the Church a gospel other than what we preached and preached to her, let him and his preaching be anathema.” 535 So, let not the Catholic Church, which has three hundred and eighteen holy defenders and like-minded people, be afraid, who say that one is nature, and hypostasis is another: for “the gates of hell will not prevail” 536 and will not destroy this oros and law. And therefore, as before God, I impartially and impartially say that right-thinking people will discover that the Holy Council of Nicaea was against Sevirus and Dioscorus and everyone who calls nature a face; and not only, but also against the wicked Nestorius, for he, like Severus, calls nature a person. If nature is a person, then in vain the Holy Council of Nicea condemned Sabellius, who said that in one essence of the Holy Trinity there is one person. If nature is a person and a person is nature, then why is Arius anathematized when he says that the three persons of the Godhead have three natures? If nature means person, then I proclaim that Sevirus and Theodosius are a great misfortune for all their followers, who say that Christ is of two natures; 537 for if indeed nature and person are one and the same, then they say that Christ is made of two persons. So, how can those who think the same way as Nestorius blame Nestorius? After all, if Christ is of two persons, then it is obvious that the human face pre-existed in the womb, and then it was united into the very Divine Person of God the Word. If Christ is of two personal natures, and the name of one person is God the Word, then those who say that nature and person are one and the same give us also a name, the name of another person of Christ; After all, there absolutely cannot be a face without a name. If you sincerely and impartially maintain that nature and person are one and the same, then use the expression that in the same essence of the Deity there is one person, and we will stop arguing. If according to the number of natures and the number of persons, then say that the three Persons of the Trinity have three natures, and we will no longer bother you. If essence and person are one and the same, then say, you who call Christ consubstantial with the Father in Divinity and consubstantial with us in humanity, that He is one person with the Father in Divinity and one person with us in humanity, and we will stop fighting with you. If nature and face are one and the same, and the number of human faces is countless, then say that our natures are also many, and we will fall silent in the argument. 538 Declare me weak, heretic, and you will suddenly die from a stone, like Goliath. You, Sevier, confessing that Christ is made up of two hypostases, that is, persons, obviously say that He consists of Divinity and humanity, for they, that is, Divinity and humanity, which you call hypostases, exist. So, when you say that He, that is, Christ, after the union was perfect in Divinity and perfect in humanity, then, obviously, you are blaspheming by confessing that He is from two hypostases, that is, persons, if, as you assert, nature, hypostasis and person are one thing. Scholium. A brief word from an Orthodox Christian to a Theodosian: the expression “Christ is perfect from Divinity and from humanity” protects good thinking, for this saying points to two natures. Scholium. When the heretic said: “[The expression] “He is of two natures” rather shows that he is of Divinity and of humanity,” the Orthodox, smiling, said: “Consequently, most kind, [the expression] “He is perfect in Divinity and in humanity,” of course, means “He is in two natures.” 2. Quotes from the Holy Fathers who say that nature is one thing, and hypostasis is another. So that it does not seem to our opponents that we are speaking on our own, let us invite into the middle the Holy Fathers, who say that nature is one thing, and face is another. I cannot imagine that, fearing the overthrow of Sevier, they would no longer dare to mention the expression about two natures. Firstly, as the chosen one, I will prefer the divine Cyril, since, as they believe, with the help of him they are trying to argue with us. After all, he said [in the Epistle] to the Eastern: “It is known that famous theologians usually make some of the Gospel and Apostolic sayings about the Lord common as belonging to one person, while others, due to the difference in the two natures, accept them separately.” 539 Here the father clearly says that nature and face are not the same thing. “But Cyril, they say, made excuses [in his letter] to Eulogius regarding this expression.” Scholium. You can see that in this letter to Eulogius, Saint Cyril said that there is one and there is another nature of the Divinity and flesh of Christ. 540 What was his justification, tell me, the heretic? Show that the wonderful Cyril avoided communicating with the Easterners after this expression, but you will not be able to show this. 541 Consequently, being in communication with those professing two united natures, he himself obviously thought the same way. But let it be that he was making excuses because of this Eastern expression. Did he deny Proclus, who clearly preaches two natures to everyone? Did he reject Ambrose, who in his teaching used the expression about two natures, quotes from which were given at the Council of Ephesus? Did he reject Isidore Pelusiot, who wrote to him about the two natures of Christ and whom Saint Cyril proclaimed to be his father? In addition, not only in the letter to the Eastern, but also in [the letter] to Hermias, Father [Cyril], asking whether one is nature, and the other is hypostasis, so clearly says: “Truly different, and also having a very strong difference.” 542 In exactly the same way, the godly Basil says to Amphilochius: “The hypostasis in relation to the essence has the same difference that the particular has in relation to the general.” 543 Having perceived this, Saint Amphilochius therefore says of Christ: “Twice in essence, but not double in hypostasis.” 544 After all, Amphilochius again cited this quotation from the epiphany Cyril in Ephesus against the wicked Nestorius. Likewise [in the letter] To Seleucus, son of Trajan, Amphilochius needed this expression, saying: “Two natures are contained in one Person.” 545 You hear the agreement of the Fathers and Blessed Cyril, who say that nature is one thing, and face is another. And why do you, who whisper in vain and say: “There is no impersonal nature, because nature and face are one and the same,” in the end, will not be silent? Show me which of the Fathers you received this expression from. You cannot show it, except Aria, Sabellia and Nestoria, who say that nature and face are one and the same. Therefore, refuting this teaching, all the blessed Fathers (and especially those close to Ambrose, Gregory and Athanasius) preach in three Persons, that is, Hypostases, the one nature of God and not three essences, but one, as the blessed Nicene Council of three hundred and eighteen God-bearing Fathers taught. However, these wise men and new orators preferred to overthrow themselves with numerous heaps of slander, while they, in their opinion, insulted the Holy Council of Chalcedon and the Catholic Church of Christ. If you want, I will tell you something more important. Many, according to the definition of Hellenic philosophy in Aristotle, call natures hypostases and persons; they cannot name three Hypostases in the Holy Trinity without discovering, like Arius, three natures; again, they do not have the opportunity to recognize two natures in Christ God, so as not to be forced in the Nestorian way to recognize in Him two persons and two hypostases; after all, from Aristotle Nestorius accepted the naming of natures as hypostases. And the Holy Church, avoiding Aristotelian and Hellenic empty chatter, believing in Christ, as we said above, according to the evangelists and apostles, does not say that nature and hypostasis are one and the same. But what will the Sevirians certainly say to this? They will say something like this: “In the doctrine of the Trinity, nature and hypostasis are not the same thing, but in the incarnation of Christ, one of the Holy Trinity, nature and person, that is, hypostasis, are one and the same, for there cannot be an impersonal nature.” When they say this, I listen diligently to this word and welcome this definition with raised hands, I do not reject it, but I follow it. So, what kind of wickedness is born from this? And into what abysses of destruction and slander do they fall? Listen, faithful one, to some of our presentation and sketch of the events that we had in Alexandria with the Theodosians and Guyanites, who there insisted that in the Economy of Christ nature and person are one and the same. For I will add this below to the knowledge of the pious faith of the holy Catholic Church proposed above. Chapter 10. An account of four conversations that we held in Alexandria with the Theodosians and Guyanites, in which we exposed them that if nature and hypostasis are one and the same thing, then they define all the holy fathers as Nestorians, and St. Cyril himself. In it and about “The One Nature of God the Word Incarnate” 1, 1. The goal that we pursued in dogmatic conversations with the heterodox in Alexandria. Certain quotations are included in some books calling natures hypostases, inscribed with the name of St. Cyril. Whether [these books are] truly his or someone else’s, we will investigate after this, because having studied some other dogmatic expressions of Cyril himself in the books in Alexandria, we found them corrupted and distorted, the Lord God is my witness. Given that, as I said earlier, all the teachers [of the Church] say that nature is one thing, and hypostasis is another, certain books of St. Cyril are brought, calling natures hypostases. In fact, the followers of Sevirus and Theodosius, Guyana and Dioscorus and all those who profess one nature of Christ, neglecting the entire plurality and completeness of the Holy Fathers, persist in those quotations in which, supposedly on behalf of St. Cyril, natures are called hypostases. Because they believe that with their help they refute us who speak of two united natures in Christ as allegedly speaking of two hypostases in Him, that is, persons. In fact, having been, as I said earlier, in Alexandria and seeing their empty goal, which is directed not towards God, but towards hatred of the Church, and hearing a certain prophet say: “with the evil one according to his wickedness,” 546 with a certain pretense and pious guile, I tell the heretics confidentially: “As the truth testifies, it cannot be known or even named in heaven or on earth.” nature that has no face at all. But what can we do if the assertion that there are two natures in Christ, one hypostasis, has destroyed communication in the Church? But if you do not insist that I anathematize the bishop or the Council, then we jointly sign the definition: “when nature is named, this certainly means a person, for there is no impersonal nature.” And when we sign this, then you also receive equality by mutual consent and some kind of agreement can be reached, and the saints of the Church are united.” And so, not understanding the deceit of this drama, or rather, being blinded by God, they signed: “When the nature in Christ is named, this certainly means the face, for there is no impersonal and hypostatic nature.” And before these events and the signing, I collected books in advance from various people, mainly from the Theodosians, took from them quotes from the Holy Fathers calling the flesh of Christ nature, and wrote them out completely in the book. One day later, we and numerous people, the clergy of the Catholic Church and all the heterodox communities of Theodosians, Guyanites and Semidalites, gathered publicly, in the presence of the first persons and rulers of the city. 547 Then the written word is read: “Every nature named in Christ signifies a person,” and, taking out their books, I read in front of everyone the quotations that are given below, first of all St. Cyril, on whom they most counted on relying. 1, 2. Blessed Cyril, Pope of Alexandria, from a letter written to the Eastern: “It is known that famous theologians usually make some of the Gospel and Apostolic sayings about the Lord common as belonging to one person, while others, due to the difference in the two natures, accept them separately.” 548 I immediately tell them: ““Two natures,” that is, two persons; for there cannot be a nature that does not reveal a face, as we have signed.” The same God-wise Cyril from the Epistle to Sukkens: “Thus, we affirm - as far as the mental representation and only contemplation with the eyes of the soul of how the Only Begotten became man - is concerned - that there are two natures.” 549 “Or rather, two faces of Christ, for there is no impersonal nature, but nature is named here, which, in any way, also means a face, as you signed.” 550 Scholia. This quotation is found distorted in all the books in Alexandria. The same holy and wise Cyril to the same Sukkens: “Justly and quite soundly, your perfection expounds the word about saving suffering, asserting that not the only-begotten Word of God Himself, insofar as He is conceived and is God, suffered in His own, superior bodily nature, but that He suffered by His mortal nature,” 551 that is, His mortal face, for there is no nature that does not show a face. The same pious Father Cyril: “I do not accept confusion in Christ, for confusion produces the destruction of natures,” 552 that is, the persons of Christ, for there is no impersonal nature. The same Blessed Cyril: “We in no way claim about the natures that there was some kind of confusion between them.” 553 “Here again the father calls natures, that is, persons in Christ according to the definition that you signed.” The same famous Cyril from the Scholium: “The natures or hypostases remained unmerged,” 554 that is, the faces of Christ. Having cited this quotation, I asked Athanasius in Babylon: “The natures or hypostases of Who remained unmerged?” He says to me the following: “It is obvious that the hypostases of Christ.” To this I, laughing heavily and clapping my hands, say: “And why, in the end, do you reproach the Council of Chalcedon, which speaks of two united natures in Christ, while you yourself, like Nestorius, call Him two hypostases?” The same all-wise Cyril: “Although natures are different, truly united, one of both is Christ” 555 [I say:] “Again the teacher, having named the different natures, clearly revealed the different persons in Christ, as it seems to you.” This is from the [message] to the princesses: “So, we say that we should not divide the one Christ the Lord Jesus into man in himself and God in himself, but that there is one and the same Jesus Christ, knowing the difference of natures and keeping them unfused with each other.” 556 His same from the message Against Nestorius: “The difference of natures was not destroyed due to the union.” 557 “Here, the father repeatedly recognizes in Christ natures, that is, persons, since you say that there is no impersonal nature. And not only those like Saint Cyril, but also all the other Holy Fathers, who name various natures in Christ our God, are exposed as like-minded with Nestorius because of your new law, which says: “When natures are named, then the persons are certainly designated, for no, there is no impersonal nature.” Saint Ambrose, Bishop of Milan: “We will maintain the distinction between the Divine and the flesh. For in each of them one Christ speaks, since in Him there is both natures,” 558 that is, each of two and different persons; for when nature is named, then it signifies a face. Why then, tell me, did Saint Cyril quote this quote at the Council against the wicked Nestorius, if different natures really mean different persons? And further in this quotation Ambrose says: “As God Christ speaks the Divine, inasmuch as He is the Word, as man He speaks the human, inasmuch as He speaks in my essence,” 559 that is, in my fleshly face, if nature denotes face. The sweetest light of Gregory Bishop of Nyssa from [the work] Against Eunomius: “Which nature of Christ is struck during the passion, and which from eternity is glorified?” 560 From his same Word: “So, how can two natures be one?”, 561 that is, two persons, because there is no impersonal nature. The same wonderful Gregory of Nyssa: “So Christ, being two natures and cognizable in each of them perfect...”. 562 Here again there are two persons, since he speaks of two natures. His same from [interpretation] on “Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness” 563: “For Christ, having fasted forty days, was at last hungry, 564 for He, when He desired, at the proper time allowed nature to do its thing.” 565 Calling the body nature, he also points to the face. Again, it turns out that the Theologian Gregory, according to your definition, calls the two persons in Christ, saying this: “For there are two natures - God and man.” 566 Likewise, Chrysostom, who has golden lips mentally and physically, in the Word for the Ascension says: “To what nature is God addressing: “sit at My right hand”? 567 To the one who heard: “For you are dust and to dust you will return” 568 » 569 . And again, in the first book of Matthew, he calls Christ “God hidden in human nature.” 570 So, the father, in these two quotations calling the body of Christ nature, of course, called body and face, if there is no impersonal nature. Likewise, Proclus of Constantinople, in the Word addressed to the Mother of God, speaks of Christ: “Born without corruption [of the Mother’s womb] and entering through closed doors, seeing the union of whose natures, Thomas exclaimed: “My Lord and my God” 571" 572. This is the conjugation of natures, that is, persons, since there is no impersonal nature. And God-bearing Ephraim in the Word of Margarit says: “The invaluable Margarit is involved in two natures,” that is, Christ. And again he says: “He has a dual nature, let him not lose two, for it was not a demigod who descended to earth, and not a half-man who ascended to heaven.” 573 “These are two natures, that is, according to what you signed, righteous Ephraim named two persons.” Likewise, blessed Amphilochius speaks of Christ in his Homily to Seleucus, a descendant of Trajan: “Since two natures converge into one person.” 574 And Isidore Pelusiot, who adorned the Church, teaching as the father of his son, the all-wise Cyril, writes to him: “Guard your heart with all precaution so as not to accept one nature in Christ after the Incarnation, for the recognition of only one is the denial of the other. And more: having numerous evidence of this from our holy father Athanasius, a man who completely mastered Divine [subjects].” 575 “So Amphilochius and Isidore, naming two natures, discovered in Christ two, as it seems to you, faces. Let us make an even more complete quotation about Christ from [The Homily] of Amphilochius To Seleucus: “The perceived nature suffers, but the perceived nature remains dispassionate. But God the Word dispassionately assimilates what is characteristic of His church: the cross, death, and so on, as far as this is accomplished and contemplated by Him; he assimilates, although God the Word Himself does not suffer at all, but he assimilates what is characteristic of the church, since two natures converge into one person.” 576 Here the father in the Gospel called one face of two natures, since nature and face are not the same thing, as the Hellenes say.” Scholia. Three hundred and eighteen fathers [in Nicaea] and two hundred in Ephesus benefit the Catholic Church, testifying that nature and hypostasis are not the same thing. The same Amphilochius from the Word [on the words of Christ] “My Father is greater than I” 577: “However, distinguish between the natures: both Divine and human, because He became a man not as a result of falling away from God, and God not as a result of the advancement of man.” 578 “Look: again the teacher confesses natures in Christ, and not persons. If nature and face are one and the same, then why did Blessed Cyril, citing this quotation at the Council of Ephesus, speaking of two natures, but one person in Christ, add, speaking to the Holy Council like this: “So, look, why did the divine Fathers call Christ consubstantial with the Father in Divinity and Him consubstantial with us in humanity, double in essence, that is, in nature, but not double in hypostasis, that is, in face?” 579 Here is the “spiritual sword” 580 - the words of the theologian Cyril, at the Council of Two Hundred Holy Fathers, he said that nature is different in comparison with the face, that is, hypostasis.” Scholium. Therefore, I refuse to believe that Cyril, who said at the Council that nature is one thing, and hypostasis another, called natures hypostases, otherwise it will turn out that he contradicts himself. His same on [the words of Christ] “Destroy this church” 581: “And when He wanted, the church of the body was destroyed during the passion for a three-day burial, and again He erected it, and was united [this church] with the ineffable and indescribable Word Himself, not mixing with it and not reincarnating, but preserving in Himself unfused the properties of two dissimilar natures.” 582 His from [the epistle] To Eulogius, when he was justified because of the words of the East about two natures in Christ: “If the body is not of the same essence as the Word, then there is certainly one and another nature,” 583 that is, as you say, one and another person. “However, you are also silenced by the divine Proclus, who writes the following: “There is One Son, not that the natures were divided into two hypostases, but the terrible Dispensation united the two natures into one hypostasis” 584.” And again he speaks on [the words of the prophet Isaiah] “A child is born to us - a Son” 585: “Mentally separate the natures and theology the mysterious union.” 586 Again you turn the teacher’s phrase around and say about Christ: “Mentally separate the persons and theology the union.” Saint Irenaeus from the Word against Valentine: “As the ark was covered inside and outside with pure gold, so the body of Christ was pure and bright, inside adorned with the Word, and outside protected by the Spirit, so as to show clear signs of natures from both.” 587 Antiochus Bishop of Ptolemais On the Nativity of Christ: “Do not confuse natures, and then you will not become numb about the Economy.” 588 “Behold, according to your definition and law, the divine Irenaeus and Antiochus taught about different persons, that is, natures in Christ, if there is no impersonal nature.” Scholia. Since the race of heretics is a slanderer, you should know that we, sitting in the desert and suffering from a lack of books of teachers, wrote these quotations from memory. And we call on numerous uncorrupted fatherly books for help; if anything in these quotations is unnecessary, it is corrected; After all, we did not intentionally make some insertions or deletions, the Lord is my witness. 1, 3. When we cited and interpreted these and many other words of the Holy Fathers according to the written rule that nature is a person, and, finally, according to this law of yours, all these blessed Fathers were convicted of Nestorian thinking, as if they were saying that there are two persons in Christ, then all the opponents became numb, fell silent, covered their mouths, became confused, frightened, embarrassed; after all, they did not speak, they did not correct themselves, because they were ashamed of the entire church people, who made noise and told them all: “If nature is a person, then take away, burn [the words] of the Holy Fathers, who speak of two natures in Christ. And if nature is not a person, then the Council of Chalcedon is impeccable, speaking about two natures united in one hypostasis of Christ.” And again the crowd began to shout, repeating these words in simple Alexandrian dialect: “If nature points to a face, then take it away, burn first of all St. Cyril, who says: “The natures of Christ remain unmerged.” 589 And if nature is not a person, then in vain you are talking nonsense against the Church, calling nature a person.” They shouted this for a considerable time and at the same time uttered a statement worthy of attention: “Give the Theodosian and Guyanite what he seeks and immediately loses,” that is, leave it to him [to consider] that nature denotes a face; with the help of this expression, he is forced either to shame the Holy Fathers as proclaiming Nestorianism, or to recognize as irreproachable the Council of Chalcedon, preaching in Christ two natures united by hypostasis. 2, 1. Another interview. Preparing for an interview. Again wanting to know each other’s opinion, we held an interview another time, also with the permission of the state. In this meeting there was also tall among them, huge, like some advanced fighter of the Danaans, monk John, nicknamed Ziga, 590 eighteen. 591 The intelligent Gregory Nistazon 592 the Syrian Egyptian was present with him, as well as the people with the clergy; for there was such a meeting in accordance with order and direction. Then, following our example, they set before us aporia, not to say cold and fireless problems: 593 “There is no non-hypostatic nature, and there is no impersonal one; So Blessed Cyril says in various places that natures are hypostases; and therefore the Council of Chalcedon, which named two natures in one Christ, thereby shows two hypostases and two faces in Him.” Therefore, we again told them in a cunning manner: “Fear stops us from believing that the triblessed and truly God-bearing Cyril declared that in Christ God the natures are hypostases.” 2, 2. Firstly, against this, the Holy Council in Nicaea has the following saying: nature must mean something one thing, and hypostasis something else. Secondly, how under Nestorius could Cyril, who overthrew him precisely because of the expression about two hypostases in Christ, himself preach the hypostases in Christ, even if implicitly? Thirdly, quotes from various Fathers, which St. Cyril himself cited at the Council of Ephesus; he brought them not for anything else, but because they say that in Christ there is one hypostasis. Fourthly, Theodoret, preaching one hypostasis in Christ, could well have taken [the definition of hypostasis] from the word about hypostases in the Categories [of Aristotle], with the help of which he compiled [the “Refutation”] of the Twelve Anathematisms of St. Cyril. In the same way, in the Apology, the teacher [Cyril] could explain this very expression and say for what purpose he says “hypostases”; however, he did not mention anything like this, and we do not find it. Fifthly, if Saint Cyril accepted the expression under Nestorius that there are hypostases of nature, then he did not refute Nestorius. Sixthly, just as the East differs from the West, so the expression about two hypostases differs from the “one incarnate nature of God the Word.” Seventhly, the expression about hypostases refutes unity by hypostasis. For how is it possible that there is a coincidence [of the meaning of the expressions] “of two hypostases” and “the union of essences according to hypostasis”? Eighth, the Holy Fathers did not say that Christ is of two hypostases, that is, persons. Ninth, if Christ is of two hypostases, then the Holy Trinity is no longer trinitarian, but of four persons, having two hypostases of Christ, the other two being the Father and the Holy Spirit. Tenthly (most important) [I speak with cunning], the God-bearing Cyril himself says that in Christ the hypostases are persons, for he says in the fourth anathematism of the Twelve: “If anyone divides Christ into two persons, that is, hypostases, let him be anathema.” 594 Similarly, at the Council in Ephesus, he himself says that Christ is double in essence, but “not double in hypostasis, or in face”; So he believes that hypostasis is a face. And, finally, O men, how could he, who calls hypostases persons, call natures hypostases and say that “Natures remained unmerged, that is, the hypostases of Christ” 595, and did not say here: “The hypostases from which Christ are unfused,” but “Natures remained unmerged, that is, the hypostases of Christ”? So, if the hypostases remained unfused even after the union, then it is clear that they exist; and if they exist, it is obvious that they are knowable; and if they are knowable, then it is clear that they are countable; and if they are not countable, 596 then they do not exist; and if they do not exist, then the natures, that is, the hypostases, did not remain unfused; 597 and if they remain, then they remain in eternity. 2, 3. If you, Sevirians, tell me: the godly wise Cyril said that the hypostases are not personal, but he believes that the hypostases are the essence of being, that is, the foundation and truth of things (I’m talking about the Divinity and humanity of Christ), 598 then we could contrast this and say: when the teacher says in the fourth chapter of the Twelve [anathematisms] that the hypostases are persons, as I quoted a little higher, then [these words] were more appropriate and were more necessary for the definition and expression in which the teacher follows in spite of your allegories. And yet, so that it does not seem that we are blaming the basis of faith and light [Cyril], let [the heretic] show that the all-wise father argued, in accordance with your definition, that the hypostases of Christ are the essence of being. So, when you deny that the flesh of Christ corresponds to both nature and hypostasis, then obviously you affirm that it is non-existent, hypostatic and immaterial. And I, turning around and looking at the monk John, said: “What are you saying against this, philosopher? “The hypostases of Christ remained unfused,” 599 – exclaims God-bearing Cyril, as you testify; Do you deny that the natures in Christ remained unfused? Do you accept hypostases, but deny nature? Indeed, your speeches are nothing but laughter and fables! We ask you: Whose hypostases remained unfused? And you fearlessly answer: the hypostases of Christ. And as soon as you hear us say: “The natures of Christ remain unfused,” you become indignant, slander, shout, run away and do a lot of evil. Indeed, I say again, your ridicule is [like] any stage, orchestra and theatricality! You acknowledge the hypostases of Christ, but deny His nature; You openly preach hypostases, but because of us you hide natures; you reject perfect expression and embrace easily vulnerable expression. For if the expression about two hypostases in Christ is suitable and completely impeccable, then the word about two natures is much more acceptable and impeccable. If, as you say, there is no impersonal nature, then even more so there is no impersonal hypostasis, as Cyril also seems to think. If you are impeccable when speaking about the hypostases in Christ, then we are all the more impeccable when speaking about natures, for you have one like-minded person regarding the hypostases [Cyril], while we are the 318 Holy Fathers and all the other teachers who say that in Christ there are two natures, but not two hypostases. If we, who speak of two perfect natures in Christ, think in a Nestorian way, then much more do you, who speak of two hypostases. If it is possible to piously think and interpret the hypostases [in Christ], then even more so is it possible to piously interpret the two natures; for from two natures it is possible to form one hypostasis, just as a person consists [of soul and body], but from two personal hypostases it is impossible to obtain a hypostatic union. When the condemning Council of Chalcedon and our words was truly at a dead end, you say that although the God-bearing Athanasius and Cyril call the natures of Christ hypostases, the Council and we avoid calling two hypostases. The fact is that if you pour out such streams of dirt on us, supposedly Nestorian-minded, when we talk about the perfect natures in Christ, [united] by hypostasis, then what evil would you want to do if you heard that Chalcedon, Leo or someone from our Catholic Church said that Christ is different hypostases and that “The natures remained unmerged, that is, His two hypostases” 600 " When I said this and other things at the meeting, the monk John Ziga replied: “We do not say that the two hypostases remained unfused, and we do not designate duality by number, but we say in an indefinite way: “The natures, that is, the hypostases, remained unfused” 601.” When he said this, I said to him, smiling: “Oh, if only you could name two hypostases, and no more. Yes, you do not name the number, but you say vaguely: “The natures remained unmerged, that is, the hypostases,” thereby thinking and naming not only two, but also a greater number of natures and hypostases.” Further, John [answers]: “This is the expression of the holy fathers Athanasius and Cyril, and no one can reject it.” To this I replied: God, for the sake of us - [members of] the Catholic Church - planned and did the best for the most holy primates of Alexandria to pronounce this expression due to the [activity] of the dragons of all troubles who now have a lair in it, as if in armor in which they think to fight with us, in which Goliath also [fought] with David, from whom he was killed; for, wanting to show that the Nestorians call two natures in Christ, they, unnoticed by themselves, because of the expression calling the natures hypostases, drew a sword against the Holy Fathers. “For when you say that natures are hypostases and, finally, that “the hypostases remained unfused,” and the theologian Cyril said that the hypostases are faces, then it is obvious that you are disgraced, claiming nothing more than that the faces of Christ remained unfused. And not only this, but you viciously insult the famous Cyril himself, claiming that nature is a person. For if nature means person, then how should we perceive his words to Sukkens: “We say that there are two natures,” 602 if not in the following [sense]: “we say that there are two faces of Christ” (if nature is a person).” Further, John again answered this: “Blessed Cyril piously confesses that there is one and only one Christ from two natures, that is, hypostases.” I said to him again: “If there are such words of St. Cyril, as has already been said, only God knows, because in one place he says: “Christ consists of two hypostases,” 603 then the other 230 quotations signed with his name do not say “of two,” but sometimes they say: “Perhaps the ark is an image of the hypostases of Christ,” 604 and sometimes: “If someone separates the hypostases after an indescribable union” 605 , as in his Scholia [about the Incarnation of the Only Begotten], he says this: “And that the natures, that is, the hypostases, remained unfused, we will see from here. Indeed, behold, pure gold covered the tree that was, and the tree was enriched with the glory of gold, but the tree is not separated from it.” 606 Listening to this, I shudder, because, undoubtedly, it turned out that he, who calls the hypostases persons, affirms, even if implicitly, the presence of various hypostases in Christ God. However, he says, Cyril does not claim that hypostases are persons, but I, like the Council of Chalcedon, do not say that natures are persons, but as the divine Cyril thinks, hypostases are the essence of being, that is, the foundation of things, then I also say that natures are the essence and the foundation of things. For just as you think that hypostases are the foundations, so I think that natures are the foundation. However, you immediately wanted to tell us that natures, as Saint Cyril said, are hypostases, meaning beings, and he is impeccable; and the natures that Chalcedon preaches in Christ are certain natures of the emerging winds or the mortal nature of camels and mules.” This, smiling meekly, I said to monk John. 2, 4. And, turning to the church people, I said: “I swear my love for you! Hearing how the Sevirians fearlessly and imprudently preach and confess the hypostases in Christ, I know what hypostases they mean. As soon as they hear the word "nature", they think that it is something inappropriate and absurd, including male and female genital organs; and because of this they avoid the word, like the disciples of the Saracens. For when they hear about the divine generations and the birth of God, they immediately slander him, implying marriage, reproduction and carnal union. If this is not what the Sevirians mean, why, calling the body of the Lord by different names, alien and unworthy of God and the angels, do they refuse to confess human nature in Him? Look, really. They call the body of the Lord mortal, they call it perishable, they call it passionate, fluid, material, consisting of earth and dust, thirsty, hungry, tired - these names, as I said, cannot be attributed to either angels or spirits; they refuse to call it only nature, that is, true reality. Isn’t, I say, what you say more rude? They confess that Christ became a curse and became sin because of the flesh, as the Scripture says. 607 They confess that He was tempted forty days by the devil; 608 but they are not allowed to name [human] nature, that is, true reality. We ask them: What nature of Christ grew? Which one died? Which one was abused? Which one was tired? Which one was crying? And in general, we ask about all the derogatory words and actions of Christ: according to what nature were they made and spoken? [The heretics] answer: according to visible flesh, consisting of dust, according to the need for food, according to humanity, according to the body of Christ. Calling the humanity of Christ by these and other names, they do not dare to confess His nature, although, as I said earlier, they call Him hypostasis. Have you ever seen more stubborn people? 2, 5. Opponents said: “If we call the body of Christ nature, then we will necessarily prove ourselves to be followers of the Council of Chalcedon, which confesses in Him two natures, that is, two persons, for there is no impersonal nature.” “On the contrary, men,” I said. – There is no impersonal hypostasis. For all the Fathers, both in triadology and in the doctrine of the Economy, say that hypostases are persons. And if, according to you and Sevirov’s institution, the one who calls the Lord’s flesh nature thinks in a Nestorian way, as if he supposedly calls Him two natures and persons, then all the Holy Fathers again turn out to be deserving of contempt, as supposedly like-minded people of Nestorius; for the whole host of them clearly preached the humanity of Christ by nature. And the first - the blessed Paul the Apostle himself - is the light of the world: for he calls the Savior of man “the image of a servant.” And the image is nature - this is how nature [is defined] by the host of holy teachers. In the same way, Dionysius, a disciple of Paul in his letter to Gaius, calls the humanity of Christ the essence, 610 likewise Irenaeus, a close interlocutor of the apostles, as we showed in the quote above. If it is really impious, Nestorian and contemptible to call the humanity of Christ nature, then, I say again, the whole multitude of the Holy Fathers is overthrown and rejected because of you; and their teaching is useless and useless because of you. Finally, John of Constantinople is a liar, calling “God hidden in human nature” 611 and saying that “Nature, which heard on earth: “For dust you are, and to dust you will return” 612 itself heard in heaven: “Sit at my right hand” 613.” 614 Scholia. From the Word on the Ascension. And again he says: “Nature, from which the cherubim protected paradise, today itself has become higher than the cherubim.” 615 And if it is wicked to call the humanity of Christ after the union nature, then you are clearly exposed as anathematizing the Holy Fathers: Ambrose, who said that “Christ speaks in my essence,” 616 Gregory [Nyssa], who said: “What nature is struck during the passion?” 617 and “Christ in His time allowed His bodily nature to operate.” 618 Scholia. Against Eunomius; from On the Beatitudes. Then you overthrow Athanasius for the words from the book Against the Arians: “the flesh of the Lord, as His own nature, received passions.” 619 To what punishment will you sentence Basil, who says about Christ in the Word for Lent that “Ascending into heaven, He touched food in order to confirm the nature of the resurrected body?” 620 In agreement with him, Athanasius again speaks about Christ in the Word on the Incarnation: “So, the body had a common nature with all [people], for the body was a man.” 621 Just as Gregory the Theologian said in his Homily on the Epiphany about the body of Christ: “And he hungered, and thirsted, and wept—according to the law of nature.” 622 Again unanimously, Ambrose speaks to the Emperor Gratian about the passion of Christ: “For He is involved in different natures, that is, human and Divine; for He endured passion by human nature.” 623 And again he said in the Word for the Incarnation: “The flesh suffered as His own nature.” 624 As [Gregory] of Nyssa speaks with them unanimously: “What nature is struck during passion?” 625 I will conclude what has been said as if with the royal finger and seal - the famous Cyril; however, I see that you also reject him, who calls the body of the Lord Christ nature, according to the teachings of Severus. After all, Cyril wrote to Sukkens [about Christ]: “He suffers and is crucified on the cross with a nature consisting of the dust of the earth,” 626 and again told him that “the carnal nature has not passed into the nature of the Word.” 627 And again in another [place] he said: “The contemplation is devoid of all blame, that it is the flesh that is another proper nature along with God the Word.” 628 Likewise, he said to Eulogius: “If the body is not consubstantial with God the Word, then there certainly is one and another nature,” 629 - as all this was said above. The Father, saying “one and another nature” in Christ, obviously calls the Divinity and humanity of Christ equally nature; in the same way when he says: “We say that there are two natures,” 630 it is obvious that he calls the flesh one of them, just as the divine Ephraim, Isidore, Proclus, Atticus and all the other Fathers who speak of different natures in Christ call His body one of them. And why do you object so rudely and disobediently, saying that it is impossible to call the Lord’s humanity nature?” 2, 6. To this John and Gregory Nistazon said: “Before the union we confess two natures, but after the union Christ is one nature incarnate.” And I answered them: “I believe that after the indescribable union of Christ in Nazareth, which was in the womb of the Holy Mother of God, and after the Nativity, and after His Ascension to the Cherubim throne, Sevier, who gathered his and your ten-horn, came up with another connection for Christ. And therefore he allowed you to say that after the union which he conceived in Christ, His body should no longer be called nature, and two perfect natures should not be confessed in Him. Although (oh, if only he had not come up with this) all the blessed Fathers, as stated above, named after Christ’s union in Nazareth He has two natures: at Christmas in Bethlehem, at the Meeting with Simeon, at Baptism; others [the Fathers], like Cyril, called Him the struck and suffering nature, consisting of the dust of the earth. Proclus, [interpreting] Thomas’s touching of the ribs, preaches the union of the two natures of Christ. Vasily, [interpreting the eating] of food after the Resurrection, calls the body of the Lord nature. John, [interpreting the sitting] on the Cherubim throne after the holy Ascension into heaven and the words of the Father: “Sit at My right hand,” 631 also named our nature in Christ. And if the most holy body is confessed by nature, it is obvious that two natures are known in Christ. So, as I said, your “legislator” Sevier invented in Christ a certain second union after the holy Ascension; and therefore he forbids you to name the two natures after the union.” “But Cyril,” he says, has an expression: “After the union, Christ is one nature incarnate”; and therefore we do not recognize two natures in Him.” When John and the dissenters [gathered] with him said this, I shouted loudly and joyfully: ““Eternal memory to Cyril,” 632 as the Council of Chalcedon also proclaimed. For none of the Holy Fathers expressed like the divine Cyril the omniholiness, victoriousness, eternity and immutability of the natures of Christ. After all, the blessed Fathers named the number, and tri-blessed Cyril, along with the number, also the unchangeable, always preserved constancy of the natures of the Lord after the union. Thus, in [the interpretation of the words of Christ] “Destroy this church” 633 [Cyril] said: “Christ, preserving in Himself the unfused property of two different natures.” 634 And in [the letter] to Sukkens he says: “we say that there are two natures.” 635 And again, the Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews says the following: “it is not worthwhile to pronounce wickedness, such as: that by the formation of natures something [new] is obtained, that perhaps the nature of the Word has changed into the nature of man, or that, in turn, man’s nature has changed into His; but it is better to say that there has been a union of natures, so that each is comprehensible and exists within its own boundaries.” 636 Likewise, in the sixth volume of his Commentary, he again simply proclaims: “we do not pronounce impiety, that one of the natures has changed into another, but we say rather that each remains as it is.” 637 As in the Scholia, he says: “The natures remained unfused.” 638 You have done good, torch and pillar of truth, Cyril! Truly, I repeat, “eternal and blessed memory to Cyril,” 639 who does not want us to get lost by moving away from the truth, but who teaches us about the goodness and immutability of the essences of Christ, who writes and again proclaims to those who reign: “we recognize the difference of natures that remain unfused with each other.” 640 So, you, men, interpreting one certain quote from Blessed Cyril, claim that he names one nature in Christ after the union. Here above and below [we show] how the preacher of piety confesses that the two natures are preserved, and observed, and known, and counted even after the union. Pay attention, I advise, to the precision of your father’s expression. He said: “the unfused property of two different natures is preserved in Christ”; 641 likewise said again: “we say that there are two natures”; 642 said: “each of them is comprehensible and exists within its own natural boundary”; 643 said: “every nature remains in Christ as it is”; 644 said: “the natures remained unfused, that is, the hypostases of Christ.” 645 Above all this, he teaches: “let us recognize the difference of natures that remain unfused with each other.” 646 So, the divine rhetorician Cyril, as shown, here teaches us in six ways about the good existence and immutability of the number of the two natures of Christ, saying that they were preserved in Christ, saying that they are, saying that they exist, saying that they remained unchanged in Him; further he said that they remained unfused, and again he teaches: we recognize the difference of natures, and they remained unfused. This is the teacher. 2, 7. Finally, according to your love for mankind and the righteous “judge and legislator” Sevier, proclaim the boundary of time and term for Christ and tell us: until what years did two natures remain unfused in Him, and until what months do we say that there are two natures in Him, and until what time should it be seen that there is a difference of natures, and until what days does He retain in Himself the unfused property of two different natures, and until what appearance must be preserved? contemplation of the differences in the natures of Christ and their unity. And when we have been asking this for a long time, judge Sevier announced the answer and verdict regarding Christ, saying in his writings: before Nestorius, the natures of Christ were unfused, but after Nestorius there was a confusion and reduction of natures. After the Council of Chalcedon, Cyril, who said: “We call the two natures of Christ,” 647 became a liar. After the release of the Tomos of Leo, Christ no longer preserves the unfused properties of natures of different essences; Dioscorus cleansed [Him] from this [unfusion]. We must no longer see in Christ the difference of natures and keep them unfused; for against the heresies that have arisen, one must change one’s faith and add to the Divine Scripture and the instructions of the Fathers.” So, when the dissenters [those gathered] with him were saddened and very angry at the words of John, I again said to them: “As in the presence of the Lord I say that it is so: trusting the admonition and instruction of Severus, who orders you after Nestorius to attribute expressions to the respected Fathers, even to St. Cyril about two natures in Christ, therefore you do not accept the quotations of the Fathers, but prefer, perhaps, to reject them yourself the holy Gospels, the Old and New Testaments, patristic writings and expressions, and follow Sevier, as if you were following some new Aquila. However, who among you does not know that the Fathers accurately expressed themselves when they said that two good natures are preserved in Christ? Who among you does not testify that there are quotes from St. Cyril about the fact that two inseparable natures in Christ exist, are preserved, are knowable, are observed, do not merge and are counted in one person? Who among you does not see that nature and face are not the same thing? For here we are, who are here, there are many persons, but the nature of all is one.” When this and other things were said at a meeting in more detail, like-minded people of Sevier, both from ancient times and now, always say that they are disciples of Blessed Cyril and often present his quotes, while the rest of the blessed Fathers are not so often quoted. A few days before the interview, having heard that the Theodosians, in preparation for the conversation with us, had sent for their singers - that is, John and Gregory, we drew up a dogmatic tomos, as if on behalf of Flavian, Bishop of Constantinople, who was killed by Dioscorus because of his confession in Christ of two natures, inseparably united in one complex hypostasis. In this tomos, I preserved the intentions, way of thinking and the exact meaning of the expressions of the Holy Fathers, sometimes for some necessity changing some words to some others synonymous with them, for clarity to everyone, for example, instead of “type” - “essence”, instead of “consisting of dust” - “earth-born” and instead of “passion” - “cross”; because with strong hatred and disgust, but not following the truth, they oppose the Council of Chalcedon, Blessed Flavian and the Tomos of Saint Leo. For I knew that if they only heard the name of Flavian or Leo in the tomos, they would foolishly anathematize it, without asking whether the statement of faith in it is correct or distorted. So, I again told them: “If you wish us not to talk and listen much, this is our faith and that of the Council of Chalcedon. Listen and read: either you follow him or anathematize.” Scholia. We place it so that hard workers can use it as an image [of polemic] against opponents. So Blessed Paul knows that such an image must be used, which is why he said to some: “I took from you by wickedness.” 648 From the dogmatic tomos of Flavian, Bishop of Constantinople, which was written to Leo the Pope, about the Economy of the Incarnation of Christ our true God. It is said: “And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us.” 649 One is a certain dwelling and another is the One who dwells in it: I do not say one and another as about two persons, but one and another as about two natures. 650 Scholia. This is a quote from the eloquent Paul, Bishop of Emesa in Alexandria, he said this in the presence of St. Cyril. After all, all the Gospel and Apostolic [Scriptures] teach and testify about Emmanuel in two different images, somewhere showing His one face, and somewhere clearly testifying to His two natures. 651 For there was and is dual - One and the same Son and Christ, and the speech about Him is dual (not before the union, but after the incomprehensible union), the same one perfect both in Divinity and in humanity. 652 Scholia. Gregory the Theologian in his Homily on the Epiphany, Cyril of Jerusalem, just like Cyril of Alexandria in his First Homily on the Holy Trinity. For if He were simple, how could He suffer and die? How was he struck, beaten and crucified, if not by a body subject to suffering, and by earthly nature? 653 Scholia. Against Eunomius Gregory of Nyssa and the Epistle to Succens of Cyril of Alexandria. For, being of one essence with God and the Father, He is God perfect from perfect, and being of one essence with us, He is a perfect man. 654 For, being “the image of God,” 655 took from us “the form of a servant”; 656 the image of God means the essence of God, so the image of man reveals human nature. 657 Scholia. From the Commentary [on the Epistle] to the Philippians by John Bishop of Constantinople. When the tomos was written and read, John and Gregory turned away from it, rejected it, and anathematized what was written in it. And after the rejection and anathematization, we brought into the middle the books of the Holy Fathers, from which all the quotes that are in the tomos were taken, for we brought them here, keeping each quote ready to prove the reported [information]. And when we showed them from their own books that they rejected and anathematized not Flavian, but the Holy Fathers, a simple citizen stood up from the last place, covering them with shame and threatening to stone them. This was our national triumph and the national shame of John and his like-minded people. Let hard workers know the following well. So, the members of the Conciliar Church gathered in Alexandria told us that after the blessed Pope Eulogius Augustal 663 there was a certain Sevirian, who for a sufficient time appointed 14 scribes who were like-minded with him, and appointed his vicar over them, so that they would correct the dogmatic books of the Fathers, first of all St. Cyril. So, when we gave them a quotation from the [Epistle] To Sukkens: “We name two natures,” 664 we did not find it in the Alexandrian books, but instead it was “We say that two natures are united” or “We say that two natures are implied.” And when we were very depressed, Mr. Isidore the Librarian brought us a book by the Patriarch [Kirill], in which this quote turned out to be uncorrupted. Likewise, Blessed Ambrose was distorted, for instead of [the words] “We will preserve the difference between Divinity and flesh,” 665 they said: “We will maintain the difference of knowledge.” And again they distorted the blessed Proclus, speaking about Christ: “He, born without corruption 666 [of the Mother’s womb] and entering through closed doors, seeing the union of whose natures, Thomas...” 667 The word “without corruption” the Guyanites rewrote and say “incorruptible,” 668 and instead of the pronoun “the union of whose natures” 669 they use a negation: “Thomas, not seeing the union of natures” 670 and so on. Likewise, [and interpreting] the words “destroy this church, and in three days I will raise it up,” 671 [the heretics] call the meeting of the apostles the church of Christ: they were scattered and then gathered again. 2, 8. With these shameless lips they were not ashamed to say that they allow the Chalcedonites to say that in Christ there are two hypostases, but not two natures. “For nature, they say, reveals many hypostases.” When they said this, I said to them: “Then you do not confess any nature in Christ?” The heretics said: “So, we confess one nature in Him, as the Fathers teach.” When they said this, I said in more detail: “So, shame on you, as those who profess in Christ one nature and different hypostases, because, as you say, nature marks different hypostases.” 3. Another interview with the Theodosians, for which we again gathered in the presence of Augustal and a large crowd. Therefore, after the heretics in interviews with us were sufficiently and indisputably put to shame, and no longer had a face that would open their mouths to the Catholic Church, they sent people to Egypt for certain bishops who seemed to be scholars, including from the city of Kinopolis. They turned to Augustal with a request to organize for us a new interview about Christ. And indeed, we were summoned on behalf of Augustalus to the praetorium, and when we arrived, we were informed: “Certain Theodosian bishops wish to talk with you about the faith in the presence of Augustalus.” So, when we entered, Augustal said: “These bishops wish to talk with your piety about the difference between the Church and the Theodosians.” After these words from the ruler, the bishops began to reproach me for allegedly disturbing the city, the people and their church. So, understanding from their words that they had not seen me before, I speak to them in a meek voice, smiling: “Most worthy fathers, have you ever seen me, met me, listened to my religion or my thoughts from my lips?” They answered: "No." “So, fathers, listen to my confession. I trust in God that all of you will not find any accusation against me and will be reconciled with me.” I said this, wanting to discover and make public the poison hidden in their hearts and in their entire church. Taking a sheet of papyrus and a pen from the Augustal notaries present, I wrote this: “I, Anastasy the monk of the holy Mount Sinai, confess that God the Word Himself, born of God the Father before all ages, Himself was crucified, was beaten, suffered and was resurrected.” I wrote this, not naming either [His] flesh, or life [on earth], or incarnation, but only one naked Deity of God the Word. Then, getting up, I gave it to them so that after reading it they would approve. Therefore, noticing their approval, I say: “If I saw that you think like this, sign, and immediately I will serve with you.” For it was the day of our Lord, 672 about the third hour. They took it and signed it. Having accepted the papyrus after signing, going up to the one who was considered the wisest of them and lightly touching his beard with my hand, I said: “Christ suffered for us in the flesh” 673 theopaschites, and not in the Divinity; He suffered in the flesh, as the Apostle Peter theologizes, and not in the Divine, as Sevier blasphemes and as you have now signed. For, wishing to expose all the slander in your soul, I wrote, indicating in papyrus the naked Divinity of God the Word, without remembering either the flesh, or the incarnation, or the Nativity of the Holy Virgin.” So, when they heard this, they seemed to sober up from intoxication and everyone began to argue about this papyrus, which they took from me. I shouted to everyone: “I will not give it up until I bring it to Christ on the day of judgment [as evidence] against you.” 4. Description of another interview, in which we again took part, in Alexandria with Gentiles, among whom was Presbyter George, nicknamed Klyuchar, a preacher of their church. When we sat in the stenographers’ room at the prefect’s residence, they, based on typical problems, said: “There is no non-hypostatic nature; therefore, the Council of Chalcedon, having named two natures in Christ, also discovered two hypostases, that is, persons in Him. And in the Holy Trinity there are no longer three Persons, that is, Hypostases, but four.” To this we again [say]: “In what way are we damaging the truth if we even call two hypostases in Christ? After all, a hypostasis is not a face.” So, again not seeing the trick in our words - after all, when we say this, we do not think so - they, indignant, began to object, citing more quotes and testimonies from all the Holy Fathers and from Blessed Cyril himself, saying that the hypostases are persons both in the Holy Trinity and in the doctrine of the Economy of the Incarnation. So, when for quite a long time they objected and argued that in every hypostasis they are persons, then I say to them: “Indeed, if hypostases show persons, then you insult Saint Cyril by exposing him and yourself in Nestorianism because of his words: “The hypostases of Christ remained unfused,” 674 that is, the faces of Christ remain unfused. For the word “remained” means that their state is eternal, unmerged and internally stable; It is remarkable that he did not say: “The hypostases remained inseparable,” but “unfused,” that is, clearly visible, easily noticeable, cognizable, countable and preserved. Finally, when you say that Christ is composed of two hypostases, then, according to this definition and law, you say that He is of two persons; and if He is composed of two persons, then it is clear that [His] flesh pre-exists and God the Word dwelt in it when it already existed. And if this is so, then how do you, who think Nestorian, fight Nestorius? Truly, heaven and earth will pass away, but these definitions will not pass away, 675 which say that if the hypostasis shows a person, then the expressions are useless: “The hypostases of Christ remained unmerged”; 676 “If someone separates the hypostases after an indescribable union”; 677 “The ark is for us an image of the natures, or hypostases of Christ.” 678 For these quotations, which, according to you, belong to Saint Cyril, and many others speak of the hypostases in Christ.” This is the interview. Thus the heretics are quickly put to shame. 5. About the expression “The one incarnate nature of God the Word,” which heretics everywhere present to us. Since the all-wise Cyril himself interpreted this expression, I consider it unnecessary to doubt its authenticity. Meanwhile, as Blessed Cyril himself teaches us in his letter to Sukkens, he does not point to anything else when he says “incarnate” but to our human nature. 679 Based on this, when [the heretic] speaks to us against the expression “The one incarnate nature of God the Word,” tell him: “Who of the right-thinking can even name the two incarnate natures of God the Word? After all, then there will be four natures in Christ. But it won’t be like that!” So, the wise father himself interprets the words “one incarnate nature” in another place, using the expression “one incarnate nature of Christ” instead of “one incarnate Person of the Holy Trinity.” 680 For “the Word became flesh,” 681 as the evangelist says. When they so hold on to what was said by their father [our Cyril]: “one nature incarnate,” [ask them:] why do you not hold [within the framework] of such an expression, but introduce a new teaching, saying: “Christ is one nature, for the nature of Christ, although incarnate, is only Divine”? Which Father did you hear this from? Which of the teachers [said] that after the union the Divinity and the flesh of Christ constitute one nature, or one race? How is it possible for created and uncreated things to become completely of the same nature and homogeneous? For where it is said “one nature,” it certainly means “one generation,” either a perfect created principle, or a perfect uncreated principle. So, if Christ is one nature, then He is certainly half God and half man, as the Manichaean fables teach. “If the body [of Christ] is not consubstantial with God the Word,” but is of another essence, and, as the divine Cyril says [in the Epistle] to Eulogius, “there is another and different nature,” 682 then it is clear that Christ is truly perfect in Divinity and perfect in humanity according to the Patristic Tradition.” O true troops, O advanced fighters of the Holy Church and truth! Protect during the battle, as soon as someone from the pack of those wolves approaches you, bringing these empty fables about Christ, turning the word about the Economy into fiction and appearance, saying: “Through some subtle reasoning or with the help of imagination, we understand that Christ is one nature incarnate out of two natures. After all, “after the union” there are no longer two natures, for “the flesh deified and made immortal is like a drop of vinegar in the sea, and such [flesh] was born, and only one [the Divine] deified it.” 683 And “the Word became flesh,” 684 so that the flesh also became the Word; for the will of the Divine is one, likewise the essence of the Word is one, 685 and “Christ has not two natures, [of which] one is worthy of worship, and the other unworthy of worship,” 686 and the rest, beautifully said by the Fathers, but wickedly interpreted by heretics. When they cite these and similar words about the illusory and visible nature of [the Incarnation of God the Word], remember the words of Solomon: “answer a fool according to his folly,” 687 and you also say: “The hypostases of Christ remained unfused even after the union. And “if anyone shares the hypostases of Christ after the union, he is anathema,” 688 as the godly Cyril says. “For in the Law the ark is a type of the persons of Christ.” 689 What are hypostases? It is obvious that the faces, as taught, again, by the divine Cyril himself and a whole host of Holy Fathers.” In this way, faithful one, with the help of your opponents, confront your opponents, and then begin to fight with them. Using their own weapons, stab the wicked Sevier, throw down Dioscorus, defeat Theodosius, Guyan, Julian and the entire ten-horned world of those who dogmatize one nature in Christ. Chapter 11. A note on the expression calling nature hypostasis. Where is it from? Chapter in which the exegete reveals why the teacher [Cyril] of nature was called hypostases. So that anyone is not blinded by the expression we uttered above, infected by the thoughts of Nestorius and the impious confession of two persons and hypostases in Christ, it is necessary to say the reason [for our use of this expression]. The language of the inhabitants of Africa, the Roman world and the [rest of] the West, which does not yet have a dogmatic vocabulary and the beginning of profundity, as tribal and barbaric, in ancient times of [Christian] preaching did not achieve the distinction of essence and nature from hypostasis, but considered essence hypostasis, denoting both words [with the term] “being”, 690 not being able to completely express [the meaning of the word] “hypostasis”, but calling the three Persons of the Holy Trinity three “beings.” [And the term] “being” can be used in a certain way both instead of essence and instead of hypostasis: being as existing, 691 essence as existing, 692 hypostasis again as existing. 693 So, suffering from a lack, as mentioned above, [of dogmatic terms] the West called the three Hypostases in the Holy Trinity three essences. Therefore, some other countries, who know the Greek language well and can distinguish between dogmatic expressions, argued heatedly [with the West]: Blessed Athanasius [in his Epistle] to the Western [bishops] states that one should not say “three essences in the Holy Trinity.” The Western [bishops], again, not knowing the word “hypostasis,” resolutely insisted on the expression “three essences,” saying: “so that [by denying this expression] we should not be foolishly calling the Father, the Son, or the Holy Spirit insubstantial, that is, non-existent.” So, when the greatest opposition and schism occurred [in the Church], Blessed Athanasius, being the son of God's reconciliation, carried out his authoritative investigation, inspired by the inspired interpretations of [the Holy Fathers]. Having questioned both convened parties and realizing that the Western [bishops] correctly think about the unity [in the Trinity], but argue due to the poverty of language, he pacified the Church and in letters to the African [bishops], resolving their perplexities, he called the essence [what they called the word] hypostasis. 694 So, even if it is typical for Saint Cyril to call natures hypostases, he accepted this from that time. Saint Gregory of Nazianzus testifies to this in his funeral homily to Saint Athanasius, as does Bishop Eulogius, Pope of Alexandria [in his response] to the Tomos of Leo. I again tell the heretics that what is said rarely and out of necessity, [an expression] is neither an obligatory law nor a kind of prejudice for the Church. But the piety of Chalcedon is also revealed in this, that when it was possible to speak among the Fathers of “hypostases,” none of them used this word, and did not say that He [consists] of two hypostases. Chapter 12. About the saving passion of Christ and about the “Holy, Immortal Crucified...” 1. About the passion of Christ the Savior and that those who say “The Holy Immortal crucified and suffered” 695 are theopaschites. The wonderful definition of the wisest men says that factual objections and evidence are stronger, truer and more durable than those that follow from biblical sayings. After all, factual evidence cannot be rewritten in any way and cannot be ignored, and written evidence often undergoes insertions and abbreviations from malicious men, which, perhaps, the industrious person knows - as has already been said - from many altered copies [of the books] not only of teachers, but also of Moses, the prophets and evangelists. So, this year, studying various copies of the book of the prophet Jeremiah, I did not find in them [the prophecy] about thirty pieces of silver - the price for Christ, nor [the prophecy] about the sale of the potter's land. 696 So, if the evil believers did not spare the Holy Scripture itself, then, as we previously spoke in detail, much less the words of the teachers [of the Church]. So, through facts, we have greatly disgraced the heretics and unbelievers. When we again talked with them about the passion of the Savior and about the Cross of Christ, we saw from looking at the quotations that they brought that they were trying to show that God the Word is passionate and mortal along with His own flesh, then we no longer through sayings [from Scripture and the Holy Fathers], but through obvious facts and images, used for them a certain image on a certain tablet of the Cross of the Lord with a certain inscription; We placed this image after the quotes. 2. Some of the many quotations cited by the Theodosians and Guyanites in an attempt to show that the impassive God the Word became passionate with and in the flesh. From 1 Corinthians: “But we preach the secret wisdom of God... which none of the authorities of this age knew; for if they had known, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.” 697 Saint Ignatius Bishop of Antioch: "Let me imitate the sufferings of my God." 698 Julia Bishop of Rome: “The Jews, having crucified the body, crucified the Word.” 699 Regarding this particular quotation, I immediately responded by telling them: “If the Jews, by crucifying the body, killed the Word, then the Trinity was not a Trinity, but a two was in heaven until God the Word rose from the death of three days.” Saint Gregory of Nazianzus: "So that you do not stumble in thought when you hear about the blood of God." 700 From the Word on the Passion of Melito, Bishop of Sardis: “God suffered at the hands of Israel.” 701 St. Gregory: “Small drops of God’s blood sanctified the whole world.” 702 St. Cyril vs. Nestorius: "The Passion of God, the Cross of God, the Death of God, the Resurrection of God." They claim that Gregory also speaks at the same time with their theopaschism: “Let him who denies the Divinity of Christ stand with the deicides of the Jews.” 703 That is why the meaning of their Trisagion hymn “The Holy Immortal One crucified for us” means nothing other than: “The Holy Immortal God the Word, who suffered and died for us”; After all, they call God the Word “Immortal,” for He is immortal. Likewise, the expression “passion of God” must be taken with all caution, since there may be some bad understanding, blasphemous in relation to God and the Father, as well as in relation to the Holy Spirit, because the Holy Spirit is God, like the Father and the Son. 3. Therefore, when the followers of Sevirus, Guyana and Theodosius brought us these and many other quotations about the passion, in order, as we said, to reveal the Divinity of Christ, we, desiring to reveal the deceit and poison hidden in their souls, opposed them no longer with the help of Scripture and the words [of the Holy Fathers], but by means of facts, images and real schemes, 704 because of which they were greatly disgraced. For, as I said, on a certain tablet we depicted the Holy Cross along with a certain inscription and, laying our finger on them, we asked them questions. And the inscription was: “God the Word, rational soul and body.” Scholium. And we propose to swear by the Son of God, described in the Bible, using the image of this image of the Honest Cross. Having shown this image, we asked them: “Here is Christ, the Son of the Living God,” 705 flawless and inseparable on the Cross, that is, God the Word, the rational soul and body united with Him by hypostasis. Which of these three perished, died, became inactive and motionless? Answer according to the exact meaning. Didn't I tell you that he was crucified? But which of these three perished in Christ and died for three days?” Immediately, the heretics, extremely confused by our question, say: “The body of Christ has perished.” Again we say to them: “His soul was not lost, died, or suffered?” They say: “Probably not.” Then we, ridiculing them and mocking them, said: “And you are not ashamed of the fact that you call His soul, created by Him, impassive and immortal, and call God the Word Himself, the Creator, “The Holy Immortal One who suffered and died for us,” thereby insulting the Creator in comparison with the creation? You call angels immortal and passionless, you call our souls immortal, and you call demons passionless and immortal. And you are not embarrassed, I say again, their Creator, who is one by nature impassive, calling Him passionate and mortal and thereby humiliating the Creator in comparison with the creation? Listen to what I say. On the Cross when Christ was nailed to it, the following five were present. There was the sun, which first discovered the nails and the spear, and remained inseparable from the Cross and impassive to the nails. There was the most holy body of Christ, there was His holy soul, there was God the Word, there was the tree of the cross. Four of them are created, and God the Word is uncreated and their Creator. Two created things - the sun and the holy soul of Christ - remained impassive. And how, after all, could His Divinity die? Therefore, Christ is immortal by two - [Word and soul], and mortal by one flesh. Therefore, your, acephalus, believers are separated from Peter and Paul, the pillars, leaders and lights of the universe, the chosen preachers of the faith? Therefore, no longer according to your Peter Knatheus sing: “The Holy Immortal God who suffered the Word,” but according to the fisherman Peter: “Christ suffered for us in the flesh.” 706 No longer according to Paul of Samosat, but according to Paul of Tarsus, preach that Christ “having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the Spirit.” 707 Christ died in mortal flesh, not in immortal spirit. And those who sing “The Immortal Holy One crucified and suffered for us” call either the immortal God of the Word or His immortal soul mortified, but the tomb of Christ shames them, containing not the mortified God of the Word, not the rational soul who died, but a deified dead body. Therefore, as soon as you hear: “The Lord of glory is crucified,” 708 or “God suffered at the hands of Israel,” 709 or “Let me imitate the sufferings of my God,” 710 or “Drops of God’s blood,” 711 or “God’s death, tomb and Cross,” in no way say that the passion and death of God the Word were by nature, but that they were according to His flesh, united by hypostasis. For just as the flesh, due to the ineffable and inseparable union with God the Word, is assimilated into the divine, so often the human, passionate and mortal is assimilated to the God Word who is in it; Having assimilated to Himself, in a certain respect, by the economy and by the common existence of the passions of His own flesh, He, like God by nature and in truth, remains impassive and immortal.” Scholium. Just as the nature of the fire did not in any way harm the body of Azariah and the [two other] young men thrown into the oven, 712 so the impassive God the Word, who was in it, was inseparable from the passionate flesh of Christ. 4. Not only the above imprint and image of the Cross and the inscription of the three names (God the Word, the rational soul and the most holy body) help us express the doctrine of Christ's passion, but also all the other problems and difficulties that opponents pose before us. For again, when they bring us the patristic random phrases and expressions taught by Sevier, refined concepts, that is, mental fantasies about Christ, [talking] about the visibility, fusion, mixing, combination and denial [of humanity in Christ], images of a drop of vinegar and the sea (and in general, in all their premises they deny the expression about the two inseparably united natures of Christ), then we mentioned putting to flight enemies invincible [sign] - this Honest Cross and the inscription above it of three names, ridiculing the heretics and chanting, and placing our finger on each of the three names, and asking them: “What do you say to us, “apologizing for sinful deeds,” 713 and give us many confused expressions, torn and random phrases, saying: “After the ineffable union, the flesh is no longer called nature, for it was she who became the Word who deified it. And, finally, it no longer has its properties, but because of the victory of the Best, everything in Christ became one nature, for the body, mingling with the abyss of the Divine, became God due to deification? Why do you here and there pull out these and similar expressions for us, said well by the Holy Fathers, but understood poorly by you? Look at the displayed image of the Cross, and at the inscription on it of the three names of Christ, and tell us, did after the union of God the Word become consubstantial with the flesh? Has a rational soul ceased to be a soul? Has the body become consubstantial with the Word? Has one of these three lost its properties? Has the body of Christ become indescribable? Has His rational soul become mortal? Has God the Word become passionate and fluid? No way. So, if even after the union everything in Christ remained unchanged and unfused, how can two immortal [His parts - God the Word and soul] and His mortal body be called one nature? 5. Question to those who are disgraced by theopaschism. Orthodox: Do you call Him dead or not, Whom you call crucified? Heretic: Yes, [to the dead,] for there is one Christ, and not two. Orthodox: Okay. So, when you say, “The Holy Immortal One who was crucified and suffered for us and died,” Whom Immortal One do you call dead? If you call God the Word, then you speak badly, because He is immortal. If you call His immortal soul mortified, then you speak badly. If you call the flesh that died on the Cross “Holy Immortal,” then you speak badly, for the flesh was not immortal on the Cross. And again, if you call the entire fullness of Christ “the Holy Immortal who suffered and died,” then you speak badly, for “Immortal” is not combined with the body, as we have already said. But death is alien to the immortal Word and His co-immortal soul, so no matter what the understanding, this hymn of yours is blasphemous along with you and your deeds. Chapter 13 1. Research, that is, a joint practical discussion of the Orthodox and Akefal of some sayings that are presented as [words] from the Holy Fathers, calling one - the flesh and the Divinity - the nature of Immanuel, to which all heresies refer that want to reject the Incarnation and Economy of Christ, that is, the heresies of Valentinus, Mani, Marcion and further, up to Eutyches, Dioscorus, Sevira, Feodosia and Guyana. Naturally, we note in advance that if these expressions were inserted by one of the heretics, then only God knows (after all, we have cited the words of the Holy Fathers themselves, which on various issues are inconsistent and contrary to these expressions); and if indeed some of these expressions are patristic, then we note that the Holy Fathers could say them in some improper sense and simply out of [their] meekness or understood them according to the holiness of the soul and flesh of Christ; those who reject the doctrine of the incarnation interpret these expressions not according to the patristic meaning, but denying this essence [of the soul and flesh of Christ] and saying that after an incomprehensible union there became one nature of flesh and Divinity, as if the nature of the holy flesh of Christ, as a result of mixing, changed into the nature of Divinity; they give us the word of Blessed Gregory [the Theologian], speaking about the body of the Lord: “And it is God by deification,” 714 like Blessed Cyril [of Alexandria]: “The Cross of God, the passion of God, the death of God, the Resurrection of God” and many other similar expressions. But, unfortunate and ignorant, they do not know that the Holy Fathers in these expressions did not say “by nature,” but “by deification” and “by union”; after all, the divine Gregory did not say that the body is God by nature, but says: “because it too is God by deification,” just as iron, after combining with fire, radiates heat and is called fire, of course, not by nature, because iron is not absent. Thus, the all-wise Cyril did not say: the death of the Divine, the passions of the Divine (as if the fullness of the Trinity Divinity turned out to be passionate and mortal), but said: the passions of God. For it is possible, as has already been said, to piously call the Lord the Man “God” because of the excellent union [with the Divine], even if ordinary people who are not united with the Divine are called gods; 715 but one cannot call the most holy body, which is created, “Divinity”, so as not to call the Divinity of the Holy Trinity consubstantial with creation. As a result, we repeatedly call the entire fullness of Christ God according to the excellent union, but we do not call Him in its entirety “Divinity,” but, due to the difference of natures, “Divinity and humanity.” And I will repeat again about the passion of Christ and about their Trisagion song in order to ask them: “When you sing and say: “Holy Immortal One, crucified and suffered for us,” how is it clear that you are saying this about Christ? For if you were to say: “Holy Immortal One, crucified in the flesh for us,” then it would be clear that this hymn refers to the incarnate Christ. When you do not name the flesh, body and incarnation at all in this hymn, but simply say: “The Immortal Holy Crucified,” then one can reasonably object to you and say that you do not call Christ crucified, but the immortal God the Father or the immortal Holy Spirit. Since on the Cross there was not an immortal body, but a mortal one, it turns out that you call crucified, passionate and mortal either the immortal Father, or the immortal God of the Word, or the immortal Holy Spirit. 2. Akefal: Why do we again find the words of Blessed Athanasius, who wrote to the Emperor Jovian: “The Word became flesh, so that the flesh also became the Word.” 716 So, if the flesh also became the Word, how can we then call the two natures? Orthodox: As I have already said and say again, I doubt whether these words even belong to the Holy Fathers. So, I will boldly say, even if an angel from heaven said this expression, 717 it is impossible and he could not have said it. Both Blessed Athanasius and Cyril themselves said that it is impossible and completely unimaginable for the flesh to change into the nature of the Word. For how is it possible that, created after many centuries and years by the eternal God the Word, she became of the same nature and akin to the uncreated God the Word? And if “the Word became flesh, so that the flesh also became the Word,” then, obviously, it is necessary to recognize that the flesh also has the properties of the Word, that is, unlimitedness, uncreatedness, originlessness, ugliness and co-eternity with the Father. And if it is in no way possible to say this about the holy flesh of Christ, then it is clear that the flesh did not become the Word. If she did not become the Word (as, indeed, she did not), then he who said that “the Word became flesh, so that the flesh also became the Word” lied. Do not tell me, acephalus, that the teacher meant that the flesh became the Word not by nature, but by glory. To this I can tell you that by glory all people can become gods, according to the words: “I said: you are gods, and the sons of the Most High are all of you,” 718 but in the teacher’s work [presented by you] there are no words “according to glory,” but without reference: “The Word became flesh, so that the flesh also became the Word.” They present not only this quotation, as supposedly from Saint Athanasius, but also another: “Christ was incarnate apart from sin and the carnal will: “For only the will of the Divine,” as is the essence only of the Word.” 719 I don't know who said it; However, I believe and confess that every person who proclaims the one essence of God the Word in Christ has no lot or part in Christ, 720 as denying our leaven and our nature, which He received from the Holy Virgin and Mother of God Mary. For if in Christ there is only Divinity, then why do we blame the Manichaeans, who say: “In the shadow, imagination and visibility was the flesh of Christ, and, ascending, He placed in the sun the shadow of the flesh, 721 which remained in the imagination”? The arrogant Timothy follows the path of deception and accompanies the Manichaeans in this, saying: “The nature of Christ, although incarnate, is only Divinity.” 722 To this, by the way, someone objects: “If “the nature of Christ is only the Divine,” then accordingly we can say that the birth of Christ is the birth of only the Divinity, the growth of Christ is the growth of only the Divinity, the childhood of Christ is the childhood of only the Divinity, the swaddling of Christ is the swaddling of the Divine only, the touch of Christ is the touch of only the Divinity, the baptism of Christ is the baptism of only the Divinity, hunger, thirst, fatigue, mental struggle, spitting, blood and tears of Christ - all this only Divinity, the crucifixion of Christ is the crucifixion of only Divinity. Tell me, what kind of person or demon would dare to say something like that? Therefore, Timothy blasphemes when he says that “The nature of Christ is only Divinity even after the Incarnation.” For if Christ is only the Divinity, and the Divinity is invisible, intangible, not offered as a sacrifice, indivisible and not communed, then it is clear that Timothy, like the Jews, denies the sacrifice and communion of the Holy Sacraments of the Body and Blood of Christ, not believing and not confessing that the Body and Blood of Christ are truly visible, created and tangible, offered up and taught to the people with the words: "The Body and Blood of our Lord and God and Savior Jesus Christ." For if Timothy says that the nature of Christ is one Divinity, and that what is touched, refracted, crushed, crumbled, drunk, changed, chewed with teeth and consumed is alien to the Divine nature, then he falls into one of two pits: either he says that the Divine is passionate and fluid, or he denies the Body and Blood of Christ, which he brings and partakes of in the Mysterious Sacrifice and teaches to the people with the words: “The Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ.” Then it is better for him to say to the participants: “There is one Divinity of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.” So, Timothy's teaching about the Incarnation is a fable, away with it! For the flesh is not the Divinity, as Triblessed Athanasius says: “The body did not become the Word, but became the body of the Word.” 723 And again, preaching the difference of the essences of Christ, he exclaims: “What hell spewed out the word that the body and God the Word are of the same essence?” 724 “If they are not of the same essence, then there certainly is one and the other nature”; 725 This is what the all-wise Cyril said to Eulogius of Constantinople. And if in Christ one and the other nature is cognizable, then His essence is not only the essence of the Word; and if the nature of Christ is not only the nature of the Word, then Timothy, who says that “The nature of Christ, although incarnate, is one Godhead,” is a liar. 3. The heterodox says: Timothy and Sevier do not deny the Incarnation of Christ, preaching that He has one nature, but they follow the Holy Fathers. For Blessed Gregory the Theologian says: “The body became one with God the Word, became completely the same as the One who deified it.” 726 And the godly Gregory of Nyssa needs an image to describe the deification and change of the most holy body of Christ, says: “Just as a drop of vinegar immersed in the abyss of the sea loses its own properties of vinegar, but mixes and assimilates the properties of sea water, so that most holy body, mixed with the Divine, does not have the properties of flesh.” 727 Scholia. If the abyss of the Godhead is invisible and intangible (for “no one saw God” 728), and the body of Christ is mixed with the abyss and became it, then the doctrine of the Economy has become a fantasy, then Christ did not truly and in reality appear on earth. Orthodox: When you again expose us to this saying, which refutes the Economy of the Incarnation, we need to respond immediately. After all, if the holy body became such as God the Word who deified it 729 and does not have the properties of human nature, then it is obvious that it is no longer limited, no longer walking, no longer tangible, no longer visible, Christ no longer has the image of a man, no parts of the body, no arms, no legs, no mouth, no ribs. Why is it said: “They will look at Him whom they have pierced” 731? For if the body of Christ no longer has any human properties, but has acquired the properties of the abyss of the Divine, why does He say to the disciples after His three-day Resurrection and after the body has acquired immortality: “Handle Me and see; for a spirit does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have” 732? How did Thomas feel the marks of the nails 733? [Gregory] of Nyssa himself speaks about this: “Look: since the spear entered the rib, the student’s hand felt [the wound].” 734 The wise Epiphanius thinks the same way: “Tell me, Marcion, how was the breaking of bread? By a ghostly image or by the action of an earthly body?” 735 If the opponent asks: “Why do some of the Fathers, for example, [Gregory] of Nyssa, say that the flesh of the Lord no longer has its human properties?” then let this ignoramus understand that he does not understand as it should, for the Holy Fathers, having said these words, meant something else. Created by God incorruptible and immortal in the beginning, man, because of sin, became doomed to destruction, mortal, material, fluid, multi-passionate, subject to sadness, fatigue, tears and sleep. And so, having become incarnate and taking on our nature, God the Word cleansed and freed it from all the passionate properties acquired by it due to sin. Every time you heard a teacher saying that the flesh of Christ no longer has the properties of the flesh, understand this: the humanity contemplated in Him no longer has the properties of corruption acquired by our body due to sin, but because of the union with the Divine and the three-day Resurrection, His most holy body passed into a better state, and no longer has the previous properties: it is no longer mortal, nor corruptible, nor fluid, nor subject to fatigue, nor deprived of [circumcised flesh, cut hair, nails, flowing blood, etc.], but changed from mortal to immortal, from corruptible to incorruptible, and the material became immaterial, the carnal - spiritual, the passionate - impassive, the flowing - not flowing, needing food and drink - not needing them, deprived of [circumcised flesh, cut hair, nails, flowing blood and etc.] - not deprived of them, plump - subtle, temporary - eternal; however, it became neither unlimited, nor incorporeal, nor unchangeable, nor intangible, nor invisible, nor uncreated, nor beginningless; for these are the properties of one Divinity. So, the pious Orthodox teaching of the Fathers does not recognize that the most holy body of Christ now has our natural properties, crept in due to disobedience, but has God-created properties that Adam had before sin in the image and likeness of God. Thus, one must piously perceive and understand the words of the Fathers. For the most holy body received from the Divinity of the Word, with Which it was united by hypostasis, that which was possible to receive, so that we recognize the unity of the face of Christ, but it remained alien to certain properties, so that we recognize the difference of natures. Therefore, the flesh, although united with the unlimited Word of God, did not become unlimited; although she began to live together with the eternal, she did not become eternal; although she carries the invisible inside, she has not become invisible; although perceived into incorporeal existence, it did not become incorporeal; although from uncreated [being God] came into creation and the flesh bears the unlimited, it did not become uncreated. But if you pay attention to dry and unexamined Scriptures and the words of teachers, then you fall into many and harmful absurdities. I will quote the above-mentioned phrase of the all-wise Gregory [Nyssa]. So he believed that our nature is like drops of vinegar mixed with the abyss of the Divine; It is obvious that every drop that falls into the abyss of the sea becomes invisible, intangible and non-existent. So, if the body of the Lord became invisible due to its connection with the abyss of the Divine (and the abyss of the Divine is by nature invisible and intangible by existence), did it really turn out that the entire life of Christ on earth from His birth from the Virgin until His Ascension into heaven was just fantasy and imagination? Consequently, the divine Gregory used the name vinegar and sea not to speak of the destruction of the properties [of the nature of the body], but to compare the properties, showing the pitiful state of our nature in comparison with the boundless greatness of the incomprehensible abyss of the Divinity, because he who speaks against Eunomius did not intend to preach the confusion and destruction of the natures of Christ: “What nature of Christ is struck during the passion? And which one is glorified from eternity? And without explanation it is clear, says the father, that the blows refer to the slave, in whom the Lord is, and honor - to the Lord, with whom the slave is.” 736 How could a teacher who calls the flesh, that is, the image of a slave, a slave, call it invisible and dissolved, like drops of vinegar in the sea? Because he wants to contemplate His image not by merging, but by a higher union. 4. Heretic to this: The Fathers said these words, not wanting to deny the flesh of the Lord, but to show the victory of the better and deification, as a result of which the apostolic husband Dionysius the Areopagite says that in Christ everything that is human, natural and impeccable is above nature and not according to nature. After all, he said this about Christ in his Fundamentals of the Theology of His Holiness Hierotheus: “He was the newest of everything new; among what is natural to us, supernatural; among those belonging to the super-essential being, having everything that is ours from us above us in abundance” 737 As a result of which, in the Epistle to Gaius, this father says: “Christ did not perform the human actions of our nature as a man, but above a man he performed the human” 738 Orthodox: When reading all Divine and Holy Scriptures, a person needs reverence and fear of God, especially when reading words and preaching about God. But the children of heretics, perceiving their Fathers in a distorted form, look like one-eyed people. After all, this father, who said: “Christ had everything that is higher than us,” 739, in the chapter On united and separate theology, he said that “He was incarnate from virgin blood.” 740 And although to some extent the rude word seems heavy to the common people, none of the other teachers said anything like that. Therefore, one must piously understand all the expressions of the father. For if Christ had nothing of our nature in likeness with us, but everything is above us, then Paul is lying when he called Him a man, “who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh” 741 without seed, and: “as children He shared in flesh and blood,” 742 and: “tempted in all things like us, except one sin” 743 Scholia. “As children partake of flesh and blood” 744 – it seems to me that Dionysius, being a disciple of Paul, took this expression from here [“Incarnated from virgin blood”] 745 So, if Jesus became a man like us and like men, 746 if, as Paul teaches, He was “in all points tempted as we are, except with one sin,” 747 then not everything that is ours in Him was above us. And if in all human properties He was not like a man, but above a man, then how, finally, can we call Him consubstantial with us in humanity? After all, consubstantial in the proper sense of the word is the unchangeable identity of the natural properties of the same nature. So, if Dionysius does not deny the consubstantial body of Christ to us, then why did he say: “He is above nature in all our natural properties,” 748 and: “not as a man does what is human,” 749 - what do you heretics think? But because not from the seed, but from God the Word and hypostatically with God the Word in the Mother’s womb, the perfect human leaven of our soul and flesh existed. So, the human, existing with God, became deified and co-divine 750; it bodily and without contradiction carried in the single person of Christ not only human, but divine-human, nevertheless preserving unfused the own properties of both, and clearly demonstrating that in His Incarnation Christ performed all of our natural and impeccable actions above man, and everything human and corresponding to the general law of our nature, including something baser of our actions, He performed in His own flesh in order to stop the lips of heretics. For, as Isaiah says, contemplating the sight of Christ on the cross, that He “was despised and humbled more than the sons of men,” 751 and again [the evangelists say] that they contemplated the angel who strengthened Him, 752 and that He, before the robbers, voluntarily died painfully, being nailed, 753 and that He showed wounds and ulcers on the immortal body, 754 and that that the nature of the immortal and spiritual body was contemplated in the pitiful form of a gardener, 755 and that the pure, deified, lacking in nothing, subtle and immortal nature of the Lord’s body after the Resurrection for forty days communicated, ate, drank and lived together with mortal and passionate people. 756 But in fact, no deficiency, dishonor, humiliation and humiliation were connected with the immortal nature of the most holy body of Christ [after the Resurrection]. However, all this is not higher than man, but more inglorious than our nature, for none of the people in the resurrection, having risen from death in the future, will drink and eat baked fish and honeycombs, and not a single righteous person, not a single sinner will be resurrected, having ulcers, scars and wounds in their bodies from blows, and not a single righteous person will rise from death in the pitiful form of a gardener, because “then the righteous will shine like the sun.” 757 And if you, heretic, tell me that Christ did this according to the economy and for the sake of the faith of the disciples, and not according to the law [of nature], then I will immediately tell you that according to the economy He came down and became incarnate. Perhaps [the heretic], calling His incarnation economical, does not consider it true. For, starting with Mani, [the heretics] have adopted the expression “according to the economy” instead of the expression “in a ghostly manner,” as Mani coined. 5. So, when we have shown that Christ, although being the true God, voluntarily did more humiliating things than were characteristic of us, then it is necessary to say that He did this in our likeness and according to the law of nature; and vice versa, as God and the Creator of nature, who invented the norms, laws and structure of our human nature and existence, He also needs to do what is higher than man, higher than nature and higher than our natural properties. For example, to form a human being in the womb of the Blessed Virgin without a material seed is an action higher than ours, a Divine action, truly an action of God. And the nine-month growth of the baby in the womb and the enlargement of the belly of the Mother of God Mary is an action according to our nature, the same for all pregnant bellies and for all growing bodies [babies in the mother's womb]. And again, preserving the intact seal of virginity after birth is a Divine matter and above ours. And to pass through the womb and be born - this Christ accomplished in our likeness, truly being a baby in the womb, being born and appearing as God incarnate. Therefore, he immediately showed that He is God, since He was fed with milk from the Virgin’s breast, which is higher than nature, but also attributed to the breast its proper use - for feeding a baby, but also cried according to the law of infancy of our nature, but also in our likeness underwent traditional circumcision and throwing away the flesh. After all, if you were to say that Paul speaks the truth about Christ, that He was “tempted in all our points, except sin only” 758 and who came, of course, for the sake of us all, to deify and sanctify everyone through union with Himself as God! So, being, thanks to this supreme union, God incarnate, Christ voluntarily humbled Himself and appeared into the world, [taking on] all the pitiful and weak properties of my slave image, without ceasing to be God. Voluntarily, in our likeness, he remained in the womb [of the Mother of God] for nine months, in the likeness of people he was born a pitiful baby, in our likeness he desired Mother’s milk and sought breasts, voluntarily in the likeness of people after birth he uttered indistinct childish sounds from his lips like a baby, in our likeness he crawled on the floor like a baby, [and only then] was taught by the Mother to walk and talk, cut his hair, like us, after a certain time and nails, had, like us, growth, limitation and whiteness of the body. [His] age increased, and all parts of the body grew, not in spite of us, so that His Incarnation could not be considered a fantasy and appearance. The formation of the body was not alien, not superior to man, and the appearance of the members of the body was not contrary to man. For the Lord took on the form of a slave, and therefore the body of a slave, and the plumpness of a slave, and the appearance of a slave, and the physicality of a slave, and the carnal corruption of a slave, and the mortality of a slave, and the physiological secretions of a slave - [tears] from the eyes, [saliva] from the mouth, skin secretions, sweat, and discharge after digesting food and drink. After all, He did not accept the body intact and incorruptible, [as it was] before the fall of man, since intact, incorruptible and immortal does not need treatment. So, God the Word bore my bodily illness and infirmity: corruption, fluidity, fatness, limitation, mortality, passion, desire for food and drink, fatigue, in order to free the body from all this. Therefore, there is no need to distort the words of the Fathers and Dionysius for me. For if, as you, a heretic, think, Christ did not accept any properties of our human nature and did not act like us, then He was no longer consubstantial with us in the flesh, His body did not have the same appearance as a human, the members of the body did not correspond to humans, and infancy was not like ours, and growth, and fetus in the Mother’s womb, and age were not like ours; He did not truly eat, nor, as befits a baby, grow, nor did He do, have, or create anything else that was God-created and impeccable from our nature. Finally, His sleep was not a true dream, nor death a true death, nor perforation by true perforation, nor the separation of His soul from a pure body by true separation, and the wounds in the members of the body and side were not bodily blows and wounds. For if He accomplished and endured everything that is ours above, that is, in spite of us, then you should not at all say that in Him there was anything in accordance with the law of nature: neither body, nor appearance, nor members of the body, nor sleep, nor image, nor the number of years, nor life, nor movement, nor the outline of the body, nor death. But this is not what the Divine Scriptures and [the Apostle] Paul teach, for we have heard him in all his divine epistles, and you will see that he calls our death a sleep, 759 but does not call the death of Christ a dream, but calls it the death of the Lord. For about us he says: “I do not want to leave you, brethren, ignorant about the dead” 760, “we will not all die” 761, “we will not warn the dead” 762, and so on, but about Christ: “died” 763 ... “according to the Scriptures, we proclaim His death 764”, “having been put to death 765 according to the flesh”, and in general, [the Apostle Paul] calls our death a sleep in various places in order to show that our resurrection will be, as it were, a [resurrection] from sleep, and he calls the death of Christ death in order to shame the heretics who say that the Incarnation and all the human properties of Christ were a ghostly image. It was not Paul who declared this, but Christ who dwells in him; His own death was called “death” by the One who, both after death and after His incorruptible Resurrection, as was said, [using baked fish and honey] for food and [showing] wounds from nails, assured us [of the truth of] the doctrine of the Incarnation. So, if Christ voluntarily and according to economy manifested in Himself not only what is ours, but also what is more inglorious, how can we say that He did not do anything at all on earth according to human nature? And if it is necessary to say this more precisely, we will say it, following the wise Cyril. After all, he says: “Some words about the Savior speak of Him as God, some as a man, others in some middle way.” 766 Therefore, Christ speaks either in the Divine, or in the human, or in both images, that is, God-husband; So, He performs all actions without fail either according to Divinity, or according to humanity, or jointly, according to the integrity of His person, that is, [when in action] Divinity [manifests] inseparably with the flesh, and humanity inseparably with Divinity. 767 6. If this is so, then why does your foremost fighter Timothy, condemning the Tomos of Leo, say in his instructions: “The nature of Christ, although incarnate, is one Divinity” 768? In the same way, Sevier and all of you dogmatize in Christ one nature - the Divine. So, tell us, wise men, is that same honest, holy and worshiped nature, which you confess in Christ the Son of God Divine, after being united forever, everywhere and in everything, no matter what Christ does, remains perfect, whole and impeccable, or not? To this the Sevirians and Guyanites unanimously answer: “Certainly, the nature of Christ after the union is perfect, flawless and indivisible forever, everywhere and in all actions, having no division, cutting, diminution or distinction, for Christ is one and He has one nature, and not two.” Scholium. So you ask them, and so set yourself up against them according to the following plan: ask the Jacobites about nature, and the Armasites 769 about divine action. Our answer to this. After all, if we recognize that Christ is one nature and all of it is known to be Divine, then He cannot at all undergo any decrease, deficiency, deprivation, division, damage or replenishment; for the Divine nature always and forever, completely and unchangeably remains equal to itself, since it cannot suffer either deficiency or addition, but always, everywhere and in all actions remains equal, whole and impeccable; So, if the nature and action of Christ alone are Divine, then Christ as God must certainly be recognized in everything as unchangeable and impeccable. Finally, listen to me, you heretic! Carefully follow the four main moments of the passion of Christ: when His dead body was in the tomb of Joseph, then when He descended from the tomb into hell for my sake, when from hell we were raised to heaven, and when from paradise He again went out into the garden outside the tomb, where Mary Magdalene saw Him in the form of a gardener. After all, if Christ, as you say, is only Divine, then He is conceived as God completely unchangeable and impeccable, for the Divine is impeccable. Then why is Christ not whole in the tomb, since the rational soul separated from Him when He said: “Father! into Your hands I commend My spirit" 770 ? Let us go down to hell and see Christ there as He empties the prison. Let's ask Adam, let's ask the bodies and lips of the resurrected saints, so that they tell us how they saw Christ in hell, by what body, by what nature, by what form did He descend into the underworld, how did He enter into the exploration of the abyss, by what terrible nature did He open the gates of death, by what form did the guards of hell tremble? Have they seen the naked Divine nature? Away! After all, “No one has ever seen God” 771 Then what? Have they seen the flesh of the Lord? No way! After all, she, deified, lay in the coffin, dead and motionless. So, on the cross, as the prophet says, “we saw Christ, and He had no bodily form, nor beauty, but His body was despised and made low before the sons of men.” 772 In the tomb we saw Him, and He had neither the soul nor the spirit of man. In hell we saw Him, and He had no body, no blood, no bones, no corporeality, no material image, but one rational, deified soul, separated from the body. In paradise, we saw Him with the thief, and He had neither soul nor body, but only being present everywhere as Divinity, He was together with the thief, just as [previously] the disembodied and incorporeal God was together with Adam, being visible to him and [at the same time] remaining invisible, as only God can. Then we saw Christ risen after a three-day burial, “returned to Himself,” 773 as Gregory [Nyssa] says, and seen in the garden first by Mary [Magdalene], and again body, soul, mind and God were together. Even after Christ did and fulfilled this, the heretics have now established that Christ is one nature, and all of it is Divine, although they heard the Apostle James theologize about the Divine nature: “The Divine nature has no change.” 774 So, if the Divine nature has no change, but complete identity, equality, impeccability, unshakable perfection, then in what nature of Christ, tell me, we invariably count such many changes: deficiencies, replenishments, divisions, restoration, separation of the soul from the body, a brief descent into hell, the return of the deified [soul] to its own co-divine body? “God, my King! “You are the same,” 775, exclaims the prophet about God the Word; just as God the Word Himself says: “See, see that it is I” 776 and: “I do not change.” 777 So, if the unique properties of God the Word are adopted by man, united to Him by hypostasis, why on the Cross He has neither form nor beauty, why in the tomb He was imperfect and without a rational soul, why in hell the soul was without its own body, why in Paradise on the day of Passion, being there with the thief, had neither body nor soul in hell? In short, if the heretics show us that the completely blameless Christ on the day of passion in the tomb, in hell and in heaven was together with soul and body, then it will become obvious that there is one essence and energy, and not two, as they said above: “Forever and everywhere and in all actions the nature of Christ is presented in fullness.” To this I will in turn say: “If Christ is one Divine nature, then what parts left it when He lay dead in the tomb? And in general, if it is possible for the Divine nature to suffer a deficiency, then in what part do you include His soul and in what part do you include the body? For if Christ is one essence, then it stands to reason that one part of it is the Word, the second is the body, and the third part is the soul. That is why, so that we do not get carried away by this lie and madness of yours, discovering in the Lord, the deified Man, these numerous constant changes, additions, deprivations, changes, improvements, visibility, transfiguration, growth, remodeling, and wanting to show that the unchangeable Divine nature of God the Word is free from all changes, transformations, shortcomings, growth and mortification, we call the humanity of Christ nature, that is, true reality, and we decisively consider the words of Severus and Severus blasphemous. Timothy, that “The nature of Christ is only Divine” 778.” 7. What, however, do these arrogant heretical rhetoricians answer for us again? “If not all of Christ is Divinity, then how did His saliva heal the blind 779, how did His tears raise Lazarus 780, why, wanting to drink in Samaria, He did not drink 781, why, being hungry after a forty-day fast, He did not eat 782? But we did not hear in the Gospel that He slept, except [only once] in the boat 783, nor that He drank. All this proves that the flesh became Divine and had no human properties. Therefore, the whole Christ is one nature.” Orthodox answer. It is timely for us to say to you now: “Oh, foolish ones and slow of heart to believe everything that the apostles and prophets predicted about Christ” 784! For, wishing, as you assert, to show that the whole of Christ is Divinity, you insult His very Divinity, considering it, like the Manichaeans and Arians, to be passionate and changing, like the creation. In fact, the divine and all-wise among teachers, Melito [of Sardis], in the Third Homily on the Incarnation of Christ, greatly condemns any interpreter who wants, with the help of what Christ accomplished after Baptism, to instill or assure that not only His soul, His body or His natural and sinless actions (that is, hunger, thirst, sleep, fatigue, tears, saliva, sweat, skin secretions, physiological secretions after consumption and digested food and drink) are true in nature, but also our impeccable natural spiritual properties, that is, sadness, anxiety and despondency. So, in composing [this work], the godly Melito speaks out against Marcion, for Marcion, like Sevirus and Gaian, denies the Economy of the Incarnation of Christ, exposing, turning to Saint Melito, these Gospel sentences and quotations, which these disciples of Marcion of Pontius now show us. Meliton very judiciously answers them: “Those who believe that Christ after Baptism acted out of necessity only of our human nature, revealing the truth and reality of His soul and body, are completely insane. For what Christ did after Baptism, and especially the signs, revealed and assured the world of His Divinity hidden in the flesh. For He, being both God and perfect Man, assured us of His two essences: in His Divinity through signs for three years after Baptism, and in His humanity for thirty years before Baptism, when He, although being the true eternal God, hid the sign of His Divinity through weakness in the flesh." 785 And, as the Gospel says, after His Baptism and before the miracle with wine at a wedding in Cana of Galilee 786 He did not openly perform a sign among people on earth, but for 30 whole years, as [the Apostle] Paul testifies, he lived in everything in our likeness except sin, 787 although both before and after the Incarnation He is the true God. Scholia. It should be noted that those who talk about the childish miracles of Christ are deceitful and despicable. So, if Christ was tempted for 30 years in all of our attributes, as [the Apostle] Paul says, 788 then let the heretics know that He, born voluntarily as God from the Holy Virgin, as a man wept as a child. And throughout His first three years, Jesus was tempted in all things in our likeness: by nature he cried many times as a child, many times experienced hunger and thirst and voluntarily, by childish nature, ate and drank, many times slept in a natural and sinless sleep, many times he spat and through his skin and lips showed the fluidity of the body, many times he became tired, voluntarily and in the form of a slave, as the Evangelist Luke says, he submitted to his parents, 789 many times. just like a child, but without passion and sin, he was worried and burdened; “For Christ had a body free from sin, without being freed from bodily needs,” 790 as John Chrysostom teaches in his interpretation of the Gospel of Matthew. After all, if He had rejected the natural and impeccable weaknesses and needs of our nature, then He would have rejected nature itself, as Chrysostom himself again points out to us. This godly father said this not on his own, but having been taught by [the Apostle] Paul, because he heard in his [Epistle] to the Hebrews about Christ: “As children share in flesh and blood, He also received them.” 791 Let the heretic finally tell me what the passionate natural impeccable properties of the flesh of children are, which the Word attributed [to Himself] shortly before [at the time of the Nativity] and to which Christ was involved if not food, drink, sleep, fatigue and so on? The apostle says about Christ: “For He does not receive angels, but He receives the seed of Abraham. Therefore, He had to be like the brethren in everything, in order to be merciful and faithful,” 792 ff.: “For we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but who has been tempted in all things like [us], yet without sin.” 793 Tempted in what? It is clear that in our flawless natural infirmities, because of which He voluntarily became man. So, when [the Apostle] Paul testifies that “Christ was tempted in all the weaknesses of our nature except sin,” you are no longer indignant because of our words that, having been born, Christ took on all our natural childhood properties of the body and impeccable passions. That is why I cited these testimonies, in which it was not me who said: “How is it clear that Christ, having become a man without seed and without sin, took on all our pure and impeccable natural actions?” In fact, look at the fact that the Mother of God and Mother of God Mary herself, who immeasurably received from the Holy Spirit and gave birth to Christ God Himself, right up to His Ascension from the earth, always called Him Her Son and Child, although she saw Him performing Divine signs and raising the dead. But since She saw that in Her childhood and all 30 years before Baptism He was tempted in everything like us, She called Him Her Son, although He was the true God. If what was said seemed harsh, unbearable and doubtful to you, tell me why then did the women bring myrrh to the tomb of Christ? After all, it is not the Divinity that needs a fragrant and fragrant world, but a material body, smoldering and stinking, therefore Nicodemus, thinking humanly, covered the deified body of Christ with myrrh and aloes. Therefore, having our like-minded people and true witnesses who were eyewitnesses, ministers and contemporaries of Christ in the flesh, we will obey them more than anyone else. After all, they tell us about the birth of the infant Jesus, about feeding on breast milk, about lying in a manger with the little body of the ancient great God, about infant tears, about sleep, about the silence of the mouth, as Isaiah says, “before the child can say: my father, my mother,” 794 about the growth of hair, nails and body parts, about the formation of a more specific appearance in the image of our body, about the deprivation of childhood infirmities from tendons, bones, arms and legs, about the growth of teeth in due time according to nature, about the loss of milk teeth and the growth of mature teeth, about learning to walk with the help of the Mother’s hands. Scholium. We confess that this is in Christ according to the energy of the body. If, after what has been said, you, a heretic, are indignant and tremble, what will you do if you hear about the discarded flesh and flowing blood after the circumcision of Christ on the eighth day, or about various cuttings and discarding of hair and nails carried out by Him? After all, the Law of God commands the Jews to cut their hair and not let their hair grow. For your sake, I deliberately remain silent about the clots of blood that flowed onto the earth from the side of Jesus, and about the cutting off from the hypostatic flesh of God. This is the same as not believing the testimony of the evangelists that “Jesus increased in wisdom and stature,” 795 leaving the age of an infant and passing into the age of a child, a youth, a teenager, a youth, a young man, and into the age of perfection according to the Law. 8. For if God voluntarily assumed the impeccable properties of bodily nature not according to natural law (especially before Baptism), then why was He, being omnipotent, not immediately after birth placed in a manger; why didn’t he start walking immediately after birth? why didn’t he immediately start saying “mom” and “dad”; why didn’t he immediately have perfect teeth, hair and other parts of his body; why was he not covered with some appearance, better and more glorious than human appearance? For if this were so, then the parents and the world would immediately know that He is God and not a man. And if they knew this, they would not call Him their Son, would not subjugate Him to themselves and would not teach Him to obey. [Porphyry] Bataneoth 796 the younger says: “Moreover, if Jesus wanted to assure that He is a Man above man, then why did He not again gather Jews and Greeks from all nations in Zion, as was the case at Pentecost, and Man did not descend from heaven so that everyone could see, just as He was going to descend at His Second Coming, and so that He was surrounded by tongues of fire, just as He descended in the form of fire to Mount Sinai, and all Israel saw it; 797 then, when the people saw it, would they believe?” 798 This is what Ammonius of Alexandria writes to [Julian] Halicarnassus: “If Christ wanted His body to be known and proclaimed to be completely above the human, then why was He in complete submission to the Wife and Mother Mary; why did it settle in the womb? After all, without a wife and mother He created Adam from non-existence into existence, and without birth He could create a man for Himself, dwell in him and live in the world. Again, if He did not at all want to be like us in the flesh except for sin, 799 why was He not covered with a starry, sun-shaped or crystal-shaped body, why did He not have a radiant face, like Adam when he was just created, and Moses on Mount Sinai? 800 For, being God, he must have the most magnificent appearance in order to assure the world that He is God. Why didn’t he appear and communicate with us in the same form in which he appeared and communicated with Adam [in paradise], when he did not eat, did not drink, did not sleep, did not get tired, did not spit, did not cry, did not suffer? 801 For He could appear to us in the same form in which He communicated with Adam, without frightening or confusing him, and in which He again appeared face to face to Abraham 802 and Jacob, whom He did not overcome [during the struggle] 803 Likewise, the prophets, Nebuchadnezzar, Moses, and many others saw the appearance of God without a body; and not only they, but all human nature desires to see Christ walking in the glory of His Father; and He communicated with the apostles for 40 days, being in immortality after His Resurrection. Why did He appear to the world not in an angelic nature, but in corruptible, passionate and mortal flesh? 804 Orthodox: If Christ had appeared in some more glorious and unusual form, they would have immediately believed that He was God. We will try to compile examples from the historical books [of the Old Testament]. God, having created Adam in the beginning in the image and likeness of God, sent into his face through inspiration the grace, splendor and radiance of the Most Holy Spirit. 805 Then, through disobedience and sin, having removed this grace from his face, he gave birth to Cain, and gave birth to Abel. 806 After this, listen to what the Scripture says: “Adam lived two hundred and thirty years and begat a son in his own likeness in his own image,” 807 that is, he had the image and luster of his face like the one who was created by God in the beginning. “And he called his name Seth,” 808 that is, resurrection, 809 when he saw on his face the renewed original and unusual same appearance, grace and brilliance of the Most Holy Spirit; and all the people, seeing it on the face of Seth, immediately called him god. And therefore the Scripture said about his sons: “The sons of God (that is, the sons of Seth) saw the daughters of men (from the line of Cain)... and they took [them] as their wives” 810 For they were partakers of the grace of the Holy Spirit until God said: “My Spirit shall not be despised by men.” 811 Moreover, Seth, having such an unusual appearance of his face, remained among people for 905 years 812 and everyone called him god. And Nebuchadnezzar, for his unusual appearance, called the fourth [man in the oven] the son of God 813 And Manoah called the special appearance of the Angel God 814 Likewise, Jacob the Stranger, Who made him lame, called him the appearance of God 815 And the ventriloquist, seeing the unusual image, called them gods 816 And Moses remained for forty years in this unusual image of the face. 817 And why did not Christ appear to people with a face as glorious as theirs, so that people would believe that He was truly God; and why does He not have an image superior to this material, earthly and corruptible image, but humbled and humbled Himself, voluntarily taking on the image of a servant, 818 as a result of which He most humbly humbled Himself in this humility? After all, He was not the son of a king on earth, not the son of a high priest, not the son of a ruler, not the son of a queen, but [came] from poor parents, from the miserable village of Nazareth, and not from some capital and not from Jerusalem, but from a poor area, from poor Joseph, this miserable carpenter; their life was poor. As a result, in Bethlehem “there was no room for them in the inn,” 819 and they did not have many slaves, animals and mules. Therefore, the whole life of Christ on earth passed in poverty, and He walked, the Lord of heaven and earth was on foot and without servants, walked from house to house, lived as a guest [not having His own home], all his life he received food and care [only] from the women who followed Him. 820 Christ did all this, characteristic of dishonor, not rashly, but since because of the exaltation of man [promised by the serpent] to become a god, then with such indescribable humility Christ accomplished everything that concerns the House of His Incarnation, so humbled that His funeral shroud itself was not brought from his parental home, but Joseph [of Arimathea] voluntarily brought it. 821 Therefore, having learned the purpose of the voluntary humility of Christ, who humbled and humbled Himself in order to destroy the arrogance of the enemy, we are not afraid to follow [the Apostle] Paul in saying that “Jesus was tempted in all our infirmities except sin only.” 822 And especially what was said about Him before Baptism: removal [to Egypt from the wrath of Herod], growth from infancy to man perfect, food, thirst, fatigue, tears and the rest of our properties, which we oppose against the heretics (I’m talking about the fact that for 30 years they were voluntarily filled by Him), I’m not talking about the fact that after Baptism, Christ, fighting with humanity, no longer openly shows these properties: no sleep, no need for food and drink, no fatigue, no tears, no sadness, no anxiety, or anything else material. After all, if for three years after Baptism He did nothing human at all: did not eat, did not drink, did not sleep, did not get tired, did not spit, did not cry, then the heretics, perhaps, help us confirm the whole truth and reality of His humanity, which He showed by manifesting our properties 30 years before Baptism. And yet there is a transmitted law from the apostolic canons that an opinion on all questions and dogmas concerning Christ must be formed, taking into account many testimonies and quotations. 9 . However, having examined with the help of the holy evangelists, that Christ, even after His Baptism, voluntarily endured and accomplished something even more humble, more pitiful and more inglorious than everything human that He did before His Baptism, although He is the true God both before and after the Incarnation. So, tell me, what can be more humble, more pitiful and more inglorious for God than the following: Creator of heaven and earth, “being the radiance of the glory of the Father and the image of His hypostasis and upholding all things by the word of His power,” 823 being the God of all, the consubstantial and monoglorious Word of the Father, coeternal with the Most Holy Spirit, the uncreated, unchangeable, self-radiant only begotten Son, voluntarily from evildoers, as an evildoer among villains, 824 betrayed by the flesh to a shameful death, captured at night like a robber, imprisoned in chains, was struck, had his clothes torn off, spit upon, strangled, scourged, was, like a condemned man, crucified naked on a tree, his arms, legs and ribs were pierced, and did not defend himself, although He is the omnipotent God, but humbly, like a sheep, accepted death for us. 825 Wherefore we then truly knew that He was in our likeness, when He became truly dead, then we saw His face in our likeness, “and there was in Him neither form nor majesty... but He was despised and made low before men.” 826 Scholia. “There was no form in Him,” says [the prophet Isaiah], “but He was despised and despised before men,” 827 that is, more than all condemned people. Then God truly became dead in the likeness of dead people, was laid in a tomb in human likeness, and we saw Him lying dead, the deified body, separated from the soul, was truly dead, inanimate, silent, lifeless, not speaking, motionless, unseeing, not teaching, insensitive, truly the dead body of God, like all the dead. Contemplating this great sight of the death of the Divine body, we are amazed; and repeating the previously spoken words that heretics usually put forward to us, we, looking at the most holy body of Christ, ask them: “If “the Word became flesh, so that the flesh also became the Word,” 828 then why does the body, which shortly before spoke on the Cross, now in the tomb not utter a word, although it carries within itself the silent God of the Word? If Christ did not do anything human according to man, then why did He suffer death in the likeness of men? And if He was above nature in all our natural properties, then why did He appear to be separated from the soul according to our nature? For if “the Body was created the same as God the Word who created it,” then it is obvious that it was not mortal in the grave, but immortal, like God the Word, and dead only in a ghostly way. And if “the flesh, like a drop of vinegar mixed with the abyss of the Divine, no longer has human properties,” then Nicodemus and Joseph or a ghost and a shadow were wrapped in a shroud and placed in a coffin, or the abyss of one Divinity, tied up, wrapped in a shroud and imprisoned [in a coffin]; and if the nature of the Deity was limited in the grave, transforming and changing the body into its own nature, then why did He who gave the inanimate sky the ability to make the sounds of thunder did not give the dead, inanimate body in the grave the opportunity to make the sounds of speech; why did He who moves the inanimate earth from its place 829 not stir His inanimate flesh, which is in the grave; Why did He who opened the mouth of the dead, [rising] from the tombs, 830 not open His mouth in the tomb? If the body of Christ became Divinity through deification, then why does He who contemplates everything as God does not contemplate and see, but He who has in Himself “the Light... Which enlightens every man,” 831 has his bodily eyes closed; why is He who holds the life of the world in Himself not alive; Why does He who is inseparable from God, the Breath and Life of all, not breathe? After all, the power and action of God the Word in Him is stronger and prevails over the power and action of the soul separated from Him when He said on the Cross: “Father! into Your hands I commend My spirit.” 832 So, if the Creator of nature created all the natural properties of nature and did something human not like a man, then He had to accomplish the death of the body not like us. And if you truly proclaim the true death of Christ, the true separation of the soul from the body, the three-day death in a false tomb, and truly proclaim the silence, blindness and immobility of the dead body, then know for sure, children of heresies, that Christ, even after the union, did not perform everything that was ours above us - the body did not become the same as the Word that created it: unlimited, invisible, uncreated and without beginning, did not mix, did not change and did not turn into unlimited the consubstantial abyss of the Divine, like a drop of vinegar; but even after the union, the Divinity remains invisible in its own properties of nature, and the body remains visible, limited and created.” Scholium. This can also be asked of the Armasites in order to confuse them. Preserve for me, faithful one, during the war with strangers, like the best Thracian double-edged sword, this Cross of Christ and this coffin. And when they expose their crafty theopaschytic nonsense, bring them to this Cross, so that, having penetrated, you can stab them. When they dogmatize the illusory nature and denial of our nature in Christ, transfer them to the Holy Sepulcher, so that, having killed them, hand them over to hell. 10. And so Ammonius of Alexandria, one of the most experienced exegetes, thus struck [Julian] of Halicarnassus. When he saw that Julian was leaning towards the ghostly form [of humanity in Christ], and here and there he spoke of the deification and change into the abyss of the Divinity of the holy flesh of Christ, likening it to drops of vinegar, then, trying on the face of [Paul] of Samosata, as if gnashing and attacking those who deviate from the truth, Saint Ammonius said to Julian: “It is clear to everyone, one way or another, that Christ the Son of God is true God, and His holy body is truly Divine through deification, and “in Him dwells all the fullness of the Divinity.” 833 The thinker is not so alien and hostile to His holy Divinity. And yet, because you often and bitterly argue, denying the human nature of Christ, I adapt and put on the face of [Paul] of Samosata, or better than the unbelieving Jew Philo the philosopher. After all, he, objecting to the apostolic disciple Mnason, at one time asked Mnason about the deity of Christ: "Has anyone in any way proven that Christ is God? For even if you call His birth from the Virgin unfamilyless, then the origin of Adam, created by God with His own hands, animated by Divine inspiration, is more glorious and unusual; 834 it is more pure than the nine-month dwelling of Jesus in a woman's womb, among excrement, food and uncleanness. Even if you call the signs that He performed after His Baptism, then I tell you that no one on earth performed such signs and wonders as Moses did for 40 years. Even if you again point out to me the resurrected dead Jesus, then the prophet Ezekiel raised an immense multitude of dead people from dry bones, 835 and Jesus himself said that some people will do greater signs than He. 836 If you tell us that Jesus is like God. was taken into heaven, here the prophet Elijah was taken with even greater glory onto a fiery chariot with fiery horses, 837 therefore calling Jesus “Divine Heaven” is your greatest blasphemy. After all, God Himself said to Moses: “Man cannot see My face and live.” 838 And your Scripture testifies: “No man has ever seen God,” 839 God, “Whom no man has seen, nor can see.” 840 And how are Christian preachers not ashamed to call Jesus God? After all, it is said: “God... is a consuming fire.” 841 Tell me, is the fiery God hungry? Is the Fire God thirsty? Does the Fire God spit? Is the Burning God crying? The Fiery God is circumcised, bleeds and throws the circumcised flesh, blood and excrement from the abdomen to the ground? All this, at that time thrown by Jesus to the earth, was eaten and devoured by dogs or wild animals and birds, all that was circumcised from His flesh was trampled by cattle; separated and discarded, be it saliva, be it nails, be it hair, be it blood, be it sweat, be it tears - all these certain parts are co-essential with the essence of the body, and due to growth they are cut off and discarded. After all, you say that Jesus in His flesh became like men in everything except sin, and therefore you preach that, having been dead for three days, He is God. And what kind of God is this – “a consuming fire” – Who can die when neither angels, nor evil demonic spirits, nor the souls of people can die? What kind of God is this, tell me, who has the power over life and death, Who runs away, as Jesus ran away from Herod, so as not to be killed when he was a Child? What kind of God is this, Who is being tempted by the devil for 40 days? What kind of God is this who has become “a curse,” 842 as Paul speaks of Jesus? And what kind of infallible God is this who makes sin? After all, you say that Jesus became “sin.” 843 If He is God, then why did He pray that the cup of death would pass from Him and was not heard? If He is God, then why, abandoned by God, said: “My God, My God, why have you forsaken Me?” 844 Is God abandoned by God? God asks God: “Do not leave My soul in hell”? 845 Is God tied up, slapped, spat on and killed? So, if He was God, then He needed to defeat those who wanted to arrest Him, just as during the time of Lot the Angel struck the Sodomites, 846 but you call the powerlessness of Jesus patience.”847 Scholia. Excommunication and curse upon you, 848 because the demons themselves confessed Christ as the Son of God. 849 Listen to this, choirs of heretics, who wish to glorify Christ and because of this refuse to confess the nature of His most holy body. In fact, the wicked Philo showed dissatisfaction not at all with the word “nature,” however, tempted by the passions and reproaches of Christ, he struck not only all the pagans, but also the unbelievers. So, if you want to glorify this inglorious glory, saying that the flesh died because of the victory of the stronger, became equal to the abyss of the Divinity, and became like the Word that created it, then you do not profess any of the specified passions listed in the offensive (or rather self-accusatory) words of the wicked Philo about Christ. After all, the presence of these most inglorious passions is higher than the expression of human nature, will or energy in Christ Himself. The follower of Nestorius, the wicked Maron of Edessa, who follows Philo along this path of destruction, writing against those who confess Christ as God, says this in his wicked work: “Those convinced by the Egyptian Cyril philosophize this way: “The Divinity was inseparable from the body of Jesus in the tomb, changing it from destruction to immortality.” Like children participating in a theatrical performance, someone will ask them: “Is there a place, foolish ones, where the unlimited Divinity is not present?” After all, filling heaven and earth and being present everywhere, It was certainly present in the tomb of Jesus, as well as in all creation. And the fact that the body of Christ passed from destruction to immortality is not surprising; for unbelievers and pagans are raised from death, having incorruptible bodies.” 850 Scholia. Anathema to you 851 forever. Chapter 14. Ammonius of Alexandria against the Monophysites 1. From the Word 15 of Ammonius the Presbyter of Alexandria on the heresy of Eutyches and Dioscorus. “Indeed, perhaps, among those who condemn the Council of Chalcedon and deny the nature of the flesh of Christ, turmoil does arise: after all, it is this visible body, in need of care, growing, swaddled, circumcised, touched, imprisoned, struck, pierced, killed, carried, buried, anointed, mourned, crushed, they refuse to call what is tasted, crumbled, passed on [to believers for communion] nature, that is, true reality, and the invisible Word, Which they have not seen and will not see, have not touched and will not touch, have not comprehended with the mind and will not comprehend, have not described, have not subjected to death, have not crushed, have not eaten (absolutely nothing from Him can be comprehended by the mind: neither nature, nor form, nor appearance, nor color, nor appearance, nor size, nor movement, nor change, nor descent, nor coming [to earth] or departing [to heaven], nor anything else that exists in God the Word), - They confess Him to be the essence. And so (I said to them as if recklessly) they trust more in visible and tangible things and are more likely to confess that they have an essence than in invisible and intangible things, but they believe the word by hearing. 852 For we have received faith in the Divinity of Christ by hearing, and faith in His flesh by the experience of seeing and touching things. It is more useless to convince only unbelievers who ask our proofs about the nature of the Divinity of Christ, and what His nature is, and whence it is clear that God the Creator of all things was in His flesh; To this vainly zealous one we can only say: “Believers received all [knowledge] about the Divinity only through faith, faith simple, artless, not evil, even if they were certified through the divine signs of Christ in the truth of His Divinity.” 853 However, you briefly heard one of the opponents compare the miracles of Christ with the countless signs of Moses. In fact, I once talked in Antinopolis with the Jewish sophist Collutus, and he compared the miracles of Christ and the signs of Moses; further I say: “Moses, as a prophet, performed signs through prayer, and Christ, as God, of his own free will, performed miracles without prayer,” to which the Jew said: “And Christ raised up Lazarus through prayer, 854 and through prayer multiplied the five loaves, 855 and He prayed that the cup would pass from Him, 856 and on the mountain alone he prayed to God as a man, 857 and prayed to God for those who crucified him: “Forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.” 858 And if without prayer he did some signs, but not miracles, then Moses also performed miracles both with prayer and without prayer, and Elijah also multiplied oil and flour without prayer, 859 divided the Jordan without prayer, 860 and Elisha blessed the oil without prayer, 861 destroyed death in the cauldron, 862 without prayer cleansed the leprosy of Naaman, 863 and [already] dead Elisha raised a dead man. 864 And if you tell me that Moses and the prophets were sent by God as servants, and I will tell you that Christ also said that God sent Him and that He could do nothing without God, 865 and what He proclaims, He received orders from God to say this and to proclaim this, 866 and not to do His will, but of Him who sent Him. 867 And if, as you say, there was an earthquake and darkness when Jesus was crucified, 868 then there were signs and earthquakes even when other saints were often unlawfully killed by certain wicked people.” Scholium. It is not thoughtlessly that we present here [the opinions of] the wicked Philo, Maron and Collutus, for it is possible to destroy enemies with the help of enemy weapons. It is suitable against all heresies, so that they will not be associated with us. 2. When unbelievers and atheists in this and the like way talk a lot and blaspheme the Divinity of Christ, let the opponents, who say that the flesh of the Lord was swallowed up and became like the abyss of the invisible Divinity, tell us why they are convinced that Christ is God, if only not by simple faith. We not only believe in the nature of His body, but we also see and touch it through real experience and partake of it, daily by nature and truly tasting it. So, I believe that everyone who rejects and denies nature and everything that relates to the nature of the body of Christ, and all the natural properties of the body, from that vile Mani to the present [heretics], have deviated from [the confession of the nature of the body in Christ] and avoid [this confession] only because the life of all of them is completely unclean due to fornication, dissipation, lust and pleasure, due to irritation with pleasures their bodies, minds and souls, due to the fact that night and day they are defiled by thoughts and deeds of lust, depravity, sodomy, womanizing, pleasure and carnal debauchery, due to the fact that in themselves they constantly feel the kindling of the carnal flame, as if some kind of flame from a terrible furnace, and the kindling of dissolute lust; therefore they think that the nature of the body is unclean and completely unworthy, even if they simply confess in one word that Christ took on our body, human flesh, energy, will and all the properties that are consubstantial with us, for these completely defiled and unclean pigs believe that since their flesh is drowned in luxury and vice, which gives pleasure, then all flesh and every human body acts in the same way: it is at enmity against nature, is desecrated, goes berserk and burns due to unclean carnal lust and insane luxury. You will find that Valentine, being in such an unclean state and carnal inflammation, was the first after the apostolic times to proclaim that Christ did not take on our flesh. The wicked Mani, overcome by such carnal impurity, believed that the body of Christ, which [His contemporaries] saw, was a shadow and appearance, but was not nature. Therefore, he taught that our flesh is not the creation of God, but the creation of the devil: “And for this reason,” he says, “it is so strongly inflamed and fought by the demon who created it, for good does not live in us, that is, in our flesh, therefore “the flesh desires what is contrary to the spirit, and the spirit is contrary to the flesh,” 869 “the carnal mind is enmity against God,” 870 “Who will deliver me from this body?” death? ", 871 "that flesh and blood will not inherit the Kingdom of God" 872 and "those who live according to the flesh cannot please God" 873." 874 The wicked Mani then wrote and distorted [the Holy Scriptures] in this and similar way, just as after a long time, enchanted and delighted by the books of Mani and Valentine and, at the same time, having passionate and unclean excitement of the flesh and shameful movements that suppressed and darkened their minds, Archimandrite Eutyches and Dioscorus, Timothy and Sevirus and especially Julian of Halicarnassus, in a Manichaean manner, refused and They still refuse to recognize the nature and all the natural properties of the most holy body of Christ, and because of this they say that He is only Divinity, believing that those who confess His flesh by nature confess in God something vicious, unclean and unworthy. I now state this not from conjecture, but from my own experience, having heard it in Alexandria and other places from heretical lips, and especially from the Guyanites, who, hating and condemning the nature of our body as something unclean and vicious, did not accept the confession of our body as consubstantial or suffering equally [with the body] in Christ; they, mentioning the natural infirmity of the flesh, which due to lawless disobedience we have suffered (i.e., fetid putrid discharge from the womb after digestion of food and drink, sweat, foul odor from the teeth, ejection of excrement, pus, stench and worms in the wounds), they say that the nature of such a body is completely unworthy even to touch God; having lost their reason, they do not know that God the Word, the heavenly “Consuming Fire,” 875 became human in no other way, namely through our passions, so that, uniting them with the Own nature of the rational fire of the Divine, as if through purification by fire, restore man to the initial state of incorruptibility, dispassion, immortality, the absence of internal currents and the need for food and incense. Therefore, because of such weakness and impurity of our earthly flesh, Christ said: “I have come to bring down fire on the earth,” 876 that is, to unite the Divinity with our earthly nature. So, they are clearly exposed as hating our nature, [created] in the image and likeness of God, condemning and insulting our body, created and formed by the hands of God and animated by God's breath; By mocking man as unclean according to the teachings of the Manichaeans, they insult the creation and the likeness of His image. Indeed, if the image of the invisible God is unclean, why is everything that God created “very good”? 877 However, heretics suffer this punishment, as stated above, because of the inherent impurity of their carnal nature and because of the conquering action of the devil in their souls and bodies. After all, none of them is pure in heart, so that, according to the word of Christ, they can see God dwelling within themselves. 878 None of them knew or contemplated the Kingdom of Heaven within themselves. 879 None of them has the treasure of the Spirit in a clay vessel of the body. 880 None of them bore the image of the heavenly God in their hearts. 881 None of them became like the Son of God in glory. 882. For if they knew that he who unites with the Lord, as the apostle says, himself becomes one spirit with the Lord, 883 and himself becomes the Lord, if they knew that the worthy become gods and sons of the Most High, 884 if they believed that Christ and the Father will come and make a home with man, 885 if they knew how man becomes the church of God and the Spirit of God lives in him, 886 and, I say briefly, if they had put on Christ according to the words: “all of you who were baptized into Christ have put on Christ,” 887 then Christ Himself, living in them, would have taught them how He lives in their flesh as God and walks [in them], 888 and how this clay body, by the fire of the Spirit, has already become like the glory of the image of Christ, 889 and how it has been cleansed from all uncleanness and become in the image and likeness God, as it was from the beginning through union and communication with the Divine. After all, where the Divine lives, especially in essence, everything is immaculate, everything is holy, everything is pure, everything is worthy of God, nothing deserves contempt, nothing is unclean, nothing is hostile to God: neither body, nor soul, nor mind, nor nature, nor will, nor energy. But, as has been said, because the heretics, as they themselves assert, were not created dispassionate in the flesh and pure in nature, and that all flesh, in their likeness, acts in subordination to the impurity of pleasures, they refused to confess that in Christ is human nature and all natural properties. “Well then,” says [the heretic], Nestorius and those who confess with him that in Christ our nature with all its properties participate in the Holy Spirit? Down with absurdity! After all, they are all the more [unparticipated in the Spirit] because the Divinity does not live in them, and because they refuse to confess that Christ is truly God and that the Holy Mother of God Mary is truly the Mother of God. Chapter 15. Another chapter against their new holiday [message] About the festive, or rather sad [because of the heretical teaching it contains], 6 epistle of the current Theodosian bishop in Alexandria, sent to Babylon. 890 However, what do those who call Christ have one nature again tell us? After all, they say: “If we name two natures in Him, then with all necessity we must recognize two natures in the Holy Trinity. For if anything is united with Christ, one of the Holy Trinity, then it is numbered among the whole Trinity.” How truly excellent is the great wisdom of madmen! What a wonderful statement from Mani's new students! “Therefore,” he says, we did not name in Christ either two united natures, or will, or, again, energy, since, perhaps, everything that we confessed in Christ, one of the Holy Trinity, we should have meant all this in the entire Holy Trinity. Scholium. The Theodosian Bishop John 891 five years earlier in two of his celebratory [epistles] declared: “Everything that is said about Christ is said about the Father and the Holy Spirit.” Then the first [message] fell into our hands; a year later he said the same thing again. The ill-fated rhetoricians are clearly at enmity with Gregory the Theologian, for he says in the Word about the Son: “What is said about the Trinity in the singular, in the incarnation of Christ it is the other way around [dual], and again - what is plural in the Trinity is singular in the Economy”; So, we are taught to confess one essence of the Holy and consubstantial Trinity, one will, one energy, and in the incarnation of the One from the Holy Trinity - two willing and acting natures, united by hypostasis. Therefore, following the divine Gregory, we wisely call the difference of energies and wills in Christ, for he says: “What is said about the Trinity in the singular, in the Incarnation it is the other way around [dual].” After all, in the Trinity there is Another and Another, but in Christ there is no Other and Another, but there is another and another, but in the Trinity there is no other and another. 892 However, the Egyptians did not recognize this with their minds, did not understand it. Those who say: “If anything is added and said about Christ, it is united with the whole Trinity,” they pass into darkness [heresies]. Come on, listen to your tragedy, which you, as two united theatrical choirs of comrades, sing antiphonally to each other: you apply expressions concerning Christ to the Trinity. And if it is necessary for me to play along and dance for you, then I will begin the tragedy now. I say: “The Word became flesh.” 893 The Sevirians answer: “The Trinity became flesh. For everything that belongs to Christ is united with the Trinity.” I say: “Mary is the Mother of Christ.” The Sevier Choir proclaims: “Mary is the Mother of the Trinity.” We say that the Nativity of Jesus was in Bethlehem in a manger. The theater proclaims: “The Trinity-baby is laid in the manger.” I play the flute again for you to dance, and I sing sad songs for you to weep. 894 I say, “Christ was tempted according to the flesh.” You who dance say: “The Trinity is tempted in the flesh.” I say that Christ is circumcised in the flesh, the Sevirians answer, playing the flute, that the Trinity is circumcised. I say: “We strike Christ.” The choir sings: “The Trinity is struck.” I say: “Christ has become a curse.” 895 The Sevirians answer: “The Trinity has become an oath.” The Church says: “Christ is betrayed.” The Sevirians say: “The Trinity is betrayed.” We say: “Christ according to the flesh wept and was weary.” The Sevirians say: “The Trinity wept and became weary.” I say: “Christ suffered in the flesh.” The Sevirians say: “The Trinity suffered.” The Church says: “Christ died.” The Sevirians say: “The Trinity is dead, since everything that is said about Christ applies to Her.” Having written this, I fear that I have drowned in the depths of blasphemy. However, the acephalus, rightly rejecting the above, says: “Only that which concerns the essence in Christ applies equally to the whole Trinity.” But, objecting to this, I will say: “This is your teaching that is wicked and lawless. For how can you say: “one incarnate nature of the Trinity,” how can the Trinity be one hypostasis of two natures, how can there be two births in the Trinity: [pre-eternal and in time from the Virgin Mary], how can there be two natures in the Trinity with their own properties, how can the Trinity, like Christ, be visible and invisible? And if everything that is in Christ is conceived both in the Father and in the Spirit, then it is clear that everything that is in them is also conceived in Christ. Then Christ is one nature, existing in three hypostases and persons, Himself both begotten and unbegotten, and proceeding, and Parent and Child, according to the wickedness of the criminal Sabellius, into which those who say that nature and hypostasis are one and the same fall in every way, for for them it is equally the same to say that the Hypostasis of God is incarnate, and to say that the nature of the Trinity is incarnate, if nature and hypostasis are one and the same.” But, as one would expect, the heretics chose to throw numerous mountains at each other and carry nonsense and blasphemy against our Orthodox faith, which has established the unshakable and unshakable rock of Orthodoxy at its foundation, against which the gates of hell, that is, the words of the heretics, are at enmity, but they will not overcome it by the grace of Christ, the Son of God, who founded it, 896 to whom be glory eyelids. Amen. Chapter 16 The words of the Sevirian bishop Gavalon on the apostolic expression about Christ: “in Him dwells all the fullness of the 897 Divinity bodily.” 898 “Of course, if the Divinity is unlimited and immeasurable, then it is impossible to say that in Christ there is completeness, and all of it. After all, it is obvious that what is filled has completeness, has quantity, and limitation, and place in space; whenever it is said that Christ is “the fulfillment of the 899 law,” 900 that is, “the end of the law is Christ,” 901 and again: “the fullness of time,” 902 and “the full [number] 903 of the pagans of the earth,” 904 it is impossible for Him to be above all, for everything listed means: everything from the temporal, and everything from the world, and everything from the heavenly, and everything from the water. But the Divinity is and is called above all things, not having fullness, but having overflowing. So how do we think about the “fullness of the Godhead” in Christ? Namely in the sense that He Himself said: “I am not alone, but My Father is with Me” 905 and “The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me; for He has anointed Me" 906 ". 907 So, we ask: how, did the fullness of the three Hypostases, that is, the Persons [of the Holy Trinity] “become flesh and dwelt among us”? 908 No way! After all, the Word became flesh was revealed on earth. But since the Mystery of the Incarnation of the Son was accomplished by the good will and message from the Father, and by the assistance and overshadowing of the Most Holy Spirit, that is why it is said: “the whole fullness of the Divinity” 909 with all the natural, and not hypostatic, properties of the Trinity Divinity, for the Person of the unborn Father and the Hypostasis of the outgoing Holy Spirit were not incarnate, but the sacrament of the Trinity is inseparable. Scholium. So Saint Dionysius said that the Father and the Holy Spirit were in Christ by a common will, that is, by favor and overshadowing. 910 For the Father, the Son and the Spirit have neither spatial limitations and divisions, nor three separate spatial dwellings, like Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, but the mystery of the Trinity is that They come from each other, being closely united and dwelling in each other. But since in the indwelling and manifestation of the Word the Son Himself and the Word became Christ, 911 whom the Father anoints, and His anointing is the Holy Spirit, therefore it is said: “in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily.” 912 For in each one performing the anointing there was a collaboration and meeting of certain Three, that is, the Anointing One, the Anointed One and the Anointing, which are not united hypostatically, but are cognizable in joint collaboration. Therefore, one of the Holy Fathers says: “Thanks to this, it was not the Father or the Holy Spirit who became incarnate, but the Son, so that the fusion of hypostatic properties did not occur in the Holy Trinity. For if a Father is born on earth, then the result is a Son-Father.” 913 Therefore, the Son, as befits the Divinity, was born from above, and He is the Son, born below, so that even after this birth, the ungeneracy of the Father, the birth of the Son, and the emanation of the Holy Spirit were preserved in the Trinity. Chapter 17. Proof that the Father or the Holy Spirit was not incarnate with the Son The aporia, or rather the outflow, of 914 Sevirians to the Universal Church. “If the Holy Trinity has one nature, and this very nature in the contemplated Hypostasis of the Son is separately contemplated as perfect and immaculate, and the Son is incarnate, then it turns out that all the fullness of the Divinity is certainly incarnate according to what has been said: “in Him dwells all the fullness of the Divinity bodily” 915 916 Orthodox answer. In the Word’s own Hypostasis the integrity of the Trinity being is not contemplated, as Sabelli’s fusion asserts. For the Word is neither unbegotten, nor begetting, nor uncaused, has neither one who sits on His right hand, 917 nor one who exists in His bosom, 918 like the Father, nor has the procession of the Spirit and none of the other hypostatic properties of the Father and the Holy Spirit, for the Son is not unbegotten, like the Father, the Son is not a Parent, like the Father; again, the Son is not without cause, neither proceeding nor sending the Father, but is sent by the Father [into the world]. And therefore, the Hypostasis of the Son is incarnate; neither the ungeneracy of the Father nor the outgoing Hypostasis of the Holy Spirit is incarnate with Him. But since all the natural properties of the Trinity, that is, originlessness, uncreatedness, unlimitedness, immutability, eternity, goodness, life-giving and all the like, without changing and remaining of the same nature, just as in the Father and in the Holy Spirit, are contemplated in the Son, therefore it is said: “in Him dwells all the fullness of the Divinity bodily” 919 and therefore it is said that Christ is perfect in the Divinity. And so, like this, He, called perfect in humanity, did not combine in His Incarnation all the hypostatic properties of people: He was not unborn, like Adam, was not born from a rib, like Eve, did not have the height of giants or the appearance of Ethiopians, but they had these hypostatic properties. But since He voluntarily assumed all the common natural properties of man, that is, he became created, visible, corruptible, mortal, and so on, but, unlike us, immaculate, 920 as Paul says, therefore we recognize Him as perfect in humanity. So, in Christ “all the fullness of the Godhead” 921 and humanity is contemplated by natural properties. For if one nail is colored red, then the flesh and bone of the finger are not colored with it, although all three are inseparable from each other. So, the Father and the Spirit were not stained by hypostasis and did not bleed along with the Son. Once again, as before God, I proclaim the good news that a great misfortune comes to all who say that nature is a hypostasis: they fall into the wickedness of Sabellius, Arius and Nestorius. After all, if Venus alone is covered with a cloud, it cannot be said that all the stars, as special hypostases, are covered with it, but we can only say that each has a common property of the nature of light. Scholium. The last notebook 922 [of our essay] contains the corresponding [argument]. Scholium. Heretics fall into these wickednesses because they believe, in Aristotle's way, that nature is hypostasis, for he said that hypostases are their own natures. Chapter 18. Against the Misunderstanding of the Anthropological Image for Christ The chapter is about the example of the structure and combination [of soul and body] of man and that like-minded people of Sevier think poorly, preferring [to say] that, according to the anthropological paradigm, in Christ from two partial and imperfect natures there became one nature - Divinity and humanity. So, the blessed Fathers, in accordance with the imprinted image, take the [dispensation] of man in accordance with Christ, wanting, as in a certain sketch, to show His visible and invisible, mortal and immortal, tangible and intangible. The foolish children of the Monophysites, taking their starting point from the Holy Fathers, then no longer in accordance with them in accordance with a certain image, but in accordance with the natural equality [of the image] with Christ, needed the example of man [for Christ]. For they heard Sevier say that “just as in the one nature of man, part of it is the soul, and part is the body, so in Christ the Divinity is a part, and the body is a part of His one nature.” 923 And this means nothing more than the assertion that Christ is from two imperfect things: from an imperfect Divinity and from an incomplete humanity, and He is not perfect in Divinity and perfect in humanity, but half God and half man. We, refuting their absurdity, will confront them in this way. First, let us agree on the following: the types are not completely similar to the images, for the Scripture says that the worm is the image of Christ, 924 and the lion, 925 and the sheep and the lamb, 926 and the palm tree, 927 and the lily and the apple tree, 928 but none of them is similar [to Him] in natural essence. Secondly, we will again tell them the following: if the image of Christ consisted, as you tell us, of a certain one and a certain other [i.e. from soul and body], and the One who appeared into the world took upon Himself precisely this, then immediately correct [your absurd confession] by taking something reasonable in this [image]. Since the paradigm itself (I’m talking, of course, about the anthropological one) has united in hypostasis our two partial, as you say, essences, then you are thereby free from censure, as those who confess two natures in Christ: one - the perfect God of the Word, and the other - from two halves - from our soul and body. And in many other ways you will find that the anthropological paradigm [turns out to be] dissimilar to Christ. For man consists of two created things (I’m talking about soul and body), and Christ is made up of uncreated Divinity and created humanity; man is from two limited ones, and Christ is from a limited body and an unlimited Divinity; man is from a combination of the material and the mental, and Christ is from God the Word and rational man, who initially had a mind, since neither the body was formed before the soul, nor the soul before the body, but God the Word was before all ages and souls and bodies. Thus you will find many things in the Divine that do not correspond to either the soul or the body. Scholium. Christ consists of two immortals (the Word and the soul) and a mortal body. However, how can such heterogeneous and various unfused [things] have a single nature? If Sevier still persists in proving the equality between the combination in man [of soul and body] and the ineffable union in Christ [of Divinity and humanity], then let this ignoramus realize that whoever wishes to think more accurately about the structure of man will discover that Christ consists not of two, but of many natures. After all, the body consists of four simple essences, that is, the elements; the soul is another essence, and another is the essence of God the Word. Therefore, one should think of the [dispensation] of man [only] as an example, but not as equality [of the ineffable union of Divinity and humanity] in Christ. Chapter 19 Antithesis of the wicked Paulianist 929 regarding the saying of the Sevirians that the union in man [of soul and body] is equal to [the union of Divinity and humanity] in Christ. Paulianist: “In the heat of argument, Sevier, proving that Christ is partial God and partial man and that from two imperfect natures a single nature is formed, everywhere brings and presents to us the image of man, while neither the Scripture of Moses, nor the prophets or evangelists anywhere testified that the soul and the human body exist in the image of the combination in Christ [Divinity and humanity]. So, leaving the images of the Divine Scriptures [speaking] about Christ, he is blinded and invents his own fables. For the image, prototype and Divine mark of Christ in Divine Scripture are precisely the divine Isaac and the ram sacrificed in his place, 930 clearly prefiguring the image of His two dissimilar persons. However, the host of glorified Fathers knows not only this image, pointing to Christ, but also many others: I will also name the ark of Saint Moses, in which he was placed and thrown by his mother in the riverbed; 931 Divine Scripture again through Moses and the ark preaches to us the two hypostases of Christ, just as the other ark, consisting of “unrotten trees” 932 and gold, clearly shows us the image of the different natures, or hypostases of Christ. In fact, what does Sevier think the golden vessel containing heavenly manna alludes to, 933 if not to the special and diverse hypostases of Christ? In the same way, the two turtle doves (for burnt offering and not for burnt offering) 934 obviously reveal the two faces of Christ, that is, His impassive Divinity and His passionate flesh. Just as, again, the two goats (for slaughter and for sending into the wilderness) 935 obviously proclaim to us the difference in the characteristic hypostases of Emmanuel, existing in the form of God and in the form of man.” If Sevier, as well as with him those who reject the incarnation of the Savior, are tormented and cut into pieces hearing this, then they, of course, will say that the paradigms are not completely similar to their prototypes. Therefore, foolish one, speak and proclaim that the example of man cannot be indistinguishably equal to the union [of Divinity and humanity] and the incarnation of Christ, due to the fact that this abolishes both of His natures. Scholium. It will not hurt to have knowledge from the [works of] these heretics, [written to other] heretics and, in accordance with them, knock out the wedge of the wicked with a wedge. Chapter 20. Basic conclusions against insane Sevirians Aporia-syllogisms about the ineffable union of Christ in the form of questions and answers to these acephals regarding their words that after the union it is impossible to speak of two natures. Question from the Orthodox: Do you confess that in the incarnation God the Word is inseparably and ineffably united in hypostasis with the entrails and breast of the Immaculate Ever-Virgin Mother of God Mary, or, as Nestorius says, that [God the Word] simply dwelt [in Her] in the likeness of other people, as in a certain tabernacle and abode? Akefal: We confess quite clearly that God the Word is inexpressibly and inseparably united according to the hypostasis of Her essence, womb and entrails, as the Holy Fathers preached. Orthodox: This is the truth, and this is how we believe and this is how we preach. Finally, I ask: tell me, most noble one, when God the Word was united by hypostasis with the entrails, flesh and bowels of the all-praised Mother of God, when He was inseparably incarnated and coexisted in Her all-pure being, Who bore Him in the womb, united by Her hypostasis for nine months, the Virgin and God the Word, united by the hypostasis of Her flesh, were one nature, or two natures? And if you are talking about one nature of Woman and God the Word, then tell me, what part of this one nature did Christ separate from Her, taking at birth, and what part did He leave in Her? If the Virgin and God the Word, after the hypostatic union in Her womb, are not one, but two natures, then why do you falsely assert in your defense that after the hypostatic union there cannot be two natures? Another [question]. Unlimited nature does not tend to change and move from one form to another, because the Word and God fill heaven and earth. So, having become incarnate and born of the Holy Virgin, how did Christ come out and separate from Her? According to one flesh or according to the flesh and Divinity? If you say that at birth He was separated from the Mother according to one flesh, then you are thinking Nestorian. If separation from the Mother occurred through the flesh and the Divinity, then how did the Divinity, united by hypostasis with the entrails and breast of the Holy Virgin, separate from Her at birth? Another question about Him: How do you suppose how the All-Holy Spirit on the Jordan descended on Christ and remained on Him? Is it essentially and truly hypostatic or is it by some kind of grace and sanctification, as if one of the prophets and ordinary people, as the heretics say? Akefal: We confess quite clearly that the All-Holy Spirit dwelt and dwelt in Christ essentially, and not as in one of the prophets. Orthodox: Finally, I ask: tell me, if the Holy Spirit dwelt hypostatically in Christ, as you say, then the Word, the flesh and the Holy Spirit are one nature or two? Another [question] for them. The Divine Apostle says: in Christ “dwells all the fullness of the Divinity bodily.” 936 So, it is clear that during the union that then took place in the Holy Virgin, the whole fullness of the Divinity inexpressibly infused into Her. So, when all the undivided fullness of the Divinity was in Her, did the Virgin and all the fullness of the Divinity have one nature due to the union, or two natures? Another [aporia]. If because of the inseparability and indivisibility of God the Word and His inspired flesh, God the Word and flesh are one nature, then because of His inseparability from the throne of the Cherubim, of course, the throne and God the Word Who is on it are one nature. Another [aporia]. A more suitable, easier and more inseparable union is the union of the incorporeal with the incorporeal and the immaterial with the immaterial (as of the same nature, spiritual and consubstantial) than the union of the incorporeal with the material, the immortal with the mortal, the impassive with the passionate, the unlimited with the limited. So, if, due to the inseparable union of limited and mortal flesh and God the Word unlimited in it, there became one nature, then rather there should be one hypostasis of God the Father and the only begotten Son, inseparable from His bosom, if only you believe that the Son is inseparable from the bosom of the Father. After all, if you name the numerous connections of the created with the uncreated, I do not think that this connection is stronger than the existence of each other of the same-natural, closely related and immaterial Hypostases of God, if we, of course, believe in the Consubstantial Trinity in three unfused Hypostases. Another [aporia]. Sevier, Timothy and you say that Christ has one divine nature, but Christ tells the disciples about Lazarus: “He died, and I rejoice that I was not there.” 937 How could He, being God, not be there? Where is there no God? Of course, there is truly no God in the heart of Sevier and in your hearts. That is why the holy angel says about your hearts: Christ “has risen, He is not here,” 938 that is, in your souls. Scholium. Brief, but useful. Chapter 21. Another short chapter, which proves that dogmas cannot be reversed 1. As for the notorious and despised Monophysites, we need to repeat the words of the Holy Fathers addressed to them. So, let us again briefly say what [we said] in the second dialogue with them (located in the thirteenth notebook [of our work] 939). They asked us about every evangelical, apostolic, prophetic, and Mosaic word of disparagement consistent with the humanity of Christ. Here they are: “The Lord will raise up for you a prophet,” 940 “I have become like a man without strength,” 941 “Behold, My Child will understand,” 942 “Man is, and who can know him?” "; 943 Gospel words: “My Father is greater than Me,” 944 “I can do nothing of Myself” 945, “But you do not always have Me” 946, “Why do you seek to kill Me, the Man who told you the truth” 947, “Lazarus is dead; and I rejoice... that I was not there" 948, the words of the angel: "He is risen, He is not here" 949, "The child Jesus increased in wisdom and age and obeyed his parents" 950, "God raised up the Lord" 951, [God] "glorified His Son Jesus" 952, that is, His Servant; and immediately, as soon as I have listed these derogatory expressions about Christ from the Divine Scripture, let us ask them regarding what nature of Christ these derogatory words were spoken? They, avoiding calling the flesh of Christ nature, say that this is said regarding the humanity of Christ, regarding the acceptance [of the flesh by God the Word], regarding the visibility [of Christ], regarding the body, regarding the flesh; and in general they call many other names for His humanity, but they do not allow us to call [Christ’s] humanity nature. Then we ask them, “Why do you refuse to call the humanity of Christ nature?” They answer: “If we call the humanity [of Christ] nature, then with all necessity we also call the person and therefore we discover two faces, agreeing with Nestorius. After all, there is no impersonal nature.” The Orthodox question to them: “So, why, O man, is everyone who calls the flesh of the Lord nature, as the Council of Chalcedon called it, a Nestorian?” The Sevirians respond to this: “Well, yes! After all, there is no impersonal nature.” So, when they say this, then we give them the above quotations of the Holy Fathers, who even after the union call the flesh of Christ nature, and we cover them with shame for the fact that they do not follow the Holy Fathers, but, following the legislation of Severus, reject the words of the Holy Fathers, exposing them in Nestorianism due to the fact that they call the flesh of Christ nature. They do all this out of hostility to the Council of Chalcedon, rejecting the Holy Fathers because of it, and more following their own teacher Severus, who maliciously decreed for them: “Even if there is the word of St. Cyril himself about two natures in Christ, do not accept it.” Since, as stated above, Sevier knew that the word about two indivisible natures was truly paternal and impeccable, and, needing to refute it, he “is justified in sinful deeds” 953, speaking to Nephalius and Simplicius: “Before Nestorius, the word about two natures was pleasant, but after Nestorius this word was rejected,” so that Christ from two-natural became one nature, “and it is necessary,” says he, - according to circumstances and because of heresies that have arisen, change and remake the dogmas about Christ.” 954 Therefore, I tried to humbly reveal the cunning and cunning of Sevier, showing from the [materials of] the Holy Council in Ephesus, which took place under the divine Cyril, that heresies impiously speaking about the division in Christ appeared 200 years before Nestorius, and the blessed Fathers who lived under these heresiarchs did not in any way reject the speech about two inseparable natures in Christ. After all, the heresiarch Artemon, 955 who was 200 years before the Council of Nicaea, was the first to divide Christ in two. After him, Origen taught about Christ as a simple man, 956 after him, Paul of Samosata, 80 years before this Holy Council, renewed the heresy of Artemon. Again, after Paul and after the Holy Council [in Nicaea], Theodore [of Mopsuestia] of Antioch, the teacher of Nestorius, and Diodorus [of Tarsus] taught that Christ was [divided] in two, after which the wicked Nestorius also [affirmed]. So, why did none of the great and recognized Fathers who lived under Artemon and Nestorius reject the expression about two united natures in Christ? 2. And that this is so, listen to the content of the main material of the Holy Council in Ephesus. “Evidence presented by the clergy of Constantinople in front of all the people and shown in the Church that Nestorius thinks alike with Paul of Samosata. I conjure the Holy Trinity to familiarize themselves with this charter of bishops, presbyters, deacons, readers, the people of Constantinople, in order to bring to shame the heretic Nestorius as thinking alike with Paul of Samosata, anathematized by the Orthodox Fathers and bishops 160 years ago. Both of them said the following: Paul said, "Mary did not give birth to the Word." Nestorius unanimously said: “Mary did not give birth to the Divinity, most noble one.” Paul said, “He was not from eternity.” Nestorius said: “To the Creator of times, the Divinity, they give a Mother who lived in time.” Paul said, “Mary conceived the Word, but she did not become older than the Word.” Nestorius said: “How did Mary give birth to one more ancient than She?” Paul said, “Mary gave birth to a man equal to us.” Nestorius said: “Man is born of a Virgin.” Paul said, “This was better in all things, since grace was upon Him, as the Scripture testifies, from the Holy Spirit.” Nestorius said: “For [John the Baptist] says: “I saw the Spirit descending... like a dove, and remaining on Him,” 957 and the Spirit gave Christ an ascension and thus great glory (it is said: “Having given commands to the Apostles whom He had chosen, He was ascended by the Holy Spirit” 958).” Paul said: “So that the Descendant of David, the Anointed One, would not be alien to Wisdom, so that Wisdom would not dwell completely in a stranger [to her]. For it was also in the prophets, especially in Moses, and in many rulers 959, especially in Christ, as in the church." And in another place he says that One is Jesus Christ, and the Other is the Word. Nestorius said: “Can He who was born before all ages be born again, and also as a Divinity?” 960 Here, by reference to the Holy Council [in Ephesus], the lying Sevier is disgraced, saying that the wicked Nestorius was the first to introduce division [in Christ]. So, the Holy Fathers who lived under Artemon, Paul, Diodorus and Theodore, piously named (as we do) the two united natures of Christ, and Artemon, Paul, Theodore and Nestorius - separated, since evil does not lie in naming two [natures], but in dividing them into parts and not putting the hypostatic union in the first place. 3. Refutation of the insane and impious statements and statements of Sevirus, which he set forth [in letters] to Nephalius and some others, saying: “Against ulcers that have arisen, that is, heresies, it is necessary to prepare medicines of dogmas, because if a certain doctor during a plague,” says Sevier, “forbids drinking water, then someone can say to this: “The previous doctors did not forbid us to drink water.” After all, then,” says Sevier, “he would immediately hear from the doctor: “Mad man! Look, the disease is spreading. Do you really want to determine your attitude towards the disease based on a healthy life?”" 961 The noble Sevier asserted something similar, but he is prophetically subverted and silenced by the godly [saint] Basil [the Great] in his Epistle to the scholastic Olympius the Arian and others like him who are trying to connect the word 962, to which Sevier can also be included. The divine holy Basil speaks to him in a word like this: “However, they have some cunning rule about changing the words of faith, just as doctors once changed [medicines] for an existing illness. It is not for me to expose the depravity of this sophism, but for you to understand for yourself. May the Lord give you understanding 963 to understand which word is right and which is false and distorted. After all, if it is necessary, depending on the circumstances of the time, to change the rules of faith and write down new ones, then the statement is false: “One Lord, one faith” 964 965 [The Holy] Father prophetically said this long before the life of Sevier, as if to desecrate and overthrow his teaching. 4. A short conclusion containing the confession of the exegete on the Economy of Christ. So that someone foolish, using the above insane opinion of the wicked Nestorius, does not distort the confession of Christ by my soul, body and spirit, I will briefly outline it. I confess His humanity, most immaculate from soul and body, hypostasically united to His pure Divinity, just as our completely perfect soul is united to our body. Just as the One seen by Nebuchadnezzar in the furnace in the image of Christ in the likeness of the Son of God, 966 was in the form of man completely perfect and on fire, co-fired, completely fiery and completely burning, so the humanity of Christ was completely perfect and completely deified, deified and co-divine. And just as if someone, having entered this furnace, would have tried to behead [with a sword], strike, bind, wound or kill the One who exists in the form of the Son of God, then he would not have separated from Him and would not have extinguished the fire due to His completely perfect union with the fire, so in Christ the Son of God, as the angel said: “Rejoice, full of grace! The Lord is with You,” 967 the fire of the Divine can never, in any way, and under any circumstances be separated from His humanity, and will not be separated forever. However, we confess that this most holy body and soul of Christ differs in glory and majesty from our souls and bodies, just as the image of the one who was in the furnace differed from the rest of the bodies that were outside the fire and the furnace. As a result, we call His most holy body deified and all the properties of the body deified, and His pure soul deified and all its properties deified and monotheistic, and we say that the proper properties of these natures are unfused, unchangeable, inseparably preserved in a single complex Person, as the blessed Fathers piously conveyed to us. However, we confess that the soul and flesh, united by hypostasis with God the Word, are subordinate to Him and controlled by Him, and that all their properties are in a higher state in comparison with the properties of all created things, since they are the properties of that which is higher than all created things due to the union with God the Word. Chapter 22. Recording the main aporia to us from non-believers. And the head of Andrew the Nestorian 1. Introduction to the following chapters. The same name and participant in the Kingdom of Heaven [Saint] Basil [the Great] says that the word of truth is simple, that is, ingenuous, unpretentious and uncunning. After all, all the obvious and simple Divine words advise the wise and meek to seek the Lord in a righteous heart; The wisdom of God will not enter into foolish hearts, and therefore, whatever they hear and learn, they easily and quickly rush to scold and cancel because of man-pleasing and arrogant knowledge. For what is, tell me, more convincing, more divine and more true than the saying of [the Apostle John] the Theologian: “In the beginning was the Word” 968? But Arius, drawing [thoughts] from the devil, received in return for such theology the following: “John rightly said: “In the beginning was the Word,” 969 that is, the speech of God; for he did not say, “In the beginning was the Son,” but the spoken word of God.” 970 Because, my beloved brothers, he who is led by the spirit of the devil is ready to attack all the words of Scripture and the [holy] teachers. And it is absolutely clear that “just judgment on such” 971 and inevitable punishment for those who in the future, out of evil will, will attack this presentation of ours, which I will immediately try to compile here. 2. A trick for use in a dispute with those who maliciously distort and reinterpret the Gospel and patristic writings about Christ our God. The Word of Wisdom tells those who wish to wisely proclaim the wise words of God: “Do not answer a fool according to his folly, ... but answer a fool according to his folly, so that he does not seem prudent to himself.” 972 This is what the wise Solomon himself says. If someone, madly wanting to distort Divine Scripture, collects everything that is inexpressible and incomprehensible [in Scripture], saying: “Whence is it clear that the Son of God is born, and the Holy Spirit proceeds? Or how is it possible for the Begotten to be co-begotten with the Parent?”, and in general, when he insidiously explores the incomprehensible and believes only the imagination, and rather not the imagination, but what [only the heretics themselves] accept, then do not imitate him and do not answer him because of his fussy unbelief, plunging into all the depths of the search and exploring the unknowable for the whole creation, but answer him “against his stupidity ") bring him what all Christians profess, what they artlessly believe in, what the Church preaches and proclaims, but what they doubt and ask us about in the East who are now moving away from Christianity. These are some of their questions regarding the [Old Testament] Law and the words of the Gospel. Aporia of apostates from the Church to Christians. 1) How is it clear that our soul is created or that it will remain immortal, if nowhere does the Old Testament Scripture testify to this? 2) Who tells me that Genesis is the work of Moses? Likewise, the rest of the books of the prophets are not inscribed. Besides this, there is still much that seems to be incorrect: for example, God's prohibition on food 973 and the prediction of four hundred years of hardship for Israel in Egypt, 974 after all, they endured suffering for one hundred and forty years, that is, after the death of Joseph. 975 Also, the period that God prescribed for human life was not fulfilled on Noah, because it is said that people lived one hundred and twenty years before the flood. 976 3) Again, having introduced numerous blood sacrifices [as stated] in the book of Leviticus, God subsequently says through Isaiah and Jeremiah that Israel should not worry about sacrifices or burnt offerings. 977 4) Again, He declared that the law was an everlasting statute, 978 why did not His legal precept remain everlasting? 979 5) Having determined to give the descendants of Israel possession from Egypt to the Euphrates, 980 He did not give them even a tenth of what was promised. This is from the Old Testament; and here are the controversial questions from these unbelievers from the New Testament. 1) Why do you claim that Christ was resurrected while in a sealed tomb, although the Gospel does not say this? 2) Why don’t you call Joseph the husband of Mary, although the Gospel speaks of this everywhere? 981 3) The Gospel speaks of the unfamily conception of Christ, 982 but why does it not speak, as you say, of the incorruptible pregnancy of the Virgin? 4) Although [the evangelist] John speaks of Mary, the sister of Mary, the Mother of Jesus, 983 why don’t you talk about it? 5) Why, Christ, saying that he would spend three whole days and three nights in hell like Jonah, 984 did not do it like Jonah, as he predicted? 6) And again, why with one evangelist does He command you to wear only simple shoes and a staff, 985 and with another evangelist does He forbid both staff and shoes? 986 7) Although the evangelists do not say anywhere, why do you know that Christ was born in a cave? This is not said in the Gospels. 8) Why did Jesus refuse to do what He Himself taught: when struck on the cheek, He did not offer the other, but reproached the one who struck? 987 9) Although the Gospel says that Christ is created, or born, why do you say that part of Him is created and part is uncreated? After all, Matthew says: “The book of the kinship (or creation) of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.” 988 10) If you say that God is the simplest, filling heaven and earth equally, then how did the Word descend from heaven and ascend there again? 11) If God the Word was Divine in the world even before the Incarnation, as the Evangelist John says, then why do you call Him descended from heaven into the womb of Mary? After all, if He was here before the Incarnation, then it is clear that He did not descend. And if He descended at the Incarnation, then it is clear that He was limited to heaven, like the angels. 12) If the Son and the Holy Spirit are from the Father, then it is clear that He is the Father of One and the Other, and the Begotten and the Holy Spirit. And if you do not accept this confession, tell us who first and who second came from the Father: the Son or the Holy Spirit? If They occurred simultaneously, then it is clear that the Father is the Parent of twins, and the Son and the Spirit are God-brothers. After all, in what way can there be a difference between birth and procession for the unlimited, unchangeable and indivisible Deity? 13) How is it clear that the Word of God is a hypostatic God and that the Spirit of God is also God and the Hypostasis of God, and neither the mind of God, nor the heart of God, nor the right hand of God, nor the hand and the rest that Scripture attributes to God is another God and another Hypostasis? 14) Why, although there were eleven disciples before Christ's Ascension, does Paul say that after rising from the dead He "appeared... to the twelve" 989 disciples? After all, Matthias was not yet numbered with them, and neither was Paul. 15) Why did Christ, who promised to give those who denied for His sake in this age land, wives, children and property a hundred times more, 990 not given it to them, as promised? Scholium. This weapon is intended for the prudent [to fight] against the insane, when you see that they talk and appear to you with evil will and with evil will they attack this very book. 3. So, Christianity is a simple faith; it is necessary to listen and perceive all Divine Scripture and especially the works of teachers in the simplicity and directness of the heart. After all, the Gospel and the Apostolic Scriptures, as we see and as we have already written about this, are uncorrupted, because distortions, losses [parts of the text] or insertions cannot remain in them for a long time, since the Gospel is distributed and written down in seventy-two languages. After all, even if someone tries to spoil one or two translations of the Bible, his dishonor will be refuted by other, correct seventy translations. In fact, look how someone tried to remove [the passage] from the Gospel of Luke about the clots of Christ's bloody sweat 991 and could not. For those [copies of the Gospel where] this [place] did not exist were rejected, since in all translations [of the Gospel] among other nations and in most Greek [lists] it is there. The works of the Holy Fathers, especially dogmatic ones, have not been translated into all languages ​​of peoples and have not been distributed to all countries. And once upon a time, heretics could make various insertions and damages to them, which we discovered by testing them. To prove what has been said, we will cite some of the harmful changes in the books of teachers made by heretics. Unbornness, or uncreatedness, is characteristic only of the Divine. And so we found that in Saint Dionysius, in the chapter inscribed “On the names “Great” and “Small”,” it is said about God like this: “Undiminished, ungenerated; not as if not yet born, or incompletely, or as if not born in some way or in some capacity, and not as if it had never existed in any way; but as the highest of all unborn.” 992 By saying “above all the unborn,” he designated the many unborn or uncreated. And really, how is this possible? After all, there is nothing unborn, only God. Therefore, a certain Manichaean distorted this quote for me, wanting to prove that angels, the soul and the water element are uncreated, that is, not born. Again, although the Church claims that all holy angels have one essence, the divine and Equal-to-the-Apostles Dionysius names many essences of the highest powers. 993 After all, the great of the rhetoricians, Bishop Dionysius of Alexandria, in the Scholia, which he compiled for his namesake blessed Dionysius, says this: “External philosophy had the habit of calling all invisible nature “ungenerate”, as well as “essences” of the hypostasis; and therefore these expressions were spoken by Saint Dionysius in an improper sense, in accordance with external ones.” 994 Therefore, in our opinion, we should not rashly interpret the words of the Holy Fathers, as some still do today. Again, it is said by Blessed [Saint] Basil [the Great] in the Word on the Sixth Day: “Absolutely everything had a reason and has a purpose, for as soon as you tell me the reason, do not doubt the purpose.” 995 The mad Origenists again mention this quotation to us, wishing to prove the pre-existence of souls in heaven before the existence of bodies, just as well as the universal restoration from punishment, referring to small quotations supposedly belonging to the wise Gregory of Nyssa and [Gregory] the Theologian, and interpreting them according to their idea. Scholium. Origenists quote from the Words of [Gregory] the Theologian on the Epiphany and from the Words of [Gregory] of Nyssa On Virtue, On the Origin of [Christ], On the Beatitudes, On the Song of Songs and other passages [of Scripture]. I say this for a reason, not in vain, but I point out that they insult the [Holy] Fathers with these words and quotes, that they do not have the light of knowledge, but darken this light and fall out of it, that they compose a nonsense essay against the Universal Church, denying and refuting the Incarnation of the Virgin of God the Word. 4. Chapter of Andrew the Nestorian. For a more complete proof that it is necessary to listen and study the words of the Holy Fathers with the fear of God and the integrity of the soul, I will add the following to what has been said. Since the Guyanites, Theodosians and Eutychians constantly expose Saint Cyril, who allegedly named one nature in Christ and allegedly argued with those who name two natures, a certain Nestorian-minded wicked and villain named Andrew objected and wrote against them, that is, those who call one nature in Christ, arguing in his work that Cyril rather speaks in concert with Nestorius, “as if [Cyril] was unnoticed by himself,” says [Andrey], “completely caught in the net that he avoids.” Andrei quoted words directly from the beginning of the fourth chapter of the Twelve Chapters of St. Blessed Cyril: “If anyone divides Christ into two persons, that is, hypostases, let him be anathema.” 996 And to this Andrei says: “What a truly excellent true interpretation and what a wonderful presentation of the dogmas of the pious Cyril! For the Fathers and even the Council established that the hypostases are persons - the Holy Fathers in Nicaea, who named three Hypostases, or Persons in the Holy and Consubstantial Trinity. So, if it is rightly stated that hypostases are persons, then why did [Cyril] say in almost all his instructions that natures are hypostases? After all, calling natures hypostases, and hypostases persons, what else is he preaching if not different persons in Christ, when he says, “The natures, or hypostases, remained unmerged”? 997 Whose hypostases, noble Cyril? It is clear that they are Christ's. And if you speak at all about the various hypostases in Him, then why, in the end, is it determined that the hypostases are persons? For, if you do not agree with this definition that hypostases are persons, then perhaps someone, defending you, will be able to say: “Cyril considers hypostases not to be persons, but to be the existence of certain realized things.” If you brought this rule against yourself, then there is no justification for you. Therefore, when you say: “Christ’s natures, or hypostases, remained unfused,” you are saying nothing more than: “Christ’s hypostases, or persons, remained unfused.” As a result, according to this rule and law of yours, which says that nature is a hypostasis, or person, three natures are found in the three Persons of the Trinity, that is, Arianism, and two persons in the two natures of Christ, which you confess when you say, for example, in the Word “On the service in the spirit”: “The ark is for us the image of Christ’s natures, or hypostases,” 998 and again in another place you simply say: “Christ from two natures, or hypostases." Now, if you agree that Christ is of two hypostases or persons, then it is clear that you say that the body of Christ was pre-existent and pre-formed in the womb of the Virgin, and immediately the Person of God the Word was united with it, as you again say in the third chapter of the Twelve [anathematisms]: “If one divides the hypostases after an indescribable union.” 999 In numerous other places you call natures hypostases, but in [the epistle] “To Hermenius” you contradict yourself, saying that one is nature, and the other is hypostasis, or person. Why, although you objected to Theodoret in the Twelve Chapters, in your apologies you did not justify yourself in any way regarding these hypostases in Christ, which you spoke about in the third chapter? So, you hypocritically contradict yourself, either by saying that Christ is one nature, or by two persons. After all, in the “Scholia” you wrote, interpreting [the place] in the Gospel when Peter found a statir in the mouth of a fish, 1000 you say this: “So, the true statir 1001 is Christ, for He is two characteristics.” 1002 So, many thanks to the compiler of the speeches, Cyril, who in different ways fully confessed the various characteristics and hypostases in Christ.” 1003 Scholia. When we taught this in Alexandria, the heretics were completely unable to defend themselves against us, but were put to shame. Listen, brothers, [the speech] of the vile snake Andrei, which he spewed out of the poisonous Nestorian heart against the all-wise teacher Cyril regarding the expression that called natures hypostases. Whether these are really the words of the holy father [Cyril] or someone else, I cannot say. After all, a whole host of Fathers and the great Cyril himself say in various places that nature is one thing, and hypostasis something else; and, following this rule, the Universal Church says that Christ is two united natures, but does not allow it to be said that He has two hypostases, or persons, and does not preach that He consists of two hypostases, or persons. For hypostasis is actually His Face. We do not recognize the holy flesh completely separately from God the Word, because it did not pre-exist in the womb, but at the same time the Divinity and rational animate flesh are united. It is this connection that is called hypostatic. So, as I said, the wicked Andrei made these accusations against the God-wise Father Cyril. 5. Again, the Nestorian-minded Maron of Edessa, composing an Epistle against Sevirus, says the following: “We, bringing the light of piety from the East, do not turn away from Dioscorus, Sevirus and Theodosius as much as we deservedly hate the blasphemous Council of Chalcedon. For he did not name the hypostases in Christ at all, and Sevier, Father Cyril himself, Dioscorus and Theodosius completely agree with us that there are hypostases in Christ, confessing Him from two hypostases, or persons, but they also say that the hypostases of Christ are not fused. After all, Cyril of Egypt himself stated: “The hypostases of Christ remained unmerged.” 1004 And if the hypostases of Christ, that is, the faces, remained unfused, then it is clear that they are both knowable and forever preserved. However, how did they remain unmerged? It is surprising that [Cyril] did not say “inseparable,” but “unfused,” that is, clearly visible and numerically cognizable as two, and did not add that it was supposedly that we 1005 introduced such a number of hypostases in Christ. After which he, verbosely describing the Nativity from the Virgin, blasphemed [Her] honor, either calling the Nativity from Her natural, or saying in his Twelve Chapters: “[The Virgin] in the flesh gave birth to the Word who became flesh.” To this we object: “The Virgin, who fought against God, did not give birth according to the flesh, but in a manner similar to God.” 1006 Scholia. I found this quote in Alexandria from the Theodosian presbyter George, nicknamed Klyuchar, the compiler of the speeches of their church. These are the wicked heretics [speaking] against the God-wise Father [Cyril], but we proclaim him the torch and pillar of the Church. Chapter 23 Scholia. Sevier and Guyan were previously of the same mind and stayed together in Alexandria for 18 years. And then one day Guyan asked Sevier: “How should one confess the body of Christ, corruptible or incorruptible?” When Sevier said that the body is perishable until the Resurrection on the third day from death, Gayan immediately interrupted him: “If you say that the body is perishable, then with all necessity you name two natures in Christ.” This caused division between them. The Guyanites, Julianists and Agranites have the same faith as the Sevirians, Jacobites, Theodosians and Dioscorians. However, although they (that is, the Sevirians and Jacobites) say that Christ is precisely one nature, they confess two properties in Him, divine and human, and say that His body was corruptible before the Passion. And the Guyanites say that the body of Christ from the very moment of union is completely incorruptible and divine and that He has one property - divine and impassive. Know: it is impossible to prove that the recognized Fathers asserted that Christ from the very moment of union exists completely incorruptible; and these thieves reason based on their own considerations and their teachers and, as I have often said, they cite torn pieces from the expressions of [the Fathers]. Therefore, we have armed ourselves with factual evidence against them in accordance with the following presentation. Dispute between Guyanite and Orthodox, which took place in Alexandria. Orthodox: Are things truer than words or are words more reliable than things? Guyanite: Obviously, things are more trustworthy than words. Orthodox: You answered fairly according to the law of truth and piety. Then please tell me that both the Divinity and the body of Christ from the very moment of union exist completely incorruptible; Is this Communion, this sacrifice of the most holy Body and Blood of Christ, which you offer and eat, the true Body and Blood of Christ the Son of God, or is it simple bread that is sold and eaten at home, or is it an image of the body of Christ, like the goat that the Jews sacrifice? 1007 Guyanite: We cannot call Holy Communion an image of the body of Christ or simple bread. But we truly taste the very Body and Blood of Christ the Son of God, incarnate and born of the Holy Theotokos and Ever-Virgin Mary. Orthodox: And so we believe and so confess according to the word of Christ Himself, which He said to the disciples at the Last Supper, handing them the life-giving bread: “Take, eat: this is My Body,” 1008 and, passing the cup to them, said: “This is My Blood.” 1009 He did not say: “This is the image of My Body and Blood.” And in many other places Christ indicates: “He who eats My Flesh and drinks My Blood has eternal life.” 1010 So, if Christ Himself testifies that what we believers offer up and eat is truly His Body and Blood, then give us from the Communion of your supposedly Orthodox church, as you call it in spite of the rest of the church; and we will put this holy Body of Christ and Blood into a vessel with all reverence; and when several days have passed, if it does not decay, change or deteriorate, then it will become obvious that you rightly preach that Christ from the very moment of union exists completely incorruptible, and if it decays or deteriorates, then it is necessary for all of you to admit one of the following: either what you eat is not the true Body of Christ, but only an image, or that because of your evil faith the Holy Spirit did not descend on it, or that the body of Christ before the Resurrection perishable as something sacrificed, subject to death and wounds, crushed and eaten. After all, incorruptible nature, like the incorruptible nature of angels and souls, is neither sacrificed, nor pierced in the ribs and hands, nor crushed, nor subject to death, nor tasted, nor tangible, and it is completely impossible to digest [the stomach] like food. 2. Guyanite: Why do we find that many of the Holy Fathers call the body of Christ incorruptible? Orthodox: The incorruptible and perishable, as we said in the definitions, are spoken of in the Divine Scripture in two senses: now bodily, now spiritually. As a result, Genesis says: “And God looked, and behold, the whole earth was corrupt,” 1011 that is, all people are lawless, about whom David says: “They were corrupted and became abominable in iniquities and morals.” 1012 So, therefore, the corruption of sin is incorruptible, that is, sinless - we say this about the most holy and immaculate body of Christ, because none of the Holy Fathers ever said [about it]: “perfectly incorruptible,” as you say. As a result, Triblessed Athanasius says this about the body of the Lord: “The body was corruptible, since Mary was created.” 1013 How can one say that the body of Christ is of one essence with ours, or: “As children share in flesh and blood,” 1014 or: “He took on Abraham’s seed,” 1015 or: “He, like us, was completely tempted,” 1016 if He is supposedly incorruptible from the very moment of union, as you preach? And therefore we teach that before the passion the most holy body of Christ was corruptible, but after the three-day Resurrection it is incorruptible; and I, in addition, say that before the passion [in His body] there were various flows of fluids: blood, sweat, saliva and tears; after His Resurrection from the dead, if He ate, it was only out of economy for the sake of the faith of the disciples, we also do not find any separations, movements or losses in Him: He does not spit, does not cry, does not sweat, does not shed blood; It is not connected with anything else that is a consequence of sin: it does not sleep, does not thirst, does not suffer from hunger; after the Resurrection, He ate as fire eats wax and as the angels ate with Abraham. 1017 Therefore, before the Passion, Christ did not change his appearance and the appearance of his face, as was the case when, after the Resurrection, He was discovered with a different appearance by Magdalene, 1018 and appeared with a different appearance to Cleopas 1019 and then to others at the Sea of ​​Tiberias, 1020 [so that he was not recognized by them]. Again, although before the Passion he could, but did not appear simultaneously in different places, so that later they would not teach about the illusory nature of [His Incarnation], but according to the general bodily nature he moved through space, after His Resurrection from the dead, when His most holy body was finally resurrected and became light, spiritual, subtle and incorruptible, He left the sealed tomb without hindrance, and entered through the locked doors and appeared to the disciples in Jerusalem and in Emmaus at the same hour in the evening of the day he was resurrected. If from the very moment of the union Christ was completely and invariably incorruptible, then why did He never appear as flesh at the same time in different places and with different appearances and types of face before the Passion? Why did he never spit or cry after His Resurrection? Therefore, it is absolutely clear that the holy body of Christ before the Passion was corruptible, and after His Resurrection it is incorruptible. Guyanite: However, note: if Christ mourned Lazarus, then His incorruptible and divine tears erected a dead body. 1021 Even if He spat, His saliva opened the eyes of the blind man. 1022 If blood flowed from a rib, then by this He saved the world. 1023 If He was crucified, then how did God cover the sun with darkness. 1024 Orthodox: There should be no doubt that His immaculate body, due to its union with God the Word, is holy, divine, omnipotent and creative. However, we hear the great Gregory of Nyssa speaking against Eunomius: “It is not human nature that gives life to Lazarus, and it is not an impassive essence that mourns the dead, but tears are characteristic of man, and life is characteristic of True Life.” 1025 If, as you assert, miracles were performed not by the Divine, but by the body of Christ, then He should have shown miracles immediately from the swaddling clothes. After all, He wept countless times like a child, countless times He spat like a man, for, as Paul says, He was tempted in everything like we are, except sin. 1026 In fact, having received circumcision, He did not seek to perform any miracle through the bleeding of divine flesh. 1027 Regarding the [words of the prophet] mentioned by you, “below let your venerable one see corruption,” 1028 [let us say that] corruption 1029 is the complete destruction of the essence; The body of the Lord in the tomb did not undergo this, preserved [from decay] by the Divinity in it, changed by Him into incorruption and restored to what Adam’s body was before the crime. From the Word on the Resurrection and Incorruption of Hippolytus, Bishop of Rome. “People in the resurrection will, of course, be like the angels of God - incorruptible, immortal and not fluid. For the incorruptible essence does not give birth, is not born, does not grow, does not sleep, does not suffer from hunger and thirst, does not get tired, does not suffer, does not die, is not pierced by nails and spears, does not sweat, does not lose blood. Such essences are either angelic or [the essences] of the souls of dead people, since they are both foreign and alien to the visible, corruptible world of this created world.” 1030 3. However, the opponent objects: “Christ accepted the passions voluntarily and for the sake of edification; but what is done voluntarily and for the sake of edification in the law does not belong to nature.” The Orthodox responded to this: “Consequently, since God the Word descended from heaven voluntarily, His descent cannot be called true. Since He incarnated voluntarily, one cannot call His body nature, His Nativity - Christmas, His age - age, His race - race, His passion - passion, His death - death, His Resurrection - Resurrection, His Ascension - Ascension. After all, He, having become man on earth, accepted all this voluntarily, and not forced. And this is an invention of the Manichaeans.” Scholium. A certain other apology and a clear explanation of the expression “one incarnate nature of God the Word” directed to the Sevirians. When, for example, in the firmament there are certain three consubstantial and unlimited luminaries, no one of common sense will call these three lights natures, but will call the three lights consubstantial hypostases, having a co-natural, homogeneous, homogeneous, akin and indivisible light, and in the Trinity they do not call God the Word nature, but the Hypostasis of the Word, like the Father and the Holy Spirit. Again, if it turns out that one of these lights is connected and indefinitely enveloped in a certain cloud, then this luminary in the cloud is called a hypostasis, as one of the existing three hypostases of light, and is also called nature due to the addition of a foreign cloud connected with the light and a different essence. This is how I perceived the expression of the wise Cyril when, in relation to carnal union, he says: “one incarnate nature of God the Word.” If you foolishly criticize this expression, trying to call the Hypostasis of the Word a nature, then in the same way it is necessary to call the Father God the Word a whole nature of one’s own, just as the Holy Spirit is another special nature. The arrogant Sevier, who affirms this and thinks so, is, in fact, stuck in the Arian quagmire of tritheism. And a person, being naked, is called one of all hypostases, and if he is dressed in clothes, he can be called nature because of the different nature of the foreign clothes that he put on. And, for example, Gabriel is one of the angelic hypostases, and if he dresses in flesh, he can also be called nature due to his connection with flesh foreign to him. And the rational soul, for example, of Paul, which now exists naked without its body, is called one hypostasis of the general essence of human souls, and not nature; If now, before the resurrection, it were united with its own body, then perhaps, due to the different essence of the earthly body, it would be called nature in some pious way. Therefore, the blessed Fathers said that man was created in some way, as it were, “from two natures.” But the acephalus scolds us in this too: “If man was created from two natures, and God the Word accepted him, then it turns out that you confess three natures in Christ.” To this we must say: “Then you are disgraced as denying that the Word is incarnate, not confessing that God the Word truly took on body and soul. And if you generally call Him perfect in humanity, as well as in Godhead, then it turns out that you are asserting that Christ is of three natures. However, just as a tree, which has many different components: root, branches, leaves, flower, fruit, is called one nature, so is a whole person, as the brother of God James says: “every nature of living creatures, birds and reptiles, is tamed by human nature” 1031.” Chapter 24. Denial from Saint Dionysius, saying that “The Father or the Holy Spirit did not participate in any way in the Incarnation of the Word, except through benevolence.” This is regarding Sevier’s phrase that the Father and the Holy Spirit became incarnate with the Son Refutation, that is, destruction of the Monophysite position, which says: “If the hypostasis of the incarnate God of the Word is the perfect Divinity and in it the entire fullness of the Trinity is contemplated, then all the properties discovered in the Son during the Economy [Incarnation] are assigned to the entire Trinity, be it two natures, two wills, two energies. Those who think this way discover in the Holy Trinity three particular natures and one common one.” He told us briefly about this, and we will not compose our own fables, like heretics, but will fall down to the pure Divinity, who says: “Woe to those who prophesy from their hearts, and not from God,” 1032 just as David struck Goliath with one stone and destroyed the entire camp of foreigners, 1033 so we, with one word and one proof of the apostolic man and the light of the universe, Dionysius, let us defeat the entire camp foreign heretics, shutting up their mouths, saying: “If something is added to Christ, the One of the Holy Trinity, this also applies to the whole Trinity.” From the Chapter on the united and separate theology of the holy apostolic teacher Dionysius the Areopagite: “Likewise (to use an example from the sensory sphere close to us) how the light of each of the lamps located in one room completely penetrates the light of the others and remains special, preserving its differences in relation to others: it unites with it, differing, and is different, uniting. And when there are many lamps in a room, we see that the light of them all merges into one indivisible glow, and I think that no one is able, in the air permeated with the general light, to distinguish the light of one of the lamps from the light of another and to see one of them without seeing the other, since they are all incomprehensibly dissolved in each other” 1034 Scholia. [The words] “united” and “separate” say that in the Holy Trinity what is common refers to the essence, and what is different refers to the Hypostases. These are the [words] of Dionysius, but we will accept what was said to refute [the heretics]. The father's perfect mind takes on this image. For the Holy Trinity, he gave an image of certain three lamps or wax candles, lit in a certain church or house, separated by hypostasis from each other (for both are lamps that separately send [light]), but, united by light, they have an inseparable community of nature and action, and no one can distinguish in the air of the house: this is the light from this lamp or from another. Having said this, the teacher then moves from the triadology to the doctrine of the Economy and to the exodus of God the Word from the Father [into the world] according to His words: “I have come forth from My Father and am going to My Father” 1035 Dionysius: “If someone takes one of the lamps out of the house, then all its light will come out, without taking any of the other lights with it and without leaving its others.” 1036 He claims that the Son, having left the Father and settled in the world, did not bring either the Father or the Spirit with Himself and, having left, did not leave anything of His own to Them, but accomplished an indivisible exodus only through His Hypostasis. Then in the sixth part [of this chapter] Dionysius says: “Separated from the general beneficent action of God in our nature is the full and true perception from us of our essence, accomplished for us by the super-essential Word.” 1037 Interpretation: “Separately,” that is, separate from triadology and theology 1038, “the complete and true perception from us of our flesh,” that is, the meaning of the incarnation and Incarnation of Christ consisted in “His deeds and sufferings - the best, excellent deeds of His human divine activity.” He says: “the best, the excellent,” that is, pure and immaculate, corresponding to His human nature. These are the essence: birth, infancy, growth, hunger, thirst, suffering, sorrow, tears, saliva, sweat, blood, perforation, decay, flow [of blood from wounds], death, mortification, voicelessness, immobility. Then he adds, saying: “In this, neither the Father nor the Spirit participated in any way with the Word” 1039 Shame on Sevirus, shame on Dioscorus, Timothy and Eutyches, shame on Theodosius and Jacob, shame on the ten-horned forerunner of the Antichrist, who said: “Everything that applies to Christ also applies to the whole Trinity.” For clearly the apostolic luminary of the universe [Dionysius] says that God the Father and the Holy Spirit did not in any way participate together with Christ in what was accomplished in the flesh, what was united [with Him] in the flesh, “unless someone says that only thanks to a plausible and humane will” 1040 Only, he says, by will, glory and consent the Father and the Holy Spirit were connected with the meaning and image of the Incarnation of Christ, but they do not take part in their own Hypostases and remain alien, being outside of everything that, having become incarnate, God received the Word from the Virgin. To her be glory and strength forever and ever! Amen. We ask forgiveness of the hard workers, “for we, as Paul says, know in part,” 1041 we comprehend in part, we proclaim in part, and we affirm in part. For the divine, as much as it is knowable, is much more unknowable, since even the holy angels do not know perfectly everything that concerns God. I will also add the following to the book, as if I would put on some kind of solemn wedding crown. The Divine Old and New Law convinces through the mouth of two and three witnesses to confirm every word. 1042 So, at the Holy Council of 318 Holy Fathers in Nicaea it was said that nature and hypostasis are not the same thing, as we established above. Likewise, the First Ephesian Holy Council of 200 Holy Fathers, through the all-wise Cyril, established in front of all the people that essence and nature are different in comparison with hypostasis, that is, face. So, the 518 Fathers are the defenders of our Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church against the acephalous; after all, neither man nor all the powers of heaven can ever cancel or refute what the Fathers of these Holy Councils determined and predicted. Finally, when the acephalians repeatedly give us one or two sayings calling nature a face, we offer them a host of 518 Holy Fathers. After all, a greater number of votes has a greater significance regarding any thing, as the rules of the Holy Apostles of Christ established. To him be power and glory forever and ever! Amen. We urge those who are about to read the book to forgive us for many corrections or repetitions, for constant infirmities do not allow us to work on it as we would like. After all, these dogmas about Christ must be preceded by an introduction, typos corrected, punctuation marks placed and then rewritten in beautiful handwriting, but our like-minded people, due to negligence and indecisiveness, did not have the appropriate diligence and diligence in this. That's why, after finishing this notebook, we submitted [our essay] with grammatical errors. Naturally, if we expressed ourselves in a certain word or thought in an inappropriate way, we ask for forgiveness, because only God is infallible. In addition to all this, we fear that the future copyist will also introduce scholia, diligently interpreting accents, periods, commas and typos, because on another occasion, and out of ignorance, certain private changes made to our dogmatic manuscript filled it with blasphemous expressions. From the Editors of the ABC of Faith. The printed edition contains a significant number of typos in the Greek text, which we corrected in cases that were obvious to us, as a rule, without noting it. In case of more significant typographical errors, the corrections we made are indicated in the notes. Compare: Matthew 5:8 (Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God); Athanasius the Great, St. Word on the Incarnation of God Word 57, 1-8 (But for the study and correct understanding of the Holy Scriptures, a good life and a pure soul and Christian dignity are needed to lead the mind through understanding, as far as human nature allows, the truth about God's Word. It is impossible to understand the teaching of the saints unless a person has a pure mind, but tries to imitate their life. Anyone who wants to look at the sunlight will naturally rub his eyes, having cleansed them first, so that a little come closer to the purity he is looking at). Wed: Exodus 12:46; Numbers 9:12; Proverbs 23:15; Isa.33:3; John 19:36. An example of such factual or material (πραγματικός) evidence is given by the Monk Anastasius in chapters XII and XXIII of the Guide. The eighth part of the thirteenth chapter of the Guide. We will translate the word φύσις and derivatives from it with the words “nature” and “nature” and derivatives from them. We will try to translate the word ἐνέργεια (action) and its derivatives in translation with the word “energy” and its derivatives. Wed: Matthew 15:21–28; Mark 7:24–30. Wed: Mark 8:22–26; John 9:1–7. Wed: Matthew 14:13–21; Mark 6:31–44. Wed: Matthew 14:25–34; Mark 6:48–53; John 6:19–21. Compare: Ps.117:22–23; Matthew 21:42; Mark 12:10; Luke 10:17; Eph.2:20; 1 Pet. 2:6–8. That is, in order to understand the fatherly teaching about Christ through knowledge of Christological definitions. See, for example, Aristotle. Physics 1, 9: “opposites destroy each other”; Physics 8, 8: “opposites destroy each other and interfere with each other.” Another postulate of Aristotle’s philosophy that is important for the history of theology: it is impossible “for an essence to consist of essences that would be in it in [a state of] complete fulfillment: what in this state of fulfillment forms two things can never represent one thing in the same state” (Metaphysics 1039. a.9–10). In the era of Christological disputes, this position was formulated by theologians as follows: “there is no non-hypostatic nature.” Perhaps the Monk Anastasius refers to the fifth hypothesis from Plato’s dialogue Parmenides, according to which the One is not knowable and does not even exist (160b–163b). Or the Monk Anastasius points to Aristotle’s position that the general principle of things of the same nature is cognized and exists in the thing itself. Therefore, the unique, “single hypostasis, which embraces everything in itself (that is, all of nature, which no longer exists in other things - Ig. A.), is indescribable.” Things are known through comparison with things of the same nature (“the two are known through the description of the one”). This saying does not appear in the surviving works of Plato. The Monk Anastasius further (the second part of the ninth chapter) attributes these words to St. Basil the Great. However, this statement is not found in the saint’s authentic works. In the Epistle 236 mentioned by the Monk Anastasius, “Additionally to Amphilochius,” St. Vasily writes: “Both essence and hypostasis have the same difference between themselves as there is between the general and the individual, for example, between a living being and such and such a person.” The identification of the concepts of “essence” and “nature” among Orthodox theologians occurred only in the era of Christological disputes (in the 6th century). Cm.; Aristotle. Topika 7, 3:153 a 15–16: “definition is speech that expresses the essence of the being of a thing.” ὅρασις (in the text ὁράσεις) ὁρίζω – literally: to limit, to determine (that is, to set limits). Hence the word "horizon". The classical ancient definition of man, also adopted by Christian authors. See, for example, Porfiry. Introduction to Aristotle's categories, ch. 7: “There is one genus for each species, for example, for a person there is a living being, and there are several distinguishing characteristics, for example, rationality, mortality, the ability to have thought and knowledge, how (what properties) he (a person) differs from other living beings.” Πατήρ from παῖς - child, boy, child and τηρέω - protect, protect. Wed: Athanasius the Great, St. Epistle on the Arian, III, 19: “One is the Son by nature, true and only begotten, but we also are made sons, not like Him, not by nature and not in reality, but by the grace of Him who called, and being earthly people, we are called gods, not as God is and as His true Word is, but as God who gave this willed, so like God we become merciful, not through this we come into equality with God, without becoming by nature and true benefactors, because to do good is not ours, but God’s invention, but since what is done by grace for us by God Himself, we make it common to others, without reasoning, but simply extending charity to everyone.” Πᾶν (all) νεῦμα (sign with head or eyes, nod, wave). See: Aristotle. On parts of animals, 3, 10:673 a 8.23: “And that only man is ticklish, the reason for this is, on the one hand, the thinness of his skin, and on the other, the fact that of all animals he alone is capable of laughing.” According to Porfiry, the ability to laugh is a person’s own, natural attribute, just as the ability to neigh is a natural attribute of a horse (see: Porfiry. Introduction to Aristotle’s categories). Sevirus of Antioch (c. 456–538) - Monophysite theologian, founder of “Sevirianism,” one of the two main (along with Julianism) movements in the history of Monophysitism. The Monk Anastasius quotes almost verbatim the definition from the work “On Providence” (Περὶ προνοίας), signed with the name of Clement of Alexandria, but, according to modern researchers, does not belong to him. The traditional theological explanation of the etymology of the word nature (φύσις) is from the word to occur, to be born (πεφυκέναι). The Monk Anastasius gives three synonyms for the word “bread” (ἄρτος, ψωμίον and βουκίν). Compare, for example, Basil the Great, St. Letter 236 (228), also Amphilochius, 6. In these and further examples, the Monk Anastasius is mistaken, since the hypostasis is a specific dove, a specific nightingale, etc., and not the entire species. Dionysius the Areopagite. On divine names, 4, 25. The word θέλημα is derived by the Monk Anastasius from the consonant expression θέειν λίαν - “to rush strongly.” According to legend, Diogenes of Sinope, in response to Plato’s definition “Man is a living creature with two legs, devoid of feathers,” plucked a chicken and announced: “Here is Plato’s man!” To which Plato was forced to add “... and with broad nails” to his definition. συμβεβηκός, in Latin – accidentia The Monk Anastasius reduces the Monothelite position about one will in Christ to absurdity - the recognition of the carnal will in the Trinity. We repeat that in translation we will try to convey the word ἐνέργεια (action) and its derivatives with the word “energy” and its derivatives. Quote from the unsurvived work of St. Gregory of Nyssa "Word to the grammarian Xenodorus." The quote is preserved in the works of St. Anastasius and St. Maximus the Confessor. Those. birds (πτηνός - bird, flying - comes from πέτομαι - to fly). Those. fish (νηκτός - fish, floating - comes from νήχω - swim). Convolvulus scammonea, a species of bindweed whose juice was used as a laxative. ἀναγγελτικός from ἀναγγέλλω – to proclaim πύρωσιν θανατοῦν τῆς σαρκός χείλη δονεῖν ἐν τῷ λαλεῖν ἐλοῦσα ἤγουν θανατοῦσα βρῶσις Isa.40:13; Rom.11:34; 1 Corinthians 2:16. Οὐσίᾳ ῥευστῇ. The Monk Anastasius says that in the body of Christ after the Resurrection there ceased to be flows of blood and so on. So, no blood flowed from the wounds that Thomas touched. As already mentioned, once Diogenes of Sinope, in response to Plato’s definition “Man is a living creature with two legs, devoid of feathers,” plucked a chicken and declared: “Here is Plato’s man!” To which Plato was forced to add “... and with broad nails” to his definition. See, for example, Porfiry. Introduction to Aristotle's categories, ch. 7. Wed: Rom.7:22; 2 Cor.4:16; Eph.3:16. This is the transcription in the publication. – Editorial of the ABC of Faith. τίθεσθαι κατὰ νώτου τὸν θνῄσκοντα ἐν ᾧ οἱ μυκτήρες στάζουσιν The Greek word σακέλ is consonant with the Syriac active participle ͫ̇ͩ͠/šāqel (from ͫͩ͠/šqal "to lift, carry; take, receive"). Pomarius - fruit, fruit, pomarium - orchard. Notarius - cursive writer, secretary, nota - sign, letter, letter. See: Dionysius the Areopagite. About divine names. 12, 2: “Divinity is an all-seeing (θεωμένη) Providence...” Wed: Matthew 14:25; Mark 6:48; John 6:19. Gregory the Theologian, St. Homily 40, For Holy Baptism. 7. ἐκ τῆς ὑπεραληθοῦς πατρικῆς ἀληθείας γέννημα Wed: John 14:26; 15:26; 16:13 ; Matthew 10:20. Gregory the Theologian, St. Homily 39, on the holy lights of the appearances of the Lord, 9. Compare: Gregory the Theologian, St. Homily 39, on the holy lights of the appearances of the Lord, 11: “For I will begin to speak not only the same, but also about the same, having a trembling tongue, and mind, and heart, every time I speak about God...”. The word ὁδηγός (guide), referred here by the Monk Anastasius to the Holy Spirit, became the title of this entire work. Currents in Monophysitism. The first received its name from the Monophysite Patriarch of Alexandria Theodosius (d. 566) and was moderate, identical to “Sevirianism.” The second was named after Guyana, a supporter of the founder of Aphthartodocetism, Julian of Halicarnac. Guyan acted as an opponent of Theodosius when elected to the See of Alexandria in 536. The Monk Anastasius, with the help of an allusion to the words “In the beginning was the Word” (John 1:1), briefly formulates the teaching of the First and Second Ecumenical Councils on the consubstantiality of the Persons of the Most Holy Trinity. Wed: Isa.14:12–15; Ezekiel 28:1–10. This expression is not found in the surviving works of the teachers of the Church who lived before St. Anastasius. Considering the further thought of the Sinaite, it is possible that he is referring from memory to the words of St. Basil the Great from Discourse 11 “On Envy”: “What armed the culprit of evil, the demon, to fight against man? Isn't it envy? The God-fighter clearly exposed himself in envy when he was indignant at God for His generous gifts to man, but took revenge on man because he could not take revenge on God.” Compare: Wisdom 2:24: “Through the envy of the devil, death entered the world.” Tradition testifies to the murder of three Old Testament prophets: by order of the Jewish king Manasseh, the prophet Isaiah was sawn in two, the prophet Jeremiah was stoned by his own people for his denunciations, the prophet Amos died from a blow to the head inflicted on him by the son of the Bethel priest Amaziah. The prophet Jeremiah (cf. Jer. 2:39), the prophet Nehemiah (cf. Neh. 9:26), the Savior (cf. Matt. 23:29–35; Luke 11:47–51) and the first martyr Stephen (cf. Acts 7:52) accuse the Jewish people of killing the prophets without calling them by name. The desecration of the prophets by the Jews is also attested in 2 Chronicles 36:15–16. The Monk Anastasius briefly touched upon the history of Gnosticism. The first Gnostic, according to Tradition, is Simon the Magus, who was baptized in Samaria by Philip, and then offered money to the apostles Peter and John for the opportunity to bring down the Holy Spirit on others, that is, for ordination (cf. Acts 8:9-25). Information about Simon's opposition to the Apostle Peter in Rome is based on the testimony of the martyr. Justin the Philosopher (Apology I, 26) and schmch. Irenaeus of Lyons (Against Heresies I, 23). About Cerinthos, a younger contemporary of the Apostle John the Theologian, the schmch speaks. Irenaeus of Lyons (Against heresies I, 26, 1; III, 3, 4). Nikolai, according to the testimony of Sschmch. Irenaeus of Lyons (Against heresies I, 26, 3), was one of the seven deacons appointed by the apostles (cf. Acts 6:5). The Nicolaitan sect is mentioned in the Apocalypse (cf. Rev. 2:6; 2:15). Schmch speaks about Marcion as his contemporary and preacher of dualism and debauchery. Justin the Philosopher (Apology I, 26). Gnosticism, as a set of religious and philosophical movements of the 1st–3rd centuries, was an effort of philosophical thought to transform Christianity from a religion into a simple religious philosophy and was characterized by the following main common features: dualism, complex cosmogony, docetism and the understanding of salvation as participation in secret knowledge (gnosis), to which only the elect are called. The father of the founder of Manichaeism, Mani (Μάνης, c. 216 - c. 277), converted from Parsism to Christianity. Therefore, the Monk Anastasius says that Mani himself came from “among those born by the power of Christ,” i.e. was baptized. However, then Mani began to preach his teachings in Persia, Central Asia and India. Manichaeism, like Gnosticism, adopted dualism from the same Parsism: evil (darkness) is a principle as independent as good (light); man is dual: a creation of the devil, he also contains elements of light. Manichaeism was widespread, in fact to the extent of a world religion. Works of the blessed Augustine, who belonged to Manichaeism for eight years before converting to Christianity, are sources on the history and doctrine of this religion. Repeatedly calling the Monophysites Manichaeans in subsequent chapters of the Guide, the Monk Anastasius thereby accuses them of dualism for their belittlement of humanity in Christ. Montanism is a heretical schismatic movement with its own strict church hierarchy, named after the founder Montanus (II–III). Montanism is known to us from the works of Tertullian, who converted to it from Christianity. Montanus and other leaders of Montanism presented themselves as prophets of the Holy Spirit - this is what St. Anastasius testifies to when he says that they call themselves “the Comforter whom Christ promised to send to the world.” The Montanists introduced their prophecies and other apocrypha into Scripture, which pushed the Church to determine the canon of Holy Scripture. Montanism was distinguished by strict rigorism (prohibition of second marriage, forgiveness of mortal sins only through martyrdom, etc.). After the Church was not defeated through persecution and through the struggle against it with pseudo-Christian teachings (Gnosticism, Manichaeism, Montanism, etc.), the devil set out to fight it with the help of internal enemies: schismatics and heretics. Novatus in the middle of the 3rd century led a schism in the Carthaginian Church against its primate St. Cyprian. The reason was disputes about the possibility and methods of receiving into the Church those who had fallen away during persecution and about the recognition or non-recognition of baptism in schismatic and heretical communities. For more details, see: Bolotov V.V. Collection of church historical works. T. 3. Lectures on the history of the Ancient Church. History of the Church in the period before Constantine. M., 2001. pp. 405–414. Apollinaris of Laodicea (d. c. 392) was a bright and irreconcilable polemicist with Arianism. He was the first to try to give a theological answer to the question of how the coexistence of Divinity and humanity in one Christ is possible. Answering this question, Apollinaris was based on one of the postulates of Aristotle’s philosophy, who argued that the existence of a perfect entity consisting of several perfect entities is impossible. In the era of Christological disputes, this position will be formulated by theologians as follows: “there is no non-hypostatic nature” (in further chapters of the Guide, St. Anastasius will repeatedly comment on this position). Thus, for Apollinaris in Christ the fullness of God (and he insisted on this in his polemics with Arianism) could not coexist with the fullness of man. Therefore, Apollinaris came to the conclusion that humanity in Christ exists only partially. At the same time, he proceeded from the Platonic anthropological scheme, according to which a person consists of body, soul and spirit. So, Apollinaris presented the incarnation as a union of the Logos and the flesh, animated by the unreasonable soul, i.e. deprived of its own mind-spirit, whose place was taken by the Logos, thanks to which the unity and integrity of Christ were preserved for Apollinaris. Flesh and Logos constituted the one nature of Christ, which Apollinaris defined as “the one incarnate nature of God the Word” (μία φύσις τοῦ Θεοῦ Λόγου σεσαρκωμένη). This formula later, under St. Cyril of Alexandria, will become key in the teaching of the Church about Christ (the Monk Anastasius also speaks about it later). Parts of a single nature - flesh and Logos - are not equivalent. The divine part dominates over the human and is the source of life and movement in Christ: only the Logos is self-moving (αὐτοκίνητος), while animate flesh passively submits to the Divine and is unable to move on its own. Flesh and Divinity together constitute a perfect unity of passive and dynamic components, complementing each other and forming a single dynamic nature. For Apollinaris, dynamism was an important characteristic of nature (this position regarding nature, formulated by Apollinaris, was accepted by the Church). The humanity of Christ, according to Apollinaris, was passive and did not have its own active principle and that is why it could not be a separate nature. Apollinaris and his heresy were condemned at the Second Ecumenical Council. In this description of the history of heresies, the Monk Anastasius says that the inspirer and true leader of this entire struggle against the Church is the enemy of the human race. This is consistent with the teaching of St. Anastasius about the three states of the human will, which he speaks about in the fourth part of the second chapter of the Guide. It is not for nothing that the Holy Father called the will of the devil in an unnatural, sinful state. By sinning, a person actually becomes an instrument in the hands of the devil, doing not his natural will, given to him by God, but the will of the devil. The Monk Anastasius conveys this thought using expressions like: the devil “kills through Cain (διὰ τοῦ Κάϊν - through Cain, with the help of Cain, by Cain) Abel.” Eve appeared as the same instrument in the hands of Satan, through whom Adam was deceived. The Monk Anastasius names the true founders of Nestorianism - Diodorus of Tarsus (305-310 - up to 394) and Theodore of Mopsuestia (360-428). Without accepting the Alexandrian "Word-Flesh" paradigm, Theodore of Mopsuestia followed another paradigm, of which he was largely the author, which is defined in modern science as the "Word-Man" (Λόγος-ἄνθρωπος). The main premise of this paradigm is the fullness of humanity in Christ. For Theodore, this fullness means, first of all, the active manifestation of humanity in Christ. He does not accept the Apollinarian concept of the passive and subordinate humanity of Christ, devoid of his own actions and will. At the same time, however, he fully shares the Apollinarian idea of ​​nature as an active being, filled with its own and “self-propelled” dynamics. What Apollinaris attributed only to the Divinity of Christ, Theodore extends to humanity. Thus, Theodore comes to the conclusion that in Christ two natures coexist, each having its own specific private existence within the framework of its hypostasis. Theodore found the answer to the complex question of how this is combined with the fact that Christ remains a single being in the concept of “relative union” (ἕνωσις σχετική) of Divinity and humanity “by good will” (ἕνωσις κατ’ εὐδοκίαν). Having united “by good pleasure,” the natures of Christ acquired a single common person, action and will. The concept of “person” (πρόσωπον) is of decisive importance in Theodore’s Christology, since it allows him to preserve the unity of Christ despite the distance of the two natures from each other. Theodore explains what he meant by face in his treatise against Eunomius: “Face has a double meaning: it means either hypostasis and what each of us is, or it refers to honor, majesty and worship. For example, "Paul" and "Peter" signify the hypostasis and person of each of them, but the face of our Lord Christ signifies honor, majesty and worship." Thus, Theodore recognized that πρόσωπον is synonymous with ὑπόστασις and means concrete being. However, when applied to Christ, the term “person of union” (πρόσωπον ἑνώσεως) has for Theodore a completely different meaning: the single honor, majesty and worship of the two natures of Christ, as well as the manner of manifestation and revelation of God through humanity. The same unifying role is played in Theodore’s Christology by the single action and single will of Christ. It should be noted that the presence of a common face of union, a common action and a common will in Christ does not at all abolish the own persons, wills and actions of the two natures, which without them would lose their completeness. Natures, each having its own face (= hypostasis), energy and will, are united by a common and united face, energy and will. In other words, Christ appears to us in the Gospel as a single Person only subjectively, in relation to an external observer He is a single Being, a single Person, but in Himself He contains two persons - Divine and human. Thus, it turned out that the Son of God and the Son of Mary are separated, between them there is only a moral connection, similar to the one that existed between God and the Old Testament righteous, and, therefore, the path to real deification for all people is still closed (the Monk Anastasius will talk about this detail of not only Nestorian, but also Monophysite Christology below). To explain the image of the union of two natures in Christ, Theodore of Mopsuestia cites the image according to which the Divinity and humanity in Christ are united like the union of husband and wife into one flesh. In Nestorius, the main image is the image of a house or church, meaning a person in whom God dwells. In any case, this unity turns out to be external, it is the unity of power, honor, strength or benevolence. Both founders of Nestorianism were condemned after their death: Diodorus of Tarsus was condemned at some Local Councils of the 5th–6th centuries, and Theodore of Mopsuestia - at the V Ecumenical Council. After his condemnation and deposition at the Third Ecumenical Council, Nestorius was sent into exile to Antioch, from there to Petra Idumea, and then to the Great Oasis in the Libyan Desert. Then, already quite old and sick, Nestorius was forced, at the insistence of the Archbishop of Alexandria Dioscorus (the head of the “robber” council of 449), to change his place of exile several more times in upper Egypt, where he died in 451 (See, for example, Kartashev A.V. Ecumenical Councils. St. Petersburg, 2002. pp. 262–263). The Monk Anastasius here speaks of a certain book that he wrote specifically against the Nestorians. However, among his known works there is no special anti-Nestorian polemical creation. Therefore, in one of the manuscripts the copyist wrote in the margins: “Notice that this father also wrote a book against the heresy of Nestorius, which is unknown to us.” The Monk Anastasius points to the Nestorian understanding of the Council of Chalcedon: as if the Chalcedonian oros speaks of a certain new hypostasis (that same Theodore “face of union”) of Christ, which included the Hypostasis of God the Word and a separate human hypostasis. St. constantly spoke about the danger of such division, which, despite the denial of it in words, exists among the Nestorians. Cyril, to whose authority the Monk Anastasius refers here. Thus, in the Second Epistle to Suckens, St. Cyril writes: “Consequently, when they (Nestorians - Ig. A.) assert with excessive zeal that He (Christ - Ig. A.) suffered “human nature,” as if completely separating him from the Word and placing him outside Him, separately, their goal is to see two (beings), and not just one incarnate and incarnate Word from God the Father. And the added “indivisible”, although it looks like our indication of the true view, they do not think like that. After all, this inseparable, in accordance with the idle talk of Nestorius, is understood by them in a different way, for they say that the person into whom the Word of God has indwelled is inseparable from Him in terms of equality of honor, identity of will and power, so they do not just pronounce these expressions, but with a certain slyness and malicious intent” (Cyril of Alexandria, St. Another memorial note, written in response to questions to us about the same thing, to to the same Sukkens // Theological Bulletin. No. 10. Sergiev Posad, 2010. pp. 30–31). The Monk Anastasius is not entirely accurate here. The Alexandrian Archbishop Peter I excommunicated Arius, who was then still a deacon, for his sympathy with the Melitian schism, and not for the triadological errors that he began to preach later. After the martyrdom of Peter in 311, Arius united with the Alexandrian Church and was ordained to the priesthood by Peter's successor Achilas. After Akhila, he was, along with Alexander, a candidate for the See of Alexandria. The Arian turmoil began already in 318, when Arius, in a dispute with St. Alexander began to deny the Divinity of Christ. According to Arius, God is a closed, perfect, unchangeable and immovable monad. God is the beginningless Absolute, Who can only be one. Only the Father is without beginning, therefore only the Father is God in the proper sense. Everything else is foreign to God and has a different essence, including the Son, who is born, that is, changes, and, therefore, is not God, but a creature. Therefore, the Son is alien and not like the Father, born “from things that do not exist” (ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων), “there was a time when He did not exist.” The Son is a creature, albeit a higher one, he is the Father’s mediator in the work of creation, which God, who is absolutely transcendent to all created things, needs. The Incarnation of the Son is another proof of His dissimilarity to the Father, for God, who is transcendent to His creation, cannot in any way unite with it. The Monk Anastasius refers to the Symbol of the Council of Nicaea: “We believe in one God the Father, Almighty, Creator of everything visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father, that is, from the essence of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one essence with the Father, through whom all things came into being, both in heaven and on earth, for the sake of us men and for the sake of our salvation, who descended, became incarnate and became man, suffered and rose again on the third day, ascended into heaven and comes to judge the living and the dead. And in the Holy Spirit." An anathematism was added to this Symbol, which lists the main provisions of the teachings of Arius: “Whoever says that “there was when He was not,” and “before His birth He did not exist,” and that He came “from things that do not exist,” or who say that the Son of God “is from another Hypostasis” or “essence,” or that He is “created,” or “changeable,” or “changeable,” are anathematized by the Catholic and Apostolic Church." Triadological terminology was developed after the First Ecumenical Council by the holy Cappadocian Fathers Basil the Great, Gregory the Theologian and Gregory of Nyssa. This terminology, transferred by Orthodox theologians to Christology, is formulated by the Monk Anastasius in the second chapter of the Guide. It was the Cappadocian Fathers, who separated the concepts of “essence” and “hypostasis” and compared the first concept of Aristotle’s “general essence”, and the second – “particular essence”, and developed the doctrine of a single essence and three Hypostases in God. The fact that the First Ecumenical Council had not yet worked out the meaning of the words “essence” and “hypostasis” is evidenced by the history of the Alexandria Council of 362, chaired by St. Athanasius the Great. Those who taught about three Persons in God were accused of Arianism, and those who traditionally identified essence with hypostasis and spoke of one essence, one hypostasis and three Persons in God were accused of Sabellianism. Upon examination, it turned out that both of them think the same way, putting different meanings into these terms. Sabellius is the most prominent representative of the modalist monarchist heresy. In Sabellius we see the complete completion of the teaching of modalism. God Himself is a closed Unit - Monad (Μονάς). Thinkable outside of relation to the world, God who does not reveal himself is a silent God. But God, who reveals himself to the world, is already a speaking God. For this, God posits Himself as the Word (the usual idea among apologists: the Logos is born to create the world). But this speech of the Word to the world has the character of a trilogy, embracing the entire economy. The Logos is revealed in three persons: as Father, as Son, as Spirit. So, for Sabellius the Monad is not the Father, the Logos is not the Son: the Logos precedes the Father. He associates the Trinity with the history of the economy: the prerogative manifestation of the Father was the creation of the world and the Sinai legislation, the Son - the incarnation, and the Holy Spirit - His descent on the apostles. The One God appears to us successively, now as Father, now as Son, now as Spirit. The image of the Father ceases to exist when the image of the Son appears, and the Son ceases to exist when the image of the Holy Spirit appears. The Πρόσωπον of the Holy Spirit is also not eternal and will have its end. The Holy Spirit will return to the Logos, the Logos will again shrink into the Monad, the speaking God will again become a silent God, and everything will be plunged into silence, for Sabellius the face is not a hypostasis, but rather only a name (ὄνομα); hypostasis is essence. God is one essence, one hypostasis, one subject. There can be no place for subordinationism in Savelli's system. However, Savellius thinks of the face only as an actor’s mask, a guise. Thus, modalism is a return to Jewish strict monotheism and thus is a denial of the Trinity dogma. James Baradeus, Bishop of Edessa (d. 578) - founder of the Monophysite hierarchy. Before him, Monophysite and Orthodox (Diphysite) bishops often replaced each other in the same see, but did not simultaneously occupy the same see. According to the teachings of Photinus, Bishop of Sirmite, Christ was born a simple man, and His deity is the result of personal merit due to the fact that the power of the Father descended on Him at the moment of Baptism and dwelt in Him. The condemnation of Photinus and his teachings did not take place at the First Ecumenical Council, but later at the Council of Antioch in 344, at the Councils of Milan in 345 and 347, and at the Council of Sirmit in 351. Macedonius was deposed from the See of Constantinople at the Council of Constantinople in 360. He himself was a Homiusian, but the party of the Doukhobors - the extreme Arians - was designated by the name of the Macedonians rather by accident. About Macedonia, Doukhoborism and the judgments of researchers regarding the formation of the Creed, see, for example, Bolotov V.V. History of the Church during the Ecumenical Councils: History of Theological Thought. M. 2007. pp. 116–155. Having anathematized Nestorius and some provisions of Nestorianism, the Third Ecumenical Council did not accept any positive dogmatic formulas. The doctrine of the complex hypostasis of Christ was formulated later. The lengthy scholia from the second chapter is repeated here verbatim. Timothy II Elur - Patriarch of Alexandria from March 457 to January 460 and again from late 475 to July 31, 477. One of the most prominent figures of the anti-Chalcedonian party in the Church. Elur (Αἴλουρος - cat) received his nickname for his cunning. John the Grammar of Caesarea (1st third of the 6th century) - Byzantine theologian. The most important work is “Apology of the Council of Chalcedon”. One of the first Orthodox theologians who began to transfer Cappadocian triadological terminology to Christology. “Against the Impious Grammar” is the most important dogmatic work of Sevier in three books (words), compiled no earlier than 519 and which in the eyes of Sevier’s followers became the theological “sum of faith.” Aquila (1st half of the 2nd century AD) - Jewish translator into Greek. He converted to Christianity, but then converted to Judaism. The translation has clearly anti-Christian tendencies (for example, in the translation of Is. 7:14 he used the word νεᾶνις - young woman, and not παρθένος - Virgin). Aquila's work was used by the Jews until the 7th century. Nephalius of Alexandria is an Orthodox theologian who spoke at the beginning of the 6th century in Alexandria in defense of the Council of Chalcedon and against the teachings of Sevirus of Antioch. A dispute took place between them in 508, after which Sevier was expelled from the city and went to Constantinople to enlist the support of Emperor Anastasius, who pursued a policy of supporting Monophysitism. Nephaly followed him. He published the treatise "Apology of the Council of Chalcedon." Sevier responded to him with the composition “To Nephalius”. These words are not found in the surviving works of Sevier. δευτέρωσις – here: Jewish tradition, legend. The Monk Anastasius says that Sevier is likened to the Jews, who with their interpretations distort the true meaning of the Old Testament. Φιλαλήθης - “Lover of truth.” This is what Sevier calls St. Cyril of Alexandria. The essay appeared as follows. During Sevirus's stay in Constantinople in 508–511, he came into possession of the Florilegium, compiled around 482 in Alexandria by a supporter or group of supporters of the Council of Chalcedon in order to show that St. Cyril of Alexandria was not an opponent of the doctrine of two natures, but recognized two natures in Christ. "Florilegium" included 244 fragments of Diphysite content from the works of St. Kirill. In Philalethe, Sevier provides alternative excerpts from the works of St. Kirill, and tries to interpret the expressions given in the “Florilegia” in a Monophysite vein. Notary - an employee of the Byzantine chancellery, various departments in Constantinople and in the provinces. Notaries were engaged in correspondence and drafting of documents. See: Aristotle. Categories. 5. Julian is the bishop of Halicarnassus in Caria, the founder of Aphthartodocetism, who expressed his views in a polemic (520–527) with Sevirus of Antioch. Peter Knafeos – Patriarch of Antioch (471–488), supporter of non-Chalcedonian Christology. He received his nickname Κναφεύς (Γναφεύς) - fuller, fuller - from the obedience he carried out in the Monastery of the Never-Sleeping in Constantinople. He is considered the author of adding the words “crucified for us” at the end of the Trisagion. The head of one of the groups of Egyptian Monophysites. That is, when, according to Sevier, the Church was struck by an ulcer from the teachings of Nestorius. The Monk Anastasius quotes the words of Sevier from 1 Epistle to Nephalius. Words of Sevier from 1 Epistle to Nephali. There is no such phrase in the surviving works of Sevier. Most likely, the Monk Anastasius in his own words ironically expresses the thought of the heresiarch. Artemon, like Paul of Samosata, is mentioned in the “Ecclesiastical History” of Eusebius Pamphilus in chapter 28 of book 5. Artemy is one of the founders, and Paul is the pinnacle of dynamic monarchianism, the essence of which is that Christ by nature is not God, but a man upon whom at the moment of baptism the Spirit of God, the Word, the Wisdom of God descends (the power of God, and not the Person of the Trinity, hence the name - dynamists: δύναμις - power), as previously descended on the prophets, only with an advantage, to a greater extent and strength. Actually, the dynamists cannot even talk about incarnation. It was only the coexistence of the Wisdom of God, the Logos (the power, not the hypostasis of God) with Christ - “relative union”, “union by good will”. Later, such a relative union by the good will of humanity, but only with a perfect God, will be spoken of in Nestorianism. See: Testimony of the Constantinople clergy, publicly proclaimed to the entire Church, that Nestorius is of one mind with Paul of Samosata, who 160 years before Nestorius was anathematized by Orthodox bishops. ASO I, 1, 1, p. 10lsq. ICE.T. 1. pp. 156–157. Deut.32:39. Wed: Luke 24:39. There is no such phrase in the surviving works of Sevier. Probably, here too is the irony of St. Anastasius. Ambrose of Milan, St. On Faith, II, 9, 77. Cyril of Alexandria. Epistle 55 (Cyril, Archbishop of Alexandria on the Holy Symbol). ACO I, 1, 4, p. 60. ICE. T. 1. P. 580. Proclus of Constantinople, St. Homily 2 (Discourse of Proclus of the Bishop of Cyzicus, spoken in the presence of Nestorius in the great Church of Constantinople, about the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ, that the Holy Virgin Mary is the Mother of God and that the one born of Her is not only God and not only man, but Immanuel, who is together God and man, unfused and immutable). ACO I, 1, 1, r. 104. ICE. T. 1. P. 138 Proclus of Constantinople, St. Commentary on Isaiah 9:5. Proclus of Constantinople, St. On the Incarnation, II. Sevier of Antioch. 1 Epistle to Nephali, I, 13-17. Cyril Bishop of Alexandria about Paul, who spoke before, and about the Incarnation of the Lord. ACO I, 1, 4, p. 15. ICE. T. 1. P. 540. The dialogue is composed of the words of Sevir of Antioch from 1 Nephalius, I. Memorandum from Archbishop Kirill to Presbyter Eulogius, who is in Constantinople. ACO I, 1, 4, p. 36. ICE. T. 1. P. 552. The Monk Anastasius means “Sermon 39. On the Holy Lights of the Apparitions of the Lord,” dedicated to the Feast of the Epiphany, in which St. Gregory the Theologian clearly formulated trinitarian theology. Those. unity of the race, or nature (Divine). τῶν θολονάμων. Here either the now unknown proper name of a certain region, or a typo and should stand instead of this word, as in some manuscripts of the Guide: “filled with dust and dirt.” In Greek and Slavic text. In Hebrew and Russian text: "Penuel". τὴν τοῦ πράγματος ἀλήθειαν Sschmch. Peter of Alexandria (310) excommunicated Arius from the Church because he admitted that the Melitians were right. Aristotle. Physics II, 1:192b 13–21; VIII, 3:253b 8–9; Metaphysics VI, 1:1025b 20. πρωτότοκος τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος Conciliar statement of faith of the First Ecumenical Council. ICE. T.I.S. 70. Compare: About how one should understand the three Persons in the One Divinity of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. (DVS. T. I. P. 70–71). The Monk Anastasius in this paragraph reproduces the argumentation of St. Basil the Great from his Epistle 125. Basic Monophysite formula: ἐκ δύο φύσεων πρὸ τῆς ἑνώσεως, μία φύσις μετὰ τήν ἕνωσιν (from two natures before the union, one nature after the union). The Monk Anastasius uses a method by contradiction: he reduces the arguments of his opponents to old triadological heresies or outright absurdity. Epistle of Cyril, Archbishop of Alexandria, to John, Bishop of Antioch, sent with Paul, Bishop of Emesa. ACO I, 1, 4, p. 17. ICE. T.I.S. 541. See: Memorandum from Archbishop Kirill to Presbyter Eulogius, who is in Constantinople. ACO I, 1, 4, p. 36. ICE. T.I.S. 159–161. On the contrary, this Epistle is evidence of the restoration of communion between the Churches. The Monk Anastasius quotes the first of the seven Dialogues on the Trinity by St. Kirill. True, St. Cyril speaks of the difference not between nature and hypostasis, but between essence and hypostasis. Basil the Great, St. Message 236 (228). In addition, Amphilochius, 6. These words are contained in one of the fragments of the unsurvived works of St. Amphilochia. Amphilochius of Iconium, St. Letter to Seleucus, 6. One of the names of the followers of the monophysite Barsanuphius. Cyril of Alexandria, St. Epistle of Cyril, Archbishop of Alexandria, to John, Bishop of Antioch, sent with Paul, Bishop of Emesa. ACO I, 1, 4, p. 17. ICE. T.I.S. 541. Cyril of Alexandria, St. Memorial note from the most God-loving and holy Archbishop Kirill to His Beatitude Sukkens, Bishop of Diocaesarea, Isaurian Diocese // Theological Bulletin. No. 10. Sergiev Posad, 2010. P. 20. Here and below, in quotation marks, the Monk Anastasius quotes his words from the debate described. Cyril of Alexandria, St. Another memorial note, written in response to questions to us about the same thing, and also to Sukkens // Theological Bulletin. No. 10. Sergiev Posad, 2010. P. 28. Cyril of Alexandria, St. Interview with the Alexandrians about faith. Cyril of Alexandria, St. Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews. Cyril of Alexandria, St. Scholium, 11. ACO I, 5, p. 190. Cyril of Alexandria, St. Second Epistle to Nestorius. ACO I, 1, 1, r. 27. ICE. T.I.S. 145. In fact: Cyril of Alexandria, St. Scholium, 13. Lat. ACO I, 5, p. 194. Cyril of Alexandria, St. Second Epistle to Nestorius. ACO I, 1, 1, r. 27. ICE. T. I. P. 145. Ambrose of Milan, St. On Faith, II, 9, 77, p. 84. Gregory of Nyssa, St. Refutation of Eunomius. III, III, 66. In fact: Gregory of Nyssa, St. Against Apollinaris, 40. Gregory of Nyssa, St. Commentary on Philippians, 195. Gregory of Nyssa, St. Homily IV On the Beatitudes. Gregory the Theologian, St. Epistle 101. To the presbyter Kledonius, against Apollinaris first. John Chrysostom, St. Word for the Ascension. John Chrysostom, St. Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, Homily 2. Proclus of Constantinople, St. Word 2. Ephraim "Greek". On Margarit, 263. Amphilochius of Iconium, St. Letter to Seleucus, 15. Isidore Pelusiot, St. Epistle I, 370 Amphilochius of Iconium, St. Commentary on John 14:28. Cyril of Alexandria, St. Memorandum from Archbishop Kirill to Presbyter Eulogius, who is in Constantinople. ACO I, 14 4, r. 36. ICE. T.I.S. 552. Proclus of Constantinople, St. On the Incarnation, II. Proclus of Constantinople, St. Commentary on Isaiah 9:5. This phrase is preserved only in quotes from church writers. Antiochus Bishop of Ptolemais. Interpretation For Christmas. Perhaps the Monk Anastasius indicates his height - two arshins and 18 vershoks (about 2.20 m). Νυστάζων - lazy, dozing. Play on words: ἄπορα, ἵνα μὴ λέγω ἄπυρα καὶ ψυχρὰ προβλήματα. Cyril of Alexandria, St. Epistle of Cyril Bishop of Alexandria to Nestorius on excommunication, 11. ACO I, 1, 1, p. 40. ICE. T.I.S. 198. Monophysites (like Orthodox Christians) profess one hypostasis of Christ. We came to a contradiction: the hypostases (that is, of nature, according to the Monophysites) remained unfused and they did not remain unfused. That is, according to Sevier, in Christology hypostasis is synonymous with nature, not person. Wed: Cyril of Alexandria, St. Scholium, 11. ACO I, 5, p. 190. In the surviving works of St. Kirill does not have this phrase. Compare: Cyril of Alexandria, St. Of Worship and Service in Spirit and Truth, IX. Cyril of Alexandria, St. Epistle of Cyril Bishop of Alexandria to Nestorius on excommunication, 11. ACO I, 1, 1, p. 40. ICE. T.I.S. 198. Dionysius the Areopagite. Message 4, Gaius the servant. John Chrysostom, St. Discourses on the Gospel of Matthew, 2. John Chrysostom, St. Word on the Ascension, 446. John Chrysostom, St. Word on the Ascension, 445. Ambrose of Milan, St. On Faith, II. Gregory of Nyssa, St. Refutation of Eunomius, III. Gregory of Nyssa, St. Discourses on the Beatitudes, IV. In the surviving works of St. Athanasius does not have this phrase. Basil the Great, St. About the post, 9. Athanasius the Great, St. Word on the Incarnation of God the Word, 20. Gregory the Theologian, St. Homily 38, for Epiphany, or for the Nativity of the Savior. Ambrose of Milan, St. About the incarnation, 5. Cyril of Alexandria, St. Memorial note from the most God-loving and holy Archbishop Kirill to His Beatitude Sukkens, Bishop of Diocaesarea, Isaurian Diocese // Theological Bulletin. No. 10. Sergiev Posad, 2010. P. 23. Compare: Cyril of Alexandria, St. Defense of the 12 Chapters against the Eastern Bishops, 3. Cyril of Alexandria, St. Memorandum from Archbishop Kirill to Presbyter Eulogius, who is in Constantinople. ACO I, 1, 4, p. 36. ICE. T.I.S. 552. Act 1 of the Council of Chalcedon. ICE. T. II. P. 103; Act II of the Council of Chalcedon. ICE. T. II. P. 231. Cyril of Alexandria, St. Interpretation of the Epistle to the Hebrews. In fact: Cyril of Alexandria, St. Scholium, 11. ACO I, 5, p. 190. Act 1 of the Council of Chalcedon. ICE. T. II. P. 103; Act II of the Council of Chalcedon. ICE. T. II. P. 231. In fact: Cyril of Alexandria, St. Scholium, 13. ACO I, 5, p. 222. Cyril of Alexandria, St. Message 45. ACO I, 1, 6, p. 154. Paul Bishop of Emesa. A conversation by Bishop Paul, delivered in the great Church of Alexandria on January 1, about the Incarnation of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and in praise of Archbishop Kirill. ICE. T.I.S. 538. Compare: Epistle of Cyril, Archbishop of Alexandria, to John, Bishop of Antioch, sent with Paul, Bishop of Emesa. ACO I, 1, 4, p. 17. ICE. T.I.S. 541. Compare: Gregory the Theologian, St. Homily 38, on Epiphany, or on the Nativity of the Savior; Cyril of Jerusalem, St. Catechetical Teachings, IV; Cyril of Alexandria, St. About the Holy and Consubstantial Trinity. Compare: Gregory of Nyssa, St. Against Eunomius, III; Cyril of Alexandria, St. Another memorial note, written in response to questions to us about the same thing, and also to Sukkens // Theological Bulletin. No. 10. Sergiev Posad, 2010. pp. 25–31. Compare: Cyril of Alexandria, St. Another memorial note, written in response to questions to us about the same thing, and also to Sukkens // Theological Bulletin. No. 10. Sergiev Posad, 2010. pp. 25–31. Wed: John Chrysostom, St. Commentary on the Epistle to the Philippians. Compare: Gregory of Nyssa, St. Against Eunomius, III. Compare: Ephraim “Greek”. On Margarit, 263. Wed: Amphilochius of Iconium, St. Letter to Seleucus, 6. Wed: Proclus of Constantinople, St. On the Incarnation, 11. Wed: Basil the Great, St. About fasting, 9; Ambrose of Milan, St. On Faith, II. Αὐγουστάλιος - imperial prefect of Egypt. οὗ τὴν συζυγίαν τῶν φύσεων οὐ τὴν συζυγίαν τῶν φύσεων ὁ Θωμᾶς ἑωρακώς Cyril of Alexandria, St. Scholium, 11. ASO I, 5, p. 190. Cyril of Alexandria, St. Epistle of Cyril Bishop of Alexandria to Nestorius on excommunication, 11. ASO I, 1, 1, p. 40. ICE. T.I.S. 198. Compare: Cyril of Alexandria, St. To Euoptius, against the refutation of 12 chapters compiled by Theodoret, 2. Cyril of Alexandria, St. Memorandum from Archbishop Kirill to Presbyter Eulogius, who is in Constantinople. ACO I, 1, 4, p. 36. ICE. T.I.S. 552. The image of the union of humanity and Divinity in Christ, in the likeness of a drop of vinegar dissolving in the abyss of the sea, belongs to St. Gregory of Nyssa. Preserved in fragments. Compare: Markell, Bishop of Ancyra. On the Incarnation, 3. Compare: Pseudo-Athanasius. Against Apollinaris, II. Compare: Cyril of Alexandria, St. Epistle of Cyril Bishop of Alexandria to Nestorius on excommunication, 11. ACO I, 1, 1, p. 40. ICE. T.I.S. 198. Compare: Gregory the Theologian, St. Homily 21, commendable to Athanasius the Great, Archbishop of Alexandria, 35. For more information about the Council of Alexandria in 362, see, for example, Bolotov V.V. History of the Church during the Ecumenical Councils: History of Theological Thought. M. 2007. pp. 122–125. In the first years of the 6th century, the Monophysite Patriarch of Antioch Peter Gnatheos, or Knafeos, changed the text of the Trisagion Song, which was performed at the Council of Chalcedon. He added to the Trisagion hymn before the words “have mercy on us” the words “crucified for us,” which caused confusion among the people. Since this song was always perceived as addressed to the Holy Trinity, the Orthodox suspected the Monophysites of professing the suffering of the Three Persons of the Trinity or the Divine nature, that is, they were theopaschites. The Evangelist Matthew refers to the prophecy of Jeremiah: “Then was fulfilled what was spoken through the prophet Jeremiah, who says: And they took thirty pieces of silver, the price of Him who was valued, whom the children of Israel valued, and gave them for the potter’s ground, as the Lord said to me” (Matthew 27:9–10). However, the book of the prophet Jeremiah does not mention 30 pieces of silver. The only place in the prophet Jeremiah that talks about pieces of silver is this: “And I bought a field from Hanameel my uncle’s son, which is in Anathoth, and weighed out to him seven shekels of silver and ten pieces of silver” (Jer. 32:9). The prophecy about the 30 pieces of silver is found only in the book of Zechariah: “And I will say to them: if it pleases you, then give Me My wages; if not, don’t give it; and they will weigh out thirty pieces of silver as payment to Me. And the Lord said to me: throw them into the church storehouse - the price at which they valued Me is high! And I took thirty pieces of silver and threw them into the house of the Lord for the potter” (Zech. 11:12–13). Ignatius of Antioch, sschmch. Romans 6. Julius I Pope. About faith, 6. Gregory the Theologian, St. Homily 45, for Holy Pascha, 19. Wed: Meliton of Sardis, St. About Easter. Gregory the Theologian, St. Homily 45, for Holy Pascha, 29. Compare: Gregory the Theologian, St. Epistle 3, to the presbyter Kledonius against Apollinaris first. παραδείγματος καὶ σχήματος ἐνυποστάτου In fact: 1 Peter 3:18. Ignatius of Antioch, smch. Romans 6. Gregory the Theologian, St. Homily 39, on the holy lights of the appearances of the Lord, 16. Compare: “I said: you are gods, and you are all sons of the Most High” (Ps. 82:6). This phrase is not found in the surviving works of St. Athanasius the Great. Pseudo-Athanasius. Against Apollinaris, II. Timofey Elur. Objections to the definitions of the Council of Chalcedon. Athanasius the Great, St. Epistle to Epictetus, 6. Athanasius the Great, St. Epistle to Epictetus, 2. Cyril of Alexandria, St. Memorandum from Archbishop Kirill to Presbyter Eulogius, who is in Constantinople. ACO I, 1.4, r. 36. ICE. T.I.S. 552. These words are not found in the works of St. Gregory the Theologian. This phrase in the surviving works of St. Gregory of Nyssa is not there, but this image is present in fragments. Compare: Gregory of Nyssa, St. On the constitution of man, 25. Wed: Epiphanius of Cyprus, St. Against heresies, 42. Gregory of Nyssa, St. Against Eunomius. III. Dionysius the Areopagite. On Divine Names, 2, 10. Compare: Dionysius the Areopagite. On Divine Names, 2, 9. Compare: Dionysius the Areopagite. On Divine Names, 2, 9. Compare: Dionysius the Areopagite. On Divine Names, 2, 10. Compare: Dionysius the Areopagite. Message 4, Gaius the servant. Wed: Luke 24:39; John 20:20–27. περὶ τῶν κεκοιμημένων (1 Thess. 4:13). κοιμηθησόμεθα (1 Cor. 15:51). τοὺς κοιμηθέντας (1 Thess. 4:15). τὸν θάνατον (cf.: 1 Cor. 11:26). θανατωθείς (1 Peter 3:18). Compare: Cyril of Alexandria, St. Epistle of Cyril to Akakios, Bishop of Melitene, who reproached him with his message for agreeing with the Easterners. ACO I, 1, 4, p. 27. ICE. T.I.S. 550. That is, monothelites. On behalf of a certain Monothelite Armasius, who polemicized around 636 in Alexandria with the Patriarch of Jerusalem Sophronius. Compare: Gregory of Nyssa, St. Discourses on the Lord's Prayer, V. Wed: Mark 8:22–26; John 9:1–9. Wed: Matthew 4:1–4; Luke 4:2. 783 Compare: Matthew 8:24; Mark 4:38. Wed: Meliton of Sardis, St. On the Incarnation of Christ, Homily 3. In fact: John Chrysostom, St. Discourses on the Gospel of John, 67. That is from the region of Batania (bib. Vasan) or from the city of the same name in this region. Porfiry's anti-Christian works have not survived. Some phrases from these works were preserved by the holy fathers who polemicized with Porfiry. Works of St. Ammonium of Alexandria (5th or 6th century) survives only in fragments. In the book of Genesis it is written that Seth lived 912 years (cf. Gen. 5:8). Compare: Exodus 34:29–35; Deut.2:7. Wed: Luke 22:37; Isa.53:12. Wed: Ps.15:10; Acts 2:27. As mentioned above, the works of St. Ammonium of Alexandria (5th or 6th century) survives only in fragments. The work of Philo of Alexandria, which is quoted by St. Ammonium. Wed: Matthew 8:29; Mark 3:11; Luke 4:41. Compare: Maron of Edessa. Against Sevier. Preserved only in fragments. Wed: Matthew 14:19; Mark 6:41; Luke 9:16. Wed: Matthew 26:39; Mark 14:36; Luke 22:42. Compare: John 5:36–38, 6:29–57, 7:29, 8:42, 10:36 and others. Compare: Epiphanius of Cyprus, St. Against heresies, 66. Theodosian Patriarch of Alexandria John III (680–689). Compare: Gregory the Theologian, St. Epistle 101. To the presbyter Kledonius, against Apollinaris first. The works of this Monophysite author have survived only in fragments. Compare: Dionysius the Areopagite. About the divine names, 2, 6: “After all, the Father and the Spirit did not at all participate in this (in the Incarnation and the entire earthly life of Christ - Ig. A.) with the Word, unless someone says that only thanks to the magnificent and humane unity of will and the common highest inexpressible divine action, He who abides as God and God's Word, unchangeable, did all this for us.” This phrase is not found in the surviving works of church writers. Play on words: ἀπορία - aporia, difficulty, bewilderment, ἀπόῤῥοια - flow, stream, outflow, release. This quote is from the work of St. Eulogia of Alexandria (607/8) “Defense” was often used by Severus of Antioch (“Against the Impious Grammar,” etc.) and other Monophysites. This quotation is not found in the surviving works of Sevier of Antioch. Perhaps St. Anastasius is not quoting Sevier verbatim here, but briefly formulating the essence of his understanding of the anthropological paradigm. “I am a worm, and not a man” (Ps. 21:7). Compare: Gen.49:9; Rev.5:5. Compare: Isa.53:7; Acts 8:32; Jeremiah 11:19; Rev. 5:6–12. “The righteous will flourish like a date” (Ps. 91:13). That is, a Nestorian - named Paul of Samosata, whose teaching has parallels with Nestorianism. Compare: Lev.8:14–17; Luke 2:24. Sevier of Antioch. 1 Epistle to Nephali, I, 12 ff. One of the founders of the dynamic movement in monarchianism. Apparently, the Monk Anastasius points to the subnationalism of Origen. Although, according to Origen, the Son is coeternal with the Father and there is no gap between the Father and the Son, there is still no single essence of the Father and the Son and Their complete equality. Only the Father is the true God, while Origen refers to the Son with the term “God”, as a rule, with clarification: God by communion, God by characteristics, second, other, lower God. The testimony of the Constantinople clergy, publicly proclaimed to the entire Church, that Nestorius is of one mind with Paul of Samosata, who 160 years before Nestorius was anathematized by Orthodox bishops. ACO I, 1, 1, r. 101. ICE. T. 1. P. 156. Sevier of Antioch. 1 Epistle to Nephalius, I, 8 ff. A similar Russian proverb: The word is not a sparrow - it will fly out, but you will not catch it. In fact: Basil the Great, St. Message 226 (218). To the ascetics under his jurisdiction, 3. This fragment from Arius has been preserved only here. The Monk Anastasius speaks about the problem of dating and duration of Egyptian captivity. Compare: Gen.6:3, 7:6, 9:28. Wed: Isa.1:11; Jer.7:22. Compare: Exodus 12:14–17; 27:21; 28:43; 29:28; 30:21; 31:16. Compare: Ion. 2:1; Matthew 12:40. Wed: Matthew 5:39; John 18:23. Dionysius the Areopagite. On divine names, 9, 4. Compare: Dionysius the Areopagite. On the church hierarchy, 5. Compare: Maxim the Confessor, St. Scholium on Dionysius the Areopagite, 60. Basil the Great, St. Conversations on Shestodnev, I, 3. A fragment from this little-known Nestorian author Andrei was preserved only by the Monk Anastasius. Compare: Cyril of Alexandria, St. Scholium, 11. ACO I, 5, p. 190. This fragment from Maron of Edessa was preserved only by the Monk Anastasius. Compare: Athanasius the Great, St. Against the Arians, III, 56. This phrase is sschmch. Hippolyta of Rome has survived in fragments. Dionysius the Areopagite. About divine names. 2, 4. Dionysius the Areopagite. About divine names. 2, 4. Dionysius the Areopagite. About divine names. 2, 6. That is from the doctrine of the Holy Trinity. Maxim the Confessor, St. Interpretations. (On: Dionysius the Areopagite. On the divine names. 2, 6.) Dionysius the Areopagite. About divine names. 2, 6. Wed: Deut.19:15; Matthew 18:16; 2 Corinthians 13:1; 1 Timothy 5:19.