Часть III. *

Jesus Christ is the True Son of God. Photinus' fallacy 19. So, believing in the unchangeable Trinity, let us also believe in the temporary economy for the sake of the salvation of the human race. Let us not listen to those who say that the Son of God Jesus Christ was only a man so righteous that he became worthy to be called the Son of God 60. For the discipline of the Catholic Church rejects them, for, deluded by the desire for vain glory, they irritably want to argue before coming to an understanding of who is “the Powers of God and the Wisdom of God” (1 Cor. 1:24), “the Word in the beginning,” through whom “all things were made” (cf. John 1:1-8), and how “the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us" (John 1:14). 20. Nec eos audiamus, qui non uerum homincm suscepisse dicunt filium dei neque natum esse de femina, sed falsam carnem et imaginem simulatam corporis humani ostendisse uidentibus. nesciunt enim, quomodo substantia dei administrans uniuersam creaturam inquinari omnino non possit, et tamen praedicant istum uisibilem solem radios suos per omnes feces et sordes corporum spargere et eos mundos et sinceros ubique seruare. si ergo uisibilia niunda uisibilibus inmundis contingi possunt 61 et non inquinari, quanto magis inuisibilis el incommutabilis ueritas per spiritum animam et per animam corpus suscipiens toto homine adsumpto ab omnibus cum infirmitatibus nulla sua contaminatione libcrauit! itaque magnas patiuntur angustias et, cum timent, quod fieri non potest, ne humana carne ueritas inquinetur, ueritatem dicunt esse mentitam. et cum ille praeceperit dicens: sit in ore ueströ est, est; non, non, et apostolus clamet: non erat in illo est et non, sed est in illo erat, isti totum corpus eius falsam carnem fuisse contendunt, ut non sibi uideantur imitari christum, si non suis auditoribus mentiantur. The Son of God assumed true humanity. The fallacy of Manichaeism 20. Let us not listen to those who say that the Son of God did not take on a true man, was not born of a wife, but appeared to those who saw Him in deceptive flesh and in an image only similar to the human body 62. After all, they do not know that the Divine essence, which governs all creation, cannot in any way be defiled [by this]. Nevertheless, they themselves admit that this visible sun spreads its rays among all dirt and bodily impurities, keeping them everywhere pure and undefiled. So, if visible things, being pure, can touch visible and unclean things 63 without becoming polluted, then how much more is the invisible and unchangeable Truth, perceiving the soul through the spirit and the body through the soul, 64 and thus perceiving the whole person. freed him from all infirmities, without being defiled in the least. That is why they experience great difficulties, and because they are afraid of what cannot be, that the Truth will be defiled by human flesh, they declare the Truth to be a lie. And since Christ commanded, saying: “But let your word be: yea, yea; no, no” (Matthew 5:37), and the apostle exclaims: “He was not “yes” and “no”; but in Him there was a “yes” (2 Cor. 1:19), then they claim that His whole body was deceptive flesh, believing that in order to imitate Christ it is necessary to lie to His hearers 65 . 21. Nec eos audiamus, qui trinitatem quidem in una aeterna substantia confitentur, sed hominem ipsum, qui temporali dispensatione susceplus est, audent dicere non habuisse hominis mentem, sed solam animam et corpus, hoc est dicerë non fuit homo, sed membra corporis habebat humana. animam enim et corpus habent et bestiae, sed rationem non habent, quae mentis est propria, sed si exsecrandi sunt illi, qui cum negant humanum corpus habuisse, quod est infimum in homine, miror, quod isti non erubescunt, qui hoc eum negant habuisse, quod est optimum in homine. multum enim lugenda est mens humana, si uincitur a corpore suö si quidem in illo homine non reformata est, in quo ipsum corpus humanum iam dignitatem formae caelestis accepit. sed absit. ut hoc credamus, quod confinxil temeraria caecitas et superba loquacitas. Christ took on the spirit, soul and body of man. Apollinaris' fallacy 21. Let us not listen to those who confess the Trinity as a single eternal essence, but dare to assert that man, perceived according to the temporal dispensation, did not have a human spirit (mentem), but only soul and body. This means that He was not a man, but had the members of a human body. Animals also have a soul and a body, but they do not have the mind (rationem) characteristic of the spirit 66. If we must condemn those who deny that He had a human body, the least noble part in man, I wonder how they are not ashamed to say that He did not have what is noblest in man. But then the spirit of man, conquered by his body, is very worthy of tears, unless he was reborn (reformata est) in that Man, whose human body assumed the dignity of the heavenly Image (dignitatem formae caelestis) 67. But let us not believe what reckless blindness and proud chatter have invented. 22. Nec eos audiamus, qui sic dicunt ab ilia aeterna sapientia susceptum esse hominem, qui de uirgine natus est, quomodo et alii homines ab ea sapientes fiunt, qui perfecte sapientes sunt, nesciunt enim proprium illius hominis sacramentum et putant hoc solum eum plus habuisse inter ceteros beatissimos, quod de uirgine natus est. quod ipsum si bene considerent, fortassis creclant ideo ilium hoc practer ceteros meruisse, quod aliquid proprium praeier ceteros habel etiam ista susceptio. Aliud est enim sapieniem tantum fieri per sapient iam dei et aliud est ipsam personam susiinere sapientiam dei. quamuis enim eadem natura sit corporis ecclesiae, multum tamen distare inter caput et membra cetera quis non intellegat? si enim caput ecclesiae est homo ille, cuius susceptione uerbum caro factum est, et habitauit in nobis, membra cetera sunt omnes sancti, quibus perficitur et completur ecclesia. quomodo ergo anima totum corpus nostrum animat et uiuificat, sed in capite et uidendo sent it et audiendo et odorando et gustando et tangendo, in ceteris autem membris tangendo tantum, et ideo capiti cuncta subiecta sunt ad operandum, illud autem supra conlocatum est ad consulendum, quia ipsi us animae, quae consulit corpori, quodam modo personam sustinet caput – ibi enim omnis sensus apparel – sic uniuerso populo sanctorum tamquam uni corpori caput est mediator dei et hominum homo christus iesus. et propterea sapientia dei et uerbum in principio, per quod facta sunt omnia, non sic adsumpsit illum hominem ut ceteros sanctos, sed multo excellentius multo que sublimius, quomodo ipsum solum adsumi opormit, in quo sapientia hominibus appareret, sicut earn uisibiliter decebat ostendi. quapropter aliter sum sapientes ceteri homines, quicumque sunt uel esse potuerunt uel poterunt, et alitor ille unus mediator dei et hominum homo Christus iesus, qui sapientiae ipsius, per quam sapientes fiunt quicumque homines, non solum heneficium habet, sed etiam personam gerit. de ceteris enim sapientibus et spiritalibus animis recte dici potest, quod habeant in se uerbum dei, per quod facta sunt omnia; Sed in nullo eorum recte dici potest, quod uerbum caro factum est, et habitauit in nobis, quod in solo domino nostro iesu christo rectissime dicitur. The unity of God and man in Christ is essential, not moral. Against adoptionism 68 22. Let us not listen to those who claim that a person born of a Virgin is received by eternal Wisdom in the same way as other people who were perfect sages became wise in Her. For they do not know the special secret of this Man, and they believe that He was superior to other most blessed people only in that He was born of a Virgin. This itself, if it were properly taken into account, could lead them to the idea that He alone among all the others was worthy of this, due to the fact that the very perception [of Him by the Wisdom of God] had in itself something completely special and unlike all the others. For one thing is to become wise by the Wisdom of God. and another is to possess the very Face of the Wisdom of God (ipsam Personam sustinere Sapientae Dei). Even if the nature of the body of the Church is the same, who will not understand the great difference between the Head and the other members? For if the head of the Church is Man, through whose perception “the Word became flesh and dwelt among us” (John 1:14), then the other members are all the saints by whom the Church achieves perfection and fulfillment. And just as the soul animates and animates our whole body, but only through the head does it perceive, seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting and touching, through the other members it only touches, and thus for the functioning of all the other members are subordinate to the head, located above to govern everything and, since the head in a certain sense carries within itself the face of the soul that governs the body, in the same way the Head of the whole nation of saints, and as one body, is the “Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus” (1 Tim. 2:5). Therefore, the Wisdom of God, and the Word in the beginning, through Whom all things began to be, did not perceive this Man as other saints, but in a much more excellent and sublime way, as it should have perceived Him alone, in Whom Wisdom appeared to men, as far as It was fitting for Her to appear visible. So, other people, no matter who they are or will be, are wise differently than this “one Mediator between God and people, the man Jesus Christ,” Who not only possesses the gift of Wisdom, through which any of the people were made wise, but carries Her face in Himself. Indeed, about other wise and spiritual souls it will be correct to say that they have in themselves the Word of God, through Whom all things began to be. But about none of them will it be correct to say that “the Word became flesh and dwelt in us,” as is absolutely rightly said about our Lord Jesus Christ. 23. Nec eos audiamus, qui solum corpus humanum susceptum esse dicunt a uerbo dei et sic audiunt, quod dictum est: et uerbum caro factum est, ut negent illum hominem uel animam uel aliquid hominis habuisse nisi carnem solam. errant enim multum nec intellegunt ideo carnem solam nominalam esse in eo, quod dictum est: uerbum caro factum est, quia hominum oculis. Propter quos facta est illa susceptio, caro sola potuit apparere. nam si absurdum est et ualde indignum, ut humanum spiritum homo ille non habuert; sicut superius tractauimus, quanto magis absurdum et indignum est, ut nec spiritum nec animam habuerit et hoc solum habuerit, quod etiam in pecoribus uilius est et extremius, id est corpus! a nostra ergo fide etiam ista inpietas excludatur, totum que hominem atque perfectum a uerbo dei susceptum esse credamus. In Christ the Son of God took on the whole man, not just the flesh 23. Let us also not listen to those who claim that only the human body was received by the Word of God, and in the words: “The Word became flesh,” they find a reason to deny that this man received a soul, or anything else from man, except flesh alone. which man was perceived, only the flesh could appear. Indeed, if it is absurd and very undignified to believe that this Man did not have a human spirit, which we discussed above, 71 how much more absurd and undignified to believe that He had neither spirit nor soul, but had only that which is the most despicable and base among animals, that is, the body. So, let this wickedness be separated from our faith, and let us believe that the whole person has been perfectly received by the Word of God. 24. Nec eos audiamus, qui tale corpus dominum nostrum habuisse dicunt, quale apparuit in columba, quam uidit iohannes baptista descendentem de caelo et manentem super eum in signo spiritus sancti. ita enim persuadere conantur filium dei natum non esse de femina, quia, si carnalibus oculis eum oportebat ostendi, potuit, inquiunt, sic adsumere corpus, quomodo spiritus sanctus. non enim et columba illa de ouo nata est, aiunt, et tamen humanis oculis potuit apparere. quibus primo illud respondendum est, quod ibi legimus in specie columbac apparuisse iohanni spiritum sanctum, ubi legimus etiam christum natum esse de femina, et non oporlet in parte credere euangelio et in parte non credere, unde enim credis in columbae specie demonstratum esse spiritum sanctum, nisi quia in euangelio legisti? ergo et ego inde credo christum natum esse de uirgine, quia in euangelio legi. quare autem spiritus sanctus non est natus de columba, quemadmodum chrisius de femina, illa causa est, quia non columbas liberare uenerat spiritus sanctus, sed hominibus significare innocentiam et amorem spiritalem, quod in columbae specie uisibiliter figuratum est. dominus autem iesus christus, qui uenerat ad homines liberandos, in quibus et mares et feminae pertinent ad salutem, nec mares fastidiuit, quia marem suscepit, nec feminas. Quia de femina natus est. hue accedit magnum sacramentum. ut, quoniam per feminam nobis mors acciderat, uita nobis per feminam nasceretur: ut de utraque natura, id est feminina et masculina, uictus diabolus cruciaretur, quoniam de ambarum subuersione laetabatur; cui parum fuerat ad poenam, si ambae naturae in nobis liberarentur, nisi etiam per ambas liberaremur. neque hoc ita dicimus, ut domilium iesum christum dicamus solum uerum corpus habuisse, spiritum antem sanctum fallaciter apparuisse oculis hominum; Sed ambo illa corpora uera corpora credimus. sicut enim non oportebat, ut homines falleret filius dei, sic non decebat, ut homines falleret spiritus sanctus: sed omnipotenti deo, qui uniuersam creaturam de nihilo fabricauit, non erat difficile uerum corpus columbae sine aliorum colurnborum ministerio figurare, sicut ei noil fuit difficile uerum corpus in utero mariae sine uirili semine fabricate, cum creatura corporea et in uisceribus feminae ad formandum hominem et in ipso mundo ad formandam columbam im-perio domini uoluntati que seruiret. Sed stulti homines et miseri quod aut ipsi facere non possunt aut in uita sua numquam uiderunt, et ab omnipotente deo fieri potuisse non credunt. Christ was truly born of a woman. Against Dockets 24. Let us not listen to those who claim that our Lord had a body similar to the one that appeared in the dove that John the Baptist saw descending from heaven and remaining on Him as a sign of the Holy Spirit 72 . Thus, they try to convince us that the Son of God was not born of a woman, for when He needed to appear before the eyes of the flesh, He could take on a body like the Holy Spirit. After all, that dove, according to them, did not hatch from the egg and, nevertheless, could appear before human eyes. First of all, they need to answer that we read that the “Holy Spirit” appeared to John “in the form of a dove” (cf. Matt. 3:16) in the same place where we read that Christ was born of a “woman” (see: Matt. 1:20). It is unacceptable to believe the Gospel partly and not partly. Why do you believe that the Holy Spirit appeared in the form of a dove, if not because you read it in the Gospel? Likewise, I believe that Christ was born of a Virgin, for I read this in the Gospel. The reason that the Holy Spirit was not born of a dove, just as Christ was born of a woman, is that the Holy Spirit did not appear to free doves, but to signify before people innocence and spiritual love, visibly symbolized by the image of a dove. The Lord Jesus Christ, who came for the liberation of people, among whom both men and women were called to salvation, did not neglect the male sex, having received a husband, nor did he neglect the female sex, being born of a wife. There is a great mystery here, for just as death came to us through a woman, so through a woman life was born. that by both natures, female and male, the defeated devil was subjected to torment, having [previously] rejoiced at their common defeat 73 . It would be a lesser punishment for the devil if both of these natures were liberated in us, rather than we being liberated through both of them. Thus, we do not want to say that only the Lord Jesus Christ had a genuine body, while the Holy Spirit appeared in the deceptive form of a dove, but we believe that in both cases we are talking about genuine bodies. For just as it was not fitting for the Son of God to lead people astray, so it was not fitting for the Holy Spirit; but it was not difficult for Almighty God, who formed the whole of creation out of nothing, to form the real body of a dove without the help of other doves, just as it was not difficult for Him to form a real body in the womb of Mary without male seed: since the corporeal nature serves the command and will of the Lord, both in the womb of a woman - for the formation of a human body, and in the world [of nature] - for the formation of a dove. But crazy and pathetic people do not believe that what they themselves cannot do, or what they have never seen in their lives, is within the power of Almighty God. 25. Nec eos audiamus, qui propterea uolunt cogerc, ut inter creaturas filium dei numeremus, quia passus est. dicunt enim: si passus est, mutabilis est; et si mutabilis est, creatura est, quia substantia dei non potest inmutari. cum quibus etiam nos dicimus et dei substantiam commutari non posse et creaturam esse mutabilem. Sed aliud est esse creaturam et aliud suscipere creaturam. filius ergo unigenitus dei. Qui est uirtus et sapientia dei et uerbum, per quod facta sunt omnia, quia inmutari omnino non potest, suscepit humanam creaturam. quam lapsam erigere atque inueteratam renouare dignatus est. nec in ea per passionem ipse in deterius commutatus est, sed earn potius per resurrectionem in melius commutauit. nec propterea uerbum patris, id est unicum dei filium, per quem facta sunt omnia, negandum est natum et passum esse pro nobis, et martyres enim passos dicimus et mortuos propter regna caelorum; nec tamen in ea passione et morte animae eorum occisae sunt, dicit enim dominus: nolite timere eos, qui corpus occidunt, animae autem nihil possunt facere. sicut ergo martyres passos et mortuos dicimus in corporibus, quae portabant, sine animarum interfectione uel morte, sic dei filium passum et mortuum dicimus in homine, quem portabat, sine diuinitatis aliqua commutatione uel morte. The Suffering Son of God is the True God 25. Let us not listen to those who seek to force us to consider the Son of God one of the creatures because He suffered. They say: if it suffers, then it changes, and if it changes, then the creation, for the essence of God is unchangeable 74 . We affirm with them that the essence of God is unchangeable, but creation is changeable. But it is another thing to be a creation, and another thing to perceive a creation. For the Only Begotten Son of God, the Power and Wisdom of God, and the Word, through whom all things began to be, as completely unchangeable, took on the human creation, deigning to restore what was fallen and renew what was dilapidated. Through the suffering endured in His humanity. He did not change for the worse, but rather changed it for the better by His resurrection. Therefore, it should not be denied that the Word of God, the Only Begotten Son of God, by whom all things were created, was born and suffered for us. And about the martyrs we say that they suffered and endured death for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven, but in their suffering and death their souls were not killed. For the Lord says: “Do not be afraid of those who kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul” (Matthew 10:28). Just as we say of the martyrs that they suffered and suffered death in the bodies which they bore, without destruction or death of the soul, so of the Son of God we say that He suffered and died in the Man Whom He bore, without any change or death of the Godhead. 26. Nec eos audiamus, qui negant tale corpus domini resurrexisse, quale positum est in monumento. si enim tale non fuisset, non ipse dixisset post resurrectionem discipulis: palpate et uidete, quoniam spiritus ossa et neruos non habet, sicut me uidetis habere, sacrilegum est enim credere dominum nostrum, cum ipse sit ueritas, in aliquo fuisse mentitum. nec nos moueat, quod clausis ostiis subito eum apparuisse discipulis scriptum est, ut propterea negemus illud fuisse corpus humanum, quia contra naturam huius corporis uidemus esse per clausa ostia intrare. omnia enim possibilia sunt deo. nam et ambulare super aquas contra naturam huius corporis esse manifestum est; et tamen non solum ipse dominus ante passionem ambulauit, sed etiam petrum ambulare fecit, ita ergo et post resurrectionem de corpore suo fecit, quod uoluit. si enim potuit ante passionem clarificare illud sicut splendorem solis, quare non potuit et post passionem ad quantam uellet subtilitatem in temporis momento redigere, ut per clausa ostia posset intrare? The truth of Christ's bodily resurrection 26. Let us not listen to those who deny that the body of the risen Lord was the same body that was laid in the tomb 75. If this were so, then the Lord would not have said to the disciples after the resurrection: “Handle Me and look at me; For a spirit does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have” (Luke 24:39). It is blasphemous to believe that our Lord, Who is the Truth itself, told a lie in anything. Let us not be confused by what is written about the fact that when the doors were locked, He suddenly appeared to the disciples (cf. John 20:26), so as to deny, on the basis of these words, that this body was a human body, which by nature does not tend to enter through closed doors. After all, all things are possible with God (Matthew 19:26). For it is obvious that walking on water is also contrary to the nature of the human body. However, not only did the Lord Himself walk on the waters before His [crucifixion], but He also commanded Peter to do the same (cf. Matt. 14:25, 29). So, after His resurrection, He could do whatever He wanted with His body. For if before His [crucifixion] He could illuminate His body like the radiance of the sun (cf. Matt. 17:2), then why, after suffering, could He not in an instant give it such subtlety as He wanted, so that it could pass through closed doors? 27. Nec eos audiamus, qui negant ipsum corpus se cum leuasse in caelum dominum nostrum et commemorant in euangelio quod scriptum est: nemo ascendit in caelum, nisi qui de caelo descendit, et dicunt, quia corpus non descendit de caelo, non potuisse ascendere in caelum, non enim intellegunt, quoniam corpus non ascendit in caelum: dominus enim ascendit, corpus autem non ascendit, sed leuatum est in caelum illo leuante, qui ascendit. si enim quisque descendat uerbi gratia de monte nudus, cum autem descenderit, uestiat se et uestitus iterum ascendat, recte utique dicimus: nemo ascendit, nisi qui descendit, nec uestem consideramus, quam se cum leuauit, sed ipsum, qui uestitus est, solum dicimus ascendisse. The truth of Christ's bodily ascension 27. Let us also not listen to those who deny that our Lord ascended [along with Him] into heaven the same body and, mentioning what is written in the Gospel: “No one has ascended to heaven except the one who came down from heaven” (John 3:13), they say that since the body did not descend from heaven, it cannot ascend to heaven. Indeed, they do not understand that the body did not ascend to heaven. The Lord ascended into heaven, but the body did not ascend, but was taken up into heaven by the Ascendant, by the One who first descended. For example, if someone descends from a mountain naked, and, having descended, dresses and ascends clothed, we say with all justice that at that moment no one ascends except the one who first descended: we do not mean the clothes that he takes up with him, but we say that only the one who has dressed has ascended the mountain 76 . 28. Nec eos audiamus, qui negant ad dexteram patris sedere filium. dicunt enim: numquid deus pater habet latus dextrum aut sinistrum sicuti corpora? nec nos hoc deo patre sentimus; nulla enim forma corporis deus definitur atque concluditur. Sed dextera patris est beatitudo perpetua, quae sanctis promittitur: sicut sinistra eius rectissime dicitur miseria perpetua, quae inpiis datur: ut non in ipso deo, sed in creaturis hoc modo, quo diximus, intellegatur dextera et sinistra, quia et corpus christi. quod est ecclesia, in ipsa dextera, hoc est in ipsa beatitudine futurum est, sicut apostolus dicit, quia et simul nos suscitauit et simul sedere fecit in caelestibus. quamuis enim corpus nostrum nondum ibi sit, tamen spes nostra iam ibi est. propterea et ipse dominus post resurrectionem iussit discipulis, quos piscantes inuenit, ut in dexteram partem mitterent retia. quod cum fecissent, ceperunt pisces, qui omnes magni erant, id est iustos signiflcabant, quibus dextera promittitur. hoc significat, quod etiam in iudicio dixit se agnos ad dexteram, haedos autem ad sinistram esse positurum. 3meaning of the words about Christ sitting at the right hand of the Father 28. Let us not listen to those who deny that our Lord sits at the right hand of the Father. For they say: “Does God the Father really have a right or a left side, just as bodies have?” But we do not think this about God the Father, for He is not limited and does not consist of any bodily form. [Sitting] at the right hand of the Father signifies the eternal bliss promised to the saints, just as [sitting] at the right hand of justice signifies the eternal torment prepared for the wicked. so that the right and left sides do not exist in God Himself, but in His creatures, according to the image presented above 77. Thus, the Body of Christ, which is the Church, will be on the right hand, that is, in the very bliss, as the Apostle says about this: “And he raised up with Him, and seated him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus” (Eph. 2:6). For although our body is not yet there, our hope is already there. Therefore, after His resurrection, the Lord commanded the disciples who were fishing to cast the net on the right side (cf. John 21:6). Having done this, they caught fish, which were all of great size, which signifies the righteous who are promised a place at the right hand. This is also indicated in the words about the Judgment, where a place will be prepared for the sheep at the right hand, and for the goats at the left (cf. Matt. 25:33). 29. Nec eos audiainus, qui negant diem iudicii futurum et commemoranl, quod in euangelio script urn est, eum, qui credit in christum, non iudicari; Qui autem non credit in ilium, iam iudicatum esse, dicunt enim: si et ille, qui credit, non ueniet in indicium, et ille, qui non credit, iam iudicatus est, ubi sunt, quos iudicaturus est in die iudicii? non intellegunt sic loqui script liras, ut praeleritum tempus pro futuro tempore insinuent: sicut supra diximus, quod apostolus dixit de nobis, quod simul nos sedere fecit in caelestibus, nondum factum est; Sed quia certissime est futurum, ita dictum est quasi iam factum sit. sicut el ipse dominus discipulis dixit: omnia, quae audiui a patre meo, nota uobis feci, et paulo post dicit: multa habeo uobis dicere; Sed non potestis illa portare modo. quomodo ergo dixerat: omnia, quae audiui a patre meo, nota uobis feci, nisi quia illud, quod per spiritum sanctum certissime facturus erat, quasi iam fecisset, loculus est? sic ergo cum audimus: qui credit in christum, non ueniet in iudicium, intellegamus, quia non ueniet ad damnationem. dicitur enim iudicium pro damnatione, sicut dicit apostolus: qui non manducat. manducantem non iudicet, id est, non de illo mala cxistimet. El dominus dicit: nolite iudicare, ne iudicetur de uobis. non enim tollit nobis intellegentiam iudicandi. cum et propheta dicat: si uere iustitiam diligitis, recta iudicate, filii hominum, et ipse dominus dicat: nolite iudicare personaliter, sed iustum iudicium iudicate. Sed illo loco, ubi uetat iudicare, illud admonet, ne damnemus aliquem, cuius uel cogitatio nobis non aperta est uel nescimus, qualis postea sit futurus. sic ergo cum dixit: ad iudicium non ueniet, hoc dixit, quia non ueniet ad damnationem; Qui autem non credit, iam iudicatus est. hoc dixit, quia iam damnatus est praescientia dei, qui nouit, quid inmineat non credentibus. 29. Let us not listen to those who deny the coming Day of Judgment, mentioning that it is written in the Gospel: “He who believes in Him is not condemned, but he who does not believe has already been condemned” (John 3:18). They say: “If the one who believes does not come to the Judgment, and the one who does not believe is already condemned, where are those who will be judged on the Day of Judgment?” They do not understand that, in saying this, the Holy Scriptures use the past tense instead of the future. For example, as we have already said above, the apostle says about us that God seated us with Christ in heaven (cf. Eph. 2:6). Although this has not yet happened, it will undoubtedly happen in the future, but it is said as if it had already happened. Likewise, the Lord Himself says to the disciples: “I have told you everything that I heard from My Father” (John 15:15), and a little further continues: “I still have much to say to you, but now you cannot bear it” (John 16:12). So, why did He say: “I have told you everything that I have heard from My Father” (John 15:15), if not denoting what He undoubtedly intended to accomplish by the Holy Spirit, as if already accomplished? So, when we hear: “Whoever believes in Christ will not come to Judgment” (cf. John 3:18), we must understand this in the sense that the believer will not be condemned. For the word “judgment” (iudicium) is used instead of the word “condemnation” (damnatio), as the Apostle says: “If anyone does not eat, let him not judge (non jndicet). whoever eats” (Rom. 14:3) 78, that is, let him not think ill of him. And the Lord says: “Judge not, lest ye be judged” (Matthew 7:1). He does not take away from us the ability to judge, as the prophet says: “If you truly love righteousness, judge righteously, O sons of men” (Ps. 57:2) 79. And the Lord says: “Judge not according to appearances, but judge with righteous judgment” (John 7:24). But where He forbids judging, He warns us not to judge someone, because his thoughts are not open to us and we do not know what he will become in the future. Consequently, when He says: “He will not come to the Judgment,” he means that he will not be condemned. “But he who does not believe is already condemned,” means that he is condemned in the foreknowledge of God (praescientia Dei), who knows what threatens the unbelievers 80. 30. Nec eos audiamus, qui dicunt spiritum sanctum, quem in euangelio dominus promisit discipulis, aut in paulo apostolo uenisse aut in montano et priscilla, sicut cataphryges dicunt, aut in nescio quo manete uel manichaeo, sicut manichaei dicunt. tam enim caeci sunt isti, ut scripturas manifest as non intellegant, aut tam neglegentes salutis suae, ut omnino non legant. quis enim, cum legerit, non intelleget uel in euangelio quod post domini resurrectionem scriptum est dicente dominö ego mitto promissa patris mei in uos; uos autem sedete hic in ciuitate, quousque induamini uirtutem ab alto? et in actibus apostolorum, posteaquam dominus a discipulorum oculis abscessit in caelum, decem diebus peractis die pentecostes non adtendunt apertissime uenisse spiritum sanctum; et cum essent illi in ciuitate, sicut eos ante monuerat, inpleuisse illos. ita ut loquerentur linguis. nam diuersae nationes, quae tunc aderant, unusquisque audience suam linguam intellegebant. Sed isti homines decipiunt eos, qui neglegentes catholicam fidem et ipsam fidem suam, quae in scripturis manifesta est, nolunt discere et, quod est grauius et multum dolendum, cum in catholica neglegenter uersentur, haereticis aurem diligenter accommodant. About the Holy Spirit. The fallacy of Montanism and Manichaeism 30. Let us not listen to those who say that the Holy Spirit, whom the Lord promised to the disciples in the Gospel, appeared in the Apostle Paul, or in Montana and Priscilla, as the Catafrigians claim, or, I myself do not know which Mani or Mannchae, as the Manichaeans say 81. They are either so blind that they do not understand what is clearly said in the Holy Scriptures, or they so neglect their salvation that they do not read them at all. For whoever, reading, does not understand what is written in the Gospel after the resurrection of the Lord, when He said: “I will send the promise of My Father upon you; But stay in the city of Jerusalem until you are endued with power from on high” (Luke 24:49)? They do not take into account what is written in the Acts of the Apostles that after the Lord ascended into heaven in the presence of the disciples, after ten days, on the day of Pentecost, the Holy Spirit appeared in a most obvious way, and when they were in Jerusalem, according to the command previously given by Christ, the Spirit filled them so that they spoke in [different] tongues. After all, [representatives] of different nations who were there understood them each in their own language (cf. Acts 2:1-11). But these people deceive those who, neglecting the Catholic faith and their own faith, which is clearly indicated in the Holy Scriptures, do not want to learn [it], and what is even more difficult and worthy of sorrow, carelessly remaining in the Catholic [Church] 82, listen with attention to heretics 83. 31. Nec eos audiamus, qui sanctam ecclesiam, quae una catholica est, negant per orbem esse diffusam, sed in sola africa, hoc est in parte donati pollere arbitrantur. ita surdi sunt aduersus prophetam dicentem: filius meus es tu, ego hodie genui te; postula a me, et dabo tibi gentes hereditatem tuam, et possessionem tuam terminos terrae, et alia multa, siue in ueteris siue in noui testamenti libris quae scripta sunt, ut apertissime declarent ecclesiam christi per orbem terrae esse diffusam. quod cum eis obicimus, dicunt iam ista omnia fuisse conpleta, antequam esset pars donati, sed postea totam ecclesiam perisse et in sola donati parte reliquias eius remansisse contendunt. o linguam superbam et nefariam! nec si uere sic uiuerent, ut uel inter se pacem postea custodirent. nunc autem non adtendunt iam in ipso donato completum fuisse, quod dictum est: in qua mensura mensi fueritis, in ea remetietur uobis. sicut enim christum diuidere conatus est, sic ipse a suis cotidiana concisione diuiditur. ad hoc etiam pertinet illud, quod dominus dicit: qui enim gladio percusserit, gladio morietur. gladius enim illo loco, siquidem in malo positus est, discordiosam linguam significat, qua tunc ille infelix ecclesiam percussit, sed non occidit. non enim dixit dominus: qui occiderit gladio, gladio morietur, sed qui gladio usus fuerit, inquit, gladio morietur. ergo illo percussit ecclesiam lingua litigiosa, qua nunc ipse conciditur, ut omnino dispereat atque moriatur. et tamen illud tunc apostolus pelrus non superbia sua, sed quaniuis carnali, tamen amore domini fecerat. itaque admonitus recondit gladium; istc autem nec uictus hoc fecit, siquidem cum episcopo caeciliano causam cum diceret audientibus episcopis romae. quos ipse petiuerat. nihil eorum quae intenderat potuit probare; et sic remansit in schismate, ut suo gladio moreretur. population praecisam. petrus enim errans in amore domini seruo, non libero aurem dexteram praecidit. ex quo significat eos, qui gladio schismatis feriuntur, et seruos esse carnalium desideriorum, nondum eductos in libertatem spiritus sancti, ut iam non confidant in homine, et non audire quod dextrum est, id est domini gloriam per catholicam ecclesiam latissime peruagatain, sed audire sinistrum humanae inflationis errorem. sed tamen, cum dominus in euangelio dicat, cum per omnes gentes euangelium fuerit praedicatum, tunc finem esse fuiurum, quomodo isti dicunt, quod iam ceterae omnes gentes ceciderunt a fide et in sola donati parte remansit ecclesia, cum manifestum sit, ex quo ista pars ab unitate praecisa est, nonnullas gentes postea credidisse et adhuc esse aliquas, quae nondum crediderunt, quibus cotidie non cessatur euangelium praedicari? quis non miretur esse aliqucm, qui se christianum dici uelit et aduersus christi gloriam tanta inpietate rapiatur, ut audeat dicere omnes populos gentium, qui modo adhuc accedunt ecclesiae dei et in dei filium festinanter credunt, inaniter facere, quia non eos aliquis donatista baptizat? Sine dubio ista exsecrarentur homines et eos sine dilationc relinquerent, si christum quaererent, si ecclesiam diligerent, si liberi essent, si aurem dexteram integram retinerent. The universality of the Church. The Fallacy of Donatism 31. Let us not listen to those who deny that the one Catholic holy Church is spread throughout the whole earth, but believe that it is present only in Africa, in the group of Donatus 84. They are so deaf to the words of the prophet who says: “You are My Son; Today I have given birth to You; Ask of me, and I will give the nations for Your inheritance and the ends of the earth for Your possession” (Ps. 2:7-8). There is much more that is written in the books of the Old and New Testaments and clearly proclaims that the Church of Christ is spread throughout the whole earth. When we bring this to them as an objection, they answer that all this had already been fulfilled before the emergence of the Donatus group, then the whole Church perished, and, as they claim, its remnants were preserved only by the Donatists. O proud and wicked tongue! Even if it were true that they live in such a way that they maintain peace, at least among themselves. Nowadays, they do not pay attention to the fact that it was through the example of Donatus that what was said was fulfilled: “With the measure you use, it will be measured to you” (Matthew 7:2). Just as he tried to divide Christ, so his [sect] itself is divided by daily division. This also applies to what the Lord said: “All who take the sword will perish by the sword” (Matthew 26:52). The sword, understood in the indicated place in a negative sense, denotes the tongue that sows discord, with which this unfortunate man struck the Church, but did not kill her. For the Lord did not say, “Whoever kills with the sword will die by the sword,” but: “Whoever uses the sword will die by the sword” 85 . Thus, Donatus struck the Church with the language of hostility, from which he now receives blows to the point of complete destruction and death. In contrast, the Apostle Peter [used the sword] not out of pride, but out of love for the Lord, albeit natural. Tormented for this, he sheathed his sword; Donatus, though defeated, did not do this. When he fought a lawsuit with Bishop Caecilian in the presence of bishops 86, whose trial he himself asked, and could not prove anything that he presented, he remained in schism and died by his own sword. His people, who do not listen to the prophets and the Gospel, in which it is quite clearly written that the Church of Christ is spread throughout all nations, listen to schismatics who seek not God’s glory, but their own, thereby sufficiently testifies that they are in slavery and are not free, and their right ear is cut off (cf. Luke 22:51). For Peter, erring in his love for the Lord, cut off the right ear of a slave, and not of a free man. By this he means that those who are struck by the sword of schism are slaves of carnal desires, and have not yet been called to the freedom of the Holy Spirit, so as to no longer hope in man. After all, they do not hear what is on the right, that is, the glory of the Lord, very widely spread by the Catholic Church, but they hear what is on the left, that is, the error of human arrogance. For if the Lord says in the Gospel that when the Gospel is preached to all nations, then the end will come (cf. Matt. 14:14), then how do they claim that all nations have already fallen away from the faith, and the Church was preserved only by the Donatists, when it is obvious that since this part was separated from unity, new peoples have believed, and to those who have not yet believed, the Church tirelessly preaches the Gospel? Who would not be surprised at a man who calls himself a Christian and rushes against the glory of God with such wickedness that he dares to assert that all the pagan nations who are still joining the Church of God and hastening to believe in the Son of God do so in vain, without having been baptized by any of the Donatists? Without a doubt, if people sincerely sought Christ and loved the Church, then, being free and keeping their right ear intact, they would immediately turn away from this and move away from them. 32. Nec eos audiam, qui quamuis neminem rebaptizent, piaeciderunt se tamen ab unitate et lucifei iani magis dici quam catholici maluerunt. in eo enim, quod imellegunt baptisma christi non esse repetendum, recle faciunt. sentiunt enim sacramentum sancti lauacri nusquam esse nisi ex catholica ecclesia, sed earn formam se cum I habere sarmenta praecisa, quam in ipsa uite, ! antequam praeciderentur, acceperant. hi sunt I enim, de quibus apostolus dicit: habentes speciem pietatis, uirtutem autem eius abnegantes; est enim magna uirtus pietatis pax et unitas, quia unus est deus. hanc illi non habent, quia praecisi ab unitate sunt, itaque, si qui ex ipsis ad catholicam ueniunt, non iterant speciem pietatis, quam habent, sed accipiunt uirtutem pietatis, quam non habent. nam et amputatos ramos denuo posse inseri, si non permanserint in incredulitate, apertissime apostolus docet. quod cum luciferiani intelleguni et non rebaptizant, non inprobamus: sed quod autem etiam ipsi praccidi a radice uoluerunt, quis non detestandum esse cognoscat? et ideo maxime, quia hoc eis displicuit in ecclesia catholica, quod uere catholicae sanctitatis est. nusquam enim tam uigere debent uiscera misericordiae quam in catholica ecclesia, ut tamquam uera mater nec peccantibus filiis superbe insultet nec correctis difficile ignoscat. non enim sine causa inter omnes apostolos huius ecclcsiae catholicae personam sustinet petrus; Huic enim ecclesiae claues regni caelorum datae sunt, cum petro datae sunt, et cum ei dicitur, ad omnes dicitur: ainas me? pasce oues meas. debet ergo ecclesia catholica correctis et pietate firmatis iiliis libenter ignoscere. cum ipsi petro personam eius gestanti, et cum in mari tilubasset et cum dominum carnaliter a passionc reuocasset cl cum aurem serui gladio praecidisset el cum ipsum dominum ter negassct et cum in simulationem postea superstitiosam lapsus esset, uideamus ueniam esse concessam eum que correctum atque firmatum usque ad dominicae passionis gloriam peruenisse. itaque post persecutionem. quae per arrianos haereticos facta erat, posteaquam pax, quam quidem catholica in domino tenet, etiam a principibus saeculi reddita est, episcopi, qui perfidiae arrianoruin in ilia persecutione consenserant, multi correcti redire in catholicain delegerum, damnantes siue quod crediderant siue quod se credidisse simulauerant. hos ecclesia catholica materno recepit sinu, tamquam petrum post fletum negationis per galli cantum admonitum aut tamquam eundem post prauam simulationem pauli uoce correctum. hanc illi matris caritatem superbe accipientes et inpie reprehendentes, quia petro post galli cantum surgenti non gratulati sunt, cum lucifero, qui mane oriebatur, cadere meruerunt. Unity of the Church. Luciferian Fallacy 32. Let us also not listen to those who, even without rebaptizing anyone, have broken away from [church] unity and prefer to be called Luciferians rather than Catholics 87 . Believing that they should not repeat the baptism of Christ, they act correctly 88. In their opinion, the sacrament of the holy font does not exist anywhere except in the Catholic Church, but the cut branches retain the form they acquired on the vine before the cutting. These are those about whom the apostle says: “Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof” (2 Tim. 3:5). After all, the great power of piety is peace and unity, for God is one. They do not have this because they broke away from the Catholic Church. Therefore, if any of them come to the Catholic [Church], they do not repeat the form of piety that they have, but they accept the power of piety, which they do not have 89 . For even cut off branches can be grafted in again, “if they do not continue in unbelief,” as the Apostle clearly teaches (see: Rom. 11:23). We do not condemn what the Luciferians understand and do not rebaptize, but the fact that they themselves wished to be cut off from the root, who would not consider this worthy of disgust? Especially because in the Catholic Church they do not rule precisely what truly belongs to Catholic holiness. For nowhere can compassion and mercy flourish so much as in the Catholic Church, which, like a true mother, does not arrogantly reproach her sinful sons and easily forgives those who repent. And it is no coincidence that among all the apostles it is Peter who personifies the Catholic Church 90. This Church was given the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven when they were given to Peter (cf. Matthew 16:19). And when it is said to him: “Do you love Me? Feed My sheep” (John 21:17), this is said to everyone. So, the Church must forgive her sons who repent and strengthen themselves in virtue; after all, we see that Peter, personifying the Church (personam ejns geslanti), who doubted at sea (cf. Matt. 14:30), humanly (carnaliter) dissuaded the Lord from [the cross] suffering (cf. Matt. 16:22), cut off the ear of a slave with a sword and denied the Lord three times (cf. Matt. 20:51, 70-71), and subsequently, the one who fell into superstitious pretense (cf. Gal. 2:12) was given forgiveness, and he, repentant and strengthened, was deemed worthy to enter into the glory of the Lord’s suffering [on the cross]. Therefore, after the persecution from the Aryan heretics, the subsequent restoration by the secular authorities of the peace that the Catholic Church possesses in the Lord, many bishops, who succumbed to the treachery of the Arians during the persecution, repented, decided to return to the Catholic Church, condemning what they believed in, or what they pretended to believe. The Catholic Church accepted them into the mother's bosom, like Peter, who denied and wept after the rooster crowed, and he, who fell into a shameful pretense and was corrected by the voice of Paul. But the Luciferians, proudly looking and wickedly condemning mother's love, deserved to fall along with Lucifer - the Lucifer, the son of the dawn (cf.: Is. 14:12) 91, for they did not rejoice over Peter, who repented after the cock crow (cf.: Matt. 14:12). 33. Nec eos audiamus, qui negant ecclesiam dei omnia peccata posse dimittere. itaque miseri, dum in petro petram non intellegunt et nolunt credere datas ecclesiae claues regni caelorum, ipsi eas de manibus amiserunt. isti sunt, qui uiduas, si nupserint, tamquam adulteras damnant et super doctrinam apostolicam se praedicant esse mundiores: qui nomen suum si uellent agnoscere, mundanos se potius quam mundos uocarent. nolentes enim, si peccauerint, corrigi, nihil aliud elegerunt nisi cum hoc mundo damnari. nam quibus ueniam peccatorum negant, non eos aliqua sanitate custodiunt, sed aegris subtrahunt medicinam; et uiduas suas uri cogunt, quas nubere non permittunt. non enim prudentiores habendi sunt quam paulus apostolus, qui ait: malo eas nubere quam uri. Sacramental power of the Church. Novatian fallacy 33. Let us not listen to those either. who denies that the Church of God can forgive all sins 92. Hence these unfortunates, not understanding that the stone is Peter (in Petro Petram non intelligunt), and not wanting to believe that the Church has been given the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, they themselves let them out of their hands. These are those who condemn married widows for adultery and consider themselves purer than the apostolic teaching (cf. 1 Timothy 5:14). If they agreed to admit their [real] name, they would be called worldly (mundanus) rather than pure (mundus) 93. After all, not wanting to correct themselves (corrigi) if they committed a sin, they chose nothing other than to be condemned with the world. And to those to whom they refuse forgiveness of sins, they not only do not preserve even a small part of their health, but also deprive them of a cure for illness; they condemn their widows to carnal debauchery, not allowing them to marry. They should not be considered wiser than the apostle, who wants them to marry rather than become inflamed (cf. 1 Cor. 7:9) 94. 34. Nec eos audiamus. Qui carnis resurrectionem futuram negant et commemorant, quod ait apostolus paulus: caro et sanguis regnum dei non possidebunt, non intellegentes, quod ipse dicit apostolus: oportet corruptibile hoc induere incorruptionem et mortale hoc induere inmortalitatem. cum enim hoc factum fuerit, iam non erit caro et sanguis, sed caeleste corpus, quod et dominus proniittit, cum dicit: neque nubent neque uxores ducent, sed erunt aequales angelis dei. non eniin iam hominibus, sed deo uiuent, cum aequales angelis facti fuerint. inmutabitur ergo caro et sanguis et fiet corpus caeleste et angelicum; et mortui enim resurgent incorrupti, et nos inmutabimur, ut et illud uerum sit, quod resurgel caro, et illud uerum sit, quod caro et sanguis regnum dei nun possidebit. There will be a bodily resurrection of the dead 34. Let us not listen to those who deny the future resurrection of the flesh, pointing at what the Apostle Paul said: “Flesh and blood will not inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Cor. 15:50), not understanding what the same apostle said: “This corruptible must put on incorruptibility, and this mortal must put on immortality” ( 1 Corinthians 15:53). Indeed, when this is accomplished, there will no longer be flesh and blood, but a heavenly body (corpus caeleste). Just as the Lord promised, saying: “They neither marry nor are given in marriage. but remain as the angels of God in heaven” (Matthew 22:30). After all, then they will live not for people, but for God, becoming equal to the angels. So, flesh and blood will change and become a heavenly and angelic body (corpus caeleste angelicum). “For the dead will be raised incorruptible, and we will be changed” (1 Cor 15:52). So it is true that the flesh will be resurrected, and this is true. that flesh and blood will not inherit the Kingdom of God 95 . 35. Ista fidci simplicitate et sinceritate lactati nutriamur in chrislo et, cum paruuli sumus, maiorum cibos non adpetamus, sed nutrimentis saluberrimis crescamus in christo accedentibus bonis moribus et christiana iuslitia, in qua est caritas dei et proximi perfecta et firmala, ut unusquisque nostrum de diabolo inimico et angelis eius iriumphet in semet ipso in chrisio, quem induit, quia perfecta caritas nec cupiditatem habet saeculi nec timorem saeculi. id est nec cupiditatem, ut adquirat res temporales, nec timorem, ne amittat res temporales. per quas duas ianuas intrat et regnat inimicus, qui primo dei timore, deinde caritate pellendus est. debemus itaque tanto auidius adpetere apertissimam et euidentissimam cognitionem ueritatis, quanto nos uidemus in caritate proficere et eius simplicitate cor habere mundatum, quia ipso interiore oculo uidctur ueritas – beati enim mundo corde, inquit, quia ipsi deum uidebunt – ut in caritate radicati et fundati praeualeamus comprehendere cum omnibus sanctis, quae sit latitudo et longitudo et altitudo et profundum, scire etiam supereminentem scientiam caritatis christi, ut inpleamur in omnem plenitudinem dei et post ista cum inuisibili hoste certamina, quoniam uolentibus et amantibus iugum christi lene est et sarcina eius leuis, coronam uictoriae mereamur. Love conquers the spirit of evil 35. Nourished with the milk of this simple and sincere faith, let us be nourished in Christ, and while we are infants, let us not strive for adult food, but let us grow in Christ through a very favorable diet, sharing good morals and Christian righteousness, in which love for God and neighbor is confirmed and made perfect, so that each of us in Christ, having clothed ourselves with Him, may triumph in ourselves over the enemy the devil and his angels. For perfect love has in itself neither greed nor fear: greed for the acquisition of temporary goods, and the fear of losing them 96. Through these two gates the enemy enters and reigns, who must be driven out, first by the fear of God, and then by love. The more insatiably we should desire ever more clear and obvious knowledge of the truth, the more we realize that we are growing in love, in the simplicity of which our heart is purified, for with this inner eye the truth is seen, as it is said: “Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God” (Matthew 5:8). So that we, “rooted and grounded in love, may be able to comprehend with all the saints what is the breadth and length and height and depth, and to understand the surpassing understanding of love and Christ” (supereminentem scientiam caritalis Christi), so that we may be filled with all the fullness of God” (Eph 3:18-19) 97 and after this struggle with the invisible enemy to receive the crown of victory, for for those who desire and love, “Christ’s yoke is easy and His burden is light” (Matthew 11:30). Translation from Latin and notes Deacon Augustine Sokolowski The subheadings belong to the translator. Augustine here polemicizes against those who deny the authenticity and pre-eternity of the Divine sonship of the Son of God. We are talking about one form or another of adoptionism - a doctrine that claims that Jesus Christ “became” the Son of God by adoption. Perhaps we are talking about the Ebionites - a group of Judaizing Christians who already in the first century separated from communion with the Church. Compare: Manca L. II combattimento cristiano. Introduction. R. 103. PL: si ergo uisibilia munda a uisibilibus inmundis contingi possum. We are talking about Docetism, in particular, widespread among the Manichaeans, who insisted on the apparent nature of the flesh of Jesus Christ. PL.: if visible and clean things can be touched by visible and unclean things. This well-known teaching about the mediation of the human rational soul between the Divine and the gross flesh at the Incarnation goes back to the Greek theological tradition - Origen and St. Gregory the Theologian (see: Gregory the Theologian. Orat. 2.23; 38.13; Er. 101.41.). In this regard, Augustine believes that in Christ we have an easier type of union than between soul and body in man, since here there was a union of two rational, spiritual entities - the Divinity and the rational soul; while the soul is further from the body than God is from the soul, since in the first case the incorporeal is united with the corporeal, and in the second the Spirit is united with the spirit, as like with like (Augustine. Sermo 293. 7 // PL. 38. Col. 1332; see also: De fide cl symb., 10; Ep. 140.4. 12 // PL. 33. Col.542, etc.). – Approx. ed. The words about listeners (auditoribus suis) confirm the guess that this chapter is talking specifically about the Manichaeans, who divided the members of their “communion” into listeners (auditores) and elect (electi). We are talking about the teaching of Apollinaris (c. 310 320–390), bishop of Laodicea, who, in polemics with Arianism, came to conclusions that led him beyond the boundaries of church orthodoxy. Apollinaris argued that Jesus Christ lacked the human spirit, or mind (νοῦς, corresponding to Latin mens), "replaced" by the Divine Logos. On Apollinarism, see a detailed study: Voisin G. L’apollinarisme. Etude historique. Litteraire et dogmatique sur le debut des controverses chrisiologiques au IVe siècle. Louvain, 1901. The Latin theological tradition, largely led by St. Augustine, prefers to talk not about the transformation of man, but about his “reformation” - rebirth, not about deification, but about redemption and Christian perfection. In the context of this chapter, in which, polemicizing with Apollinarianism, Augustine resorts to one of the most important axioms of patristic theology: “what is not received (by the Divinity in the humanity of Christ) is not healed” (cf. St. Gregory the Theologian, Ep. 101.32), the terminology that speaks of the “reformation” of man is especially interesting. Probably, the expression “dignity of the heavenly Image” (dignilas forniae caelestis), which the human body received in Christ, means endowing it with the dignity of the Son of God, Who is the Image of God the Father and the Prototype for man (hence the doctrine of “reformation”, i.e. the transformation of man according to his heavenly Prototype), is understood. – Approx. ed. We are again talking about a form of adoptionism. Continuing the discussion begun in chapter XVII.19, Augustine insists on the pre-eternal and personal character of divine Wisdom in Christ, which immutably assumed human nature and grants salvation in the Body of Christ - the Church. Probably the Arians are meant. – Approx. ed. Here Augustine again polemicizes with one of the forms of docetism. speaking about the illusory nature of Christ's flesh and denying the authenticity of His birth from a wife. Augustine's words become a true hymn to the redemption of all mankind in Christ. Our Lord is born of a woman to redeem both men and women. The first of the Church Fathers and church writers to talk about the parallel of Mary and Eve was the martyr Justin the Philosopher (see his “Dialogue with Tryphon the Jew,” 100.4–6). This idea is probably inspired by the teaching of the Apostle Paul about Christ - the New Adam. We are talking about the teaching of Paul of Samosata (c. 200–275), Bishop of Antioch, who was condemned by the Council of Antioch in 268 for incorrect teaching about Christ. Paul's teaching is a variant of Adoptionism combined with modalism. According to Paul. Christ becomes the Son of God by adoption). In turn. The One God is a single hypostasis, but historically manifests Himself in three persons (πρόσωπα). To defend his teaching, Paul used the term "consubstantial" (ὁμοούσιος), thereby preparing the ground for fierce debate about the most adequate meaning of this term during the Arian controversies of the 4th century. Augustine's words, apparently directed against the Manichaeans, who denied the truth of the resurrected flesh of Christ. Augustine's way of theological reasoning is interesting. The statement of the deepest dogmatic truth about the bodily ascension of the Lord is accompanied by an example from everyday reality, which is in no way connected with theology. In De agone christiano, Augustine addresses very simple and uneducated people, as indicated by the very content of the treatise. In another of his works, the treatise “On the Symbol to the Catechumenos” (De Symbolo ad catechumenos), Augustine also dwells in detail on the explanation of the words about Christ’s sitting at the right hand of the Father. In Synod, trans.: “do not condemn.” Wed: LXX. In the Synod, trans.: “Do you truly speak the truth, O judges, and judge fairly, O sons of men?” During the period of writing the treatise De agone christiano (i.e., ca. 390–397), Augustine was still of the opinion that God determines the eternal fate of a person by foreknowledge of his future actions, or rather, the will to salvation (see: Augustine. De divers, quaest., 68.3: Exp. quarum. prop. ex ep. ad Rom, 47.4; 52. II; 53.6: see also: Stolyarov A. A. Free will as a problem of European moral consciousness. M., 1999. P. 145), a doctrine that he abandoned already in the treatise “To Simplician” in favor of the absolute decision of the Divine will, which is the only source of predetermination of human fate. For more details, see: Fokin L.R. A brief outline of the teachings of Blessed Augustine on the relationship between free human action and Divine grace in salvation (according to the works of 386–397) // Blessed Augustine. Treatises on various issues. M., 2005. P.8–40. – Approx. ed. Montanus, the founder of the sect of the same name, considered himself a guide, if not the incarnation of the Holy Spirit, just like his comrades - Priscilla and Maximilla. Mami, or Manichaean, considered the Holy Spirit to be his heavenly “alter ego”, in the closest unity with Whom he supposedly was from the age of 12. Examples of such doctrinal usurpation of the words of Scripture about Christ’s promise of the Holy Spirit to the disciples can be continued right up to the present day. The word “catholic” (caiholica), used by Augustine, here can be understood as both the Church (Ecclesia catholica) and faith (fides catholica). Compare: Manca L. II combattimento cristiano. Introdusionc. P.117: “In one of his letters to Blessed Jerome (Ep.40), Augustine speaks of the existence of two categories of Christians: those who do not speak Greek, and those who, due to the multitude of everyday affairs, do not find time for self-education to be able to defend the truths of the Christian faith. As already mentioned, the treatise “On the Christian Struggle” was written for Christians who do not speak Latin. Augustine's words about Christians willingly listening to heretics speak of the emergence of a “new” category of Christians: those who are ignorant in matters of faith and love to listen to heretics. Apparently, Augustine warns his flock against them.” We are talking about the Donatist schism, named after Donatus of Carthage, bishop of Cellae Nigrae in North Africa (d. 355), called by his followers the Great (Donatus Magnus). His followers recognized themselves as the one true Church of Jesus Christ and acted as the national church of Roman Africa. In his polemic against the Donatists, Augustine insists that the Church of Christ is spread throughout the entire earth. That is why, because of the promise, it is called catholic. According to Augustine, one of the signs of the truth of the Church is its universality (conciliarity). For more details see: Willis G.G. Saint Augustine and the Donatist Controversy. London, 1950. The meaning of Augustine's words becomes clear from the following example. The Apostle Peter sheathed his sword, being rebuked by the Lord. Donat. no matter what. caused division in the Church. The words of the Lord do not call for indifferent pacifism, but warn against evil and malice. In P.L. suggested reading: “bishops of Rome” (episcopis Romae). In his polemic with the Donatists, Augustine emphasizes the importance of the Roman see, the first bishop of which was the Apostle Peter. It is possible that the reading of episcopis Romae is a reflection of the context of the anti-Donatist polemic. See below note 90. This chapter deals with the so-called “Luciferian schism” in the Western Church, named after Lucifer, Bishop of Caralitan in Sicily (d. between 364-375, see: Jerome. De vir. iII. 95) - a strict follower of the Council of Nicea, who refused to enter into church communion not only with the Arians. but also with those bishops who stained themselves with communication with the Arians or signed pro-Arian confessions (primarily the Ariminian formula of 359), which ultimately led to the fact that after his return from exile to the West in 362-363. Lucifer went into schism, and his followers began to be called “Luciferians.” The peak of their activity in the West occurred in the late 70s - early 80s. IV century – Approx. ed. Augustine insists on the uniqueness of Baptism, performed even outside the Church. Heretics and schismatics should be accepted into the grace-filled communion of the Church, and not rebaptized. The promise of life in Christ cannot be repeated. In turn, the Donatist schismatics referred to the patristic authority, which allegedly spoke of the gracelessness of any invocation of the name of Christ outside the Church. Augustine denies the legitimacy of the Donatists' reference to the authority of the holy martyr Cyprian of Carthage. Wed. Augustine. Er.93, 10, 35–39, as well as the treatise “On Baptism (De Bapiismo) against the Donatists.” According to Augustine, the sacraments performed outside the Catholic Church are a “form of piety” (formam pietatis). After joining the Church, this form acquires the “power of piety” (virtutrm pietatis). Only in this way does a sacrament, performed correctly, but outside of church communion, become truly grace-filled and unconditionally saving. hujus catholicae Ecclesiae personam sustinet Petrus. According to blessed Augustine, “Peter is the first of the apostles. This primacy is not only a consequence of being called first, but is a special gift of grace (In Iohannis euangelium tractatus 124. 5: abundantiorie gratia unus idemque primus apostolus). However, the ministry of primacy is not the personal calling of Peter and his successors, but personifies the essence of the Church (Ibid. 118. 4: ideo unus pro omnibus, quia unitas est in omnibus). Moreover, only Peter personifies the image of the One Church. In Autustin's earlier works, most likely under the influence of St. Ambrose of Milan. interprets the Gospel words (Matthew 16:13–23) about the stone of faith as being said about Peter. Later, starting in 399 (in Adnotationes in lob), Augustine says that the stone is Christ, while Peter personifies the Church created on this Stone. In Retractationes I 21.1, Augustine gives the reader the choice between two interpretations - his own and the opinion of St. Ambrose (Harum autem duarum sententiarum quae sit probabilior, eligai lector). The church, not one single person, receives the keys and power of forgiveness of sins. The Apostle Peter personifies the power, unity and catholicity given to the Church, that is, universality. The Gospel passage about the Stone of Faith is used by Augustine primarily in the context of Christological polemics. In Epistola 53, 2 Peter is mentioned in the list of Roman bishops. Peter was the first bishop of Rome, where the basilicas of the apostles are located (De civitate Dei I 1)” (Augustinus-Lexikon. Vol. I. Basel, 1986–1994. Col. 402–403). Cum Lucifero, qui mane oriebatur. Augustine uses a play on words: Lucifer - Satan, fallen angel, Luciferus - schismatic bishop. Just as in the first case, pride became the reason for the falling away of Satan and other fallen angels from God, so in the second, the same pride and hatred became the reason for the separation of schismatics from the Church. – Approx. ed. We are probably talking about some groups within Montanism; in particular, about the Tertullianists. According to Augustine, this sect existed in North Africa until the beginning of the 5th century (see: Augustine. De haeresibus, 80). – Approx. ed. Untranslatable play on words: mundus (pure) – mundanus (worldly). Augustine's criticism is directed not only against his rigorist contemporaries, but also against such respected writers of Christian antiquity as Tertullus (De exhoriatione casitatis, De Monogamia) and Clement of Alexandria (Stromata, 12.82), who spoke. although for various reasons, against the possibility of a second marriage. Compare: Augustine. Reiractationes 2. 3: “In the book I write: “Let us not listen to those who deny the future resurrection of the flesh, pointing to what the Apostle Paul said: Flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God. not understanding what was said by the same apostle: This corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. Indeed, when this is accomplished, there will be no flesh and blood, but a heavenly body.” These words should not be understood in the sense that there will be no more nature of the flesh, but by the name of flesh and blood should be understood, according to the apostle, the corruption of flesh and blood, which will not be in the Kingdom, where the flesh will be incorruptible. Another understanding is also possible, in which, by the name of flesh and blood, the apostle means the deeds of flesh and blood and those who do not inherit the Kingdom because of constant love for them.” According to Augustine, a person cannot free himself from slavery to sin unless he first loves virtue with the power of love given from above. It is love, earthly and destructive, or heavenly, regenerating, that is the driving force of human existence. Man, according to Augustine, is not a reasonable man (homo sapiens), but a loving man (homo amans). See: Sokoloivski A. R. Matrix Omnium Conclusionum. Den "Augustinus" des Jansenius Lesen. Diss. Friborg. 2007 //hltp://ethesis.unifr.ch theses index.php#Thcologie. See also: Mayer C. Delectatio (Delectare) // Augustinm-Lexikon. Basel, 1986–1994. Vol.I. Col. 267–285. In the Synod, trans.: “So that you, being rooted and established in love, may be able to comprehend with all the saints what is the breadth and length and depth and height, and to understand the love of Christ that surpasses knowledge, so that you may be filled with all the fullness of God.”