Dialogue on the Incarnation of the Only Begotten

The Christological work “Dialogue on the Incarnation of the Only Begotten” was written by St. Cyril of Alexandria, most likely before the Nestorian dispute (before 428). The dialogue is a continuation of the treatise “On the Holy and Consubstantial Trinity.” Interlocutor St. Cyril is the elder priest Hermias. St. Kirill reviews the false teachings about the Incarnation. It concerns 6 Christological heresies, of which the greatest attention is paid to two: Apollinarianism and “diprosopic” Christology (the doctrine of “two Sons”). The saint writes that it is unacceptable to divide Christ, Who is One both before and after the Incarnation. Everything said in Holy Scripture refers to the One and Same Christ. The closest unity of Christ is proven by numerous passages of the Holy Scriptures: “And the Holy Scriptures proclaim Him as wholly man, while His divinity according to the Economy is passed over in silence, then, in turn, as God, and at the same time it is silent about His humanity. But He in no way suffers damage due to the drawing together (σύμβασιν) of both into unity.” The unity of two realities unequal in nature in the God-man St. Kirill compares it with the unity of soul and body in man, that is, he uses the “anthropological paradigm” widely known in ancient Christian theology. This publication, prepared by K. B. Yulaev, is an improved version of his thesis at the IDS, defended in May 2005. Dialogue “On the Incarnation of the Only Begotten” (hereinafter - DI) 1 written by St. Cyril of Alexandria as a continuation of the seven “Dialogues on the Holy and Consubstantial Trinity” 2. In its main theme (the refutation of Christological dualism in the form of the doctrine of the “two Sons”), it is close to the works of the saint during the Nestorian dispute, standing out among them for its harmony, conciseness of composition and some detachment from the private details of the polemic 3. The closeness of DI and another, more famous work of the saint - the message “On the Right Faith, to Emperor Theodosius” (hereinafter - RF) 4 has long been noticed. Together with two messages intended for “royal wives” 5, RF is included in the group of messages “On the Right Faith” 6, which were compiled and sent to the royal court in 430, at the very height of the struggle between Cyril and Nestorius, even before the convening of the Council of Ephesus 7. Apart from the large introduction addressed to the emperor, which opens the RF and which is absent in the DI, the similarity between the DI and the RF is so significant that, perhaps, it would be more correct to speak not of two different works, but of two editions of the same treatise. Regarding the fact that both of these editions were compiled by St. Kirill, the researchers had no doubts, but the question of their mutual relationship was resolved in different ways. In the past, the dominant view among patrolologists was that the DI was the second edition of this message 8, although this was controversial 9. We, in turn, are more inclined to accept the conclusions of J. Durand, publisher of DI in the French pathological series "Christian Sources". In the preface to this edition, he asserts the primacy in time of DI and even, moreover, refers this dialogue to the early writings of the saint 10. In his opinion, St. Cyril revised the dialogue he wrote back in the pre-Destorian period, considering the thoughts developed in it quite suitable for, by presenting them to the emperor, to win him over to his side in the ensuing theological dispute. To substantiate this statement, J. Durand first points out certain differences between the RF and the two other messages “On the Right Faith,” which he tries to explain by the early origin of the content of the RF. He then contrasts RF and DI in detail, arguing for the temporal primacy of DI. Finally, among the works of St. Kirill, he finds confirmation of such an early dating of DI 11. Let us present his argument in a condensed form. First of all, the difference between the RF, as addressed to the emperor, and the two other messages “On the Right Faith,” addressed to the “royal wives,” is striking. The difference between them was so noticeable that it later even irritated the emperor, who saw here an intention to introduce division into the imperial family 12 . And, indeed, while in the Russian Federation the saint conducts a fairly calm discussion of theological issues, refraining from sharp polemical attacks against his opponent, in his letters “to the royal wives” it is polemics that he brings to the fore, and here he goes on an open offensive 13 . It should be pointed out that in the last two messages the Christological terminology characteristic of the anti-Nestorian polemics is much more developed. They resolutely affirm the legality of naming the Holy Virgin the Theotokos, since Christ, born of Her, is God the Word Himself 14. They talk about unity according to hypostasis (ἕνωσις καθ’ ὑπόστασιν), in contrast to the Nestorian concepts of unity “in persons” (ἐν προσώποις), and about “God-bearing man” (ἄνθρωπος θεοφόρος) 15. It is denied that Christ can be divided according to hypostasis 16. The very idea of ​​the unity of Christ as merely a connection between man and God according to the equality of “power” and “honor” 17 is repeatedly criticized. The term συνάφεια and the verb συνάπτω are often compared with the stronger ἕνωσις and rejected as very insufficiently describing the closest unity of Divinity and humanity 18 . All these features can be found in many places in the five books “Against Nestorius”, compiled in the spring of 430, while in the RF they are practically absent 19. It is hardly possible to explain the reason for such restraint of the saint in his message to the emperor by the fact that, while hiding the name of his opponent before the royal court for the time being, he was more careful with the emperor than with the “royal wives,” since the literal presentation of his opponent’s speeches at the beginning of the RF was hardly less dangerous than the rejection of individual Nestorian terms in the other two messages 20. Accepting an earlier date of origin for the RF might well explain both the comparatively quiet character of this epistle and the relative lack of development of its Christological terminology. The lack of discussion of the term συνάφεια suggests that its writing dates back to the very beginning of the Nestorian dispute, more precisely to the first half of 429 21. However, then it would be surprising that the name “Virgin” in the RF is used simply, as not requiring protection, although it was this name that served as the original subject of dispute. The latter circumstance leads to an even earlier date for the writing of RF. However, one should not lose sight of the fact that RF owes its composition precisely to the opposition to St. Cyril Nestorius, and in its final form could not have appeared before the start of the conflict. Therefore, it is more appropriate to assume that this message is a reworking of a previously written treatise 22. Further, if we assume that DI was written before 428, and RF is its second edition, compiled for the emperor already during the Nestorian controversy, the differences between this dialogue and RF can be quite acceptablely explained. In this case, there are well-thought-out corrections due to the new addressee and the new requirements of the time. If we assume the primacy of RF in time, then these changes become difficult to explain. The differences are not limited to the refusal of the dialogic form in the RF and the presence there of a large introduction addressed to the emperor. First of all, it should be noted that the concrete expressions used in DI are replaced by more abstract ones in those places where the humanity of Christ is discussed. It must be assumed that such a replacement is aimed at preventing any understanding of humanity of the Word as having an independent existence 23 . “...The Word united with man, who is perfect in relation to the concept of humanity, that is, from soul and body...” (688:18–20. P. 102:16–18) 24 . “...The Word was united by nature with human flesh, animated by a rational soul...” (ASO 1, 1, 1, 52:15). The Word united “with the perfect man, namely, from soul and body...” (690:16-19. P. 107:9-10). The Word connected “to humanity such as ours, which is perfect...” (53:24-25). “... The Word united with man...” (692:13. P. 111:3). “...The word from God was united to humanity such as ours...” (55:14). “... and although He exceeds humanity, as God and the Son by nature, yet in a little way He descends from the glory due to the Divinity, like man...” (698:21-23. P. 121:15-18). “...Although He is superior to humanity, like God and the Son by nature, He does not neglect to appear in humiliation because of humanity...” (60:21-22). At the same time, in other places “flesh” (σάρζ) is replaced by “man” (ἄνθρωπος), apparently in order not to give unnecessary reason for the usual accusation of St. by the Nestorians. Cyril in Apollinarism 25. Christ accepts faith in Himself, “...even though He became flesh...” (703:25, pp. 130:27–28). “...though He became man...” (64:25). The Word retained its Divine properties “...even when It became flesh...” (709:31. P. 142:10). “...even when He appeared as a man...” (69:19). This can also explain the fact that the saint omitted from R F two imaginary praises of the Apollinarians present in the dialogue (689: 1–2, 690: 15–16; pp. 104: 12–13, pp. 107: 5–7) 26 . In RF, compared to DI, one can see the consistent elimination or limitation of a number of terms that might suggest some kind of confusion of Divinity and humanity in Christ 27 . Here there is also a clarification of the saint’s Christological terminology in response to the accusations of the Nestorians. “...the one and only Lord Jesus Christ, ineffably composed (συγκείμενος) from worshiping humanity and from worshiping Divinity...” (702:2–4. P. 128:4–6). “...the one and only Lord Jesus Christ, from the worshiping humanity and from the worshiping Deity, having in truth to be and be called together God and man...” (63:15–17) The word “... was intertwined (ἐνεπλάκη) with the flesh” (705:14, pp. 134:9–10). The word “...was unmerged (ἀσυγχύτως) intertwined with the flesh” (66:4). The word “...gathers together both natures, as if mixing (ἀνακιρνὰς) their properties with each other” (708:4–5. P. 139:3–4). “...gathers together the properties of natures through the convergence (σύμβασιν) according to the economy” (6 8: 7–8). The Evangelist John “...gathers two natures, almost forcing to merge (μισγάγκειαν ἄγων) the strength of the properties appropriate to each of them” (712: 1–3. P. 146: 6–7). “...almost binding together (συνδέως εἰς ἕνωσιν) the strength of the properties inherent in each of them” (71:12). “...we do not deprive humanity of the Divinity, nor do we strip the Word from humanity after an inexpressible interweaving (συμπλοκήν) ...” (713:26–27. P. 149:2–4). "...after an inexpressible and incomprehensible union (ἕνωσιν)..." (72:21). In several places, speaking about the birth of the Word from the Virgin, St. Cyril replaces the preposition διὰ with ἐκ, “through the wife” (D I 695:19, 699:39, 704:39–40; S. 116:20, S. 123:16, S. 133:11) with “from the wife” (R F 58:5; 61:25; 65:26), apparently wanting to emphasize that the Word did not simply pass “through” the Virgin, as if through some channel, but actually received “from Her” His flesh. And here one can discern his desire to distance himself from Apollinarian views 28 . Finally, the name “Mother of God” (Θεοτόκος), which appears four times in the RF (45:6; 46:27; 53:29; 69:26), is completely absent in the corresponding places in the DI (679:4–5, 681:6, 690:23–24, 710:1–2; P. 87:1, P. 90:16, pp. 107:14, pp. 142:25). This name has been in widespread use throughout the Christian East at least since the time of Origen 29 . But St. Cyril used it infrequently in pre-Destorian times 30. And if he does not even mention it in the DI, then this dialogue must precede his first anti-Nestorian writings, and not follow them 31 . In addition to the above-mentioned differences of a substantive nature, the primacy in time of DI is also convinced by differences of a purely literary nature. Words with the same root as θρώσκω (“jump, gallop”) are consistently replaced in RF with synonymous ones, apparently in order to eliminate part of the inherent tinge of rudeness and exaggeration 32 . In addition, similar words, common among St. Cyril before 428, are almost never found in his writings later, and this circumstance in itself can be a good chronological sign 33. It should also be noted in RF there are involuntary angularities in the form of “sutures”, which were inevitable when the presentation abandoned the form of dialogue. These are objections preceded by remarks like “but, undoubtedly, they will say ...”, or rhetorical questions to which an immediate answer is given 34. Although such literary devices are very suitable for the warlike temperament of St. Kirill, who often amazes imaginary opponents with his arguments, however, in RF they appear too often and do not always fit completely into the general character of the presentation 35. Finally, among the works of St. Kirill, you can also find a direct indication of the time of compilation of the DI. In his first letter to Nestorius, he writes: “Even during the lifetime of Atticus, of blessed memory, I wrote a book about the Holy and Consubstantial Trinity; it also contains the word about the incarnation of the Only Begotten, and my current writing agrees with it. I read it to bishops, clergy and those of the people who love reading. But until now I have not given it to anyone. Probably, with the publication of this word, they will blame me again; because this work was compiled by me before your piety was elected to the archbishopric” 36. That is, we are talking about a certain treatise in which the incarnation of the Word is spoken of in a special way, and not in passing 37. This “word” is often identified with the sixth of the “Dialogues on the Holy and Consubstantial Trinity” 38. But in this last dialogue there is no deviation from the main theme of the entire work, the affirmation of the consubstantiality of the Son with the Father. Here the argument is proposed that although the Son is said to be glorified by the Father and sanctified by the Holy Spirit, nevertheless He has a nature in no way lower than the nature of the Father. It is only at the time of the incarnation that the Word is seen as subordinate to the Father and receiving a glory that is not inherently His. However, in this dialogue there is no consistent presentation of the teaching “about the incarnation of the Only Begotten,” and even more so there is no criticism of Christological dualism. Let us note that the Alexandrian saint expressed concern about the emergence of a dualistic tendency in Christology and earlier his entry into the Nestorian polemics, as clearly evidenced by numerous passages from the “Commentary on the Gospel of John” and some fragments of his other surviving exegetical works 39 . The refutation of the doctrine of the “two Sons” is the main theme of his eighth “Easter Homily”, dating back to 420; He also criticizes this teaching in the eleventh “Easter Homilia” 40. Therefore, if he wanted to point out to Nestorius his constant rejection of dualistic views, he could have chosen from his writings something more appropriate than the sixth of the “Dialogues on the Holy and Consubstantial Trinity.” Would it not be more appropriate to assume that the “word” mentioned in the letter to Nestorius is precisely DI? In this case, it was compiled no later than October 425 (the time of the death of the Archbishop of Atticus of Constantinople). From the fact that in the same letter the saint says that this “word” has not yet been published and that he intends to “publish” it, it is quite reasonable to conclude that the RF was the “first edition” of this treatise 41 . True, in the preface to the “Dialogues on the Holy and Consubstantial Trinity” it is stated quite unequivocally that this work contains only seven dialogues 42 . Although this may mean that the DI was composed somewhat later than these “Dialogues,” it is nevertheless not at all necessary to consider it a reworking of the RF and push back the time of its composition to 431–432. It is also unclear why it would be necessary to connect it with such an old work (and the “Dialogues on the Holy Trinity” date back to approximately 412–420 43) and give the interlocutor the name Hermias, which appears in the early “Dialogues” 44. In DI St. Cyril quotes two fragments (λογίδια) from the writings of his opponent 45 . If the words of Nestorius are given here, then DI, of course, could not have appeared earlier than 428. However, in both fragments the doctrine of the “two Sons” is expressed too straightforwardly 46, so that one can doubt their attribution to Nestorius 47. And St. himself Throughout the entire Nestorian dispute, Cyril never again cited these exact words of his opponent, which were so compromising on him 48 . In addition, the saint nowhere else calls the writings of his opponent λογίδια, but either “conversations” (ὁμιλίαι) or “interpretations” (ἐξηγήσεις). Most likely, in DI he quotes the words not of Nestorius at all, but of some theologian who remains unknown to us 49 . So, if we accept these conclusions made by J. Durand, it can be argued that the DI was written in the early 420s. In this case, this dialogue cannot but attract special interest, since only it contains a systematic presentation of the early Christological views of St. Kirill. DI has a fairly clear compositional structure. It can easily be divided into an introduction and two parts. The doctrine of the incarnation of God the Word is revealed through the rejection of false views, and already in the introduction the interlocutor of St. Cyril points to them (679:3–680:24. P. 85:1–89:17). Next, the first part, which is smaller in volume, examines the first four misconceptions. At first we are talking about the Docetians, who recognize in Christ only imaginary flesh (680:31–682:32. pp. 89:25–92:26). Then the views of those who present the incarnation as a change from God the Word into the nature of the flesh are examined (682:33–684:38, pp. 92:27–96:10). Then two similar teachings that the saint associates with Marcellus and Photinus are refuted: one of them says that the Word began to exist through His formation in the womb of the Virgin (684:42–685:45, pp. 96:14–98:5), while the other completely denies the Word His real and hypostatic existence (686:1–688:9, pp. 98:6–102:7). Finally, without calling them by name, the saint moves on to the Apollinarians, who deprived Christ’s humanity of a rational soul (688:10–693:33, pp. 102:8–113:16). The first part ends with a presentation of the doctrine of the incarnation, which is a brief summary of the above (694:16–36. pp. 114:17–115:15). Finally, the saint devoted the second part of the dialogue to refuting the doctrine of the “two Sons” and affirming the unity of the incarnate Word. Here we are talking about the fact that it is unacceptable to divide Christ, who, both before the incarnation and after it, is one, being together God and man (694:37–698:8. P. 115:16–121:2). Everything said about Him in the Holy Scriptures must be referred to one and the same Christ, Who is sometimes considered as God, sometimes as man (698:8–700:3, pp. 121:2–124:4). He is one and the same, the Only Begotten and the First-Begotten (700:4–33, pp. 124:5–126:2). The proof of the unity of Christ is the worship that He accepts as the God-man and the faith in Him (700:34–702:36. pp. 126:3–129:27). There is a very close and indissoluble unity between the Word and His humanity, as evidenced by the miracles of Christ and the testimony of the Father about Him (702:37–705:30, pp. 129:28–134:27), as well as the sacraments of Baptism and Communion (705:30–708:6, pp. 134:27–139:4). After examining individual sayings of Holy Scripture and resolving a number of puzzling questions (708:6–713:17, pp. 139:4–148:20), a final statement of faith follows (713:18–714:4, pp. 148:21–150:14). Even from the brief overview of the contents of DI we have given, it is clear that, although it, like the early work of St. Cyril, is still devoid of those features that the Nestorian polemics introduced into the saint’s Christology, nevertheless, the doctrine of the incarnation is already quite fully revealed in it. DI is distinguished by a remarkable sequence of thoughts and harmonious composition. Through the rejection, one after another, of false opinions and the resolution of puzzling questions, the “great mystery of piety” is revealed to the reader more and more deeply. The guidance for the saint is the Holy Scripture and the Tradition coming from previous fathers. Throughout the entire dialogue, the saint first of all emphasizes the soteriological significance of the truth of the Incarnation 50. These features make DI a remarkable monument of patristic writing and an important testimony to the teaching of the Church about the Person of our Lord Jesus Christ. To date, very few manuscripts containing the “Dialogue on the Incarnation of the Only Begotten” have survived, with the exception of the RF, whose manuscript tradition is more extensively represented 51. J. Durand lists four manuscripts known to him containing DI 52. In the first three of them, DI is placed together with the dialogue “That Christ is One,” after the “Dialogues on the Holy and Consubstantial Trinity,” as their continuation. – Monacensis graecus 398 (M). This is the oldest manuscript: a parchment manuscript dating back to the 11th century. Since 1806 it has been kept in Munich. DI here is located on sheets 230 ͬ – 253 ͮ . Unfortunately, at the turn of the 16th–17th centuries, this manuscript was exposed to moisture, which led to numerous minor losses of the text. – Vaticanus graecus 596 (C), manuscript on paper, XIV century. It is mentioned in all known catalogs of the Vatican Library, starting with the earliest ones. DI is placed there on sheets 314 ͬ – 349 ͮ . – Vatopedinus 390 (V), a parchment manuscript belonging to the Vatopedi Monastery, dating back to approximately the 14th century. The text of all dialogues in this manuscript is divided into paragraphs of approximately equal size, and the distribution of the dialogue participants' remarks is not taken into account at all. The DI here is on sheets 250 ͮ – 273 ͮ . - Mediceus Laurentianus Plut. V code. 35, manuscript on paper in Florence, 14th century. DI here follows the first book of St. Cyril “On worship and service in spirit and truth”, on sheets 146 ͬ – 165 ͬ . The first printed edition of DI was carried out by the Flemish humanist Bonaventure Vulcanius, who published its Latin translation in 1605 and accompanied it with his comments 53 . In 1638, J. Aubert also published the Greek text of the Dialogue, in his collection of the works of St. Kirill 54. In 1863, the DI was published in the 75th volume of “Greek Patrology” by J.-P. Minya together with comments by Bonaventure 55 , and in 1877 it was published by P. Pusey, in parallel with RF 56 . A critical edition of the Greek text of the DI, as well as another Christological dialogue, On That Christ is One, together with a French translation, a detailed introduction and lengthy commentary, was prepared by J. Durand and published in the Christian Sources series in 1964 (SC 97). Our translation is based on this latest edition. Quotations from the Holy Scriptures are given mainly from the Synodal translation, with the exception of the Psalter, which is given in Church Slavonic; for a number of passages from the New Testament, the translation of Bishop Cassian (Bezobrazov) was chosen. In several places in the dialogue, the paraphrasing of the Synodal translation is determined by the context of the speech or the peculiarities of quoting the Holy Scriptures by the saint himself. Kirill. In all cases, discrepancies with the Synodal translation are noted in the notes. Notes of a theological and ecclesiastical historical nature are compiled mainly from the comments of Durand and Bonaventure. The notes also provide a Russian translation of those parts of the RF that differ from the DI, made according to the modern edition 57. After completing work on our translation, a typewritten translation of all three messages “On the Right Faith” was discovered in the Manuscript Department of the Russian State Library, defended in 1916 as a candidate’s essay by a student of the M.D. A. Vasily Dmitriev 58, who was involved in translations of St. Kirill and earlier 59. This translation, made according to the Greek patrolology of J.-P. Minya, was appreciated by prof. S.I. Sobolevsky as “correct, close to the original, but at the same time finished in clear and literary language,” with a small number of “insignificant errors” 60. Although another reviewer, Fr. Panteleimon (Uspensky), recommended it for publication 61, it was never published due to revolutionary events. In our work, unfortunately, the translation of Fr. Vasily Dmitriev was not taken into account. The translator expresses his special gratitude to his scientific supervisor, Rev. Dionysius (Shlenov) and Hierarch. Tikhon (Zimin), who took upon himself the work of final editing of the translation. Acts 1996 – Acts of the Ecumenical Councils. T. 1. I, II, III Councils. St. Petersburg, 1996. Dmitriev 1916 – Translation and analysis of the work of St. Cyril of Alexandria Χριστόν. Course essay by a 71st year student of the priesthood. V. Dmitriev at the N Department of Patrology for the 1915/1916 academic year. (O R RSL. F. 172. K. 235. Unit 4. 123 pp.) Lyashchenko 1913 – Lyashchenko T., priest. St. Cyril, Archbishop of Alexandria. His life and work. Kiev, 1913. Uspensky 1916 – Panteleimon (Uspensky), Hierom. Feedback on a candidate's essay by a priest student. Vasily Dmitriev on the topic: Translation and analysis of the work of St. Cyril of Alexandria Χριστόν. (OR RSL. Φ. 172. K. 235. Unit 5. 12 pp.) Sidorov 2000 – Sidorov L. Saint Cyril of Alexandria, his life, church ministry and creations // Creations of St. Cyril, Archbishop of Alexandria. Book 1. M., 2000. Sobolevsky 1916 – Sobolevsky S.I., prof. Review of the essay by St. Vasily Dmitrieva. (O R RSL. F. 172. K. 235. Unit 6. 2 pp.) Creations 2000, 2001, 2002 – Creations of St. Cyril, Archbishop of Alexandria. Book 1, 2, 3. M., 2000–2002. Ales 1931 – Aies A. Le dogme d’Éphèse. Paris, 1931. Durand 1964 – Cyrille d'Alexandrie. Deux dialogues Christologiques / Introduction, texte critique, traduction et notes par S. M. de Durand. Paris, 1964 (SC 97). Mahé 1938 – Make J. Cyrille (Saint), patriarche dAlexandrie // Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique. Paris, 1938. Col. 2476–2527. Pusey 1877 – Sancti Patris nostri Cyrilli archiepiscopi Alexandrini De recta fide ad Imperatorem – de Incarnatione Unigeniti, de recta fide ad principissas, de recta fide ad Augustas, Quod unus sit Christus dialogus, Apologeticum ad Imperatorem / Ed. Pusey P.E.T. VII. Pars 1. Oxford, 1877. Tillemont 1709 – Tillemont L. Mémoires pour servir aux histoires ecclésiastiques des six premieres siècles. Vol. 14. Paris, 1709. Quasten 1986 – Quasten J. Patrology. Vol. 3. The Golden Age of Greek Patristic Literature. From the Council of Nicaea to the Council of Chalcedon. Westminster, 1986. DI = dialogue “On the Incarnation of the Only Begotten” RF = message “On the right faith, to Emperor Theodosius” ( . . . ) = fragments in DI different from RF Saint Cyril about the incarnation of the Only Begotten, and that Christ is one and Lord according to the Scriptures (A – Don’t you think that our discussion about the Divinity of the Only Begotten turned out to be both well proportioned and sufficiently processed? A - In my opinion, it is not at all devoid of subtle evidence - at least that’s how it seems to me. And you, Ermiy 62, what do you say to this? Q - In fairness, I can praise him for both his accuracy and elegance of speech. A - Then you, of course, want us, without dwelling any longer on this, to talk about the incarnation of the Only Begotten and, moreover, to try 63 to explain as clearly as possible what the sacrament pertaining to Him is - of course, as far as this is achievable for those who see in the mirror and fortune-telling and partly know (cf. 1 Cor. 13:12) according to the gift (Eph. 4:7) of the assistance of the Spirit (Phil.1:19), as the divine Paul writes? (Q - You said excellently 64 Indeed, no one calls Jesus Lord except by the Holy Spirit, and no one utters anathema against Jesus except by Beelzebub (cf. 1 Cor. 13:12). However, 65 since you have decided to enter the lists and endure such burdensome and unbearable work, then do a favor, and specifically to me before others. After all, then I will be able, to my greatest pleasure, to find out the truth 66 and a genuine and free from any accusations teaching about Christ. The fact is that some are intoxicated with different opinions, disfiguring what is declared about Him in the New Testament and Old Testament Scriptures. (A - My friend, foolish people have nothing that they would not take hold of, and they with the greatest readiness throw themselves 67 into the bottom of hell (Proverbs 9:18), as it is written, and into the snare of death, not understanding either what they are talking about or what they are asserting (1 Tim. 1:7). (But most revered, perhaps you can tell about each of them, what exactly they are chattering and what fables they are reading how sacred? B - Of course.) 68 Namely, some dared to say 69 that although the Word from God appeared as a man, he did not bear the flesh of the Virgin 70. And they slander the sacrament that it is just an appearance. In turn, others, believing that they are ashamed to appear to be man-worshippers, refusing to crown flesh from the earth with the highest glory, and also from the extreme ignorance of the disease with some false and damaged reverence, say that the Word born of God the Father has changed into the nature of bones, veins, and flesh. Thus, these unfortunates ridicule with all their might the birth of Emmanuel from the Virgin and describe as obscenity such and such an excellent economy befitting God. And others believed that God the Word, co-eternal with the Father, was born later (ὀψιγενῆ) 71 and was barely called into existence at the same time when he received the beginning of birth according to the flesh. But there are also those who wickedly rush to such madness that they even say that the Word from God is devoid of hypostasis and that a certain saying spoken [by God] simply arose in man. Such are Marcellus and Photinus. Others actually decided that they believe in the true incarnation and appearance in the flesh of the Only Begotten, but their perceived flesh is no longer fully animated by a thinking soul and having a mind similar to ours. And consolidating, as they believe, the Word from God and the church from the Holy Virgin into complete unity, they say that the Word moved into this church and at the same time, although it assimilated to Himself the assumed flesh, He Himself filled the place of the thinking and rational (λογικῆς τε καὶ νοερᾶς) 72 soul. Others, in turn, oppose their opinions and contradict their judgments, emphatically asserting that Immanuel was composed and woven both from God the Word and from a thinking soul with a body, that is, simply speaking, from a perfect man. However, they still did not preserve a sound and impeccable idea of ​​Him. Namely, they completely dismember the one Christ in two and, as if introducing a rough dissection between them, almost compare both as being separately, insisting that the other is a perfect man born of the Virgin, and the other, in turn, is the Word from God the Father. And not because they distinguish the nature of the Word from the flesh, but they do not want to be satisfied with only this distinction. Indeed, then they would not have deviated from true thoughts, since the nature of the flesh and (God) 73 are not the same. However, to please themselves, they consider one a separate person, and call the other God by nature and truly the Son, and this despite the fact that they want to be called Christians! And having written down certain sayings, they even dared to say ( ) 74, speaking in their own words: “For as there is a Son by nature and in truth, the Word from God the Father, so also is the son of the same name (ὁμωνύμως) to the Son”; and a little lower again: “The flesh is not the Word from God, but man received. Indeed, the Only Begotten is originally and in Himself the Son of God, the Creator of all things; man, who was assumed by Him, not being Lord 75 by nature, thanks to the true Son who assumed him, calls himself by the same name as Him. After all, we agree that while the words: no one knows the Son except the Father (Matthew 11:27) show the Son from the Father by nature and truth, Gabriel said: Do not be afraid, Mary; for You have found favor with God; and behold, you will conceive in your womb and give birth to a Son, and you will call His name Jesus (Luke 1:30) corresponding to man.” However, these are their speeches. But we will not accept them. Why? Yes, because the speech of dissenters will never incline us to leave the right path and take a different path, perverted and leading past the goal. (And yet, do what you have planned and try to present me with pure teaching, since I am ready to listen and learn it as soon as possible. A - What a painful matter this is and an absolutely unbearable burden! Don’t you know, my friend, that if) 76 anyone undertakes to conduct a lengthy speech about everyone and give lengthy proofs, he will hardly succeed in this, even if he spends countless time and endures overwhelming and inevitable labor? A - So (if you wish), 78 putting aside the long and too petty reasoning necessary for this and devoting very few arguments to each opinion, let us say, and precisely to the Docetians 79 before others: you are mistaken, not knowing either the Scriptures (Matthew 22:29), or, indeed, the piety of the great mystery, that is, Christ, who appeared in the flesh, justified Himself in the Spirit, showed Himself to the angels, preached to the nations, was accepted by faith in the world, ascended in glory (1 Tim. 3:16). And I think that our opponents are forced either to bring dishonor upon the ancients and call liars the masters of the universe - those to whom Christ Himself said: go and teach all nations (Matthew 28:19) - or, if only they were afraid to do this, to decide to have the right to think about Christ and, inevitably saying “farewell” to their own ignorance, hold fast to the sacred Scriptures and, rushing along the infallible path of the saints fathers, go to the truth itself. After all, with us there is no other thing, I think, that can be the secret of piety than the Word Himself from God the Father, Who 15 appeared in the flesh. And indeed, He was born through the Holy Virgin ( ) 80, taking the form of a servant (Phil. 2:7). He also showed Himself to the angels, who solemnly glorify the Born One and exclaim: Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men (Luke 2:14). And to the shepherds, pointing to God the Word, who [appeared] in the flesh for our sake, they say: behold, a Savior has been born to you in the city of David, who is Christ the Lord. And here is a sign for you: you will find a Child wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger (Luke 2:10–12). (But if) 81 there is a birth through the Virgin and a manifestation in the flesh, then would it not be impotent idle talk, madness and nonsense to attribute the name of appearance to such and such a tangible 82 and obvious economy? In fact, if it was a shadow and appearance, and not a true incarnation, then, of course, neither the Virgin gave birth, nor the Word from God the Father received the seed of Abraham, nor became like the brothers (cf. Heb. 2:16–17). After all, it is not shadow or appearance that is characteristic of us (τὰ καθ’ ἡμᾶς), but we exist in bodies, both tangible and visible; and we are overcome by corruption and passions precisely because we are clothed with this earthly body. Therefore, if the Word did not become flesh, then it is not that because He Himself suffered, being tempted, He can help those who are tempted (Heb. 2:18). Because the shadow cannot endure anything. Then everything [that is done] for our sake truly turns into nothing. Indeed, what backbone did He give up for us? Or what cheeks did He endure when he was strangled by the Jews? (cf. Isa. 50:6). Can anyone imagine how the hands and feet of One who did not appear in the flesh were pierced in this way with nails? Or what, tell me, having pierced the rib, Pilate’s spearmen showed those who saw the precious Blood pouring out with water? And if more needs to be said than this, then Christ did not die for us and did not rise again. When this is accepted as the truth, then faith is destroyed, the Cross, salvation and life of the world disappear, and the hope of those who have fallen in faith is completely destroyed! After all, Blessed Paul well understood that this was so. For I initially taught you, he says, what I myself accepted, that is, that Christ died for our sins, according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He rose again on the third day, according to the Scriptures, and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve, then He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom are still alive, and some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to Jacob, and also to all the Apostles. And after all, he appeared to me, as to a certain monster (1 Cor. 15:3-8). And a little later again: if it is preached about Christ that He rose from the dead, then how do some of you say that there is no resurrection from the dead? If there is no resurrection from the dead, then Christ is not risen. And if Christ is not risen, then our preaching is in vain, and our faith is in vain. Moreover, we would also turn out to be false witnesses about God, because we would testify about God that He raised Christ, whom He did not raise, unless, that is, the dead are not raised (1 Cor. 15:12-15). How, tell me, could a shadow die in this way? Or how did the Father raise Christ, if He was a shadow and appearance and could not even be captured by mortal bonds? Let their impurity disappear! Moreover, we admit that what they offer is fables and an outpouring of wicked advice. After all, foretelling precisely these to us, the Savior’s disciple writes that many false prophets have appeared in the world. Recognize the Spirit of God this way: every spirit that confesses Jesus Christ, who has come in the flesh, is from God, and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God, but it is the spirit of the Antichrist, about whom you heard that he would come and is now already in the world (1 John 4: 1-3). And indeed, if He did not become a man and did not ascend in the flesh to the Father and God who is in heaven, then He will not be able to return from heaven as we are (καθ’ ἡμᾶς), namely man and in the flesh. Don't you think that what was said is true? A - Well, when others think and conclude from their extreme thoughtlessness that the Word, born of God, turns away from birth through the Holy Virgin and abhors a nature such as ours, and that It changed into flesh from the earth 84, is this also unusual for those who slander the economy and undertake to censure the Divine plans? After all, the Word of God, the Creator of all things and rich in mercy, for this reason also exhausted Himself for us, becoming a man (cf. Phil. 2:7) and being born of a woman (cf. Gal. 4:4), so that, since children, that is, we, participate in flesh and blood, He would also receive them, in order by death to deprive the power of him who has the power of death, that is, the devil, and to deliver those who from the fear of death throughout their lives they were subject to slavery (Heb. 2:14–15). For this is exactly what the Holy Scripture says. And these such a beautiful and excellent idea are defined as inappropriate and even condemn the intentions of Wisdom, as if it were inherent in them to come up with something better! After all, they precisely say that we should not attribute to the Only Begotten either labor pains or birth from a wife, but it is better for us to think that the nature of the Word was transformed into this old and earthly body. But in doing so they imagine the transformation of One who does not know transformation. After all, the Divine nature stands firmly in its own goods, and the constancy inherent in them remains indestructible. It is true that nature created (γνητή) and brought into existence in time could undergo change, and this is not outside the proper and true understanding. For in general, that which receives the beginning of being necessarily changes, as if this necessity were somehow already innate to it 85 . But God, being on the other side of all understanding, having an existence unrelated to formation and decay and exceeding them, will be above change. And as if by the law of His own nature, He rises above everything, I think, that was once called into being and surpasses it, and, moreover, with incomparable differences, so that even if something happens, as usual, to arise through Him, He will again become higher, not knowing those sufferings that by nature cause harm. Consequently, while the Divine abides in immutable goods, the created is in change and transformation, and is also close to corruption. Knowing this very well and being most excellent in his wisdom, the prophet Jeremiah exclaims to God: You are forever abiding, but we are forever perishing (Bar.3:3). Because the Divine will forever sit, as if in its own seat, reigning over everything and possessing everything, and not subject to violence from any passion. And we, having a very mobile nature and easily carried away to change and transformation, are “eternally perishing,” subject to decay and transformation at every hour and at every time. This means that neither the Divinity can ever experience change, being torn out by some passion from its inherent stability, nor can this corruptible and changeable, that is, created, nature in its essence be enriched by immobility, and the creation cannot boast of the benefits of the Divine nature as its own. After all, otherwise it will hear: what do you have that you would not receive? (1 Cor. 4:7). And that the nature of the Word is completely immovable and unchangeable, while the created one, on the contrary, is completely changeable, anyone can be convinced, and very easily, since blessed David sings in the Spirit: The heavens will perish, but You abided; and they will all promise like a robe, and hang down like a garment, and they will be changed. You are the same, and Your years will not fail (Ps. 101:26-28). Where then remains the Word Himself from God, if indeed what is said is authentic, 86 that It, having laid aside a stable and free from shocks state, descended into what it was not, and changed into the nature of the flesh and into that which by nature is destroyed? But isn't this nonsense and madness? A - It’s time for those who oppose their ignorance to say something more ignorant:) 87 that it would not be unfair that flesh from the earth could somehow ascend to the Divine nature and acquire the state of essence, the highest of all essences. Indeed, if the Divine nature itself has passed into the nature of the flesh, according, of course, to their frenzied ravings, then nothing ( ) 88 any longer prevents the flesh from flying above the lower and inherent nature and being transformed into the Divinity and the highest essence. But rather than obediently please their foolishness, we would rather adhere to the Divine Scriptures. And since the prophet says: behold, the Virgin will be with child, and will give birth to a Son, and they will call His name Immanuel (Is. 7:14), and blessed Gabriel seals what was previously spoken and explains to the Virgin the highest will, saying: Do not be afraid, Mary, for behold, you will conceive in your womb, and bear a Son, and you will call His name Jesus ( Luke 1:30-31), then let us believe that Emmanuel was truly born of a woman and, moreover, thinking rightly, we will not reject the brilliant and amazing praise of our own nature. (B - You said excellently.) 89 Indeed, the Only Begotten did not take on His own nature - because then what was characteristic of us would not be in the best condition - and not the angelic, but the seed of Abraham (Heb. 2:16), as it is written. Because in this way, and not otherwise, it was possible to save the [human] race, which had slipped into decay. A - So what? After this, does not something else also deserve amazement (O Hermias? A - After all, some, having almost completely said goodbye to the inspired Scripture and given their own minds to the spirits of error (cf. 1 John 4:6), have reached such recklessness and childish stupidity that they think that the Creator of ages, co-eternal with God the Father of God the Word, the beginning of existence must accompany His birth according to the flesh and imagine that He appeared later who is beyond every age and time, and as if in recent times, the times of incarnation, God became the Father, and He, through whom everything is, and in whom everything seemed to be able to come into existence and existence together with the church from the Virgin. So, haven’t those who indulged in such a disgusting old woman’s tale and brought their minds to such extreme stupidity already rushed to a lot that surpasses all evil? Verily, their throat is an open tomb; they deceive with their tongue; the poison of asps is on their lips. Their lips are full of slander and bitterness (Rom. 3:13-14. Wed. Ps.5:10; 139:3; 9:28). (B – I agree, indeed, the speech of the Psalmist is accurate! A – Is it possible to deny that it is necessary for Him, through Whom everything is, to exist first of all? B - You speak well.) 91 A - Moreover, how can they teach this way, if John also writes: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. It was in the beginning with God. All things began to be through Him, and without Him nothing began to be (John 1:1-3), and again: About that which was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands, about the Word of life - for life was made manifest, and we have seen and testify to you this eternal life, which was with the Father and was revealed to us (1 John 1:1-2); if Christ Himself points out to the Jews the remote antiquity of His existence. Namely, when they said: You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham? (John 8:57), then they clearly heard the answer: Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am (John 8:58). But where there is “was”, without any additions, and, moreover, a very definite “I am” is placed - who can discern some kind of beginning of being? 92 Or how can He who exists in the beginning, which surpasses all understanding, take upon Himself in order to be called into existence at the coming of a certain time? Therefore, if anyone takes it upon himself to object to them at his leisure, then it is not at all difficult, citing the words of inspired Scripture, to ward off the harm arising from their madness. However, something that suffers from such obvious shame and has such great ugliness, I would consider it unnecessary to even deign any kind of care. (B – You speak well.) 93 A - Then let's move on to something that is akin to what we considered. Namely, some, just like counterfeiters, re-emphasize the dignity of truth, lifting up their horn on high and speaking lies against God (Ps. 74:6), as it is written. They imagine that the Only Begotten is deprived of real existence and does not have a separate hypostatic existence and does not exist in its own hypostasis, but simply became a saying and a word, just spoken by God, which moved into man. This is what these unfortunates think, inventing in such a way that Jesus, although he is holier than other saints, as they say, but, of course, is not yet God. This is what the Savior’s disciple announced: who is a liar if not the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the Antichrist, rejecting the Father and the Son. Anyone who denies the Son does not have the Father; and he who confesses the Son also has the Father (1 John 2:22–23). After all, agree that we ourselves and the holy angels recognize both through both and each in each. Indeed, no one can know what the Father is unless he accepts with his mind the hypostatically existing and begotten Son. But, in turn, no one can know that there is a Son unless he clearly realizes that the Father begat Him. Therefore, I think, we will inevitably have to say one way or another with all certainty 94 that we cannot think about the Father in truth if the Son is truly deprived of real existence. Indeed, where will the 95 Father remain if He has not truly begotten? Or if He really gave birth to that which does not exist hypostatically and that which does not exist in reality at all, then what will be born will be nothing. After all, right, that which does not exist hypostatically, consists in equality with nothing, or better yet, is perfect nothing. After this, God will be the Father of nothing. But my dear friends, I would say in turn to these interpreters, all this talk of yours is empty nonsense! Otherwise, explain to me: where can we see the exceptional love of God and the Father for us? Even though He gave the Son for us, but if He, in your opinion, does not exist hypostatically, then it turns out that He gave nothing for us. This means that the Word did not become flesh, and did not lift up the Honorable Cross, and did not abolish the power of death, and, of course, did not come to life again. After all, if, in your opinion, He is nothing and devoid of real existence, then how can He be in all this? Then it turns out that the teaching of Holy Scripture deceived those who believed, and the inviolability of faith completely disappeared? A - But what? Did not the Divine word 97 declare to us that the Son exists in the image of God (cf. Phil. 2:6), and does it not call Him the image and imprint (χαρακτήρ) 98 (cf. Heb. 1:3) of Him who gave birth? A – Aren’t images the same as prototypes? 100 (Q – How could it be otherwise?) 101 A – Consequently, if we assume that the image is not hypostatic and the imprint does not exist on its own, this, as if by necessity, means that the one whose imprint is also non-hypostatic, and the imperfection of the image will one way or another completely transfer to the prototype 102. Isn't it? A - Next, tell me, Philip, who was so zealous in learning from Christ, did you want to see the Father who exists and exists hypostatically, when he said: Lord! Show us the Father, and that is enough for us (John 14:8), or, on the contrary, non-existent and hypostatic? (B – It is clear that there is.) 104 A - Then, if in fact the Son is nothing but non-existent hypostatically, in accordance with their, of course, unbridled audacity, why did He bring Himself to us as an image for exact knowledge of the Father, when He said: I have been with you so long, and you have not known Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father. Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father in Me? I and the Father are one (John 14:9–10; 10, 30). But, in my opinion, no one can at least somehow consider what exists hypostatically in one who does not exist hypostatically, and no one can ever imagine that what exists is identical in all respects with the non-existent. Then how will the Father be in the Son, and the Son, in turn, in the Father? Is it unreasonable to say that if the Word has no existence in Himself, then the Father Himself will be in danger, since He contains nothing in Himself, and, moreover, is thought of as existing in nothing? After all, then all that remains is to consider Him as a complete nothing. Q – Such speech cannot be called smooth, and it’s true, what great absurdity it contains! However, the views of our opponents lead to such nonsense. A - There is every reason to be surprised at how the Father created all that exists in the Son, if He did not even receive existence. But if they ask what is good for existing things: being or, perhaps, non-being, how will you answer? Q – I can say 105 that being. After all, the Creator, precisely because he once gave existence to the non-existent, is most of all called Good and is such in reality. (A – You said it perfectly.) 106 Indeed, such is the nature of things. Therefore, the creation will be in a better state than He through Whom everything is called into being, since it is said about Him that He does not exist, and this is all thought of both existing and being in being. ( ) 107 B - Away from slander! For the Word 108 of God is living and active (Heb. 4:2), according to what is written. That's why He said: I am life (John 14:6). A – However, one who does not exist cannot be considered life. And yet He is life by nature, since He will never lie. And this means that to claim that the Word born of God does not exist is a meaningless lie and an eruption of the most unreasonable thoughts. (B – Absolutely so.) 109 Indeed, He said to Moses: I am seven (Ex. 3:14). How can one think of a truly existing thing that is not preserved in its own hypostasis? A - So, the greatest ignorance of those who understood it this way will rightly be rejected by us? A - But since we have been taught to strive towards the truth with love in everything, we will not be able to praise others (Oh Hermias. A - Yes, those who say that the flesh united with the Word does not have a rational soul. After all, they, introducing the Word into the world, clothe Him in only flesh, endowed with vital and sensitive movement, despite the fact that the action of the mind and soul is attributed to the Only Begotten. For they are afraid, I don’t know why, to confess that the Word was united (with man, who is perfect in relation to the concept of humanity, that is, from soul and body) 112. Thus, they value very little the tradition of the original and ancient faith, but ignorantly prefer to follow their own will and human reasoning and truly think more than they should think (Rom. 12:3). Q – What is their justification for such a teaching? A - I'll explain. We say that the mediator between God and men (1 Tim. 2:5) is composed of humanity, such as ours, having perfection in relation to its own definition, and of the Son born of God by nature, that is, the Only Begotten. And we insist 113 that a certain combination (σύνοδον) and a certain confluence beyond understanding (συνδρομήv) 114 of unequal and dissimilar natures took place. But nevertheless, we recognize one Christ, Son and Lord, who at the same time exists and is thought of as God and ( ) 115 people. And we are in the habit of keeping the union absolutely indissoluble, believing that the same One is both the Only Begotten and the First Begotten 116 . He is the Only Begotten, as the Word of God the Father and begotten from His essence; but He is also the Firstborn, since He became man and among many brothers (Rom. 8:29). Because just as there is one God the Father, from whom are all things, so there is one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things (1 Cor. 8:6). For we acknowledge that the Word, by whom are all things, is God by nature, although He became flesh (John 1:14). (B – You said it extremely correctly.) 117 A - However, what they propose, of course, does not at all agree with our thoughts about it. Indeed, it is indisputable that they also accept one Christ Jesus, and strenuously reject, as extremely wicked, the division in two of Emmanuel, precisely in this they argue excellently 118. However, they, having exposed the flesh of the human and rational soul, say that the Word from God was united with precisely such flesh. And they have invented some kind of proof that is convincing for this, as they believe. After all, rightly, they argue, that which has come together into a state of perfect unity through composition is usually considered as parts, and imperfect ones at that, while that which remains perfect in itself and, as it were, in its own nature, does not need to be composed of parts. That is why, they say, the assumption that the church united with the Word is a perfect man should be rejected with full justification, so that the composition that can be thought of in relation to Christ retains its own meaning accurate and impeccable. ( ) 119 Indeed, they say, if we compose Emmanuel from a perfect man and the Word who is from the Father, there will be no small, but almost inevitable danger of being forced, even against the will, to think and talk about two sons and, in turn, about two Christs. Q – Then what can we say to them? A - Firstly, that we should neither burden such an ancient tradition of faith, which has come down to us from the holy apostles themselves, with excessive clarifications, nor, of course, move with extreme research what exceeds our mind; that one should not come to the middle, just like some legislators, speaking 120 with desperate courage, as if this was right, but that other thing, without a doubt, should have been different, and truly was better; and that it is better to leave to the all-wise God the way of His own purposes, and not to condemn (with insolence) 121 that which He considers good. Let us heed what He Himself clearly says: For My counsels are not like your counsels, and My ways are not like your ways 122 . But as the heavens are from the earth, so is My way from your ways, and your thoughts from My thoughts (Is. 55:8-9). (And then what they think they have so wisely discovered will be exposed as something hopelessly outdated and ignorant. After all, if someone really decides that this Divine church is naked from the rational soul, then there will not be a union of two imperfect ones, but even much will be missing. Indeed, by general recognition, in relation to the whole person - I want to say, from the soul and body - flesh taken separately and in itself is, as it were, a part. However, God The Word cannot be considered either a part of something or something imperfect, most honorable ones! After all, He is all-perfect in His own nature. Therefore, where will there be a union into some kind of perfect unit, if in fact it is a confluence of the perfect Word and flesh, imperfect in the way it reaches the concept of a person who is perfect and abides by his own nature, as stated above?) 123 And in no case will we worship two sons, we will not even talk about two Christs, even if we believe that (in Emmanuel the confluence into unity took place from a perfect man and from God the Word) 124. After all, if they decide that He is from the flesh alone and from the Word begotten of God the Father, according to the opinion that seems good to them, no argument will force them to confess the duality of Christ, placing the flesh separately and, in turn, the Only Begotten (but they will accept as Immanuel one Lord Jesus Christ - and it is in this that they, of course, chose very correct thoughts) 125. In the same way, even if we say that the Word from God came together and was united inexpressibly and above understanding (with a perfect man, namely, from soul and body) 126, however, we will not think about two sons, but about One and the same One, Who, being God by nature, born from the very essence of God and the Father, in the last times of this age became man, was born through the holy Virgin ( ) 127 and receives worship as from us themselves and from the holy angels, according to the Scriptures (cf. Ps.96:7; Heb.1:6). (B - What if they say) 128, as if our state (τὸ καθ ’ ἡμᾶς) needed only the presence of the Only Begotten with us and therefore He, having wished to appear to those on earth (cf. Bar. 3:38), communicate with people and show us the path of gospel living, according to the economy, clothed in a similar flesh for us? After all, it is true that by its own nature the Divine is invisible. A - Then they will be convicted of not knowing the purpose of becoming man and not understanding at all the great mystery of piety (cf. 1 Tim. 3:16). Indeed, if the incarnation of the Only Begotten, that is, His incarnation, has only the basis that He should be visible to those on earth, but does not add anything else to human nature, why then would it not be more useful and wiser for us ourselves to agree with the opinion of the Docetes? 129 Unmasking the Word from the flesh, and at the same time from the earthly body, these unfortunates say that the Word appeared on earth in the likeness of a man, although they clearly agree that It became the author of the highest blessings. 130 Wouldn't you say 131 that since the Word from God does not benefit human nature in any way, even when it became flesh, it would be better for It to be free from carnal impurity, and immediately showing that it uses an earthen body, so it achieved its goal? (Q - But I would like to know what) 132 is the meaning of His residence [with us] and what is the method of His incarnation, and for what purpose was it accomplished?( ) 133 A - So go, most venerable one, ask the Holy Scriptures and, fixing the eyes of your mind intently on the sayings of the holy apostles, carefully consider what you are looking for. So, the wise Paul tells us, having Christ Himself as the speaker (cf. 2 Cor. 13:3): And just as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, He also became a partaker of them, so that through death he might abolish him who had the power of death, that is, the devil, and deliver those who through the fear of death were subject to slavery all their lives (Heb. 3:14-15). He sets this out to us in another place, in a different way: For because of the impossibility of the Law, which was powerless because of the flesh, God, having sent His Son in the likeness of sin and because of sin, condemned sin in the flesh, so that the righteousness prescribed by the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk in the flesh, but in the Spirit (Rom. 8:3-4). So isn’t it quite obvious, isn’t it clear to at least someone that the Only Begotten became like us for this purpose, that is, a perfect man, in order, on the one hand, to rid our earthly body from the corruption that had entered it, through the economy of unity, descending into the same life according to the law 136, and on the other hand, having made the human soul his own, to reveal it stronger than sin, coloring it, as if with some kind of paint 137, the strength and immutability of His own nature 138. (B - In my opinion, your comparison is devoid of any ambiguity 139, because it carries within itself the appropriate, or better yet, true understanding. A - This means that just as the flesh, precisely when it became the flesh of the life-giving Word, overcomes the power) 140 of death and corruption, in the same way the soul, I think, since it became the soul of Him who knows no sins, is henceforth unchangeably and firmly established in all goodness, and remains incomparably stronger than the anciently ruling sin. After all, Christ is the first man 141 Who committed no sin and in whose mouth there was no flattery (1 Pet. 2:22; cf. Is. 53:9); and since He is established as the root and firstfruits (cf. Rom. 11:16) of those who are transformed in the Spirit into renewal of life (cf. Rom. 6:4), then, as if by communion and by grace, He already communicates to the entire human race the incorruptibility of the body, and the inviolability and strength of the Divinity. Knowing this, the divine Paul writes: For just as we have borne the image of the earthy, we will also bear the image of the heavenly (1 Cor. 15:49). Namely, he called the “image of earthly” the inclination to sin and the death sent down to us from here. And vice versa, “in the image of heavenly things” - steadfastness in sanctification, return from death and corruption and renewal into incorruption and life. So we say that the Word was united with man 142 as complete with complete. Because it cannot possibly be that the best in us, that is, the soul, would not be worthy of any care, bestowing only the flesh with the labors of living with us. But the mystery of the economy is happily arranged through both of these [parts of man]. He used, as if some kind of instrument, on the one hand, his own flesh, for the sake of carnal labors and infirmities - natural and so far from censure; and on the other hand, with one’s own soul, for the sake of human and impeccable passions. After all, they say that He was hungry and suffered exhaustion from long journeys on foot, and fear, and horror, and sorrow, and dying anguish, and death on the cross - for although no one forced Him, He Himself laid down His own soul for us (cf. 1 John 3:16), in order to have dominion over both the dead and the living (Rom. 14:9), paying His flesh as a truly equivalent payment for all flesh, and making His soul a ransom for every soul, 143 although He lived again, being, like God, life by nature. And in fact, the divine Peter says: Men, brothers! let it be allowed to boldly tell you about the forefather David, that he died and was buried, and his tomb is with us to this day. Being a prophet and knowing that God promised with an oath to set him on his throne from the fruit of his loins, he first said about the resurrection of Christ that His soul was not left in hell and His flesh did not see corruption (Acts 2:29-31). Agree that one should not say that flesh united with the Word can be overcome by corruption for a long time, and the Divine soul can be bound by the gates of hell. Indeed, she is not left in hell, as the divine Peter said. After all, he does not say at all 145 that nature, completely unapproachable and invincible by death, that is, the Divinity of the Only Begotten, has been returned from the underground abysses. And it would not deserve surprise that the Word from God, who miraculously and beyond understanding, fills everything and abides in everything, does not dwell in hell. After all, the Divine is above place, limitation and measurable magnitude, and It does not fit into anything. But this is extraordinary and cannot help but amaze everyone, that the body, which is corruptible by nature, was resurrected because it was united with the incorruptible Word. The divine soul 146, having acquired rapprochement and union with Him, although it descended into hell, but, using the power and authority appropriate to the Divine, appeared to the spirits residing there. That is why He said to the prisoners: come out, and to those who are in darkness: open yourselves (Is. 49:9). And it seems to me that the divine Peter also understands something similar about God the Word and about the soul that became His own through unity in the economy. For if the will of God pleases, he says, it is better to suffer for good deeds than for evil ones; because Christ, in order to lead us to God, once died for sins, the righteous for the unjust, being put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the Spirit, by which He went and preached to the spirits in prison, who had once been disobedient (1 Pet. 3:17-20). Indeed, they cannot say, I think, that the naked and in itself Divinity of the Only Begotten, which is completely invisible, descended into hell and preached to the spirits there, because the Divinity always surpasses being visible. We also do not admit that in an imaginary or feigned way He took on the external appearance of the soul, but we should in every possible way avoid imaginary things. However, as with those who were still in the flesh, He communicated together with the flesh, in the same way He preached to the souls in hell, having, as His own garment, a soul united with Him 147 . Likewise, the method of unity 148 is equally deep and truly inexpressible and elusive to our thoughts. However, the following should also be taken into account: agree that a thorough study of what we cannot do will not go unpunished; and it is absolutely madness to put to the test that which exceeds our understanding, and to try to understand that which we are unable to understand. Or don’t you know that it is precisely this deep and transcendental mystery that is revered by unsophisticated faith? Having left it unreasonable to ask: how can this be? (John 3:9) to this Nicodemus and to those who are like him, let us accept without doubt what was prophesied by the Holy Spirit and begin to believe Christ Himself, who says: Truly, truly, I say to you, we speak about what we know and testify about what we see (John 3:11) 149. (B – Well said.) 150 A - So all empty chatter, powerless fables, false opinions and deception of flowery words will disappear. Because we in no way accept what is harmful by nature, even if our opponents thunder at us with extremely sophisticated, but truly bitter speeches. After all, our Divine mystery does not consist in convincing words of human wisdom, but in the manifestation of the Spirit (1 Cor. 2:4). So, being according to the Scriptures God and Lord of all, the Only Begotten appeared to us (Ps. 118:27). Namely, He appeared on earth (cf. Bar.3:38) and shone to those who were in darkness (cf. Matt.4:20, 16; Is.9:1-2), since he became a man; not in an imaginary way, let it not be - after all, it’s crazy to think and talk like that; and, of course, not as if He were transferred into the flesh through change or transformation - after all, the Word from God is unchangeable and always the same and identical with Himself; but it is not as if He has a simultaneous existence with the flesh - after all, He is the Creator of the ages; and, of course, it is not as if He arose in man as a non-hypostatic word, or a simple saying - after all, the truth is, He who called the non-existent into being and becoming, of necessity exists before this, and indeed, He is Life, revealed from the living God and Father, existing and conceivable in His own hypostasis. And he did not put on flesh alone, devoid of a rational soul, but was truly born of a woman and appeared as a living and existing man and co-eternal with God the Word, God the Father, taking the form of a servant (Phil. 2:7); and just as He is perfect in the Divinity, so He is perfect in humanity, being united (συγκείμενος) into one Christ, Lord and Son, not from one Divinity and flesh, but miraculously being united (συνδο ύ μενος) 151 into One and the Same of two perfect ones, namely, I say, from humanity and Divinity. ( ) 152 Q – Who then did the Holy Virgin give birth to? Man or Word from God? ( ) 153 A – But this is precisely what lies in error and deviation from what is proper and true! Do not divide for me Immanuel ( ) 154 and do not imagine that He is with us in two persons ( διπρόσωπου ) 155 , separating Him into man in himself and into the Word from God. Otherwise, anyone can rightly ridicule us for the fact that we did not choose any sound judgment, but preferred what is condemned by the Holy Scriptures. After all, one of Christ’s disciples said the following: But you, beloved, remember what was predicted by the Apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ. They told you that in the last time they would come mocking, scoffers, walking after their own ungodly lusts. These are self-separating people, spiritual people who do not have the Spirit (Jude 17-19). Q - So He should not be divided in any way? (A - Truly no.) 156 And what’s more, it’s impossible to talk about the two after unification and take each into thought separately. On the contrary, one should know that although the mind contemplates a certain difference of natures - not at all the same Divinity and humanity - at the same time, in thinking about them, it accepts the union of both into unity. Consequently, He was born from God the Father as God, and from the Virgin as man. For it is said that the Word, which ineffably and beyond understanding shone from God the Father, was also born through a woman, 157 descending into humanity and reducing Himself to what He was not - not in order to remain in exhaustion, but to assure that He is God and that in our form He appeared on earth. It is not said that He moved into man, but that He Himself became man by nature, along with the fact that He retained His own glory. And in fact, the divine Paul, gathering together according to the economy the Divinity and humanity, which are very distant from each other in respect of consubstantiality and separated by an immeasurable difference, and pointing to the one of both, Christ, says: Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called an Apostle, chosen for the gospel of God, which God first promised through His prophets in the holy writings, concerning His Son, who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh. and was called the Son of God with power, according to the Spirit of holiness (Rom. 1:1-4). Now, he clearly says about himself that he has been chosen to the gospel of God, although at the same time he openly writes: For we do not preach ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord (2 Cor. 4:5); and again: For I determined to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and him crucified (1 Cor. 2:2). Calling Him the Son of God, he says that He was born “of the seed of David,” and claims that He is called the Son of God. So how, tell me, was God born from the seed of David? And how then, being before the ages and eternally the Son, according to the way in which He was manifested from the Father, He was called the Son of God, just as if He had been brought to the beginning of existence? After all, He said about Himself: The Lord spoke to Me: My Son ecu, I gave birth to You today (Ps. 2:7), although “today” in one way or another always expresses not the past, but the present tense 158. ( Q – I am in immeasurable difficulty, but I can say that for many others this is completely incomprehensible. A – For those who separate) 159 and differentiate, this is truly incomprehensible and difficult. However, this is convenient for those who bind Emmanuel into unity, and for them a genuine knowledge of the sacred dogmas is already quite ready. After all, when the Son, co-eternal with Him who begot Him and existing before all ages, descended into the nature of man, not slipping out of the Divine existence, but taking on humanity, one can with sufficient reason think that He was born of the seed of David and had a very recent birth in humanity. Moreover, what is perceived is not alien to Him, but truly His own. Because it is considered as one with Him, just as, no doubt, this can be seen in the human composition. After all, you must agree that although he is woven from things that are not similar in nature - I, of course, mean soul and body - but both together they are considered one person. Just as sometimes a whole living being is named after one flesh, and when naming the soul both are thought of together, in exactly the same way accept that which refers to Christ Himself 160 . For there is one Son, one Lord Jesus Christ, both before the flesh and when He appeared as a man, and we will not reject the Master who redeemed us, even if He ( ) 161 points to Himself through human properties and from what corresponds to exhaustion. (B – I don’t quite keep up with your thought and would like to understand more clearly.) 162 A – Addressing the Jews, our Lord Jesus Christ said: If you were children of Abraham, you would do the works of Abraham. And now you seek to kill Me, the Man who told you the truth: Abraham did not do this (John 8:39–40). Paul also writes about Him: He in the days of His flesh, with a strong cry and with tears, offered prayers and supplications to Him who was able to save Him from death; and was heard for his reverence; Although He is a Son, He learned obedience through suffering (Heb. 5:7–8). However, is it really because of this that we will begin to consider Christ as a simple man, who in no way surpasses what is characteristic of us? A - Shall we allow God's wisdom and power (cf. 1 Cor. 1:24) to descend into such a degree of weakness that he fears death and seeks salvation from the Father, and we separate Emmanuel from being life by nature? Or, having turned to humanity and to the measure of a nature like ours that which is insignificant 163 in speeches about Him, we will still accomplish something praiseworthy and discern His world-surpassing glory from what is characteristic of Him as God, realizing that the same one is both man and God 164, or God incarnate? (Q – Tell me how?) 165 A - Let the most experienced Paul step into the middle, loudly saying the following: Wisdom we preach among the perfect, not the wisdom of this age, nor the passing powers of this age, but the wisdom of God, hidden in mystery, which none of the powers of this age has known; for if they had known, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory (1 Cor. 2:6-8). And besides this, he writes: This one, being the radiance of glory and the imprint 166 of His person and upholding all things by the word of His power, having accomplished in Himself the cleansing of our sins, sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, being as much superior to the angels as he inherited a name more glorious than them (Heb. 1:2-4). However, to be and be called “Lord of Glory” - would not this immeasurable excellence be beyond all that is born and brought into being? I am skipping the human - after all, its utter insignificance is obvious - but I will say that if you name the angels, then whether someone lists the Powers, Thrones, Dominions or mentions the highest Seraphim, even then he will be able to agree that all this stands behind such an exalted glory, if, of course, he has an intact mind. After all, such an honor, I believe, is exceptional and should be attributed only to nature, which infinitely reigns over everything. Then how could the Crucified One become the Lord of glory? It is said that He who is the radiance of the glory of the Father and the imprint of His essence, Who upholds everything by the word of His power, became superior to the angels, most likely because, I think, He perceived the worst when He appeared as a man. In fact, it is written: But we see that because he suffered death, Jesus was crowned with glory and honor, who was lowered in a little way than the angels (Heb. 2:9). Will we begin to pluck the Word, revealed from God the Father, from His inherent superiority and exact resemblance to the Father, even if we see that He is inferior to the glory of the angels because of the humiliation that He has in His dispensation? B – Truly, no. After all, I think, neither the Word from God should be completely removed from what is characteristic of humanity after intercourse with the flesh, nor should the human be deprived of the glory due to the Divinity, if it is seen and spoken of in Christ. And yet know that some ask 169: Who exactly is Jesus Christ in reality? Man from his wife, or the Word from God? A - It is completely reckless to spread unnecessarily and raise a voice in response to absurd and empty chatter. However, I will say that the risky idea of ​​cutting Him in two and placing man and the Word separately will not go unpunished, when the economy does not tolerate this and when the inspired Scripture has proclaimed to us about one Christ. But I personally affirm that neither the Word from God apart from humanity, nor the church born of a woman without unity with the Word can be called Christ Jesus. Because by Christ is meant the Word from God who inexpressibly came together with humanity through unity in the economy, and although He exceeds humanity, like God and the Son by nature, “in a little way” (see Ps. 8:6) He descends from the glory due to the Divinity, like man 170. Therefore, He once said: He who has seen Me has seen the Father. I and the Father are one (John 14:9;10,30), and another time it’s the opposite: My Father is greater than Me (John 20:14,28). After all, being no less than the Father in identity of essence and in perfect equality with Him in everything, He still says that He is included in the worst because of human nature. And the Holy Scriptures proclaim Him either as a completely man, while His Divinity according to the economy is silent, or, in turn, as God, and at the same time it is silent about His humanity. But He in no way suffers damage due to the drawing together (σύμβασιν) of both into unity. (Q – What do you mean? I don’t quite understand it.) 171 A - A Jew from the Jews and from the tribe of Benjamin (cf. Phil. 3:5), the called apostle (cf. Rom. 1:1) informs those who are justified through faith and have mortified the members of the flesh, by which I mean, of course, fornication and passion, evil lust and covetousness (cf. Col. 3:5): For you are dead, and your life is hidden with Christ in God (Col.3:3). And He Himself spoke of His disciples: Holy Father! Keep them in Your name, those whom You have given Me, so that they may be one, just as We are. When I was with them in the world, I kept them in Your name, those whom You gave Me, and I kept them, and none of them perished except the son of perdition, that the Scripture might be fulfilled. Now I come to You, and I say these things in the world, so that they may have My complete joy in themselves (John 17:11-13). Note that it is in such places that Christ seems to be designated by means of humanity alone, the same as ours. (B – You said it very correctly.) 172 A - Agree that we will in no way think that He is hidden from the world or has withdrawn from it, Who clearly says: Truly, truly, I say to you, wherever two or three are gathered in My name, there I am in the midst of them (cf. Matt. 18:19-20). And again: behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age (Matthew 28:20). But you can see that the same most sacred Paul often neglects the need to proclaim Him also as a man. Namely, he says: Paul is an apostle, [chosen] not by men or through man, but by Jesus Christ (Gal. 1:1). And after this again: I declare to you that the Gospel which I preached is not human. For I received it and learned it, not from man, but through the revelation of Jesus Christ (Gal. 1:11-12). He also says in another place: But if we knew Christ in the flesh, now we no longer know (2 Cor. 5:16). Who, then, is Jesus Christ, Who so ineffably illuminates him with the infallible and Divine revelation of the secrets about Himself? Is it not the Word who became flesh, and for our sake did not despise being born of a woman? (B – Of course. And in fact, I remember) 173 about what blessed Gabriel says to the Holy Virgin: Do not be afraid, Mary, for behold, you will conceive in your womb and give birth to a Son, and you will call His name Jesus (Luke 1:30). And it is this new name, I believe, that is given to the Word from the Father through the angelic voice. After all, this is what was proclaimed and prophetically predicted: And they will call Him by a new name, which the Lord will call (cf. Is. 62:2). 174 A - So, when the Son and Only Begotten, co-eternal with the Father and [existing] before all ages, became man in the last times of this age and was born through a wife 175, was called the Son, called the Firstborn and came into being among many brothers (cf. Rom. 8:29), then the Father by nature determined His name, following, so to speak, the customs of fatherhood. (And you would greatly please us if you understood the method of house-building.) 176 B – Therefore, the Same One is both the Only Begotten and the First Begotten. (A - Friend, don’t even think that it could be any other way!) 177 Indeed, He, being the Only Begotten as God, through unity in the economy as man became the Firstborn in us and among many brothers, so that we, in Him and through Him, would become sons of God by nature and by grace. By nature - in Him and only in Him; by communion and grace, we are sons of God through Him in the Spirit 178. Therefore, just as being the Only Begotten became proper for humanity in Christ due to the fact that it was united with the Word through the rapprochement of the economy, so being in many brothers and the First-Begotten became proper for the Word due to the fact that It was united with the flesh. However, possessing an unshakable Divine existence and being always above transformation, It does not abandon its own glory 179. Therefore, the most holy and all-blessed multitude of the highest spirits was commanded to worship Him with us. Agree that they could with good reason reject the worship of Him, and doubt whether to give honor to Him, seeing the humiliated state of mankind, and not honor the praise of the One who became like us for our sake, trying to move as far as possible from the danger of appearing deluded. After all, even for them the sacrament relating to Christ was still unknown. However, the Spirit revealed this to them and did not allow those who were sanctified to be ungodly. This is what the divine Paul speaks about: When he introduces the Firstborn into the universe, he says: And let all the angels of God worship Him (Heb. 1:6). Namely, surpassing the entire universe in natural properties and existing outside of it as God 180, He entered it as a man, being part of the universe 181. However, through this He did not lose His Divine glory. After all, He accepts worship as the Only Begotten, even when He is called the First-born, which clearly refers, as most appropriate, to His humanity. Q – Does this mean we will worship Immanuel as a man? A - Yes, it won’t! This is nonsense, deception and delusion. We will not differ in any way from those who serve the creature instead of the Creator and Creator, who, as it is written, replaced the truth of God with a lie (cf. Rom. 1:25), if we accept what is akin to them, and together with them we will certainly hear: calling themselves wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image similar to corruptible man, and birds, and four-footed animals, and creeping things (Rom. 1:22–23). Shall we not become equal in deeds and like-minded with those mentioned, changing the glory of God into a lie, “into an image made like corruptible man,” if we worship Immanuel as a simple man and one of those like us? A - So what? Didn’t the multitude of the highest angels themselves form a single formation with those who reached such madness? (B – If necessary, this would have happened.) 183 A – And I think that we will inevitably attribute the charge of error to the verbal herd of tongues, and the destruction of their previous crimes will be indelible. After all, I am afraid that even now they sin no less than in ancient times, and have not known the straight path. In vain, apparently, blessed Paul turns to them, saying: But then, not knowing God, you served those who are not gods in essence. Now, having come to know God, or, better yet, having received knowledge from God, why do you return again to the weak and poor material principles and want to enslave yourself to them again? ( Gal.4:8–9 ). In fact, what kind of God did they know if not God by nature, the Christ in whom they believed? And since they worship man, they are entangled in the snares of ancient error. Isn't that right? A - So notice, ( ) 185 how the compulsory force of inferences almost even against the will 186 pushes us back to the need to rationally worship (the Son) 187 as God by nature, even if He appeared in our form, since the union ( ) 188 into unity is not incapable of happily eliminating that doubt that sometimes confuses us because of what is characteristic of human nature. (Q - What do you want to say?) 189 A - The fact is that the nature of the Word, having assumed human nature, will not be simple humanity, but moreover, conquering what it has perceived with its own glory, it is preserved in the unshakable constancy of the splendor appropriate to the Divine 190. Thinking precisely this, the disciples worshiped Him, saying: Truly You are the Son of God (Matthew 14:33), although they saw Him walking on foot and in flesh like ours, because He, like God, miraculously swept along the crest of the waves. ( ) 191 Q - But who said to the Samaritan woman: You do not know what you bow down to, but we know what we bow down to (John 4:22)? And then, how can He who counts Himself among the worshipers accept worship? 192 (A - However, my friend, you too often pronounce this little word “who”, I don’t know why, found by the ignorant. After all, Christ was not divided in any way.) 193 And the One who spoke to this wife was the one and only Lord Jesus Christ, ineffably composed of worshiping humanity and of the worshiping Divinity 194. This can, of course, be said in another way. Namely, since He is God, He may be considered the Lord of glory Himself; and since He became a man who is glorified by God through the sacrament, He needs glory, saying: Father, glorify Your Son (John 17:1). But one Lord, one faith, one baptism (Eph.4:5). This means that just as there is one faith in Christ and truly one baptism, although we were baptized and believed in the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, in the same way and on the same basis there is one worship of the Father, and the Son made man, and the Holy Spirit. And the Only Begotten will in no way be deprived of the worship that should be offered to Him both from ourselves and from the holy angels, even if He became flesh and dwelt among us (cf. John 1:14) and is called the Firstborn among many brothers (cf. Rom. 8:29). Is it not worth considering what the word of faith (cf. Rom. 10:8) about Him could henceforth be? After all, those who prefer true reasoning will not be able to claim that we believed only in the Word begotten of God, thereby stripping Him of the flesh. In turn, we will not avoid this issue, but we will also give an explanation. A - The fact is that we believe in none of our kind, nor, of course, in man, but we believe in God by nature and truth in the person of Christ. Such a judgment will be supported by the wise Paul, who writes: For we do not preach ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord; and we are your servants for Christ, because God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, has shined in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of His glory in the face of Jesus Christ (2 Cor. 4:4-5). Behold, it is clearly and distinctly written that the enlightenment of the knowledge of God and the Father shone forth in the face of Christ. That is why He said: He who has seen Me has seen the Father. I and the Father are one (John 14:9;10,30). But the imprint (χαρακτὴρ) of the Divine is not physical, it is in the power and glory appropriate only to the Divine. And this was unharmed in Christ, which is why He insisted that He should also be known through them, and wanted the listeners, through the superiority of His deeds, to strive 196 to understand His Divinity, despite the fact that His perceived flesh slightly humiliated Him. Indeed, He says: If I do not the works of My Father, do not believe Me; and if I do, then when you do not believe Me, believe My works (John 10:37). And in my opinion, Christ said exactly this then, because he knew that it could not but serve the good. After all, since they thought that He who became man for our sake was not God by nature, but just a simple man like us, then because of this some became unable to accept faith in Him. Humbly cutting off the timidity and fear of these people, attributing faith to the Divine nature in the person of the Father, and not at all to the humiliated state characteristic of us, He proclaimed: he who believes in Me does not believe in Me, but in Him who sent Me. And he who sees Me sees him who sent Me (John 12:44–45). Thus, did He not say: “O obedient to My words, do not think about Me anything insignificant and aspiring to the bottom; but know that by giving faith to Me Myself, visible in the flesh, you will begin to believe not just in some person, but in the Father Himself, through Me, the Son, in all respects equal to Him and not different from Him; for although I became incarnate for your sake and took on this humble garment, humanity, even so I have equality of nature and action with the Father and remain completely unharmed in the identity of glory with Him”? (B – Apparently so.) 197 A – Also, in another way, you can make sure 198 that He did not reject faith, but accepted it in His own person without any cutting or discrimination, although He became flesh 199 . Namely, when He healed the man born blind 200 and planted in him a sweet and unfamiliar light, he deservedly caused everyone to be surprised. However, freed from suffering, he was tortured by the Jews and confessed to his Doctor. Christ, having met Him, said: Do you believe in the Son of God? (John 9:35). And when he cried out: Who is He, Lord, that I should believe in Him? (John 9:36) - he shouted in response: And you have seen Him, and He speaks to you. He said: I believe, Lord! And he worshiped Him (John 9:37–38). However, is it not obvious to everyone that the Divine and highest nature is completely invisible? After all, no one has ever seen God (John 1:18), as it is written. If the Word of God the Father, having separated human nature from Himself and as if revealing only it, decided that one should believe in Him, naked and alone, why does It not prompt the recipient to rather ascend by analogy (ἀναλογίζεσθαι) 201 to the Divine nature, whatever It may be, but appeared bodily, so that the One who appeared was it visible with your eyes? In fact, He said: And you have seen Him, and He speaks to you (John 9:37). Shall we not say that He showed the flesh? A - So how, finally, can the flesh be Him, if we do not understand this according to unity, when what is proper to Him is He Himself? The same is, of course, true for us. After all, anyone will show an undivided and completely similar person to us - from the soul, I say, and from the body - showing only the flesh. (B – I agree, you said it right.) 203 A – The wise John also wrote for us that Jesus did many other miracles before His disciples, which are not written about in this book. These things are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and by believing you may have life in His name (John 20:30-31). No less capable of causing amazement in anyone is what the divine Peter so clearly and openly proclaims to the Jews: Leaders of the people and elders! If today they demand an answer for doing good to a weak person, how was he healed? then let it be known to all of you and to all the people of Israel that in the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead, by Him he has been presented before you in health (Acts 4:8–10). And a little later again: and there is no salvation in anyone else. For there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved (Acts 4:12). Then Who was plunged into death, and was resurrected in glory, and was born from Nazareth, if not Jesus Christ, that is, He who, before every age, was ineffably born of the Father, and in the last time, which has come to the end of the age, also bodily from a woman? So, therefore, the one who accepts faith in Him will receive special honor - he will be called the son of God; for it is said that to those who received Him He gave power to become children of God, who were born neither of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of a man, but of God (John 1:12-13). The fact is that in order for Him to have primacy in everything (Col. 1:18), He, on the one hand, was born through a wife 204. On the other hand, since He is the firstfruits of creation, recreated through sanctification by God, then, before all others, He Himself is shown to be born of the Spirit, surpassing the combination of 205 husband and wife; and not because He condemns nature to dishonor and ridicule - after all, marriage is honorable (Heb. 13:4) and He who created in the beginning made them male and female (Matt. 19:4) 206 - but in some way classifying humanity as greater and incomparably higher. Namely, He wants us to also be called born of the Spirit, and not of men. Indeed, He says: Call no one on earth your father: for you have one Father, who is in heaven; yet you are brothers (Matthew 23:8–9). Therefore, believing in Him is completely irreproachable. Moreover, this is even rewarded by the oblivion of sins. After all, this is what the chosen Paul writes: However, having learned that a person is not justified by the works of the law, but only by faith in Jesus Christ, we also believed in Christ Jesus () 207 (Gal. 2:16). And I will not hesitate at all to say, returning to what I have already said before, that Christ Jesus is not considered to be the Word from God naked and in Itself, but when It took on humanity and was intertwined (ἐνεπλάκη) 208 with the flesh. And the Father pointed out to the holy apostles that He is like this, and appears like this, and abides in our form, when this very voice was heard from above: This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; Listen to him (Matthew 17:5). Notice, then, that He does not say, “In this is My Son,” lest they accidentally think of Him as if He exists separately, as another in another, but that He is one and the same, through unity according to the economy. And John convinces us that to resist this is a sin and one of the most unreliable things when he writes in this way: For this is the testimony of God, with which God testified about His Son. He who believes in the Son of God has the testimony of God in himself; He who does not believe God represents Him as a liar, because he does not believe in the testimony with which God testified about His Son (1 John 5:9-10). He testified as follows: He who, together with the flesh and in the form of a servant, is uniquely and in the proper sense, My Son. (But what? Shall we not agree that) 209 the glorious grace conferred through holy baptism, and the creation of life which is therein, and the communion with God through sanctification in the Spirit, are accomplished through Jesus Christ? (B – Inevitable!) 210 Indeed, I will mention what John says: But he who comes after me is mightier than I; I am not worthy to bear His sandals; He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire (Matthew 3:11). (A - So shall we say, my friend) 211, as if it is the business of humanity like ours to be able to baptize with the Holy Spirit and fire? Q – How can this be? A - And yet, speaking about the Man who is not yet nearby and who is not yet visible, John claims that it is He who baptizes with fire and the Holy Spirit. Moreover, He does not give to those who are baptized a Spirit alien to Himself, as is appropriate for a slave or servant, but as God by nature, He gives it from Himself and His own with the highest authority, and through Him imprints the Divine seal on us. Agree that we are renewed as into the image of God in Christ Jesus, not as if we were undergoing a renewal of bodily appearance - after all, it is completely naive to think so - but through communion with the Holy Spirit, being enriched in ourselves by Christ Himself, so that in joy we can exclaim the following: Let my soul rejoice in the Lord, for He has clothed me with the robe of salvation and the robe of gladness (Is. 61:10). For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ (Gal.3:27), as it is said. ( ) 212 Q - So are we baptized into a person, and will we say that this is true? ( ) 213 A - Refrain from slander, man! What are you doing? You take our hope to the ground! After all, we were baptized not into an ordinary person, but into God who became human and frees those who accept faith in Him from punishment and ancient sins. Therefore, the divine Peter said, turning to the Jews: repent, and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins; and receive the gift of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38). Indeed, freeing from sin those who are devoted to Him, He finally anoints them with His own Spirit, which He Himself, as the Word from God the Father, sends and exudes from His own nature, and on the other hand, since He, by dispensation, seems to establish a commonality with the flesh through unity, then as a person bodily breathes Him. Namely, He breathed on the holy apostles, saying: receive the Holy Spirit (John 20:22). Moreover, He does not give the Spirit by measure (cf. John 3:34), according to the saying of John, but He sends Him from Himself in exactly the same way, without a doubt, as the Father. And therefore we see that the divine Paul, precisely in this regard, abandoning all distinction, sometimes ascribes Him to God and the Father, and sometimes to the Son. In fact, he writes: But you do not live according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit, if only the Spirit of God dwells in you. If anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His. And if Christ is in you, the body is dead because of sin, but the spirit is alive because of righteousness (Rom. 8:9-10). Q - So it is firmly decided that the Spirit is the Son’s own, and not only in view of the fact that He is the Word revealed from the Father, but also when it is believed that He became a man like us. (A - Own, as given from the Father in the branch of one essence with Him, the Word born from Him, even if it is said that He received the Spirit when he became a man, who in his own nature does not have Divine properties) 214. Therefore, although He exists as the Life of all by reason of the ineffable birth from the Living God, He is said to be quickened together with us. But then one can see that He, on the one hand, willingly gives His own flesh the glory of the deeds appropriate to the Divine, and on the other hand, He assimilates what is related to the flesh, in some way as if imparting it to His own nature through unity in the economy. (B – How?) 215 A - But won't you say 216 that to come from above and from heaven and be able to give life to everything to which He wishes to send life is most becoming of Him who by nature is the Word from God the Father? A - So what? Can you admit that it is human nature to create according to God? B – I, for my part, no. A - Then why does He, although He gives us life as God, not only through communion with the Holy Spirit, but also by offering the received flesh for consumption? 219 Namely, He said: truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink His Blood, you will not have life in you (John 6:53). And when one day the Jews mocked Him evilly, trying to give primacy, I don’t know how, to blessed Moses, and openly said: “Our fathers ate manna in the desert, as it is written: He gave them bread from heaven to eat. What sign will You give so that we will believe You? (John 6:31; cf. 6:30). What are you doing, who supposedly brought us a body from heaven?” He answered: “Truly, truly, I say to you, it was not Moses who gave you the true bread from heaven.” For the bread of God is the one that comes down from heaven and gives life to the world (cf. John 6:33). And besides this, again, almost pointing his finger at Himself in His own body, He said: I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; And the bread that I will give is My flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. He who eats My Flesh and drinks My Blood abides in Me, and I in him. Just as the living Father sent Me, and I live through the Father, so he who eats Me will also live through Me (John 6:51,56–57). However, is it not true to say that the flesh did not come down from heaven, but was from the Virgin, according to the Scriptures? But the Word cannot be poisonous, and we are shown by so many arguments that He gathers together both natures, as if mixing their properties with each other 220. After all, even to Nicodemus, when he did not comprehend the mystery and exclaimed in bewilderment: how can this be? (John 3:9), He answered: If I tell you about earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you about heavenly things? No one ascended into heaven except the Son of Man who came down from heaven (John 3:12–13) 221. In turn, to the Jews, since they, afflicted with ignorance equal to Nicodemus, began, I don’t know how, to ridicule Him precisely when He said that His own body was life-giving, and that it was from heaven, He said: Is this tempting you? What if you see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before? ( John 6:61–62 ). Shall we say that Immanuel was born of a woman? (Q – How can you deny it?) 222 A – Then where was He before? Or how did He ascend to where He says He resides, although the body united to Him was born through the Holy Virgin? And will we not agree that flesh from the earth, so far as it remains within the limits of its own nature, is incapable of giving life? A - So tell me, how can flesh be life-giving? Or how can that which is from the earth also be considered to have come down from heaven? (B – I think) 224 that by reason of union with the living and heavenly Word. (A - Know that you have judged) 225 is quite true and in accordance with the sacred teachings. Indeed, otherwise He cannot create in the Divine way, and when it is considered not apart from the flesh. And as an assistant for my speech, I will again choose the divine Paul, who wrote the following: Thanks to God the Father, who has called us to share in the inheritance of the saints in light, who has delivered us from the power of darkness and brought us into the kingdom of his beloved Son, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins, who is the image of the invisible God, the first begotten (πρωτότοκος) of every creature. For by Him all things were created, that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible: whether Thrones, Dominions, Principalities, Powers - all things were created by Him and for Him. And He is before all things, and by Him all things stand. And He is the head of the body of the Church; He is the firstfruits, the firstborn (πρωτότοκος) from the dead, so that He might have primacy in everything, for it pleased [the Father] that all fullness should dwell in Him, and that through Him he might reconcile all things to Himself, having made peace ( ) 226 By the blood of His cross both earthly and heavenly ( Col. 1:12–20 ). Behold, again Paul openly speaks of Him, that by Him and for Him all things were created, and that He is truly before all things, and that by Him all things depend; and also that He is the firstborn from the dead, who pacified both earthly and heavenly things with His Blood. Who then is the firstborn from the dead, if not Christ Jesus, that is, the Word in the flesh and with the flesh? After all, the Word, being God, cannot possibly die, 227 and it is impossible to imagine that man, such as we are, is the Creator of everything, unless we take into account what He creates as God, even when considered not apart from the flesh after unity. On the other hand, He is also the firstborn from the dead due to the fact that He appeared as a man, moreover, without losing His Divine existence due to His incarnation. Do you think these words of ours need to be corrected? A – But you can see in other places that spirit-bearing men are busy with exactly the same speeches. For John says: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. It was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through Him, and without Him nothing came into being (John 1:13). In turn, Paul writes: there is one God the Father, from whom are all things, and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things (1 Cor. 8:6). However, if there really was a division after the Word was united with the flesh, I mean, such a division that one could distinguish, as it were, two sons, as it seems to you, how then could all things be created by Jesus Christ? And yet, everything was created by Him. This means that it is quite obvious that the natural properties and distinctive features inherent in the Word, which is from the Father, are still retained by Him even when He became flesh 229. Therefore, daring to cut is an unreliable matter. For one is the Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the Father created all things. A - Therefore, He creates in a Divine way and gives life, like Life, composed of properties both human and those exceeding man into a kind of mediating unity. Indeed, He is a mediator between God and men (1 Tim. 2:5), according to the Scriptures, God by nature, although not without flesh, and a true man, although not simply like us, being what He was even when He became flesh. For it is written that Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever (Heb. 13:8). Indeed, do we not accept the belief that Emmanuel was born in the last times of this age from the Holy Virgin ( )? 231 (B – Of course. We will not contradict the Divine Scriptures. A – But these same “yesterday” and “today”, tell me, my friend, can’t they point to the present and the past? A - Then how can He be in the past if He has not yet taken birth according to the flesh? (B – Because) 233 He was the Word, and was in the beginning, and since He was revealed from the eternal and unchangeable God and Father, He Himself also has in His own nature eternity and immutability. (A – I praise your opinion: it is so, and it is very true. However, O noble one, could you clarify one more question? A – Isn’t “Jesus Christ” a completely new name for the Word and coinciding with the times of the Incarnation? Q - But this is shown to us in so many speeches. A - Then notice that it is said that Christ, and not the Word in itself (μονοειδῶς), is the same yesterday and today and forever (Heb. 13:8). But how can human nature be unchangeable and constant in self-identity, while it undergoes movement, and above all movement from non-existence into being and life? Q - So, does our Holy Scripture really sin against the truth and say that something existed before that did not exist yesterday? A – I can’t say that at all and am truly far from it. It is Jesus Christ who is the same yesterday, today and forever. And I will least of all deny the antiquity and steadfastness of the Word, even when It became flesh. On the contrary, I will think that through unity with one’s own flesh It is revealed again, as having been “yesterday” and existing before. In fact, the insane Jews, not accepting faith, abhorred Him and rushed to stone Him. After all, they were perplexed why He, in whom they see a man such as we, testifies of Himself that he has a seniority of antiquity superior to man, saying as God: Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am (John 8:58). And this, when not long before they said: You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham? (John 8:57). In the same way, John said: ( ) 235 He who walked behind me 236 stood in front of me, because he was before me (John 1:15). However, how does he, having seen and called Emmanuel a certain man, say that the One who was born later and after him stood before Him before? ( ) 237 B - He calls Him the one who came before and before because of His glory, at least as I am inclined to understand it. A - And yet it does not require many arguments for you to see the falsity and ignorance of such a view. Namely, if we take “in front” as an indication of superiority in glory, on the same basis we will perhaps say that “behind” undoubtedly indicates something inferior in honor. Then it seems foolish to assume that Christ yields to the glory of John and runs behind him. After all, John said: a man walks behind me 240 (John 1:30). B - What an absurdity! But we will not think that this is so, having correctly understood what is written in the psalms: For who in the clouds can be equal to the Lord? (And who) 241 will be like God 242 in the sons of God? (Ps.89:7). A - Therefore, antiquity must be attributed to Him even together with the flesh, as God by nature, united with the flesh and having the habit of communicating the benefits of His own nature to His body. (B – You said it perfectly) 243 A - And that this is exactly so and that what has been said is true, you can find out, my friend, 244 from other evidence, if you wish. Indeed, God said through one of the holy prophets about Christ from the seed of David according to the flesh: And you, Bethlehem, house of Euphrath, are you small among the thousands of Judah? From you will come to me He who is to be Ruler in Israel and whose origin is from the beginning, from the days of eternity (Mic. 5:2; cf. Matt. 2:6). Paul also wrote about the sons of Israel: they were all baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea; and everyone ate spiritual food; and they all drank the same spiritual drink: for they drank from the spiritual stone that followed; the stone was Christ (1 Cor. 10:2-4). Consider, then, that by virtue of the unity according to the dispensation, that antiquity is present in Christ Jesus which properly belongs to the Word. Aren't these words of Scripture clear? After all, it is said very definitely that He who is from Bethlehem and from a wife, as a man, has origins from the beginning of the age. And in fact, God the Word became man in the beginning and before all ages, and He was a stone, watering thirsty Israel with unexpected streams that flowed against all hope, although according to the flesh and according to humanity He was born in the last times and anointed by God and the Father to be a messenger (to the world.) 245 After all, He was called Christ for no other reason, thanks to this 246. The stone was also Christ, according to Paul. Or maybe you doubt it? A - Let the wise John also enter into the struggle and contribute to our speech, who gathers two natures, almost forcing to merge (μισγάγκειαν ἄγων) the strength of the properties appropriate to each of them 248. After all, look what he says: About what was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands, about the Word of life - for life was revealed, and we have seen and testify, and proclaim to you this eternal life, which was with the Father and was revealed to us (1 John 1:1-2). Now, it is clearly said that from the beginning Existence was visible and endured touch. And indeed, Thomas cried out: My Lord and my God (John 20:28), when with his fingers he measured the edge of His body and the holes from the nails. And the divine Luke tells us that the holy apostles were eyewitnesses and ministers of the Word (cf. Luke 1:2). Because the incorporeal became visible and the intangible became tangible, no longer having 249 flesh from the earth as a cover alien to Himself, but having made it His own church, being cognizable with it 250 as God and Lord. You also know what the divine Paul wrote: For none of us lives for himself, and no one dies for himself; and whether we live, we live for the Lord; whether we die, we die for the Lord; and therefore, whether we live or die, we are always the Lord’s. For for this purpose Christ both died and rose again, that he might rule over both the dead and the living (Rom. 14:7–9). This means that it is firmly decided that He truly gained dominion over both the living and the dead for no other reason than 251 because He died and was resurrected. A - Then about whom, most revered, are we saying that He plunged into death and came to life again? Q – Obviously about the Son. A - You said well about the Son, and, of course, I will praise you for that. But I would like to know from you:) 252 Is it mortal and is the Word from God the Father retained by corruption, or is It, like life, beyond death and above corruption? (B – I admit the latter.) 253 A – Next, how was He numbered among the dead (cf. Ps. 87:5)? After all, the Word by itself cannot die. ( ) 254 Q – Since His flesh died, it is said of Him that He endured it. (A - Supremely true and infallible!) 255 Therefore, not apart from the flesh, but with it 256 and through it, He was crowned with the glory of dominion, Who, according to the law of the flesh and in nature such as ours, died and rose again. He reveals human suffering in that He died, and Divine action in that He came to life, so that through both these things He might be known both as one like us and by One who is above us, as God and Lord of all, and that He, appearing among us, might be seen together with the Father 257 . Recognizing Him as such, Nathanael exclaimed: Rabbi! You are the Son of God, You are the King of Israel (John 1:49). And He Himself said to His disciples: But you call Me Lord and Teacher, and you say correctly, for I am exactly that (cf. John 13:13). And confirming this with deeds, He forgives sins and gives power against unclean spirits in order to cast them out and heal all infirmities among the people (cf. Matt. 10:1). And was it not in the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth (Acts 3:6) that man crippled by his feet who sat in front of the Red Gate was healed? And what a long illness and illness that was completely incurable did Aeneas put off, to whom the divine (Paul) 258 said: Aeneas! Jesus Christ heals you (Acts 9:34). A - So, being pushed from everywhere towards the truth, very diligently seeking the thought of the Holy Scriptures and following the opinions of the fathers, we believe that He who is from the root of Jesse, Who is from the seed of David, Who is from the woman according to the flesh, Who is with us under the law as man, and is superior to us, being, like God, above the law, Who is for us and with us in the dead and Who is above us, being in Himself life-giving and Life, truly is the Son of God. At the same time, we do not deprive humanity of the Divinity, nor do we strip the Word from humanity after an inexpressible entanglement (συμπλοκήν) 260, but we confess one and the same Son from two things (ἐκ δυοῖν πραγμάτοιν) 261, Which unspeakably reveals itself as a certain unity of both, of course, as a result of the highest unity, and not because of the transformation of nature. How great a benefit those who accept such teaching will receive is shown by Christ's disciple, saying: Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God abides in him, and he in God (1 John 4:15). And what is due to the fact that the Word became flesh and dwelt in us (cf. John 1:14), Jesus Christ, who is from the seed of David, by nature and truly is the Son of God, let the wise John seal with these words: We also know that the Son of God has come and given us light and understanding, so that we may know the true God and may be in His true Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life (1 John 5:20), and through Him and with Him be glory to God and the Father with the Holy Spirit forever and ever. Amen. Translation from ancient Greek, introductory article and notes by K. B. Yulaev De incarnatione Unigeniti 678:1–714:4. TLG 4 0 9 0 /2 6 (PG 75, 1189–1254; Durand 1964. P. 188–301). De sancta et consubstantiali Trinitate 383:1–659:40. TLG 4 090/23 (PG 75, 657–1124; SC 231, 237, 246). Durand 1964. P. 35–36. In this respect, two other Christological treatises of the saint, written after 431, are close to the dialogue: the dialogue “On the fact that Christ is one” (Quod unus sit Christus 714:1–778:21. TLG 4 090/27 [PG 75, 1253–1362; Durand 1964. P. 302–515]) and “Scholia on the Incarnation of the Only Begotten” (Scholia de incarnatione Unigeniti). The last work is known in its entirety only in a Latin translation made in the 5th century by Marius Mercator, possibly during the lifetime of St. Cyril (Mahé 1938. Col. 2490). This translation was published in the patrolology of J.-P. Minya (PG 75, 1369–1412). Fragments of the Greek text were preserved by John of Caesarea and St. Photia (see: ASO 1, 5, 1, 219:1–231:28. TLG 5000/2). De recta fide ad Theodosium περὶ τῆς ὀρθῆς πίστεως τῆς εἰς τὸν Κύριον ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν). ACO 1, 1, 1, 42–72. TLG 5000/1 (PG 76, 1133–1200). De recta fide ad reginas (PG 76, 1201–1336) and De recta fide ad reginas oratio altera (PG 76, 1335–1420). The question of the addressees of these two messages has long been a subject of controversy. Currently, the generally accepted opinion is the opinion expressed back in the 6th century by John of Caesarea, who specified that the first of these messages was addressed to the “princesses,” the younger sisters of Emperor Theodosius, Arcadia and Mary, the second to the “queens,” i.e., his wife Eudoxia and elder sister Pulcheria (Quasten 1986, p. 126). E. Schwartz, publisher of the ACO, agrees with this, calling them respectively De recta fide ad dominas (ACO 1, 1, 5, 6 2 – 118. TLG 5000/1) and De recta fide ad augustas (ACO 1, 1, 5, 26–61, in E. Schwartz’s edition the messages are placed in a different sequence than in J.-P. Minh) (Durand 1964, p. 22). See also the argumentation of Lyashchenko, who believes that these are two parts of one message, sent to the same persons, the emperor’s sisters (Lyashchenko 1913, pp. 280–283). Priest V. Dmitriev in his Ph.D. thesis believes that the first message was sent to Pulcheria, and the second to Evdokia (Dmitriev 1916. pp. 4–8). Jerome. Panteleimon (Uspensky), who reviewed this dissertation, suggested that, conceived as one message to the queens, this work resulted in two books. Since the first of them came out “raw and rather elementary in content,” it was addressed to the younger sisters of Emperor Theodosius, while the second, the content of which turned out to be “more complex and less understandable,” was addressed to Pulcheria and Evdokia (see: Uspensky 1916. L. 3–8). Thus, Hierom. Panteleimon, in his brief review, anticipated the conclusions made by modern Western scientists. Rus. lane for all three messages, see: Dmitriev 1916. pp. 13–220. Pusey, who published as part of his collection of works of St. Cyril DI and RF, having compared the differences between them, in the preface to his edition he suggests that St. Cyril gave his previous work the form of a dialogue in order to give it a more popular character and to make it a kind of instrument for the dissemination of Orthodox views (Pusey 1877. P. IX). His conclusion is also accepted by Mahé (Mahé 1938. Col. 2490). E. Schwartz considers it obvious that DI is a reworking of R F (ACO 1, 1, 1. P. XV II. Note 1). The absence of any mention of dialogue in a number of review patrolological works, both previous and new, can only be explained by the fact that DI is usually considered a later edition of RF, devoid of independent significance (Cf.: Pisarev L., Prof. Kirill, Archbishop of Alexandria // Theological Encyclopedia / Edited by N. I. Glubokovsky. T. 10. St. Petersburg, 1909. Stb. 2 46–279; Altaner V. Patrologie. Freiburg, 1938. P. 176–177; Quasten 1986. P. 116–142). The beginning of the Nestorian dispute (428) seems to divide the life and work of St. Kirill in two halves. In the early period, he compiled exegetical works and large anti-Arian treatises; in the second, later period, the saint was occupied almost exclusively with polemics against Nestorius (Quasten 1986, p. 119). Emperor Theodosius wrote: “What was the reason for writing differently to us and to my wife, the most pious Augusta Eudoxia, and another to my sister, the most pious Augusta Pulcheria, if you did not think that we were in disagreement? Or were you hoping to create differences of opinion between us with your letters?” (ASO 1, 1, 1, 73:22–25 [Russian translation: Acts 1996, p. 209]). In this regard, in his “Defensive Speech to Emperor Theodosius” (Arolog. ad Theod., ACO 1, 1, 3, 75:3–90:24 [Russian translation: Acts 1996, pp. 499–512]) St. Kirill was forced to justify himself. This is how E. Schwartz defines their difference (Schwartz E. Cyrill und der Monch Victor / / Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wein, Philosophisch-historische Klasse, Sizungsberichte. Vol. 208. Ch. 4. Wein und Leipzig, 1928. P. 16. Note 1). Durand adds: “It is obvious that in the first message one can see work done “with a fresh mind,” while in the other two there is a somewhat hasty selection of materials, which is suitable to make a decisive impression, but in no way sufficient for their presentation in the messages to become completely organic” (Durand 1964, p. 39). RF ad dom., ACO 1, 1, 5, 63:3–4; 63:35–8; 65:10–12; 68:32–69:2. RF ad dom., ACO 1, 1, 5, 81:16; 89:5; 103:7–9; 103:32–37. RF ad Aug., ACO 1, 1, 5, 52:9–16. RF ad aug., A CO 1,1,5, 35:23; 35:26–28; 43:23–25; 49:31–32; 49:35; 50:1–2; 52:9–10; 52:16–18; 56:28–29. RF ad Aug., ACO 1, 1, 5, 44:1–3, 52:12–18; R F ad dom., ACO 1, 1, 5, 69:22–23. In the “Epistle to the Monks” and in the first letter to Nestorius, written at the same time, there is also no criticism of the term συνάφεια. St. Cyril first criticizes him in a "Memorandum" sent along with a letter to Pope Celestine, which contained the main points of Nestorius' teaching (ACO 1, 1, 7, 171:15–16). Nestorius, in turn, in his second letter to St. Kirill praises him “for the union in one person” (εἰς ἑνὸς προσώπου συνάφειαν) of Divinity and humanity (ASO 1, 1, 1, 30:19–20 [Russian translation: Acts 1996. P. 148]), apparently unaware that the term συνάφεια can cause rejection (Durand 1964, p. 41). Here and below, after the reference to the publication by J. Durand, a link is given to the Russian translation of DI published in BV 5. Right there. R. 47. Note. 2. Emperor Julian the Apostate does not miss the opportunity to make a caustic remark: “You never cease to call Mary the Mother of God” (in fragments of Julian’s work “Against the Galileans”, preserved by St. Cyril of Alexandria: Cyr. Alex. Contra Julianum. Lib. 8, PG 76, 901: 32–33). Θεοτόκος is also found in St. Alexander of Alexandria (in his letter to Alexander of Byzantium, preserved by Blessed Theodoret: Theodoretus. Hist. eccl. 23:3. T LG 4089/3 [Russian translation: Blessed Theodoret. Church history. Book 1. Chapter 4. M., 1993. P. 34]), in Didymus the Blind (Didymus. De trin. 1, 31, 2:2. TLG 2102/8; y St. Athanasius the Great (Athan. Alex. Orat. contra Arian., PG 26, 349:42, 385:13, 393:13, 393:26–27.; Vita Antonii, PG 26, 897:1–2; De incarn. contra Apoll., PG 26, 1097:37, 1113:31, 1116:14 [Rus. nep.: Ce. Athanasius the Great. T. 2. M., 1994. P. 387, 407, 411. T. 3. M., 1994. P. 209, 318, 328, 329]) 1964. P. 47–48). However, St. John Chrysostom, who studied with Diodorus of Tarsus, in his original writings never uses the name “Theotokos,” although he repeatedly points to the unity of person and “community of properties” of the Divinity and humanity in Christ (Aies 1931, pp. 233–235). For example, in the “Commentary on the Prophet Isaiah” (Comm, in Is. 4, 3, PG 70, 1036:52 [Russian translation: TCO 57. P. 70]). καταθρώσκουσιν (DI 678:32) – πίπτουσι (RF 45:1); ὑπερθρώσκει (DI 691:34) – ὑπερφέρεται (RF 54:34); ὑπερθρῶσκον (DI 694:1) – ὑπερέχον (RF 56:26); ἀναθρώσκειν (DI 702:40) – ἀναφοιτᾶν (RF 64:7); ὑπερθρώσκων (DI 704:43–44) – οὐ περιμένων (RF 65:28). See in RF: “However, they can say, I think: therefore...” (44:30–31); “But if they ask what is good for existing things: being or, perhaps, non-being, anyone will immediately answer that being” (51:34-35); “And if on occasion someone asks...” (54:13–14); “But probably someone will ask us...” (57:19); “Isn’t it so? Of course it is” (63:1); “However, he who opposes this opinion will ask...” (63:11); “And if anyone comes to us asking questions...” (66:31). ASO 1, 1, 1, 24:29–25:4. Rus. Transl.: Acts 1996. P. 143. This is the opinion of L. Tillemont (Tillemont 1709. R. 664), J. Mahé (Mahé 1938. Col. 2489), E. Schwartz (ASO 1, 1, 1. R. 24. Note 1) and P. Pusey, in their preface to the edition of the works of St. Cyril (Pusey 1877. P. IX) (Durand 1964. P. 53). Comm, in Joan. 1, 140:1–17, 265:27–29, 442:17–26, 533:5–9, 550:21–551:8, 576:31–577:17, 712:28–713:10; 2, 79:29–80:3, 200:2–201:16, 377:10–14, 381:19–29, 401:23–402:25, 505:10–29, 543:22–27; 3, 152:8–12, 154:20–155:24. TLG 4 0 9 0 /2 [Rus. Transl.: Creations 2001. P. 533, 627, 765; Creations 2002. pp. 41, 53, 73, 174, 245, 335–336, 477, 480–481, 497–498, 575–576, 605, 883, 885–886]. De ador., PG 68, 593:18–26, 696:24–29 [Rus. Transl.: Creations 2000. P. 410, 470]; Glaph. in Pent., PG 69, 129:28–32, 560:31–38 [Rus. Transl.: Creations 2001. P. 79, 353]; Comm. in Is" PG 70, 973:14–16 [Rus. transl.: TCO 56. P. 500–501] (Durand 1964. P. 17. Note 2). Sometimes they explain the presence of such passages in the “Commentary on the Gospel of John” by the fact that this extensive commentary could have been added after 428 (Sidorov 2000, p. 58). However, almost the entire eighth “Easter Homily,” undoubtedly dating back to 420, is devoted to the refutation of the doctrine of “two Sons,” from which it is obvious that dualism in Christology attracted the attention of the saint long before the start of the Nestorian dispute (Durand 1964, p. 56). Er. pasch. 8, PG 77, 565:14–576:20. Er. pasch. 11, PG 77, 664:10–32. For a presentation of the contents of these homilies and translation of fragments from them into Russian, see: Mirolyubov A. Sermons of St. Cyril of Alexandria. Kiev, 1889. pp. 147–153, 164–169. St. Cyril writes that “the complete body of this book consists of seven words” (De Trin. 383:15–384:1 ...ἐν ἑπτὰ λογιδίοις τὸ σύμπαν τοῦ βιβλίου συντεθείκαμεν σῶμα). DI 680:6–18. pp. 88:19–89:11. Cp. V.V. Bolotov’s opinion on the teachings of Nestorius: “Distinguishing the “church” from the “living in it,” the “Lord” from the “image of a servant,” the “almighty God” from the “worshipped man,” he, however, did not allow the thought that this would lead to the assumption of two Christs or two Sons... No matter how sharply Nestorius distinguished between natures, he had no intention of dissolving the unity of the Person of Christ...” ( Bolotov V.V. Lectures on the history of the Ancient Church. T. 4. M., 1994. P. 181). Tillemont writes: “I could not find these words among those that belong to Nestorius” (Tillemont 1709. R. 341) and “It would be necessary to consider whether these terms are really such in Nestorius” (R. 665). The publisher of the fragments of Nestorius Loofs, although he cites these λογίδια among the “undoubtedly authentic” fragments, however, notes that the authorship of Nestorius is no more than “plausible” (Nestoriana. Halle, 1905. P. 217–218). True, later the same Loofs notes (Loo/s F. Nestorius and his place in the history of Christian doctrine. Cambridge, 1914. P. 5. Note 3) that these λογίδια may well be part of the books of Nestorius (Durand 1964. P. 55). According to the assumption of J. Durand, the term ὁμωνύμως, used in these fragments to express the relationship of Divinity and humanity in Christ, is absent in other writings of Nestorius. However, St. Cyril in his letter “On the right faith, to the queens” (RF ad aug., ACO 1, 1, 5, 35:22–24) refutes the latter’s idea that in Christ the Word allegedly united (συνῆψεν) with man “by the same name of sonship (κατὰ τὴν τῆς υἱότητος ὁμωνυμίαν)", which, as can be seen, is expressed terminologically in almost the same way as in the fragments. This means that the term ὁμωνύμως could well have been used by Nestorius. J. Durand does not write about the authorship of these fragments. Perhaps their author was Diodorus of Tarsus. St. Cyril, in his first letter to Sukkens, calls him the teacher of Nestorius and sets out his teaching about the “two Sons” as follows. One is He who is of the seed of David, born of a Virgin, the other is the true Son, the Word of God. He who is born of the seed of David receives the name of the Son as united to the true Son by equality of dignity, power and honor (Er. 45, ACO 1, 1, 6, 151:15–152:4). But although the doctrine of the “two Sons” was condemned by the Roman Council presided over by Pope Damasus during Diodorus’s lifetime, it is difficult to say to what extent he himself was aware of his dissent (Ales 1931, pp. 228–229). However, it is also likely that St. Cyril, condemning in the early 420s. extremes of Antiochene exegesis and Christology, already had in mind the views of Theodore of Mopsuestia (Lyashchenko 1913, pp. 183–186). The primary interest of St. Cyril's approach to soteriology in DI is especially clearly visible in the argument against the Docetes (681:17–682:30, pp. 91:2–92:24), in the lengthy section from the anti-Apollinarian part of the dialogue, specifically devoted to consideration of the salvific significance of the incarnation of the Word (691:5–693:33, pp. 108:11–113:16), as well as in the discussion Saint about the Eucharist from the anti-dualistic part (707:21–708:6. P. 137:17–139:4). RF survives in at least 12 manuscripts (Durand 1964, p. 151, note 2). There are also Armenian and Syriac translations of the RF, while ancient translations of the DI are unknown (Durand 1964, p. 151). 4 Cyrilli Archiepiscopi Alexandrini adversus Anthropomorphitas liber unus, graece et latine. Ejusdem De Incarnatione Unigeniti, et Quod unus sit Christus ac D ominus secundum Scripturas, Ad Hermiam dialogi duo, nunquam antehac editi, interprete Bonaventura Vulcanio, cum notis ejusdem etc. Lugduni Batavorum, 1605. In his notes Bonaventure mainly compares the DI with the letters of St. Isidore Pelusiota. Sancti Cyrilli Alexandrini opera omnia graece et latine. T. V. Pars 1. Paris, 1638. P. 678–714. Subsequent editions reproduced Obepa's pagination (Durand 1964, p. 165). Sancti Patris nostri Cyrilli archiepiscopi Alexandrini De recta fide ad Imperatorem – de Incarnatione Unigeniti etc / Ed. Pusey P.E.T. VII. Pars 1. Oxford, 1877. P. 11–153 (Durand 1964. P. 166). When comparing it with the dialogue, the Greek text of this message was taken: A CO 1,1, 1, 42–72. TLG 5000/1. Dmitriev 1916. P. 13–220. See: Se. Cyril of Alexandria. A word against those who do not want to confess the Holy Virgin as Theotokos. Conversation with Nestorius about the fact that the Holy Virgin is the Mother of God, and not the Mother of Christ. Translation from Greek by St. Vasily Dmitrieva // Works of students of the Imperial Moscow Theological Academy. Vol. 1. SP, 1915. Uspensky 1916. L. 12 vol. At the beginning of the “Dialogues on the Holy Trinity,” this Hermias is presented as an elder, a presbyter, who, although burdened with bodily infirmities, has a great love for theological conversations (De Trin. 384:31–386:28). In the preface to Nemesin, to whom the “Dialogues” are dedicated, it is said: “We turn here to the meekest Hermias, with his extreme love for learned conversations and constant curiosity about such subjects” (De Trin. 384: 2–3 ...φιλολογωτάτῳ δὲ ὄντι λίαν καὶ φιλοπευστοῦντι τὰ τοιάδε συχνῶς τῷ ἐπιεικεστάτῳ Ἑρμείᾳ προσπεφωνήκαμεν), which shows that this is a real person, and not just a literary character. Obviously, we are talking about a certain mutual acquaintance from the friendly circle of the Alexandrian archbishop, for whom he wrote his books. Palladius, with whom St. Cyril talks in the books “On Worship in Spirit and Truth” and to whom he refers in “Glaph. in Pent., PG 69, 388:7 [Russian translation: Creations 2001. P. 243],” also belonged to this circle. Three short letters to St. Isidore Pelusiot (hid. Pelas. Lib. 3, Ep. 350, PG 78, 1005:10–15; Lib. 3, Ep. 201 and 214, PG 78, 1288:38–45 and 1308:28–37 [Russian translation: Works of St. Isidore Pelusiot. Part 2. M., 1860. P. 348; Part 3. M., 1860. P. 111 and 129]) are addressed to a certain Hermias, but the question is to what extent this Hermias is identical to the interlocutor of St. Kirill, remains open (Durand 1964, p. 188, note 1). In RF, instead of this introduction, there is a lengthy appeal to Emperor Theodosius (42:10–44:26). RF: However, they can say, I think: therefore (44:30–31). RF: Explain exactly as soon as possible (44:32). RF: So, we are well aware that foolish people have no absurdity that they do not grab hold of, and they fall, and moreover, with excessive readiness (44:35–45:1). RF: However, it is necessary to talk in detail about each of them, what exactly they talk about and what fables they reverence as sacred (45:3-4). RF: to think and say (45:6). RF: from the Holy Virgin and Mother of God (45:6). Such views are refuted in one of his letters by St. Isidore Pelusiot: “If, as they say, (the Word) is later (μεταγενέστερος), then it is not eternal; and if eternal, as we teach, then no later... About created things let the words take place: before and after, but about the venerable and royal Trinity the words: first and second have no place; because the Divinity is higher than both number and times" (Isid. Peius. Lib. 3, Er. 18, PG 78, 744:38–745:2 [Russian translation: Works of St. Isidore Pelusiot. Part 2. pp. 91–92]. Compare: PG 75, 1191. Note 2 [Bonaventura]) Of these two definitions of the human soul of the Savior, St. Cyril uses λογική both in other places of this dialogue (679:32, 688:13, 689:4, 694:29; S. 88:3, S. 102:12, S. 104:14, S. 115:8), and in other works of the pre-Destorian period (Glaph. in Pent., PG 69, 297:32 [Russian translation: Creations 2001. P. 184]; Er. pasch. 8, PG 77, 573:28), as well as in lengthy anti-intorian works (Er. 1, ASO 1, 1, 1, 13:33; Er. 4 and 17, ASO 1, 1, 1, 26:27, 28:21 and 38:12 [Russian translation: Acts. 145, 146, 196]; Adv. Nest., ASO 1, 1, 6, 33:10; Later, on the contrary, he uses exclusively the terms νοερά and νοερῶς (Quod unus sit Christus 718:32, 726:6–7, 735:43–44, 743:38–39, 759:33, 777:40; Er. 31, 50, ASO 1, 1, 3, 72, 26:3, 91:23, 92:26 [Russian translation: Acts 1996. 515, 556, 557]; Er. 45, 46, ASO 1, 1, 6, 153:3, 158:15). Perhaps this indicates that St. Cyril, although he knew Apollinarism as a whole, only over time began to respond to its fundamental formula - the replacement of the human mind (νοῦς) with the Word in Christ (Durand 1964, p. 192, note 1). RF: And yet, if (46:13). In “Glaph. in Pent., PG 69, 380:27–34 [Russian translation: Tvoreniya 2001. P. 237]” St. Cyril points out those who teach about Christ as a ghostly man, and, in contrast, insists on the real nature of His childbirth and breastfeeding. In “Commentary on the Gospel of John” (Comm, in Joan. 3, 127:30–128:24, 142:29–143:17, 150:25–151:4 [Russian translation: Creations 2002. pp. 863–864, 876, 882]) in several places he draws attention to the reality of the body of Christ even in glorified state, directly referring to the wounds from the sufferings of the Savior on the cross (Durand 1964, p. 197, note 1). RF: and the Mother of God (46:27). Nestorius, in his review of Christological errors with which his Book of Heraclides begins, points to a similar view (Nestorius. Le Livre d’Héraclide de Damas / Trad. F. Nau. Paris, 1910. P. 9–19). Those who share this view differ from the Manichaeans in that they admit the actual incarnation of the Word. But this incarnation, just like the theophanies of the Old Testament, seems to them to be a kind of “freezing” of the Divine, which allows Him to feel the suffering of human nature into which It is transformed, just as water, becoming ice, can be broken (D u rand 1964. P. 202. Note 1). According to St. Cyril, things subject to “corruption” (φθορά) must be continually strengthened by the Spirit of God, even when it comes to heaven, which the Greeks so readily endowed with incorruptibility (De Trin. 652:3–41). Having a beginning, they will necessarily have an end, but by the action of the Word this end will be a kind of renewal (Comm, in Is., PG 70, 1117: 3–25 [Russian translation: TC O 57. pp. 158–159]). In “Commentary on the Gospel of John” (Comm, in Joan. 1, 109:26–110:21 [Russian translation: Creations 2001. P. 511]) he explains that every created thing, due to its complexity, possesses good properties only by communion. In the “Interpretation of the Prophet Jonah” (Comm, in X II proph. 1, 577:29–578:7. TLG 4090/1 [Russian translation: TCO 61. pp. 35–36]) it is clarified that in any case, nature is entirely in the hands of God: He is able to destroy incorruptible things and impart incorruption to the most ancient things (Durand 1964. R. 205. Note 2). RF: Indeed, indeed, it is necessary to think that He, through whom all things exist, first of all (50:7). In the “Commentary on the Gospel of John” by St. Kirill emphasizes the meaning of the verb ἦν, indicating a certain stable and indefinable existence (Comm, in Joan. 1, 21:26–22:9 [Russian translation: Tvoreniya 2001. P. 444]). In other places of this work (Comm, in Joan. 1, 91: 3–11 and 2, 133: 15–19 [Russian translation: Tvoreniya 2001. P. 496–497; Tvoreniya 2002. P. 288]) forms of the verb “to be” (εἰμί, ἦν) are contrasted with the corresponding forms of the verb “to become, happen” (γίγνομαι, ἐγένετο), which can be used in relation to created things (Durand 1964. R. 212. Note 1. See also: Creations 2001. P. 497. Note 1). RF: quite safe (51:1). RF: Scripture (51:13). According to syn. translation: "image". According to the translation of ep. Cassiana: "imprint." RF: “Isn’t it obvious to everyone?” (51:14). In “Commentary on the Gospel of John” (Comm, in Joan. 1, 339:16 – 343:29 [Russian translation: Creations 2001. pp. 690–693]) St. Cyril, pointing out that there are various categories of image and listing those of them that reproduce their prototype in a weakened degree, proves that the Son can only be an essential image, equal to the Father, perfectly representing the One who gave birth to Him (Durand 1964. P. 217. Note 1). RF. After all, they should be the same, and not different (51:15). St. Isidore Pelusiot writes: “Therefore, whoever says that the Son is later than the Father, from Whom He shone forth without beginning, for his part in the most pure Essence destroys Her distinctive property (τὸ χαρακτηρίζον)” (Isid. Peius. Lib. 3, Ep. 63, PG 78, 772:47–51 [Russian translation: Works of St. Isidore Pelusiot. Part 2. P. 120]). Bonaventure identifies this “distinctive property” (τὸ χαρακτηρίζον) in St. Isidore with the “prototype” (τὸ ἀρχέτυπον) from St. Cyril, as an indication of the essence of the Father (PG 75, 1205. Note 3 [Bonaventura]). RF: I believe that everyone will say without hesitation that beings and beings are hypostatic (51:20–21). RF: anyone will answer immediately (51:35). RF: Oh, how ridiculous these thoughts are! (52:4). RF: by nature with human flesh animated by a rational soul (52:15). RF: we strongly affirm (52, 23). Regarding σύνοδος, συνδρομή and other similar words, J. Liebaire wrote: “It should be noted that these various terms are usually used by Cyril in one active sense: connection, contact, confluence; only not the Word and flesh, but the Word with (πρὸς, εἰς) flesh. Cyril does not place the two elements “on the same plane,” as a diphysite theologian would have done, and these expressions are in fact another way for him to affirm the perception of the flesh” (Liébaert J. Doctrine christologique de S. Cyrille d’Alexandrie avant la querelle nestorienne // Mémoires et travaux publiés par des professeurs des Facultés catholiques de Lille 58. Lille, 1951. P. 201–202). J. Durand notes that although in several places in the anti-Apollinarian section DI (693:13, 698:7; P. 112:21, P. 120:30) C V. Cyril, using these terms, follows this “general” rule, however, in this place DI (688:30–31), as in several others (689:37, 690:3, 695:16; P. 106:7, P. 106:13–14, P. 116:17), when using them, the Divine and human natures are located precisely “on the same plane.” The same Ayeber points to two similar texts before 428 (Glaph. in Pent., PG 69, 560:39–40, συνδρομη [Russian translation: Tvoreniya 2001. P. 353]; Ep. pasch. 8, PG 77, 572:5, σύνοδος), Durant himself - on several occasions after 428. Perhaps this arrangement of the two natures “horizontally” seemed to the saint as a kind of warning to the Monophysite, “Sinusiast” understanding of the incarnation as a mixture or fusion of natures (Durand 1964, p. 220, note 1). Somewhat lower in the dialogue (DI 700:4–33. pp. 124:5–126:2) he develops the same idea more widely; he also uses it in two anti-dualistic “Easter Homilies” (Ep. pasch. 8, PG 77, 572:14–32 and Ep. pasch. 11, PG 77, 664:17–30). The idea that the Only Begotten is at the same time the First Begotten was already expressed against the Valentinians, who were also dualists in Christology (Clem. Alex. Exc. ex Theod. 1, 7, 3:1–4:3. T LG 0555/7. [Russian translation: School of Valentinus. Fragments and evidence. M., 2002. P. 182]). It was also widely used in Arian polemics (Greg. Nyss. Contra Eun. 3, 2, 55:1–57:14. TLG 2017/30 [Russian translation: Works of St. Gregory of Nyssa. Part 5. M., 1863. P. 456–457]; Didym. De Trin. 3, 4, PG 39, 828:33–840:14). St. Athanasius establishes here the following distinction: Christ is the Only Begotten, by His ineffable birth from the Father, and He is the Firstborn of “all creation,” because of His condescension towards it, firstly, in creation, and secondly, in the incarnation and redemption. Therefore, He is the Only Begotten and the First-born - “in different respects”, πρὸς ἄλλο καὶ ἄλλο (Athan. Alex. Orat, contra Ar. 2, PG 26, 277:34–284:40 [Russian nep.: Ce. Athanasius the Great. Creations. T. 2. M., 1994. pp. 341–346]). St. Cyril in his “Treasure of the Holy and Consubstantial Trinity” (Thés. 24, PG 75, 401:25 – 408:11) takes this reasoning from St. Athanasius as a model (Durand 1964, p. 223. Note 1). RF: However, they can add the following, I believe (53:6-7). Bonaventure, having examined the use of the word “economy” (οἰκονομία) in the letters of St. Isidora Pelusiota, notes that he calls this either the Divine plan for the salvation of the human race and the providence and leadership that were used to carry it out, or the direct incarnation of God the Word. In one place St. Isidore writes that “it is not permissible for a lover of vice to even turn his tongue about God’s justifications and about God” and that “those who inquisitively inquire about His ways, that is, about dispensations (τὰς ὁδοὺς αὐτοῦ, τουτέστι, τὰς οἰκονομίας)" (Isid. Peius. Lib. 3, Er. 232, PG 78, 913:13–29. [Russian translation: Works of St. Isidore Pelusiot Part 2. pp. 261–262]). Bonaventure finds here confirmation of his thought that the “ways” and “counsels” of God, which are discussed in Is. 55: 8–9, are nothing more than ἡ τοῦ Θεοῦ οἰκονομία (PG 76, 1101–1102. Note 11 [Bonaventura]). In all known RF lists, with the exception of the Armenian translation, this passage (689:34–690:6) is absent. The Syriac translation, in place of this gap, offers a completely different phrase: “And then we imagine that we are succeeding, we work in vain to understand it better, and we remain in amazement, almost as if dumbfounded.” Apparently, when revising the dialogue of St. Cyril doubted the strength of his argument or found it too difficult for Theodosius II. The text of R F betrays some haste in reworking the work for a new addressee: there is no expected answer to “firstly,” πρῶτον (Durand 1964. P. 226. Note 1). RF: the church united to the Word is animated by a rational soul (53:20–21). RF: with humanity such as ours, which is perfect - of course, in the sense of [the perfection of] its own nature (53:24-25). RF: and the Mother of God (53:29). RF: What if they also say (53:31). A similar rapprochement between the Apollinarians and the Docetians is also found in the first book “Against Apollinaris” by St. Athanasius the Great (Athan. Alex. De incarn. contra Apoll., PG 26, 1116: 2–8 [Se. Athanasius the Great. Creations. T. 3. M., 1994. P. 329]). It is likely that St. Cyril already knew two books “Against Apollinaris”, and precisely as the work of St. Athanasius (Durand 1964. R. 299. Note 3). Objections to their authenticity are far from indisputable (Sagarda N.I. Lectures on patrolology of the 1st-4th centuries. M., 2004. pp. 598–599), while church tradition speaks in favor of the authorship of St. Afanasia. Under his name, several extracts from them are given by the 7th century Christological florilegium “The Teaching of the Fathers on the Incarnation of the Word” (Doctrina patrum 52:3–4, 52:13–14, 98:8–11, 299:14–300:3. TLG 7051/1). Even Bolotov had no doubt about the authenticity of these books (Bolotov V.V. Lectures on the history of the Ancient Church. T. IV. M., 1994. P. 136. Note 1). Authorship of St. Athanasius is also defended by some modern Western scientists (PE. T. IV. M., 2002. P. 32). The opinion of J. Durand about the excessive gullibility of St. also seems exaggerated. Cyril to pseudepigrapha (Durand 1964. R. 16; R. 299. Note 1). On the contrary, from the first letter to Sukkens, where there is a discussion about the different copies of the “Epistle to Epictetus” by St. Athanasius (Er. 45, ACO 1, 1, 6, 156:19–157:8), it is clearly seen that he was able to take a critical view of the manuscripts of the patristic works. RF: but they can be convicted, and without much difficulty, of having deviated from the truth (54:9). RF: And if on occasion someone asks: which one, finally (54: 12–14). RF: then he will hear from us in response: this will be taught by the divine Scripture (54:14). According to syn. transl.: “took them in order to deprive him of his strength by death.” Translation of ep. Cassiana. Wed. syn. Translation: Because the law, weakened by the flesh, was powerless, God sent His Son in the likeness of sinful flesh [as a sacrifice] for sin and condemned sin in the flesh, so that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who do not live according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit. RF: bringing your own life into it (54:28). RF: exactly like dyeing wool (54:30). The idea that the inviolability of the Divine is capable of strengthening our weakness from within is expressed in other cases by St. Cyril through the concept of mixing, not coloring (Ep. pasch. 10, PG 77, 617:29–38; Thés. 24, PG 75, 409:41–42). At the same time, as a rule, the soul of Christ is not mentioned. At best, it is said that Christ “united (ἐμίχθη, literally “mixed” with the obscene physically, and at the same time spiritually” (Deador., PG 68, 297: 50–51. [Russian translation: Creations 2000. P. 226]) (Durand 1964. P. 230. Note 1). RF: The fact is that, as it seems to me, for reasoning about this, which has too much ambiguity, there is a need for examples, because we barely see in the mirror and fortune telling (cf. 1 Cor. 13:12) Divine and transcendent mysteries. But I think our comparison may be quite apt (54:30–33). RF: rises above power (54:34). RF: both the first and only man on earth (55:3–4). The meaning of this addition is to emphasize the sinlessness of Christ, exclusive and incommunicable (Durand 1964, p. 231, note 2). RF: The Word from God connected with humanity such as ours (55:14). The thought expressed here is already found in St. Irenaeus of Lyons: “The Lord redeemed us with His blood and gave His soul for our souls and His flesh for our flesh...” (Iren. Adv. haer. 5, 1, 1:33–35. SC 153. Greek, text see: Fr. 2:2–4. T LG 1447/8 [Russian translation: Se. Irenaeus of Lyons. Creations. M., 1900. P. 447]), as well as in the first book “Against Apollinaris” by St. Athanasius the Great (Athan. Alex. De incarn. contra Apoll. 1, PG 26, 1125: 8–10 [Pyc. transl.: Ce. Athanasius the Great. Creations. T. 3. M., 1994. P. 336]): “He gave body for body and soul for soul, perfect being for the whole man” (Durand 1964. R. 232. Note 1). The understanding of atonement as a sacrifice equivalent to sin, made in His person by the Savior, is quite common for Alexandrian patristic theology (Cyprian (Kern), archimandrite. Anthropology of St. Gregory Palamas. M., 1996. P. 190). RF: someday (55:32). J. Durand believes that such a replacement is more consistent with the thought expressed by the Apostle Peter in Acts. 2, 31. In DI, “corruption” (φθορά) is taken in a general sense as the power of death (Durand 1964, p. 233, note 1). RF: we don't say at all (55:34–56:1). RF: because it was proper to the incorruptible Word; and the soul in turn (56:6–7). In the anti-Apollinarian section of the letter “On Right Faith to Queens” (RF ad Aug. ACO 1, 1, 5, 58:20–59), St. Cyril, touching on the Savior’s descent into hell, is more busy describing the present state of the soul after death and, in contrast, this state before the coming of Christ: He opened a new path for us, we will no longer go to hell, but will follow Him. In the fifth book, Against Nestorius (Adv. Nest. ACO 1, 1, 6, 102:10-16), he again briefly mentions this, but not to prove the existence of the human soul of Christ, but to defend His Divine dignity: He Whom hell saw and Who freed the souls there from bondage is God Himself. Saving suffering forced the flaming sword to retreat, they brought man into paradise, as evidenced by the Lord’s response to the prudent thief (Durand 1964, p. 236, note 1). RF: incarnations (56:23). The perplexed question of Nicodemus (John 3:9) is also explained in the “Commentary on the Gospel of John” (Comm, in Joan. 1, 221:10–20 [Russian translation: Creations 2001. P. 594]). Wed. a lengthy discussion from the “Interpretation of the Prophet Isaiah” (Comm, in Is., PG 70, 964:26–968:3 [Russian translation: TCO 56. pp. 490–494]), where this quote is placed. Here, among other things, it is said: “If we do not understand the way of Divine affairs, then, removing our minds from all doubt, let us say to God: We know that you can do all things, but nothing is impossible for You (Job 42:2); Let us not ask Him about His daughters and sons,” that is, about the way in which He makes us sons through adoption, the mystery of which Nicodemus cannot understand in any way (Durand 1964. P. 238. Note 1). St. Cyril uses this participle only for variety, without establishing any semantic difference from συγκείμενος; elsewhere in the DI he uses the same συγκείμενος (702:4, p. 128:5) to describe the Incarnation, along with συγκεῖσθαι (DI 688:27, p. 102:25) (Durand 1964, p. 240. Note 1). RF: But someone will probably ask us: (57:19). RF: And we will say: (57:20). RF: after unity (57:21). Perhaps this term indicates a division weaker than if it were said “two persons” (δύο πρόσωπα). In the letter “On Right Faith to Queens” (RF ad aug., ACO 1, 1, 5, 37:20–27) he uses the same adjective (διπρόσωπον ... λόγου σχήμα), thereby defining a feature of biblical speech that distinguishes between a person and the spirit in him, or the spirit and heart (Durand 1964, p. 241, note 2). One can compare this with the interpretation of Theodore of Mopsuestia on Rome. 1, 1–4 in his “Catechetical Discourses” (Theodore de Mopsueste. Les Homélies Catechetiques / Ed. R. Tonneau // StT 145. 1949. P. 209–211. Cp.: Wordbook studies. Christian documents in siriac, arabic and garshüni, edited and translated with critical apparatus by A. M. Mingana. Vol. V. Cambridge, 1932. P. 91): “For when he speaks of the Son, who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh, he is sure that this name of the Son is given to one who is from the descendants of David, and, moreover, not at all to God the Word, but to the image of a servant who was adopted by Him. Indeed, the point is not that God became flesh, much less that God appeared among the descendants of David. But blessed Paul calls the man who was adopted for our sake as Son, and it is obvious that it was him” (Durand 1964. P. 244. Note 1). RF: This mystery is deep; but only for those who dispose separately (58:24). A similar comparison of the unity of Christ with the unity of man, consisting of two parts, soul and body, can be found in St. Cyril and in other works written before 428. In the “Interpretation of the Prophet Isaiah” (Comm, in Is., PG 70, 973: 16–18 [Russian translation: T C O 56. P. 501]) he says that the Word dwells in the flesh, “as the soul in the human body.” More expressive examples are from the Commentary on the Gospel of John. Here the saint twice (Comm, in Joan. 2, 543:24–27 and 3, 155:5–24 [Russian translation: Creations 2002. P. 605 and 885–886]) very clearly uses this anthropological comparison against the doctrine of the “two Sons” (Durand 1964. P. 246. Note 1). RF: appears to be insignificant (59:18). RF: God and man alike (59:20). RF: firm and skillful (59:34–60:1). RF: I'm not unaware that some will ask (60:13). RF: but does not neglect to appear (δοκεῖν) to be in humiliation because of human things (60:21–22). The replacement may not be entirely successful: the presence of the verb δοκεῖν may suggest that the humiliation of the Word made flesh is only an appearance (Durand 1964, p. 250, note 1). RF: Divine Paul indeed (60:2 8-29). RF: Isn't what I said true? Let us also recall (61:18–19). St. Cyril in “Glaph. in Pent., PG 69, 277: 10–16 [Russian translation: Creations 2001. P. 171]), when describing how Jacob asks about the name of the One who fought with him (Gen. 32, 29), says: “God does not announce His name, showing and through this is what He is by His nature. A name may not have any meaning for God, as it does for a person. However, on the basis of His natural properties He is called differently, namely as light, and life, and strength, and truth, the only begotten, and radiance and the image of Him who gave birth, mercy and wisdom, and truth and deliverance.” St. Isidore Pelusiot explains in one of his letters (Isid. Peius. Lib. 1, Ep. 453, PG 78, 432:20–30 [Russian translation: Works of St. Isidore Pelusiot. Part 1. M., 1859. P. 255]) that before the incarnation the name of God was “not named” and from the person God gives the following answer to Jacob, who asks what His name is: “It is not for the law, nor for those who live before the law, to know this. But at a later time, when the fulfillment of times comes and human sins multiply, having become man, I will be called Jesus, which means Savior; because for the salvation of sinners I will complete this economy” (PG 75, 1229. Note 9 [Bonaventura]). This passage can be interpreted in different ways. Despite the apparent idea that in addition to adoption by grace, kinship with God by nature is also available to us (as, for example, the learned Oratorian of the 17th century Thomassin understood this passage), in this case St. Kirill does not directly state this. Although he sometimes speaks of our “natural connection” (De Trin. 500:16 τὸ ἐν σχέσει φυσικῇ συναφές) with the Word made flesh, in reality he always maintains a distance between Christ and us: “we are called sons and gods, although not by nature, as He is, but by grace" (Thés. 24, PG 75, 409:39–40: φυσικῶς ὥσπερ αὐτὸς, ἀλλὰ γε κατὰ χάριν). We are sons of God only by adoption, Christ only by nature (since in Him there is no special human person to whom kinship by adoption would be appropriate). Also, “in Him, and in Him alone,” human nature is free from sin and crowned with the beauty of innocence (Schol., A CO 1, 5, 1, 219:29–30) (Durand 1964. P. 256. Note 1). RF: It remained what it was even when it became a man, being crowned with the most excellent and highest glory (62:3-4). RF: insofar as He is thought of by God (62.13). The expression μέρος κόσμου is often found in St. Cyril (Schol., PG 75, 1374 A ...pars mundi; Adv. Nest., ACO 1, 1, 6, 38:14; RF ad Dom., ACO 1, 1, 5, 101:15–16; Quod unus sit Christus 769:5), as well as the similar μέρος κτίσεως (“part of creation” – De Trim, 508:36, 509:5, 509:12; Adv. Nest., ACO 1, 1, 6, 58:34). Cp. at St. Athanasius the Great: μέρος τοῦ ὅλου (“part of the whole” - Athan. Alex. De incarn. Verbi, 43, 4, 5. TLG 2035/2 [Russian translation: Ce. Athanasius the Great. Creations. T. 1. M., 1994. P. 246]) and μέρος τῶν κτισμάτων (“part of creatures” – Athan. Alex. Er. ad Adelph., PG 26, 1076:1 [Russian translation: Ce. Athanasius the Great. Creations. T. 3. P. 304]). As such, the expression μ€ρος κοσμου is found mainly in the context of anti-Apollinarian polemics, for example in the second book of St. Athanasius (Athan. Alex. De incarn. contra Apoll., PG 26, 1137:28 and 1144:2 [Ce. Athanasius the Great. Works. T. 3. P. 344 and 347]) (Durand 1964. P. 258. Note 1). RF: O Christ-loving king (63:1–2). RF: The Word begotten of God the Father (63:3). RF: superiority (63:8). RF: However, he who opposes this opinion will ask: (63:11). St. Cyril is busy interpreting this Gospel verse (John 4:22) in each of his anti-Arian writings. When reading the “Treasure of the Holy and Consubstantial Trinity” (Thés. 9, PG 75, 117: 33–51), one may get the wrong impression that it sets out a certain scenario that God the Word agrees to play: He speaks on behalf of man, with humiliation in speech, which is appropriate for the economy (οἰκονομικῶς). However, in the Dialogues on the Holy Trinity (De Trin. 6. 623:1–624:30) it is more clearly expressed that Christ, in a state of humiliation as a man and a Jew, does not refuse worship. Both the “Interpretation of the Gospel of John” (Comm, in Joan. 1, 276:6–284:13 [Russian translation: Creations 2001. pp. 638–644]) and the later work “On the Right Faith to the Princesses” (RF ad aug., ACO 1, 1, 5, 31:29–32:3) come close to this point of view. Also in this case, it is clear that Christ does not act for show: He responds from the side of one of the “component realities” of the God-man, “worshipping humanity”, which needs to be glorified. In the “Scholia on the Incarnation of the Only Begotten” (Schol., PG 75, 1407: 30–44), in which the generally unusual for the theology of St. Cyril has a “dualistic” tendency, he clarifies that Christ worships and accepts worship according to different natures (secundum aliud et aliud). However, even here he does not analyze the psychology of Christ as a worshiper and very soon returns to the “vertical” view of the Incarnation: in the very depths, Christ remains the One to whom worship is given as due (Durand 1964, p. 262, note 1). RF: But I can answer that to say this “Who” in relation to Christ is completely obscene and ignorant, because He was not divided in any way (63:13-14). RF: from worshiping humanity and from worship-receiving Deity, having in truth that He should be and be called together God and man (63:15–17). RF: can be verified (64:24). RF: became human (64:25). The same example of a man born blind was much later than St. Cyril will repeat in the “Scholia on the Incarnation of the Only Begotten” (Schol., PG 75, 1408: 3–18; Greek text ASO 1, 5, 1, 11–27) and in the message “On the Holy Symbol” (Er. 55, A SO 1, 1, 4, 55: 30–37 [Russian translation: Acts 1996. P. 575]). Likewise in the “Commentary on the Gospel of John” by St. Kirill, explaining John. 9, 37 (Comm, in Joan. 2, 199:17–201:16 [Russian translation: Creations 2002. pp. 335–336]), makes one of the most powerful and accurate critical statements against Christological dualism before 428 (with the mention of the expression “man of Christ”). As in DI (680:4, pp. 88:16–17), he accuses those who hold the doctrine of the two Sons of being Christians only in appearance (Durand 1964, pp. 266, note 1). 2 The meaning of this verb in St. Cyril is well illustrated by the “Commentary on the Gospel of John” (Comm in Joan. 1, 383: 4–19 [Russian translation: Creations 2001. P. 721]), which says that the ineffable Divine nature can be accessible to our perception only through the deeds that it performs. Therefore, the Apostle Paul commands from the greatness and beauty of creatures “to go accordingly (ἀναλόγως ἰέναι) to the contemplation of the Creator.” Likewise, the Savior refers to the testimony of His works and certifies that His Father is visible in Him. The following are quoted from the often repeated St. Kirill In. 10, 37–38 and John. 14, 9. The same words of Scripture “from the beauty of creatures, comparatively (ἀναλόγως) the Author of their existence is known” (Wisdom 13:5) are also cited in the “Interpretation of the Prophet Isaiah” (Comm, in Is., PG 70, 752:46–47 and 816:1–2 [Russian translation: TCO 56. pp. 262 and 327]). However, the word ἀναλόγως does not have a strictly technical meaning related to the conclusion by which we ascend from creation to the Creator. The same “Commentary on the Gospel of John” twice (Comm, in Joan. 2, 412:9 and 412:26 [Russian translation: Creations 2002. P. 505–506]) uses it to show how one can infer from the actions and existence of the Son about the actions and existence of the Father. And further John is quoted. 10, 20 and John. 14, 9 (Durand 1964. R. 268. Note 1). RF: without waiting for the combination (65:28). St. Cyril only once notes the uncleanness that infects human nature, spreading through carnal pleasure (De ador., PG 68, 1008: 3–4 [Russian translation: Creations 2000. P. 657]). Usually he only emphasizes the superiority of celibacy (De ador., PG 68, 960:22–30 [Russian translation: Tvoreniya 2000. P. 629]; Comm, in Is. 5, 3, PG 1248:42–47 [Russian translation: T C O 57. P. 300]). In addition, Christ, by His presence in Cana, canceled the curse given to Eve “in illness you will give birth to children” (Gen. 3, 1 6), sanctified the “transition into being” of the human nature headed by Him (Comm, in Joan. 1, 201: 3–17 [Russian translation: Creations 2001. pp. 578–579]; Er. 17, ACO 1, 1, 1, 40:10–16 [Russian translation: Acts 1996. P. 197]) (Durand 1964. R. 272. Note 1). The RF adds the ending of the verse here: to be justified by faith in Him (66:2). RF: unmerged (ἀσυγχύτως) intertwined (66:4). Obviously, the addition was made in order to eliminate any interpretation of this verb in the “sinusian” sense (Durand 1964, p. 273, note 2). RF: But we will inevitably agree that sama (66:16–18). RF: But tell me if we are talking (66:20–21). RF: And if anyone asks: (66:31). RF: he will also hear from us in response: (66:32). RF: because He is not devoid of Divine attributes in His own nature (67:16–17). That is, in RF we are talking about Christ no longer as a man, but as God, Who, even in the Incarnation, did not lose the properties of His nature. Apparently, here too St. Cyril sought to exclude any possibility of understanding humanity in Christ as existing separately (Durand 1964, p. 278, note 1). RF: can anyone (67:21). The predominantly soteriological approach of St. Cyril’s approach to issues of Christology is especially clearly manifested in this discussion about the Eucharist, which is considered mainly as a means of our deification: it is the unity of the flesh with the Word, Life by nature, that makes it capable of communicating life. The Antiochian theologians talk about this sacrament quite differently: for them, this is primarily a question not about the final goal of the sacrament, but about its “structure.” According to them, the Eucharist is established through one spiritual element and another material, each retaining its own nature (so that they apparently exclude what was called “transubstantiation” much later). Then, by analogy, they apply this scheme to the Incarnation. Thus, Eutherius of Tyana, condemned at the Council of Ephesus along with Nestorius, writes in his “Refutations” (Confutationes): “The mysterious bread is of such a kind, we can say this, that it does not matter what the earthly bread is; but at the same time they believe and say that this is the body of Christ. If you consider this bread solely in its nature, then what you take is simply bread; but if you believe in the grace of the Spirit united with it, then what you receive is truly the body of Christ. Then what? Since you perceive the Spirit with your mind, and the body with your gaze, will what you perceive be two loaves instead of one? Or is it better, since there is one bread and there is one body, should we not receive the bread or reject the Spirit, so that it does not appear that we are receiving two bodies? ...Thus it is possible for a thing to be composed of two elements and yet be one” (Ficker C. Euterius von Tyana, Ein Beitrag zur Gechichte des Ephesinischen Konzils vom Jahre 431. Leipzig, 1908. P. 20–21) (Durand 1964. P. 279. Note 2). RF: properties of natures through convergence in economy (68:7–8). St. Cyril already used this passage (John 3, 12–13) in his “Commentary on the Gospel of John” (Comm, in Joan. 1, 224:14–29 [Russian translation: Creations 2001. pp. 596–597]), speaking against Christological dualism: the Lord will take upon Himself what is characteristic of the flesh, and “refers to the church from the Virgin” that which is characteristic of the Word, thereby eliminating any division of Him into two persons (εἰς δύο πρόσωπα). In another place of the same work (Comm, in Joan. 2, 734:22–735:1 [Russian translation: Creations 2002. P. 755]) he contrasts the idea of ​​a “God-bearing” man, which is held by some who “do not understand the depth of the sacrament,” with the true teaching that through union with the flesh “God, who exists by nature, was called and became truly a Heavenly Man.” He expresses the same teaching about Christ, the Heavenly Man, based on the same verses from the Gospel of John, in other works written both before and after 428 (Er. pasch. 8, PG 77, 569:15–42; Er. 39, ACO 1, 1, 4, 17:25–18:26 [Rus. trans.: Acts 1996. P. 542] and Schol., PG 76, 1406: 6–18). From this DI passage it is not possible to conclude whether St. Cyril in view of any false interpretation of John 3:12–13. However, still St. Gregory the Theologian accused the Apollinarians that, when interpreting this Gospel passage, they concluded that the flesh of Christ came down from heaven (Greg. Naz. Ep. 101, 30: 1–7. TLG 2022/2 [Russian translation: S et. Gregory the Theologian. Creations. Vol. 2. STA, 1994. P. 10]). St. Gregory of Nyssa exposes Apollinaris’s attempt to deprive Christ, who “descended from heaven,” of his affinity with earthly man (Greg. Nyss. Antirr. adv. Apoll., 3, 1, 138:25–139:15. TLG 2017/8 [Russian translation: Works of St. Gregory of Nyssa. Part 7. M., 1868. pp. 69–70]). In his later dialogue, “That Christ is One” (Quod unus sit Christus 723:16–22) St. Cyril already clearly assumes this possible ambiguity and seeks to eliminate it: “Christ is considered a heavenly man, not as if He brought His flesh to us from heaven, but because the Word, being God, came down from heaven. And although He acquired resemblance to us, having undergone birth in the flesh from a woman, yet even with the flesh He remains the One Who He was, that is, of course, the One Who is from above, from heaven and above all, as God” (Durand 1964, p. 282. Note 1). RF: Obviously, I guess (68:21). RF: After all, this is exactly how we will reason (68:21). RF: cannot die in any way, unless, of course, he remains within the limits of his own nature (69:7). RF: appeared as a man (69:19). RF: and the Virgin Mary (69:26). RF: How can this not be true? But these very yesterday and today, O Christ-loving king, can point to the present and the past (68:27-29). RF: This is the One of whom I said: (John 1:15) (70:15–16). RF: But probably someone will say: (70:18). RF: a little reasoning will show us (70:20–21). RF: Then we will inevitably have it (70:23–24). RF: Tospodevi (70:26), which also corresponds to the Slavic translation. RF: find out immediately (70:29). Both in this dialogue and in other writings (Ep. pasch. 8, PG 77, 568:34–38 and Quod unus sit Christus 726:19–21), St. Cyril explains that the name of Christ fits the Word only by virtue of the anointing and, therefore, refers to the Incarnation. But like the Apostle Paul in the verse quoted here, he often uses the name of Christ in connection with the Word and before His reception of humanity. Thus, in the “Interpretation of the Prophet Isaiah” (Comm, in Is. 3, 5, PG 70, 844: 32–33 [Russian translation: TCO 56. P. 358]) it speaks of Jesus Christ, who in ancient times spoke through Moses. In the books “On Worship and Service in Spirit and Truth” (Deador. 9, PG 68, 625:16–18 [Russian translation: Creations 2000. P. 429]) it is explained that angels are holy “only through Christ alone, in the Holy Spirit” (Durand 1964. R. 294. Note 1). RF: binding together (συνδέων εἰς ἕνωσιν) the strength of the properties inherent in each of them (71:12). RF: both in her and with her (71:23). RF: So who are we talking about that He plunged into death and came to life again, if not the Son, which is obvious? But what about the Son, anyone will agree with this. Then what's the question? Here's what: (71:29–31). RF: But isn’t it clear to everyone that, like Life, It is stronger than death? (71:33). RF: So we say that (72:1). RF: so that they may see that He has become Lord of all, Who even before the flesh reigned with His Father (72:5-6). RF: Peter (72:14), which appears in some DI manuscripts and corresponds to the text of Acts (Durand 1964, p. 298). Analyzing the discrepancies in the manuscripts, J. Durand believes that the erroneous mention of the name of the Apostle Paul instead of the Apostle Peter, possibly made by St. himself. Kirill, was corrected by him in RF (Durand 1964. R. 298. Note 1). RF: and incomprehensible unity (ἕνωσις) (72:21). St. Cyril in the pre-Destorian period often uses συμπλοκή and cognates to describe the incarnation. For example: “the Word born from God the Father is in some way twisted through a plexus as if with flesh (διὰ τῆς οἱονεὶ πρὸς σάρκα συμπλοκῆς)” (De ador., PG 68, 636:5–7 [Russian translation: Creations 2000. P. 434]); “The Word, being God, seemed to be intertwined (πέπλεκται) with flesh and blood” (Glaph. in Pent., PG 69, 561: 2–3 [Russian translation: Creations 2001. P. 353]); “The word is, as it were, intertwined (ενεπλάκη) with flesh and blood” (Glaph. in Pent., PG 69, 632 A [Russian translation: Tvoreniya 2001. P. 398]). He also uses συμπλοκή in the seventeenth “Easter Homilia”, 429 (Er. pasch. 17, PG 77, 776:14). Therefore, for some time at the beginning of the Nestorian disputes, he did not consider it necessary to abandon this expression, which he had previously used so freely (Durand 1964, p. 299, note 2). Πρᾶγμα is the first term that St. Cyril used to refer to the two natures in Christ. In other cases, he simply uses a neuter adjective, for example, ἐκ δυοῖν τελείοιν, “of the two perfect” (DI 694:35. P. 115:14–15; Glaph. in Pent. PG 69, 297:30 [Russian translation: Creations 2001. P. 184]). Defending his first anathematization before Theodoret, he identifies πρᾶγμα and ὑπόστασις (Apol. contra Theod., ACO 1, 1, 6, 112:15–16 [Russian translation: Acts 1996. P. 449. True, this use of the two is not conveyed here synonymous words]). In the second book "Against Nestorius" he uses this term first in relation to man, composed of two dissimilar "things", soul and body (Adv. Nest., ACO 1, 1, 6, 33:8 ...ἄνθρωπος γὰρ εἶς ἀληθῶς ? 557]), and then in relation to Christ (Adv. Nest., ACO 1, 1, 6, 33:32 ...ἐκ δυοῖς καὶ ἀνομοίων πραγμάτων. See also Er. 1, ACO 1, 1, 1, 18:18–19; ACO 1, 1, 38:6 [Russian translation: Acts 1996. P. 195]; ACO 1, 1, 7, 40:27 and 43:33 424]; Comm, in Joan. 2, 694:7–8 2002. P. 724: “connecting two sides together” ]). in the eighth “Easter Homily” he reinforces his formula ἐκ δυοῖν πραγμάτοιν with the authority of St. Athanasius: “Thus, as our most pious father and bishop Athanasius said in his writings, in the same [Christ] there was a combination (σύνοδος) of two things dissimilar in nature (δύο πραγμάτων ἀνομοίων κατὰ τὴν φύσιν), of course, Deity and humanity. But one of both (ἐξ ἀμφοῖν) is Christ” (Ep. pasch. 8, PG 77, 572:1–6). Among the works of St. Athanasius can find a similar expression only in the first book of “Against Apollinaris,” where it is said that the name Christ “contains the meaning of both (ἑκατέρων τῶν πραγμάτων), both Divinity and humanity” (Athan. Alex. De incarn. c. Apoll., PG 26, 1116:26–28 [Russian translation: St. Athanasius the Great. T. 3. pp. 329–330]. J. Durand, although he categorically denies the authenticity of the books “Against Apollinaris,” nevertheless fully admits that St. Cyril refers specifically to them as the creation of St. Afanasia. At St. Cyril, the limiting point in the development of this formula will be the expression ἐκ δύο φίσεως (“of two natures”) in the first letter to Sukkens (Er. 55, ASO 1, 1, 6, 153:21). As is known, the Greek bishops defended this expression for a long time at the Council of Chalcedon, until they were forced by the Roman legates to replace it with the more impeccable ἐν δύο φίσεσιν (“in two natures”) from the Epistle of St. Pope Leo the Great (Durand 1964, p. 299, note 3). You might be interested in: