Book against John of Jerusalem, to Pammachius

The treatise “The Book against John of Jerusalem, to Pammachius” was written by Bl. Jerome of Stridon in 396-397. or 398-399 in order to refute the attacks of St. John of Jerusalem on the bl. Jerome, Paulinian and St. Epiphany of Cyprus. After a short introduction, the author consistently refutes the “Apology” of St. John and offers his version of the conflict between him and St. Epiphanius of Cyprus. He shows that St. John rejected as errors only 3 of Origen’s 8 doctrinal positions, passing over the rest in silence. With the help of numerous references to Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition, Blessed. Jerome proves that St. John, in a letter to Bishop Theophilus, did not clearly express the church faith even on those questions on which he gave an answer: about the equal knowledge of the Persons of the Holy Trinity, about the origin of souls and about the resurrection of the flesh. Blzh. Jerome teaches that Adam's soul was created at the same time as his body. Likewise, even now the souls of people are created daily by God, Who never ceased to be the Creator. For a person, the resurrection of the flesh that he had during life is natural: “without flesh and bones, without blood and members, the truth of the resurrection cannot be understood.” God “without a doubt can, by the same power with which he created everything out of nothing, restore what existed, because to restore what existed is of little importance than to create what did not exist.” The author of the treatise also saw confirmation of the truth of the resurrection of the flesh in the Resurrection of Christ. According to the blessed Jerome, people will be resurrected at the same age (just as Adam and Eve were created in adulthood), will live in bliss and glory, gaining immortality. In the future life there will be no marriage and there will be no need for daily consumption of food, since God, by His omnipotence, can support the strength of people in a way unknown to us. At the end of the essay, the author returns to the development of the conflict between St. John and St. Epiphanius, which became aggravated after the ordination of Paulinian. *The title of the work in Latin is Contra Ioannem Hierosolymitanum. If, according to the Apostle Paul, we cannot pray for what we feel, and the word does not express the thoughts of our own mind, then is it not all the more difficult to judge the mind of another and to follow and understand the basis of words and expressions? Human nature is inclined to indulgence and in the sin of others, everyone indulges in his own (sin). And so, if you reproach him for errors of language, he will call it simplicity; if you accuse him of cunning, he will admit to lack of skill in order to avoid suspicion of malicious intent. And thus you, the denouncer, will turn out to be a slanderer, and he, the denounced one, will be recognized not as a heretic, but as an ignoramus. You know, Pammachius, you know that I began this work not out of enmity, not out of a desire for glory, but was prompted by your letter out of zeal for the faith, that I want, if possible, for everyone to think the same thing, and that I cannot be blamed for impatience and irritability if I speak three years later. Finally, I would have decided to remain in my former silence if you had not said that the Apology, about which I now intend to write, has outraged the minds of many and opinion is wavering on one side or the other. So let Novatus depart, who does not give his hand to those who sin, and let Montanus be struck down with the mad women, who casts the fallen into the abyss so that they do not rise. We all sin every day and fall in some way. So, being indulgent towards ourselves, we do not restrain cruelty towards others: even more, we ask, strive, beg, so that the other either sincerely excuses our misdeeds or openly defends those of others. I don’t want ambiguity in words, I don’t want to be told something that can be understood differently. With a frank face let us behold the glory of God (2 Cor. 3:18). Once upon a time, the people of Israel were limping on both legs. But Elijah, which means: “mighty of the Lord,” said: “As long as you keep churches on both your branches; If the Lord God is, follow him; if Baal is, then follow him (1 Kings 18:20). And the Lord himself about the Jews: the sons of strangers lied to me, the sons of strangers made promises, and kept from their paths (Ps. 17:45-46). Of course, if no suspicion of heresy can fall on him (which is what I wish and believe), then why does he not convey my thought through my words? What he calls simplicity, I interpret as maliciousness. He wants to convince me that he is a pure believer; let him speak purely. And if one word were ambiguous, or one thought, if two, if three, I would forgive ignorance and would not interpret as true and undoubted that which is either dark or doubtful. And now what kind of simplicity is this, as if walking through a theater, hanging on eggs and needles, when everything is doubtful, everywhere suspicious? You think he is writing not a statement of faith, but a figurative objection. What he is now looking for is what we taught in schools a long time ago. He fights against us with our weapons. Even if he is a good believer and speaks prudently and cautiously, his excessive caution makes me suspicious. Those who walk simply walk in hope (Prov. 10:9). It is stupid to endure dishonor in vain. Guilt is placed on him, which he is not aware of. Let him firmly reject the accusation, which all rests on his word, and do not hesitate to expose his enemy (St. Epiphanius). Let him defend himself with the same courage with which he accuses him. And when he says everything he wants, whatever he assumes is free from suspicion, then, if the slander continues, let him be brought to justice with an authoritative hand. I do not want anyone to patiently endure suspicion of heresy, so that those who do not know his innocence, if he remains silent, do not consider his modesty to be consciousness, although it is unnecessary to demand personal presence and force the silence of the one whose letters you have. We know everything that he wrote to you, what he accused you of, what (as you wish) he slandered you of. Answer everything, follow his entire message, without omitting a single point or an iota of slander. For if you handle things carelessly and (as I believe in your oath) accidentally leave something out, he will immediately scream and say: here, here you are in my hands, here is the essence of the whole matter. Enemies and friends do not listen equally. The enemy looks for a knot in the reed, a friend considers the crooked to be straight. Secular literature, which you have completely neglected, occupied with sacred books, says that the judgment of lovers is blind. Never boast about your friends' judgment. The testimony that is spoken by a hostile voice is true. Otherwise, if a friend speaks for you, he will be considered not a witness or a judge, but biased towards you. Your enemies will say this or in a similar way, who, perhaps, will not believe you and will want to laugh at you. However, I, whom you have never intentionally insulted, or whom you have always been forced to let go in your messages, I give advice either to openly confess the faith of the church or to say how you believe. For this wise discernment and weighing of words can lead the unlearned astray. A careful listener and reader will soon notice the pitfalls, and will clearly discover the undermining by which the truth is undermined. And the Arians, whom you know very well, because of their scandalous name, pretended for a long time that they condemned ὁμοιούσιον, and lubricated the poison of error with the honey of words. But finally the writhing serpent revealed itself and the harmful head, covered with the rings of the body, was struck by the spiritual sword. The Church, as you know, accepts the repentant, and, overwhelmed by the large number of sinners, caring for the lost flocks, forgives the wounds of the shepherds. In the old and in the new heresy, the same custom is now observed, that the people hear something else, and the shepherds preach another. And firstly, before I present in this book with interpretations your letter, which you wrote to Bishop Theophilus, I need to sue you. What kind of pride is this - not to answer questions about faith, to consider such a multitude of brothers and monks who do not communicate with you in Palestine as open enemies? The Son of God, for one lost sheep, leaving ninety-nine in the mountains, endured strangulation, a cross, and scourging, and, condescending to the weak sinner, took her on his shoulder and brought her to heaven. And you, most blessed pope and proud primate, the only rich, the only wise, the only noble and educated - how do you, with a frowning brow and slanting eyes, despise your fellow servants and those redeemed by the blood of the Lord? Is this what you learned from the apostle who commands you to be always ready to give an answer to everyone who asks you about the hope that is in you (1 Pet. 3:15)? Imagine that we are looking for a reason and, under the pretext of faith, we sow discord, create a schism, and stir up strife. Take away the reason from those who are looking for a reason, so that, having satisfied regarding faith and untied all the knots that are woven against you, you can clearly show everyone that the dispute is not about dogmas, but about dedication. Is it perhaps with a prudent purpose that you remain silent when answering questions about faith, so as not to appear like a heretic by answering the questions? People should not renounce all the wrongdoings of which they are accused, so that after renunciation they do not find themselves guilty. You also despise the laity, deacons and presbyters, because you can (as you boast and are proud) make a thousand clergy in one hour. You have Pope Epiphanius, who clearly calls you a heretic in the letter he sent you. Of course, you are no greater than him, neither in age, nor in intelligence, nor in life’s merits, nor in general respect. If you ask about years, then you, a young man, write to an elder; if it’s about intelligence, then you are not as educated as a scientist, although your friends prove that you are more eloquent than Demosthenes, wittier than Chrysippus, wiser than Plato, and you yourself may have been convinced of this. But I won’t say anything more about life and faith, so that it doesn’t seem like I’m insulting you. At a time when the entire East (except for Pope Athanasius and Paulinus) was dominated by the heresy of the Arians and Eunomians, when you did not communicate with the Western confessors, exiled into exile between East and West, Eutyches, still a presbyter of the monastery, listened to him and later, when he was Bishop of Cyprus, Valens did not bother him. For he always enjoyed such respect that the reigning heretics considered it dishonorable if they began to persecute such a man. So write to him. Answer his message; let others know your aspirations, eloquence, intelligence, so as not to seem to yourself the only smart one. Why, called by one, do you turn your weapon in the other direction? They asked you in Palestine, and you answer Egypt. When others have eye pain, you apply pain-free eye rub. If you speak to another with the aim of pleasing us, then this is quite proud; if you say something different, and not what we demand, then this is quite unnecessary. But you say: my message was approved by the Bishop of Alexandria. What did you approve? Well said against Arius, against Photinus, against Manichaeus? For who accused you of Arianism at that time? who now accuses you of the error of Photinus and Manichaeus? All this has long been exposed and refuted. You were not so stupid as to defend a heresy that you knew was not approved by the church. You knew that if you did this, you would immediately be moved from your place, and you would feel sorry for the comforts of your throne. You have softened your opinion so as not to be displeasing to the simpletons and not to offend your own. You wrote well, but nothing relevant. How did the high priest of the Alexandrian Church know what you were accused of, what they demanded of you to confess your faith? You had to present what was stated to you and thus answer everything separately. An old story tells: when someone spoke eloquently and was carried away in a stream of pompous phrases, but did not touch upon the matter at all, then an intelligent listener and judge said: “Okay, good, but why is it so good”? Inexperienced doctors use one lotion for all eye diseases. He who is accused of many things and, while making excuses for the accusations, leaves something out, confesses to what he is keeping silent about. Why didn’t you respond to Epiphanius’ message and yourself proposed points for resolution? Of course, you answered in the belief that no one hits themselves too hard. Choose from the two what you want. You will be given a choice: you either responded to Epiphanius’ message or not. If you answered, then why did you omit the most important and most of what was said against you? If you didn’t answer, then where is your Apology, in which you boast before the simpletons and, as if they do not know the matter, spread it here and here? Eight chapters of questions regarding the aspirations of the Christian faith are raised against you (as I will now show). You only touch three, and that’s it. Regarding others, there is great silence. If you had unconditionally answered seven, then I would still cling to you on one charge and would hold on to what you kept silent about. And now you seem to have caught a wolf by the ears: you can’t hold it, and you’re afraid to let it go. You even talk about these three accusations casually and briefly, as if with disdain and carelessness, as if doing something else, and you only talk about what either there is no point in, or there is a slight bewilderment. And thus you act, covering yourself and hiding, so that you confess more by silence than justify yourself by expressing your thoughts. Who cannot tell you right now: if there is light in you, there is darkness in you, then there is darkness (Matthew 6:23)? If the three objections about which it turned out to be possible for you to say something are not free from suspicion and accusation, and are exposed as being written falsely and dodgyly: then what can we say about the five others, regarding which, since they did not give any reason for ambiguous speeches, and you could not deceive the listeners, you preferred to remain completely silent than to confess directly, as was fair? And firstly, about the book περὶ ἀρχῶν, where he says: for just as it is incongruous to say that the Son can see the Father, so it is incongruous to think that the Holy Spirit can see the Son. Secondly, that souls are imprisoned in this body, as it were, and before man was in paradise, they were with rational creatures in heaven. Hence, subsequently, for the consolation of its soul, it says in the psalms: first, do not even humble yourself, I have sinned (Ps. 119:67) and: turn my soul to your rest (Ps. 114:7) and also: bring my soul out of prison (Ps. 141:8), and other similar things. Thirdly, which says that both the devil and demons will one day bring repentance and in the last time they will reign with the saints. Fourthly, that leather vestments, according to his interpretation, are the human bodies with which Adam and Eve were clothed after the Fall and expulsion from paradise, and there is no doubt that before in paradise they were without flesh, veins and bones. Fifthly, he very clearly denies the resurrection of the flesh with the reunification of the members and with the sex by which we men differ from women - he denies it both in the explanation of the first psalm and in many other treatises. Sixthly, that paradise allegorizes in such a way that it destroys historical truth, meaning angels instead of trees, heavenly virtues instead of rivers, and by tropological explanation destroys the entire content of paradise. Seventhly, he considers the waters that are spoken of in Scripture as above heavenly to be holy and higher powers, and the waters that are above and below the earth to be nasty and demonic. Eighthly, what in conclusion stands against him is that he says that the image and likeness of God, in which man was created, was lost by him and did not exist in man after paradise. These are the arrows with which they pierce you, these are the spears with which they wound you throughout the whole church, except for the one who, falling at your feet, presenting you with his holy gray hair and putting aside for a time the privilege of the priesthood, begs you for your salvation and speaks to you in these words: “Most beloved! give me and yourself the joy of your salvation, as it is written, from a corrupt generation, and depart from the heresy of Origen and all heresies.” And below: “Because of the defense of heresy, by inciting hatred against me, you break the love that I had for you, so much so that you made us repent why we had in common with you, who so defend the errors and opinions of Origen.” Tell me, fair questioner, which of the eight chapters did you answer? For now I’m keeping silent about the others. The first blasphemy is that neither the Son of the Father nor the Holy Spirit can see - with what arrows did you strike? “We believe, says that the Holy and worshiped Trinity is of one and the same being and co-eternal, of the same glory and divinity, anathematizing those who speak of anything great or small, or unequal, or visible in the deity of the Trinity. But just as we call the Father incorporeal, invisible and eternal, so we call the Son and the Holy Spirit incorporeal, invisible and eternal.” If you had not said this, you would not have adhered to the church; and yet I am not complaining, if you have not said this before, I will not tell you whether you loved those who preached this, with whom you were, when those who said this suffered exile, who, while the presbyter Theon was preaching in the church that the Holy Spirit is God, covered his ears and with his accomplices fled out of the church, so as not to hear this cleansing sacrifice. Without hesitation, he says, I want to be faithful, although I turned late. The despised Praetextatus, who, having been appointed consul, died, a blasphemous man and a worshiper of idols, used to jokingly say to Pope Damasus: make me bishop of the city of Rome, and I will now become a Christian. Why do you prove to me with long speeches and quirky periods that you are not an Arian? Either say that the one who is denouncing did not say this, or if he did say this, then condemn him for what he said. Do you want to know what kind of zeal should be for the right of believers? - Listen to the apostle: and if we, or an angel from heaven, preach the good news to you, let him be anathema (Gal. 1:8). To ease the guilt, and hiding the name of the culprit, as if everything was fine and no one was accused of blasphemy, you, with skillful speech, expound to me your impeccable faith. Say it immediately, let your message begin like this, anathema to the one who dared to say this. Pure faith does not tolerate slowness. As soon as a scorpion appears, it should immediately be trampled. David, who was after the Lord’s heart, says: Have I not hated those who hate you, O Lord, and for all your faults? I hated them with complete hatred (Ps. 139:21-22). If I had heard such words from my father, if from my mother, if from my brother, I would have torn those blasphemous lips apart like a rabid dog, and my hand would have been on them first of all. Those who said to their father and mother: we do not know you, they fulfilled the will of the Lord. Whoever loves father or mother more than Christ is not worthy of Him (Matthew 10:37). They say against you that your teacher, whom you call Orthodox, whom you defend with all your might, said: “The Son does not see the Father, and the Holy Spirit does not see the Son”: and you tell me “the invisible Father, the invisible Son, the invisible Holy Spirit,” as if angels and cherubim and seraphim are not by nature invisible to our eyes. So David, doubting whether he sees the heavens, says: I will see the heavens, the works of your finger (Ps. 8:4), I will see, but I do not see. I will see when with a frank face I contemplate the glory of the Lord, but now we see in part and we understand in part (1 Cor. 13:9). They ask if the Son sees the Father, and you say: “The Father is invisible.” They are discussing whether the Holy Spirit sees the Son, and you answer: “The Son is invisible.” The question is whether the Trinity sees itself mutually; human ears cannot bear such blasphemy, and you say: “The Trinity is invisible.” You launch into other songs, ranting about things that no one is asking about. You take the listener in a different direction so as not to talk about what is being asked. But this is said unnecessarily. We concede to you that you are not an Arian, and even more so, that you have never been one. We agree that in the presentation of the first chapter there is no suspicion against you and that you said everything purely, everything sincerely; with the same sincerity we speak to you. Did Pope Epiphanius accuse you of being an Arian? Did he reproach you for the heresy of Eunomius ἀθέον (the godless) or Arius? Throughout the entire letter there is a complaint that you follow the errors of Origen's opinions and have some accomplices of this heresy. Why, when you are asked about one thing, answer another, and talk as if you were fools - keeping silent about the accusations contained in the message, you tell what you said in church in the presence of Epiphanius? They demand from you a confession of faith, and you, against your will, offer your most eloquent treatises? I ask you, reader, remembering the judgment of the Lord and knowing that you will be judged according to your judgment, do not condone either me or my opponent and look not at the faces of the competitors, but at the case. So let's say that we have started. You write in your letter that before Paulinian became a presbyter, Pope Epiphanius never communicated with you regarding the error of Origen. The first point is dubious, and I'm arguing about faces. He says that he reproached, you deny; he presents witnesses, you don't want to hear those presented. He mentions that there was another intercourse; you deny both; he sends you a letter through his cleric, demanding an answer: you are silent, you don’t dare make a word, and summoned to trial in Palestine, you speak to Alexandria. Between him and you, whom I would like to believe, it is not my business to be a lawyer. I think that against such and such a famous husband, you yourself do not dare to attribute to yourself the truth, and to him the lie. But maybe each of you speaks for himself. I will call you as a witness against you. For, if there was no dispute about dogmas, if you did not disturb the peace of the elder, if he did not answer you, then what was the need for you, a person not very eloquent, to discuss all the dogmas in one church treatise: about the Trinity, about the acceptance of the body of the Lord, about the cross, about hell, about the nature of angels, about the state of souls, about the resurrection of the Savior and ours - to write about something that maybe you forgot, speak fearlessly in the presence of everyone and such and such a great man, and sow everything together in one field, without intervals? Where are the ancient teachers of the church, who in many books could hardly develop on one issue? Where is the chosen vessel, the trumpet of the Gospel, the roar of our lion, the river of Christian eloquence, which is more amazed at the mystery previously unknown to generations, and the depth of the riches of the wisdom and understanding of God, than expresses it (Rom. 11:33; Col. 1:26)? Where is Isaiah, pointing out the Virgin, who, exhausted in one question, says: who can confess His generation? (Isa. 53:8). In our times, there has been found a small man who, with one turn of his tongue, explains all the issues of the church more clearly than the sun. If no one had asked before and everything was calm, then it was unreasonable for you to want to take up so much trouble in arguing. If even then you spoke to satisfy requests regarding faith, then the reason for the discord was not in the ordination of the presbyter, who, as we know, was ordained much later. You have deceived those who are absent, and your message flatters the ears of others. We were here, we all know, when Pope Epiphanius spoke against Origen in your church, when arrows were thrown at you under his name. You and your choir, grimacing with a dog’s mouth and nostrils, scratching their heads, said with their faces that the old man was going crazy. Didn't you, when you sent the archdeacon to the Holy Sepulcher, order that those who were discussing this be silent? What bishop ever gave such an order to his presbyter before the people? When you walked from the place of the resurrection to the place of the cross and a multitude of people of all ages and sexes gathered to him, bringing children, kissing his feet, clutching at his clothes, and when he could not walk, but in one place could hardly withstand the waves of the crowd pressing on him, did you not, tormented by envy, then shout at the glorious old man? You were not ashamed to tell him to his face that he was deliberately and deliberately slow. Please remember that day when the assembled people were held back until the seventh hour by the hope of listening to Epiphanius: “What were you preaching then?” Of course, you spoke with anger and indignation against the anthropomorphites, who in ignorant simplicity think that God has members, which are spoken of in the divine books; but you turned your eyes and hands and whole body to the elder, wanting to cast suspicion on him of the stupidest heresy. After you fell silent, tired, with dry lips, throwing your head back and trembling lips, and finally fulfilling the desire of the whole people, what did the crazy and stupid old man do to you? He stood up to show that he would speak a little, and, greeting the church with word and hand 1, said: “Everything that my brother, my son by age, said to the meeting against the heresy of the anthropomorphites, he said well and Orthodox, and all this is condemned by my voice. But it is required that, just as we condemn this heresy, we also condemn the perverse opinions of Origen.” I think that you remember what general laughter and exclamations followed. This is what you say in your message, that he preached to the people what he wanted and how he wanted, otherwise: he who spoke in your kingdom against your opinion was crazy. What I wanted and how I wanted it. Either praise or scold. Why are you acting ambiguously here too? If what he preached was good, why don’t you say it outright? If it’s bad, why don’t you reproach it decisively? But let's see how the pillar of truth and faith, who dares to talk about such a great man as if he told the people what he wanted, let's see how he, prudently and modestly, how humbly he speaks about himself. “When, he says, we once preached before him, in the hearing of him and the whole church, and the ordinary reading (of the Gospel) called us to this, then about faith and all church dogmas we said what we have always, by the grace of God, continually taught in church and during catechumens.” Tell me, what is this self-confidence, what is this arrogance? All philosophers and orators blame Gorgias of Leontinus because, having installed a public pulpit, he dared to promise that he would answer whatever subject anyone asked him about. With what strength and indignation would I reproach you for your testimony, if I were not restrained by reverence for the priesthood and respect for the name, and if I did not know this apostolic saying: I do not know, brothers, that there is a bishop: for it is written: To the prince of your people, do not speak evil (Acts 23:5; Exodus 22), - although you yourself you belittle the dignity of your name when in deed and word you humiliate the father of almost all bishops and a monument to ancient holiness. You say that once, when ordinary reading was called upon, in the hearing of him and the whole church, you discussed faith and all church dogmas. Now one can marvel at Demosthenes, who, they say, worked on his excellent speech against Aeschines for a long time. In vain do we suspect Tullius: because Cornelius Nepos says that in his presence, in almost the same terms as it (Demosthenes' speech against Aeschines) was published, it was said (by Cicero) in defense of Cornelius, the tribune of the attacker. Here is our Lysias, here is Gracchus, and - to add something new - Quintus Aterius, who was always ready to speak, so that he could not remain silent without a prompter, and about whom Caesar Augustus beautifully said: “Our Quintus must be slowed down.” Who among the smart and healthy-minded will assure that in one church treatise he spoke about the purpose of the sermon and about all church dogmas? I ask you to show me what kind of reading this is, combining in itself the whole essence of the Scriptures, which gave you reason to suddenly descend to the danger of insanity? And if you were not overcome by a stream of eloquence, it would be possible to prove to you that you could not speak about all the dogmas at once. But what is it? You promise one thing and do another. Our custom is that for those who are to be baptized, we publicly communicate the holy and worshiped Trinity within forty days. If ordinary reading caused you to speak about all the dogmas in one hour, then what is the need to reveal the teaching over the course of forty days? And if you expressed what you said throughout the entire Pentecost, then how did one reading prompt you to speak on all the dogmas on one day? But even here he speaks ambiguously: because it may be that what he usually conveyed in church to those who were to be baptized within forty days—he embraced all this in connection with one reading. For the same eloquence can express both a little in many words and a lot in a few. But even then it is clear that after he was aroused by one reading, inflamed with the zeal of teaching, he never fell silent for forty days, and the idle old man, who depended on his lips, wanting to learn unheard of things, fell almost sleepy. Be that as it may, everything must be endured; Perhaps he expressed this naively, as was his custom. Let us state the rest, where, after the labyrinths of tortuous bickering, he presents not a doubtful, but a clear thought, and concludes his amazing reasoning with this ending: “When we expressed this in his presence, and for the honor that we showed him above all measure, he himself was called to speak: then he approved of our preaching and marveled at it and declared to everyone that this is the Catholic faith.” How much respect you showed him beyond all measure is proven by the insults shown to him beyond all measure - when, through the archdeacon, you ordered him to remain silent and reproached him with ambition when he slowed down in the crowd of people. The present speaks of the past. From that time on, for three years he kept his grievances to himself, and, leaving aside personal troubles, he demanded only correction in faith. And you, rich in means and who receives income from the piety of the whole world, send those very important ambassadors of yours here and there, and force the deceased elder to answer. And truly it was right for him whom you had so dishonored to praise your words, especially what was said without preparation. And since people usually sometimes praise what they do not sympathize with, and satisfy other people’s stupidity with undeserved praise, he not only praised your words, but also marveled at them, and, to no small miracle, announced to all the people that these words were Orthodox. As he rightly said this, we are witnesses to this, who heard, to whom he, embarrassed by your words, came, saying in despair that he entered into communication with you in vain; and when the whole monastery asked him to return to you from Bethlehem, then, yielding to the requests of so many, he returned to you in the evening so much that he ran away at midnight. This is also proven by the letter to Pope Sirius, which if you read, you will see how he was surprised at your words and declared them catholic. But we occupy ourselves with trifles and in a long speech weave old wives' tales. Let's move on to the second question, in which, as if he was not reproached for anything, he pretends to be carefree and peacefully sleeping in order to make his readers sleep. “But we also talked about other things related to faith, that is, that the creator of everything visible and invisible, heavenly powers and earthly creatures, is one and the same God, that is, St. The Trinity, as blessed David says: by the word of the Lord the heavens were established, and by the spirit of His mouth all their power (Ps. 33:6), which, in particular, is shown by the creation of man. For He is the One who, taking dust from the earth, formed man, and by the grace of His own inspiration, bestowed a rational soul and free will - not some part of His nature (according to some who wickedly preach this), but His own property. And they believe the same about the holy angels, according to the word of divine Scripture, which says about God: angels create their spirits and their servants a fiery flame (Ps. 103:4), regarding which Scripture does not allow us to believe that they are by nature unchangeable, saying: the angels, who did not observe their superiors, but left their habitation for the judgment of the great day, were kept in eternal chains under darkness (Jude 1:6), since they changed, and we know that from their own dignity and glory they have more and more passed into the category of demons. And that the souls of people come from the fall of angels or from conversion - we have never believed or taught this (for let it not be!) and we confess that this is alien to church preaching.” We ask: before man was in paradise and Adam was formed from the earth, were souls among the rational creatures, did they have their own state, did they live, act, and were divided into classes, and is the teaching of Origen true, who said that all rational creatures, incorporeal and invisible, if they are careless, little by little descend to the lower, and in accordance with the qualities of the places into which they descend, they take on bodies, for example, first ethereal, then airy; and when they reached the regions closest to the earth, they were clothed with coarser bodies, finally united with human flesh, and that the very demons, who of their own volition with their prince the devil retreated from serving God, if little by little they begin to correct themselves, are clothed in human flesh, so that finally, having repented, after the resurrection, by the same rotation in which they passed into the flesh, they return to the regions close to God, having freed himself even from the airy and ethereal bodies, and then will everything bow its knee to God, from the heavenly and the earthly and the underworld, and God will be all in all? - So, when the question is about this, why do you, leaving out what they argue about, leaving the arena and place of struggle, dwell on extraneous and very distant issues? You believe that all visible creatures were created by one God: this is also confessed by Arius, who says that everything was created through the Son. If you were convicted of the heresy of Marcion, which, introducing one good God and another just, teaches that the former is the creator of the invisible, and the latter of the visible, then you would directly satisfy me on a question of this kind. You believe that the creative principle of everything is the Trinity. The Arians and Semi-Arians deny this, blaspheming that the Holy Spirit is not the creator, but the created. But who recognizes you as an Arian at this time? You say that human souls are not part of the nature of God, as if Epiphanius now called you a Manichaean. You abhor those who teach that souls are made of angels, and say that their fall is our nature. Do not pervert what you know, and do not invent with simplicity which you do not have: Origen never said that souls are made of angels, when he teaches that angels themselves are the name of office, and not of nature. For in the books of περί ἀρχῶν he says that angels and thrones, and dominions, and powers, and the rulers of the world and darkness, and every name that is named not only in the present age, but also in the future, are the souls of those bodies that they received either by will or by service. Even the sun and the moon itself, and the choir of all the stars, are the souls of once intelligent and incorporeal creatures, which are now subject to vanity, i.e. fiery bodies, which we, foolish and ignorant, call the luminaries of the world, will be freed from slavery to corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God. Therefore, all creation groans and suffers. And the apostle mourns, saying: I am a damned man, who will deliver me from the body of this death? (Rom. 7:24). Now is not the time to write against the opinion of the pagans, and in particular Plato. I think that the thought of my mind for the wise was set out almost ten years before this in the commentaries on Ecclesiastes and in the explanation of the letter to the Ephesians. I now ask that you, who say so much and resolve all issues in one treatise, answer those who demand a brief and decisive opinion. When God formed man from the earth and, by the grace of his own breath, gave him a soul: did it exist and exist before, and where was this soul, which was subsequently bestowed by the divine breath, or did it, by the power of God, begin to exist and live on the sixth day, when the body was formed from the earth? You are silent about this, and, pretending not to know what they are asking about, you are busy with unrelated issues. You leave Origen untouched, and you burst out against Marcion, Apollinaris, Manes, Arius and the absurdities of other heretics. They ask you for your hand, and you extend your leg; and yet you secretly carry out the opinion you hold. You satisfy us simpletons to such an extent that you don’t completely offend your own people. You say that angels become more demons than souls, as if the demons themselves, according to Origen, are not the souls of the airy body, and demons cannot subsequently become human souls if they are corrected. You write that angels are changeable, and under that which is pious, you also introduce that which is ungodly; so that after many periods, souls become not from angels, but from those names into which those who were formerly angels turned. I want to clarify what I'm saying. Imagine that someone, deprived of the dignity of a tribune for his misconduct, is reduced through all the positions of the court military service to the rank of private; does he really become a private from a tribune? No, but first as a primicerium, then as a senator, 3 a centurion, a centurion, a biarch 4, a circitor 5, an equestrian, finally a private, and although the former tribune turns out to be a private, however, from a tribune he became not a private, but a primicerium. Origen teaches that rational creatures on Jacob's ladder descend little by little to the lowest level, that is, to flesh and blood, and that it cannot be that someone from a hundred suddenly descends to one, unless through all the numbers, like through the steps of a ladder, he goes even to the last, and changes as many bodies as he changes dwellings from heaven to earth. Such are your cunnings and tricks with which you call us Pelusiots and dumb and spiritual people, for we do not accept what is the essence of the spirit. You Jerusalemites ridicule even the angels. Your mysteries are exhibited, and a dogma composed of pagan fables is preached to Christian ears. What you are surprised at we rejected long ago from Plato. And they rejected it because they accepted the foolishness of Christ. They accepted the foolishness of Christ because man is wiser than the foolishness of God. Christians and priests of God are not ashamed, as if it were a matter of humor, to hide behind ambiguous words and waver in vague thoughts, with which the speaker is more misled than the listener (1 Cor. 1:25). One of your choir, when I pressed him to tell me how he thinks about the soul, whether it existed before the body or did not exist, answered that both body and soul existed together. I knew that the heretic man resorted to tricks in his words. Finally, I found that he says that the soul has been called soul since that time, since it animate the body, and before it was called either a demon, or an angel of Satan, or the spirit of fornication, or, on the contrary, dominion, power, a ruling spirit, or a messenger. If the soul was in some rank and rank, and before Adam was formed in paradise, and lived and showed its activity in some way (for we cannot imagine the incorporeal and eternal soul as inactive and numb in the likeness of sleepwalkers), then it is necessary that some reason preceded it, why it, having previously been without a body, was then clothed with a body. And if it is natural for the soul to be without a body, then it follows that to be in a body is contrary to its nature. If it is unnatural to be in the body, then the resurrection of the body will be unnatural. But the resurrection will not be unnatural; therefore, in your opinion, a body for which it is unnatural to be resurrected will not have a soul. You say that the soul is not from the being of God. Fine. For you condemn the most wicked Manes, whom even to name is desecration. You say that souls are not made of angels. They calmed down somewhat, although I know in what sense you said this. So, having learned what you deny, we want to know what you believe. “Taking,” you say, “dust from the earth, God formed man and, by the grace of his own breath, gave him a rational soul and free will, not a part of his nature (according to some who wickedly preach this), but his property.” Look at the way in which he expresses something that is not what we are asking about. We know that God formed man from the earth, we know that He breathed into his face, and man became a living soul; we also know that the soul is rational and has free will; we also know that this is a property of God. No one doubts that Manes is mistaken when he says that she is a being of God. I now ask about this - this soul, the property of God, a soul with free will and rational, and not from the essence of the Creator - this soul, when it was created, - was it at the time when man was created from dust and the breath of life was blown into his face, or did it exist before and was and acted among rational and incorporeal creatures, was it then bestowed by the breath of God? Here you are silent, here you pretend to be a simpleton, and under the word of Scripture you hide what is not in the thought of Scripture. In the place where you talk about what no one asks - that it is not a certain part of the divine being (according to some who wickedly preach this), you should rather have said what we all ask about - that it is not the one that was before, not the one that God created before, which had already lived for a long time between rational and incorporeal and invisible creatures. You don’t say anything like that, you expose Manes to us and hide Origen, and just as small children, when they ask for food, nannies give some toys to distract their thoughts, so you, simpletons, divert us to other subjects, so that, carried away by the news of another person, we do not ask for what we want. Suppose you do not say this, and your simplicity does not contain anything that you would keep silent about with cunning. So why, having once begun to talk about the soul and to treat such an important subject from the beginning of human creation, why do you, without resolving the issue, suddenly move on to the angels and the distribution of the body of the Lord and, leaving such an important controversial point in sight, allow us, in doubt, to suspect unclean thoughts in you? If the breath of God (which you do not want, and which you now leave in doubt) is the beginning of the human soul: then where did Eve get her soul, in whose face God did not breathe? I will leave Eve, who, having been created from the rib of her husband into the image of the church, should not, after so many centuries, endure reproaches from her descendants. Cain and Abel, the first of the first people, where did they get their souls from? Finally, to what origin does the entire human race owe the origin of souls? Is it really by transmission, like dumb animals, that just as body is born from body, so is soul born from soul? or were rational creatures, which, as a result of the desire of bodies, little by little fallen to the ground, were finally united with the human body? Or really (which is in accordance with the teaching of the church) according to the words of the Savior: My Father works hitherto, and I work (John 5:17) and as Isaiah says: create the spirit of man in him, and as the psalms say: having created their hearts in one (Ps. 32:15) - God constantly creates souls, and He, for whom to will means to create, does not cease to be a creator? I know that you usually speak against this and point out adultery and incest against us: arguing about this is too long and the shortness of time does not allow. The same objection can be directed against you, and everything that seems unworthy in relation to the Creator at the present time is not unworthy when He bestows a soul (to Adam). Birth from adultery is not the fault of the one who is born, but of the one who gives birth. Just as what sins in the field is not the earth, which warms, not the seed, which is thrown into the furrows, not the moisture and warmth, under the influence of which the seed produces a plant (but, for example, a thief and robber who steals what is sown by deception or force), so at the birth of people, the earth, that is, the womb, takes what is given to it, and warms what is received, what is warmed puts on flesh, clothed in flesh. divides into members. And among these secret narrow passages of the womb the hand of God always acts: and one and the same is the Creator of both body and soul. Do not humiliate the goodness of your scoundrel, who blinded you and did as he wanted. He is God's power and God's wisdom, who made a home for herself in the womb of the Virgin (Heb. 19). Jephthah, who was made an apostle among the holy men, is the son of a harlot. But listen, from Rebekah and Isaac was born Esau, shaggy in both spirit and body - as if good wheat degenerates into chaff and tares, for the cause of vices and virtues lies not in the seeds, but in the will of the one being born. If it is humiliating to be born in human bodies: then how did Isaac (Gen. 18) Samson (Judg. 13), John the Baptist will be born according to the promise? Do you understand what it means to boldly and freely practice your faith? Consider me wrong, I openly say what I think. So you either freely acknowledge ours, or firmly say yours. Do not place yourself in my ranks so that, pretending to be a simpleton, you can, if you want, hit your enemy from the rear. Now is not the time to write against the opinions of Origen: we will devote this, if Christ gives life, to another work. The question now is whether the accused has answered the questions and whether his answer is sincere and direct. From here we move on to the notorious question of the resurrection of the flesh and body, and I again ask you, reader, to be sure of what I say, and you must listen with fear and the judgment of God. For I am not so stupid as to look for a reason for an accusation, if in its presentation the faith is pure and there is no suspicion of wrong-thinking, - I am not so stupid that, wanting to convict another of untruth, I myself will be convicted of slander. So read the following about the resurrection of the body, and, having read and approved (because I know it will please the ignorant), refrain from judgment, wait a little, and postpone the verdict until the end of our answer, and if you still like it, then reproach us for slander. “We confess His suffering on the cross, and His death, and His burial, which preserved everything, and His resurrection - true, and not imaginary; He, the firstborn from the dead, raised the firstfruits of the composition of our bodies to heaven, laid in the tomb and resurrected, in the resurrection of his own body, giving us the hope of resurrection, which is why we all hope to rise from the dead in the same way as He rose - not in any other third-party and alien bodies that appear in a ghost, but as He Himself rose in the body that was hidden with us in the holy tomb, so we we hope to be resurrected in the same bodies with which we are now clothed and in which we are now buried, in the same mind and in the same visible form. For, according to the Apostle, what is sown in corruption will arise in incorruption, and what is sown in dishonor will arise in glory. The spiritual body is sown, the spiritual body is raised (1 Cor. 15:42–44); teaching about this, and the Savior said: he who has been deemed worthy to obtain the resurrection from the dead, neither marry nor commit violence, nor die, for they can do so; “But they will be like the angels of God, for they are sons of the resurrection” (Luke 20:35–36). Again, in another part of the epistle, that is, at the end of his reasoning, in order to deceive the ears of the ignorant, the glory and greatness of the resurrection is not clearly depicted in such ambiguous expressions: “But we did not omit the second glorious coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, who will come in his glory to judge the living and the dead: for he himself will raise up all the dead and bring them before his judgment seat, and will reward everyone according to what he has done through the body or good or evil, that is, he will either receive a reward in the body for living holy and righteously, or he will be condemned for working through lusts and unrighteousness.” In this section we see proof of what we read in the Gospel - that at the end of the world, if possible (Matthew 24), even the elect will be offended. The uneducated people hear about the dead and buried, hear about the resurrection of the dead truly, and not imaginary, hear that the firstfruits of the composition of our bodies in the body of the Lord are raised to heaven, hear that they will be resurrected not in third-party and alien bodies that appear in the ghost, but just as the Lord was resurrected in the body that lay in our holy tomb, so on the day of judgment we will be resurrected in the same bodies with which we are clothed and in which we are buried. And so that no one considers this insufficient, he adds in the last chapter: “And everyone will be rewarded according to what he has done through the body, either good or evil, that is, he will either receive a reward in the body for living chastely and righteously, or will be condemned for working through lusts and unrighteousness.” Listening to this, uneducated people in this chatter of expressions: the dead, the buried body, the resurrection - do not suspect any cunning, no tricks. He believes that this is so, as they say, because the ears of the people are holier than the soul of the priest. Again and again I ask you, reader, to be patient and learn what I also learned through patience; and however, before I reveal the dragon's appearance, and briefly outline Origen's opinion about the resurrection (because if you do not see the poison, you will not be able to recognize a strong antidote), carefully note and carefully count this: nine times calling the resurrection of the body, he never said flesh: you should have a suspicion that he deliberately avoided this expression. Origen in many places, and mainly in the fourth book on the resurrection, and in the exposition of the first psalm and in the Stromata, says that the church maintains a double error - ours and heretical - “that we, simpletons and lovers of the flesh (pliilosarcas), say that on the last day the same bones and blood and flesh will be resurrected, that is, the face and members and the skeleton of the whole body, for this purpose, that is, to walk with our feet, to work with our hands, to see with eyes and ears to hear, to carry an insatiable belly and a stomach that digests food; and from this it follows that we who believe this say that we will need to eat, drink, excrete, emit moisture, get married, give birth to children. For why are there generative members if there is no marriage? Why have teeth if you don't have to chew food? Why belly and food, if, according to the apostle, both this and this will be abolished, as he also cries: flesh and blood will not inherit the kingdom of God, lower than corruption is incorruptibility? (1 Cor. 15:50) This, he claims, is what we naive and simpletons say. “And the heretics, among whom are Marcion, Apelles, Valentinus, Manes - the name of madness 6 - completely deny the resurrection of both flesh and body and assimilate salvation only to the soul and (argue that) in vain we say that we will be resurrected in the likeness of the Lord, when the Lord himself was resurrected in a ghost, and not only His resurrection, but also the very birth of τῷ δοκεῖν, i.e. seemed more mental than it was 7 . But he (he says) does not like either opinion and he flees both from our flesh and from the ghosts of heretics, because both are opposite extremes, when some want to be the same as they were, while others completely deny the resurrection of bodies. There are, he says, four elements, known to both philosophers and doctors, from which all things and human bodies are composed - earth, water, air and fire. Earth is recognized in the solid parts of the body, air in breath, water in moisture, fire in warmth. So, when the soul, according to God’s definition, leaves this mortal and cold body, then little by little everything returns to the initial substances: solid parts of the body decompose into the earth, breath mixes with the air, moisture returns to the reservoirs of water, heat flies into the air. And just as if sextary 8 you poured milk or wine into the sea and wanted to separate again what was mixed with water, then although the poured wine and milk did not perish, it cannot be separated from the poured water: so the substance of flesh and blood, although it does not perish in the primary elements, does not return to its previous composition and cannot be completely the same as it was.” And when this is said, hard muscles, liquid blood, rough nerves, intertwined veins, hard bones (in the resurrection) are denied. “In a different sense, we confess the resurrection of those bodies that were laid in coffins and decomposed into dust: that the body of Paul will be Paul’s and Peter’s and Peter’s and each will be the body of each, for it is incongruous for souls to sin in some bodies and suffer in others, and it is not characteristic of a righteous Judge for some bodies to shed blood for Christ while others are crowned.” Who, hearing this, will think that he denies the resurrection of the flesh? “Moreover, he says, in each seed, the Creator God invested a certain foundation, which in the elements of the core contains the future composition of the plant. And just as in a seed, although such an enormity of a tree, trunk, branches, fruits, leaves are not noticeable, they nevertheless exist in the fundamental principle of the seed, which the Greeks call σπερματικόν λόγον, And as in a grain of bread there is a core or vein inside, which, having decomposed in the ground, attracts surrounding elements and grows into straw, leaves, ears, and one dies, and another is resurrected, because in a grain of wheat it is not the roots, trunk, leaves, ears, chaff that decompose: - so in the fundamental principle of human bodies there are certain initial prerequisites (antiqua principia) of resurrection, and in the bosom of the earth it warms up, as it were, ἐντερι ώ νη, that is, the seed of the dead. And when the day of judgment comes and the earth shakes with the voice of the Archangel and the last trumpet, the seeds will immediately begin to move and in the blink of an eye will revive the dead, but however, they will not resurrect the same bodies and not in the same forms as they were. If you want to be convinced of the truth of my words, listen to the apostle: but someone says: as the dead rise, in what body they will come; foolishly, you have not seen the body of the future, but the naked grain, if it happens, of wheat, “vineyard and tree” (1 Cor. 15:36–37). And since we have already partly spoken about the grain of wheat and the seed of trees, now let’s talk about the grain of the grape. The grain is small, so you can barely hold it with two fingers. Where are the roots? where is the branchy interweaving of roots, trunk and branches? where are the shady foliage, where are the beautiful grapes producing future wines? What we hold is dry and barely noticeable to the eye; but from this dry grain, by the power of God and the action of the principle hidden in the seed, foamy wine will flow. You recognize this for a tree, but you do not recognize it for a person: what is about to perish is decorated to such an extent; that which has to abide will not receive again the former humiliation. Do you want again flesh, bones, blood, limbs, so that with growing hair you need a barber, so that your nose produces phlegm, so that you need to cut off growths of nails, so that either excrement or lust is ejected through the lower parts? If you imagine such absurdities, then you forget about the seemingly hostile flesh, in which we cannot please God, and about the resurrection of the dead. It is sown into corruption, it is raised in incorruption: it is sown in honor, it is raised in glory, it is sown in weakness, it is raised in strength. A spiritual body is sown, a spiritual body is raised (1 Cor. 15:42–44). Nowadays we see with our eyes, we hear with our ears, we act with our hands, we walk with our feet. And in this spiritual body we will see completely, we will hear completely, we will act completely, we will walk completely: and the Lord will transform the body of our humility into conformity with the body of His glory. When he said: he will transform, i.e. μετασχηματ ί σει, then this denies the diversity of terms that we now use. We are promised a different spiritual and ethereal body, which is neither touchable, nor seen with the eyes, nor burdened with weight, and will not change according to the difference in the places in which it will be located. Otherwise, if there will be the same flesh and body as they were, then again (there will be) men and women, again marriages, men will have thick eyebrows, a long beard; Women have pretty cheeks, narrow chests, and for conceiving and giving birth to children, they have wide bellies and loins. Even children will be resurrected, and old people will also be resurrected: some will have to breastfeed, others will have to lean on sticks. And do not let the resurrection of the Lord deceive you, O simpletons, - that He showed His side and arms, stood on the shore, traveled with Cleopas and said that He has flesh and bones. That body, not born from the seed of man and the lust of the flesh, has other advantages. After His resurrection, He ate food and drank, and appeared in clothes, allowing Himself to be touched, in order to instill faith in the resurrection among the doubting apostles. However, He does not hide the nature of the airy and spiritual body. For he enters through locked doors and in the breaking of bread disappears from sight. Therefore, after the resurrection, we will also be able to eat and drink and excrete feces after eating? And where will this promise be: it is fitting for this mortal to put on immortality? (1 Cor. 15:53). This is the whole reason why, in the presentation of your faith, in order to deceive the ears of the ignorant, you name the body nine times, and never name the flesh; because people think that you recognize the flesh in the body, and that the body and the flesh are one and the same. If they are the same thing, they do not mean different. For I know what you will say: I thought that the body was the same as the flesh: I said it simply. Why don’t you rather say flesh to denote body and indifferently use first flesh, then body, so as to denote body in flesh and flesh in body? But believe me, your silence is not for nothing. Because flesh means something else, and body means something else. Flesh is actually that which is covered with blood, veins, bones, and nerves. Although flesh is also called body, sometimes it refers to the ethereal or airy body, which is not subject to touch and vision, although for the most part the body is visible and tangible. The wall is a body, but not flesh; stone is a body, but is not called flesh. Therefore, the apostle calls heavenly bodies and earthly bodies. Celestial body - sun, moon and stars. Earthly things - fire, air, water, earth and other things that do not have a soul - are determined by these elements. Do you see that we understand your subtleties and bring to light the secrets that you express on beds and among the perfect, and which the people standing outside do not deserve to hear? This is what you, putting your hand to your ear and snapping your fingers, mockingly say: all the glory of the king’s daughter is within (Ps. 44:14), and: the king will lead me into his bed (Song. 1:3). It is clear why you spoke about the resurrection of the body, and not the flesh: so that we, simpletons, would think that by the body you were talking about the flesh, and those who are perfect would understand that by the body the flesh is denied. Finally, the apostle, in his letter to Colossae, wanting to show that the body of Christ is carnal, and not spiritual, airy, light, he spoke expressively, saying: reconcile you also who are sometimes alienated and enemies in evil deeds in the body of his flesh by his death (Col. 1:21-22). And again in the same epistle: they were quickly circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, having put off the body of sinful flesh (Col. 2:11). If body means only flesh and is not an ambiguous concept and cannot be attracted to different meanings, then he completely unnecessaryly calls corporeal and carnal, as if flesh is not understood in the body. In the symbol of our faith and hope, which, having been handed down from the apostles, is not written on paper and ink, but on the tablets of the heart of flesh, after the confession of the Trinity and the unity of the church, the entire mystery of Christian dogma is contained in the resurrection of the flesh. But you insist so much on the word and repeating the body and again the body and the third time the body and even up to nine times the body, and you never call flesh what they (the apostles) always call flesh and do not call body. But know that we also understand what you subtly introduce and what you hide with prudent foresight. For you prove the truth of the resurrection by those testimonies that Origen denies, and, asserting what is false about doubtful matters, you destroy the faithful house of faith with a sudden storm. “The spiritual body is sown,” he says, “and the spiritual body is raised. For they neither marry nor commit violence, but they will be like angels in heaven.” What other evidence would you take if you denied the resurrection? You want, as you say, to confess the resurrection truly, and not imaginary. Having tickled the ears of the ignorant that we will be resurrected in the same bodies in which we died and were buried - add better and say this: how the Lord, after the resurrection, showed the wounds from the nails on his hands, showed the wound from the spear in his side and, when the apostles doubted, because they thought that they were seeing a ghost, said: touch me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones, as you see me. (Luke 24:39) and Thomas himself: “Put your finger in my hands and your hand in my side and do not be unfaithful, but faithful (John 20:27), so after the resurrection we will have the same members that we use now, the same flesh and blood and bones, whose deeds are condemned by the sacred Scriptures, and not nature. Finally, in the book of Genesis it is written: My Spirit shall not abide in these men, for they are flesh (Gen. 6:3). And the Apostle Paul said about the evil teaching and deeds of the Jews: flesh and blood were not added (Gal. 1:16). And to the saints, who without a doubt were in the flesh, he says: you are not in the flesh, but in spirit, “if, however, the Spirit of God dwells in you” (Rom. 8:9). For by saying that those who were undoubtedly in the flesh were not in the flesh, he condemned not the nature of the flesh, but sins. The true confession of the resurrection is one that so appropriates the glorification of the flesh that it does not destroy its truth. And what the apostle calls this corruptible and mortal (1 Cor. 15), then by this he points to that very body, that is, the flesh that was then before the eyes. And what he adds: having put on incorruptibility and immortality, this does not mean that this is an endowment, i.e. clothing destroys the body, which it adorns with glory, and what was previously inglorious makes glorious, so that, having laid aside the thin clothing of mortality and infirmity, we put on the gold of immortality and, so to speak, the bliss of hardness and strength, desiring not to be carried away by the flesh, but to be re-clothed in glory, and striving to change our habitation, which is in heaven, so that mortal things may be consumed by life. Of course, only the one who was previously clothed is re-clothed. And our Lord was transfigured in glory on the mountain (Matt. 17; Mk. 9) not so that he lost his arms and legs and other members and suddenly began to rotate in the round shape of the sun or a ball, but the same members, shining with sunlight, blinded the eyes of the apostles; That’s why His clothes changed into white, and not into the air, so that somehow you wouldn’t claim that His clothes were spiritual. And His face, he says, shone like the sun (Matthew 17:2). And if it is called a face, then I think that other members were also visible. Enoch was transfigured in the flesh. Elijah was taken into heaven fleshly (Gen. 5:24; 1 Kings 2): not dead, but already residents of paradise, they have members with which they were taken and transfigured. What we imitate through fasting is what they have in communion with God. They feed on the bread of heaven and are satisfied with all the word of God, having the same Lord as their food. Listen to the Savior who says: “And my flesh rests in hope” (Ps. 15:9) and in another place: His flesh does not see corruption (Acts 2:31) and again: all flesh will see the salvation of God (Is. 40:5). Do you constantly humiliate the flesh? Remember better Ezekiel, who, joining bones with bones and bringing them out of their graves and standing on their feet, clothed them with flesh and sinews and covered them with skin on top (Ezek. 37). May Job, the conqueror of trials, thunder, and, scraping the pus of rotten flesh with a shard, may he be consoled in his misfortunes by the hope and truth of the resurrection. “Who,” he says, “will give it to me so that my speeches can be written and printed in a book in iron style and on a lead board, or carved with a chisel on stone? For I know that my Redeemer lives, and on the last day I will rise from the earth and will put on my skin again and in my flesh I will see God: whom I myself will see, and my eyes will see, and not another. This hope of mine is placed in my bosom” (Job 19:23 et seq.). What is clearer than this prophecy? No one speaks so clearly about the resurrection after Christ as he did before Christ. He wants his words to remain forever and so that they are not destroyed by any prescription, he wants them to be carved on a lead board, or with a chisel on a stone. He hopes for the resurrection, he even knows and sees that Christ his Redeemer lives, and that on the last day he will rise again. The Lord had not yet died, but the warrior of the church saw his Redeemer rising from the underworld. And what he adds: “And again I will be clothed with my skin and in my flesh I will see God,” I think that he speaks not as a lover of the flesh, which he saw as purulent and stinking, but through faith in the resurrection, he despises the present, taking comfort in the future. He says again: “I will clothe myself with my skin.” Where is the earthly body here? where is the airy and like the spirit and the wind? Without a doubt, where there is skin and flesh, where there are bones and nerves, and blood and veins, there is an organism of flesh, there is a peculiarity of sex. “And in the flesh,” he says, “I will see God.” When all flesh sees the salvation of God and Jesus God, then I will see the Redeemer and Savior and my God. And I will see in this very flesh, which now torments me, which is now melting away from illness. I will see God in the flesh because He healed all my illnesses by His resurrection. Don't you think that even then Job wrote against Origen, and for the truth of the flesh, in which he suffered torment, he had another dispute - against heretics? For he grieves if he suffered so much in vain, and while other flesh will rise spiritually, this one will suffer bodily. That is why he speaks with effort and expansion, and closes all the secret twists with an open voice, saying: “And whom I myself will see, and my eyes will see, and not another.” If he is not resurrected in his own field, if not with the same members that lay on the rot, if he opens to see God not the same eyes with which he then saw the worms, then where will Job be? You reject what Job lived in and give me the empty word of the resurrected one: if you want to rebuild the ship after a shipwreck, then how do you deny everything from which the ship is built? I will speak boldly, and even if you tear my lips, pull out my hair, trample underfoot, look for the stones of the Jews, I will most openly confess the faith of the church. Without flesh and bones, without blood and members, the truth of the resurrection cannot be understood. Where there is flesh and bones and blood and members, there must necessarily be a difference in gender. Where there is a difference of gender, there is John - John, Mary - Mary. Do not be afraid of the marriage of those who lived in their field even before death without sexual intercourse. When it is said: “On that day they neither marry nor are given in marriage” (Matthew 22:30), it speaks of those who can marry, but do not marry. For no one says about angels: “They neither marry nor are given in marriage.” I have never heard that marriages of spiritual powers take place in heaven; but where there is sex, there is male and female. Therefore, you too, although involuntarily, having been forced by the truth, confessed and said: “either you will receive a reward in the body for living chastely and righteously, or you will be condemned in the body for serving lusts and wickedness.” Throw away the body and put in the flesh, and you have not rejected man and woman. For who lives with the glory of chastity, without having sex, through which unchastity could be committed? For who has ever rewarded a stone for being a virgin? We are promised likeness to the angels, that is, in our flesh and sex we will be given that bliss in which the angels who have no flesh and sex are found. My ignorance believes and understands this way the recognition of gender without gender, the resurrection of people and their likeness to angels. And at the same time, the resurrection of members who will not have their functions will not seem unnecessary, when in this life we ​​strive not to fulfill the functions of members. And becoming like the angels is not the transformation of people into angels, but the perfection of immortality and glory. And those proofs from children and babies, and old people, and food, and excrement, which you use against the churches, are not yours: they originated from a pagan source. For the pagans say the same thing against us. You who call yourself a Christian, leave the weapons of the pagans. It is better for them to learn from you to believe in the resurrection of the flesh than for you to reject it from them. Or, if you are one of the enemies, then boldly declare yourself an enemy in order to accept the blows of the pagans. I give up your nurses to you, so long as the children don’t cry, I give up the aged people, so long as they don’t writhe from the winter cold. And the barbers learned their craft in vain, knowing that the people of Israel for forty years did not experience growth of either nails or hair, and, what’s more, their clothes did not wear out and their shoes did not wear out. Enoch and Elijah, of whom we spoke before, remain for such a long time at the same age at which they were taken. They have teeth, a belly, and reproductive members, and yet they do not need either food or wives. Why do you humiliate the power of God? He, who is able from the core of it and from the first principle of yours, ἐντερι ώ νη, not only produces flesh from flesh, but body, and creates from one another, and water, i.e. despised flesh will be transformed into the expensive wine of an airy body - He can, without a doubt, with the same power with which he created everything out of nothing, restore what existed, because restoring what existed is less significant than creating what did not exist. Are you really surprised if the resurrection of children and old people occurs at the age of a perfect man, when a perfect man was created from the dust of the earth without any transitions of age? The rib turns into a woman; and in the third kind of human condition, the despised and icy elements of our birth are transformed into flesh, bound into members, dispersed into veins, hardened into bones. Do you want to hear about the fourth kind of human birth? The Holy Spirit will come upon you and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. For this reason, what is to be holy will be called the Son of God (Luke 1:35). Otherwise Adam, otherwise Eve, otherwise Abel, otherwise the man Jesus Christ. And in all the different principles one human nature is not different. If I wanted to prove the resurrection of the flesh and all members and add explanations to each piece of evidence, it would require writing many books; but this essay does not require this. For I did not propose to Origen to answer everything, but to reveal the mysteries of a false answer. However, since I have expounded the contrary opinion at length, and I am afraid that, taking care of dispelling lies, I will not leave the reader with a tempting point, I will present evidence in bulk and briefly run through it in order to argue against the poisonous presentation of evidence with all the weight of the Scriptures. Whoever does not have a wedding garment and has not kept the commandment: “Let your garments always be white” is bound hand and foot, so that he does not recline at the feast, does not sit on the throne, does not stand at the right hand of God; he is sent to Gehenna, where there is weeping of eyes and gnashing of teeth (Matthew 22). The hair of your head is counted (Luke 12:7). If it’s hair, then I think it’s easier – teeth. And they are counted in vain if they ever die. The hour is coming, in which all who are in the tombs will hear the voice of the Son of God and will come forth (John 5:28). They will hear with their ears and come out with their feet. Lazarus had already done this before. And they will come out of the graves, that is, the dead, who were previously laid in the graves, will come out and rise from their graves. “For the dew which is from God is medicine to their bones.” Then what the Lord says through the prophet will be fulfilled: my people, go out into your churches, little by little, until My wrath has passed away (Isa. 26:20). Churches mean coffins, from which, without a doubt, comes out what was hidden in them. And they will emerge from their graves like young horses freed from their fetters. Their hearts will rejoice, and their bones will shine like the sun: all flesh will come before the face of God, and He will command the fish of the sea, and they will vomit up the bones that they have devoured, and He will create composition to composition, bone to bone, and those who have fallen asleep in the dust of the earth will rise: some to eternal life, others to reproach and eternal shame (Dan. 12:2). Then the righteous will see the punishment and torment of the wicked: because their worm will not die and their fire will not be quenched, and they will be in the sight of all flesh (Isa. 66:24). Therefore, since we have this hope, insofar as we have turned our souls to the service of uncleanness and unrighteousness to unrighteousness, let us turn them to the service of righteousness for sanctification, so that, having risen from the dead, we will walk in newness of life (Rom. 6:19). Just as the life of the Lord Jesus appears in our mortal body, so He who raised Jesus Christ from the dead will also give life to our mortal bodies because of His spirit who dwells in us (2 Cor. 4:14). For it is righteous that in us, who always bore the death of Christ in our body, the life of Jesus should also be manifested in our mortal body, that is, in flesh mortal by nature and eternal by grace. And Stephen saw Jesus standing at the right hand of the Father (Acts 8), and the hand of Moses turned into the whiteness of snow and then turned back to its former color (Exodus 4). During both transformations, the hand remained. That poor man of Jeremiah, whose vessel he had made had broken due to the hardness of the stones, restored what was broken from the same mass and from the same clay (Jer. 18). But the word rebellion itself shows that it is not another who falls and not another who rises; and the addition: dead indicates that very flesh: for what dies in a person, the same thing is quickened. This ulcerated traveler of Jericho is taken entirely to the inn and the wounds of his sins are healed by immortality (Luke 19). The tombs were also opened in the suffering of the Lord, when the sun disappeared, the earth shook and many bodies of the saints were resurrected and appeared in the holy city (Matthew 27). Who is this, says Isaiah, who came from Edom: his robe is scarlet from Bozrah: “so handsome is he in white clothing” (Is. 63:1). Edom means either “earthly” or “bloody”; Bosor – or “flesh” or “in sorrow.” In a few words he depicts the whole mystery of the resurrection, that is, the truth of the flesh and the exaltation of glory. And the meaning of this is this: who is this one who ascended from the earth, who ascended from the blood (Gen. 49; Is. 63)? His garments, Who tied His lot to the vine and trampled the winepress alone, are red from the wine of Bozrah, that is, from the flesh or the sorrow of the world (John 16), for He has overcome the world. Therefore His garments are red and shining; since He is redder in kindness than the sons of men (Ps. 44) and because of the glory of the triumphant, His clothes were changed to a white robe; and then what was truly said about the flesh of Christ was fulfilled: he who ascends is made white and affirmed about his brother, and what is written in the same book: “my brother is red and white” (Song. 8:5). He is imitated by those who did not defile their clothes with their wives (Apoc. 3), for they remained virgins, having castrated themselves for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. So they will be in white robes. At that time, the word of the Lord will be realized in practice: I will not destroy everything that the Father has given me, but I will raise it up at the last day (John 6:39), that is, the whole person whom I fully received at birth. Then the sheep that perished and wandered in the underworld will be entirely carried on the shoulders of the Lord, and the sheep that were sinfully ill through the mercy of the Judge will receive healing (Luke 15). Then those who beat Him and those who shouted: crucify Him, crucify Him will see Him (John 19:6). Three times and three times they will strike their chests, they and their wives - those wives to whom the Lord, bearing the cross, said: daughters of Jerusalem, do not weep for Me, weep both for yourself and for your children (Luke 23:28). Then the prophecy of the angels will be fulfilled, who said to the astonished apostles: Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking up to heaven? This Jesus, who ascended from you into heaven, will come in the same way as you saw Him going into heaven (Acts 1:11). But what is it like to say that after the resurrection the Lord ate food with the apostles for forty days so that He would not be considered a ghost, and to assert that the very fact that He ate food and appeared with limbs was a ghost? Either what was seen is true, or false. If true, then He truly ate food and truly had members. And if false, then how did He want to show false things in order to prove the truth of the resurrection? For no one proves what is true by what is false. So, you say, will we eat after the resurrection? Don't know. For this is not written; If, however, this is asked, then I think that we will not eat. For I have read that the kingdom of God is not meat and drink, and promises us these without sight, without ear, and without breath in the heart of man (1 Cor. 2:9). Moses and Elijah fasted for forty days and nights. Human nature cannot stand this, but what is impossible for man is not impossible for God. Just as for one who predicts the future, it makes no difference whether he foretells the future ten or a hundred years in advance, because the knowledge of the future is the same: so the one who can fast and live for forty days, or, better yet, cannot fast, but lives by the power of God, will be able to live forever without food and drink. Why does the Lord eat honeycomb? To prove the resurrection, and not to promise honeyed foods to your mouth. He asked for fish baked on fire to confirm the doubting apostles who did not dare to approach Him, thinking that they saw the spirit and not the body (John 20). The daughter of the arch-synagogue is resurrected and takes food, the four-day-old Lazarus is resurrected and he is led to eat (Mark 5; John 11) - not because he was hungry in hell, but because the extraordinary nature of the event required full verification. As he showed his true hands and his true rib, he truly tasted food with his disciples, truly walked with Cleopas, truly spoke with his tongue to people, truly reclined at the table, took bread with his true hands, broke it and gave it to them. And what suddenly disappeared from the eyes is the power of God, and not a sign of a ghost or ghost. Once upon a time, even before the resurrection, when He was taken out of Nazareth to be cast down from the top of the mountain, He disappeared among the people, that is, He disappeared from their hands. Can we really say, in agreement with Marcion, that His birth was in a ghost because He unnaturally disappeared from the hands when He was held? Is it impossible for the Lord to do what is possible for the Magi? It is written about Apollonius of Tyana that when he stood in court before Domitian, he suddenly became invisible. Do not equate the power of God with the spells of the Magi, so that it would seem only to exist that which in fact did not exist, and so as to admit that the Lord ate without teeth, walked without legs, broke bread without hands, spoke without a tongue, and showed his side without ribs. How, you say, did they not recognize Him on the way, if He had the same body that He had before? Listen to the Scripture, which says: the eyes were fastened on her, but she did not know him (Luke 24:16) and again: the eyes were opened dumb and knew him (v. 31). Was He really one when He was unrecognizable, and another when He was recognized? Of course He was the same. Consequently, both recognition and misrecognition of Him depended on the eyes, and not on Him Who was visible, although this was His work. For He restrained their eyes so that they would not recognize Him. Finally, so that you know that the error that appeared here did not come from the body of the Lord, but from the imprisoned eyes, he said: the eyes were opened dumb and knew Him (Luke 24:31). Therefore, Mary Magdalene, until she recognized Jesus and was looking for the living among the dead, considered Him a gardener. He recognizes him and calls him Lord. After the resurrection, Jesus stood on the shore, the disciples were on the ship. While others did not recognize Him, the disciple whom Jesus loved said to Peter: The Lord is (John 21:7). For virginity is the first to recognize the virgin body. It was the same, but it did not seem the same to everyone. And immediately it is added: not a single disciple dared to torture him, who You are, knowing that the Lord is (John 21:12). No one dared because they knew that He was God. They ate with the diner because they saw that He was man and flesh - not that there was another God, another man, but one and the same Son of God was known as man, revered as God. Of course, now I need to philosophize that our senses are deceptive, and especially vision. It is necessary to call some Carneades from hell so that he can tell the truth. An oar in the water seems to be refracted, the porticoes from a distance seem very small, the corners of the towers in the distance seem round, the necks of pigeons change color with every turn. When Rhoda announced Peter and told the apostles that he had been freed from great danger, they did not believe, they thought that he was a ghost (Acts 12). Further, that He entered the locked doors was a work of the power of the same One who could disappear from sight. Linceus (as the fables tell) saw through the wall: but the Lord could not enter through the locked doors except as a ghost? Eagles and kites smell corpses from across the sea. But the Savior will not see his apostles otherwise than by opening the door? Tell me, most ingenious questioner, what is more for God: to hang such a huge mass of earth on nothing and set it on the ripples of water, or to pass through a locked door and give the creature over to the Creator? What is more, you admit, and what is less, you deny. Peter with a heavy and hard body walks on the waters: the unsteady wave does not yield; faith doubts a little, and immediately the body understands its nature, so that we know that it was not the body that walked on the waters, but faith. I ask you, who uses such arguments against the resurrection, to speak to me sincerely. Do you believe that the Lord truly rose again in the same body in which he died, or do you not believe? If you believe, then why do you present something that denies the resurrection? If you don’t believe, why do you so deceive the souls of the inexperienced, and throw the resurrection to the wind as an empty word? Listen. Recently someone from the school of Marcion said: woe to him who rises in this flesh and in these bones. The sympathetic mind immediately added: “for we were buried and raised with Christ through baptism” (Rom. 6:4). Are you talking about the resurrection of the soul, or the flesh? I answered: not one soul, but the flesh, which with the soul is reborn in baptism. And how will she perish who has been reborn in Christ? For it is written: flesh and blood will not inherit the kingdom of God (1 Cor. 15:50). I ask you, heed what is said: flesh and blood will not inherit the kingdom of God. Will they not be resurrected? No, but they will not inherit. Why don't they inherit? Because it follows: lower corruption inherits incorruption. So until then, they will not inherit the kingdom of God until they are only flesh and blood. And when the corruptible is clothed with incorruptibility and the mortal is clothed with immortality (1 Cor. 15:53) and the dust of the flesh, burned into an earthen vessel, which at first was pressed into the earth by strong weight, having received the wings of the spirit, changed, but not destroyed, will soar to heaven in a new glory; then what is written will be fulfilled: death was sacrificed in victory: where is your line to death? where is your death, death (Hos. 13:14; 1 Cor. 15:55). We answered in the reverse order about the state of souls and the resurrection, and, leaving the beginning of the epistle, we argued exclusively against his outstanding treatises. For we considered it better to talk about divine objects than about our own squabbles. If a man sins against his husband, they will pray for him to the Lord; if he sins against the Lord, who will pray for him? (1 Samuel 2:25). Now, on the contrary, we persecute our opponents most of all with undying hatred: we extend a merciful hand to blasphemers. He writes an apology to Bishop Theophilus, the beginning of which is: “You, as a man of God and adorned with apostolic grace, raise concern for all churches, especially the one in Jerusalem, although you yourself are burdened with very many concerns about the church that is under your control.” Praises the face, matches the beginning with the face. You, who demand church rules and use the canons of the Council of Nicaea and try to use foreign clergy living with their bishops for your benefit, answer me, how does Palestine belong to the Bishop of Alexandria? If I’m not mistaken, there (in the canons) it is determined that the metropolis of Palestine should be Caesarea, and that of the entire East should be Antioch. Consequently, you had to refer either to the Bishop of Caesarea, with whom, regardless of your communication, as you knew, we have communication, or, if it was necessary to seek a court at a distance, the message should rather be sent to Antioch. But I know why you didn’t want to send to Caesarea, why to Antioch. You knew what you needed to move away from, what to avoid. You preferred to bother your busy ears than to give due honor to your metropolitan. I’m not saying that apart from friendly relations that arouse suspicion, I reproached anything at the embassy, ​​but that you should clear yourself first before those asking and those present. “You sent the most pious man of God, Presbyter Isidore, a strong man both in appearance and dignity of appearance, and in divine reason, sent to heal even those who were very sick in spirit, if only they felt their illness. The man of God sent the man of God.” There is no difference between a presbyter and a bishop; equal dignity of the sender and the sent: this is rather inept: - in the pier, as they say, there is a shipwreck. This Isidore, raised to heaven by your praises, is accused of the same thing in Alexandria as you are in Jerusalem; Therefore, it seems that he was not a legate, but an accomplice. And a letter written by his hand, sent to us three months before the embassy, ​​containing an error, was given to Presbyter Vincent, and is still kept by him - a letter in which he convinces the leader of his army to stand firmly on the rock of faith and not be afraid of our nonsense. He promises, before any suspicion arises in the embassy, ​​to come to Jerusalem and, upon arrival, to crush all the enemy’s mines there. And among other things, he uses the following expressions: “as smoke dissipates in the air, and wax melts near the fire: so will those who, always opposing the church faith, now strive through ordinary people to shake this faith,” will be scattered. I ask you, reader: who writes this before his arrival, who does it seem to you - an enemy or a legate? This is the one whom we can call the most pious or religious and, speaking word for word, a reader of God (θεοσεβέστατον). This is a man of divine reason, so strong, with such dignity of appearance and good behavior, that like the spiritual Hippocrates, with his presence he can heal the disease of our souls, if only we want to accept his healing. Let him who is accustomed to heal others heal himself with such medicine. For us, that divine reason is madness before Christ. With joy we suffer from our ignorance, so as not to learn from your eye lotion to look wickedly. “And to your shrine, for your wonderful intention, as if it had already been realized, we pray to the Lord in holy places night and day, may he give her a perfect reward and grant her the crown of life.” You are rightly grateful, because if Isidore had not appeared, you would not have found such a faithful ally in all of Palestine. If he had not brought you the promised help, you would have been mired in a crowd of ignoramuses who could not understand your wisdom. This very apology, which we are now talking about, was written in the presence and with the strong assistance of Isidore, so that the author and the deliverer of the letter were one and the same. So, when he came here and appeared to us three times and expounded the healing words of both divine wisdom and his mind; then neither he himself brought any benefit to anyone, nor anyone to him. He, who is said to have come to us three times - in order to preserve the mystical number in the visit - who conveyed to us the order of Bishop Theophilus, did not want to convey the letter sent to us from him. And when we said: if you are a legate, then give a message about your legation, and if you don’t have a message, then how will you prove your embassy? - He answered that although he has a message for us, he is obliged by an oath from the Bishop of Jerusalem not to convey it to us. This is the experience of the legate, who, in order to arrange reconciliation and remove suspicion of sympathy for one side, shows himself to be impartial to both sides. And since he appeared without a plaster and did not have medical instruments, his treatment was therefore of no use. Jerome and those with him “both secretly and in front of everyone very often and under oath, assured him that they never had any suspicion of faith regarding us, saying: just as at the time when we had communication with him, so now we have the same love in regard to faith.” See what agreement does in dogma. To express this, Isidore is his accomplice and is called a man of God and a presbyter θεοσεβέστατος (most pious) and a strong man of sacred and honorable appearance and divine reason and the Hippocrates of Christians. And I, poor thing, hiding in the desert, suddenly cut down by such a great high priest, lost the name of presbyter. And yet this Jerome with a crowd of rags and a dirty mass, what dared to answer that lightning-fast Isidore? And so that he would not somehow become stubborn and suppress them with his presence and the weight of his body, not once, not three times, but very often they swore that, regarding the question point, they knew him to be Orthodox and never suspected him of heresy. O obvious and shameless lie! O testimony for yourself and not entrusted to Cato! For by the mouth of two or three witnesses every word is confirmed (Deut. 27:6; Matt. 18:16; 2 Cor. 16:1). Was it ever said or was it ever communicated to you that we entered into fellowship with you without a test of faith? When, through the most learned and most Christian man of the Comes, Archelaus, who was the mediator of peace, the place of reconciliation was appointed, was it not first of all required that faith lay the foundation for future agreement? He promised to come. Easter day was approaching: a large crowd of monks had gathered: they were waiting for you at that place; you didn't know what to do. Suddenly you notified that you were sick, I don’t know some woman, that you couldn’t come that day. Doesn't the bishop say this like an actor? Imagine that you are telling the truth: for the pleasure of one woman, so that without you her head won’t hurt, so that she won’t get bored, so that her stomach won’t get cold, you neglect the work of the church, you don’t pay attention to the gathering of so many people, both Christians and monks? We did not want to give a reason, because we saw the secret reason for your delay, and we defeated the insult with patience. Archelaus writes again, urging him to stay another day and a third, to see if he would like to appear. But he is busy: because the woman did not stop vomiting, and while she was vomiting, he completely forgot about us. So, after two months, the expected Isidore finally appears, having heard not a testimony for you, as you invent, but the reason why they demanded an answer from him. For when he objected to us: why did you communicate with him if he was a heretic? - he heard from everyone that they communicated, not suspecting anything about heresy: and after being denounced by the blessed Pope Epiphanius both verbally and in writing, he did not deign to answer, then from the same Epiphanius instructions came to all the monks so that without investigating his faith no one should carelessly communicate with him. The message is clear, and there is no doubt about it. This is what the meeting of the brethren answered, and not how you prove that you are not a heretic because you have never been called a heretic. For according to this reasoning, one who was healthy before the illness should not get sick in the future. “And when they began to talk about the ordination of Paulinian and others who were with him, they saw that their case was bad when, for the sake of love and harmony, everything was conceded to them, and all that was required was that, although they had been ordained by others contrary to the rules, they should submit to the Church of God, so as not to tear it apart and not establish their own authorities; Therefore, dissatisfied with this, they began to propose questions about faith and proclaim to everyone that if those who were with Presbyter Jerome had not been convicted, they would not have accused us of anything. And when they began to be accused of error and crime, then, being completely unable to defend themselves from such accusations, they resorted to this - not because they hoped to convince us, but in order to try to dishonor our good name.” Let no one think that the speech is awkward due to the fault of the translator. This is how it is in Greek. Meanwhile, I rejoice that, while I heard myself beheaded, I suddenly see that the head of the presbytery is being returned to me again. He says that we cannot be convinced at all and is afraid to enter into a debate. If the cause of the discord is not a disagreement regarding faith, and occurs, as you say, because of the dedication of Paulinian, then what great stupidity is it not to want to answer those who want to give a reason for this! Profess your faith; but, however, answer what you are accused of, so that it is clear to everyone that the dispute is not about faith, but about ordination. For if, when asked about faith, you remain silent, then the enemy may tell you: it is not a matter of ordination, but of faith. If the matter is about ordination, then you are unwise to remain silent when asked about your faith. If it’s about faith, then it’s unreasonable to put ordination in advance. Further, what you are saying about the fact that you demanded that they obey the Church of God, and not divide it and not make themselves their own bosses - I don’t quite understand who you are talking about. If it’s about me and Presbyter Vincent, then you slept for quite a long time if, waking up now, thirty years later, you say this. For we did not leave the glorious cities - I Antioch, and he Constantinople - so as not to praise your sermons to the people, but so that, in the fields and desert, mourning the sins of youth, we could bend the mercy of Christ to ourselves. And if you are talking about Paulinian, then you see that he is subordinate to his bishop, lives in Cyprus, sometimes comes to visit us - not as yours, but as a stranger, that is, the one by whom he was ordained. And if he wants to be here, and is content with our exile to live in the desert, then what does he owe you, besides the veneration that we owe to all bishops? If he were ordained by you: you will hear from him the same thing that Bishop Pavlin, of holy memory, heard from me, an insignificant person: “Did I ask you to ordain me? If you give presbytery in such a way that you do not take away a monk from us, then you are acting by right. And if, under the name of presbyter, you take away from me that for which I left the world: then I have what I always had: you did not suffer any damage in your ordination.” “So that they don’t divide it (the church) and make themselves their own bosses.” Who is dividing the church? Is it us, whose every house in Bethlehem is in communion with the church, or you, who either believes well, but is proudly silent about faith, or poorly and truly divides the church? We are dividing the church - we, who in a few months around the days of Pentecost, when after the eclipse of the sun, everyone trembled that the Judge was about to come, presented to your elders for baptism forty people of different ages and sexes? And indeed there were five presbyters in the monastery who could baptize in their own right, but they did not want to do anything against your will, so as not to give you this reason for silence about the faith. Are you not the one who divides the church rather, who ordered your elders in Bethlehem not to give baptism to those who asked for it on Easter, whom we sent for baptism to Diospolis (Lydda) to the confessor and bishop Dionysius? Are we called those who divide the church - we who have no place for the church outside our cells? Is it not you who divide the church, who order your clergy that if anyone calls Paulinian, who was consecrated bishop by Epiphanius, a presbyter, then he should be prohibited from entering the church? From what time until the present day we see only the den of the Lord and, standing at a distance, we sigh when the heretics enter here! Are we dividing the church, or is he, who denies the living a home, to the dead in the tomb, who demands the expulsion of the brethren? Who in particular stirred up this most powerful beast against ours, threatening the necks of the whole world 9? Who still leaves the bones of saints and innocent remains in the rain? With such caresses the good shepherd encourages us to peace and accuses us as if we were establishing our own authorities - we who are united in communication and love with all the bishops who, of course, adhere to the right faith. Are you really the only one who makes up the church, and whoever offends you is excommunicated from Christ? If we are defending our own superiors, then show that we have a bishop in your district. That we did not communicate with you is because of faith; answer, and then it will be because of ordination. “They come up with support for themselves in other letters that, they say, Epiphanius wrote to them. Although he will give an account of everything that happened before the judgment seat of Christ, where the greater and the lesser will be judged without any partiality; however, how can they rely on his letter, which he, denounced by us, wrote about the unauthorized ordination of Paulinian and those with him, as his letter itself shows at its beginning? I ask: what kind of blindness is this, caused, as they say, by the Cimmerian darkness? He says that we are inventing supports, and that he does not have the messages of Epiphanius against him, and immediately adds: “how can they rely on his message, which he, denounced by us, wrote about the unauthorized ordination of Paulinian and those with him”? We don't have a message. And what is this message that at the beginning speaks of Paulinian? After you start, there is something you are afraid to mention. You denounced him regarding the age at which Paulinian was. You ordain a presbyter and send a legate and an accomplice: you are so conscientious that where you lied about Paulinian’s boyhood, there you send a youth presbyter. You also make Theoses, the deacon of the Thyrian Church, a presbyter and arm him against us and abuse his eloquence against us. You alone are allowed to violate the laws of the church; Whatever you do is the norm of the teaching, and you are not ashamed to bring Epiphanius with you to trial before the judgment seat of Christ! After this separation, this is what follows: he introduces Epiphanius as his table companion, who stood with him in close relations, and says that he never spoke with him about the opinions of Origen and under oath he affirms, saying: “God is my witness, he has shown that he has no suspicions regarding us of unbelief.” I don’t want to answer and sharply rebuke, so as not to accuse the bishop of taking a false oath. There are a lot of letters from Epiphanius: one to him, another to the bishops of Palestine and recently to the high priest of the city of Rome; in them he (Epiphanius) says that when he denounced him (John) in front of many in the opinions of Origen, he did not deign to answer him, and the whole monastery is a witness of our smallness. Those. raising his hand to his lips and then extending it to the people, which was the usual church greeting of the preacher to the people. Primicerius and senator are military officials. Biarch is the caretaker of food supplies. Circitor is a patrol officer. Manes is a Persian name and means slave; but Jerome gives him a translation from the Greek μαν ί α, rage, madness. Putative visa magis sit, quam fuerit. According to some, Jerome here means Rufinus, the guardian of Arcadius, who incited Alaric, the leader of the Goths, against this emperor in order to seize the throne himself. For the reasons for writing this book, see “Life and Creations Blessed.” Jerome." Proceedings Kyiv. Spirit. Academician 1863 pp. CXX-40; and the next You might be interested in: