An accurate statement of the Orthodox faith

The main and most famous work of St. John of Damascus is the trilogy “The Source of Knowledge” (Πηγὴ γνώσεως), dedicated to his half-brother St. Cosmas Maiumsky. Researchers attribute its creation to the first half of the 8th century, most likely to the period between 730 and 743. The essay “An Accurate Exposition of the Orthodox Faith” is the third part of this monumental work. The work was conceived as a kind of “sum” of Christian theology, intended to: 1) summarize Orthodox dogma developed at the Ecumenical Councils and in the writings of the Fathers of the Church; 2) provide systematic guidance for training believers; 3) serve as a weapon against numerous heresies of his time (Monophysitism, Monothelitism, Nestorianism, etc.). The work consists of 100 chapters, divided into 4 books. The sequence of presentation of the material corresponds to the Nicene-Constantinople Creed: - Book 1 (chapters 1-14) is devoted to the doctrine of God in Himself, the incomprehensibility of His essence, properties and Trinity in Persons; - Book 2 (chapters 15-44) – the doctrine of creation (the visible and invisible world, man and the properties of his soul), as well as the Providence of God; - Book 3 (chapters 45-73) – the doctrine of the Incarnation of the Son of God; - Book 4 (chapters 74-100) – teaching about the Church, the Sacraments and the final state. In particular, it talks about the Sacraments of Baptism and the Eucharist, the veneration of the Cross, holy relics and icons, prayer, the Mother of God, the Holy Scriptures, the Antichrist, the resurrection of the dead, etc.; “An Accurate Exposition of the Orthodox Faith” is the most important work of St. John of Damascus, which is the best and authoritative presentation of the teachings of the Orthodox Church (the first Orthodox catechism), which had a tremendous influence on all subsequent theology in both the East and the West. This publication presents a translation into Russian and comments by D.E. Afinogenova, A.A. Bronzova, A.I. Sagardy, N.I. Sagardas. * Title of the work in Greek: Ἔκδοσις ἀκριβὴς τῆς ὀρθοδόξου πίστεως. An accurate exposition of the Orthodox faith - St. John of Damascus (translated by A.I. Sagarda, V.A. Belyaev, S.M. Zarin, N.M. Malakhov) Philosophical chapters of St. John of Damascus About one hundred heresies in brief St. John of Damascus Book One (Chapters 1–14) The fourth book (chap. 1–27). An accurate exposition of the Orthodox faith, written by St. I. Damaskin and now offered to the attention of pious readers in Russian translation, is one of the most remarkable patristic works, both for its great, truly rare inner merits, and for the enormous significance that, due to its merits, it has always enjoyed and enjoys in the Christian, especially in the Orthodox Christian Church. Its merits and the significance they determine will be clarified to the necessary extent if we 1) say a little about those patristic and other creations that, having a character similar to the character of the considered creation of Saint I. Damascus, appeared before the time of the latter’s life; if 2), touching on introductory questions, for example, about the authenticity, time, purpose, division ... of an accurate presentation of the Orthodox faith, the question of its relationship to other creations of the same St. Father and other similar questions, 3) let us briefly note the essential points included in the content of the patristic creation we are translating; if, 4) we compare the exact presentation of the Orthodox faith with the dogmatic and other experiences that preceded it, namely: pointing out its dependence on them and in general its attitude towards them, etc.; and if we finally 5) highlight its merits and the shortcomings attributed to it by scientists, we somewhat point out the attitude of St. to this creation. I. Damascene of the Christian Church of all subsequent times, up to and including the present. All these questions, being important in themselves, are also relevant due to the purpose of our translation, as having in mind not only educated readers, but also all persons in general who treat the patristic works with love, seeking in them edifications of all kinds for themselves, and who need to clarify this kind of circumstances before reading the patristic creation itself. Having revealed all this, we will finish our preface to the translation by indicating 6) the motivations that caused it, as well as its distinctive properties and features. Before the time of St. John of Damascus, the following experiments appeared in a more or less systematic presentation of the Christian dogmas of the faith. 1) The first experience of a fairly complete collection and overview of the dogmas of faith and their scientific research and presentation are the Stromata of Clement of Alexandria († 217 2). But in this work, dogmatic questions are not separated from others: historical, moral, philosophical..., there is no internal connection and consistency between its parts. Moreover, having in mind, through philosophy, to impart a more perfect, lively and varied form to the truth of the Christian Church, Clement sometimes gives “preponderance to the philosophical element to the detriment of faith.” In general, the Stromata cannot be called a systematic science about the dogmas of faith. 2) Origen's work († 254 3) On the Beginnings - a remarkable phenomenon in the history of Christian dogma as an experience of a systematic and scientific presentation of the dogmas of faith, in many ways approaching the requirements of a holistic science, imbued with one thought and one goal: to present in the most complete and coherent form what is essential and fundamental in the Christian teaching, to present everything in Christianity philosophically as meaningful and reasonable... Presenting here (mainly in books 1–2) dogmatic truths, after which Origen reveals (mainly in book 3) moral truths, as inseparable, in his opinion, from the first; and due to the close connection of these and other truths with questions about the understanding of St. Scriptures, etc. Here we then talk about the latter (in the 4th book). The main drawback is his occasional enthusiasm for philosophical thoughts, as a result of which some of his provisions cannot be approved from a “church point of view.” There are other minor shortcomings relating, for example, to the essay plan. But all of them, as well as incorrect thoughts admitted “not intentionally, out of immoderate jealousy,” are redeemed by the great merits of the work, which therefore had enormous significance in the subsequent history of dogmatic science. 3) From the catechetical teachings of St. Cyril of Jerusalem (IV century) the catechumens reveal the dogmatic teaching contained in each member of the symbol of the Jerusalem Church, the occult ones reveal the doctrine of the sacraments: baptism, confirmation and the Eucharist. Holy Scripture, Holy Tradition, the universal teaching of the Church - these are the data with which the Holy Father constantly conforms when revealing the truths of faith. However, in the teachings there is neither sufficient “completeness” nor “a strict distinction between dogmas and other Christian truths”; their general character is “more preaching and instructive than scientific and systematic.” 4) The Great Catechetical Word of St. Gregory, Bishop of Nyssa (IV century), is largely imprinted with a “scientific character”; Here, “in detail and profoundly”, those Christian dogmas are revealed, the discussion of which was caused by the conditions of the time: “about the Most Holy Trinity, the Incarnation, Baptism, the Eucharist and the final fate of man.” 5) “The 23 chapters of the 5th book against heresies,” written by Blessed Theodoret (5th century), “briefly and clearly” reveal dogmatic truths, although “not all of them,” moreover, “without confusing them with other truths”: moral and others. 6) Commonitorium (Instruction) of the “Lirinian monk Vincent (5th century) - not the experience of the exposition of dogmas itself, but only its theory,” indicating what to guide in the study, disclosure and proof of the truths of the Christian faith. 9) De fide seu de regula verae fidei (On faith or the rule of true faith) bishop. Ruspensky Fulgentius (VI century), revealing the doctrine of the creator and the incarnation, about creatures (bodies and spirits), the composition of the first man and hereditary sin, about judgment and resurrection, about Christian means for justification, and here about faith, baptism, grace and gracious election, about the Church and the rejected, and suffering from many shortcomings regarding his “plan”, nevertheless, from the point of view of the conditions of that time, there is a completely a suitable and satisfactory experience, which did not remain without significant influence on some of the later scholastic theologians in the West. 10) “More biblical-exegetical than dogmatic in nature,” the work of Junilius Africanus (VI century) De partibus divinae legis (On the parts of the divine law) in one part surveys the holy books, and in the other reveals their teaching about God, the present and future world. 11) and 12) From the 7th century can be "only mentioned": a) Libri sententiarum (Books of Opinions) by Isidore of Seville - a collection compiled almost exclusively from Augustine; b) Loci communes (General Places) by Leontius of Cyprus, who was guided by the Greek Fathers when compiling his collection. The rest of the creations, which appeared before the time of Saint I. Damascus and to one degree or another have a dogmatic character, cannot be counted among experiments that more or less satisfy the requirements of a holistic, scientific and systematic presentation of the dogmas of the Christian faith. But if these creations did not represent for Saint I. Damascene a model for constructing a system of dogmatic theology, then they were important for him in another respect: caused for the most part by one or another heresy and therefore usually revealing some isolated dogmatic truths, they could help the Holy Father in understanding and expounding to him these particular truths, and especially since there are very many such creations (which is why they are not here we recount, meaning to mention the most important of them below: in § 4 of the Preface and in I - II appendices to the translation), and that some of them (for example, those belonging to St. Gregory the Theologian) are truly beautiful and cause endless surprise, and therefore were praised even at the Ecumenical Councils. But an even more reliable guide for the Monk I. Damascene could have been the definitions of faith and, in general, the decrees of the various ecumenical and local councils that came before him. Moving on to the work of St. that we are translating. John of Damascus, bearing the title Accurate Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, we intend to touch upon the following questions: 1. does it really belong to this holy father; 2. when it appeared; 3. for what purpose it was written or, what in this case stands in connection with this question, in what relation it stands to some of his other creations; and finally, 4. has it been preserved to us in the form in which it originally occurred? 1) That the exact exposition of the Orthodox faith belongs to St. John of Damascus, everyone agrees; but not everyone agreed that this was Saint John of Damascus, who lived in the 8th century and was a famous denouncer of the enemies of icon veneration. Some considered St. to be the author of this creation. John, allegedly also of Damascus, but who lived during the time of Emperor Theodosius (reigned 379–395 6), and passed him off as a scientist and knowledgeable in divine affairs. But we cannot agree with them: 1) neither Greek, nor Latin, nor other ancient writers mention John of Damascus, who would have lived under the named emperor. Under him, a man named John was known for his holiness, to whom the scholars in question point, but he did not come from Damascus, but from another place: he is usually considered an Egyptian, who, moreover (according to the testimony of, for example, Sozomen), never left Egypt to any country except Thebaid, where he ruled many monasteries; 2) as is known from the most reliable sources, this John the Egyptian was almost αγράμματοσ (unlearned) and therefore could not be the author of such a great creation as the one we are considering. The assumption that he could write it solely by divine inspiration, in this case, does not have any solid foundation on its side; 3) but even if we admit that John the Egyptian could have written such a creation either on his own, or by divine inspiration, he still was not in fact its author. He (according to the testimony of Sozomen, Callistus...) was already in Thebaid before the Italian expedition of Theodosius against the tyrant Eugene 7, and moved to Thebaid as an old man. Consequently, he either did not survive Theodosius, or, if he survived, then only a little, and therefore could not use the works of Saints Basil the Great, Gregory of Nazianzus, Gregory of Nyssa, John Chrysostom, Proclus and Cyril, some of which were not published, and others could not yet be known to him; 4) but, even if we assume that he lived until the time of Theodosius the Younger 8 (reigned 408–450), although blessed Theodoret and Sozomen say the opposite, and was a contemporary of St. Cyril Alex., then, one wonders, why about his contemporaries... He speaks of αγίουσ (saints), ιερούσ (sacred), μακαρίουσ (blessed)? St. Cyril, the youngest in age of almost all the listed holy Fathers and Teachers of the Church 9, is praised and revered equally by the author of the Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, for example, with St. Afanasy... Further, 5) how could Saint John the Egyptian know about those heresies that appeared after him and which are meant in the creation in question either as former or as existing: such, for example, as the Monothelites, Nestorians, Monophysites, Dioscorians, Iconoclasts? Finally, 6) the Greeks, who, without a doubt, should be trusted more in this matter, all with one mouth call only John of Damascus, who lived in the days of Leo the Isaurian 10..., the author of this creation. And all the data and considerations in general speak in this sense. And this solution to the question is considered so firmly established among scientists that some even special monographs on St. John of Damascus (for example, Langen'a; Gotha; 1879) are completely silent about his opponents, obviously considering it unnecessary to raise the question - resolved... 11 2. When, in particular, St. I. Damascene wrote an accurate statement of the Orthodox faith, it is completely impossible to say definitely due to the lack of data necessary for this. But in view of the fact that the very deep and sublime content of this work and its most careful processing suggest in its author a person who very thoroughly studied and clarified for himself the issues he revealed, in view of the fact that the writer is very closely acquainted with many of the patristic works of the time preceding him, we can assume that it was written by the Holy Father no earlier than “near the end of his life” 12. And since the year of his death is not precisely known, the death of St. John of Damascus is attributed either to the time before 754 13 or to 777 14 and so on. - that is why scientists speak generally about the time of origin of the Exact Presentation of the Orthodox Faith: it occurred either “around the time of Leo the Isaurian” 15, or “about half of the 8th century” 16. 3. The exact exposition of the Orthodox faith is in very close relation to the Dialectic [or κεφάλαια φιλοσοφικά] and the Book of Heresies [περί αιρέσεων εν συντομία, οθεν ηρξαντο και πόθεν γεγόνασιν] written by the same St. Father 17, so that all these three creations represent only parts of one, bearing the title (ιωάννου του δαμασκηνου πηγη γνώσεωσ) of John of Damascus, the source of knowledge. At the same time, the work we are translating occupies such a dominant position between the other two that these latter, in relation to it, can be considered in the sense of introductory ones: Dialectics - in the sense of a philosophical introduction, and the Book of Heresies - in the sense of a historical one. Saint John of Damascus himself, in Preface 18 to the source of knowledge, dedicated by him to the Bishop of Mayum (or Mayum) Cosmas, spoke about the fear that kept him from speaking about subjects that exceeded his strength - about his hope in the prayers of readers, with the help of which, i.e. prayers, he hopes his lips will be filled with the Holy Spirit, - then he says that he: 1) will offer what is most beautiful among the Greek sages, in the conviction that if they have anything good, then it is given to people from above - from God, and if there is anything contrary to the truth, then it is a dark invention of satanic delusion, the creation of the thoughts of an evil demon. Imitating the bee, he intends to collect and put together what is close to the truth in order to receive salvation from the enemies themselves, and to remove everything that is bad and that is connected with false knowledge 19. Then, 2) he intends to collect together the idle talk of God-hating heresies, so that, knowing the lies, we will adhere to the truth the more 20. Finally, 3) he promises, with the help of God and His grace, to present the very truth - the destroyer of error, the expeller of lies, in the words of divinely inspired prophets, God-taught fishermen and God-bearing shepherds and teachers, adorned and adorned, as if with golden vestments... 21 Thus, the close relationship of these three creations, which are parts of one creation, and the general and main purpose of writing all of them, and the last of them in particular, standing in connection with this relationship, are quite clearly visible from what has been said. This is very briefly repeated by the Holy Father in the 2nd chapter of his Dialectics 22: starting with philosophy, he says, I have the goal of offering to the readers in these three creations or in these three parts of one (παντοδαπην γνωσιν), as far as this is, of course, possible, so that this three-part creation will be (πηγη γνώσεωσ) source of knowledge, for (says Georgius Chioniada 23) outside this book there is no knowledge, neither human nor divine; and simply say: neither theoretical, nor practical, nor worldly, nor supermundane... 4. At present, the Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith is usually divided into four books, which together make up one hundred chapters. As for the division of this creation into four books, it does not belong to Saint I. Damascus himself, but has a relatively late origin. This division is not present either in the first Greek edition of the creation (Verona, 1531), as can be seen from a more careful examination of it, or in the ancient manuscripts of the first Latin translation (it was made under Pope Eugenius III in 1144–1153). In the Verona edition such a division was made by a later hand at the top of the pages, and here it runs throughout the entire creation; with the second hand it was made in the margins of the mentioned manuscripts. Traces of the division of this work into four books 24 are noticeable, however, already in the works of Thomas Aquinas (13th century), who used its Latin translation. But it is impossible to say exactly when it was first made. One can only guess (together with Lequien) that it was invented by Latin scholars and was introduced like the fourfold division sententiarum of Peter Lombard, who among Western scholastics shone as approximately as St. John of Damascus in the East. Saint John of Damascus himself divided his creation only into chapters. The number of chapters indicated by him, as can be seen from a careful review and examination of the Greek codes, should be recognized as the same as indicated in our contemporary publications, i.e. that, although, however, some (for example, Archbishop Philaret in the Historical Review of the Fathers of the Church, vol. III, 1859; p. 259) believe that the Holy Father himself divided creation into only 52 chapters. In general, on this issue, existing codes do not always agree with each other: a) they do not indicate the same number of chapters: some have more, some have less, which depended on researchers who split one chapter, for example, into two, in order to present certain provisions more separately, or two chapters were combined into one in order to combine, for example, evidence. However, this circumstance concerns relatively few chapters; b) chapters do not occupy the same place in all codes: in some they are placed earlier, and in others later; many even taken from the first part are transferred to the second and vice versa. However, all this can be said about a relatively small number of chapters, and it happened due to the negligence of those who copied. That the work of Saint John of Damascus has reached us undamaged and uncorrupted by heretics is beyond all doubt. The doubts expressed by some people regarding the integrity of the authenticity of certain places are devoid of any serious grounds. These doubts usually stemmed from the difficulty of understanding, confusion, darkness of certain passages, their disagreement with the views of a known reader, etc., but if in this case one is guided by such grounds, then one can suspect the authenticity of anything, as is what, for example, many do with various passages of Holy Scripture, not understanding their meaning and measuring everything by their own personal measure... In addition to their internal inconsistency, such doubts regarding the authenticity of some passages of the translated text our creations are decisively refuted by the manuscripts that have survived to this day, in which such passages exist... Hence, this question is considered over for scientists who (for example, Langen), even in their special monographs on St. John of Damascus, usually do not raise it. Is St. I. Damascene made the title of his creation, by which it is now known (i.e., he called it an Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith), or this title, as some think, is of later origin and was made by people who adapted the ancient to the new, it is impossible to firmly decide, and for the matter it is indifferent 25. The general content of the exact exposition of the Orthodox faith is as follows. The first book talks about God, His incomprehensibility, existence, unity, trinity of Persons in God, His properties; in the second - about the creation of the world, both visible and spiritual, about angels, the devil and demons, about the elements, paradise, man and his original life, his properties, states and passions to which he is subject, about divine Providence. The third book deals with the divine Economy concerning our salvation, the incarnation of God the Word, the two natures of Jesus Christ and the unity of His Hypostasis, as well as other points regarding the God-man; about the Trisagion Song; about the Mother of God as the Holy Virgin; about the Lord's prayer; about the Savior's descent into hell. Finally, the fourth book talks about what followed the resurrection of Jesus Christ; it is also said against those who objected to the two natures in Jesus Christ; about the reasons for the incarnation of precisely the God of the word, about the birth of Jesus Christ by the Mother of God, calling him the Only Begotten; about faith, baptism, the cross, worship to the east; about the sacraments; about the genealogy of the Lord, about the Mother of God; about the remains of saints; about icons, Holy Scripture; about evil and its origin; against the Jews - about the Sabbath; about virginity, circumcision, Antichrist and resurrection. The main points that make up the content of each of the hundred chapters contained in this patristic creation are as follows: First, we are talking about the incomprehensibility of the Divine, who was revealed to people only to the extent necessary for their salvation, so that the study of other knowledge about God is impermissible and useless (chap. 1). Then it is said about the expressible in words and the knowable and the opposite of both, and it is indicated that one thing regarding God can be expressed in words, and the other is inexpressible and unknowable; what is the subject of our knowledge and confession is noted, and the only source of our knowledge about God is called (chap. 2). Next are the proofs of the existence of God. Particularly emphasized are: the universality of faith in God; the need to recognize the existence of an unchangeable, uncreated Creator of all things; the continuous continuation of creation, its preservation and governance of the world, unthinkable without the help of God; the absurdity of explaining all this by reference to chance. (3 chapters). God is then characterized as incomprehensible in His nature and being. The properties attributed to Him, positive and negative, in no way explain or reveal either one or the other (chap. 4). After this, the truth of the unity of God is revealed on the basis of the evidence of sacred scripture and reason, pointing especially to the omniperfection of God, to his indescribability, to the need for a single ruler for the world, to the advantage of one over two (chap. 5). Next comes the proof from reason - about the Word and the Son of God, and His properties are indicated, His relationship to the Father; a parallel is drawn between Him and our word (chap. 6). Following this, a proof from reason is offered - about the Holy Spirit: our word and breath, on the one hand, and the Word of God and the Holy Spirit, on the other, are compared; the properties of the Holy Spirit are indicated; talks about the advantages of the Christian teaching about God - one in essence and threefold in persons over non-Christian teachings (chapter 7). Further discussion is about the Holy Trinity: it is said that in one God there are Three Persons; the properties of each of them are listed in detail - in itself and in His relation to Others and is comprehensively revealed (chapter 8). After this, what is said about God is interpreted: about the simplicity of the Divine; about how to understand the properties of God; about the names of God (chap. 9). It further speaks of divine union and division, what is to be understood in relation to the whole Deity and what in relation to each of the Three Persons separately; about the incomprehensibility of the essence of God; about the nature of the activity of a simple Deity; about how to understand what relates to the incarnation of God - the Word. Chapter 11. What is said about God in a bodily way is revealed: how this should be understood and why this is said about God; when should what is said about God be understood symbolically and when literally (chap. 11)? The 12th chapter speaks a) about the same thing as in the previous one, i.e. That God is everything for everything..., and b) about the incomprehensibility and namelessness of God; about the meaning of the difference between the names of God: positive and negative, and why they are used, given the anonymity of God; their application to the entire Divinity and to each Person individually and in His relation to others (chap. 12). Further considerations concern the question of the place of God and the fact that the Divinity alone is indescribable; various places are spoken of; about the sense in which it is said about God that he is in a certain place; about the place of the angel, the soul and the indescribable: how all this should be understood; angel compared to God. After this, a summary of the above is proposed about God and the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit: the properties of the Divine are indicated; properties of each Person of the Holy Trinity and their relationship. At the conclusion of the chapter, the meaning of the “Word” and “Spirit”, used not in application to the Divine, is indicated (chapter 13). The last chapter speaks of the properties of divine Nature previously indicated; about the union of Hypostases; about the nature of divine activity; about the properties of divine Nature, which were not discussed before (chap. 14). It begins with a speech About the century: the creation of centuries, the meaning of the word “age,” the number of centuries, the origin of the century together with the world; about the meaning of calling God eternal; about the meaning of expressions relating to the “century”; about the eternal day after the general resurrection... (chap. 1). Next we talk about the creation of everything by the all-good trinitarian God (chap. 2), after which it talks about angels, their creator, their properties, their differences among themselves, duties, purpose; the degree of their firmness in goodness; food, not dispassion, the ability to transform; their activities in heaven; angelic ranks; the time of origin of angels; lack of creative power... (3 chapters). Then it is told about the devil and demons: about the fall of one angel along with those under his control; about the power of the devil and demons over people; their ignorance (as well as the good angels) of the future; about their prediction of the future; about the origin of evil from them; about the free fall of people into sin; about the punishment of demons and their followers; the death of people is compared with the fall of angels (chap. 4). Next it speaks about visible creation: about the Creator of everything from nothing or from what He previously created. (5 chapters); and then about heaven: the concept of it is given; speaks of the number of heavens; about the sky of the first chapter of existence; about the nature of the sky, about its shape and the position of bodies inside it; about the movement of the sky; belts of the sky and planets; the location of the earth in the center of the space enclosed by the sky; the movement of the sun, moon and stars; about the origin of day and night; about the sky as a hemisphere; the origin of the sky; about separate heavens; about the perishability of the sky; its size compared to the earth; its essence; inanimateness of the heavens and luminaries. Chapter 6. Then about waters: the concept of water is given; talks about its properties; about the abyss; about the division of waters by the firmament; the reason for the placement of waters above the firmament; about the gathering of waters together and the appearance of land; about some individual seas with their bays and shores; about the ocean; about rains; division of the ocean into four rivers; about other rivers; about the properties and taste of waters; about mountains; about the origin of the living soul from water; about the relationship of water to other elements; its merits; about some more seas; about distances from one country to another (chapter 9). Next - about the earth and its products, the concept of it is given; it speaks about its properties, creation, foundation; about decorating it; about the obedience of all living beings to man before his fall, the fertility of the earth, the absence of winter, rain...; about the change in all this after the Fall; about the appearance of the earth, its size in comparison with the sky; its perishability; about the number of regions... of the earth (chap. 10). Chapter 11 talks about paradise: its creation, purpose, location, properties; about the tree of life and the tree of knowledge, about every tree; about their properties, purpose, etc.; about the sensory-spiritual nature of paradise (chap. 11). Chapter 12 about man as a connection between spiritual and sensory natures; about its creation in the image and likeness of God; about the time of creation of body and soul; about the properties of the primordial man, his purpose; about the incorporeal wherever there is; about the body: its dimensions, its constituent elements; about moisture; about the commonality between man and other beings; about the five senses; about the properties of body and soul; about the communication of the virtues of body and soul; about the mind; about the irrational parts of the soul, their properties; about the powers of living beings and their properties; about good and evil. Chapter 13 – about pleasures: their types and properties, features, meaning, etc. Chapter 14 – about sadness: its types and their properties. Chapter 15 – about fear: its types and their properties. Chapter 16 – about anger: the concept of it is given; it talks about its types and their properties; about anger in its relation to reason and desire. – Chapter 17 – about the ability of imagination: moreover, the concept of it is given, it is said about its subject; about imagination; about a ghost; about the organ of imagination. In the 18th chapter. we are talking about feeling: its definition is given; it speaks of the dwellings of the senses, their subject; about what is capable of feeling; about the number of feelings and about each of them separately; their properties, etc.; about why the four senses have double organs; about the spread of the fifth throughout (almost) the body; about the direction in which all the senses perceive what is subject to them. Chapter 19 talks about the mental ability: its activity, properties, its organ. Ch. The 20th talks about the ability to remember, and its relationship to memory and recollection is indicated; talks about memory, its origin, properties, objects; about remembering, forgetting; about the organ of memory. Ch. 21st – about the inner word and the spoken word: about the parts of the rational part of the soul; about the inner word, its properties, features...; about the spoken word, its distinctive character. Ch. 22nd - about passion and activity (energy): about the types of passion, about the definition of it and its types; on the definition of energy; about the relationship between energy and passion; about the powers of the soul: cognitive (mind, thinking ability, opinion, imagination, feeling) and vital (desirable, will and free choice)... Ch. 23rd – about energy (action or activity): about what is called energies; a comprehensive definition of energy is given; it speaks of the existence of something in possibility and reality; about the action of nature... Ch. The 24th treats voluntary and involuntary: a definition of voluntary and involuntary, characteristics, conditions of both are given; their types are indicated; it speaks of an average between voluntary and involuntary; about how to look at the actions of children and unreasonable animals; about the actions we commit in anger, and others that are not committed by free choice. Ch. The 25th talks about what is in our power, that is, about free decision: three questions are posed: is something in our dependence; what is and why God created us free; it is said that it is impossible to explain all human actions by reference either to God, or to necessity, or to fate, or to nature, or to happiness, or to chance, but that for many reasons it is necessary to recognize a person as free. Ch. The 26th is about what happens: one of this is in our power, the other is not; what exactly depends on us; about the obstacles to fulfilling what we have chosen. Ch. 27th - about the reason why we came into being with free will: about the fact that everything that happened is changeable, including humans and irrational beings; about why changes in the first should be attributed to freedom, but not in the second; about the freedom and changeability of angels... Ch. The 28th is about what is not in our power, of which one has its beginnings in a certain way still in us, and the other depends on the divine will. Ch. The 29th treats on Providence: a definition of Providence is given; the purpose of Providence; the need to recognize the Creator and Provider; that God provides wonderfully, prompted by his goodness; about how we should relate to the affairs of Providence; about the features of what is subject to Providence, about “benevolence” and “condescension” and its types; about choosing something and carrying it out; about God’s “leaving” of man “without attention” and its types; about the number of “images” of Providence; more about the purpose of Providence...; about God’s attitude towards our deeds (good and evil); on the volume and means of fishing activity. Finally, in the 30th chapter. It talks about foreknowledge and predestination: about how one and the other should be understood, about their relationship; about virtue and sin, their causes, essence; about repentance; about the creation of man and endowing him with various advantages...; about the creation of the wife, conditioned by predestination...; about human life in paradise and its character; about the commandment of paradise and the promises associated with it, about the reasons that caused it...; about the fall of man, seduced by the devil... In the 1st chapter. it speaks of the divine Economy and care in relation to us and our salvation: about what fallen man has become; that God did not despise him, but wanted to save him; about how and through whom he did this... In ch. 2nd about the image of the conception of the Word and about His divine incarnation: the story of the archangel’s gospel to the Holy Virgin is told; about the birth of the Savior from her; it speaks of the Virgin’s conception of the Son, of the incarnation; explains the truth of the incarnation of God, the union of two natures... Ch. 3rd about two natures (against the Monophysites): it talks about how in the person of Jesus Christ two natures were united with each other, what happened after their union; about the fact that more than one complex nature has emerged, etc.; in a word, the truth about two natures is comprehensively substantiated and various objections of opponents are refuted. Ch. 4th - about the image of mutual communication of properties: that each of the two natures offers what is characteristic of it in exchange for the other due to the identity of the Hypostasis and their mutual penetration; At the same time, a comprehensive clarification of these truths is proposed. Ch. 5th – about the number of natures: in God there is one nature and three Hypostases, in Jesus Christ there are two natures and one Hypostasis; about how one nature and three Hypostases relate to each other in God, equally - two natures and one Hypostasis in Jesus Christ... Ch. 6th - about the fact that the entire Divine Nature in one of its Hypostases is united with all human nature, and not part to part: about how persons in general differ from each other; that the whole nature of the Divinity is in each of the Three Persons, that in the incarnation of the Word the whole nature of the Divinity was united with all human nature, that not all the Persons of the Divinity were united with all the persons of humanity, that the word was united with the flesh through the mind...; about how to understand that our nature has risen, ascended and sat at the right hand of God the Father; that the connection came from common entities, etc. Ch. 7th - about the single complex Hypostasis of God: natures mutually penetrate one another; this penetration came from the divine nature, which, giving its properties to the flesh, itself remains impassive... Ch. The 8th is directed to those who find out whether the natures of the Lord are elevated to a continuous number or to a divided one: as far as the Hypostasis is concerned, the natures are not united together and are not counted; as far as the image and meaning of difference are concerned, they are inseparably divided and countable. This position is revealed and explained in the first and second half of the chapter, i.e. Twice and almost the same words and so on. Ch. The 9th gives the answer to whether there is a nature devoid of hypostasis: it is said that there is no nature devoid of hypostasis; about what happens when two natures unite with each other in relation to hypostasis; about what happened when the natures - divine and human - were united in the person of Jesus Christ... In ch. The 10th talks about the Trisagion Song: about the wicked addition to it made by Knatheus; about how to understand this song; about its origin and approval by the Ecumenical Council... In Ch. 11th - about nature, which is contemplated in genus and indivisible, and about the difference between both union and incarnation; and about how the expression should be understood: “The only begotten nature of God - the Word - incarnate.” The following should be especially noted: the Word did not take on a nature that is seen only by thinking, not one that previously existed in itself, but one that received being in His Hypostasis... Ch. 12th - that the Holy Virgin is the Mother of God (against the Nestorians): it is proven that the Holy Virgin in the proper sense and truly gave birth to the true God incarnate from her, that the deity of the Word did not receive its existence from her, that she, in a word, is the Mother of God, and not the Mother of Christ, who only gave birth (as Nestorius thought) to the God-Bearer... In ch. The 13th talks about the properties of two natures: that, having two natures, Jesus Christ has all the properties belonging to both: two wills, two activities, two wisdoms, two knowledge...: everything that the Father has (except for unfertility), and everything that the first Adam had (except for sin)... In the 14th chapter. Man cannot draw a conclusion about the trinity of natures... in Christ, in which attention is drawn not to the parts of the parts, but to what is most closely united: to divinity and humanity... In ch. The 17th says that the nature of the Lord’s flesh and will are deified: why the flesh is deified, has it lost the properties of ordinary flesh... how is the will deified..., what does the deification of nature and will serve?.. In Ch. The 18th speech once again returns to the question of wills, freedoms, minds, knowledge, wisdom. It says that Jesus Christ, as God and man, has all the qualities of God and man; about why God became man and what kind of flesh he took on; that he did not receive the soul without mind; that the God-man had two wills of action that were not contrary to each other, that he desired with one and the other will freely, since freedom is inherent in every rational being, and so on. In the 19th chapter. it speaks of Divine action, which arose from the human and the divine, and natural actions were not abolished; about how exactly it should be understood, what its properties are, etc. In ch. 20th - about natural and immaculate passions: that the Lord accepted all the natural and immaculate passions of man; about what passions are meant here; about why he perceived it; about the attack of the devil on the Lord, the victory won by the Lord, and the consequences that flow from this; that our natural passions were in Christ in accordance with nature and above nature. In ch. 21st - about ignorance and slavery: that Christ took on a nature that did not have knowledge and was slave; about what happened as a result of the hypostatic union of our nature with the divine...; about whether it is possible to call Christ a slave?... In ch. The 22nd speaks of the advancement of Christ in Wisdom, age and grace; about how all this should be understood. Chapter 23 treats fear: natural fear; about what should be understood by it; about whether she was with the Lord; about fear arising from erroneous thinking and distrust, ignorance of the hour of death; about whether the Lord had this fear; about how to understand the fear that took possession of the Lord during suffering?... Ch. 24th – about the Lord’s Prayer: about what prayer is in general; about how to understand the Lord’s prayer: why, for what purpose he prayed... Chapter 25 - about assimilation: about natural assimilation; about what should be understood by it; is it possible to talk about him in relation to the Lord; about personal and relative assimilation; about how it should be understood; Is it possible to talk about him in relation to the Lord? Ch. The 26th is about the suffering of the Lord’s body and the dispassion of His deity: that the Lord suffered only in the flesh, and that His deity remained uninvolved in suffering, and these provisions are clarified through examples, about which the meaning of examples in general is then discussed. Ch. 27th - that the divinity of the Word remained undivided from soul and body even during the death of the Lord, and that one Hypostasis was preserved: that Christ died for us, trampling down death by death; that at the time of His death His soul was separated from His body, and the Divinity was not separated either from the body or from the soul, so that even at this time a single Hypostasis was preserved. In ch. The 28th talks about corruption and destruction (incorruption): that corruption is understood in two ways; about whether corruption is applicable or not, and if it is applicable, then in what sense - to the body of the Lord? Finally, in the 29th ch. It speaks of the descent into hell of the deified soul of the Lord; about the purpose for which she went there. It begins with a speech about what happened after the resurrection of the Lord, and it speaks of His elimination (after the resurrection) of all the passions that were inherent in Him in one sense or another before; about the fact that He did not remove from himself any of the parts of nature: neither soul nor body. In ch. The 2nd talks about the sitting of the Lord at the right hand of the Father in a bodily manner, and it is clarified what should be meant by the right hand of the Father. Chapter 3 is directed against those who say that if Christ is two natures, then you either serve the creatures by worshiping the created nature, or you call one nature worthy of worship, and the other unworthy of it. It says that we worship the Son of God; it turns out that we worship his flesh not because it is flesh only (from this side it is unworthy of worship, as created), but because it is united with God - the Word. Ch. The 4th answers the question why the Son of God became man, and not the father and not the spirit, and what did he succeed in becoming man? It is said that it was the Son of God who became man in order for His property of sonship to remain motionless; about what was the purpose of His incarnation, how it was accompanied in relation to people, what was especially surprising in all this, after which praise and gratitude are sent to God’s Word. Ch. The 5th is directed to those who ask: is the Hypostasis of Christ created or uncreated? it is said that one and the same Hypostasis is both uncreated because of divinity and created because of humanity. Ch. The 6th treats when Christ was so called? contrary to the opinion of Origen, on the basis of the Holy Fathers and Holy Scripture, it turns out that the Word of God became Christ from the moment it dwelt in the womb of the holy Ever-Virgin. Chapter 7 refers to those who ask: did the Holy Mother of God give birth to two natures, and were there two natures hanging on the cross? the concepts are clarified: αγένητον, γενητόν, αγέννητον, γεννητόν, γένεσισ, γέννησισ. It is proven that the Holy Mother of God gave birth to a Hypostasis, cognizable in two natures, according to divinity born without flight from the Father, and in recent days incarnated from her and born carnally; it turns out that Christ hung on the cross in the flesh, and not in divinity. Chapter 8. How is the only begotten Son of God called the First Born? is it said that what should be understood by the Word: First-born, is it indicated that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is called both the First-born (and not the first-created) and at the same time the Only Begotten? What follows from this? Then some biblical passages related to this issue are clarified. Chapter 9 about faith and baptism: about the meaning and meaning of baptism, about its uniqueness, about three immersions, about the words used in baptism, about baptism specifically in the name of the Most Holy Trinity; about how to look at the rebaptism of those who were baptized in the name of the Most Holy Trinity and those who were not so baptized; about baptism with water and spirit, its meaning, meaning; about the meaning of water; about grace descending on the baptized; about protecting the one who was baptized from everything bad; about faith and works; about the eight baptisms known to us; about the descent of the Holy Spirit on the Lord in the form of a dove; about Noah's dove; about the use of oil during baptism; about how John the Baptist was baptized; regarding the delay of baptism; about those who approach baptism insidiously. Chapter 10. about faith: it talks about two types of faith; about how faith is “made perfect”; about which type of faith belongs to our will and which belongs to the gifts of the Holy Spirit; about what we achieve through baptism? Chapter 11. about the cross, and also about faith and the word of the cross, which is foolishness for those who perish and why; about faith, its meaning; about why the “cross” is more amazing than all the miracles of Christ; about its meaning for people; about why the Power of God is “the word of the cross”; that the cross was given to us as a sign on our forehead; what does it serve for us; about why one should worship the tree of the cross, nails, a copy, a manger, a den, Golgotha, a tomb, Zion, the image of the cross (not the substance); about the Old Testament prototypes of the New Testament cross. Chapter 12. about worship to the east: about the need for bodily worship, and not just spiritual, in view of the duality of our nature; about the need to worship to the east due to the fact that God is spiritual light, Christ is the sun of truth, the East, and also due to other considerations based on various data borrowed from the Old and New Testaments, the unrecorded Apostolic tradition. Chapter 13. about the holy and pure sacraments of the Lord: about why God created everything, including man; about the communication of everything that happened, and especially intelligent beings, with him; that man, instead of succeeding in goodness and being in communion with God, fell; that for his salvation the Son of God became man, redeeming him by his death on the cross; that he gave us the sacraments: baptism (with water and spirit) and communion, where we receive into ourselves not bread and wine, not the image of only the body and blood of Christ, but his true body and true blood; about why bread and wine are taken here (just as in baptism oil and water, with which the grace of the Holy Spirit is united); about what accompanies communion for those who approach it worthily and unworthily; about what feelings one should approach it with; about the Old Testament prototype of communion; about what is done with the body and blood of Christ, which we have taken into ourselves; about their meaning; about why this sacrament is called communion; that in this case one should shun heretics; about the sense in which bread and wine are called images of “futures”? Chapter 14. about the genealogy of the Lord and about the Holy Mother of God; Joseph, to whom the Virgin Mary was betrothed, was descended from David; Joachim, her father, was descended from David; that the Holy Virgin was born through the prayer of her mother Anna; that, having been born in the house of Joachim, she was raised at the church where she was introduced; that she was later betrothed to Joseph and why exactly; that after the annunciation to her through the Archangel, she conceived in her womb and gave birth at the usual time and painlessly to the Son of God; that she is in the proper sense the Mother of God, that she remained (even after the birth of her son) the Virgin and Ever-Virgin; that during the Lord’s suffering she suffered, as it were, the torment that occurs at birth; that the resurrection of the Lord changed sorrow. Chapter 15. about honoring saints and their relics: about why saints should be venerated; points to the evidence of Holy Scripture; talks about the virtues of saints; that God dwelt in them, that their relics exude fragrant myrrh, that saints cannot be called dead and why exactly; about the meaning of saints for us; about how to honor them: the Mother of God, the Forerunner, the apostles, martyrs, holy fathers, prophets, patriarchs, the righteous; about imitation of them. In ch. The 16th talks about icons: that we are created in the image of God, and the consequences that flow from this; examples from the Old Testament indicate that the honor given to the image is transferred to the prototype; about what cannot be worshiped; is it possible to portray God; why in the Old Testament the use of icons was not practiced, but in New Testament times they were introduced; about the fact that worship is not given to the substance of the icon: what exactly? About an unwritten tradition commanding the worship of icons; about the image of the Savior not made by hands... In ch. The 17th talks about Scripture: about its dignity; about the need to zealously explore and study it; about the fruits that such an attitude towards him can give; about the number and names of the books of the Old and New Testaments. Chapter 18 treats what is said about Christ: four generic images of what is said about Christ are indicated, then six more specific images, as types, of the first, three of the second, three of the third (in this case, in turn, six of the second of these types) and two (with divisions) of the fourth. In ch. 19th it turns out that God is not the Author of evil: why God’s permission is called the action of God; in what sense should we understand this usage of words found in the Holy Scriptures: good and evil deeds are free; the passages of Scripture which seem to say that God is the Author of evil are to be properly understood; what “evil” is from God, in what sense can we say this; the perpetrators of all evil, in a certain sense, are people; How should we understand the passages of Scripture where what should be understood in the sense of following each other seems to be in a causal relationship. In ch. The 20th says that there are not two principles: about the hostility of good and evil and their separate existence, the limitation of their place, the need to assume the one who distributes these places for them, i.e. God; about what would happen if they came into contact with each other or if there was a middle place between them; about the impossibility of peace and war between them due to the qualities of evil and good; about the need to recognize one beginning; about the source of evil, about what it is; about the devil and his origin. In ch. The 21st question is answered: why did God, knowing in advance, create those who sin and not repent? goodness is spoken of in its relation to creation; about knowledge and foreknowledge; about what would have happened if God had not created those who had to sin; about the creation of everything good and how evil penetrated into it... In ch. The 22nd talks about the law of God and the law of sin: about what the law is (the commandment of God, sin, conscience; lust, pleasure of the body - the law in death); what is sin; what the law of sin does in us; how does conscience relate to God’s law; why does the law of sin captivate me; about God sending his Son and the meaning of this; about the help of the Holy Spirit to us; about the need for patience and prayer. Chapter 23 talks about the Sabbath, against the Jews: about what the Sabbath is; about the number "7"; about why the Sabbath law was given to the Jews, how to understand it, whether Moses, Elijah, Daniel, all Israel, priests, Levites, Joshua violated it; about what happened with the coming of Jesus Christ; about His spiritual law, the highest of Moses; about canceling the meaning of the letter; about the perfect peace of human nature; about what we Christians should do; on how to understand circumcision and the Sabbath; more about the number “7”, its meaning and the conclusion from here. Chapter XXIV talks about virginity: the virtues of virginity and the evidence of it; about the origin of the marriage; explanation of Scripture (Gen. 1:28); about the relevant circumstances from the history of the flood, Elijah, Elisha, the three youths, Daniel; about a more spiritual understanding of the precepts of the law on marriage; comparison of virginity and marriage; their comparative merits; the advantage of virginity. Chapter 25 is about circumcision: when it was given and why; why it was not practiced in the wilderness and why the law of circumcision was given again to Joshua; circumcision is an image of baptism; clarification of this; why is there no need for an image now; figuring it out; about the spiritual nature of true service to God. Chapter 26 is about the Antichrist: about who should be understood by the Antichrist; when he comes; about his qualities; to whom will he come and why will he be called that; whether it will be the devil himself or man; about the manner of his activity first and then, his miracles; about the coming of Enoch and Elijah and then the Lord himself (from heaven). Chapter 27 is about the resurrection: about the resurrection of bodies and its possibility; about the consequences of disbelief in the resurrection: about the “moral” proof of the resurrection; about the evidence of the Holy Scriptures of the V. and N. Testament; about the resurrection of Lazarus and the resurrection of the Lord; about their meaning; about what will happen to our body; that we will be resurrected according to the will of the Lord alone; clarifying the resurrection on seed and grains; about the general judgment after the resurrection and the reward of some, the punishment of others. As can be seen from the briefly noted essential points that make up the content of the Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, this content concerns not only the dogmatic-theological area, but also many others. All the questions raised here and revealed by the holy father were, in one way or another, clarified before his time, so that he naturally had to take a certain attitude towards previous experiments that pursued the same or a similar goal; those. he had to either limit himself to the research of his predecessors, or go beyond them, and so on. In particular, before his eyes lay, on the one hand, the Holy Scriptures, the works of the Holy Fathers and Teachers of the Church who preceded him, the creeds of Ecumenical and local councils, etc., and on the other, the works of pagan philosophers who addressed similar issues, especially the works of Plato and Aristotle. And indeed, Saint John of Damascus in this case had in mind all the sources we indicated, although he did not treat them equally. Where certain questions were clarified or touched upon in the sacred biblical books, Saint John of Damascus was entirely guided by the instructions of the latter - this infallible source of truth. In particular, he either limited himself to citing certain biblical passages in support of his positions, without making an attempt to explain these passages in more detail, or he made this attempt, sometimes on a significant scale. In this case, he usually quotes passages from the Greek text of seventy commentators, but not always literally 26, although the internal meaning of biblical passages usually does not suffer from this in the least 27. But much in the sacred biblical books is not revealed in detail, but is only outlined in the form of provisions; some questions, for example, natural sciences and others, are left by them without any mention; much was communicated to St. The Apostles to subsequent generations through only oral tradition, etc., not revealed in detail by the sacred biblical books, left by them without any mention, transmitted by the Apostles only orally... - all this and similar things have been clarified in detail and in many ways, recorded by various Christian Fathers and Teachers of the Church, whose works are the most valuable and most important source of Christian knowledge after the books of the Holy Scriptures, especially since very many views held in these creations approved even by the Ecumenical Councils... St. John of Damascus, in view of all this, makes extensive use of the patristic works, drawing from them everything he needs. The following Fathers and Doctors of the Church and Christian writers in general, to one degree or another, served as models, leaders for St. John of Damascus: Agathon the Pope, Anastasius of Antioch, Anastasius of Sinaite, Asterius of Amasia, Athanasius of Alexandria, Basil the Great, Gregory of Nazianzus (theologian), Gregory of Nyssa, Dionysius Areopagite, Evagrius Scholasticus, Eulogius of Alexandria, Eustathius of Antioch, Epiphanius of Cyprus, Irenaeus of Lyons, John Chrysostom, Justin Martyr, Cyril of Alexandria, Cyril of Jerusalem, Clement of Alexandria, Leo the Great, Leontius of Byzantium, Methodius of Patara, Maximus Confessor, Nemesius, Bishop of Emesa (in Syria), Proclus of Constantinople, Severian of Haval, Sophronius of Jerusalem, Felix III, Blessed Theodoret and some others. In addition, it is impossible not to indicate in this case the so-called “questions to Antiochus” (and in connection with them Athanasius the Younger), the creeds of the councils (Nicaea, Ephesus, Chalcedon, Trullo), the following of the liturgy of the Holy Apostle James and others 28. In particular, turning to the first book of “An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith,” we see that it was compiled by St. The Father was influenced in one way or another by the works of the following Christian writers: 1) Saint Gregory of Nazianzus (Theologian). From St. Saint Gregory understood the Fathers of the Church more deeply than anyone else and explained the lofty Christian truths regarding the Holy Trinity. His 50 words, or speeches, of which the authenticity of 45 is beyond any doubt, along with his other creations, deserve surprise in all respects. At the same time, his Five Words on Theology 29 are especially noteworthy... Naturally, Saint John of Damascus, discussing the same subjects that Saint Gregory discussed, made extensive use of the latter’s works. This influence of Nazianzus on St. John of Damascus runs throughout the entire first book of the work we are translating, and, moreover, to such a strong and palpable degree that it seems to the reader that he is not looking at the work of John of Damascus, but rather the creation of St. Gregory the Theologian 30 . In particular, the following speeches of St. Gregory, which had the strongest influence on St. John of Damascus, should be especially noted here: 1st (see I.D. - on chapter 14), 12th (see in I.D. ch. 8), 13th (see in St. I.D. ch. 8 and 14), 19th (in St. I.D. ch. 8), 20th (in St. I.D. ch. 8), 23rd (in St. I.D. ch. 8), 24th (in St. I.D. ch. 10), 25th (in St. I.D. ch. 8), 29th (in St. I.D. ch. 8), 31st (in St. I.D. D. ch. 8), 32nd (in St. I.D. ch. 4 and 8), 34th (in St. I.D. ch. 1–4, 8 and 13), 35th (in St. I.D. ch. 5 and 8), 36th (in St. I.D. ch. 8, 9, 12 and 13), 37th (in St. I.D. ch. 2, 7, 8, 10, 11 and 13), 38th (in St. I.D. ch. 7), 39th (in St. I.D. ch. 8), 40th (in St. I.D. ch. 8 and 14), 44th (in St. I.D. ch. 7 and 13), 45th (in St. I.D. ch. 8 and 10), 49th (in St. I.D. ch. 8) and so on. 31 2) St. Dionysius the Areopagite. With great love, St. John of Damascus uses the following works, known under the name of the works of St. Dionysius: On the names of God (see St. I.D. - especially chapters 1, 2, 5, 8-12, and 14), On sacramental theology (see St. I.D. ch. 4), On the heavenly hierarchy (see St. I.D. ch. 11), especially since the objects revealed in them are closely related to the questions that he clarified in the first part of his creation. 3) Saint Gregory of Nyssa. These or other borrowings were made by Saint John of Damascus from the Catechism of Saint Gregory, whose purpose was to give instructions on how to act when converting pagans and Jews, and how to refute heretics 32 (see St. I. D. chapters 5, 6 and 7); from the work of St. Gregory Against Eunomius, where with amazing vigilance the latter’s false views on the Son of God and the Holy Spirit are refuted... 33 (see in St. I.D. ch. 8), from the “Epistle to Avlavius” “about the fact that there are not three Gods”... 34 (see in St. I.D. ch. 8 and 10) and so on. 4) Saint Cyril of Alexandria. The Monk John of Damascus uses the work of St. Cyril On the Holy Trinity, known under the name Treasures, where “the wickedness of Arius and Eunomius” is struck... 35 (see St. I. D. ch. 4, 7, 8 and 12). 5) Saint Athanasius of Alexandria. The Monk John of Damascus uses his Words against the Arians, which constitute the first experience of a complete and detailed consideration of the foundations on which the Arians built their new teaching about the Son of God 36 (see St. I.D. ch. 8 and 12), the essay “On the Incarnation of the Word” 37 (see I.D. ch. 3), the words Against the pagans, speaking about idolatry, about the path to true knowledge of God, the need for the incarnation of God the Word, the saving actions of death on the cross... 38 (see St. I.D. ch. 3). 6) Saint Basil the Great. The Monk John of Damascus uses his Books against Eunomius, which revealed the true teaching about God - the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit in contrast to the false teaching of Eunomius and his like-minded people. Although the Right Reverend Filaret (Gumilevsky) limits the number of these books to three 39 , considering the fourth and fifth books to be forged; nevertheless, the Monk John of Damascus quotes them as belonging to St. Basil (see St. I. D. ch. 8 and 13). He also uses the book of St. Basil On the Holy Spirit, written at the request of St. Amphilochius “against Aetius, whose champion was Eunomius” 40 (see St. I.D. ch. 7). Of the many Letters written by Saint Basil, the Monk John of Damascus uses, for example, the 43rd (see St. I.D. ch. 8). 7) Saint Maximus the Confessor. The Monk John of Damascus makes use of his remarkable letter to Presbyter Marinus on the origin of St. Spirit 41 (see St. I.D. ch. 8) and his Dialogue against the Arians (see St. I.D. ch. 8). In the second book of the Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, the influence of Christian writers was felt: 1) Nemesius, “bp. Emez in Syria" 42. His essay On the Nature of Man had a very great influence on the Monk John of Damascus. Many chapters of the second book of the Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith were compiled, one might say, solely on the basis of the indicated work of Nemesius (see St. I. D. chapters 3, 4, 7, 8, 11–13, 15, 16, 18–20, 24–29). 2) Saint Gregory the Theologian. Again we mean his Words, or speeches, namely: the 34th (see St. I.D. ch. 3), the 35th (see St. I.D. ch. 1), the 38th (see St. I.D. ch. 1–3, 11 and 12), the 42nd (see St. I.D. ch. 1, 2, 11 and 12), 44th (see St. I.D. Ch. 1). 3) Maxim the Confessor. The Monk John of Damascus uses his Answers to Doubtful Scriptures 43 (see St. I.D. Ch. 11), First Epistle to Marinus 44 (see St. I.D. Ch. 22), the book On the Soul and Its Actions 45 (see St. I.D. Ch. 12), Dialogue with Pyrrhus 46 (see St. I.D. ch. 22 and 23), as well as others (see St. I. D. ch. 22 and 30). 4) Saint Basil the Great. The Monk John of Damascus uses his Conversations on the Six Days, which are so remarkable in their merits that St. Gregory of Nazianzus writes about them: when I read the six days, I come closer to the Creator, I know the foundations of creation 47 (see St. I. D. ch. 6, 7, 9); conversations About Paradise (see St. I.D. ch. 10, 11) and On the Nativity of Christ (see St. I.D. ch. 7). 5) Saint Gregory of Nyssa. The Monk John of Damascus uses his Catechism 48 (see St. I.D. Ch. 4), the essay On the Creation of Man, wonderful in the sublimity and depth of his thoughts 49 (see St. I.D. Ch. 6, 11, 19 and 30) and others (see St. I.D. Ch. 23). 6) Saint John Chrysostom. The Monk John of Damascus uses his Discourses on the Gospel of John (see St. I.D. Ch. 13), Discourses on the Epistle to the Ephesians (see St. I.D. Ch. 30), Discourses on the Epistle to the Hebrews (see St. I.D. Ch. 6) 50. 7) Severian, Bishop of Gavala. The Monk John of Damascus uses his Words about the creation of the world (see St. I. D. ch. 7-9) 51. 8) St. Dionysius the Areopagite. St. I. Damascene uses his creations: the above-mentioned 52 “On the heavenly hierarchy” (see St. I. D. Ch. 3) and On the church hierarchy (see St. I. D. Ch. 2). 9) St. Methodius, bishop. Patarsky. St. I. Damascene uses his work Against Origen (see Epiphan. haeres. 64 (see St. I. D. ch. 10, 11) 53. 10) Saint Athanasius of Alexandria. St. John of Damascus uses his creation Against Apollinaris. About the incarnation of the Son of God 54 (see St. I.D. ch. 12). The Monk John of Damascus constantly used the Holy Scriptures and had in mind the opinions of the Holy Fathers collected by him, the inexhaustible source of the Holy Tradition, and so on, setting out all this clearly, briefly, and so on. 56 12) Venerable Anastasius of Sinaite. The Monk John of Damascus uses his Guide, which in general constitutes a kind of guide for competitions with the Monophysites and is one of the best works in patristic literature written against Eutychianism 57 (see St. I. D. ch. 23). 13) Saint Justin Martyr. The Monk John of Damascus uses his “Questions (with answers) to the Greeks speaking about the Manichaeans” (see St. I.D., Chapter 6). However, learned researchers, for example, the Most Reverend Philaret of Chernigov, classify this work as one of the “obviously forged” works of St. Justin 58. 14) Saint Clement of Alexandria. The Monk John of Damascus, in all likelihood, uses his Stromata 59 (see St. I.D. ch. 23). 15) The author of the so-called Questions to Antiochus - a work that is a compilation from more ancient sources, partly from the works of St. Athanasius, and made by various hands completely unknown to us... 60 (see St. I.D. ch. 4). In the third book of the Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, the dependence of St. John of Damascus on such Christian writers as: 1) Saint Gregory the Theologian. Again we mean his Words, or speeches, namely: 1st (see St. I.D. Ch. 6), 4th (see St. I.D. Ch. 16), 5th (see St. I.D. Ch. 3), 12th (see St. I.D. Ch. 1), 20th (see St. I.D. D. ch. 22), 24th (see St. I.D. ch. 21), 35th (see St. I.D. ch. 4 and 17), 36th (see St. I.D. ch. 14, 21, 22, 24 and 25), 38th (see St. I.D. ch. 1, 2, 6), 39th (see St. I.D. ch. 10, 17), 42nd (see St. I.D. ch. 2, 10, 17, 24, 27), 51st (see St. I.D. ch. 6, 7)... In addition, St. John of Damascus also used the Epistles St. Gregory to Kledonius, denouncing the willful innovation of Apollinaris 61 (chap. 6, 12, 16, 18), his Verses against Apollinaris 62 (chap. 18). 2) Saint Gregory of Nyssa. The Monk John of Damascus uses the above-mentioned 63 of his Catechism (see St. I.D. ch. 1), the Antirrhetic against Apollinaris, which is the most attentive and intelligent analysis of the teachings of Apollinarius 64 (see St. I.D. ch. 14, 15), speech on nature and hypostasis (see St. I.D. ch. 15) and others (see St. I.D. ch. 24). 3) Saint Basil the Great. St. I. Damascene uses: a) his above-mentioned 65 book about the Holy Spirit (see St. I. D. ch. 5), b) also the aforementioned 66 his Conversation at the Nativity of Christ (see St. I. D. ch. 2), c) the above-mentioned 67 his 43rd letter (see St. I. D. ch. 5, 15), d) ) Discourse on the 44th Psalm 68 (see St. I.D. Ch. 14), d) Interpretation on the seventh chapter of the book of the prophet Isaiah 69 (see St. I.D. Ch. 14). 4) St. Cyril of Alexandria. St. I. Damascene uses a) his above-mentioned “Treasure” (see St. I. D. ch. 15) 70, his Books against Nestorius - the most extensive of the polemical works of St. Cyril 71 (see St. I. D. ch. 12), c) Apologetics against Theodoret 72 (see St. I. D. ch. 2, 8, 11), interpretation on Gospel. John 73 (see in St. I. D. ch. 6, 15), letters to Eulogius and Success 74 (in St. I. D. see ch. 7 g l)..., to the monks (see in St. I. D. ch. 2, 12). 5) St. Maximus the Confessor. St. John of Damascus uses his Dialogue with Pyrrhus, which we have already mentioned above 75 (see in St. I. D. ch. 14, 15, 18, 19, 23), b) the above-mentioned 76 two volumes of dogmas to Marinus in Cyprus 77 ... (in St. I. D. ch. 19 and 25)..., c) the creation of two wills in Christ... besides Marin 78 (in St. I.D. ch. 15 and 17), d) Epistle to Cubicularius John - about love and sorrow for God 79 (in St. I.D. ch. 3), e) Epistle to Nikander 80 (in St. I.D. ch. 17)... 6) St. Athanasius of Alexandria. St. John of Damascus uses his a) creation: On the saving coming of Christ (against Apollinaris) 81 (in St. I.D. ch. 1, 6, 23, 26), b) Letters to Serapion, proving the deity of the Holy Spirit... 82 (in St. I.D. ch. 16) and others (see in St. I.D. Ch. 18). 7) St. I. Chrysostom. St. I. Damascene uses his “Conversations”: 1) the above-mentioned 83 on the Gospel of John (see in St. I. Damascene ch. 24), 2) on the Gospel of Matthew 84 (in St. I. D. ch. 24), 3) on the book of the Acts of the Apostles 85 (in St. I. D. ch. 15) 4) on the saint Thomas (in St. I. D. ch. 15) and others (in St. I. D. ch. 18). 8) Blessed Leontius of Jerusalem (Byzantine by birth). St. John of Damascus uses his Book on sects 86 (in St. I. D. ch. 7, 9, 11, 28), Three books against the Nestorians and Eutychians 87 (in St. I. D. ch. 3, 28), thirty chapters against the North, against the Monophysites 88 (in St. I. D. ch. 3), Decision syllogisms of the North 89 (in St. I. D. ch. 5). 9) St. Pope Leo. St. John of Damascus uses his Letters 90 (see St. I. D. ch. 3, 14, 15, 19). 10) St. Dionysius the Areopagite. St. John of Damascus uses the above-mentioned 91 of his creations (or at least those attributed to him) On the Names of God (see St. I.D. ch. 6, 11, 15) and the Letter attributed to him to Caius (the 4th of 10 of his letters to various persons 92 (see St. I.D. ch. 15, 19). 11) St. Anastasia Sinaita. . St. John of Damascus uses his Guide, which we have already mentioned above 93 (see St. I. D. ch. 3, 14, 28). 12) St. Proclus of Constantinople. St. John of Damascus uses his epistle to the Armenians on faith (second), which depicts the incarnation of God - the Word 94 (see St. I.D. ch. 2, 3). 13) St. Sophronius of Jerusalem. St. John of Damascus uses his Council Epistle (against monothelitism) 95 (in St. I.D. ch. 18)... 14) St. Eulogius of Alexandria 96. St. I. Damascene uses his thoughts against the Monophysites 97 (see St. I. D. Ch. 3). 15) St. Anastasius of Antioch. St. John of Damascus uses his works on the issue of actions in our Lord Jesus Christ 98 (see St. I.D. ch. 15). 16) Felix III and other bishops who wrote to Peter Fullon (see St. I.D. ch. 10). 17) Agathon (pope) (see his epist. syn. in VI syn., act. 4) 99 (see St. I.D. ch. 14). Finally, 18) St. John of Damascus also refers to various ecumenical Councils and their decrees: for example, the exposition of the faith by the Nicaean Fathers (chapter 7), the Council of Ephesus (i.e., the “3rd ecumenical” (in St. I.D. ch. 7), the Council of Chalcedon (i.e., the 4th ecumenical) (in St. I.D. ch. 10), the 3rd Constantinople (6th Ecumenical) 100) (see St. I.D. ch. 14, 15, 18). In the last - fourth - book of the Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, the influence on St. I. Damaskina, coming from the side: 1) St. Gregory the Theologian. Again we mean his Words, or speeches, and in particular: the 36th (see St. I.D. ch. 6, 18), the 39th (see St. I.D. ch. 4, 9, 18), the 40th (see St. I.D. ch. 25), 42nd (see St. I.D. ch. 13, 23), 44th (see St. I.D. Ch. 9, 23), 47th (see St. I.D. Ch. 26), 48th (see St. I.D. Ch. 9), etc. 2) St. Athanasius of Alexandria. St. John of Damascus uses a) his Letters to Serapion, which we have already mentioned above 101 (for St. I.D., see Chapter 9), b) an extensive Statement of Faith 102 (for St. I.D., see Chapter 8), the book On the Incarnation of the Word, which we have already mentioned 103 (see for St. I.D., Chapter 4), d) books Against Apollinaris (see St. I.D. Ch. 3), which was also already discussed 104 (St. I.D. Ch. 3), e) Letter to Adelphius (that the word of God in the person of Jesus Christ should be given divine worship) 105 (see St. I.D. Ch. 3), f) Words against the pagans (about the Incarnation, the saving actions of death on the cross...), which are discussed above 106 (in St. I. D. ch. 20); g) A conversation about circumcision and the Sabbath (see St. I. D. ch. 23, 25). 3) St. Basil the Great. St. I. Damascene uses a) his Book on the Holy Spirit about which we have already discussed 107 (for St. I. D., see Chapters 2, 12, 13 and 16), b) a conversation on baptism (about not delaying baptism, and about its power) 108 (see St. I. D., Chapter 9), c) “A Discourse on Psalm 115th" 109 (see St. I.D. Ch. 11), Interpretation of the eleventh chapter of the book of the prophet Isaiah 110 (see St. I.D. Ch. 11), Discourse on the fact that God is not the Author of evil 111 (see St. I.D. Ch. 19), a word of praise to the forty martyrs 112 (see in St. I. D. ch. 15 and 16). 4) St. John Chrysostom. St. John of Damascus uses a) his conversations mentioned above: on the Gospel of Matthew 113 (see in St. I.D. ch. 9, 13), on the Gospel of John 114 (in St. I.D. ch. 13), in the Epistle to the Ephesians 115 (in St. I.D. ch. 13); b) a conversation on the Epistle to the Romans 116 (in St. I.D. ch. 18), c) on the second epistle to Thessalonians 117 (in St. I.D. ch. 26) and others; d) on the book of Genesis 118 (in St. I. D. ch. 25); reasoning about what kind of evil God is the culprit (in St. I.D. ch. 19) and others (see in St. I.D. ch. 9, 18...). 5) St. Gregory of Nyssa. St. John of Damascus uses his works: Catechism 119 (in St. I. D. ch. 13); Against Eunomius 120 (in St. I. D. ch. 8); On the creation of man 121 (in St. I. D. ch. 24); About the soul and resurrection 122 (in St. I. D. ch. 27); In a word for the Nativity of the Lord (in St. I.D. ch. 14)... 6) St. Cyril of Alexandria. St. John of Damascus uses his creations: Treasure 123 (in St. I.D. ch. 18); Interpretation of the Gospel of John 124 (in St. I. D. ch. 4); his Letters to Emperor Theodosius and the queens (in St. I.D. ch. 6) and to Acacius, Bishop of Mytilene (apologetic) 125 (in St. I.D. ch. 18). 7) St. Epiphanius of Cyprus. St. John of Damascus uses his Ancorat - “an anchor necessary so that believers are not blown by the wind of every teaching” - a work of quite varied content 126 (see St. I. D. ch. 3, 27); Panarem, “containing the history and refutation of heresies (20 pre-Christian and 80 Christian)” 127 (in St. I. D. ch. 23, 27); a book about weights and measures (biblical), which also treats other subjects: about Greek translations of the Old Testament, about the canonical books of the Old Testament 128 (in St. I. D. ch. 17). 8) St. Methodius, Bishop of Patara. St. John of Damascus uses his creation Against Origen 129 (in St. I.D. ch. 7); essay on the resurrection 130 (in St. I. D. ch. 9). 9) St. Cyril of Jerusalem. St. I. Damascene uses his catechetical teachings 131 (in St. I. D. ch. 11, 13, 17, 26). 10) St. Asterius of Amasia. St. John of Damascus uses his discourse on the holy martyrs, “defending respect for the saints of God and their holy remains against the pagans and eunomians” 132 (in St. I. D. ch. 15). 11) St. Irenaeus of Lyons. St. John of Damascus uses his work Against Heresies (or the denunciation and refutation of false knowledge), extensive and very important 133 (in St. I. D. ch. 26). 12) St. Eustathius of Antioch. St. John of Damascus uses his recollection of the six days (in St. I.D. ch. 14). His Eminence Philaret, however, says that this creation, in all likelihood, does not belong to Saint Eustathius of Antioch due to the fact that its spirit is not close to the spirit of the saint’s creations, and that much of it is taken from the six-day book of St. Basil and something from the Eusebius Chronicle... 134. 13) St. Dionysius the Areopagite. St. John of Damascus again 135 uses the creation attributed to him On the names of God (in St. I. D. ch. 13). 14) Evagrius - scholastic, Antiochian church historian 136. St. John of Damascus uses his Lib. Histor 137 (in St. I.D. ch. 16). 15) Athanasius the Younger or Small. St. John of Damascus uses the so-called Quaest. ad Antiochum (see St. I. D. ch. 2, 9, 11). We have already had occasion to talk about them above 138. Their author is unknown, and even if we assume the existence of some Athanasius the Younger, who could have taken a certain part in their compilation, then the time of his life, in view of the content of the Questions, should be attributed to the 7th century 139. Finally, 16) St. I. Damascene has in mind a) the “Liturgy of James” 140 (in St. I.D. ch. 13), b) the resolutions of the Trullo (the so-called fifth-sixth) council (in St. I.D. ch. 13)... 141 and so on. Agathon Pope 80th: 678–682 (see Brockhaus and Efron Encyclopedia. Dictionary). Anastasius II Antioch., Patr. from 561, d. in 599 (Philar. III, 169–170). Anastasius Sinait mind. in 686 (III, 233). Asterius of Amasia died, probably in 404 (II, 344). Afanasy Alex. mind. in 373 (II, 52). Afanasy Maly lived in the 7th century. (II, 66). Vasily the Great. genus. at the end of 330, uk. in 379 (II, 128, 132). Gregory Bogosl. genus. no later and no earlier than 326, d. 389 (II, 158, 159, 167). Gregory of Nyssa. not before 329, died probably soon after 394 (II, 128, 197). Dionysius Areorpagite. opinions about him are different (see Bishop Sergius, vol. II Anthology, part II, 317). Scholarly critics attribute the origin of the works he mastered to the end of the 4th or beginning of the 5th century. And they are attributed to Christ. Platonism (see Brockhaus and Efron). Evagrius Scholastic: 537–594 (see Brockhaus and Efron). Evlogiy Alexandriysk. mind. in 607 (III, 193 in Philar.). Efstaphius of Antioch. mind. around 345 (II, 25). Epiphanius of Cyprus mind. in 403 (II, 250 - see Bishop Sergius Apology: vol. II, part I, 123; part II, 133). Irenaeus of Lyon mind. in 202 (Filar. I, 95). John Chrysostom b. OK. 347 (II, 256), d. in 407 (II, 304). Justin Martyr b. OK. 105, d. in 166 (I, 62, 66). Kirill Alex., Archbishop. from 412; mind. in 444 (III, 92, 108). Kirill Ierus. , archbishop from 350, mind in 386 (II, 90, 93. - cf. our Preface §1). Clement Alex. died, probably in 217 (I, 198. - cf. our Preface: § 1). Leo Great mind. in 461 (III, 133). Leonty Byzant. mind. no later than 624 (III, 211). Maxim Ispov. mind. in 662 (Philar. III, 224). Methodius Patar. mind. in 312 (Serg. vol. II, part I, 164; part II, 172). Nemesius Emessk. contemporary of St. Gregory the Theologian (II, 5). Proclus Const. mind. in 446 (Philar. III, 88). Severian Gaval. mind. in 415 (II, 6). Sophronius Hierus., Patr. from 634, d. in 641 (III, 216–217). Felix III: 483–492 Bp. Rome. (Roberts. I, 1066). Theodorite gen. in 387, d. in 457 (III, 116,122, 123 in Philaret). Without mentioning other Christian writers, whose works the Monk John of Damascus also used to a certain extent, for example, Cosmas, the Indian navigator 142 (on the issue of “the Creation of the World” 143); Saint Hippolytus 144 (on the issue of Antichrist 145); Diodorus of Tarsus 146 (in the question of the cosmological proof of the existence of God, emanating from the changeability of the world in general 147)..., and saying that he was especially influenced by the influence of 148 St. Gregory of Nazianzus, Athanasius of Alexandria, Basil the Great, Gregory of Nyssa, Dionysius the Areopagite, a little less St. I. Chrysostom, St. Cyril Alex., St. Maximus the Confessor, Nemesia, blessed. Theodoret (we especially have in mind the plan for his presentation of dogmas) and others, we conclude, agreeing with other researchers (Lequien'em, Langen'om, Archbishop Philaret, etc. 149), that the exact presentation of the Orthodox faith is not in the proper sense the “original work” of St. John of Damascus, but a compilation of what has already been said by the Holy Fathers with the addition of a few additions that belong to him personally 150. At the same time, it should be noted that, with great love using Eastern Christian writers and little Western ones, he leaves without attention the works indicated in § 1 on the systematization of Christian doctrine and morals, belonging to Vincent of Lyrinsky, Blessed Augustine, Gennadius of Massalia, Fulgentius of Ruspensky, Junilius Africanus, Isidore of Seville, Leontius of Cyprus. He does this either because some of these works might be unknown to him, or because he did not see any need to use them, having before him the immeasurably better works of Gregory the Theologian, Athanasius the Great, Basil the Great. He could also use some of these works in an indirect way: for example, using the interpretations of Basil the Great on the Holy Scriptures, written, as is known 151, under the influence of the interpretations of Origen, the Monk John of Damascus eo ipso uses the latter; or using the plan of presentation of Christian dogmas, which was followed by blessed Theodoret, who undoubtedly had in mind Origen’s work on principles 152, John of Damascus eo ipso uses the latter. Rightly St. John of Damascus is likened to a bee, carefully and carefully collecting “the most pleasant honey” from the “flowers of thoughts” belonging to numerous Christian writers 153. He is truly “the mouth and interpreter of all theologians” 154. Some scholars 155 say that in relation to St. It makes sense to I. Damascene to ask about his dependence not only on Christian writers and their Christian views, but also on Plato and Aristotle and their followers. With the views of Plato, St. I. Damascene could get acquainted on the basis of the lessons of Cosmas the Calabrian who taught him, who, according to him, was familiar, among other things, with “philosophy” 156 ..., as well as on the basis of studying the works of Dionysius the Areopagite, who, “as is known,” was in some way a “Platonist” 157. What about St. I. Damascene “carefully studied Aristotelian philosophy” 158, this is beyond any doubt. The question is: how did such an acquaintance affect him? Very beneficial. Aristotle formed in him a clear thinker, precise in his concepts and words, the study of Aristotelian physics revealed in him the ability to make observations, etc. 159, could enrich him with some information about the “universe”, about the human soul... 160. Plato could amaze him with some thoughts about the deity, obtained exclusively by the natural mind alone. It is known that the study of Platonic philosophy awakened great thoughts in the spirit of the Theologian Gregory, the Great Basil and his brother, the Shepherd of Nyssa 161... However, on St. AND. Damascene's Platonic philosophy did not have such an influence: he had few high and deep thoughts that actually belonged to himself, Aristotle's dialectic, occupying him too much, prevented his desire for high contemplations from freely opening up in his soul 162. In particular, in the Precise Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, such an acquaintance of St. It is impossible not to notice I. Damascene with Plato, Aristotle and other pagan writers: see Ch. 13th of the 1st book and cf. Aristotel. Lib. IV Physic, p. 4 163; 1st chapter 2nd book. And cf. Aristo. Lib. I de coelo 164; Chapter 6 2nd book. And cf. Plato in Tim. 165; Ch. 4th 2nd book. And cf. Iambl de myst. sect. 4, p. 11 166; Ch. 7th 2nd book. And cf. Porph. De antro nymph. 167; Ch. 9th 2nd book. And cf. Strab. Lib. II 168 169 ... But from the fact of the existence of such acquaintance, it is certainly impossible to draw any conclusions that cast even a faint shadow on the Orthodox way of thinking of the Holy Father: he used either the thoughts of the named non-Christian writers who had nothing to do with theology, or their methods, with the help of which it was more convenient for him to reveal and justify his purely Christian views. Not to mention the fact that sometimes the provisions of pagan writers were cited by him only to refute them. In a word, specifically theological, specifically Christian material from St. I. Damascene did not take from pagan philosophers, but exclusively from the Holy Scriptures and from the Holy Fathers. The influence of Plato and Aristotle could and was only formal. We have briefly outlined the content of the Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, indicating the main sources that St. John of Damascus used in this case. If we compare this creation with all those that preceded it, then it is impossible not to place it far above all of them; it truly constitutes an era in the history of dogmatic science, since it is not the experience of only a more or less complete and cumulative presentation of dogmas, but in the strict sense a dogmatic science or system, which bears clear signs of one harmonious whole and is distinguished by the scientific method and other properties that characterize science... 170 of course, and in this dogmatic creation, scientific researchers see some shortcomings, the most important of which are the following: although its plan is completely natural, it would still be necessary to change it in such a way, for example, that what is related to the content of the fourth book about the work of redemption accomplished by Jesus Christ for our salvation, about his glorified state, about his resurrection, ascension, sitting at the right hand of the Father, could be attributed to the content of the third books, due to the internal and indivisible unity of the objects of both; although its content generally embraces the entire area of ​​Christian doctrine, it still lacks complete completeness: some dogmas are either little disclosed or left without any disclosure, especially about grace, justification and the sacraments, of which he only talks about the Eucharist and baptism; He does not notice a completely strict distinction between dogmas as truths of faith from other truths that are not dogmatic, as a result of which, along with purely dogmatic truths, questions related to the field of morality, natural science and psychology are also revealed, but not directly and directly related to dogma (for example, the refutation of dualism is separated from the doctrine of God). However, these shortcomings do not say anything against the Holy Father: firstly, he did not write for school, which is why he was naturally not forced to pay attention to aspects similar to those we noted immediately above; secondly, the method, the plan of his creation should be assessed from the point of view of the conditions not of our time, but of the one when the Monk John of Damascus lived; considered with this latter in mind, they, fully responding to the essence of the matter, satisfy all the scientific requirements of the system, as far as the requirements were high in their time. Therefore, we repeat once again that the work of John of Damascus in question represents a most remarkable phenomenon in the history of dogmatic science. The qualities that are undoubtedly inherent in him: penetration into the thought of each dogma, the desire to substantiate the latter on the Holy Scripture, to illuminate it with the abundant light of Church Tradition, not neglecting any data from contemporary science in order to bring dogmatic truth closer to the human mind, and especially the strict fidelity of the dogmatic system of Damascus to the spirit of the ancient Ecumenical Church fully explain the attitude in which subsequent times, up to and including the present, stood and stand towards him. In particular, the dogmatics of Damascus - the experience of a harmonious combination of the interests of faith with the requirements of science - was a high example for dogmatists of subsequent times. These latter could only imitate it and, for their part, only try to avoid the shortcomings that (like those mentioned above) were included in it. Under such conditions, dogmatic science would develop and improve to a greater and greater extent over time. In fact, it turned out far from being so: the use of the dogmatic creation of St. John of Damascus, indeed, was extensive, but worthy imitators who, with their labors, could support the honor of this greatest creation and continue the work of the monk, unfortunately, for many centuries there were no worthy imitators not only in the West, but also in the East - in Greece. As for the individual use of this creation, it, as we said above, was truly amazing. In the period before the division of churches (in the 11th century), this dogmatic creation received full attention from all Christian theologians in general, i.e. both Western and Eastern. At this time (at the very beginning of the 10th century) it was even translated into the Slavic language. After the division of the churches, relations between East and West, as is known, became strained and were generally unfriendly. Nevertheless, the great work of John of Damascus continued to attract great attention from Western theologians for a long time. It is known that in the 12th century, on behalf of Pope Eugene III (1144–1153), it was translated into Latin. In the same century, Peter of Lombardy († 1164) shortened it. A century later, the most famous of the medieval scholastic theologians, Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274), expounded it in detail. But in general, Western dogmatic research into truth, under the influence of the new scholastic direction, entered a new path, which was unknown either to Damascus or to his most ancient predecessors in the study of the dogmas of faith, and due to its instability and instability, it rather led to bewilderment and misconceptions than to provide significant benefits. The Eastern Church has always looked and looks at the Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith as the most reliable, classic... textbook of theology, as the basis and norm of all later Greek dogmas... But, as we said above, here, too, for many centuries there were no worthy imitators and continuers of the work of St. John of Damascus. However, this circumstance is explained, firstly, by the fact that at this time scientific theological forces had to be used to develop and resolve various particular dogmatic questions caused by the then living conditions, and secondly, by the fact (and this is most important in this case) that the external circumstances of Greece became more and more unfavorable for enlightenment, until finally they deteriorated to the most extreme degree in the middle of the 15th century, when (in 1453) all of Greece together with its capital, Constantinople, fell to the rule of the Turks. Consequently, if in Greece, during the entire time before the capture of Constantinople by the Turks, only three dogmatic experiences appeared: The Dogmatic Armory of the Orthodox Faith - Eugene Zigaben (XII century), the Treasure of the Orthodox Faith - Nicetas Choniates († 1206) and Church. conversation about the one faith of Christ against the atheists, pagans, Jews and all heresies - Simeon, Archbishop. Solunsky (XV century), then this is not surprising in view of the above-mentioned living conditions in Greece. Without producing anything similar to the dogmatic creation of St. I. Damascene, Eastern theologians cared about studying it and disseminating it as widely as possible..., as indicated, for example, by “lists” of it, continuously going through all centuries... The great respect that the exact exposition of the Orthodox faith enjoyed in the minds of Greek theologians also passed into the minds of Russian theologians, who have always looked and continue to look at this creation as one of a kind. We also have attempts to continue and support the creation of the Holy Father. Of these, the most worthy of mention are: from the 17th century, the Orthodox Confession of the Catholic and Apostolic Church of the Eastern Peter Mogila, and from the 19th century, the dogmatic works of Archbishop Anthony, Archbishop Philaret (of Chernigov), Metropolitan. Macarius and Bishop Sylvester, more or less known to every educated compatriot of ours. But whatever and whenever dogmatic works appear, they not only will not overshadow the significance of the work of St. I. Damascene, but they cannot be compared with him, if only for the following reasons: John of Damascus lived in the era before the division of the Churches, and therefore, his creation should have full force for Western theologians; his thoughts are the thoughts of the ancient Universal Church, his word is the final word of what was previously expressed about faith by all the ancient Fathers and teachers of the church; his creation is the last cherished and parting word on behalf of the ancient Ecumenical Church to all further dogmatists, who could here find for themselves a living example and lesson of how and in what spirit they themselves need to continue to carry out the work of their scientific research and understanding of dogmas, so as to preserve the good of faith and at the same time satisfy the modern requirements of science. In short: his dogmatic creation (in connection with his other works) is in some way the only ground on which Eastern and Western theologians could reconcile with each other; this is a certain measure that would very clearly show Western theologians all the groundlessness and disastrousness of their deviation from the voice of the ancient Universal Church towards purely human inventions and interpretations. In conclusion, we cannot help but say that this ancient church and ancient patristic dogma should be carefully studied by every Christian who wants to understand the lofty Christian truths 171. Such a wonderful creation, what is the exact exposition of the Orthodox faith of St. I. Damascene, naturally, has long been translated into various languages ​​172. By the way, it was also translated into Slavic. In addition to the Slavic translation noted above, dating back to the 10th century, translations of Epiphanius of Slavenitsky (from the 17th century), Ambrose, Archbishop of Moscow (from the 18th century) and others, for example, Andrei Kurbsky 173 are known... Translations of this work were also made into Russian: at the Moscow Theological Academy (Moscow, 1844), at the St. Petersburg Theological Academy (see Christian reading, 1839, part 1, 42 pages). Without touching on the merits and demerits inherent in both, since talking about this in many respects is inconvenient under these conditions, especially since the venerable name of the theological academy in both cases must vouch for the competence of the translators, we allow ourselves to note only the following: 1) the Moscow translation, as stated in the preface to it, was made on the basis of the “Lekenev edition”, on the basis of which, it must be thought, was made and St. Petersburg. The mentioned edition of the works of St. I. Damascus, bearing the title: “του εν αγίοσ πατροσ ημων ιωάννου του δαμασκηνου, μοναχου και πρεσβυτέρου ιεροσολύμων τα ευρισκόμενα πάντα. Opera et studio p. Michaelis Lequien... (tomi 1 et 2; Parisiis; M. DOCXII), is indeed recognized as the best and is unanimously recognized 174... It is then reprinted in volume 94-96 (ser. graec.) "Patrologiae cursus completus" by I. P. Migne. In particular, this creation of St. Father: εκδοσισ ακριβήσ τησ ορθοδόξου πίστεωσ The exact statement of the Orthodox faith in the edition of Lequien itself is in the 1st volume: pag. 123–304; and Migne in volume 94: pag. 781–1228 (1864 ann.). While we fully agree that the edition under review is the best of all that came before it, we nevertheless notice that a number of typos and even some omissions of entire expressions, and not just individual words, have crept into it 175 . All this, having found a place in Lequien’s own edition, usually remains intact in Migné’s reprint. Therefore, a translator who is strict about his task must, we think, constantly have at hand (for comparison) some other edition of the works of St. I. Damaskina. According to some data, it can be judged that Moscow and St. Petersburg translators seem to have limited themselves to only the Lequien edition. We also had the opportunity to use the (Basel) edition of Marci Hopperi (from 1575) 177 . This edition, of course, is ancient and in many respects inferior to Lequien's: it is not as strictly verified as the latter; it often does not separate new thoughts in a visible way; in it (at least in the text of the Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith), not only patristic, but also biblical quotations found no place at all, i.e., it is not indicated where St. The father took this or that word, expression... But, in itself worse than Lequien's, M. Hopperi's edition acquires great importance in those cases where Lequien's made obvious mistakes... With both editions there are also Latin translations, printed in parallel with the Greek text. Both translations are not the same and, as such, often explain each other, for a third party even serving as a kind of commentary on the text of this work of St. Father... So, we, first of all, made our translation according to Lequien’s edition, precisely according to the text of this edition, reprinted by Migne, and, if necessary, we corrected and supplemented Lequien’s text with the help of Hopper’s text. In addition to this first circumstance, which in a certain sense prompted us to make a new translation of this work by St. I. Damaskin, 2) in this case, it was also important that the Moscow translation, made fifty years ago, cannot be found on sale, and the St. Petersburg translation, as far as we know, has hardly ever gone on sale in the form of separate prints from the Christian Reading... Consequently, for those who do not have the opportunity to get either the first or the second - and they can mostly be obtained only in spiritual libraries - the appearance of a new translation would be, we think it would be desirable... At the same time, we are not talking about at least some obsolescence of both translations, as if they were made too many years ago, because all this, without speaking at all against their internal merits, is understandable by itself and is an inevitable circumstance... Finally, 3) having in my soul the thought of offering to the favorable attention of pious Russian readers all the works of St. I. Damascene in the Russian translation, which, with the help of God, we, perhaps, will do, if only the few hours of our leisure time and other circumstances beyond our personal control allow - we began the translation with those creations that, for some reason, need it more than others. Last year (1893) we proposed a translation of the Three Protective Words of St. I. Damascene against those who condemn holy icons or images. Now we offer a translation of “An Accurate Exposition of the Orthodox Faith.” The very translation of their latest creation, in general, bears the same features that were inherent in our translation last year: while “translating” it, we tried everywhere to adhere as closely as possible to the letter of the Greek text, deviating from it only in more or less extreme cases, called for by necessity. The necessity, for example, of the fragmentary nature of the Greek text, the peculiarities of the Greek text, the peculiarities of Russian speech, which do not always coincide with the peculiarities of Greek..., necessitated some additions to Greek expressions, some periphrases of Greek passages, etc., in a word, everything that usually finds a place in translations of this kind 178 . The more significant of these additions are usually enclosed not in semicircular ( ), but in angular (i.e., []) brackets, the presence of which does not in any way impede the readability of the translation: the latter must be read along with what is enclosed in brackets, without paying attention to the latter, which have only one meaning: they separate our additions from the words of St. I. Damaskina. Not to mention the fact that there are very, very few such additions 179. For the same purpose, that is, to make our translation more readable, we have removed all explanations and other notes and pointers from the text and placed them at the end of the book in the form of appendices to it, where anyone can find all the information that, in our opinion, they may need 180. There are precisely: 1) notes consisting of indications of those passages from Holy Scripture, the Holy Fathers and even non-Christian writers, such as St. I. Damascene used one way or another 181, as well as from some explanations of a philological nature, as well as from indicating (not all, however) discrepancies 182 ...; 2) notes of theological, philosophical, historical... nature 183; 3) a biblical index of places that are somehow touched upon in the creation we are translating, and the books and chapters of the latter are indicated where this place is meant; 4) an alphabetical index of proper (extra-biblical) names of persons mentioned in the Accurate Statement of the Orthodox Faith, etc. 184. Finally, the translation we propose was made by us completely independently, certainly independently of the above mentioned: Moscow and St. Petersburg - Russian translations (and other Russian translations are not known to us), as well as from the Slavic translations mentioned earlier... So, may God's blessing rest on our work! St. Petersburg Theological Seminary. This paragraph is presented on the basis of Orthodox Experience. dogmatic theology - bishop Sylvester (vol. I; 2nd ed.; Kiev, 1884; see §§ 16–19). Historical uch. about the Father Ts. - arch. Philareta; vol. I.; 1859; St. Petersburg; p.198. – See below: end of 4th paragraph. Ibidem; page 217. See below: end of 4th paragraph. Historical uch. about the Father Ts. - arch. Philareta; Vol. III. St. Petersburg 1859; pp.18, 24 and 25. See Prolegomena Leonis Allatii (Patr. c. compl. – Migne; ser. gr.; t. 94; 1864 ann., p. 129 et seq.). History of Christ. Robertson's Church in trans. Lopukhina; vol. I, p. 1064; 1890 The rhetorician Eugenius was deposed by the emperor four months before the death of the latter, who died in 395 (Roberts; ibid. p. 258). Reigned from 408 to 450 (Roberts; ibid., p. 1064). St. Basil v. mind. in 379; St. Grigory Naz. mind. in 389; St. Gregory of Nyssa died, probably shortly after 394; St. I. Chrysostom mind. in 407; St. Proclus in 446; St. Cyril Alex. in 444; (see the index of proper names in the appendix to our translation of three words of St. John of Damascus against those who condemn the holy icon; St. Petersburg, 1898). Leo III the Isaurian. kingdoms from 717 to 741 (Roberts; ibid.; p. 1064). See Migne: loco citato; p. 129–134. Nirschl: Lehrbuch der Patrologie..., 3 Bd.; Mainz; s. 613. Wed. in Migne: loco cit., pag. 519–520 (Latin preface to the Source of knowledge)... Langen: Johannes von Damaskus. Gotha; 1879, s. 21. probably by this year, according to arch. Philaret (Historical study of the Fathers of the Church; vol. III, St. Petersburg, 1859, p. 257). See Migne: loco cit., pag. 133–134. See bishop. Sylvester in the decree. his work. About the relation of the exact exposition. Orthodox faith to other works of St. I. Damascus, for example, to his Three defensive speeches against the blaming saints. icons, a kind of abbreviation of which is Chapter XVIIV of the book, and so on, we will not talk about: this relationship is not such that talking about it in our relatively short introductory essay would not be superfluous. Moreover, in all necessary cases, we nevertheless note it in the notes to our translation, where those who wish can see it... See P. C. C. Migne; ser. gr.; t. 94, pag. 521–526. He does this in Dialectic (1–68 chapters). Here, in particular, the concept of philosophy is given, it is said about its division into theoretical and practical, basic philosophical concepts are explained, for example, being, substance and accident, genus and species, principle, form, quantity... The writer drew mainly from Aristotle and Porphyry, correcting them where his Christian worldview required it, and in such points contrasting St. Fathers... Philosophy here is considered as antila theologiae. “creation is very useful for... theologians...” see Nirschal loc cit. S. 614. He does this in the Book of (103) heresies (20 pre-Christian and 83 Christian ones). Representing a collection of the works of Epiphanius, Theodoret and other Greeks. Historians, and borrowings from sources are often done literally. The book on heresies is independent only in its last section, where it deals with Mohammedanism, iconoclasts and doxarii. In conclusion, the Orthodox confession is stated... See ibidem. He does this in an exact exposition. Orthodox faith - creation, the content of which will be outlined below: see § 3 of the Preface. See Migne; loc. cit., pag. 533–534. Codex Regius n. alone. 3445 (very new) seems to divide creation into two parts: 1) περι τησ θεολογίασ and 2) περι τησ οικονομίασ... See Migne: loco cit. pag. 781–782. Regarding what was said under number 4), see Migne; tom. 94, pag. 781–784 (In librum De fide orth. Prologus); pag. 23–26 (Notitia er biblioteca Fabricii); pag.135–140 (Prolegomena Leonis Allatii)...; Langen's loc. cit. S. 61–62, etc. Such deviations, which we usually note in additional notes to our translation, are explained, among other things, by the fact that these passages were cited by St. I. Damaskin by heart. The same circumstance can sometimes be kept in mind in relation to some excerpts from patristic literature cited by St. I. Damascus... See above the preface to the translation of the three protective words of St. I. Damascus against the blaming saints. Icons (1893, p. XXI). List of Bibles places found in the exact presentation of the Orthodox Church. faith, see Appendix III to our translation (at the end of our book). The persons whose names are underlined had a comparatively greater influence on St. I. Damascene than others. See History. uch. about father Ts. arch. Philareta; 1859, vol. II, pp. 167 et seq., 175 seq. See Migne: t. 94 (ser. gr.), pag. 781–2: Lequien's “Prologus” “In libr. De fide orth.” Notes on the speeches of St. Gregory B. are made by us (just as below similar references to the works of other Christian writers) on the basis of Lequien's notes to the text of this work by St. I. Damaskina. Filar. - Historian. uch. about. Father Ts. vol. II, p. 198. - cf. we have above § 1 Preface, 4. Ibid. in Phil., pp. 200, 198. Bogorodsky: “Uch. St. I.D. about the origin. Holy Spirit "...; St. Petersburg, 1879, p. 165. Filar. T. III (1859; St. Petersburg), p. 106. Ibid. vol. II, pp. 52...59. Ibid. vol. II, p. 60; page 59. Ibid. vol. II, pp. 134–135. Filar. ibid. vol. III, pp. 141–142. See Lequien's Prologus to an Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith (in Migne; tom. 94; pag. 781–782.) Lequien means the first of the Two Volumes of Dogmas to Marinus or his aforementioned letter to Marinus (see our page XLIII). - Filar. III, p. 226. Ibid. 224; note 2nd. See above: our preface – page XLII... Filar. vol. II, pp. 276, 278, 279, 295. Ibid. Vol. II, p. 6, note X. See above: page XLII. Filar. I; 1859; St. Petersburg; §§ 74–76. Ibid. 60. Wed. we have above: page XLIII. See above: § 1. – Filar. III, 128. See Migne Prolog. Lequien to an Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith (t. 94; pag. 781–782). – see Langen's. 62... See our preface: § 1. Lequ.: “Clem. Alex. ap. Max. ". See our translation » Three Words of St. I. Damascus against the blaming saints. icons “... (St. Petersburg, 1893); page XII of the preface. Our preface: page XLII. XLV... Our preface: page XLIII. Filar. II, 148, 48th note. Ibid. III, 106, 97–89, 100... Ibid. 102, note 50. – 108 pp. Ibid. 226, 15th note. See our preface: XLII. See Encyclops. Words – Brockhaus and Efron: Dionysius the Areopagite. Filar. III, 88, 14th note; page 90. At Lequ. General quote: “Eulog. ap. Max." (without indicating the works of St. Eulogius). At Lequ. General quote: “Anast. Antioch" (not indicating the works of St. Anastasius). This is how the quote appears in Lequien. See Robertson in cited. his writing. Our Preface; XLIII. Wed. XLV. Filar. II, 59, note 44th. Ibid. 148, note 48th. Ibid. 134; 23rd note. Our Preface; XLII and friend. Our Preface: § 1. – Filar. II, 93... Our Preface: XLII, l. Filar. III, 10; note "nn". This is how the quote appears in Lequien. Our Preface: XLVII. See decree. above op. Robertson: 1 volume, 576... The lifetime of the Christian writers indicated in § 4 can be noted as follows: Filar. III. 9: in 546. Composed by Christ. topography and interpretation of the Gospel of Luke and Psalms... Around half of the 3rd century he was the bishop of a pier near Rome... (Philar. I, 105, 106...). Filar. II. 4; note m: There was a bishop. since 379... Wed. Footnote and related text on page XL of our Preface. See Prolog. Lequien'ya to the Exact presentation of the Orthodox Church. faith and friends; in Langen: s. 61...; at the archbishop's Philareta: III, 260, 258... See also about this in Narschl (Lehrbuch d. Patrologie... III b. Mainz. S. 613–616...), in Alzog (grundriss der Patrologie; 1888; s. 476–478)... See, for example, Prolog. Lequein to the Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Church. faith See our third epigraph (on the first page of our translation). See about this, for example, in Langen: § 5, s. 104 et seq. So quotes Lequien's... Same. Wed. In Lequien (s. 111), who also points to Ptolemy as influencing St. I. D. in revealing issues related to the universe... Aristotle lived 384–347; Porphyry (Neoplatonist), student of the founder of Neoplatonism - Plotinus, who lived in 204–269. along the river Chr.; Iamblichus - student of Porphyry; Strabo b. around 63 BC Chr., was a famous Greek geographer. Ptolemy, a geographer, astronomer and mathematician, lived in the first half of the 2nd century AD. Chr. in Alexandria... See Windelband's History of Ancient Philosophy (St. Petersburg, 1893): pp. 193, 145, 148, 306, 307, 314. – Converseitions-lexicon Brockhaus' (1886 jahr.). Sylvester: Experience of Orthodox Dogmatic Theology: vol. I., § 18 (Kyiv, 1884; 2nd ed.). All places, starting almost from the beginning of § 5, after the 170th note, which have introduced signs () in front and behind them, are borrowed: a) from the decree. labor bishop Sylvester (§ 16, 18 and 19; vol. I; 2nd ed.; Kazan, 1884); b) from decree. labor of Philaret Chernig. (“Historical study of the Father Ts.”; vol. III, 261); c) from decree. works of Alzog (cf. S. 476–478) and Nirschl (s. 613–616), cf. at Windelband About time. the lives of P. Lombard (p. 336) and Thomas Aquinas (p. 365). Wed. Textbook of Macarius on dogmatics. theology (1888; Moscow, p. 9)... Wed. in Langen: s. 6–14, 27 et seq... Filaret in the Review of Russian Spiritual Literature says that glory. translation of the 10th century belongs to John Exarch of Bulgaria (I, 1859; No. 4); that the translation of Epifan Slavenitsky ed. in 1658 (I, no. 223), that Ambrose’s translation was published in 1771 (II, 1861; cf. no. 54), that Kurbsky’s translation appeared in the 16th century. (I; 1859, no. 141). Herzog (Real-encyklopadie fur protestantische theolgie und kirche; 1880 j. s. 40); Filaret (vol. III “historical teaching about the Father Ts.”; p. 197), etc. Cf. XXXVI page Preface to our translation of the three protective words of St. I. Dam. Against the blaming St. icons 1893 See the indications of such cases in the first appendix to our translation (at the end of this book) of the Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith. some corrections (minor) are sometimes found in it (cf. This is also our preface to our translation of “Three Concluding Words”..., p. XXXVII.) Wed Also the preface to our translation of “Three Protective Words”... See I. Dam.: page XXXVII. See our preface to the translation of “Three words against those who blame St. icons... page XXXVII. Made on the basis of Lequien's notes, of which (often erroneous) biblical ones we personally checked and corrected, and sometimes other notes as far as possible... The discrepancies are indicated on the basis of Lequien's notes, as well as on the basis of a comparison of Lequien's text with the Hopperi text. Made mostly on the basis of Lequien's notes, with changes corresponding to the essence of the matter... We also cannot help but point out, as a certain feature of our translation, the fact that we sometimes prefer to use Slavic and generally more ancient words, as more consistent with established theological terminology and language, for example, one, good, judge... (about God), tree (of life), feet, God-speaking... etc.