225. К монаху Кесарию 160

This letter, preserved in its entirety only in a Latin translation and previously attributed to St. John Chrysostom, in fact does not belong to him (contrary to the statement of the pre-revolutionary publisher of the saint's works). It was created using authentic creations of the blj. Theodoret of Cyrus and directed against Eutychianism. Thus, it appeared at least several decades after the death of St. John and therefore cannot belong to him. The letter proves the fallacy of opinions about the merging of the natures of Divinity and humanity in Christ at the Incarnation or about the transformation of His human nature into the Divine. Among other examples given to refute these opinions, the sacrament of the Eucharist is mentioned. In particular, an erroneous statement is given, from the point of view of Orthodox theology, that the Eucharistic Gifts by nature remain bread and wine: “When Divine grace consecrates [the bread] through the mediation of the priest, it is no longer called bread, but is worthily called the Body of the Lord, although the nature (natura) of bread remains in it.” Using this example to refute the Monophysite misconceptions of his opponents led the author of the letter to a symbolic understanding of the sacrament of the Eucharist. In the original texts of St. John Chrysostom affirms the reality of the transformation of bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ: “Do not consider that this is bread, do not consider that this is wine, for it is not like ordinary food that goes into the aphedron - no, do not think so; but just as if you, by combining wax with fire, would lose nothing and add nothing, so here imagine that the sacrament is united with the essence of our body” (De poenit. 9). The participant can “now on earth see not angels and archangels, not heavens and heavens of heavens, but the Lord of all Himself,” and “not only see, but also touch; not only to touch, but also to taste - and, having tasted, to go home” (In 1 Cor. 24.5). From the Editors of the ABC of Faith We read the letter of your honesty, but we did not read it without tears, because how can we not cry and be heartbroken when we see that our brother, who from his youth chose the monastic life and devoted himself entirely to piety, suddenly fell under the blows of heretics? [You will say, of course, that you have moved from error to something better, and you will express gratitude to those who brought you that wondrous book, which in your beautiful letter you call excellent, since it clearly preaches that (in Jesus Christ) an essential confluence and a God-worthy mixture of divinity with flesh took place, through which one nature was formed. But this, my venerable one, is the absurdity of the mad Apollinaris; this is the most wicked heresy of those who introduce fusion and dissolution] - an indistinguishable continuation of the heresies of Arius, Apollinaris, Sabellius and Manes: according to their teaching, it already appears that suffering must be attributed and applied to the deity of the Only Begotten; but this is alien to Christians. Come to your senses, beloved, and return again to your previous state, abandoning this impure opinion, which belongs to Apollinaris and the so-called sinusiasts 161. Evil teachings always have a harmful influence on innocent people who, like us, live in simplicity. This book belongs to their teacher Apollinaris; You bought it for yourself and did it badly. Remembering, however, your previous life with us of your honesty and seeing from your letter of love that you, carried away by their madness, fell into error not only regarding the sacrament of the economy, but even regarding the community of names, we have now decided, with God’s assistance in our weakness, to present you with a clear statement of the teaching about this - to expose the wrong opinion of those who delivered you the heretical book, and to correct your honesty. So, my beloved, when you call (Jesus Christ) God, you confess in Him that which by nature is simple, uncomplicated, immutable, invisible, immortal, indescribable, incomprehensible, and the like. And by calling Him a man, you designate in Him that which is characteristic of a weak nature: His hunger, thirst, tears over Lazarus, fear, shedding of sweat, and the like, which is alien to the deity. [When you call Him Christ, you express both in Him: therefore Christ can be called both passionate and impassive - passionate in the flesh, impassive in divinity. The same thing that can be said about Christ can be said about the Son, about Jesus, about the Lord, since all these names are common and express both natures], the combination of which under them misleads the heretics, as soon as they take the name Christ instead of the common one for their own. However, these are only general names that should be used when professing the sacrament of economy. In fact, if you say that God suffered in any sense, then you will say the impossible - you will say blasphemy and deviate into the wickedness of Manichaeism and other similar heresies; If you again say that a person suffered, then it will be obvious that your church of flesh is an empty church. Without an inhabitant, a church cannot even be called a church, since then it is no longer a church. But perhaps they will say: “How did the Lord say: “Now you are seeking to kill Me, the Man who told you the truth that I heard from God”? ("Now you seek to kill Me, the man who spoke the truth to you, even as you heard from God") (John 8:40). A true and completely accurate expression: from the Divinity dwelling in Him, He did not cease to be a man and, wanting to indicate a nature subject to suffering, used the name “man,” since Christ is both God and man - God by dispassion, man by passion. One Son, one Lord - without a doubt, He is one and the same, possessing in the united natures one dominion, one power; but these natures are not consubstantial 162, and each of them retains its own properties without confusion, since both of them are unfused. As we call bread bread before it is consecrated; when divine grace sanctifies it through the mediation of the priest, then it is no longer called bread, but is worthily called the body of the Lord, although the nature of bread remains in it - and we call it not two bodies, but one body of the Son, [so here too, after the introduction of the Divine nature into the body, both together constituted one Son, one person, at the same time inseparably cognizable - not in one nature alone, but in two perfect ones. Otherwise, if we were to assume one nature, would it be possible to talk about non-mergence? Could we talk about inseparability? Would it then be possible to talk about unity itself? It is impossible for one and the same nature to unite, merge, or separate with itself. What kind of hell spewed out the doctrine that in Christ there is one nature? Or, while retaining the divine nature, they reject the human, and therefore reject our salvation; or, holding back human nature, they reject the divine: let them now tell us which nature has lost its properties? If there is still talk about unity, then it is necessary to allow for features that are subject to unification: otherwise this is not unity, but the merging and disappearance of natures.] But, evading answering the question, they immediately turn to something else that does not directly answer the question, and pronounce an inconsistent proposition: “God suffered and did not suffer.” If you ask them: “How is this possible?” - they refer to incomprehensibility and answer: “As you wish.” But their memory does not remember Christ! Being thus put to shame in this, they then say: “Yes, Christ is not only God, but also man”; however, then, [again jumping to another, they say: “But after unity one should not talk about two natures.” Understand the meaning of this word. Did you say "unity"? And the unity of one nature (without the other) is unthinkable, 163 as we said above. “The Word became flesh” (“The Word became flesh”) (John 1:14), they say; but let them delve into the lofty thought of the seer - he added: “and dwelt among us” (“and dwelt in us”) (John 1:14). Isn’t it obvious that what inhabits is different from what is inhabited? “If they had known,” they say, “they would not have crucified the Lord of glory” (“If they had known, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory”) (1 Cor. 2:8). But as soon as you pronounce the name “Lord,” you must remember that this is not a personal name, but a general one, expressing both susceptibility to suffering and dispassion. [They usually also offer in objection: “Is it not God’s body and blood that we partake of faithfully and piously?” “Yes,” one must tell them, “but not because the Divinity, by its nature, before incarnation, possessed body and blood, and therefore it is said that it assimilates flesh to itself.” How absurd! What impious reasoning! They are ready to humiliate the dignity of the deity; and on the other hand, they do not want to recognize the body of the Lord as the true body. Summarizing various passages from the Holy Scriptures, they imagine that it has turned into a deity and conclude from this that the nature (in Jesus Christ) is one; Meanwhile, what kind of nature this is (divine or human), they cannot say 164, so that, of necessity, following Apollinaris, they do not later attribute suffering to the deity and exclude themselves from the promised benefits. Will they really not tremble and remember eternal judgment when they hear what the Lord says: “I am the Lord, I do not change” (“I am, ... and I do not change”) (Malachi 3:6)? “The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak... My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me... My soul is grieved unto death...” (Matt. 26:41, 39:38) “Look at my hands and at my feet; it is I myself; Or again: “You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God” (Matthew 16:16); said: “living”, not “dying”. And the Holy Scripture presents us with many similar passages; but heretics always misinterpret it. [Leaving their idle talk, let us return, beloved, to the subject of our speech. Therefore, it is pious and very pious to confess that Christ, who suffered for us by death, is perfect in Divinity, perfect in humanity, that He is one Only Begotten Son, not divided into two sons, but at the same time carrying within Himself unfused the special properties of two inseparable natures - not this and that, by no means, but one and the same Lord Jesus Christ. The Word of God clothed in flesh, and not soulless flesh, as the wicked Apollinaris said. We will stick to this. On the contrary, let us flee those who divide (Him): although He has a dual nature, nevertheless the unity that we confess in the one person of sonship, in the unity of hypostasis, is inseparable and indissoluble. But let us also flee from those who, after unity, unnaturally preach one nature: by assuming one nature, they become forced to attribute suffering to the impassive God, thus rejecting the economy of salvation and anticipating for themselves the hell of the devil. Without going beyond the size of the letter, I think that this is enough to affirm your love, my honorable 165. The paragraphs in the text were arranged by us. – Editorial staff of “ABC of Faith” In its entirety, the present letter has reached our time only in a medieval Latin translation, and only some of its passages, which we designated in our translation with insertions, have been preserved in Greek in various works of ancient Greek writers, such as Leontius of Jerusalem († c. 596). Anastasia Presbytera, student of teacher. Maximus the Confessor († 662), John of Damascus († c. 780) and Nikephoros Patriarch of Constantinople († 829). All the named writers, using this letter in their writings, mostly against the Monophysites, pointed to it as the true creation of St. John Chrysostom, and quoted passages from him to prove that even before the Council of Chalcedon, the fathers and teachers of the church taught about the unity of natures in the person of Jesus Christ, just as the Orthodox Church teaches after. Despite the fact that almost all the most famous Roman Catholic scholars, with the exception of Harduin, reject its authenticity and think that it belongs to some unknown writer who lived after the time of the Council of Chalcedon, but without sufficient grounds. The full title of this letter, both according to the Latin translation and almost according to the Greek excerpt from Nikephoros of Constantinople, reads as follows: “Letter to the monk Caesarea of Blessed John, Bishop” (arxiepskópou) “of Constantinople, from the time of his secondary exile” This was the name of the Apollinarians, as can be seen from the works of St. Gregory the Theologian. It is spoken against the sinusiasts, who, as can be seen from the works of Athanasius the Great, Gregory the Theologian, Epiphanius and others, taught that before his appearance on earth Christ had heavenly flesh, eternal, co-existent (sunousiwménhn), and even consubstantial with the Divine, in which he appeared. From the essay of Rev. John of Damascus against the Jacobites. From Anastasia Presv. Nikephoros Const., I. Damascus and Leontius of Jerusalem. You might be interested in: