The doctrine of the economy of salvation in Byzantine theology (Bishop Nicholas of Metho, Metropolitan Nicholas Kavasila and Nikita Akominat)

Contents I. Characteristics of Byzantine theology II. Nicholas, Bishop of Metho, and the Councils of 1156–1157. III. Niketas Acominatus (Choniates) IV. Nicholas Kavasila, Metropolitan of Thessaloniki The teaching of Nicholas Kavasila on the Economy of Salvation Anthropology The insufficiency of human truth, the Old Testament Law and philosophy, etc. for reconciliation with God The scope of the concept “Economy of salvation” The final cause of the entire Economy The destruction of the triple barrier that existed between people and God The fullness of benefits that came through the Economy The special action of individual Hypostases The exhaustion, humiliation of the Son of God Incarnation Death on the Cross Resurrection Second Coming and Resurrection of the Dead Life and death of the Savior, as the restoration of the honor of God, i.e. e. discovery of the goodness of God Soteriology of Nicholas Cabasilas and its significance As you know, the Economy of Salvation or the Economy of the Incarnation is the entire totality of the actions of the Incarnate Son of God for the salvation of the fallen human race. It is, as Prof. put it. V.V. Bolotov, can be defined as “the highest area of ​​God’s relations with man” 1 (all except providential ones). Although in the works of St. Fathers of the Ancient Church, from St. Athanasius of Alexandria before St. John of Damascus inclusive, there are many soteriological statements, but they were almost not highlighted by St. fathers from their triadological, christological, ascetic and homiletical works. Defending the Orthodox teaching about the Holy Trinity and the Person of the Lord Jesus Christ against the heresies of that time, they also defended the Holy Tradition about the Economy of Salvation, which itself is based on and is closely connected with the teaching about the Holy Trinity and the Person of the God-Man. Another reason for this is that the doctrine of God is more theoretical in nature than the doctrine of the Economy, which for Christians was, first of all, of vital practical interest. “It is not in vain, I believe,” says the representative of late Byzantine theology, Metropolitan Nicholas Kavasila, “we proclaim the doctrine of God, and show the Economy by deeds...” and adds: “The doctrine of God must only be believed and confessed in words (Rom. 10:10), but the Economy must also be imitated (1 Pet. 2:21)” 2. Soteriological problems became the subject of discussion among the broad masses of church society after the division of the Churches (1054), when the false results of Western speculative theology began to penetrate into Byzantium. Councils were held in defense of church teaching (1157, 1166 and others), and experiments were compiled to systematize the Ecumenical Tradition about the Economy of Salvation. For a deep study of the doctrine of the Economy in Byzantine theology, a detailed study of all surviving literature of the period under study (especially the rich spiritual life of the 14th century) and other sources is necessary. This work had the preliminary goal of familiarizing itself with the soteriological views of only two outstanding Byzantine theologians - Bishop Nicholas of Metho (XII century) and Metropolitan Nicholas Kavasila (XIV century). Although their works were studied, it was mainly from the historical, general theological and mystical point of view [Bp. Arseny (Ivashchenko), bishop. Alexy (Dorodnitsyn), Ullmann, Dräseke, Gass, etc.]. “The Treasure of Orthodoxy” by historian and theologian Nikita Akominat was used as auxiliary material. Naturally, the study of two, albeit outstanding, writers does not allow us to make broad generalizations. It only shows that Byzantine theology, which has been little studied so far, is worthy of more careful and attentive study. I. Characteristics of Byzantine theology By Byzantine or late Byzantine theology itself, in contrast to the theology of the Ancient Church, we will understand the theology of the Orthodox Church in the period from the end of the Ecumenical Councils to the era of the fall of Byzantium, or, more precisely, from St. John of Damascus († 754) before the capture of Constantinople by the Turks (1453) and the destruction of the center of Byzantine culture 3. This definition is generally consistent with the periodization of patristic and dogmatic literature adopted by our domestic dogmatists and patrolologists. For Western patrolologists, the period of patristic theology in the East generally ends with the death of St. John of Damascus 4, since most of them adhere to the arbitrary opinion that there is a limit to the time of the fathers, and also ignore later Byzantine theology. But the archbishop. Filaret (Gumilevsky), asking “Is it possible to appoint a limit beyond which the existence of the Fathers of the Church would not extend?”, replies: “If any can be appointed, then only the one that will end the existence of the militant Church of Christ: there was and cannot be another limit. The Holy Spirit always dwells in the Church, always enlightens the minds and hearts of believers, always acts in chosen men, depending on the needs of the time. Therefore, there is one faith and one teaching, both among the ancient teachers and among the newest ones. “Time,” says St. Afanasy, makes no distinction between our teachers; the oldest are not at all more important than the later: they are all equally fathers.” Just as the Church of Christ will exist until the end of the world, so until the end of the world the chosen instruments of the Spirit of God will appear in it for the needs of the Church... Thus, in all centuries there may be men with the qualities necessary for the fathers of the Church, and human opinions, assigning the limit to either the sixth or the thirteenth century, have no basis in the subject matter” 5 . The accepted era of Byzantine theology, like any date in the history of culture, is conditional. Byzantine theology grew gradually from the theology of the fathers of the Ancient Church. The 6th century is “the time of the final formation of Byzantineism, the time when the genius of the Greeks completely broke away from the old foundations of classical life in order to follow a new channel indicated by the spirit of the Christian religion, when the so-called Byzantine culture, this conglomerate of all kinds of trends, unfolded in its entire breadth” 6 . In Western (and partly Russian) theological science, there is an insufficient assessment of Byzantine theology due to its insufficient study. This attitude is most noticeable after the division of the Churches (1054). Latin theologians looked at the Greeks as schismatics and, if before they were not always able to comprehend the depth of Eastern theology and understand its development, problems, concepts, then after the final break, Byzantine theology almost ceased to exist for them. This preconceived opinion has not only survived and prevailed in the West to this day, but has even penetrated into our theological literature. Of course, many reasons hindered the broad development of Byzantine culture and theology, in particular, disasters from the enemies of the empire (Arabs, Turks, etc., then the Latin crusaders, who took Constantinople in 1204 and surpassed even the Muslims in the destruction and sacrilege of its shrines), as well as disasters from the iconoclasts, who fought not only against St. icons, but also against the Orthodox clergy, monasticism and scientists and those who destroyed or spoiled many books 7. Nevertheless, despite the political upheavals, Byzantine culture was always superior to Western culture. Until now, the question of their interaction has been little studied and unresolved. It is not difficult to prove the fallacy of the opinion that the theology of the Eastern Church after the period of iconoclasm “froze” and did not develop 8 . To do this, it is enough to name a number of names of such well-known theologians in the West as Rev. Theodore the Studite († 826), St. Photius, Patriarch of Constantinople († 886), Venerable. Simeon the New Theologian († 1022) and his disciple Nikita Stifatus (Nicetas Pectoratus in Western literature), Nicholas, bishop. Methonsky (first half of the 12th century), Rev. Gregory of Sinai († 1376), Metropolitan of Thessalonica St. Gregory Palamas († 1360) and Nile and Nicholas († 1371) Cabasilas, St. Theoliptus, Metropolitan of Philadelphia, Patriarchs St. Callistus († 1363) and Ignatius Xanthopoulos, Patriarch Philotheus († 1379), St. Simeon, Archbishop of Thessalonica († 1429), Mark Eugenicus, Metropolitan of Ephesus († 1443), George Scholarius († 1468), the first patriarch after the fall of Constantinople, and many others, to whom one can add theologians of the 16th–17th centuries. – Patriarchs Jeremiah and Dositheos 9. The presence of this brilliant galaxy of theologians and their outstanding works is proof of the high importance of Byzantine theology. Throughout its existence, the theology of the Eastern Church developed independently, receiving almost no ideological support from the West, where science was always inferior to Greek, and the very structure of thought of the Latins prevented them from understanding and appreciating the merits of the theological thought of the East, which was also hampered by ignorance of the Greek language (“graece non legitur”). However, having already a thousand years of experience, tradition and developed methodology, Byzantine theology continued to develop and independently resolved a number of deep dogmatic, apologetic and other problems raised by church life. Currently, interest in Byzantine theology has increased, since according to St. Gregory Palamas has a number of serious Western studies. The high importance of Byzantine theology and its superiority over Western theology is recognized by outstanding Western Byzantine scholars who have freed themselves from narrow confessional views of the Eastern Church 10 . It is necessary to understand the main features of Byzantine theology that distinguish it from Western theology. I. Orthodoxy. Byzantine theology is the theology of the Eastern Church, which retained its Orthodoxy even after the division of the Churches, always professed it and fought for the purity of faith and life with external and internal enemies (for example, Councils against the Latinists - John Itala in 1076, Sotirich in 1157, and the associated Council of 1166, a number of Councils against the Barlaamites and Akyndinites in 1341–1368, activities against the Manichaeans, Bogomils, Muslims, etc.). The Orthodoxy of the Byzantine Church is its main feature, which for Orthodox researchers should have great significance and apodictically force us to place its theology eo ipso above the theologies of all Western heterodox church societies, as having deviated from the Truth of Christ. Therefore, for all Orthodox local Churches, the successors of the great Byzantine Church, who received from it the priceless treasure of Orthodoxy, the rule of theology should not be Western scholasticism and rationalism, but the theology of the Byzantine Church, which accepted and preserved in inviolable purity the piety of the Ancient Church. The theology of the Byzantine Church has the signs and characteristics of the theology of the Ancient Church, which it preserved and developed. These signs can be understood from considering the works of any of the great fathers, for example, St. Gregory the Theologian. However, there are reasons why the features of Orthodox theology are easier to understand by studying later theology, since in it they are more clearly and deeply revealed (especially in the writings of the 12th–15th centuries). First of all, in the Ancient Church the description and consolidation in writing of Tradition and the dogmatic concepts associated with it occurred gradually. On the one hand, this gradualism depended on the vastness, diversity and depth of Christian inner life and dogma, and therefore the same subject was studied and deepened successively from different sides. For example, “Church writers of the ante-Nicene period were more interested in the struggle and machinations of demons against Christianity than against Christians... In the life of St. Anthony, it is not Christianity that fights the kingdom of Satan, but a Christian who enters into combat with demons. From the outer world the struggle was transferred to the inner world, into the very soul” 11. On the other hand, the noted gradualness of the description is explained by a change in the very spiritual life of Christian society. When the majority of Church members lived a high spiritual life, writers did not find it necessary to describe it, that is, to talk about what was already clear to everyone. Descriptions begin to appear when the impoverishment of living vessels of Divine grace is already noticed. Thus, in the first centuries, when charismatic phenomena were widespread in the primal Church, we have quite a few descriptions of them 12. On the contrary, when such things almost ceased to exist in the world, St. Athanasius in “The Life of St. Anthony” found it necessary to describe them in more detail 13. Another example. Christians of apostolic times had, for the most part, the practice of “smart doing,” methods of combating thoughts through unceasing prayer, which is the basis of true charisma, but descriptions of this experience appear gradually. Each of the ancient saints. Fathers, you can find lines and even pages related to the clever feat, but only in the 5th century. The “Word on Sobriety” is compiled by Rev. Hesychia and other works where this is discussed in detail. Rev. Gregory of Sinaite, a 14th-century writer, complains that on the Holy Mountain itself, this treasury of spiritual experience, he did not find monks even familiar with doing “mental prayer.” With such a decline in spiritual knowledge among the masses, it was necessary to consolidate it and present it in detail in writing. In the XIV–XV centuries. That’s why a number of spiritual writers appear who treat spiritual experience and the dogmatic problems associated with it in more detail than was done before: Rev. Gregory of Sinai, St. Callistus and Ignatius Xanthopoulos, St. Gregory Palamas, Nikolai Kavasila and others. Another incentive for the emergence of dogmatic research was the proximity of the breakaway Western Church, with other principles of life and theology, as well as militant Mohammedanism. The Byzantine Church, in the person of its theologians and polemicists, was forced to contrast these alien principles with its own, the Orthodox, and at the same time formulate them more clearly. In addition, Byzantium was never completely isolated from foreign influences, 14 which disrupted the order of Byzantine church life, giving rise to a number of heresies that had to be fought. All this shocked church society, created conditions for the oblivion of church tradition and the spiritual experience of previous generations, and set the theologians of Byzantium the task of preserving, at least in writing, its spiritual treasure in the politically dying empire of the Romans. Because of all this, it is clear why the theological literature of the last centuries of the Byzantine Empire is most suitable for determining the paths of development of Orthodox theology in general. The era of the end of iconoclastic disputes and the completion of the dogmatic activities of the Ecumenical Councils posed the task of systematizing the literary heritage of the saints. fathers. In the 8th century two famous encyclopedias of patristic theology appear. One of them summarizes the ascetic spiritual experience of the Ancient Church. This is the well-known Κλῖμαξ - “Ladder” by Rev. John, abbot of Sinai. The other synthesizes the dogmatic works of St. fathers and is the first system of Orthodox dogmatic theology. This is “An Accurate Exposition of the Orthodox Faith” by Rev. John of Damascus. This work of systematization continued in the works of Euthymius Zigavin 15, Nikita Acominatus, St. Simeon of Thessalonica and others. 2. The deep mutual connection of theology with true Orthodox spiritual experience is the main feature from which all others can be deduced. A necessary condition for true knowledge of God is purity (Matthew 5:8) or, in any case, the purification of our heart. Rev. Isaac the Syrian repeatedly says that the perception or knowledge of the secrets of faith is a variable quantity and depends on the internal state of the soul. He, along with other saints. Fathers distinguishes three degrees of this knowledge or knowledge: 1) “carnal” or unnatural knowledge, following the passions (παρὰ φύσιν), 2) “spiritual” or natural (κατὰ φύσιν), striving for virtue and fighting the passions, and 3) spiritual or supernatural (ὑπὲρ φύσιν) knowledge when “the soul acquires spirituality, becomes like angels in life” and enters into the contemplation of ineffable mysteries 16. St. Gregory the Theologian says that only those who have ascended to the 2nd and 3rd degrees can do theology: “Not everyone can philosophize about God; capable of this are people who have tested themselves, who have spent their lives in contemplation, and first of all have purified (3rd degree), or at least purified (2nd degree), both soul and body” 17 . It is better for a “carnal” person not to touch theology: “For the unclean, it may be unsafe to touch the pure, as for weak eyesight it is to touch a ray of sunlight” 18 . Therefore, although it is possible for the soulful, who purify their hearts, to theologize, but since they cannot yet contemplate the object of their reasoning, in order not to deviate from divine truth, they need to verify and correct their theology and their still insufficient spiritual experience with the theology and experience of holy theologians, enshrined in their creations and acts of the Councils 19 . This, of course, does not mean that the holiness of life is sufficient for theology. What is also needed is God-given theological talent and that deep philosophical and philological education, which all the outstanding theologians of Byzantium especially possessed. But the main condition for theology was purity of soul. The dogmatic formulas of Eastern theologians are not invented, are not obtained through philosophical speculation and syllogistic exercises in Aristotle’s logic, as was the case with the scholastics of the West, but are the fruit of contemplation of the very real and unchangeable truth of Revelation with a soul cleansed of passions and blessed. The theologians of Byzantium were usually people of high spiritual life, teachers of ascetic deeds, contemplatives of the Mysteries of God - it is not for nothing that many of them were canonized by the Church as saints. Therefore, the Orthodox theology of Byzantium, based on the patristic Tradition, on the theology of the saints, is patristic theology. The greatest representatives of Eastern asceticism are at the same time the most profound theologians. In their literary activity, dogma is combined with asceticism, with the preaching of salvation. The depth of their anthropological and soteriological views stems from their experimental knowledge of the human soul and the actions of grace. This blessed knowledge immeasurably surpasses the rationalistic constructions of the learned scholastics of the West, who sought to understand the truth with the help of syllogisms alone. The works of the holy ascetic fathers, such as St. Isaac the Syrian, Maximus the Confessor, Simeon the New Theologian, St. Gregory Palamas and others, contain for the most part not only an unattractive image of spiritual achievement, but also sublime dogmatic teaching. Some Western scientists are deeply mistaken, seeing in them only ascetic writers, and not the luminaries of Christian theology, which they deservedly are 20. This unity of mystical experience and dogmatic thought was absent in the West, where scholastic dogmatics often came into conflict with arbitrary and often charming, false mysticism, for there both of these directions of spiritual activity developed almost independently of each other. We have a striking and sincere confession of this from one of the Western scientists: “The corruption of dogma by mysticism and the break with it happened only in the West, where the conclusions of one provoked courageous resistance from the other” 21 . 3. Realism or ontologism. The knowledge of Divine Truth is always associated with deep faith in the absolute reality of this Truth, regardless of its interpretation or even verbal expression. It is a postulate in the reasoning of all fathers. This feature of Orthodox theology can be called realism, or ontologism. 4. Deep apophaticism, that is, the position about the complete incomprehensibility of the Being of God by reason and His complete inexpressibility in any definitions, words and names, in short, about the rational incomprehensibility of God. The apophatic nature of theology is especially pronounced among the fathers of the Ancient Church: St. Gregory the Theologian 22, Gregory of Nyssa, Maximus the Confessor 23 and the writer known as Dionysius the Areopagite. The content of apophatic theology consists in clarifying what God is not, in denying in God all categories and properties of the created world, implying, of course, that He in an unlimited and incomprehensible way surpasses all predicates thus denied. For example, consistently reasoning, we must deny in God not only finitude, but even any created or conceivable infinity. God is not only non-finite, but also non-infinite. God is above all this. One can say that He is super-infinite, but this will not add anything to the rational knowledge of God, because it is impossible to construct an infinity using mathematical methods that “exceeds” in power all that is mentally possible 24 . The teaching of the ancient fathers, developed in the 14th century. St. Gregory Palamas, that in God there is a Being and an essential and natural energy or action, united inextricably and inseparably, is completely apophatic. The Being of God is incommunicable to creatures (John 1:18), and the theology about it is completely apophatic. Divine energy is communicable and acts in the world, is partly knowable, and therefore it is possible to partially theologize about it positively, cataphatically. In general, kataphatics, which studies the Divine truths of Revelation, the actions of God in the world and soul of man and the spiritual experience of saints, making up for the denials of apophatics and the insufficiency of kataphatics, is the traditional area of ​​Byzantine theology. 5. Soteriological. Since both commandments and dogmas are the essence of truth for salvation, all Orthodox theology must be soteriological. The central place in it should be occupied by the doctrine of salvation - soteriology, for “Christ came into the world to save sinners” (1 Tim. 1:15; Matt. 1:21). And Byzantine theology, always associated with spiritual experience - the practice of our salvation, always had a deep interest in the matter of salvation. The Fathers of the Ancient Church, with the grace-filled illumination of the Holy Spirit, built anthropology and soteriology. A whole galaxy of ancient Church Fathers - St. Irenaeus of Lyons, St. Athanasius the Great, St. Gregory the Theologian, partly St. John Chrysostom, Rev. John of Damascus, Rev. Maxim the Confessor and others - studied various issues of soteriology. Byzantine theologians - Nicholas, bishop. Methonsky, Nicholas Cabasilas, St. Gregory Palamas and others continued this soteriological tradition. Only the unfavorable external and internal conditions of the cultural life of Byzantium and its fall apparently prevented the Byzantine fathers from building a system of dogmatic theology based on the soteriological principle. 6. Traditionality is a property of the Ancient Ecumenical Church, deeply accepted and preserved by the Byzantine Church. It consists in preserving, honoring and protecting the entire treasure of the apostolic and paternal Tradition of the Church in all areas (dogmatic, ascetic-moral, canonical, liturgical, hierarchical, etc.). In contrast to the West, where theology often had a pronounced individualistic character, Eastern theology was patristic - it was based, firstly, on the creeds and symbols and decrees of the Ecumenical and Local Councils (if any were accepted, received by the Church), and secondly, it proceeded from spiritual truths, according to those taught by previous fathers (consensus Patrum). It could not be otherwise, for St. the fathers were not abstract scientists, but “rules of faith and models and teachers of virtue,” and their creations revived spiritual life and true piety 25. Byzantine theologians had a filial relationship with the fathers of the Church; in the writings of spiritual writers of Byzantium there are numerous references not only to Holy Scripture, but also to the works of the fathers as foundations. If in the West church writers, loosely connected with the Ecumenical Tradition, often uncritically used ancient pagan (Latin) literature 26, and during the times of scholasticism they elevated Aristotle almost to the title of father of the Church, then in the East, although the Byzantines knew all classical literature and philosophy perfectly, the opposite process took place - the Christianization of the entire classical culture. Byzantine church society was not satisfied with the theology of even great teachers, such as, for example, Origen, if it contradicted the truth. Therefore, “next to the complete Christianization of the entire way of life in Byzantium, another similar process took place - the churching of scientific theology, which, taking advantage of too much freedom in philosophical speculation, in some places reached the point of fundamental contradiction to church teaching” 27 . The Orthodox theologian, together with Vikenty Lirinsky, could say: “id teneamus, quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus creditum est” 28. 7. Liturgicality. It lies in the agreement of theology with the content of worship. Since many types of church chants (kontakia, canons) and their collections (Octoechos, etc.) began to be introduced into worship only from the time of St. John of Damascus, then one of the tasks of Byzantine theology was the compilation of divine hymns, which included everything accessible to the hearts of believers from the treasury of the theology of the Ancient Church. A particularly important circumstance is the absence of contradictions between liturgical theology, that is, the theology contained in liturgical books, and the theology of Byzantine treatises and textbooks on dogmatics. This comes from the fact that theological works and liturgical books contain the same patristic teaching, which cannot, of course, contradict itself. The sermons and teachings of the fathers, many of which were included in the statutory readings, contained more than just moral edification. Many of them have deep dogmatic content, expressed in a living form that reaches the listeners. Liturgical books contain the indestructible, precious fund of patristic theology. Attempts to change this liturgical theology have always failed. The daring correctors turned out to be heretics 29 , and the purity of the teaching of liturgical texts was even more established 30 . In Orthodox worship, in prayers and symbols, Divine Looking at us is depicted. This is especially evident in the Divine Liturgy, in which the entire economic feat of our Lord Jesus Christ is depicted and experienced. II. Nicholas, Bishop of Metho, and the Councils of 1156–1157. 31 Nicholas, bishop of Methona in the Peloponnese, an outstanding theologian of the 12th century, lived in the first half of the reign of Emperor Manuel Komnenos (1143–1180), died between 1157 and 1166. Almost nothing is known about his life. In the century of the first three Komnenos (1081–1180), Byzantium again achieved its greatest external power and internal prosperity. Theology also flourished, the external reason for which was polemics against heresies. The soteriological views of Nicholas of Methon are contained mainly in his polemical works, written during the dogmatic disputes that arose among the Byzantine clergy and society on the issue of understanding the final words of the liturgical prayer read during the Cherubic hymn: “For you art the Bringer and the Bringer, and the Receiver and the Distributed, O Christ our God...” and leading to the convening of the Councils 1156 and 1157 The reason for these disputes was the clash between famous Constantinople teachers who occupied the departments of exegesis of the Holy Scriptures, Michael of Thessalonica and Nikephoros Vasilaki with Deacon Basil. Having heard Vasily’s words that “One and the same Son of God is the Sacrifice and, together with the Father, accepts the Sacrifice,” they concluded that Vasily allegedly introduces two hypostases in Christ: one who offers the Sacrifice, and the other who accepts it 32 . Some bishops, as well as the candidate for the See of Antioch, Deacon Sotirich Pantevgen, who became the head of this heretical group, joined the opinion of Nikifor Vasilaki. Bishop Nicholas of Metho appeared as a defender of Orthodox teaching. From an examination of the conciliar acts, it is clear that two Councils were actually convened, separated by a period of time of more than a year. The First Council was convened on January 26, 1156 at the request of the then newly elected Russian Metropolitan, Blessed. Konstantin. In addition to the presiding officers - Patriarchs Constantine IV Chliarin of Constantinople and Nicholas of Jerusalem - 24 bishops and a large number of other persons took part in the Council. The surviving acts do not allow us to reliably clarify the range of controversial issues considered at the Council. The location of some documents contradicts their content. For example, the dialogue of Sotirich, placed before the presentation of the first meeting, for a number of reasons, was written by him in the interval between the two Councils. The disputed points can be judged only indirectly, from the memo read out at the Council with the testimonies of the fathers. These paternal testimonies are divided into two groups. The first speaks of the Divine dignity of the Eucharist, the second proves that the world-saving Sacrifice was offered by the Savior to the entire Holy Trinity. It is possible that all the evidence was collected and approved at the second Council, the first Council did not make a detailed definition, but agreed with the opinion of Metropolitan Constantine of Kyiv that “The Life-giving Sacrifice, both initially, when it was performed by the Savior Christ, and after and to this day, was brought and is offered not only to the One Beginning Father of the Only Begotten, but also to the Word Incarnate Himself: in the same way, it is not deprived this godly honor and the Holy Spirit. The offering of the mysteries has happened and is happening everywhere to the One Trihypostatic Deity” 33. Sotirikh's like-minded people, condemned by the Council of 1156, fell silent. He himself developed his teaching in the dialogue mentioned above, where he supports the opinion condemned at the Council. The dialogue spread and attracted new supporters of the heresy among superficial Christians, especially Latinizing ones. The disputes continued and forced Emperor Manuel to convene a second Council for a more detailed definition and condemnation of Sotirich. The council opened on May 12, 1157, presided over by the new Ecumenical Patriarch Luke Chrysovergus and John of Jerusalem, in the presence of Manuel Komnenos. The minutes of the last meeting – May 13 – were signed by 35 bishops. After the admonition, Sotirikh also renounced his opinions, but he was dealt with unusually strictly: at the last meeting, to which he refused to appear due to illness, he was deprived of the priesthood 34. In addition to the general definition, which we will not give here, four more anathematisms included in the Synodikon 35 have been preserved from the Council of 1157. Their dogmatic value is incomparably greater, not only because of their more precise and detailed formulation, but also because they are a received definition, that is, a definition accepted by the Church, out loud of which they were proclaimed annually in the first week of the Holy Pentecost. We present them with some abbreviations translated from Greek. 1. Those who say that during the world-saving Passion of our Lord and God and Savior Jesus Christ, the Sacrifice of His honorable Body and Blood, brought by Him for our salvation, as a Bishop who acted for us humanly (since He Himself is God and Priest and Sacrifice), He Himself brought to God and the Father, but did not accept as God with the Father the Only Begotten Himself and the Holy Spirit (since through this they alienate from divine unity of God the Word Himself and the Consubstantial and One-Glorified Comforter of the Spirit), is anathema three times. 2. Those who do not accept that the Sacrifice, offered daily by those who have received the sacred rites of the Divine Mysteries from Christ, are offered to the Holy Trinity, are thrice anathema. 3. Those who hear the Savior about the sacred rite of the Divine Mysteries, which He delivered, saying: “Do this in My remembrance,” but do not correctly understand the word “remembrance” and dare to say that it (memory) renews dreamily and figuratively the Sacrifice of His Body and Blood, offered on the honorable Cross by our Savior for the general deliverance and purification of human nature, and that it renews the daily Sacrifice offered those who perform sacred Divine Mysteries, as our Savior and Lord of all betrayed, and therefore introduce that this is a different sacrifice than that made from the beginning by the Savior and raised to that dreamily and figuratively, as degrading the immutability of the Sacrifice and the Sacrament of the terrible and Divine sacred rite, by which we accept the betrothal of the future life, is anathema three times. 4. Inventing and introducing temporary distances in the reconciliation of human nature with the divine and blessed nature of the Life-Giving and All-Corruptible Trinity and laying down the law that we were first reconciled with the Only Begotten Word from the very union (with Him), and then with God and the Father by the saving passion of the Lord Christ, and dividing what is inseparable from the Divine and Blessed Fathers (who taught that The Only Begotten reconciled us with Himself through the entire sacrament of the Economy and through Himself and in Himself with God and the Father and, accordingly, in every possible way, with the All-Holy and Life-Giving Spirit), as inventors of new and foreign teachings - anathema three times. The Council of 1157 “against Sotirich” was the first Council of the Eastern Church to specifically consider the issue of the Eucharist. In addition to affirming the faith in its Divine dignity, against the rationalistic opinions of the supporters of Sotirich (the predecessors of later reformers), the Council formulated an answer to the question to whom the world-saving Sacrifice was offered by the Savior and the Eucharist is now being offered: it is offered not only to God the Father, but to the entire Holy Trinity (anathematisms 1, 2 and 3). Then clarifying the soteriological problem, the Council, based on the position of the single and inseparable action of the Consubstantial and Indivisible Trinity, dogmatically expressed the ancient teaching of the Church that the reconciliation of man with God and his sanctification was accomplished through the entire economic feat (including the Passion of the Cross) of our Lord Jesus Christ, with the participation of other Persons of the Holy Trinity. To divide this single act of reconciliation of people with God into two (first with the Son through the Incarnation, and then with the Father through the Death on the Cross of the Son) is extremely wicked and blasphemous (4th anathematism). One might think that Sotirikh, Vasilaki and their like-minded people belonged to the party of Latinizers, Westerners, and their scheme of atonement, which was anathematized by the Council, is very similar to the Western concept. In fact, the doctrine of bringing both sacrifices to one God the Father, dogmatized by the Council of Trent, is evident; The position about the reconciliation of us with the Father through the Calvary Sacrifice is also clearly expressed. For complete similarity, the only things missing are the concepts of “bloody satisfaction to the Justice of God”, “redemptive merits”, etc. However, some attempts to form such ideas are found in the reasoning of Sotirikh (see below). The main figure who prepared and substantiated the decisions of the Council of 1157 was Bishop Nicholas of Metho. He proceeded from the following two provisions: 1. Nature by itself, without hypostasis, cannot act, so there is no completely non-hypostatic nature 36. 2. Neither nature should oppose hypostasis, nor hypostasis should be opposed to nature, but nature should be opposed to nature, as in Christ, and Hypostasis should be opposed to Hypostasis, as in the Trinitarian Deity. One of the main mistakes of Sotirikh was a violation of the first position, namely the assumption that one of the natures (humanity) independently “brings”, and the other (the Divinity) “receives”. From this false premise followed the second absurdity (“the mortal error of Nestorius,” according to Sotirikh, of which he accused the Orthodox), that both natures of Christ are supposedly hypostases. In fact, “if in Christ there are two natures - God and Man, and Christ is one Hypostasis... then it is necessary for the One Christ, according to each of his two natures, one, as Man, the Bishop and the Sacrifice, to offer a sacrifice (that is, his own Blood), and according to the other, as God, to accept this, so that He would be both the Bringer and the Brought, and the Receiver (the words of the liturgical prayer)" 37 . Applying the second position, we see that the proposition “The sacrifice (of human nature) was offered to God (the Holy Trinity)” is true, since here the nature (offered humanity) is opposed (“offered”) to another nature (the Divine). On the contrary, the judgment “The sacrifice was offered only to God the Father” is false, since in it the nature (human) is opposed to the Hypostasis (of the Father). Sotirich invented a special theory of “double atonement,” consisting of twofold sanctification and reconciliation. The first sanctification of the Savior's Humanity occurred, according to his teaching, at the Incarnation. Based on John 17:19, Sotirich considered the second consecration to be the sacrifice of Christ to the Father at the crucifixion. In the polemic with Sotirikh, two main soteriological principles became clear. The first of them says that every action (energy) of the Holy Consubstantial and Indivisible Trinity is also one and inseparable. If one of the Hypostases of the Trinity acts, then the other two also participate in this action. This principle is common to the fathers and runs like a red thread through all of Byzantine theology. Applying it to the sanctification of the Humanity of Christ, Nicholas of Methonsky concludes about the impossibility of “two sanctifications” - one from the Son, and the other from the Father, but “since I know their one nature and allow one action, then there is one sanctification: the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit” 38. From this principle it also follows that the entire Holy Trinity participated in the Economy of salvation. Although the Perfecter was the Incarnate Son of God, both the Father and the Holy Spirit were collaborators and participants. Further, Nicholas of Metho explains that Christ is both the Sanctifier and the Sanctified, and that there is only one sanctification - through Christ alone, carried out by the entire Holy Trinity 40. The doctrine of making a Sacrifice only to the Father is a violation of this principle and is the attribution of opposite actions to the Hypostases and the attribution of these actions to the hypostatic properties (to the Son - “to offer”, to the Father - to “receive”). On the contrary, Nicholas of Metho, in agreement with liturgical prayer, claims that Christ Himself offered Himself (as Man) to Himself (as God) and Himself accepted the Sacrifice (as God). Sotirikh also asserted the theory of “two reconciliations,” against which the fourth anathematism is directed: “Those who reconcile have the custom of accepting something from each other as a pledge of strengthening friendship. Instead of us, who offended God and must be reconciled with Him, the Word took on human nature, and in return granted us remission of sins, etc.” (“1st reconciliation”). But since people would have nothing with which to thank the Father for adoption, the God-Man Himself, “as the Mediator on the part of humanity, brought His Blood, the Most Pure Sacrifice, a saving propitiation (!), most thorough for reconciling us with the Father” 41 . Nicholas of Methonsky points out that both “two sanctifications” and “two reconciliations” are the unholy division of the one and inseparable action of the One and Inseparable in the Holy Trinity of the Father and the Son. In “double sanctification” natural actions are separated, and in “double reconciliation” - desires 42. If the entire Holy Trinity participates in the House-building, then the house-building feat of Christ itself is one, from which none of its moments, in particular, the Incarnation and the Passion of the Cross, can be separated. Man was created by God, that is, by the Holy Trinity, and by disobedience he offended God, hence humanity must be reconciled not with One of the Hypostases, but with God in general, that is, with the Holy Trinity 43 . No time interval can arise between the Hypostases, neither in Their existence, nor in action, nor in benevolence 44. The main lie of Sotirikh in his “two reconciliations” was to replace the concept of reconciliation (καταλλαγή) with the concept of exchange (ἀνταλλαγή – ἀντάλλαγμα) of values. The objections of Nicholas of Metho and his concept of reconciliation are based on another, patristic principle, which consists in the denial of everything sensually human as applied to God. Each of the ordinary human expressions applied to God must be understood in a divine sense. So the word ἀντάλλαγμα should be understood not in the sense of “exchanging” human nature with the Son of God for the remission of sins, but a change in our fallen nature. Man could not make this change on his own: “It was not we who ascended to heaven, but the Son of God Himself who descended to us and accepted our nature, not as some kind of gift (like Sotirich), but to appear to us, talk, communicate and unite with us. Reconciliation, sanctification, adoption and all other spiritual benefits were given to us by the Son of God in the Economy. Through Him we were reconciled, sanctified and became sons of God, that is, the Holy Trinity” 45. Thus, the soteriological statements of Nicholas, Bishop. Methonsky, come down to two provisions: 1) about the Savior’s offering of Sacrifice to the Holy Trinity and about the unity of the entire Economy accomplished by the Holy Trinity, and 2) about the sublime nature of the reconciliation of humanity with God. Both of these provisions are based on two other indisputable paternal truths: 1) about the unity of action of the Holy Consubstantial and Indivisible Trinity and 2) about the inadmissibility of using anthropomorphic expressions in the literal sense to God. These four provisions, which constitute the essence of the soteriology of Nicholas of Methos, can, due to their commonality, have methodological significance for the construction of Orthodox soteriology in general. III. Nikita Acominatus (Choniates) Niketas Acominatus, often called Choniates, by origin from the city of Chon 46 (in ancient times - Colossae), received in Constantinople under the guidance of his older brother Michael (appointed Metropolitan of Athens after Niketas came of age) an ordinary classical education, which he supplemented with self-education. A detailed biography of him is, for example, in the dissertation dedicated to him by F. I. Uspensky 47. Here we only note that Nikita served at different times and in different positions at the courts of the Komnenos and Angels, and was an eyewitness to the capture and defeat of Constantinople in 1204 by the crusaders. After disasters and wanderings, he found refuge in Nicaea, where, in the year of the fall of Constantinople, a new Greek empire arose (1204–1261) with the new basileus Theodore I Lascaris (1206–1222), who took part in Nikita and attracted him again to the service of the state, in which Nikita brought great benefit to his fatherland with his experience. Nikita died between 1210 and 1215. In Nicaea, with comparative leisure and calm conditions, Nikita wrote two large works: 1) “History” in 21 books (from the beginning of the reign of John II Komnenos - 1118 - until the establishment of Theodore Lascaris in Nicaea - 1206) and 2) the theological work “Treasure of Orthodoxy” in 27 books. Contents and characteristics of “Treasures of Orthodoxy” The Treasure of Orthodoxy, written by Nikita in 1204–1210, is a dogmatic and polemical treatise. The contents of the 27 books “Treasures” are presented in Migne’s special table of contents (Index librorum) 48. However, not all of these books have been published. The first five books were published in Latin translation by Peter Morelli 49 . Most of the “Treasure” is in manuscripts, of which the oldest and best is the Oxford one (in the Bodleian Library) 50 . A number of scientists - prof. F. I. Uspensky, A. P. Lebedev, I. Sokolov, K. Krumbacher, Gass, Ph. Meyer and others, expressed their wishes 51 that the “Treasure” be published in full, since it represents, especially in some of its parts, an irreplaceable source. In his preface 52 Nikita Acominatus says that the task of his “Treasure” was to complement the “Panoplia” of Euthymius Zigavinus, especially with regard to a more detailed presentation of heresies, their origin and analysis. Indeed, Nikita’s work compares favorably with Zigavin’s rather dry presentation both in its lively language and in the independent judgments he adds to the traditional material. The apparatus Nikita uses is more extensive than Zigavin's. Nikita uses and quotes not only the fathers of the Ancient Church, but also Byzantine theologians, including Nicholas, Bishop. Mefonsky, blessed Theophylact, Archbishop. Bulgarian, and others. When reviewing the contents of the “Treasure”, even according to the “Table of Contents” in volume 139 PG, what is striking, first of all, is that little space is given to the positive presentation of dogmatic theology in itself, only two books are occupied with it: the 2nd, devoted primarily to triadology, and the 3rd – to Christology. The entire work is predominantly historical and polemical in nature, and most of it is occupied with the description and analysis of heresies. True, all the chapters of the book are dogmatic in nature, especially those containing a presentation of the great triadological and Christological heresies that worried the Ancient Church, and the struggle against them, but the polemical presentation forces Nikita to leave many questions important for dogmatics itself in the shadows. The second feature of the “Treasure” is not only the abundance of quotes from selected fathers of the Ancient Church, but the filling of chapters with these quotes and even the use, as chapters of the essay, of the literal text of entire chapters from the famous works of the fathers - St. Athanasius the Great, Gregory the Theologian, Maximus the Confessor, etc., and especially from the “Source of Knowledge” by St. John of Damascus. Such a transformation of a dogmatic work into a unique and consistently selected patristic anthology may seem strange to a modern scientist, but we must not forget the conditions in which the medieval reader found himself, who usually could not possess all the expensive lists of the works of at least the most important representatives of Eastern theology. A collection of such sequentially and coherently located places, as is the case in “Treasure,” was a kind of jewel and justifies the name of the collection itself – “Treasure of Orthodoxy.” The admiration of the original Latin translator and publisher of the first 5 books of the Treasure, Peter Morelli, is also understandable; in a letter (1561), also preserved by Migne, Morelli lists many authors in the “Thesaurus orthodoxae fidei” and calls Nikita blessed (beatus) 53. Nikita, providing a significant part of his work for the statements of the saints themselves. fathers, thereby placing his work on the solid ground of patristic tradition. It is necessary to take into account the historical situation contemporary with the appearance of the “Treasure” in Byzantium, the capital of which was captured and destroyed by the Latins, and a great many classical and patristic manuscripts were lost. Under these conditions, the holy intentions of Nikita Acominatus, which inspired him when writing this work, are quite understandable: he obviously wanted to preserve and pass on to the descendants of the Romans the patristic Tradition he had studied. “Treasure”, as well as “An Accurate Exposition of the Orthodox Faith” by Rev. John of Damascus, contains a lot of extraneous material that is not directly related to theology. It does not contain a special book about the Economy of our salvation. However, it is easy to see that the content of some chapters speaks about the Economy. The terminology of the Fathers of the Ancient Church sometimes links together the concepts of the Economy and the Incarnation and speaks of the “Economy of the Incarnation.” Book 3, “Treasures,” is called “De Verbi Divini incarnatione,” that is, “On the Incarnation of the Divine Word.” In the 1st chapter of this book, Nikita collected “testimonies of the prophets about the Incarnation of the Divine Word.” 1. About the birth of Christ: Ps.109:3; Proverbs 8:25 ; Ps.117:26, 49:3, 46:9, 2:7-8, 85:9; Isa.35:4–6, 7:14, 9:6, 1:2; Micah 5:2; Matthew 2:6; Ps.87:5. 2. About the flight of the Holy Family into Egypt: Is.19:1. 3. About the Baptism of Christ: Ps.28:3. 4. About the healing of diseases by Christ: Is.53:4. 5. About His descent into the womb of the Virgin: Ps.72:6, 17; Job 9:8; Zechariah 9:9. 6. About Judas, the betrayer of Christ: Ps.40:10, 2:1. 7. About the taking of Christ: Is.3:9; Prem.2:12. 8. About the crucified Christ: Is.53:7–9. 9 . About the scourgings and strangulations to which Christ was subjected: Is.50:6; Ps.39:18. 10. About pieces of silver for Christ: Matthew 27:9–10; Zechariah 11:12. 11. About the crown of thorns: Song 3:11 (where the words “his mother” mean “Jewish synagogue”). 12. About nails, clothes, gall and vinegar: Ps.21:17-19, 62:22; Zechariah 13:6. 13. About the darkness that was during the Passion of Christ: Zech.14:6–7; Am.8:9; Joel.2:10–11; Deut.18:15. 14. About the death of Christ: Is.57:1; Ps.87:7, 5, 6. 15. About the descent of Christ into hell: Job 38:17; Ps.67:7. 16. About the Lord's Resurrection: Ps.15:10; Hos.6:1–2. 17. About the myrrh-bearers: Is.27:41. 18. About the Ascension of the Lord: Ps.23:7; Isa.63:1-2; Zechariah 14:4. 19. About the last Judgment: Dan.7:13–14, 9. A simple examination of this chapter shows that its headings embrace all the main points of the Economy of Christ, and since Nikita speaks in the title of the chapter only about the Incarnation, it seems to follow from this that he understands the term “incarnation” in a broader sense - in the meaning of the Economy of Christ. However, the content of the remaining chapters of the 3rd book (On the Incarnation of the Divine Word) shows that in them this term is taken in a narrow sense: they are all devoted to Christology and triadology and the clarification of the corresponding terminology, for example, ἐνυπόστατον of Leontius of Byzantium, etc. 54 The last – 41st chapter of the 3rd book, which has a significant title (summary) “Why did Christ become a man?” has a direct relation to the Economy of Christ. (Cur Christus Homo factus?). Resurrection. Court. The different fate of the blessed and the condemned" 55. We present it all in Russian translation from Latin. “But let us see why it was precisely the Only Begotten Son of God who took on flesh and, thanks to the once and for all assumed human nature, was and was called Man and obeyed (audiverit) 56 as a man. The apostle outlined this teaching to us in the epistle that he wrote to the Corinthians, where he says this: “Now Christ has been raised from the dead, the firstborn of those who died, for as death came through a man, so through a man came the resurrection of the dead” (1 Cor. 15:20-21). Then he moves from nature to persons: “And as in Adam all die, so in Christ all shall live” (v. 22), for the resurrection is universal. After the resurrection there will be a Judgment, which the Apostle made known, adding: “Each in his own order” (1 Cor. 15:23). There are many orders of those who are punished and those who are saved, since the reward of gifts will be done in accordance with the quality and quantity of righteousness, and in the same way, punishments and torments will be determined according to the difference of sins.” The content of this single small chapter of the “Treasure,” entirely devoted to the Economy of Salvation, shows that Byzantine theologians must be studied together, for their writings, while not fully covering the issue, sometimes complement each other significantly. So in this case, Nicetas Acominatus dwells only on one point of the Economy, namely, that by the Resurrection of the Son of God death is destroyed, for “in Christ all will live” (1 Cor. 15:22). Whatever the motives for explaining Nikita's focus on the Resurrection alone, his presentation, with all its brevity, fills the gap in Nicholas of Metho, who speaks only about the significance of the Incarnation and the Cross in the matter of divine Economy, but never even mentions the Resurrection 57 . Nicetas Acominatus' reference to three verses from 1 Corinthians may serve as a key to developing his brief remarks into a longer exposition based on the epistles of St. Paul, in particular 1 Cor., - and when using the general scheme of the paternal concept of the Economy. Nikita’s indication that “the rewarding of gifts will be done in accordance with the quality and quantity of righteousness” of those being saved, and the definition of punishment and torment “to the extent of the difference of sins,” allows us to consider the last lines of this chapter of “Treasures” to be consonant with the beginning of the 1st Word “On Life in Christ” by Nicholas Cabasilas. Another statement of Niketas Choniates partly relates to the Economy. In Chapter 2 of Book 2 he asks: “Why was it better for the mystery of the Trinity to be made known through the ministry of the Word than through any man?” and answers: “Such service corresponds to the Word, so that the mystery of the Holy Trinity is widely revealed to the world, so that people learn from God what is God’s, and do not hold doubtful opinions about it...” 58. From the above it is clear that Nikita dealt with issues of soteriology a little, interspersing them into the traditional content of triadological and Christological reasoning. The main thing, of course, is that in his “Treasure” he presented and preserved information about the Councils that took place in the Byzantine Church in the 12th century. Protestant theologian Ullmann, one of the early researchers of Byzantine theology of the 12th century, writes: “His (Nicetas’s) piety was mixed with superstition and false external worship, and his learning was not sufficiently independent; but in both respects he suffered from the shortcomings of his time. At the same time, he rises above his contemporaries and is a man who was worthy of better times." 59 IV. Nicholas Kavasila, Metropolitan of Thessalonica Byzantium under the last Palaiologos in the 14th and 15th centuries. became a third-rate state with a small territory, which, under the pressure of external enemies, especially the Turks, gradually melted away, drawing towards Constantinople as the limit. However, despite the political decline, the spiritual culture of the dying Byzantium rose - for the last time - to the highest level, and in some areas surpassed the former rises. In the 14th century, after the great St. Gregory Palamas, the most outstanding spiritual writer and theologian was Nicholas Kavasila, Metropolitan of Thessalonica, who in dogmatic terms complemented Palamas himself, who did not specifically deal with issues of soteriology. Information about the life of Cabasilas is very scanty and of little significance. To get acquainted with his personality, we believe that his sublime works are more suitable, in which the character of their author, an ascetic occultist who actually experienced the restoration and deification of a Christian he depicts, is partly depicted. From his biography, we only note that he was the nephew of another Metropolitan of Thessalonica - Nil Kavasila, a famous theologian, and was also one of three candidates when choosing the patriarch in 1347. After the Fourth Council of Constantinople against the Barlaamites in 1351, Kavasila had a dispute with the Barlaamite supporter Nicephorus Grigora 60, which is external, so to speak, proof of his Orthodoxy. Nikolai Kavasila died at the beginning of 1371 61, and since in the dispute with Gregoras he was already called an “old man,” it must be assumed that he had reached a very old age. From the large and varied list of works of Nicholas Cabasilas, his famous “On Life in Christ” 62 in 7 books, published for the first time from three manuscripts by Gass in 1848 (2nd ed. in 1889) and reprinted in the 150th volume of the Greek series Patrology of Minya, col. 493–726. The main theme of the book is union with Christ, carried out through the sacraments of baptism, confirmation and Communion in this life and perfected in life after death. Prof. A.P. Lebedev characterizes this wonderful work as follows: “Nicholas owns an essay worthy of all attention entitled “Life in Christ.” It does not stand in connection with the theological literature of that time; it is significantly higher than much that came from the pen of even the best theologians of that time. The work is distinguished by its amazing freshness and rare depth of thought and is so independent that it does not have the slightest compilation that distinguished the literature of that time. The entire content of the work is drawn from the depths of the soul of the pious author, penetrating into the spirit of Holy Scripture and the task of a Christian. Here the question that should always be the first question for a Christian theologian is resolved: what does a life consistent with the Gospel consist of? 63. Prof. Lebedev considers the opinion of German scientists (Gass, Kurtz) about Cabasilus as a mystic to be unfair: Nicholas was not a mystic in the Western sense of the word 64 . His Eminence Alexy (Dorodnitsyn), b. Rector of Kazan Spirit. Academy, who studied the works of Kavasila from an ascetic-mystical point of view 65. The second important work of Cabasilas is his Exposition of the Divine Liturgy 66. This work is written in the same sublime spirit as “Life”. It sets out in detail the symbolic meaning of the liturgical actions and prayers of the Divine Liturgy. The theology of Nicholas Cabasilas aroused great interest in the West, and a large literature is devoted to it. Prof. I. I. Sokolov says: “Nicholas Kavasila was a remarkable representative of Byzantine theological and mystical literature of the 14th century and wrote many very diverse works that are the decoration of Byzantine theological literature, especially his Homily “On Life in Christ,” and in which the writer discovered not only outstanding piety and theological education, but also literary and rhetorical talent, so that he should be ranked among the first Greek church writers of the medieval era.” 67. Cabasilus recognizes the economy of salvation as a necessary subject of reflection for every person as a rational being: “Just as it is characteristic of human nature to have a mind and to use words, so one must consider contemplation of the Cause of Christ a duty of reason, and especially because the example that people need to look to for their own proper activity and the guidance of others is Jesus alone” 68 . Thinking about Christ and what He, being a lover of mankind, did for the sake of our salvation, “makes us a desirable life and makes us blessed in everything” 69. “What weeping and what tears are we worthy of, who consider everything else worthy of attention, but neglect the Savior and His Economy as if His unspeakable providence were for others who need to seek this, and not for us” 70 . The economic feat of the Lord Jesus Christ, which seems distant to reason in time and space, is brought closer to us by the soteriology of Cabasilas through a unique method of joint consideration of the Economy of Christ and the sacraments of the Church. Namely, Cabasilas, firstly, clarifies the economic significance of the sacraments of baptism, confirmation and Communion, or their connection with various moments of the Economy; secondly, it shows how these moments are actually experienced in the sacraments; thirdly, he stops and explains the very economic feat of Christ and, fourthly, describes how a Christian is reborn through the sacraments, and Christ, who communicated with people of his time, unites and acts in the members of the Church, that is, how through the sacraments every Christian carries Christ within himself, in his entire being. Cabasilah shows the organic connection between the feat of a Christian’s earthly life and the Economy and with eternal life. The economy continues in the sacraments of the Church, and eternal life, which is life in Christ 71, begins not only after death, but also here on earth. “Life in Christ is born in the present life and here receives the firstfruits, but reaches perfection in the future life... and neither this life can completely put it into the souls of people, nor the future one, if it does not receive these firstfruits here” 72. Each of the sacraments introduces into this life, that is, it unites those who receive it with Christ 73 . In the “Sacred Sacraments, depicting the burial and announcing the death of the Savior, we are born, formed and prenaturally united with the Savior” 74. Namely, “the first of them - baptism - bestows being and complete existence in Christ, for, having received the dead and corrupt, it brings us into life.” The second - anointing - “perfects the born, imparting the power of action corresponding to this life” (gifts of the Holy Spirit) and, finally, the third - the Divine Eucharist - preserves and supports life and health, for “The Bread of Life grants the preservation of what has been acquired and the strengthening of the living,” that is, it nourishes. “Therefore we live by this Bread, we are moved by the world (that is, by the grace-filled actions of the sacrament of confirmation - P. Ch.), having received being from the font" 75 . The transcendent becomes immanent through the sacraments of the Church and the Christian’s struggle with sin, the otherworldly becomes thisworldly, Christ dwells in us, and if it were not for the presence of evil will, then Christ would always live and act in everything and everyone 76 . Without dwelling now on the presentation of Cabasilas’s depiction of salvation accomplished through the sacraments, we note that the earthly life of Christ and His economic feat become in this depiction as if modern and co-spatial with us. They are approaching us, roughly speaking, in the same way as the relief of the surface of the moon, viewed through a good refractor, approaches and becomes clearly visible, in comparison with its appearance observed with the naked eye. The teaching of Nicholas Cabasilas on the Economy of Salvation Cabasilas speaks a lot about human nature, renewed by Christ, but only fragmentarily touches on the creation and life of the primordial Adam 77. In the 7th Word, he speaks about the purpose of the creation of the world and Divine Providence: “The purpose of all Divine Providence for the human race is one, and all the promises of blessings and every threat of disasters are directed towards this, and for this God created this world, and laid down laws and endowed with countless benefits, and visited with many sorrows, in order to turn to Himself and convince one to desire Him and Him alone to love” 78 . Cabasilas does not speak specifically about the state of Adam in paradise, obviously assuming that this was well known to his contemporaries from the works of the fathers of the Ancient Church. He talks more about the imperfection of the first Adam compared to the Second - Christ. Comparing both, he affirms the principle that “it is not the old who is for the New, but the New Adam who serves as a model for the old” 79 . The Old One was only a foreshadowing of Christ. “Human nature from the beginning was for the New Man, and the mind and desire were prepared for him” 80. Further, Cabasilas develops the idea that we have received all the feelings of our souls in order to live in Christ. He compares Adam and Christ: “Obedience was required from the old Adam, but the New one provided it, even to the point of death, death on the cross; That Adam 81 accepted the law, but this one kept it. The first turned out to be a criminal, not completely having what a person should have, since the law does not exceed nature, and his criminal is rightly subject to punishment, but the second was perfect in everything: “I,” He says, “kept the commandments of My Father” (John 15:10). The Old Adam led an imperfect life, the New Adam became the Father of the most perfect, incorruptible life. Human nature from the beginning was destined for incorruption and achieved it in the Body of the Savior, Which He raised from the dead into immortal life and became the Leader of immortality” 82. Although Cabasilas speaks almost everywhere about Adam after the Fall, based on the negative characterization of fallen Adam he made and some other comments, one can judge his condition before the fall. Before breaking the commandment, Adam was incorruptible, had a right feeling of soul, a will free from sin, was healthy in soul and body and remained in obedience to God 83. Cabasilas defines the essence of human virtue in communication with God by will, and the essence of evil in the opposite state 84, and “love as a virtue of the will” 85. Adam's fall therefore consisted of a violation of love and obedience to the will of God 86 . “For some time Adam believed the evil one and despised the Good Master and perverted his spiritual feeling (will, cognitive abilities). From that time on, the soul also ruined its health and well-being, which is why the body came into agreement with the soul (was upset)” 87. Adam's violation of love and obedience resulted from ignorance of God. “Adam, not knowing about Divine love for mankind, thought that the Good One was envious; forgetting about Wisdom, he thought to hide from the All-Wise” 88, “he fled from the Good, thinking that he had been subjected to His hatred; disappeared because of the wound, running away from the hands of the Doctor, Whom, on the contrary, he had to look for, so that sin would not triumph over him, and he, pointing to his wife, covered up, as much as possible, the weakness of his will” 89, “despising the Master, clung to the runaway slave. For all this he was expelled from paradise, lost his life, suffered sorrows and died. From the blissful robe he came to nakedness and leather clothes” 90. From the first Adam, original sin 91 was transmitted, along with the rest of the natural qualities, to the entire human race, descended bodily from the first man: “The soul of each person inherits the evil of the first Adam, from his soul transferred to the body, and from his body to the bodies that came from him, and from these bodies passing on to the souls. And this is the old man" 92. Cabasilas depicts the state (before Christ) of man with these words: “captivity, slavery, bonds, the fury of him who enslaved us.” People, helpless, abandoned, were in endless poverty. “It was possible for the tormentor to fulfill his will over us, and we, as sold, were considered the property of the buyer; we had no consolation, no medicine, neither inside nor outside, neither from our superiors, nor from our kindred” 93 . The insufficiency of human truth, the Old Testament Law and philosophy, etc. for reconciliation with God Fallen man could not be restored by human force. No human truth could free people from wickedness, “for sin offends God Himself, as it is said: “By transgressing the law of God you are dishonored”” (cf. Rom. 2:23). “There was a need for superhuman virtue, with which one could get rid of guilt.” It is easy for the lesser to offend the greater, but it is impossible to repay the offense with honor, especially if he owes the offended person immensely 94 . Likewise, man could not be reconciled with God by introducing his own truth, and therefore neither the ancient Law could destroy the enmity, nor the zeal of those living in grace, for all these are only human deeds and truth 95 . Cabasilas clarifies the significance of the Old Testament Law for the Economy and its incomparability with the New Testament: “The Apostle Paul calls the law human truth: “not obeying the Truth of God, seeking to establish your own righteousness” (Rom. 10:3), meaning here the Old Law, for it had power only to prepare for health and make worthy of the hand of the Doctor, for “the law was a pestilence.” us into Christ Jesus" (Gal.3:24), and the Forerunner baptized into the Coming Christ, but all philosophy and all the work of people was only some preliminary and preparation for true righteousness" 96. What need would there be for Christ if the Old Testament Passover lamb performed the atonement? If shadows and images brought bliss, then truth and works would be superfluous” 97. Fallen man had neither the strength nor the righteousness to be saved. God Himself accomplished the Economy of man's salvation. “We ourselves did not move or ascend to God, but He Himself came and descended to us.” “It was not we who sought, but were sought, since it was not the sheep that sought the shepherd, nor the drachma the mistress, but He Himself came down to earth and found the image, and was in those places where the sheep wandered, raised it and raised it from its wanderings, without moving people from here, but made those who were on earth heavenly, put heavenly life in them, not raising them to heaven, but bowing the sky and bringing them down to us ( Ps.17:10)" 98. Cabasilas characterizes the difference between the Providential action of God, through the Old Testament Law, and the economic feat of Christ: “In the first times, God benefited the human race through visible creatures and guided man with commandments, commandments, and laws, with the assistance of angels or honorable men, but now directly by Himself and acting in everything Himself” 99 . Scope of the concept “Economy of Salvation” Nikolai Kavasila understands the economy of salvation in the broadest sense and takes it in its entirety. The entire Holy Trinity arranges the salvation of mankind, but the main Creator, Doer, and Accomplisher of salvation is one Son of God: “The artist of the joint re-creation of people is the entire Trinity, while the Creator is one Word” 100 . This re-creation began with the Incarnation of the God-man and was not limited to His earthly life, but continues forever, into eternal life: The Word is the Creator not only when it abided and communicated with people, “to bear away the sins of many” (Heb. 9:28), but from that time and forever, as long as our nature endures, for the sake of which we have in Him an Advocate to God, He Himself cleanses our conscience from dead works, by Himself gives us the Spirit 101. So, Cabasilas clearly distinguishes the economic feat of Christ, accomplished during His earthly life, from the Economy of salvation performed by Christ after the Ascension 102 and continued to this time and into eternity, through union with Him in the sacraments. The Ultimate Cause of the Whole Economy Cabasilas defines the goal of the entire Economy as follows: “All this (House-Building) ... has no other purpose than that man should know the Lord, rise from the earth and look up to heaven” 103 . In another place it is said even more clearly: “The Lord, having appeared bodily to people, first of all demanded from us knowledge of Himself and taught this, and immediately attracted us to this; even more: for the sake of this feeling He came and for this He did everything: “For this I was born and for this I came into the world, that I might bear witness to the truth” (John 18:37). And since He Himself was the truth, He almost didn’t say: “Let me show myself.” 104 So, the goal of the entire House of Christ is the salvation of man, accomplished through knowledge of God and communion with God, that is, the closest union of God and man, the incarnation of God and the deification of man. Only the presence and action of the Incarnate Son of God could “tear fallen man from the earth” and make him “look up to heaven” 106. “God is seen nowhere, the Only Begotten Son, the Son in the bosom of the Father, He is the one who confesses” (John 1:18) 107. The consequence of this communication of Christ, “the true Light that enlightens every man” (John 1:9), is the renewal of man, the indwelling of Christ in him (Gal. 2:20). As an example of such a consequence of the Savior’s house-building feat, one can cite Cabasilas’ depiction of the state of a person enlightened by baptism: “And coming out of the water, we carry the Savior Himself in our souls, in our heads, in our eyes, in our very entrails, in all our members, pure from sin, free from all corruption, as He was resurrected and appeared to the disciples and ascended, as He will come again, demanding this treasure back from us” 108 . Just as the Incarnation is a two-way act, since it required, firstly, God, Who took on human nature, and, secondly, the human nature that was united with Him, so for the action of God’s supernatural Love for man, the presence of man’s reciprocal love for God is necessary: ​​“For all the benefits that Christ has given us, He considers love to be the only reward and, if he receives it from us, forgives the debt. Hence the love that is supernatural" 109. “God the Word was not content with creating the world and convincing man to love Him, but, having accomplished everything befitting the Divine nature for this, he passed into another nature in order to use it for the same purpose, that is, so that man would love God” 110. “Christ, after the first creation, became the Lord of our nature, and through the new creation He mastered the will, and this means truly reigning over man... which is why He said: “To Me is given all power in heaven and on earth” (Matthew 28:18)” 111. Destruction of the triple barrier that existed between people and God For this union of God with men (Heb. 2:14) to really take place, it was necessary to destroy everything that stood between man and God. In clarifying the content of this “mediastinum of enmity” 112, which separated the human race from God, and the economic actions of the Son of God, with which He destroyed all these barriers, lies the basis for the interpretation of the dogma of the Redemption by Nicholas Cabasilas, which occupies a central place in his soteriological views. “Since people were separated from God in three ways - by nature, sin and death, the Savior made sure that they truly met and directly united with Him, destroying everything that prevented this: one - by joining humanity, the other - by dying on the Cross, and the last obstacle - the tyranny of death - He completely banished from nature, resurrecting" (from the dead) 113. So, the three barriers that separated people from God - 1) “distance” and the separation of the divine and human natures, 2) sin 114 and 3) death - were destroyed successively by the economic actions of the Son of God: “distance” and the separation of natures - by the Incarnation, sin - by Death on the Cross, death - by the Resurrection 115. Actually, in real life only two of these obstacles existed - separation of natures and sin. “Since there was a double wall,” says Cabasilas, “separating the human race from God: both from nature and from the will corrupted by evil, the Savior abolished one by becoming incarnate, and the other by being crucified. So, the Cross dissolved sin 116. Therefore, now, after baptism, which has the power of His Cross and Death, we achieve chrismation - the communion of the Spirit. Consequently, when both obstacles were removed, then nothing could hold back the Holy Spirit from being poured out on all flesh, as far as this, I say, is possible in this life.” 117 As for the future life, there is a third obstacle to direct being with God - death, and it is impossible for people wearing a mortal body to stand above “fortune telling and looking glass” (1 Cor. 13:12) 118. The Savior destroyed this dominion of death with His Resurrection. “That’s why ap. Paul says: “The last enemy that will be destroyed is death” (1 Cor. 15:26).” He would not have called her an enemy if she had not been an obstacle to our true prosperity, since the heirs of the immortal God need to be free from corruption, “for corruption does not inherit incorruption” (1 Cor. 15:50) 119. Through the economic feat of Christ, humanity was delivered from sin and corruption: “The Lord freed our nature from corruption by becoming the Firstborn from the dead; freed the soul from sin, entering as the Forerunner for us into the Holy of Holies, since He killed sin and reconciled God with us, and destroyed the mediastinum and dedicated Himself for us, so that we too will be truly sanctified” 120. After the destruction of sin and the victory over death in the Person of the Firstborn from the dead, fallen human nature is restored, and people are left to enjoy the fruits of the Redemption, to begin grace, from which nothing now separates them, except, of course, their personal sin 121: “Since He ascended to the Cross, died and rose again, the freedom of people has been restored, appearance and beauty have been put in order, and a new image and new members have been prepared. One must now only come and begin the actions of grace” 122. “The economy resurrected the universe” 123. The fullness of benefits that came through the House-Building Saying that the goodness and love of God are most expressed in the sacraments of the Church, through which “people are made gods and sons of God, and our nature is honored with divine honor... and becomes venerable and even similar to the Divine nature” 124, Cabasilas points to the fullness of the Economy of Christ, namely that “this is the greatest and most beautiful work of goodness and the ultimate limit of kindness. This is the work of the House of God, arranged by Him for people. For here God did not simply communicate several good things to human nature, retaining more from Himself, but He invested all the fulfillment of the Divinity, all of Himself, into it as its natural wealth. Therefore, the Truth of God was primarily revealed in the Gospel (Rom. 1:17), for if there is a certain virtue of God and Truth, then it consists in unenviously bestowing His blessings and the bliss of communication on everyone” 125. The special action of individual Hypostases Kavasila, recognizing the united action of the Holy Trinity, dwells in detail on the participation of each of God's Hypostases in the Economy of salvation of the human race. Although the Trinity saved the human race through a single love for mankind, at the same time, each of the Blessed Hypostases contributed some of its own, for the Father was reconciled, the Son reconciled, and the Holy Spirit became a gift for those who had already become friends of God. The first freed, the second was deliverance, by which we are set free, but the Spirit is freedom: “where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom” (2 Cor. 3:17). One recreated, by others we are recreated, but the Spirit gives life. Therefore, in the first creation the Trinity was written as in shadows. The first created, the Other was the hand of the Creator, the Comforter was the spirit for the One who breathes life. And what am I saying? Is God distinguished in this one of the Divine actions? For out of the many things that God has done for good since the ages, you will not find anything that relates only to the Father, or to the Son, or to the Spirit, but everything is common to the Trinity, since it is done by one power, providence and creativity 126. Depletion, humiliation of the Son of God “Just as human love, when it intensifies excessively and becomes higher than the power of those who love, drives them out of themselves, so in the same way love for people led God to exhaustion” 127. This divine love for perishing humanity was expressed in His coming to people in a humiliated and humble form and bearing the cross of self-humiliation and all the sorrows of people until death on the Cross, “for, not staying in place, He calls a servant to Himself, but Himself, descending, seeks him, and the Rich One comes to the abode of the poor and, coming by Himself, shows love and desires equal love, and the one who rejects not withdraws and is not angry at the insult and, being driven out, sits at the door and does everything to show Himself to those who love him, endures torment and dies” 128. In order to reign over people with the purest power, He “used the opposite and, in order to become a true Master, takes on the nature of a slave and serves slaves even to the Cross and death, and thus captures the souls of slaves and directly controls their desires. Therefore, Paul, knowing that this ministry is the reason for the Kingdom, says: “He humbled Himself, becoming obedient even to the point of death, even death on the cross; in the same way God also exalted Him” (Phil. 2:8). And the venerable Isaiah says: “For this sake He will inherit many and share the gain of the mighty, for His soul was given over to death and was counted with the wicked (Is. 53:12)” 129. This immense self-abasement of the Son of God was one of the necessary reasons for His Incarnation. Indeed, “two things reveal love and bring triumph to the lover: 1) do good to the beloved with everything you can, and 2) agree to endure because of him, and if necessary, then suffer for him. Although the second proof of disposition is more important than the first, it is impossible for God, who is impassive to all existing evil. Being a lover of mankind, He could do good to man, but could not endure wounds for him, and since God’s love was immeasurable, but there was no sign for expression, and it was necessary not to hide how much He loves, and to give proof and show extreme love, then He plans exhaustion and fulfills (it) 130 and becomes capable of enduring cruelty and suffering...” 131. Cabasilas is surprised that the Savior, even after suffering and the Resurrection, retains wounds and bears ulcers on His Body. “He shows that out of love for man he loves them too, since through them He found the lost and, having endured torment, acquired the beloved” 132. The Savior’s humiliation was expressed not only in the above, but also in the respect and highest honor that He showed to human nature when, not ashamed of its weakness, with wounds on His Body, He sat down at the right hand of the Father 133. “And He did not only honor nature, but He looked upon every person. He calls everyone to this diadem, freed everyone from slavery, made them sons, opened Heaven to everyone and showed them the way to fly to Him, and gave wings, and was not content with this, but He Himself comes, strengthens and comforts those who are weakened. Moreover: after this the slaves remained not the Master and did not only offer his hand, but He gave Himself entirely to us, which is why we are both the church of the Living God and members of Christ...” 134. Let us now consider the statements of Cabasilas about the three main moments of the economic feat of Christ separately - about the Incarnation, Death on the Cross and Resurrection, which destroyed the three so-called barriers (see above). Cabasilus proves the necessity of the Incarnation based on the fact that people themselves could not overcome sin, since they were its slaves, and God could, but did not have human nature. Hence, in order to defeat sin, the Divine nature needed to unite with the human. “It is impossible for one who has not yet died to sin to live in God, and only God alone can kill sin” 135. Although the latter should have been done by people, and it would have been possible for Adam immediately after the fall, it became beyond the power of people, for everyone became slaves of sin. “Since the one who was supposed to atone for this crime and win victory was a slave of those (sins) that had to be overcome in battle, and God, to whom this is possible, on the contrary, was not obliged to do anything, then neither one nor the other undertook a fight, but the sin lived; and under these conditions it was impossible for true life to shine forth for us... Therefore, it was necessary for one and the other to unite, and for the One and the Same to have both natures - both subject to battle and capable of victory. And so it happened. God appropriates to Himself the struggle for people, for He became Man, and Man conquers sin, being clean from all sin, for He was God. And thus, when sin has fallen, nature is freed from reproach and crowned with victory. And each of the people, although none of them won or fought, is released from these bonds. The Savior Himself did this in that He delivered that which He gave to each of the people the power to put to death sin and become partakers of His victory” 136 . The incarnation of the Son of God is the destruction of the first of the barriers that separated the human race from God, the deepest abyss between created human nature and the Divine 137. “Christ did not change place, did not destroy the wall and did not step over it, but destroyed what separated Him from us by the fact that He Himself, having accepted it into Himself, left nothing between Himself and us, for God, who fills every place, is not distinguished by place from people, but is distinguished by difference, and (human) nature itself separates itself from God in that in everything that it has, it differs from Him, and has nothing in common with Him, because He is only God, and nature only people" 138. The Savior’s humanity was sanctified, deified by His Divinity, and from then on only sin began to separate people from God: “When our nature was deified in the Savior’s Body, there was nothing left separating the human race from God, which is why nothing prevents us from participating in His benefits except sin” 139 . “Christ was united with flesh and blood, pure from all sin, and, from the beginning being God by nature, He deified what He later became, that is, human nature” 140. “Christ did not put on body alone, but took on the mind and desire and everything human, so that he could be completely united with us and completely dwell in us and correct us according to Himself, uniting all of His with everything that is ours; hence He is inconsistent and incompatible with those who sin” 141. “...On the one hand, God came down to earth, on the other, he raised us up from here. He became human, and man became deified. He frees nature from reproach, having defeated sin in one Body and in one soul” 142. Although through the prenatural union of two natures in One Hypostasis of the God-Man the first barrier between God and people (the separation of natures) was destroyed and the human nature of the Savior, sanctified and deified by the Divine, was completely sinless, sin still separated the entire human race from God. The Lord destroyed this wall of sin with His Passion and death on the Cross. “For the joy that was set before Him, He suffered the cross, being careless about its shame” (Heb. 12:2). How did the execution of the Sinless One kill the sin of those guilty of execution? “Christ did not commit any untruth for which such a punishment should be imposed, did not commit any sin and did not have anything that the most shameless slanderer could accuse Him of. Wounds, sorrow and death were originally invented for sin. How did the Lord allow this, being a lover of mankind? It is unnatural for Goodness to rejoice in fear and death. That is why God allowed death and sorrow after sin, because He did not so much impose punishment on the sinner as He provided medicine to the sick. But since such punishment could not be applied to the works of Christ, and the Savior did not have any sign of illness, which had to be destroyed by the accepted medicine, then the power of His cup passes to us and kills the sin that exists in us, and the wounds of the Innocent One become a punishment for the guilty in many ways. And since the punishment was great, amazing and greatly exceeding human evil, it freed not only from this guilt, but brought such an abundance of benefits that people who were from the earth, the most hostile, bound, enslaved, dishonored, ascended to heaven itself, joined God and became participants in the Kingdom of Heaven, for the death of the Savior was so precious that it is impossible for a person to understand” 143. The suffering of Christ is more necessary than the miracles He performed, for “they constitute the reason for our salvation, and without them resurrection would not be possible for man” 144 . Death on Golgotha, “suffering for the sake of our salvation” 145 Cabasilas does not consider it in isolation from all the sorrows, sufferings, and reproaches that made up the earthly Cross of Christ 146 . On the contrary, the entire totality of His sorrows is included in His redemptive feat. Kavasila justifies this thesis as follows. “Sadness is a medicine for spiritual evil. She pre-destroys future evil and stops the present, and can resolve the guilt of what has been done” 147. Sorrow for sin drives out sin. “And sorrow becomes for us the satisfaction of what we dared to do, and for those who are thus cleansed, other wounds are no longer needed... On the one who has broken the law, God imposes punishment with sorrow and labor, which He would not consider sufficient if it did not confront these guilts and could not free them from the answer. In the same way, He himself helped man against sin, and he expelled the sin that should have been cast out from human nature, enduring tribulations” 148. Cabasilas repeatedly speaks of imputing the Atonement of Christ to all people 149 . “And one must be surprised at this, that we do not participate with Him in plagues and death, but He alone labored. When it is necessary to be crowned, then He makes us His accomplices.” “This is understandable, since we united with Christ after the Cross, and when He had not yet died, we had nothing in common with Him.” When He died and redemption was granted and the prison of the devil was destroyed, 150 then we received freedom and sonship, and became members of this blessed Head. And from this, what belongs to the Head becomes ours 151. The death of the Savior, inasmuch as it was death, puts to death the evil life; since it is a punishment, it frees you from the imputability of sins” 152. For every Christian to participate in the fruits of the Redemption, an ascetic moment is necessary - the fight against sin. “Although none of the people conquered or fought, they were released from bondage. The Savior Himself did this, giving each of the people the power to put to death sin and become partakers of His victory” 153. Cabasilas clarifies the true meaning of calling Christ the Intercessor (1 Tim. 2:3). First of all, he warns against anthropomorphic ideas. Christ is the Intercessor “not by words and petitions, as ordinary people do, but by deed - ... in that He unites us with Himself and through Himself communicates His grace to everyone according to his dignity and according to the measure of purity” 154. The intercession of Christ is mediation: “Christ became the Intercessor of God and men, ... since, being God and becoming Man, he united God with men, placing Himself at the limit where both natures enter into communion” 155. The intercession of Christ is the union of people with the Triune God. Just as it is impossible to see the light without an eye, so without Christ it is impossible to be reconciled with God, to receive that peace, without which the old man is still “the enemy of God and alien to divine blessings. For what reconciled God with human nature? Of course, that He saw His Beloved Son as Man. Thus He is reconciled with every person who puts on the image of the Only Begotten, bears His Body and is one spirit with Him” 156. So, since “There is one God and one Mediator for God and men, Jesus Christ (1 Tim. 2:5), then everything that has the power of intercession and grants us sanctification comes from only one Savior” 157. The third barrier to eternal life with God - death - was destroyed by the Resurrection of Christ 158. “The firstborn from the dead is the Savior, and none of the dead could come to life into immortal life until He had risen” 159. “The Lord himself, through the fact that he died, gave us the power to put to death sin by resurrecting, making us heirs of a new life” 160. When the Savior’s soul descended into hell, He did not bring all the souls of the dead out of it. Cabasilas points to a sign that distinguished the righteous and the wicked in Old Testament times: the former “endured with displeasure” slavery to sin and prayed for the destruction of the prison and bonds and for the crushing of the head of the tyrant, while the latter did not consider anything strange and took comfort in slavery to sin. The first were freed from hell when Christ appeared, but the second remained in bondage” 161. Second Coming and Resurrection of the Dead The Resurrection of Christ is the reason for the future general resurrection of the dead: “After the general resurrection of people, the cause of which is the Resurrection of the Savior, the mirror and fortune telling will pass away, and those purified in heart will see God face to face” 162. All people in general, regardless of their relationship to Christ and the sacraments, “will be adorned with ageless bodies and will rise incorruptible” 163. “Resurrection is the restoration of nature: God gives it freely, for He creates us, even if we did not want it, and He also recreates us, even if we did not bring anything before” 164 . “The kingdom and contemplation of God and union with Christ is the pleasure of desire. Therefore, it is available only to those who have desired, loved and desired, since it is proper to enjoy it when what they desire comes, but this is impossible for those who do not desire it. How can the latter enjoy and be comforted by receiving something for which he had no desire in his absence, since he then can neither desire nor seek: “he cannot receive, because he does not see him, but knows him” (John 14:17), since he passes into that life blind and deprived of all feeling and power with which it is possible to know the Savior, love and desire to be with Him and have the strength to do so? Therefore, one should not be surprised if everyone lives immortally, but not everyone is happy...” 165. Cabasilas paints with bright colors a picture of the Second Coming, “when the Master will appear, and His face will surround His good servants,” beautiful around the Beautiful (Rom. 8:17). “He descends like lightning from Heaven to Earth, and the Earth sends up other suns to the Sun of Truth and everything is filled with light...” 166. Cabasilah points to the greatness of the resurrected spiritual flesh of Christ. “Christ alone received victory over the evil one, whose Body is the only trophy over sin. He can give help to those who struggle through that Body in which He Himself suffered and overcame when He was tempted. For since the “flesh” had nothing in common with spiritual life, and was excessively hostile and hostile to it (Gal. 5:17), therefore, the Flesh was invented against the flesh, and the spiritual against the earthly, and the law of the Flesh destroys the carnal law and the flesh submits to the spirit and helps against the law of sin. Therefore, it was impossible for anyone to live a spiritual life until this blessed Flesh had yet been created” 167. There is a great difference between the creation of the old Adam and our re-creation after the Redemption. Adam was created from the earth, Christ bestows his own Body, does not improve the soul, but, communing with His Blood, gives birth to His own life in people... “Then “I will breathe out the breath of life,” now He communicates His Spirit: “God has sent the Spirit of His Son into your hearts, crying: Abba, Father” (Gal. 4:6)” 168. The life and death of the Savior, as the restoration of the honor of God, i.e., the discovery of the goodness of God “The honor of God is nothing more than a clearer revelation of the fact that He is good” 169. The Savior gave this honor with His coming, for “God in the Economy showed such goodness to the human race that He did not spare anything related to this, but He invested all His wealth in nature, for it is said, “In Him dwells all the fulfillment of the physical Divinity” (Col. 2:9)” 170. “He alone could give all due honor to the One who gave birth and reward for the deprivation of it: one - with His life, the other - with His death.” He gave all honor to life - both that which was to honor Himself, and that which was to be honored to the Father. A death equivalent to our dishonor, He also died for the glory of the Father 171. “Goodness and philanthropy could not receive greater glory than what they received here...” “This glory should have been brought long ago, but no one among the people could repay it, which is why God says: “If I am the Father, where is My glory?” (Mal.1:6). It was possible for the Only Begotten alone to preserve everything that was required for the Father: “I have glorified Thee on the earth... I have manifested Thy Name as man” (John 17:4, 6) in the proper way, for the Word bears the exact image of the One who gave birth, is the radiance of glory and the image of His Hypostasis. Christ explained every good desire of the One who gave birth, which He points out to the Apostle Philip, who wanted to see the Father: “He who has seen Me has seen the Father” (John 14:9)” (see also Is.9:6) 172. Only after the coming of Christ did true good deeds begin: “The true truth, fellowship with God, not as it had been before... was returned by our Master, but He Himself first introduced it into the world, and the path leading to heaven, not as it existed before, was only found, but He Himself paved it” 173, for “no one has ascended to heaven except the Son of Man who came down from heaven, who is in heaven ( John 3:13). Since before the Cross it was impossible to find remission of sins and liberation from punishment, how could one think about the truth? 174. After the Redemption, the gates of God's Love opened, and instead of the Old Testament slavish fulfillment of the law and a mercenary attitude towards it, filial full love became possible. For such love, the rejection of the whole body, oneself, all comforts and the procession to God, who replaces everything for the lover - body, soul, property, and friends, is not scary: “Such ones rejoice in the joy of Christ, and what He rejoices in, such joy also gives them (John 15:11)” 175. Cabasilas interprets the verse “today they are yours, bought with natural price” (1 Cor. 6:20) as follows: an ordinary slave lives only with his body according to the will of the master, and “the Savior bought the whole man. People only give money for a slave, but He offered Himself, betraying both Body and soul for our freedom” 176. He demands from us that we surrender our will to His will. “By betraying Himself, Christ bought the whole man, therefore, he bought both desire, and mainly him” 177. “Slavery” to Christ is not like ordinary slavery, for He did everything for the well-being of the “slaves.” “He gave deliverance not in order for Himself to enjoy anything that belonged to the delivered, but in order to make His own their property, and the Master Himself and the works of the Master serve them as profit (see Matt. 25:21, 23)” 178. That is why He wants us to love Him Alone 179. In the “Explanation” of Cabasilas, speaking about the bowing of the heads at the liturgy, he writes: “Everyone bows them (the heads) not only as by nature the Lord and Creator and God, but also as redeemed slaves - to Him who redeemed them with the Blood of the Only Begotten, through Whom He purchased us for Himself as doubly slaves and at the same time made us sons, for the same Blood both strengthened and increased our slavery was the reason for adoption" 180. Most of the book by Nicholas Cabasilas is devoted to the topic of union with Christ through the sacraments. Let us dwell a little on clarifying his basic views, especially regarding the connection of the sacraments of the Church with the economic feat of Christ. The beginning and origin of eternal life, which is life in Christ 181, is in this life, its completion in the future. If the firstfruits of this life are not here, then no life will put it into us 182. People who do not have the strength and feelings for the future life will live there as if “dead and miserable” 183, since if there is no organ, then it will not be formed either from irritation or from sensation 184. Whoever does not unite with the Son of God here will have nothing in common with Him and with the future life there” 185. You can live eternal life already in this life, and not just prepare for it. The texts of Holy Scripture (1 Tim.6:12; Gal.2:20; Matt.28:20) show that Christ always abides with His saints. Kavasila draws an analogy between the “inner new man” (who, as it were, is conceived and pregnant in this world, and the formed one is born in the future world) and the fetus in the womb. Just as nature prepares an embryo in a dark womb for life in the light and forms it according to the law of the life that it will need to receive, so it is with the saints (Gal. 4:19). The difference is that the embryo does not feel the life of the world, but “the blessed even in the present life have many sensations of the future,” and “the future life, as it were, flows in and mixes with the present” 186. The purpose of the economic feat of Christ and His House-building in the life of New Testament humanity is the granting of this eternal life, that is, union with the Savior. Each of the sacraments of the Church introduces into this life and unites those who receive it with Christ 187. The Lord paved this path and opened this door when He came into the world, and having ascended to the Father, He did not allow it to be closed, but from the Father He comes through this door, or rather, He remains with us forever 188. Thus, the Economy continues through the sacraments, the path of which is opened by the Atonement. The sacraments are like windows for Christ to penetrate us. “Through these sacred sacraments, as if through windows, the Sun of Truth penetrates into this gloomy world, kills life in this world and restores the worldly life - the Light of the world conquers the world. “I have overcome the world” (John 16:33), said the Savior, introducing permanent and immortal life into a mortal and changing body” 189. Cabasilas says that in order to be united with Christ, it is absolutely necessary to receive three basic sacraments - baptism, confirmation and Communion. “Christ was united with flesh and blood, pure from all sin. Being God by nature, He deified what He later became, that is, human nature; and in dying, He died in the flesh and rose again. Hence, whoever wants to unite with Him must 1) accept His flesh, and 2) participate in deification, and 3) partake of the tomb, and 4) the resurrection. Therefore, 1) we are baptized in order to die by His death and rise again by His Resurrection; 2) we are anointed with myrrh in order to become partners with Him in the Royal anointing of deification. When 3) we feed on the most sacred Bread and drink the Divine Cup, then we partake of that very Flesh and that very Blood that was received by the Savior, and thus we unite with Him who was incarnate for us, and the Deified, and the Risen One” 190 . The order of our reception of the sacraments (Baptism – Confirmation – Communion) is the reverse of the order of the House of Christ (Incarnation – Deification – Death and Resurrection). We begin where He left off, and we end where He began, because “He came down so that we could go up.” 191 It cannot be otherwise due to the fact itself, for baptism is birth. Myrrh is the cause of action or movement in us. The bread of life and the cup of thanksgiving are true food and drink. But before being born, you cannot move and eat. In addition, baptism reconciles a person with God, the ointment honors gifts from Him, and the power of the Meal imparts to the communicant the Flesh of Christ and Blood” 192. The sacraments attract true life into our souls. To those who receive them, “Christ comes and dwells in them, unites with them, is attached to them, casts out sin and imparts His life and strength and makes them partakers of victory...” 193. Moreover, the Savior is always and in everything co-present with those who live in Him, so that He meets every need, is everything for them, and does not allow them to pay attention to anything else, nor to look for something else in another place... For for the saints, “He gives birth, and increases, and nourishes; and light and breath for them and by Himself forms an eye in them, by Himself illuminates them and grants them to see Himself...” 194 . Union with Christ depends, firstly, on the Economy He completed for us and on Himself, and secondly, on us - on our “faith in salvation through baptism and the desire to come to Him” 195. Through faith in the symbolic meaning of the sacraments, in the ritual side of which the main moments of the House of Christ are depicted, and through the acceptance of the sacraments, we unite with Christ Himself. Thus, at baptism, “hearing about this water, that it has the power of Christ’s death and burial, we believe completely and approach willingly and are immersed, and He gives not a little, but Himself, the Conqueror... And coming out of the water, we carry the Savior in our souls”... in our entire being... “pure from sin, incorruptible, as He was resurrected, appeared to the disciples and ascended...” 196. He who glorifies the defeated tyrant awaiting execution and murmurs is worthy of punishment along with the tyrant, and on the contrary, he who rejoices and glorifies the winner of this tyrant is recognized as a participant in the winner’s rewards. So we, glorifying the feat and victory of Christ and showing ineffable love, receive victory and a crown from the sacraments (which are the fruit of the labors and bloody sweat of the Savior) 197 . The sacrament of the Eucharist is the most perfect of all. Christ is united with us in each of the sacraments, but not in all the sacraments in the same way. In baptism, He, “washing, frees us from the impurity of evil and imparts His image.” In anointing, “by anointing, He makes active in the actions of the Spirit, of which He Himself became a repository through His Flesh.” In Communion, He “completely changes the one who has received the sacrament and transforms it into his own property, and the dust, having taken on a royal form, is no longer dust, but the Body of the King, a more blessed thing that cannot be imagined. Therefore, the Eucharist and the last sacrament, so it is impossible to extend further, it is impossible to add more. After the Eucharist, there is nothing that we still need to strive for” 198. Cabasilas compares the sacraments and finds that Communion, although more perfect than all the sacraments and greater than baptism, has less power to destroy guilt than the latter. Baptism destroys everything at once - “guilt, illness and the sinner himself, for it gives birth to a new person. The Eucharist absolves guilt, but does not wash away the evil habit and does not kill it or recreate it” 199. This happens because one must prepare for Communion, cleanse oneself from sin through courageous deeds. Christ, saturating us in the Eucharist, contributes in our struggle against sin, is a reward for those who strive, as our Communion and Leader in exploits 200. Therefore, the baptism of blood (death) of Christian martyrs combines both sacraments - it is 1) imitation of the death of Christ by the work (that is, it delivers baptism if it did not exist before) and 2) martyrdom, which bestows crowns and unites with Christ 201. Here are a few more of the many colorful images of the action of the sacrament of Communion given in Life in Christ. Food only appears to be the cause of life and is transformed into the eater. “The bread of life itself is alive and makes us truly alive. He moves what is nourished and transforms it into Himself.” “You cannot serve the Living God through dead sins, and you can become alive only by always eating this supper” 202. By taking communion, “We receive the Sun itself into our souls” 203. Both soul and body - all forces immediately become spiritual, since the Soul mixes with the soul, the Body with the body, the Blood with the blood. The best overcomes the weakest. The divine takes possession of the human and, as the Apostle Paul says, “the life of death is sacrificed” (2 Cor. 5:4) and “I do not live for this, but Christ lives in me” (Gal. 2:20) 204. Moreover, the union of Christ with the faithful in the sacrament of the Eucharist is the center and final cause of His entire Economy and the activity of the Church. “For this purpose He came to earth, offered Himself as a sacrifice and died, for this purpose there are altars and priests, and all cleansing and all commandments and instructions and exhortations, in order to offer us this Table” 205. The ontological depiction of the unity of the Church and the Eucharist in Cabasilas is striking in its depth: “The Church is indicated by the Mysteries, not as symbols, but as the members are indicated by the heart, as the roots of a tree - branches and, as the Lord said, as branches of a vine, for here is not only the sameness of name and not the similarity of likeness, but the identity of the deed, since the Mysteries are the Body and Blood of Christ... If only someone could see the Church of Christ in the very form in which she is united with Christ and participates in His Flesh, then I would see her as nothing other than the Body of the Lord. For this reason, Paul writes: You are the Body of Christ and are part of it (1 Cor. 12:27)” 206. Cabasilas recognizes the insufficiency of all images. The head and members, the vine and branches, marriage 207, olive tree, etc. are not sufficient to define life in Christ, which is neither definable nor depictable. “What is the life of Christ, that is, the disposition of the soul that is obtained in baptism and by which those who are washed are communicated with the life of Christ, this is not yet clear. Most of this is beyond human understanding. For this is the power of the age to come (Heb. 6:5) and the preparation for this life.” This power will be revealed in the future life, and now it is impossible for even the most blessed to know it perfectly (1 Cor. 12:4) 208. Cabasilas considers many issues related to the sacraments, but they mostly relate to moral or ascetic theology. Cabasilas points out the need for ascetic labor for all Christians, for all have bound themselves with vows in baptism. Asceticism is necessary, “for it is necessary to communicate by will with Him with whom we communicate by blood” 209. It is necessary to fertilize the soil for the Sower and preserve His gifts” 210. Soteriology of Nicholas Cabasilas and its significance The central place in the soteriology of Cabasilah is occupied by the doctrine of the three barriers that separated people from God, and their destruction by the three economic actions of the Son of God. The created Adam was separated from God by only one obstacle - the indescribable distance of his created nature from the Creator Himself. Although this distance between creation and the Creator was transcendental, absolutely distant, God, in His goodness, destroyed it, condescending to His creation, from transcendental it became immanent: “Adam saw God walking into paradise” (cf. Gen. 3:8). Adam, created sinless in the image and likeness of God, could freely respond to the love of the Creator and approach Him indefinitely, achieve deification, and since he was created incorruptible and immortal, the process of his spiritual growth could continue endlessly into eternity. The fall of Adam destroyed all this. Sin has dug an impenetrable abyss, a barrier between man and God. And although God’s Love remained unchanged, man was no longer able to respond to it, for “love (for God) is a virtue of the will” 211. And the will of fallen man was subject to sin. The consequence of sin was death and corruption (Gen. 3:3), which put an end to the endless growth of man. And so a triple wall became between people and God: 1) the previously existing distance of created nature from the Divine, then 2) sin and 3) death. The last two obstacles - sin and death - made the previous ascent to God no longer possible. To connect with God it was necessary to destroy this triple barrier. This was impossible for a mortal and burdened with sins. To save perishing humanity, the Son of God came to earth. By the Incarnation He united in Himself the created nature with Divinity, suffering and death on the Cross. He, the Sinless One, destroyed sin and, finally, by the Resurrection from the dead, trampled and defeated death - the third barrier to union with God. The teaching about three barriers and their destruction by the economic feat of the Savior is characteristic of the theology of Cabasilas, for a certain teaching about all three barriers is given by Sts. no fathers 212. However, this teaching is not the invention of Cabasilas himself, but only a synthesis of various patristic traditional statements about one or two of these barriers separately. The concept of Kavasila is a consistent systematization of the fatherly teachings. Without the goal of a complete review and comparison of all patristic literature with the theology of Cabasilia, which may be the subject of a special study, we will cite some of the statements. St. Irenaeus of Lyons speaks about the significance of the Incarnation for preserving the image and likeness of God in man: “For although in former times it was said that man was created in the image and likeness of God, this was not shown (by the deed itself), for the Word in whose image man was created was still invisible. That’s why he easily lost his likeness.” After the Fall, the Incarnation became even more necessary. “When the Word of God was made Flesh, It confirmed both, for it truly showed the image, Himself becoming what was His image, and firmly restored the likeness, making man through the visible Word similar to the Invisible Father” 213. About the Suffering of St. Irenaeus says: “The Lord redeemed us with His Blood and gave His soul for our souls and His Flesh for our flesh and poured out the Spirit of the Father for the reunion and communication of God with people” 214. He also says that the Resurrection of Christ foretells our resurrection according to the flesh 215. St. Irenaeus expresses the following general position about the necessity of the Incarnation for the deification of man: “The Son of God became the Son of Man in order for man to become the son of God” 216, “The Word of God, our Lord, became what we are, in order to make us what He is” 217. This position is often repeated in St. Athanasius of Alexandria, for example: “God’s Word became man, so that we might become deified” 218 and in other places; at St. Gregory the Theologian: “The Father’s Word was God, but became our Man, so that, uniting with the earthly, he could unite God with us... It is Man insofar as it makes me a god from a man...” 219. St. has similar thoughts. Gregory of Nyssa 220 and other fathers. This position is repeated by Nikolai Kavasila: “On the one hand, God descended to earth, on the other, he elevated us to heaven. He became man, and man became deified” 221. St. Athanasius of Alexandria speaks most of all about the Incarnation and Resurrection, which destroyed corruption and death 222. St. does not have a complete teaching on the triple barrier. Basil the Great. This systematization in the joint consideration of the three barriers and three house-building actions received a clear formulation from Cabasilas, apparently due to the consistent comparison of the sacraments of Communion, Confirmation, Baptism with the corresponding house-building moments - Incarnation, deification, death and Resurrection 223. This comparison enriched both soteriology and the very doctrine of the sacraments. On the one hand, since the main theme of the book of Cabasilas - “the doctrine of the sacraments” - was sufficiently developed and systematized by him, then in accordance with this the doctrine of the Economy is systematically presented. On the other hand, a parallel consideration of the teaching about the economic feat of the Savior and the sacraments filled with deep meaning the teaching about the sacraments, the effectiveness of which is in connection with their symbolic side, depicting the Economy of Christ. Through the sacraments of Baptism, Confirmation and Communion, Christians are united with Christ, who tangibly dwells in them. The teachings of Nicholas Kavasila are close to the statements of St. Macarius of Egypt about the purpose of the Incarnation: “The Son of God came to transform those who believe in Him with a new mind, a new soul, new eyes, a new hearing, a new spiritual tongue, in a word, new people or new wineskins, anointing them with the light of His knowledge, to pour into them new wine, that is, His Spirit” (Matthew 9:17) 224. In general, it should be noted that, although Kavasila himself quotes only a single author - Dionysius the Areopagite, his entire work breathes the patristic theology of the Ancient Church; It is not the number of references to the fathers that proves this deep traditionality, but the agreement of the teaching. The plan of “Life in Christ,” built on the joint consideration of the sacraments and the House of God, is the systematic implementation of the position of St. Irenaeus of Lyons, who said that “our teaching is in agreement with the Eucharist, and the Eucharist, in turn, confirms the teaching” 225. The soteriology of Cabasilah rests on the same two principles as the theology of Nicholas of Metho: 1) About the unified action of the entire Holy One and Indivisible Trinity 226. 2) About the inadmissibility of applying literally human concepts and categories to God. Applying the first principle, he argues that, although the Son of God was the Performer of the Economy, He was assisted by both Other Hypostases. He applies the second principle quite often. Particularly interesting is his interpretation of calling Christ the Intercessor, which he explains as the Mediator and clears of all anthropomorphism 227. Equally sublime is the clarification of the meaning of the expression “the honor of God,” which is nothing more than “the discovery of the goodness of God” 228. Like Nicholas of Metho, he denies any external relationship between people and God in the Economy of Salvation: “It was not we ourselves who moved or ascended to God, but He Himself came and descended to us” 229 . “He came down from heaven, seeking us, and, as if speaking to those who were kindred to Himself, He spoke to us in a voice and showed us a form akin to ours, so that we would love Him, either as akin or as better... He was not content to be only akin, having accepted the same nature, but made us sharers of the very Body and Blood and Spirit, and became for us another Self” 230. The main content of “Life in Christ” is the deification of the Christian through the sacraments and the in-depth knowledge of the economy of salvation by the deified in the fight against sin. Prof. A.P. Lebedev, who gave the highest assessment of “Life in Christ” 231, at the end of his review says: “The shortcomings of this work include the fact that Nikolai in his ideas brings Christ and the Christian so close that the latter seems to be immersed and disappears in the First” 232. This judgment is based on those frequent passages in “Life” where Cabasilas says that we must replace our humanity with Christ’s and then God is reconciled with people, finding His Son in them 233 . Cabasilas calls for the complete penetration of the whole person by the Divinity, as a result of unity with Christ. But this does not at all mean the destruction of human properties, as Prof. thought. Lebedev, but the deification of man, the subordination of his will to Christ. Even if Christ completely conquers our sin, it does not at all follow from this that “everything human will disappear.” There will be Christ and a deified man who has lovingly given his will to Him. Another drawback pointed out by Prof. is also insignificant. Lebedev - focusing on the spiritual side of a person and ignoring the sensual side. In the words of Kavasila quoted by Lebedev: “man actually consists of will and reason and, besides this, nothing else exists for him” 234 Kavasila does not specifically talk about the sensual side of man, since he answers only the question, “what really constitutes evil for man?” 235, and finds out that “the error of the mind is a lie, and the error of the will is evil” 236. It is not true that Cabasilah does not concern “feelings.” On the contrary, he often speaks of the importance of love for God for salvation, 237 defining our love as a virtue of the will. This is in accordance with the Gospel, since the Savior Himself said that love for Him is the subordination of the will to His commandments (John 14:15). Cabasilas means people being saved, and not perishing in sin, in a “feeling”, which he also speaks about many times 238. Some confusion may be caused by the terminology of Cabasilah, who sometimes uses the words “God and Father” or even “God the Father” instead of the word “God.” This feature, also found among the ancient fathers, can be explained by the fact that in Eastern theology the One Beginning of the Holy Trinity is recognized - the Father 239 and therefore His Name is used instead of the Name of the Triune God. And the error of Sotirich (see above - Chapter 2) consisted not so much in the statement that the Sacrifice is offered to the Father (for it is offered to Him along with the other Two Hypostases), but in the fact that he declared that the Sacrifice is offered only to the Father alone, or that it is not offered to the Son. By focusing on the actions produced in man by the sacraments, Cabasilas continues the patristic direction of Eastern theology 240. The theology of Cabasilas has all the hallmarks of this patristic theology. It is, firstly, as indicated above, permeated with a deep connection with the spiritual feat, which it repeatedly depicts. Secondly, it is realistic (in the highest sense of the word), in it a logical presentation is combined with the depiction of ontological truths. One has only to remember the above depictions in “Life” of the state of the newly baptized, or the sacrament of the Holy Eucharist, etc. This realism of Cabasilas provides a deeper knowledge of the dogmas, which in his depiction become almost “tangible”. In this respect, Kabasila can only be compared with St. Macarius of Egypt or with St. Simeon the New Theologian. The theology of Cabasilas is soteriological, since his entire presentation is based on the House of Christ, associated with the sacraments through which a Christian enters eternal life. Finally, it is necessary to note the liturgical nature of his theology - its close connection with rituals, symbolism of the sacraments and church worship. The entire divine service is a symbolic image of the Providence and Economy of God 241. This especially applies to the Divine Liturgy, the purpose of which is the sanctification of the faithful 242 and which is the image of the House of Christ itself: “The entire sacred rite (liturgy) is, as it were, one image of the One Body and the Kingdom of the Savior, an image representing all its parts from beginning to end in mutual order and agreement” 243. “Everything that takes place during the sacred rite of the Holy Gifts is directly related to the House of the Savior” 244. Establishing in the “Explanation” a deep correspondence between the sacred rites of the Divine Liturgy and the Economy, of which it is an image, Cabasilas thereby indicates an additional source for the study of the soteriology of the Ancient Church. The surviving patristic concepts of the House of the Incarnation (St. Irenaeus, St. Athanasius, St. Maximus the Confessor and others) can be supplemented with truths gleaned from liturgical books and rituals, taking into account the entire complex of patristic interpretations of worship, excluding from all this, of course, moments that have a purely historical origin. Prof. V.V. Bolotov. On the question of Areopagite creations. St. Petersburg, 1914. Nikolai Kavasila. About life in Christ, lyrics. 2, § 52 (p. 39, published by Gass, Leipzig, 1899). However, even under the rule of the Turks one can trace the continuation of Byzantine theology until the 17th century. and further. See, for example, Bardenhewer. Les Pères de l'Église, t. I. Paris, 1898, p. 7. Filaret, archbishop. Chernigovsky. Historical teaching about the Fathers of the Church, vol. I, St. Petersburg, 1882, Introduction, p. XVII. S.L. Epifanovich. Rev. Maximus the Confessor and Byzantine theology. Kyiv, 1915, p. 3. See also: K. Krumbacher. Geschichte der byzantinistische Literatur. München, 1897, S. 9, etc. See, for example, the story of Theophanes (Chronography. PG, 108, col. 817) about Leo the Isaurian, who burned a huge library in Constantinople along with the ikumenikos (director) and 12 scientists. On this subject, see K. Krumbacher, op. cit., S. 13. Henry N. Oxenham. Le principe des developments théologiques. Paris, 1909, p. 57. The works of many lesser-known theologians and polemicists, such as, for example, Eustratius of Nicea (XI-XII centuries), Nikephoros Blemmides, George Acropolis (both XIII centuries), etc., fill many dozens of volumes of Min (PG). “It’s remarkable that before the 12th century. Byzantine theological literature was far superior to anything that the West produced in this area. From Leontius of Byzantium, Maximus the Confessor, John of Damascus and Theodore the Studite between the 6th and 8th centuries. to Palamas in the 14th century, George Scholarius and Vissarion in the 15th century. the Orthodox religion and love of religious controversy inspired many authors.” Sh. Dil. The main problems of Byzantine history. Per. from fr., M., 1947, p. 152. I.V. Popov. The religious ideal of St. Athanasius of Alexandria, Sergiev Posad, 1904, p. 94. Pertullian. “Shepherd” Hermas and others. F.I. Uspensky. The bias of conservative Byzantium towards Western influences. BB, XXII. Pg., 1916. The modern spelling of the name is different: Evfimy Zigaben. – Editorial of the ABC of Faith. Rev. Isaac the Syrian. Ascetic words. Greek ed. N. Theotokis, Athens, 1895, Words 62–65, p. 260; rus. lane, Sergiev Posad, 1911, Words 25–28. Homily 27 (about Theology 1). PG, 36, col. 13. See “Svyatogorsk Tomos” of the Hesychast Council of 1341 against Varlaam, PG, 150, col. 1228. The conviction of the necessity of spiritual experience for Orthodox theology is becoming generally accepted in our Russian theology. The outstanding Russian theologian St. Pavel Florensky begins his book “The Pillar and Ground of Truth” (M., 1914) with the phrase: “Living religious experience as the only way to know dogmas” (p. 3). Gass. Die Mystik des Nikolaus Cabasilas von Leben in Christo. Lpz., 1899. Vorrede, V. 5. Ullmann comes to the same result: “Im Gebiete der Theologie (Western), welche damals so ziemlich alle Wissenschaft in sich befaßte und auf jeden Fall den Mittelpunkt des geistigen Interesse bildete, bekämpfen sich Scholastic und Mystik, philosophische und praktische Richtung" (C. U11mann. Nicolaus, der Methone... "Theologische Studien u. Kritiken", 1833, S. 652). See also I.V. Kireyevsky. On the nature of the enlightenment of Europe (Pol. collected works, vol. I. M., 1911, p. 195). Creations, Sl. 28, PG, 36, Russian. lane, vol. 3, pp. 16 et seq. “What I call incomprehensible is not that God exists, but that He is.” See S.L. Epifanovich. Rev. Maximus the Confessor, pp. 41–42. One of the founders of modern mathematics, Georg Cantor, using the concept of actual (and not potential - “bad” according to Hegel) infinity, built an infinite hierarchy of transfinite (infinite) numbers and operations on them and was the first to warn against the usual until then confusion among philosophers and theologians between created infinity and the superinfinity of God, independent of the world and mathematical constructions. Cantor called the latter “Absolutely infinite”, or simply “Absolute” (article in Zeitschrift für Philosophie und philosophische Kritik. Bd. 91, 1887; Russian translation in the collection “New Ideas in Mathematics”, No. 1. St. Petersburg, 1913, pp. 91 and 86. See also Prof. Priest. P.A. Florensky, The Pillar and the Statement of Truth, p. 498, and his article in the Theological Bulletin, 1906, part 2, pp. 530–568. It should be noted that Leibniz insisted on the fundamental difference between the absolutely infinite and other types of infinity. “The Fathers of the Christian Church are the teachers of the Church who followed the Apostles and left their writings to subsequent times with the power to revive spiritual children in Christ.” Filaret, archbishop. Chernigovsky. Historical teaching about the Fathers of the Church, vol. I. St. Petersburg, 1882, ed. 2nd. Introduction, page IV. Let us remember the medieval respect for the poet Virgil, who guides Dante through hell to purgatory (see Dante Alighieri, The Divine Comedy, parts I and II). S.L. Epifanovich. St. Maximus the Confessor and Byzantine theology. Kyiv, 1915, p. 5. After the condemnation of Origen and the “three chapters,” the question of the authority of the fathers was raised. The outward expression of this resolution of the question of authorities was the establishment by the Fifth Ecumenical Council of a certain circle of “elected fathers.” This name was primarily given to “Athanasius, Hilary, Basil, Gregory the Theologian, Gregory of Nyssa, Ambrose, Augustine, Theophilus, John of Constantinople, Cyril, Leo, Proclus.” The practice itself singled out from this number the famous names of Athanasius the Great, Basil the Great, both Gregori, Chrysostom and Cyril of Alexandria (ibid., p. 11). The polemics at the Councils against heresies and their definitions were based on the testimony of Holy Scripture and St. fathers, passages of which are given in abundance in the surviving acts of the Councils. The principle of the need to rely on Holy Scripture and the spiritual experience of saints in theological and philosophical reasoning also penetrated into Byzantine legislation: “By order issued at the beginning of the reign of Alexius Komnenos (1081–1118), the freedom of philosophical thinking was limited by the supreme authority of Holy Scripture and patristic works.” By virtue of this order, only such a teaching could be recognized that found confirmation in divine books (F.I. Uspensky. Essays on the history of Byzantine education, p. 171). Uspensky here refers to the “History” of Anna Comnena (ed. Bonnae, p. 265 C). A writer of a later era - Manuel Komnenos - Nicholas, bishop. Mefonsky, points out that the nationwide perversion of dogmas is prohibited by civil laws and sacred canons. The heresy of Sotirikh, discussed in the 2nd chapter of this work, also belongs to such attempts. See the author’s article “The Council of Constantinople 1157 and Nicholas, Bishop. Methonsky" ("Theological Works", issue 1. M., 1959, p. 98). For more details, see the author’s article in Theological Works, no. 1, pp. 87–109. Joannis Cinnami, Epitome, lib. 4, § 16, Bonnae, 1836. Mai. Spicilegium Romanum, t. X. Romae, 1844, p. 19–20. Prof. F.I. Uspensky. Synodikon on the Sunday of Orthodoxy. Odessa, 1893. See the collection “Ἐκκλησιαστικὴ βιβλιοθήκη”, published by A. Dimitrakopoulo, page 325. This position belongs to the very basis of patristic Christology, see, for example, St. John of Damascus. "Accurate presentation", book. 3, ch. 9 (PG, 94, col. 1017); also Maximus the Confessor, PG, 91, col. 264. Let us remember the “miracle of the Archangel Michael in Khoneh.” "Byzantine writer Niketas Acominatus of Khon." St. Petersburg, 1874. Paris, 1561, 1579, Geneva, 1629. Reprinted in Bibl. Partum XXV. Reprinted in PG, 139, col. 1101–1444. See Fabricius. Bibliotheca Graeca, v. 7, Hamburg, 1801, p. 744. The rest of the books are printed in scattered form in PG, 140, col. 9–281. F.I. Uspensky. Essays, pp. 213; I. Sokolov. Acominatus Nikita (Orthodox Theological Encyclopedia, vol. I, p. 215). Krumbacher. Geschichte, S. 92; Gass u. Ph. Meyer. Realencyd. f. protest. Theol. u. TO. PG, 139, col. 1091–1092. A translation of the "Treasure" would also benefit the Russian reader, since it contains passages from fathers whose works have not yet been translated into Russian, for example, St. Maximus the Confessor. In this book, a number of chapters literally coincide with chapters from the Works of the Fathers: Ch. 2 and 32 separately coincide with Ch. 2 books 3 “Exact presentation”, Rev. John of Damascus, Ch. 3 coincides with ch. 3 of his own books, Ch. 28 – from Ch. 1 Dionysius the Areopagite “On the Divine Incarnation”, Ch. 29 – with the sermon of St. Gregory the Theologian on the Nativity of Christ and other places, Ch. 30 – with the word St. Gregory of Nyssa on the Divine Incarnation, Ch. 31 – with the word of Maximus the Confessor about the Divine Incarnation, chapters 33, 34, 35, 36 - with chapters 4, 6, 7, 11 books. 3rd teacher John of Damascus, etc. Verbs audio and Greek. ἀκούω, with almost the same semantics, among their meanings they have: 1) “to be called”, “to be considered” and 2) “to obey”, “to obey”. The translation combines both of these meanings. The incompleteness of the presentation of both of them is compensated by the synthesis of Nicholas Cabasilas (see below), which examines all three points. The title of the chapter also attracts some attention – “Cur Christus Homo factus?” It is consonant with the title of the famous treatise by Anselm of Canterbury “Cur Deus Homo?” (PL, t. 158–159). Without dwelling on various possible assumptions about the reasons for this coincidence, we will only pay attention to the fact of the existence of some exchange of literary novelties between the East and the West. In any case, it has been stated that 1) the “Logic” of Peter of Spain is a Latin translation of the “Logic” of Psellus (see F.I. Uspensky, “Essays”, p. 163, etc.) and 2) a Greek translation of Thomas Aquinas’s work “Summa theologiae” has been discovered (see Rachl Michael, “Byz. Zeitschr.” XXIV. Lpz., 1924, I Abt., S. 48–60). Ullmann. Nicolaus v. Methone, Euthymius Zigabenus und Nicetas Choniates (Theologische Studien und Kritiken, 1833, S. 678–679). Niceph. Gregoras. Hist., 1. XXI, 1, p. 1089. I.I. Sokolov. Cabasilas Nikolai, in the Orthodox Theological Encyclopedia, vol. VII, St. Petersburg, 1906, column. 627, also see M. Vogel and. V. Pardthausen. Die griechischen Schreiber. Lpz., 1909. Quoted here: "Life". There is Russian. translation. M., 1874. Prof. A.P. Lebedev. Historical sketches of the state of the Byzantine-Eastern Church from the end of the 11th to the half of the 15th century. Ed. 2nd. M, 1902, p. 439. “Byzantine church mystics of the XIV century” (Poln. sobr. soch., vol. Ι, Saratov, 1913, pp. 99–100). Quoted in PG, 150, col. 355–492 and in Russian. translation in the book “The Writings of St. Fathers on Divine Services,” vol. III. St. Petersburg, 1857. Briefly: “Explanation.” I.I. Sokolov. Cabasilas Nikolai, article in the “Orthodox Theological Encyclopedia”, vol. VII, St. Petersburg, 1906, pp. 627–629. Ibid., Sl. 7, § 10, etc. Ibid., Sl. 6, § 132–136. The implication appears to be in a fallen state. "Life", Sl. 6, § 134, 135. Same, Sl. 2, § 60, 35, etc. “Knowledge is the cause of love, since Eve was also attracted by the fruit of the tree” (Gen. 3:6), see Sl. 6, § 125. Same, Sl. 6, § 19, 40. Same, Sl. 2, § 34 and 36. Therefore, at baptism we are brought to the knowledge of God and symbolically touch the heavenly life (by taking off our clothes). Ibid., Sl. 2, § 62, 63. "Life", Sl. 3, § 16; see also Explanation, page 340. Ibid., Sl. 1, § 67. See also the following lines, in which a comparison is made between the slavery of the Old Testament Law and the grace, sonship and fellowship that replaced it in the New Testament. Right there. Sl. 1, § 38, 39. Elsewhere, Cabasilas says: “To save the human race, Christ did not send an angel, but came Himself,” for the entire effect of the Economy is the salvation of people (N. Cabasilas, “Explanation,” ch. 1, p. 297). See the kontakion of the Ascension: “Having fulfilled the vision for us...” Ibid., Sl. 6, § 89. See also “Explanation”, ch. 49, PG, 150, col. 480 C; Russian trans., p. 414: “For this is paradise, for this are the prophets, for this is God Himself in the flesh, and the Divine teaching, and works, and suffering and death, so that people move from earth to heaven and become heirs of the Heavenly Kingdom.” The consequence of the Savior’s economic works was a deeper knowledge of God: “Through the incarnation of the Lord, people learned for the first time that there are Three Persons in God,” “Explanation,” ch. 12, PG, 150, col. 392, Russian trans., p. 320. Same, Sl. 1, § 103, also Sl. 2, § 170. Of course, both original and personal. “What man had to achieve by ascending to God, God accomplishes by condescending to man. That is why the triple barrier that separates us from God - death, sin and nature, which is insurmountable for man - will be overcome by God in the reverse order, starting with the union of separated natures and ending with victory over death" - Lossky. Essai sur la théologie mystique de l'Eglise d'Orient, Aubier, ed. Montaigne, 1944, p. 132. “The infinite distance between created and uncreated being, the natural division between man and God” - ibid., p. 131. “The sting of death is sin” (1 Cor. 15:56). “Life” (Sl. 3, § 11). See also “Explanation”, chap. 13. pp. 328–329. “After Christ destroyed with His Cross the mediastinum of the fence between God and us, it was still appropriate to unite and draw into communion those who were distant from each other... and this was accomplished by the Descent of the Holy Spirit on the Apostles.” "Explanation", ch. 1, PG, 150, col. 379, Russian trans., p. 296. Same, Sl. 4, § 132–134. Those. Incarnation and so on. "Life", Sl. 6, § 12. Further, in § 22, Cabasilas notes that only the Son of God is capable of such love, self-abasement, etc. Ibid., Sl. 1, § 80–82. The latter, of course, after Calvary. See the service for the Nativity of Christ, 1st stichera on “Lord, I cried” - “the mediastinum of the city has collapsed.” Ibid., Sl. 3, § 10. Cabasilas compares the deification of human nature with the transformation of a vessel containing ointment into ointment, which in this case can no longer remain incommunicable to the outside. That is, in Your own Body and Soul. "Life", Sl. 4, § 38. "Explanation", ch. 7, PG, 150, col. 384; Russian trans., p. 309. “The death of Christ is the only means that brought remission of sins into the world.” Ibid., ch. 6, PG, 150, col. 381; Russian trans., p. 306. Mark 8:34, 10, 21; Luke 9:23, 14, 17. Ibid., Sl. 7, § 34–37. See also Sl. 7, § 125: “The Savior gave up both the Body and the soul for our freedom: the Body to death, and the soul grieved not only at the time when the Body was killed, but also before the wounds: “My soul is sorrowful unto death”” (Matthew 26:38). Same, Sl. 1, § 54–60, 68 and many others. Ibid., Sl. 1, § 106–108; "Explanation", ch. 9, PG, 150, col. 485; Russian trans., p. 312. Ibid., Sl. 1, § 106–108. "Explanation", ch. 44 (on the Intercession of Christ), PG, 150, col. 464; Russian trans., p. 396. Ibid., ch. 49, PG. 150, col. 477; Russian trans., p. 411. “To think about Him that He constantly intercedes through the prayers of sacred rites is all kinds of blasphemy and absurdity” (ibid.). "Explanation", ch. 30, PG, 150, col. 486 V; Russian trans., p. 366. Same, Sl. 2, § 83. Also § 84. Same, Sl. 4, § 123–124. Ibid., Sl. 1, § 65. See also “Explanation”, ch. 19, PG, 150, col. 409D; Russian trans., p. 340. “Christ alone brought us joy, and if anyone on earth rejoiced before He came, then he rejoiced when he was initiated into His mysteries.” Ibid., Sl. 7, § 121–122. "Explanation", ch. 35. PG, 150, col. 448 V; Russian trans., p. 379. Ibid., Sl. 1, § 24. Cabasilas, wanting to better clarify the meaning of the sacrament of baptism, cites and explains many of its names: birth, rebirth, restoration, seal, vestment, anointing, gift, enlightenment, font, bath (rebirth), etc. Ibid., Sl. 1, § 102–103. Ibid., Sl. 1, § 94–09. Cabasilas also interprets the meaning of the Baptism of the Savior Himself with the baptism of John: “As if delineating His baptism in writing... Christ opened the heavens, showing that only through baptism we can see the heavenly spaces and that it is impossible to enter into (eternal) life for the unbaptized, and also that the font is the entrance to this door.” Sl. 1, § 44. Same, Sl. 4, § 88, 93, 97, 99. Same, Sl. 4, § 101–103. "Explanation", ch. 29, PG, 150, col. 432A; Russian trans., p. 361. Ibid., ch. 38, PG, 150, col. 452D – 453A; Russian trans., pp. 384–385. Cabasilas calls marriage the union of Christ with the participants in the Eucharist. "Life", Sl. 2, § 105–106, etc. Cf. Prof.'s remark O. Pavel Florensky on the indefinability of Orthodox churchliness. “There is no concept of churchliness, but it exists itself, and for every living member of the Church, church life is the most definite and tangible thing that he knows... This is new life, life in the Spirit” (Priest P.A. Florensky, Pillar and Statement of Truth. M., 1914, p. 7). “Although God gives us every holy thing, and we cannot bring anything to Him, and (His gifts) are in the strictest sense gifts, yet He requires of us that we be able to accept the holy thing and preserve it; He would not grant sanctification to people incapable of this.” "Explanation", ch. 1, PG, 150, col. 369A; Russian trans., p. 291. Even if all three of them are mentioned, they are not compared with each other and with the economic actions of Christ. St. Irenaeus of Lyons. Exposure and refutation of false knowledge, book. V, ch. 6, § 2 (Russian translation, St. Petersburg, 1900, pp. 480–481). Same, ch. 1, § 1, p. 447. Same, ch. 7; see also book. V, ch. 31. Same here, Prince. III, ch. 10, § 2, p. 240. Ibid., book. V, Preface, p. 446 (PG, 7, col. 1120). “The Word of the Incarnation”, § 54. Creations in Russian. lane, part 1, Sergiev Posad, 1902, p. 260. Poem “On Incarnation” (Russian translation, part 5. M., 1889, p. 40). "The Discourse on the Incarnation", § 8–9. Creations, Russian. trans., vol. I, pp. 201–202. Conversation 44, § 1, See “Life”, Sl. 1, § 102–103. “Exposure and refutation of false knowledge”, book. IV, ch. 18, § 5. "Explanation", ch. 44, PG, 150, col. 464; Russian trans., p. 396. "Life", Sl. 4, § 27. How alien and incompatible this is with the concept of “satisfaction”, etc. "Historical Sketches...", p. 439. Eg. "Life", Sl. 5, § 37. Same, Sl. 6, § 56, 57, 60, 61, 125, 139; Sl. 7, § 100, etc. Same, Sl. 7, § 33, 35, 37, etc. St. Gregory the Theologian. “Word 20th”, PG, 35, col. 1073. “Word 41st.” PG, 36, col. 476B. Rev. John of Damascus. "Accurate presentation", book. 1, ch. 8. Prof. P.P. Ponomarev. About salvation (“Orthodox Interlocutor”, 1915, No. 11–12, pp. 357–398; 1916, No. 12, pp. 426–447). Ibid., ch. 16, PG, 150, col. 404 C; Russian trans., pp. 333–334. Same, ch. 1, PG, 150, col. 372 V; Russian trans., p. 294. Ibid., ch. 1, PG, 150, col. 373; Russian trans., p. 296, see also p. 293.