Defense of the "12 Chapters" against the Eastern Bishops

The apology “Defense of the Twelve Chapters against the Eastern Bishops” was written by St. Cyril of Alexandria in the 1st half of 431. The saint responds to criticism of his 12 anathematisms, compiled at the beginning of 431 by the bishop. Andrei Samosatsky on behalf of the “eastern” bishops at the request of Archbishop. John of Antioch. St. Kirill quotes each anathematism, then cites his opponent’s objection and gives his answer. Defense in many cases is accompanied by quotations from the works of the holy fathers. There is no discussion of the 2nd, 5th and 6th anathematisms in the apology. “Eastern” bishops believed that St. Cyril taught about the merging of natures in Christ or the change from one nature to another. The saint explains his teaching about the union of two natures in Christ and pays special attention to the proof of the completeness and immutability of both natures of the Savior. For example, ep. Andrei Samosatsky reproached St. Cyril in Apollinarianism, seeing it especially in the expressions: the Word “was born carnally” (Anathem. 1), “unity according to hypostasis” (Anathem. 2), “natural unity” (Anathem. 3), “the Word’s own flesh” (Anathem. 11), “The Word suffered in the flesh” (Anathem. 12). The saint justifies these expressions: they have nothing to do with Apollinarianism, but are used to affirm the unity of the incarnate Word, while the Nestorian terms defended by opponents contribute to the false idea of ​​Christ as a simple man. *The title of the work in Greek is δόγμασιν ὡς ὀρθῶς ἔχουσιν / ᾿Απολογητικὸς ὑπὲρ τῶν δώδεκα κεφαλαίων πρὸς τοὺς τῆς ἀνατολῆς ἐπισκόπους. *The title of the work in Latin is Apologia XII capitulorum contra Orientales. Anathematism 1 3 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Those who have dedicated their minds to the all-holy God and love to talk about the dogmas of truth reject the nasty idle talk of wicked heretics; and directing the inner and hidden gaze of the heart to the inspired Scripture and thus richly filling the heart with good thoughts, they very courageously rebel against those who overthrow Orthodoxy, as if saying: “being zealous for the Lord” (1 Kings 19:10). So, when Nestorius spewed out many and various blasphemies against the Savior of us all, Christ, and, as it were, removed from the foundations the venerable and great sacrament of the Incarnation: then we, seeing that it was not safe to remain silent in this case, often advised him to give up such blasphemies, and when we had absolutely nothing to do, we, of necessity, came out to defend the dogmas of piety, selected some chapters from his blasphemies and usefully anathematized them, that is, those who want to philosophize on them, obeying blessed Paul, who says: “If anyone preaches the gospel to you more than he eats, let him be anathema.” “But even if we or an angel from heaven brings you more good news, let him be anathema” (Gal. 1:9,8). But I don’t know why some were so indignant at this; - either these are people of the same thoughts and concepts, or who, pretending to reject such a confession, try in every possible way to patronize it and make hateful those who want to defend the Savior. One must have thought that reproaches against those who taught otherwise expressed their sincerity of love for Christ; but now (it turns out that) they did not do what was better and especially what they should, but became more hostile to those whom, if they had imitated, they would have received with them the crown of incorruptibility. They condemn anathemas, as if they were compiled unfairly, and by writing in writing they counter each with the inventions of their minds and some stupid idle talk, they think thereby to captivate the reckless readers of their books. Therefore, it was necessary for us to confront them with the truth, to refute their attacks, to show them as lovers of blasphemy, and their opponents as researchers of the truth. So, having first proposed each of the anathemas and then compared with them what was compiled by them, we added our refutations, calling on those who know the divine Scripture to be judges and demanding a fair and impartial judgment from those who understand the truth. Whoever does not confess that Immanuel is the true God, and therefore the holy Virgin Theotokos, since in the flesh she gave birth to the Word who is from God the Father and became flesh: let him be anathema. And who will confess that the Word of God, made flesh, was born carnal? If she gave birth carnally, then she is no longer like a Virgin. And to what do we refer to the words: “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you” (Luke 1:35), if, in his opinion, the Virgin gave birth to (Him) carnally, and not as befits God? and how did the strangely appearing star point to Him (Matthew 2:2–7)? And the magicians, led by her, came from Persia, looking for the one born, and having found them, they brought gifts suitable for both the mind and the visible; and the angels who descended from heaven, uniting with the shepherds, sang the birth with the words: “Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men” (Luke 2:14). What do these signs indicate? for a physical or divine birth? And moreover, if we recklessly agree with his speeches, then we will begin to invent the transformation of the Word and change Him into flesh; We will equally admit that It became “sin” and “a curse” (2 Cor. 5:21; Gal. 3:13), if we are not attentive to what precedes and follows in speech and to the very custom of Scripture (to express one way or another). But according to the Gospels, by the expression: “The Word became flesh,” we rightly mean His being in the flesh. The mystery of the incarnation of the only begotten Son of God is explained by the wisest John, who wrote: “and the Word became flesh and dwelt in us” (John 1:14). Understanding these words as they should, the blessed fathers, who once gathered at Nicaea, called Him the Word, begotten of God, through whom the Father created everything, light from light, true God from true God, incarnate and made man, that is, united with flesh having a rational soul, and became man, although remaining at the same time God. And that without transformation and without merging the work of union was accomplished, that the Word of God remained, as it is said, what it is, although it became flesh, because it is unchangeable by nature, then for everyone there is no doubt. For incarnation does not mean transformation into the nature of flesh, but (here) something else is meant, different from it and united with it. Thus wise, the blessed fathers called the holy Virgin the Mother of God: for they believed that she gave birth to the incarnate and humanized Son through whom the Father created everything. And the inventor of new blasphemies for us, Nestorius, arguing against this opinion, condemns the word of the Mother of God as untrue; He said about it this way: “I, he says, often asked them: Was the Deity, you say, born of the blessed Virgin? They will immediately fall silent when asked such a question. And who, he says, will endure such blasphemy as to say of her who gave birth to the church that God was created in her through the Spirit? Then when we add: so what indecent are we saying when we advise you to avoid this name, and stick to the expression common to both natures? - our words seem like blasphemy to them. Either confess clearly that the Divinity was born from the blessed Mary, or, avoiding blasphemous expression, why, when telling me this, do you pretend that you are not saying it? So, when he insists, especially impiously, he assures that those who call the Virgin the Mother of God must confess that the fetus was born alien to the flesh and the nature of the Divinity separately, and that the Word of God had the beginning of being from the woman: then wanting to prove that we are completely alien to such an opinion (for we are not so extravagant as to begin to philosophize in a way that we should not philosophize), we say that the Virgin gave birth to the Word of God, made flesh, according to the scriptures, that is, by man, but she gave birth to Him carnally, that is, according to the flesh, because God and the Father, according to divinity, gave birth to God the Son from Himself. Since that which is born of the flesh is flesh, then the Virgin, like flesh itself, gave birth carnally. When it is said “carnally,” this does not destroy the supernatural nature of birth, nor does it deny the activity of the Holy Spirit, through which He formed what was born in the womb; but it is better to know that just as God gives birth according to divinity, i.e., in a manner befitting of God, in accordance with his nature, so man gives birth according to humanity, that is, the flesh - carnally. Being God in essence, the Word, although made flesh, came into existence in a manner decent to God, i.e. as befits the true God; because He alone had a mother unmade and preserved as a Virgin the one who gave birth to Him according to the flesh. I am surprised that those who are afraid to call the Holy Virgin the Mother of God say that she gave birth in a manner befitting of God: an ordinary person is not born in a manner befitting of God. And the gifts, they say, were brought by the Magi in a manner appropriate to both the mind and the visible, and (thus) they are again divided after the union into two of the one Lord Jesus Christ: because the mind-comprehended became visible not through a change in the being, but through a union with the visible body. The Holy Scripture says that the holy apostles were “selves and servants of the Word” (Luke 1:2), although doesn’t everyone undoubtedly know that the Word of God the Father is incorporeal, intangible and invisible? But I meet the words of the holy apostles: “from the beginning, by hearing, by seeing with our eyes, by seeing with our hands, by touching the Word of the living” (1 John 1:1). So those decent gifts (were brought) to one, that is, to Christ: because He is equally God and at the same time man. Therefore, when He was born, choirs of holy angels and armies of spirits sang, calling Him Savior and Deliverer. They are afraid that in the words of the evangelist: “The Word became flesh” (John 1:14) there may be some transformation of the divine nature of the Word, if the expression “was” retains its own meaning. I praise fear, but I am surprised that those who fear this expression and its true and necessary meaning say that the Word was thus made flesh, just as it is said of Him that He was made a curse and a sin (Gal. 3:13; 2 Cor. 5:21). Then, how do those who have sense fail to see that the blessed evangelist, having said the word: “was,” immediately destroys the thought of any transformation, adding: “and dwelt in us” (John 1:14). It is absurd and senseless to dare to say that the Word was made flesh just as He was made, it is said of Him, by curse and sin: because He was not made by the curse itself, nor by sin, but was (only) imputed with the lawless, being righteous, in order to invalidate sin (Mark 15:28, see Isa. 53, 12); and he who blesses the creation is called an oath, in order to destroy the oath that weighs upon us and to free those who believe in Him from punishment. So he did not actually become a curse and sin; but is named so as to destroy the oath and sin. Therefore, if he was made flesh in this way, then he also destroyed the flesh, as well as the oath and sin, and therefore was not made a man and was not actually incarnate, but the sacrament exists in the imagination alone and the word “incarnation” turns out to be an empty name; and the hope of resurrection is completely destroyed. So into whose death are we baptized? where is the word of faith that we preach? By confessing that Jesus is Lord and believing that God raised Him from the dead, we are saved. So, will we not have faith in an ordinary person like us, and will we already worship the Word who appeared for us in human form? Or did the free one, like God, not accept the slave image? Or did the glorious one not humble himself in the height of the Divinity? Or, being the image and equal of the Father, did he not condescend to exhaust himself, although (at the same time) he distributes the benefits of his fullness to creation? But away with the evil thought! The blessed fathers taught us differently: they said that the very Word of God the Father truly became incarnate and became man, unchangeably and unmerged; and the image of the economy is completely incomprehensible. As evidence of what has been said, I will cite their words. Martyr Peter, Bishop of Alexandria. The Evangelist says the truth: “The Word became flesh and dwelt in us” (John 1:14), from that time, obviously, when the angel greeted the Virgin, saying: “Rejoice, blessed one, the Lord is with you” (Luke 1:28). The words: “The Lord is with you,” now heard from Gabriel, are spoken instead of the words: God the Word is with you; for they mean that He himself is conceived in the womb and becomes flesh, as it is written: “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you: and likewise that which is holy to be born will be called the Son of God” (Luke 1:35), Athanasius, Archbishop of Alexandria. When the flesh was born from the Mother of God Mary, it was said that He Himself was born, giving birth to others into being, in order to transfer our birth to Himself. The same from the letter to Epictetus. How dared those who called themselves Christians to doubt whether He was the Lord who came from Mary, who, being the Son of God in essence and nature, was in the flesh from the seed of David, and from the flesh of holy Mary? Who were they so bold as to say that Christ, who suffered in the flesh and was crucified, is not the Lord, and the Savior, and God and the Son of the Father? Or how do those think they are called Christians who say that the Word entered into a holy man, as into one of the prophets, and did not itself become a man who took flesh from Mary, but that there was another Christ and another Word of God, the Son of the Father, who was before Mary and before the ages? Or how can those who say that there is another Son and another Word of God be Christians? We also adhere to the same thoughts of the holy fathers. If anyone teaches differently and thinks differently, he is not on the straight and royal path. And that it is not unusual for the holy fathers to use the expression: “Christ was born carnally,” and that, on the contrary, this expression is common among others, and no less true for us, is shown by the following words Amphilochius, Bishop of Iconium. “If He had not been born carnally, you would not have been born spiritually; If He had not worn the image of a slave, then you would not have acquired the glory of sonhood.” – It is clear that here the word “carnally” also means “according to the flesh,” just as the word “divine” is identical with the word “according to the Divine.” Whoever in the one Christ, after the union (of natures), separates the persons, uniting them only by the union of dignity, that is, in will or in strength, and not, better, by the union consisting in the unity of natures: let him be anathema. Let us again remind him of his own words and point out how he himself speaks of two hypostases. For example, in the first volume he says: “So in relation to His nature, the Word of God the Father separately (taken) did not receive sanctification. If anyone thinks that the one born of the holy Virgin is anointed and sanctified alone, in this sense he is called Christ.”... So on what basis does he, as if forgetting his words, unite natures into one hypostasis, merging them and calling the divine union natural? And who will ever accept the divine union in the sacrament of economy as a natural one? If the connection is natural, where is the grace? where is the divine sacrament? For natures, as we know, once established by the all-arranging God, follow the law of necessity? Again, is it really possible that the work of house-building, according to the circulation and order of nature, will continue for a thousand years, as the hated Apollinaris was mad and fabulous? The Divine Paul, clearly showing everyone how the only begotten Word of God became man, as the builder of the mysteries of God and having Christ speaking within himself, proclaims: “For he did not receive from an angel, but from the seed of Abraham he received.” “In every way ought to be like the brethren, so that the high priest may be merciful and faithful to those who come to God” (Heb. 2:16-17). We, considering this saying to be the most true, following everywhere the inspired Scriptures, and considering the sayings of theologians to be completely astonished and even considering them to be divine laws, we affirm that the Word of God the Father borrowed not from the holy angels, nor even from his own nature; We believe, in accordance with the Holy Scriptures, that, having overshadowed the holy Virgin, as the power of the Most High Father, He formed Himself from her a body, however, through the action of the Holy Spirit, and became a man, and was called the son of Abraham and David, without losing through incarnation the properties of being the true Son of God and the Father, on the contrary, remaining, although made flesh, in the nature, greatness and glory of the Divine, because he is unchangeable and above transformation, like God. So He is one and the same Son and Lord both before the incarnation and after the incarnation. But to divide one into two sons and destroy the work of true union, dividing into parts and placing man separately and God separately, is a wicked thing beyond all description. But, caring little about this, Nestorius dared to speak in the same words like this: “Let this be philosophized in you, even in Christ Jesus, who in the form of God hath diminished himself, and received the form of a servant” (Phil. 2:5-6). He did not say: let this be understood in you, as well as in God the Word, who, being in the image of God, took on the form of a servant; but having used the word “Christ” as a name meaning two natures, he without fear calls Him both as having taken the form of a servant and as God, although it is not clear how the words refer to two separated natures. In another sermon he again says: “Let every knee bow in the name of Jesus, of those in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord” (Philippians 2:10–11). For the sake of the wearer I honor the wearer; For the sake of what is hidden, I worship what is visible. God is inseparable from the visible; therefore I do not share the honor of him who is indivisible; I separate natures, but unite worship.” And in another sermon: “Speak of him who has accepted that He is God; add the accepted one, because the image of a slave; after that, add the dignity of the union, because both have common power, the dignity of both is the same; in the division of natures, profess the unity of dignity.” You see how everywhere he divides natures one from another, but unites, as he says, worship and recognizes as common only the power and unity of one dignity. But what is common, if it is common, is, in any case, not among one, but among two or many, separately and especially taken. So why is the word condemned, which rightly anathematizes such wisdom? What is absurd if we, contrasting pious dogmas with the vile and most vile words of Nestorius, expressed due concern for the salvation of the brethren? Since they say that I contradict my words, and as proof they cite part of the letter that I wrote to the holy monks: then I consider it my duty to answer this as it should. They say that I myself named two hypostases, and they consider it sufficient proof for themselves that we did not reject what they say. So, of necessity, having offered this part of the message, I will add after this clear evidence that they are everywhere liars in their words. It reads like this: “So as far as His nature is concerned, the Word of God the Father is not sanctified separately. If anyone thinks that the one born of the holy Virgin is anointed and sanctified alone, and in this sense is called Christ, let him further say whether the anointing is sufficient for the anointed one to appear equal in glory and co-throne with God, who is above all.” Since the inventor of new blasphemies for us, Nestorius, often asserts that the Word of God is called Christ separately, and separately and separately - another Christ, born of the holy Virgin: then, rejecting such an opinion as bad, and unreasonable, and alien to the truth, we do not affirm that the Word of God the Father, considered separately, is anointed with the oil of gladness, nor that (anointed) separately and specially, as man and another Son, and not the Word of God, is the one who (was born) of the holy Virgin; on the contrary, we affirm that everyone should confess one Christ - the incarnate and made man only-begotten Word of God, because “one Lord, one faith, one baptism” (Eph. 4:5). So, it is clear to anyone accustomed to Orthodox wisdom that they are distorting the meaning of my words and thereby slandering the truth. Of course, another thought would be infallible, very fair and would not deserve any condemnation, namely, that the flesh is by its nature different from the Word, born of God the Father, and likewise the Only Begotten is different in relation to its nature. But to understand this does not mean to separate the natures after the union. Truly, if anyone wanted to examine the power of the sacrament with the keen gaze of the mind, he would see that God the Word did not borrow from his own nature, as was said at the beginning, but from the seed of Abraham; and the holy body from the seed of Abraham is not consubstantial with the Word begotten of God. The man who came into existence borrowed from the Holy Virgin in order to become like the brethren and to be called the firstborn of the Only Begotten. But although the body is of a different nature than the Word of God the Father; however, there is one Christ, and Son, and God, and Lord, although (It) became flesh. And it is not harmless to destroy the method of true union by dividing the hypostases into two sons, as if they existed in separation, each separately and separately, and had one external unity or union of one dignity. When we call a connection natural, we mean true; because the inspired Scripture itself is in the habit of using this expression; for example, in one place the inspired Paul writes to some (people): “And by nature they are children of wrath, as also others” (Eph. 2:3). And no one will ever say that they fell by (very) nature to divine wrath, so that sinners are his offspring; otherwise we will completely agree with those infected with Manichaean madness. But the word “by nature” is the same as “truly.” So, without merging natures and without mixing them with one another, as opponents say, we say that a natural union (of them) occurred; but everywhere we affirm that from two non-identical natures, divinity and humanity, one Christ, and Son, and Lord, was made. It is obvious that we have nothing in common with the opinions of Apollinaris; for those once condemned as perverting the truth must be turned away. Whoever applies the sayings of the Gospel and Apostolic books, whether used by the saints about Christ, or by Him about Himself, separately to two persons or hypostases, and applies some of them to man, whom he represents as different from the Word of God the Father, and others, as being proper to God, to the Word of God the Father alone: ​​let him be anathema. It is appropriate here to remind him of his own provisions, in which he says: “When you hear that you have prospered in wisdom, age and grace, do not think that the Word of God became wise gradually; and again do not dare to talk idlely that we attribute prosperity to man through age, wisdom and grace.” Although he here rejects the testimony of Scripture, showing that prosperity took place in the nature of the visible flesh of the Lord: but now is not the time to reprove this, because we hasten to the head that is set. To prove that he himself speaks of two hypostases and contradicts himself, let us propose what he said long ago: “one must not agree with the words dividing the union, that is, one Son into two persons, or hypostases, or two sons, because the most perfect union is inseparable and indissoluble, and in every way, in every respect and in every sense, one Son. But when the most perfect union is preserved and one Son and Christ and Lord is confessed, then (all) the words about one and the same Son must be accepted; according to the power of the united natures, without a doubt, what is said must be attributed to one Son.” But if we do not share the words of the Gospel, or those spoken about the Lord by Himself, or those placed in the apostolic writings: then what height of blasphemy will not (he) exceed? If we do not share speeches, then how will we resist Eunomius and Arius, who confuse all words as if they were spoken about one nature, and blasphemously attribute the base nature of humanity to the higher nature of pure Divinity? Or how will we understand the words of the Lord that He speaks in relation to the nature of visible flesh: “I have not despondent, let me do my will” (John 6:38), and: “I have received a commandment, what I will speak and what I will speak” (John 12:48), and: “I will do nothing for myself” (John 8:28), and: “I will ascend to my Father and your Father, and to my God and your God” (John 20:17) and others like that? If words, as well as natures, remain inseparable: then, according to his teaching 3, the Father will be God of the only begotten God, and the servant and executor of the fatherly commandments will be the Son according to Divinity. And if we transfer the humiliation to the divine nature, then to whom will we apply the words: “I and the Father are one” (John 10:30), and what He does as a Father; and these words: “As the Father raises the dead and gives life, so also the Son, whom he wills (and not those who are commanded) gives life” (John 5:21)? But rightly, according to the word of the Lord himself, the father is Father and God: God who arose in the last times from the seed of David with the flesh, the Father of God the Word, begotten dispassionately and eternally, and sonship is preserved and confessed in a separate sense. How then will we understand: “Amen, amen, I say to you, before even Abraham was not” (John 8:58), and: “all this was” (John 1:3), if the words are not divided? Shall we attribute to the nature that appeared in recent times from the seed of David, the words about the existence before Abraham and David and about the creation of all things through Him? Or, considering the natures to be unfused and confessing the union to be inseparable, let us say piously that the words according to the power of the united natures, as said above, refer to one Son and Lord and Christ, but are not all applied to one nature? so that in one name of natures each is understood according to an incomprehensible height of connection, such as: “no one ascended into heaven except he who came down from heaven, the Son of man who is in heaven” (John 3:13) and again: “if you see the Son of man ascending, where he was before” (John 6:32), - do we not understand in one name the Son of man and the one who is united with him unmerged and inseparable? For although he was called the Son of man in reference to the received and visible nature of the flesh; but through the deeds he accomplished, he showed himself to be God. And again: “Jesus Christ, who is all things” (Heb. 2:10); and also: “Jesus Christ yesterday and today” (the same and forever) (Heb. 13:8). How is it possible to do all things through Him? if through Him all things, then how - yesterday and today? But it is also true that everything is through Him, it is also true that it is yesterday and today, and it is true that it is the same forever, if, according to the difference of natures, united inseparably and inseparably, we refer the words yesterday and today to the visible, forever to the invisible, and according to the unity of sonship - to the same thing. Those who unreasonably want to condemn anathemas composed with the greatest benefit and out of necessity seem to have one goal - not to think or say anything true, but to present clear evidence that they are engaged in nothing but slander. Because if they had applied their minds to what was written with care and diligence, they would have understood that with their opinions and words spoken by themselves, they (only) affirm the anathematism and prove that it is not unreasonably composed. And how, I’ll tell you about it. Nestorius, who is good for us, preaching in church, said something like this - how can I say this more clearly and more understandably for everyone - (said that) Arius, Eunomius and Apollinaris and the crowds of everyone belonging to such a brotherhood, tried to introduce the word “Theotokos”, so that when confusion occurs and natures are not divided, nothing base would be accepted into humanity and then they would have the opportunity to rebel against the Divinity, as if everything that is said is said about one thing. When it was said in this way, it was very useful on our part to anathematize, which does not allow us to divide into two persons and hypostases the one Lord Jesus Christ. And that they themselves agree with our words will be clear from those words that they wrote down and recognized as fair. Here are these words: “one must not agree with the words dividing the union, that is, one Son into two persons, or hypostases, or two sons, because the most perfect union is inseparable and indissoluble, and in every way, in every respect and in every sense, one Son. But when the most perfect union is preserved and one Son and Christ and Lord is confessed, then (all) the words about one and the same Son must be accepted; according to the power of the united natures, what is said must undoubtedly refer to one Son.” So, when the most perfect unity is preserved, is some (albeit) secret access (to separation) or even a type of section possible? and whoever dares to divide, will he not stray from the right path and completely fall away from the dogmas of piety? What does the anathematism say? Whoever divides words in such a way that some apply to Him, as to a person, considered separately from the Word of God, and others, as being proper to God, to the Word of God alone, let him be anathema.” So, if those who divide and decompose Christ alone into man separately and separately, and into God the Word separately and separately, do not separate Him and do not speak of two sons, then let those who love to complain accuse us. If to philosophize in this way means to (make) a cut and division: then why did they decide to condemn our words, when they themselves, as they say, confess that Emmanuel is inseparable and is one in the most perfect union? So I myself will praise and everyone, I think, who is accustomed to the right to philosophize, will (praise) the duty to accept wisely every speech, even if, perhaps, spoken to them: because some of the speeches are fitting for God, while others are more consistent with the economy according to the flesh. Since God is one and the same and man is at the same time: then in this regard it is very rightly said sometimes divinely, sometimes humanly; however, we affirm that both are the words of one Jesus Christ; We do not deprive the church of the Most Holy Virgin of the Divinity, and we know that the Word of God the Father is not incorporeal after the ineffable union. But I am surprised that those who have very carefully examined and, as they think, subtly parsed my messages, deliberately omit what is useful and necessary in them to prove the correctness and fidelity of the dogmas, and very quickly rush to words that, as it seems to them, represent even the slightest opportunity to weave slander against us from them. I will remember my words; I wrote this in a letter to Nestorius: “and we do not divide the speeches of our Savior in the Gospels either between two hypostases, or between two persons; for the one and only Christ is not dual, although he is of course united from two and different natures into an inseparable union, just as, for example, man is understood to be (consisting of) soul and body and not dual, but one of both. But we correctly reason that both divine and human speeches are spoken about the same thing. When He speaks of Himself in a godly manner: “seeing me in the form of the Father” (John 14:9), and: “I and the Father are one” (John 10:30): then we understand His divine and ineffable nature, according to which He, in relation to His Father, due to the identity of the being, is the likeness, image and radiance of His glory (Heb. 1:3). When He, not disdaining the measure of humanity, speaks to the Jews: “Now you seek to kill me the man who spoke the truth to you” (John 8:40): again, nevertheless, we recognize the same God the Word in the equality and likeness of the Father, but within the limits of His humanity. For if it is necessary to believe that the true God essentially became flesh or man, since the flesh is animated by reason soul: then what reason does anyone have to be ashamed of His words when they related to humanity? If He rejected speeches suitable for man, then who would force Him to become a man like us, and for our sake would he condescend to voluntary exhaustion, for what reason would he reject words suitable for this exhaustion? Therefore, all the words (found) in the gospels must be attributed to one person, to one hypostasis of the incarnate Word: for there is one Lord Jesus Christ, according to the scriptures.” So, as is already clear from the above, we cannot be accused of ignorance of the economy and the words appropriate to each nature; but it is better that we do not allow those of the soul, who do not have spirit, to philosophize or talk about two sons, separating one hypostasis from the other after an inextricable union. Since they, having taken a certain small part from our epistle, put it at the beginning of their speeches, threatening over time to expose us that we had sinned immoderately in relation to the word of God the Father and very unreasonably attributed to His nature growth and prosperity befitting the flesh: then, perhaps, we will say this too, offering the whole part of the epistle; because they, fearing the truth and deceiving the listeners, brought (only) a certain part that seemed to them more suitable to be able and, apparently, plausibly to create a slander against us. It was said: “When you hear that you have prospered in wisdom, age and grace, do not think that the Word of God became wise gradually. I especially remember that the inspired Paul wrote: “Christ is the power of God and the wisdom of God” (1 Cor. 1:24). And again, do not dare to talk idle talk that we attribute prosperity through age, wisdom and grace to man, for this, I think, is nothing other than dividing one Christ into two; but as was said before, being the eternal Son, he is said to be “predestinated into the Son of God” in the last times of the age, appropriating to himself by the dispensation the birth of his flesh. In this way, it is also said about the real Wisdom of the one who gave birth that She excelled in wisdom, although She was perfect, like God, and while She voluntarily took upon herself human properties through the most perfect union.” So why do they distort the truth with false speculations, when God says: judge righteously (Deut. 1:16)? Because we do not teach about the separation of hypostases after the union, we do not say that the divine nature had a need for growth and prosperity, but only that He, through the economic assimilation of the properties of the flesh, made it His own, so that “the flesh became,” according to Scripture (John 1:14). And that a host of holy fathers also agree with such faith and opinion, I will try to show by offering for complete conviction a part of the sermon delivered by Atticus, of blessed memory. Here it is: Atticus, Bishop of Constantinople. “Now the Lord Christ took birth out of love for mankind; for there was a birth according to divine dignity before.” Then he again adds to this: “The word is exhausted through love for mankind, being by nature inexhaustible; for “I have humbled myself, and have taken on the form of a servant” (Phil. 2:7). The ethereal one becomes incarnate for you; for “the Word became flesh” (John 1:14). The intangible, due to its incorporeal nature, is tangible. The beginningless is under a bodily principle; perfect increases; the unchangeable succeeds; the rich man is born in a den; He who covers the sky with clouds is clothed with swaddling clothes; the king rests in a manger.” And that to separate the hypostases after union is not immaculate, but on the contrary means to pervert the venerable sacrament of the Incarnation, we learn this no less by reading the words of Julius and Felix, who were once primates of the Roman Church. In fulfillment of faith, the Son of God is preached to those who were incarnate from the Virgin Mary and indwelt in man; He did not act in man, for this (expression) takes place in relation to the prophets and apostles; He is perfect God in the flesh and perfect man in the Spirit; not two sons - one only begotten Son who took on man, and the other a mortal man taken on by God, but one, the only begotten in heaven and the only begotten on earth, God. Felix, most holy bishop of Rome and martyr. As for the incarnation of the Word and faith, we believe in our Lord Jesus Christ, born of the Virgin Mary, (we believe) that He is the eternal Son of God and the Word, and not a man, perceived by God, so that (man) was different from Him; because the Son of God did not perceive man in such a way as to be a different being from him, but being perfect God, he became at the same time perfect man, incarnate from the Virgin. Whoever says that Jesus, as a man, was an instrument of the actions of God the Word and is surrounded by the glory of the Only Begotten, as existing separately from Him: let him be anathema. No one will confess that the Spirit acted in our Lord Jesus Christ as in a simple man, or as in a prophet, or as in an apostle. However, we will neither reject nor exclude the apostolic words spoken about Him regarding the nature of visible flesh, which read: “according to the work of the power of his strength, what he did in Christ, raising him from the dead” (Eph. 1:19-20), “having resolved mortal diseases” (Acts 2:24); and again: “I am exalted by the right hand of God” (Acts 2:33) and others like that. Although these words are laid down because of the visible flesh; no one, however, will allow (an extraneous force) to act in Him, either as in a simple man, or as in a righteous man, or as in a prophet, or as in an apostle. And again we will not destroy, or reject, or foolishly and blasphemously anathematize the divine words spoken and laid down regarding the nature of visible flesh, and we will not say that (the Spirit) acted in Him either as in a simple man, or as in a righteous man, or as in a prophet, or as in an apostle; because He did not say: “This is what the Lord says,” but as the Son of the Law: “I say to you” (Matthew 5:22, etc.). Against the same words, we will now use the same method of defense. Without a doubt, there is one Lord Jesus Christ, one and the same, according to our belief, the eternal and eternal Word of God the Father and in the last times of the world a man from a woman who had a miraculous birth according to the flesh. But since He is one Son and God and Lord, He performed signs with a power higher than human, teaching with sufficient evidence that although He was in the flesh, He nevertheless is at the same time the true God and the power of the Father; because he did not cease to be what he was when he became a man. Therefore, he performed extraordinary deeds - he disgraced the demonic forces and trampled on Satan; then he opened the light to the blind, raised the dead, tamed the troubled sea with one word, and through this he did not glorify some person or another, separately existing Christ, such as one of the holy prophets or apostles, but acquired glory for himself, so that everyone would believe that He is the true God by nature, although He became man. So, it was extremely absurd to tolerate the words of Nestorius: “the actions of the Trinity are common and have division only between the hypostases; therefore the glory of the Only Begotten is sometimes attributed to the Father, sometimes to the Spirit, and sometimes to the power of Christ.” So, those who wish to refute or let them show us another Christ, separately and specially existing and conceivable, to whom the Only Begotten Word of God assumed its power, as if the Son were different from Him; or if man, the only begotten of the Father and of his wife, according to the flesh, is not different and different, but one and the same, then was it appropriate to remain silent, and should not, on the contrary, the power of truth be opposed to his idle talk, darkening the beauty of the dogmas of piety? Ithaca the Son himself was and is God. But just as he once descended to the level of humanity and did not consider the economy worthy of rejection, but endured everything through voluntary exhaustion for us: then it is said about Him that He is quickened by the Father, although by nature there is life; it is said that he accepts glory, although there is a Lord of glory. Therefore, a Jew of the Hebrews, truly taught in the law, and from the tribe of Benjamin, said: “Paul was an apostle, neither of man nor by man, but Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead” (Gal. 1:1) “and gave glory to him” (1 Peter 1:21). But although it is said that He received glory from the Father, since this matter fits the measure of humanity, He Himself knew that He had the highest dignity of creation, since of course He is God; That’s why he said: “All things have been handed over to me by my Father, and no one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son, and whatever the Son wills to reveal” (Matthew 11:27). But maybe someone who is inquisitive will say: if everything has been handed down to you from the Father, as someone who needs glory and must have this power over everything - because of humanity; then how do you say that it is impossible for human minds to know you, just like the Father? But truly, he says, knowledge of me is not limited to the visible, because I am God in flesh and blood; You can know me by the flesh, but by the nature and glory of the Divine I have the same thing as God and the Father, and am exalted above all mind and word. So, - I return to the idea proposed, - we do not destroy the apostolic speeches - let it not be! – and without further ado or saying anything else incongruous, we do not destroy the foundations of incarnation; but following the Holy Scripture everywhere and attributing firm infallibility to the words of theologians, we oppose only those who overthrow the Orthodox dogmas of the church. And if it is said that the Father raised our Lord Jesus Christ from the dead, then no one will doubt that this work was obviously done only in relation to His flesh. He himself, however, being the life-giving life and the active power of the Father, quickened his church: “Destroy,” he says, “this church, and in three days I will raise it up” (John 2:19). So, the quickened (body) was not someone else’s, not any of the people like us, but the own body of the Word itself. Whoever dares to say that a person assumed (by God) should be worshiped together with God the Word, should be glorified together with Him and together called God, as one in another (for the constantly added particle - συν (together with) makes one think so, and does not honor Emmanuel with a single worship and does not send Him a single glorification, since the Word became flesh: let him be anathema. We do not attribute worship and glorification to two persons, or hypostases, or sons, as if there were special worship for the flesh and special worship for God the Word; but on the contrary, we offer one worship, and so on, as to one Son, and co-worship, as he himself says in the first volume. For although He, as the Word, always sits with the Father, and from Him and in Him exists by nature, yet, being also with the flesh, He listened to him who said: “Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool” (Psalm 109:1). So we talk about the worship of him from ourselves and from the holy angels. Moreover, let us say to this that he completely reasonably condemned 5 who wish to worship with the flesh (συν) the same Son, since the word μετα is something other than συν, this he himself 6 affirms, as said above, saying that we must worship Him with the flesh (μετα), but rejecting the juxtaposition (συν) of the flesh with the deity. The inspired Paul presents us as very capable of reasoning, saying: “Reason for yourselves, if you are in the faith” (2 Cor. 13:5). For although the human mind, due to pride, sometimes, if it is outside the right path and has a retreat movement from the dogmas of truth, is in some way lazy and afraid to convince itself of the discord in its thoughts: however, it is very convenient to correct oneself by careful study of the works of St. fathers, who are glorified by everyone for the correctness and fidelity of dogmas; then he will correctly determine his faith. All who have an immaculate mind try to follow the opinions of St. fathers: because they themselves, filling their minds with the apostolic and evangelical tradition and very easily, rightly and immaculately correcting the matter of faith with the Holy Scriptures, were luminaries in the world, containing the word of life, as it is written (Philippians 2:15-16). So, of eternal memory, our father and Bishop Athanasius writes about Christ the Savior of us all in the books about the Incarnation: “We also confess that He is the Son of God and God in spirit, the Son of man in the flesh; not two natures - one Son, one worshiped and the other unworshipped, but one nature of God the Word incarnate and worshiped with his flesh in one worship; not two sons - one the true and worshiped Son of God, and the other from Mary a man not worshiped, but by grace he was the Son of God, like people"; and also by the way: “Thus born of the Virgin Mary, the Son of God by nature and true God, and not by grace and by fate; "Man is made of Mary by one flesh, and by spirit he is the Son of God and God"; and again: “if anyone teaches otherwise from the divine scriptures, speaking of one Son of God and another (son) from Mary, adopted by grace, just as we are, as if there were two Sons - one by nature the Son of God from God, and the other by grace from Mary man; or if anyone says that the flesh of our Lord is from above, and not from the Virgin Mary; or that the deity turned into flesh, or changed, or that the deity of the Lord is passive; or that the flesh of our Lord is unworshipable, like (the flesh of) man, and does not (teach that) it is worshiped, like the flesh of the Lord and God: such the holy and catholic Church anathematizes, obeying the divine Apostle, who says: “If anyone preaches the gospel to you more than he has eaten, let him be anathema” (Gal. 1, 1). Although this man philosophizes and writes to us, Nestorius, who wants to take away the glory from Christ and opens his unclosed lips against Him, again says in one place: “we confess God in man, we honor the divine union with God the Word of the man who is worshiped.” Isn’t it clear that he calls Christ a God-bearing man, and says that the union of a simple man with God took place, similar to what Paul said: “Be joined to the Lord; you are one spirit” (with the Lord) (1 Cor. 6:17)? However, why is it not true that He Himself is God and at the same time a man, and not some kind of man separately and especially considered and having a union with God (only) by the latter’s dwelling (in him)? For after the ineffable union, if anyone calls Emmanuel God made man and incarnate, one should understand the Word of God; if He calls Him a man, we know that the very Word of the Father is with Him. So it is another thing to say that the Word of God the Father is one Son with the flesh united with Him, and another thing to say that there is God in man, as he was, for example, in the prophets or in ourselves through the Holy Spirit. Safely and infallibly, as I think, one could say to everyone that the incarnate Word of God should not be worshiped without His flesh, but better with it, as one Son, just as, for example, the human soul is revered with its body, and what consists of two is designated by one name, as one living being (ζωον). So when, thinking of speaking about the Savior of us all, Christ, you divide one into two and consider a person separately and separately, then you dare to say that he should be worshiped and called together (συν) God, as if Christ, the Son of God by nature, is different from him: then who can patiently endure and pass in silence such a clear blasphemy against Him? It should have been better to say: we honor the Word of God, made man, who is called God and who is worshiped among humanity, because He is God by nature and has shone forth from God the Father. But, say opponents, he himself truly allowed this, writing in the epistle that the Son with his flesh (μετα) sat down with the Father; Why does he blame the one who says that a person should worship (συν) with God the Word and be called God? For it is the same thing to say συν and μετα. Here we accuse them of ignorance of the power of words and failure to understand the nature of things. When speech, examining one person and nature, i.e. one hypostasis, of which it consists or is composed, naturally adds συν or μετα: then the object remains as it was, that is, one in composition and is not divided separately into two, and when συν or μετα is said about hypostases previously divided into two and, moreover, so that each should be understood separately and separately: in this case, we say, it indicates two or even more, and not one by addition. If, for example, we said, let us assume that the soul of a person is compared with his body, when, i.e., someone began to honor one person who consists of two, that is, if someone says that the soul is one living (creature) with its body: then, of course, he does not divide one person into two, but it turns out that he knows better what he consists of or is naturally composed of. When I say that Peter and John are called (συν) men, or also that with Peter (μετα) and John entered the church: then συν or μετα no longer indicates one thing, because Peter is not combined with John and both are not part of one person. Why do they distort the truth, madly dividing Christ into two? If they think that when we said that the Son is adjacent to the Father with his body, we taught to understand two sons: then let them investigate whether we did not say that one Son is honored by one neighbor, and not two, so that one and special one was attributed to the body, and another and again special one to the Word. But they could not indicate this: for how, or from where? We affirm that we must honor the Son with His flesh as one neighbor with the Father, one and the same God and at the same time man. And to say that a person worships God and is called God is exactly the same as confessing two people being worshiped or even being called together. But such speech is very stupid and completely alien to the correctness and truth of thoughts. So the anathema is drawn up against those who in any way divide Emmanuel into man separately and God the Word separately; because the word of the theologians and the infallible understanding of St. preach the same thing to us. Scriptures. Whoever says that the one Lord Jesus Christ was glorified by the Spirit in the sense that through Him he used, as it were, an alien power, and from Him received the power to overcome unclean spirits and perform divine signs in people, and does not honor His own Spirit, through which He performed miracles: let him be anathema. Again it is good to bring to the forefront what he said 8 a long time ago and remind him of his probably forgotten words; because he not only asserted that the Lord performed miracles by the Spirit, but that He Himself, when He died, was quickened by the Spirit, as He says in the first volume: “So if He did not suffer death in the flesh, as it is written, then He was not quickened by the Spirit.” Here we should notice his contradiction with himself: in his anathemas he denies that the Lord cast out demons and performed other miracles by the Spirit of God, and rejects the words of the Lord written in the Gospels: “If I through the Spirit of God cast out demons” (Matthew 12:28). But we confess that our Lord Jesus Christ performed miracles both by his power and by the action of the Spirit; but that’s not why he used the power of St. Spirit, so that it does not have its own strength. And to say that the Holy Spirit was not present (at miracles), is characteristic, as I think, only of those who reject divine Scripture. For although the divine Scripture says that the Father performed works of miracles, of which it is said: “The Father abides in Me, he does the works that I do” (John. 14, 10, 12), however, the Son himself performs all the works of the Father; and although it is said that the Spirit performs the works of the Son, about which it is said: “If I through the Spirit of God cast out demons” (Matthew 12:28), but the Lord himself accomplishes them by the Spirit: because the Son is not alienated from the Father or the Spirit, and the actions of the Trinity are not delimited and inseparable, but the action attributed in Scripture to one or another hypostasis is the own (action of the entire) Trinity. For example, Scripture sometimes calls all creation the work of the Son, saying: “By the word of the Lord the heavens were established,” and sometimes the Spirit, adding: “and by the Spirit of his mouth is all their strength” (Ps. 33:6). For it is not because the Father cannot do everything that the Son also does, and again not because the Son is powerless to create, the Spirit also joins in, because it is truly said: “all things came to pass” (John 1:3); but in order to show us that the Trinity is consubstantial and coequal and equal, the same thing is said sometimes about what was done by the Father, sometimes by the Son, sometimes by the Holy Spirit. So we think that everything is based on one divine essence: because just as the Word, the essential and hypostatic Only Begotten, was born from it dispassionately, so the Spirit, which proceeds from it, exists in its own hypostasis, so that one essence is expressed in three hypostases, and none of them can be considered alienated in relation to the essence, but can be understood in some distinctive properties that separate them from each other. So how will there be a separate action for those who have one essence, one strength, and one will? Because whoever has this in common, without a doubt, the action is the same. Will I really need the voice of witnesses in order to show that our opponents want to talk idle talk and are recklessly using slander against us? I think that their speech alone will prove this. For although in the proposed anathematism we clearly asserted that the Holy Spirit is the Son’s own and that through Him the latter performed divine signs: however, those who often claim that I have forgotten my own words themselves reach such stupidity and even madness that they think that I am saying that Jesus did not cast out demons through the Spirit. Isn't this obvious slander? If they do not deign to consider the casting out of demons as one of the types of divine signs: let them say what they want, let them start a lawsuit with me, let them accuse me of not saying this clearly, keeping silent about the divine signs. If the expulsion of demons along with others is a type of divine signs worthy of surprise: then why did those who do not know moderation in speech, as useless, and avoid speaking the truth as a shameful activity, use vanity against us and consider unimportant a matter so hated by God and people? But, it seems to me, they forgot the words of Christ: “What did you say to your brother: brother, leave him, so that I may take away the speck from your mind: and this is the log that is in your eye? O hypocrite, first remove the thorn from your hair; and then you will see to take away the stubble from your brother’s hair” (Matthew 7:4-5). That the Holy Trinity is consubstantial, coeval and equivalent, we learned not from your words, but were better taught by the inspired Scripture; and that the proposed anathematism in no way contradicts the words of the right faith, but on the contrary brings benefits, this can be seen without difficulty. For it does not allow those who divide the one Lord Jesus Christ and decompose Him, as we have said many times, into man separately and into God the Word separately, so that two persons and two hypostases are presented, separated from each other; and does not allow us to say that the Spirit acted in Jesus as in one of the ordinary people, for that purpose. e., so that He could perform divine signs; otherwise He would have been no different from the holy apostles or prophets, who, by grace from above, endowed with divine gifts, could rightly say: “by the grace of God we are” (1 Cor. 15:10). But to holy men, upon whom the distribution of gifts from God descends, such a speech is very appropriate; to Christ - no way; because the Holy Spirit is His own, as well as God the Father; and as the Father works through the Spirit, so does He. And although He says to the Jews: “Many good works have been shown to you from my Father” (John 10:32), and: “I do not speak about myself, but the Father abides in Me, it is he who does the works” (John 14:10); but also says: “If I through the Spirit of God cast out demons,” attributing the action through the Spirit to Himself and the Father due to the identity of the being. And we could talk a lot and extensively about this; but those who wish should, I think, spread their speech in their free time. So we say that in Emmanuel the Spirit did not act as if by a power alien to Him, but that, on the contrary, He used it divinely and had His own power of the consubstantial Spirit. The blessed disciples, performing miracles, said: “Men, why do you look at us, as if we were able to walk by our own strength or by godliness” of the lame man sitting at the red gate (Acts 3:12)? but Christ has His own Spirit. To those who want to subvert our words, we will say this: if their minds like to separate the indivisible and say that the Spirit acted in Jesus as in an ordinary person, then they should not talk much with those who are so inclined. If they confess that there is one Christ and Son and Lord, the same God and at the same time man: then let them believe with us that the power of the Holy Spirit acts in Him not as higher than Him and alien, but that on the contrary He Himself performs divine signs with the Spirit as His own, in which is all the power of creation (Psalm 32:6). Thus, those who mock you in vain and sharpen their teeth of hatred against us will be silenced. Divine Scripture says that Christ was the saint and messenger of our confession (Heb. 3:1), that He offered Himself for us as a fragrant aroma to God and the Father (Eph. 5:2). So, if anyone says that our saint and messenger was not the Word of God the Father himself, when he became flesh and a man like us, but, as it were, someone else, different from Him, a man descended from a wife; or whoever says that He offered Himself as an offering and for Himself, and not for us alone, since, not knowing sin, He had no need for an offering (for Himself): let him be anathema. If God the Word is a bishop, then to what God does He offer His services? But he forgot the 9th words of Blessed Paul: “The priests are not imams, but are not able to suffer our weaknesses, but have been tempted in every way, in the likeness of sin” (Heb. 4:15). Who is this sophisticated one? Is God the Word or human nature the seed of David? And again: “no one accepts honor to himself, but he who is called from God, like Aaron. Thus Christ also glorified not himself to be a high priest" (Heb. 5:4-5). So who is compared in the dignity of the priesthood with Aaron and, like him, does not accept this honor from himself, but is called by God and ascends to the degree of priesthood? Is the divine nature coeternal with the Father, having everything that the Father has as its own? To what dignity, its highest, does it ascend? And shall we really say that more worthy than the divine nature is the priesthood to which it ascended not by itself, but was called from God and through which it was glorified? Or is it from the seed of David that the former and predestinated (nature), to whom God swore, according to the psalmist, to give the priesthood forever: for “they swear,” says, “the Lord, and will not repent: you are a priest forever, according to the order of Melchizedek” (Psalm 109:4)? Did the deity of the Only Begotten accept oath promises from God that will he receive the priesthood forever and through it will be glorified? And who will tolerate us saying or thinking like this, and who will not be angry if we affirm that God is ordained as a bishop and accepts oath promises that He will be called to the dignity of the priesthood, and does not accept such an honor of his own accord, but is called to it, compared with the first to receive the priesthood? And again he says, as in another place: you are a priest forever by rank? Melchizedek (ibid.) And who is again compared in priesthood with Melchizedek? Is it really possible to think about God himself, or about the flesh taken from us, united with Him inseparably and unfused? And again it says: “who in the days of his flesh made supplications and supplications to him who was able to save him from death, with a strong cry and with tears” (he brought it and was heard with reverence) (Heb. 5:7). Was it really God the Word who brought prayers and supplications and (moreover) with a strong cry and tears to someone who could save Him, was heard for his reverence and learned obedience through what he endured? So, if God is the Word of the bishop, then He also studied and perfected itself through what He endured. But do not let your heart be troubled when you hear about the sufferer: “Even if there was a Son” (Heb. 5:8); for we do not posit two sons, one who suffers and the other who remains impassive. He who was of the seed of David is not specially and separately from the deity called the Son, just as the deity after the union is called the Son, not without visible flesh. Sonship after union is one for both natures, since they are inseparable from one another; after the connection there was no separation; because the connection remains eternal. Even in the suffering of the flesh, the deity was not separate, remaining dispassionate, and through the flesh accomplished what was fitting for God. Therefore, we confess one and the same Son, although the natures remained not united; we do not speak of one and the other - let it not be - but of one and the same thing. So everyone will confess that, according to the Divine Scripture, our Lord Jesus Christ became our bishop and apostle, and not a man separated from his wife, separately separated from the Word of God the Father; so that the nature that was from the seed of David and was united inextricably, inexpressibly and inseparably with the Word of the Father, is the bishop, tempted in every way except sin and from his sufferings learned obedience, and offered his flesh (as a sacrifice) to God and the Father not for himself, but for us alone. For let us not say unreasonably that God the Word is a bishop who offered himself to God and the Father; because the Father is not the God of the Only Begotten deity, but the Father. Again, in good time, let us say to our opponents: “How long will you keep churches on both of your hills” (1 Kings 18:21)? You must have a sound and right mind for the proper knowledge of the correctness of dogmas, and not one that is paralyzed by double-mindedness, not infected with great impotence and cannot get on the right path: for “a double-minded man is unsettled in all his ways and will not accept anything from God” (James 1:8.7). I say this out of great surprise that opponents want to so shamelessly and recklessly condemn the now proposed anathema. And there is nothing strange that they do not want to call the Word of God the Father the apostle and bishop of our confession, when He became man: because how can those who try to completely degrade His birth in the flesh and dare to reject it as untrue, and do not agree to call the Holy Virgin Theotokos, not also reject the methods of economy? Therefore, let them listen to the words of Isaiah: “If you do not believe, you will not understand” (Isa. 7:9). For although the God-inspired evangelist John thundered great and extraordinary things in the heavenly places, saying: “The Word became flesh” (John. 1, 14); but those who hide the power of the truth say that It was made flesh in the same sense in which it was made by a curse and sin (Gal. 3:14; 2 Cor. 5:21). And although we have already spoken about this enough to show their speeches as false and empty; but even at the present time we will say this against the slanderers: learn to listen, you who think little, admit the foundation of the sacrament in Christ, the first principles of the economy and the very, so to speak, starting point; Believe with us, and believe in the more sacred Scripture; give, give the voice of truth, confessing that the very only-begotten Word of God, existing in the bosom of the Father, through whom all things were created and in whom all things, was made flesh, without undergoing transformation or confusion, but always being by its nature what it was, and is, and will be. He became flesh, having received birth from the holy Virgin, I say according to the flesh, and was called the son of man and, like us, became partaker of blood and flesh. Whoever thinks this way and maintains such a venerable and true faith, then everything becomes accessible and clear to him, and nothing becomes inaccessible and difficult; because it is written: “All rights are to those who understand, and rights to those who gain understanding” (Proverbs 8:9). It is necessary, I think, now to say the reason why the anathema was drawn up. Nestorius, who overthrew everything, confused everything above and below, said something like this about the Savior of us all, Christ: “sent to proclaim liberation to the captives, this one became a high priest faithful to God; for He was made, and did not exist forever; he is little by little elevated (oh heretic!) to the rank of high priest.” To this he added many other things, giving rise to the same wickedness. So who, having heard such shameful words, would want to endure everything or choose silence that is hated by God? Christ died for us, despising shame, endured the cross and death according to the flesh: after this, will we not give thanks from the heart (albeit) with the words of our benefactor, but will we sit quietly, hearing such vile blasphemies or even, perhaps, participating in the guilt of blasphemy against Him? Alas, what do you say: “gradually attained the high priesthood”?! But the Word emptied Himself of being God; free by nature took the form of a slave, the highest of all creation, shining with the glory of the deity, humbled itself. If It prospered, then how was it exhausted or how did it descend to humiliation? Was it not humiliation itself that served Him to honor and glory, someone will say? After this, where will exhaustion take place? But truly, he says, if the very Word of God the Father became a bishop, then who is greater than Him and before whom did He perform sacred service? So again I will say something: believe that although He was God in essence and the Son in the form of the Father, He did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, but exhausted Himself by taking on the form of a servant. If he became a man and took on the form of a slave, then how will it be considered low and inconsistent with the conditions of the economy to be called an apostle and a bishop? and he who does not despise the measure of our humanity, how will he reject humanity? And of course it would not be at all difficult to say more and make a much longer discussion about this; but postponing this until the occasion, I will quote their own words. They wrote this: “Let not your heart be troubled when you hear about the one who suffered: “Even if there was a Son” (Heb. 5:8); for we do not posit two sons, one who suffers and the other who remains impassive. He who was of the seed of David is not specifically and separately from the deity called the Son, just as the deity after the union is called the Son, not without visible flesh”; and again: “Therefore we confess one and the same Son, although the natures remained unfused; We are not talking about one and the other - let it not be - but about one and the same thing. So everyone will confess that, according to the Divine Scripture, our Lord Jesus Christ became our bishop and apostle, and not a man separated from his wife, separately separated from the Word of God the Father.” So, if they talk about one Son, and in no way divide into two - one from the seed of David, and the other - the Word of God the Father: then how do they not commit a crime against the sacrament when they divide the economy between God and man? But don’t they say, on the contrary, that there is one and the same God and man, to whom everything belongs, both divine and human? Because when something most godly is said about Him, we say that it is completely true and true, because we know that He is God; if something human is said, we will allow this too, for we confess that He is God in flesh and blood and through the human we know the measure of humanity; because thousands of thousands of holy angels serve Him and seraphim surround His divine throne. And when the Word became a man, he was also called a bishop, not in such a way that he would offer services to a greater God, but in such a way that he rendered sacred confession of our faith to himself and the Father. Do you blush when you hear that he was called a priest because of humanity? After this, how were you not surprised that He did not perform the work of service before others, according to the custom of the priests, but, on the contrary, before Himself and before the Father, as I said? When you say that it is unworthy of God to serve, I agree; but if the Word were one and without flesh, you would speak the truth; and since It became man, then look at Him as serving on the basis of humanity, and as God, the highest creature in dignity, because it is adjacent to God and the Father. So look at Him as one who is sacred to humanity and as one who is neighboring in divinity. For what does blessed Paul say? “Such are the imams of the high priest, who sit at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven” (Heb. 8:1). Therefore, knowing that the real God was made man, and there is one and the same Son, we attribute everything to Him as one, and we will not be ignorant of the methods of economy, always skillfully and prudently turning the power of thoughts into obedience to Him. If anyone does not confess that the flesh of the Lord is life-giving and actually belongs to the very Word of God the Father, because it belongs, as it were, to someone else, different from Him, and united with Him in dignity, that is, having acquired only divine (in itself) dwelling, and does not confess, as we said, his flesh to be life-giving, since it has become the property of the Word, who can give life to everything: let it be anathema. It is good to confess that the lordly flesh of the Word through the union became His own, but understanding, however, that it was borrowed from us. The addition: “and not to another who is different from Him” is unnecessary, unless it denies that it was borrowed from us. For constantly calling it one’s own is characteristic (only) of one who rejects that the Lord’s flesh is our nature. And where is our glorification, according to which, says Paul, he raised us up and made us sit down (Eph. 2:6)? And the flesh of each (of us) belongs to which other person? Doesn’t each of us have a common flesh with each other in the sense of one being, but our own (in the sense) that the flesh of each is not the (flesh) of another, but one of whom is the flesh? So what does he want to say with his own word, as if he were saying something else? If he understands that the sovereign’s flesh is taken from ours, and understands that it, like the flesh of everyone, belongs to him and not to another, then isn’t it strange when he says that it is his own? Or, probably, he secretly denies that it was taken from our nature, as he teaches more clearly in his first volume: “and the child, he says, was not like us, that is, not in pure and perfect likeness to us, but in humanity through the flesh, and divine, since above us and from heaven”; and even in the second volume he says this: “the body was not of someone else like us, but on the contrary, the own Word of God the Father, born of her.” Who ever said that the flesh of the Lord was any other of the people who were from the beginning of time, for example, Abel, Noah, or Elijah, or any other of the people who were from the beginning of time? But not only about the sovereign flesh we affirm that there was no other one from the people who were from the beginning of time, but the own only of the Lord himself, inextricably and inseparably united with God the Word; but that the flesh of each of us, as they said, is never the flesh of anyone else except the one whose flesh is. If all the sons of the Church confess this way, then what does he mean by constantly calling it his own, if not that he probably rejects our nature in it? How does he forbid calling her united with Him in dignity and power, when he himself says in the first volume: “thus we are enriched by His poverty, since in Him human nature is exalted into a godly dignity”? But we will tell him, who contradicts himself: so, if natures remain unfused, then union remains; but we say that worship, and power, and dignity, and authority are worthy to be attributed to Him as one Son, because the natures remain unfused into compounds. If there remains anything else that more accurately expresses the union, then we will give in and agree, except for the fusion of natures. But it is clear that there is nothing left for him to express the perfection of the union except to merge natures. And we will preserve the natures unmerged and confess the most perfect, divine and incomprehensible union for us, bringing everything into praise (to Him) as to God and one Son and telling Him the words of blessed Peter: “You are the Christ the Son of the living God” (Matthew 16:16). The unfortunate Jews once indulged in lawless hatred, having wounded their minds with the arrows of envy. And since the wicked hands raised all of you against Christ the Savior, He demanded from them to tell the reasons for such insolence, saying: “Many good works have been shown to you from my Father: for why do you lay stones against me” (John 10:32)? But they reached such madness and at the same time wickedness in their thoughts that they tried to bring blasphemous accusations against Him; for they said: “We will not cast stone on you for a good deed, but for blasphemy, because you are a man, make for yourself God” (John 10:33). The Savior said to them: “Isn’t it written in your law? Az rekh, bozi este” (Psalm 81:6)? “If these are the words of the gods, the word of God comes to them, and the Scripture cannot be destroyed; Whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, you say, “You have spoken blasphemy, but you have spoken beforehand, I am the Son of God” (John 10:34–36). We, examining the image of the message spoken of here, collect knowledge about it from the Holy Scriptures. So He himself says in the words of Isaiah: “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, who has anointed me to bring good news to the poor, sending me to preach release to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind” (Luke. 4, 11; see Isa. 61, 1). The Son, we say, was sent from the Father, having become man; and what was sent, as I said, was not the simple and incorporeal Word of God the Father, but one that had better received birth according to the flesh, that is, taking a body from the holy Virgin and uniting it with itself unspeakably and unfused, as we often said: “God is the Lord, and appeared to us,” according to Scripture (Psalm 117:27). So, we say, the body became the own of the Word, and not of any special and separate person, not other than Him, meaning Christ and the Son. Just as the body of each of us is called our own, because there is something separate - his: so we should think about the one Christ; for although His body is akin to our bodies, that is, of the same being, because it was born of the Virgin, it is, of course, called, as I said, His own. And since the Word of God the Father is life by nature, he also made his body life-giving; therefore it has become a life-giving blessing to you. Therefore Christ said: “Amen, I say to you: I am the living bread that came down from heaven, and give life to the world” (John. 6, 47–48, 51, 53); and again: “And the bread that I will give, my flesh to eat for the life of the world” (John 6:51); and again: “Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him” (John 6:56). So look how everywhere the body from the wife is called his own, because of the most perfect union. Meanwhile, since the sacrament has such a meaning, Nestorius again says in his sermon: “So listen, delving into the words: “poisonous,” he says, “my flesh.” Remember that we are talking about the flesh, and that the name of the flesh was not added from me, so as not to seem to them to incorrectly explain: “Eat my flesh and drink my blood.” After all, he didn’t say: poison my deity and drink my deity? “He who eats my flesh,” he says, “and drinks my blood, abides in Me, and I in him.” Remember that this is said about the flesh. But I never misinterpret; Let's listen to what comes next: “As the living Father sent Me” (John 6:57). He 10 speaks of divinity, I of humanity. Let's see who interprets it wrongly: like a living father sent me. The heretic here means deity. But does He say that God the Word, the living Father, sent Me, as they think, and I, God the Word, live for the Father’s sake? Then after this: “and again: “Whoever poisons Me will live.” What are we eating - deity or humanity? But there was already a long speech on our part about such an absurd and reckless chatter of his. What does he want to understand by saying that it was not God the Word who was sent, incarnate and made man, and by positing the visible separately and separately, as can be seen from his words, I will not say, but the sophistry is self-evident. For he destroys the image of union so that the body of Christ turns out to be ordinary, and not belonging to the One who truly can give life to everything. Without a doubt, everything human is insignificant for God the Word; but since He deigned for our sake to accept the world-saving exhaustion, although it is said that He was sent to preach freedom to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, He is more glorified as having suffered providential humiliation in the flesh; and no one, I think, who is right-minded will deny that for our sake He humbled himself in our likeness. Or he who claims that the visible one is another certain Son and Christ, different from God the Word, to whom alone he attributes the work of the embassy, ​​does not explain our sacrament of body and blood (ανθρωποφαγια), wickedly leading the minds of believers to false thoughts and trying to embrace with human reasoning what is accepted by untesting faith alone. For, since the nature of the deity is not tasted, no one will therefore say that the holy body of Christ is ordinary. But one must know that the body, as we said above, is the own Word, which gives life to everything; and since it is the body of life, it is (itself) life-giving; for therefore it imparts life to our mortal bodies and abolishes the dominion of death. In the same way, the Spirit of Christ quickens us: because “there is a Spirit who gives life,” according to the words of the Savior himself (John 6:63). And so that it does not seem that I alone call the body of the Word my own, it is not difficult to cite the opinions of the holy fathers, so that opponents can see how in vain they shout against us, who everywhere follow their words. So, our all-glorious father and bishop Athanasius, in his sermon on the Trinity, says: “and he proved that he had a body, not illusory, but truly; for it is fitting for the Lord, having clothed himself in human flesh, to accept it entirely with the sufferings characteristic of it, so that, just as we say that His body was His own, so (one could) say that the very sufferings of the body were only His own, although they did not concern His divinity”; and again: “Of necessity, we first investigated this, so that if we see Him acting in a divine way through His body, as an instrument, or speaking, we would know that the real God is doing this.” This is what our blessed father Athanasius says. However, although the body is called the own of the Word, it is nevertheless from the woman and akin to ours, since it is understood as flesh. And although blessed Paul says: “The first man is ringed, the second is from heaven” (1 Cor. 15:47); Christ himself says: “No one ascends into heaven, only He who came down from heaven is the fed of man” (John 3:13): but we affirm that these words do not express that the Word from heaven brought a body united with Him. And how It, being itself from above and from heaven, made its own body, united with It inexpressibly, incomprehensibly, without transformation and fusion: then in this sense it speaks of Itself that It is from heaven, even when it became the Son of man. So, if our word is right and blameless, then what excuse will those who wish to contradict us have for objecting to us, when anathematism refutes the blasphemies of anyone, contrasting the truth with lies? I think that I in no way sinned in the truth when I said about Christ that He is higher than us. For although the Word of God became man, it is also above not only us alone, but also all creation: because not only is it understood to be man and those like us, but (and at the same time) there is God himself from above and from heaven. Whoever does not confess that God the Word suffered in the flesh, was crucified in the flesh, received death in the flesh, and finally became the firstborn from the dead, since He is life and life-giving, like God: let him be anathema. Let us again remind him here of his own words, how he calls the divine nature completely dispassionate, saying in his first volume like this: “So the only one most worthy of all laid down his life for all; and providentially deigned to bring (his) flesh down to death for a short time and again destroyed the power of death, like life, not being able to endure what was contrary to His nature.” So let us say to him, who contradicts himself: how can he who deigned to bring down the flesh for a short time to death and, like life, destroyed the power of death, not being able to endure what is contrary to His nature, as now, in your opinion, suffers through the flesh? But God, united with the flesh, did not suffer, but the flesh, united with God the Word, by His grace endured what was characteristic of it; for if He had not deigned, He would not have allowed either suffering or death. If there is no death when the soul is (still) present: then how, when God is present, and not just present, but also united by some most perfect and understandable connection to Him alone, how did suffering and death prevail over His church without His favor? But it was not the deity, united with the flesh, who suffered, but the flesh, by His good pleasure, suffered what was proper to it. But that he 11 with an evil intention put the expression “suffered in the flesh”, to deceive the simple-minded, is clear from here: whoever said “suffered in the flesh” did not preserve dispassion in the divine nature - he said nothing more than that (the Son of God, but only) suffered in the flesh. If he suffered in the flesh, then he confesses passionately: He suffered either as having the ability to suffer, or contrary to nature. And if he suffered by nature, then the Father, who is consubstantial with the Son, will be passionate; because it is absolutely necessary to attribute to the one who gave birth everything that is attributed to the begotten. Or let us confess that He suffered as having the ability to suffer, but the Father does not have the ability to suffer. But saying this, let us agree with the heretics who claim that the divinity of the only begotten Son is passionate, and the divinity of the Father is incapable of suffering, because, they say, it is of a different essence. If they say that He suffered contrary to nature, let us say: what suffering is stronger than the divine nature, so that it exposes what is impassive by nature to suffering contrary to nature? But he says: His will. And we will say: His will is impassive; we are looking for suffering, which transforms the impassive nature into a state of suffering. Moreover, the divine will also desires what is appropriate for it. And what, he says, is more decent than saving the human race? But how could the human race be saved, by itself passing into dispassion, and by involving the divine and dispassionate nature in suffering? Of course, the passionate nature, as the strongest, imparted to the impassive its ability to suffer. And what is the use of the passionate, if the impassive has become passionate? But the salvation of the passive does not (is) communication with him of the impassive in suffering; for this is rather an increase of evil, and not destruction, because from something like this the other is not destroyed, but increases. So what is the salvation of the suffering? As they said, not the communication with him of the dispassionate, but the elevation of him to the dispassionate. This is what the Lord Christ did, not himself being relegated to suffering, but through holy flesh raising all humanity to heights, and raising those who were lying down to heaven, and deigning to be sons who were previously deprived of freedom. Who, without a doubt, was the debtor of death from disobedience? Of course, human nature, not divine. So what was decent to destroy by death from disobedience? The power of truth is truly amazing: experience bears witness to it. It will be necessary for me to say little in defense or to convince (i.e. otherwise) those who are deceived, who think that we are saying that the divine nature of the Word is passive: because the opponents have already been defeated and voluntarily confessed, and we very much deserve their accusation of this. But as they foolishly make for their own pleasure a position that does not need proof, and using sharp twists of thoughts, they try to show the power of the wit possible for them and are very strenuous to prove that the Word of God is by its nature impassive: then let them hear from us that they fight in vain when no one contradicts them, and beat the air when no one thinks otherwise. So why do they sweat in vain and expand what is useless? Who is so foolish as to consider nature, which is above all, passionate, and dare to reduce to the weakness of suffering that which is above all created and incorporeal? But as the meaning of the sacrament is that the only begotten Son of God by nature became man from his wife by providence, and we affirm that the holy body received from the blessed Virgin Mary is His own: for this reason, and very rightly, we say that the sufferings of the flesh are called His sufferings by providential assimilation, everywhere leaving dispassion behind His nature, because He is God from God. So, when it is said that He suffered in the flesh, He did not, of course, suffer in His nature, according to which God exists, but rather He internalized suffering. For the body united with Him became His body, as I recently said; That is why the inspired Paul calls the firstborn from the dead the same one through whom and in whom the Father created all things. He writes like this: “giving thanks to God and the Father, who has called you to partake of the inheritance of the saints in the light: who delivered us from the powers of darkness, and brought us into the kingdom of the Son of your love, for whom imams (deliverance through his blood and) remission of sins: who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation: for by him all things were created, even in heaven, and even on earth. visible and invisible, whether it be thrones, whether it is dominion, whether it is a beginning, whether it is a power: all things were created in him and about him: and he is before all, and all things are in him: and he is the head of the body of the church, who eats the firstfruits, the firstborn from the dead, as if he were to be preeminent in all of them: for in him he deigned to have all the fulfillment (of the deity) dwell (bodily): and by that reconcile everything to yourself, pacifying it with the blood of his cross (through him), whether earthly or heavenly” (Col. 1: 12-20). See how, saying that through Him all things were created, visible and invisible, thrones and powers, he says that He was given the head of the Church, and affirms that He became the firstborn from the dead, and that through Him everything was reconciled to Him (the Father) and pacified by the blood of His cross, both earthly and heavenly. So who, even after this, will doubt and fear in vain that the word of the sacrament represents the nature of the Son as suffering, when it is said that He suffered in the flesh? For He assimilates to himself, as I said, the suffering of his body. This is how it pleased the inspired Peter to think, who says: “Christ who suffered in the flesh for us” (1 Peter 4:1). But it’s another thing to say: he suffered in the flesh, and it’s another thing to say, he suffered by divine nature. For since He is God and at the same time man, impassive in relation to the divine nature, and passionate in humanity: what is inappropriate if it is said that he suffered, that by nature is capable of suffering, and that he remained impassive, not knowing suffering? And that the face of the holy fathers shone with the same faith, we learn from what they wrote, keeping the commandment of the Savior; because they remembered the one who said: “Tuna you will eat, you will give to you” (Matthew 10:8). Gregory, Bishop of Nyssa. “For this,” he says, “let him be wise in you, even in Christ Jesus: he who is in the image of God is not equal to God by admiration; but he has made himself a little lower, and has received the form of a servant” (Phil. 2:5-6). What is more humiliating for God than the image of a servant? What is more humiliating for the king of the universe, how to voluntarily descend to the communion of our poor nature? King of kings and Lord the rulers are clothed in the form of a slave; the Lord of creation finds refuge in the den; the one who contains everything is not placed in the inn, but the pure and uncorrupted one does not reject the impurity of human nature and, having passed through all our poverty, comes to taste the measure of voluntary poverty! the living one is subject to judgment; the King of all superworldly power does not evade the hands of slaves. In this, he says, let him see an example of the measure of (your) humility. Basil, Bishop of Caesarea. The sky, and the earth, and the expanses of the seas, and those living in the waters, and amphibious animals, and plants, and the stars, and the air, and the seasons, and the varied decoration of the entire universe, do not represent the greatness of the power that is expressed in the dispassionate coupling through the flesh with the death of the infinite God, in order to grant us dispassion through our suffering. Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria. He (Christ) showed that he had a body, not ghostly, but truly; for it was fitting for the Lord, having clothed himself in human flesh, to accept it entirely, with the sufferings inherent in it, so that, as we say that His body was His own, so (one could) say that the very sufferings of the body were His, although they did not concern His divinity. And if the body is another, then the suffering would be called the suffering of this (other). If the flesh is the Word, because “the Word became flesh” (John 1:14), then it is necessary to call the sufferings of the flesh the sufferings of the one whose flesh is. For to whom are attributed sufferings, which are especially: condemnation, scourging, thirst, and the cross, and death, and other infirmities of the body, the same is merit and grace. Therefore, it is rightly and decently said that these sufferings are not of anyone else, but of the Lord, so that grace may come from Him and so that we would not be idolaters, but true worshipers of God; because we are not calling on some creature, not some ordinary person, but God by nature and the true Son, who became man, but nevertheless remained Lord and God and Savior himself. So, I think, the proposed sayings are completely sufficient to convince those who think, according to the clear testimony of the divine law: “When two or three witnesses speak, every word will stand” (Matthew 18:16). If anyone after this wants to compete, let him hear from us: go your own way, and we will follow the right scriptures and the faith of the holy fathers; for in this way we will obtain the reward of the high calling in Christ, through whom and with whom be glory to God the Father with the Holy Spirit forever. Amen. That is, John of Antioch and his like-minded people You might be interested in: