Epistle to Euoptius against the refutation of the “12 chapters” compiled by Theodoret

“Epistle to Euoptius, against the refutation of the twelve chapters compiled by Theodoret” written by St. Cyril of Alexandria in the 1st half of 431. The addressee of the apology is Bishop. Euoptius of Ptolemais, whom St. Kirill thanks Bishop for forwarding the polemical work. Theodoret of Cyrus. In the message of St. Kirill quotes each anathematism, then cites his opponent’s objection and gives his answer. “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. Theodoret of Cyrus 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 essay in Greek is κεφαλαίων ἀντίῤῥησιν. *The title of the work in Latin is Apologia XII capitulorum contra Theodoretum. Appeal to Euoptius Epistle of Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus, to John, Bishop of Antioch Cyril, Archbishop of Alexandria, 12 chapters against those who dare to defend the opinions of Nestorius as rightists Anathematism 1 Anathematism 2 Anathematism 3 Anathematism 4 Anathematism 5 Anathematism 6 Anathematism 7 Anathematism 8 Anathematism 9 Anathematism 10 Anathematism 11 Anathematism 12 Cyril wishes every good thing in the Lord to his most God-fearing and most beloved brother and co-servant Evoptius. Having read the letters sent from your piety, I was surprised at the disposition and sincerity of love in Christ. And now I consider it my duty to say, as truly said in the book of Proverbs: “we help brother from brother, like a strong city” (Proverbs 18:19). And it seems to me that the work of love is very highly valued in inspired Scripture - and very rightly so. For it contains the fullness of the law, and surpasses all virtues, and is greatly revered by the souls of saints. It is fulfilled, we say, not only in the empty sounds of words, but (when) it is evidenced by deeds themselves. For just as in the most precious stones, which are called Indian, one is surprised not by what is said about them, but by what they appear to the eye: in the same way, I think, the brilliant beauty of love then shines when it is evidenced in all beautiful deeds by the very actions. Your piety, which follows in the footsteps of the prudence of the saints and expresses their good life to its glory, greatly values ​​it. And now your piety has completely convinced me of your disposition (towards me), having sent a book that, they say, was compiled by Theodoret of Cyrus; That's what they say the town is called. Having read what was written, I offered a song of thanksgiving to God, and did not leave these words: “Lord, deliver my soul from the lips of the unrighteous, and from the flattering tongue” (Psalm 119:2). For everywhere I see slander against myself, and this is in every chapter. I saw that although, as some of those close to him say, this man practiced eloquence and, perhaps, acquired a direct knowledge of the Holy Scriptures, he understood too little the power of these chapters. Therefore, I can only think and assume that he indulges the desires of some when he pretends to be unaware that they do not consider him - not well and too much, but on the contrary - to have successfully taken advantage of slander against us, although, it seems to me, there was nothing difficult and high and nothing incomprehensible in my words. But as it was necessary, although we have already written about this, to say a few things against him, so that no one would think that we were silent as a result of the consciousness (of our wrongness), I will make my defense as much as possible, in short. So it was necessary for him, who practiced in the inspired Scripture, if he had one goal - to reason with us about the divine mysteries, it was necessary to remember only the Holy Scriptures and thus compose his presentation in a sacred manner, and not bring into the middle fables that are old and stinking for us. He deigns to compare my words with an apple of discord, perhaps in order to show by this how much wisdom he has acquired for himself. Therefore, we are extremely surprised at him: he seems to us both the most eloquent and the most learned, because he knows what an apple of discord and Paris of Priam are. However, having left this until a convenient time, let us instead turn to the intended goal. Epistle of Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus, to John, Bishop of Antioch I was extremely saddened when I read the anathemas that you sent to us with the order to refute them in writing and expose their heretical meaning to everyone. I was saddened by the fact that the husband who was entrusted with shepherding, and entrusted with such a flock, and commanded to heal weak sheep, was not only very sick himself, but also tried to infect the sheep with the disease, and tormented his sheep worse than wild animals. These kidnap and torment sheep that are lost and separated from the flock; and he, being in the middle of it and considered a shepherd and guardian, introduces hidden error into those who obey him. For when (one) fights openly, one can protect oneself; and if, under the guise of friendship, he prepares deceit, then he finds the one he is fighting against unprepared, and conveniently harms him. Therefore, those who fight secretly are more harmful than those who fight openly. I am especially saddened by the fact that under the name and under the knowledge of piety, and having the dignity of a shepherd, he spews out heretical and blasphemous words, and renews the previously destroyed, empty and at the same time wicked teaching of Apollinaris; and moreover, he not only respects this (teaching), but also dares to anathematize those who do not want to agree with him, if, however, these are really his works, and not one of the enemies of the truth, raising the flame to the heights, folded it in his name and threw it into the middle, like an apple of discord about which a fable is composed. So, whether it was he or someone else, only under his name, who put them together, I, with the help of the light of the All-Holy Spirit, considering the heretical slander, to the extent of the strength given to me, denounced it as much as possible, contrasted it with the Gospel and Apostolic teaching, showed the absurdity of his opinion and made clear how much it disagrees with divine dogmas, comparing the chapters with the words of the divine Spirit and showing how alien and disagree with the divine. And against the audacity of the curse, I will only say that Paul, the most great preacher of the truth, daring even against the angels, anathematized those who damage the gospel and apostolic teaching, and not those who abide in the definitions betrayed by the theologians (οροις); because he protected them with blessings, saying: “The little ones shall live by this rule; peace and mercy be upon them, and upon the Israelites of God” (Gal. 6:16). So let the father of such words gather from the apostolic curse the fruits of his labors and sheaves of heretical seeds; we will remain with the teaching of the holy fathers. I have attached to my message the objections made, so that after reading you can see whether we have greatly destroyed the heretical proposals. To each of the anathemas, taken separately, I made an objection, so that it would be easier for readers to understand and expose such opinions more clearly. Cyril, Archbishop of Alexandria, 12 chapters against those who dare to defend the opinions of Nestorius as rightists Whoever does not confess that Immanuel is the true God and therefore the holy Virgin Theotokos, since she gave birth in the flesh to the Word who is from God the Father and became flesh: let him be anathema. Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus, refutation of twelve chapters But we, who follow the words of the Gospel, do not say that God the Word became flesh by nature, nor that He became flesh; because the deity is untransformable and unchangeable. Therefore, the prophet David says: “You are the same, and your years will not fail” (Psalm 101:28). The great Paul, the preacher of truth, related these words to the Son in his letter to the Hebrews (Heb. 1:12). And in another place God says through the prophet: “I am, and I do not change” (Malach. 3:6). So, if the Divinity is intransformable and unchangeable, then it is incapable of transformation and change. If it is impossible to transform the irreversible, then God the Word did not become flesh as if he had been transformed, but took on flesh and dwelt in us, according to the Gospel word (John 1:14). And the inspired Paul clearly speaks about this in his letter to the Philippians like this: “Let this be the wisdom of you, even in Christ Jesus: that he who is in the form of God is not equal to God by admiration; but he has humbled himself, and has taken on the form of a servant” (Philippians 2:5-7). So it is clear from what has been said that the image of God did not turn into the image of a slave, but, remaining what it was, took on the image of a slave. So God the Word did not become flesh, but took on living and rational flesh; was not born of the Virgin by nature, having been conceived and formed, and from that time having received the beginning of existence, He who - before the ages is God, and with God, and abides together with the Father and is known and worshiped with the Father, but who formed a church for Himself in the virgin’s womb was together with the formed and born. Therefore, we call the Holy Virgin the Mother of God, not because she gave birth to God by nature, but to man united with God, who formed him. If the one formed in the womb of the Virgin is not a man, but God the Word, who was before the ages: then God the Word will be a creation of the Spirit: “who was born in her of the Holy Spirit,” says Gabriel (Matthew 1:20). If the only-begotten Word of God is not created, but is co-essential and co-eternal with the Father, then it is not an education or creation of the Spirit. If the Holy Spirit did not form God the Word in the womb of the Virgin, then one can only think that it was formed, and took on the form, and was conceived, and was born by nature as the form of a slave. But as the image (of the servant) was not without God, but was the church of God the Word living in it, according to the words of Paul: “for in it,” he says, “he deigned to have all the fulfillment of the divinity to dwell bodily” (Col. 1:19, 2:9): then we call the Virgin not the mother of man, but the Mother of God, applying the first name to formation and conception, and the other to union. Therefore, the born baby is called Immanuel, both God, not separated from human nature, and man, not alien to the deities, because Emmanuel is interpreted: “God with us,” according to the Gospel word (Matthew 1:23). And the expression: “God with us” means the one conceived from us for our sake, and preaches the one who received (him) God’s Word. And so the baby is called Immanuel for the reason that he was received by God; and the Virgin is the Mother of God due to the union of the image of God with the conceived image of a slave; because God the Word did not turn into flesh, but took on the image of God in the form of a servant. Many times we have exclaimed against those who do not want to confess that Emmanuel is truly God and that the Holy Virgin is the Mother of God, because she gave birth to God the Word in the flesh when He became flesh, that is, man. And the slanderer of these just words - if he did not know that Emmanuel is truly God, if the Word of God was not born in the flesh from the holy Virgin, made flesh according to the scriptures - why did he not say clearly: what are you doing, noble man? You spew strange and contrary words. Why are you perverting the dogmas of truth? Emmanuel truly is not God and the Holy Virgin is not the Mother of God! – Prudently based on the Holy Scriptures, we must convince him of the illegality and dishonesty of his efforts and even more of his shameless resistance to the word of God, contrasting his cries and teachings with the tradition of the apostolic and evangelical Church, and the confession of the fathers who once gathered at Nicaea. But the clever and cunning narrator leaves aside what is proper and necessary to talk about, and, without thinking about it at all, chooses other paths. For he immediately speaks of the need to prove that the divine Word is above transformation and has not been changed into the nature of the flesh, as if this is precisely what he asserts and wants to show as anathema. So let him listen, who does not know how to refute what he does not want to agree with: you speak in too long a speech and refute what we ourselves hate. We know that the divine and superior nature does not allow even the shadow of transformation; but the Word of God took on the nature of flesh, without ceasing to be what It is. And since he said that the image of the deity took on the image of a slave, then in his teaching he should no longer concern himself with whether these images themselves are similar to each other, regardless of their essence. I think he immediately refutes himself. There is no need for similarity, which can be easily found, and a connection of images consistent with each other in order to believe in the reality of the incarnation, but a connection of essences is needed. Thus, when we say that the Word became flesh, we understand that what happened here was not a merger, not a mixture, not a transformation, not a replacement, but an ineffable and indescribable union of Him with the flesh, which has a rational soul. As for the word “connection,” it does not immediately mean mixing, but primarily means the perception of another. After all this, we affirm that the Word, which comes from the Father, took on holy and animate flesh, united with it in a truly unconfused way, and from both came man who is at the same time the true God, and from here the holy Virgin is the Mother of God. I find it inappropriate to think that it should be called human matter. If there were those who, out of their great madness, would begin to say that the flesh constitutes, as it were, the source for the nature of the Word of God and the beginning of His existence, then perhaps those who wish to call her the mother of man would have some, not entirely absurd and despicable, basis. But since this opinion is vile and hateful for everyone, the Holy Virgin is not imagined as anything other than the Mother of God, except perhaps for those who believe that the Word, coming from the Father, became in the proper sense flesh, that is, man. The Holy Virgin indeed, as I said, gave birth to more than one deity; What is the use of the insistence of those who say that she should also be called the Mother of Man? But, as you can see, they have invented a poisonous plot against Christ. They do not allow us to think or say that Himself, who before the ages was the Son of God and the Father, in the last days of the age, without confusion and without change for Himself, united in the womb with the flesh of a quickened rational soul, became a man like us; but they try to preach that He bore God dwelling within Himself, like some righteous man, and persuade people to think so, without thinking that God dwells in all of us by the grace of the (Holy) Spirit, as in holy churches. It is written: “Do you not know that you are the church of God, and that the Spirit of God lives in you? If anyone corrupts God’s church, God will corrupt him: for the church of God is holy, just as you are” (1 Cor. 3:16-17). But although we should be called churches of God, since, by the power of the Spirit, we carry within us the indwelling God; However, in Christ we see another image of the mystery, we affirm that the flesh, endowed with a rational soul, was truly united with God the Word. I would gladly ask what he admits - either that the Word was truly united with humanity or, what is the same, with a holy body animated by a rational soul - or, as others (think), the connection of a auxiliary and inessential image with the essential image of the deity, as in the wearing (by man) of the deity - or some other method of union, deduced from various types of adoption, with equality of merit, if it allows for anything other than union (wearing). But, as it turns out, I bother in vain and propose an unnecessary question: before me are his words and open confession. In the first chapter he says the following: “the child who is born is called Immanuel, both God, not separated from human nature, and man, not alien to the deity.” He should have made a careful and precise presentation of these subjects. However, this should be noted; for in this place he calls God inseparable from human nature, clearly expressing unity, even recognizing at the same time that Christ is both God and man; for he knows that He is one by providential union (οικονομικην). How can he not blush when he condemns what we say? Whoever does not confess that the Word, which is from God the Father, was united with the flesh hypostatically, and that therefore Christ is one with his flesh, that is, one and the same is God and at the same time man: let him be anathema. Believing the teaching of the holy apostles, we confess that Christ is one, and, because of unity, we call him God and man; We do not know the unity of the hypostasis, as strange and alien to Him, in any way either from the Divine Scripture or from the fathers who explained the Scripture. And if the one who proposed this means by the unity of the hypostasis that a middle ground has been formed between flesh and divinity, then we object to him with all jealousy and accuse him of blasphemy. For the middle necessarily presupposes fusion, and fusion destroys the peculiarity of both natures. What changes ceases to be what it was before. And this is extremely absurd to say about God the Word, who came from the seed of David. One must believe in the Lord, who in the following words spoken to the Jews indicates two natures in Himself: “Destroy this church, and in three days I will raise it up” (John 2:19). If the middle has occurred, then God is no longer God, and the church indicated is not a church, but the church appears to be God and God is the church (this is the further meaning of the middle), and the Lord unnecessarily said to the Jews: “Destroy this church, and in three days I will raise it up.” It should be said: put Me to death, and in three days I will rise again. If some middle ground really occurred, then a merger would occur with it; and here He shows how the church is destroyed and God restores it. So, there is no need for unity by hypostasis, which, it seems to me, is proposed in the sense of a middle. But it is enough to call unity such a unity that both shows the originality of natures and teaches us to honor Christ as God. Now, no matter how much this artificer rises up against us with unbridled lips, trying everywhere to find an opportune opportunity, he again maligns the expression “according to hypostasis.” He condemns him for the news, and claims that it is said strangely, without realizing that the truthfulness of expressions, opposing the truth to the inventions of wicked heretics, is aimed at overthrowing what they oppose (to it). So, while Nestorius everywhere destroys the physical birth of God the Word, assuring us of one unity of virtues, and says that man, honored by the two-significant name of sonship, is united to God, we say that the union took place hypostatically, refuting his words with the expression - hypostatic, an expression meaning nothing more than that the nature of the Word, or hypostasis, (which means the Word itself), was truly united with the nature human without any transformation or change, as we have often said, one Christ is conceived and is God and man. And this, as I think, Theodoret himself admits, since he says that God is inseparable from human nature and that humanity cannot be conceived without divinity. So we do not say that the union of the image of God and the image of a servant excludes hypostasis, nor that an ordinary person, honored by the mere equality of dignity, is united to the Word through indwelling; but we say that the only begotten Son of God himself, through the perception, as I said, of one flesh, animated by a rational soul, became a true man so that he also remains God. But this eloquent man, accustomed to reasoning, defined the word - hypostatic in the sense of limitation and dares to name and expose the incongruities that stem from this, as if we did not know it. Perhaps he likes and delights in verbosity and eloquence, and he has nothing else in mind except the thought that he can speak at length, taking as truth what no one has yet said, in order to seem like something among those who do not know how to judge correctly: who recklessly speaks fabulosity and tells lies, or who has entered on the right path of truth and uses wise and necessary speech. I admit, at first I thought that he understood the meaning of the chapters, but he was feigning ignorance and thereby pleasing someone. Now I know for sure that he really does not understand this. 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. The meaning of what was said is unclear and dark (for the pious, its absurdity is obvious). For who is not obvious that combination and confluence (συνοδος) have no difference. The confluence is the union of the divided (κεχωρισμενων), and the combination (συναφεια) is the copulation of the distinguished (διηρημενων). But the wise author of these words considers that which sounds the same to be incompatible with each other. One should not, he says, unite the hypostases by combination, but by a confluence and confluence of natures. Or perhaps he does not know what he is saying, or, if he does know, he is blaspheming. Nature is something driven by necessity and devoid of freedom. For example, we are aroused to the feeling of hunger by nature, not by intention, but by necessity; those who live in poverty would not be in poverty if they had the free power not to starve; By nature we feel thirst, we sleep, we breathe air. All this happens not according to our will, I say. Whoever does not accept any of this into himself must inevitably meet the end of life. If in this way there was a natural union of the image of God and the image of a slave, then God the Word was forced by necessity, and not by love of mankind, to unite with the image of a slave, and the Lawgiver of everything is in the need to follow the laws. But this is not what the apostle teaches, but the opposite, namely, that, having assumed the form of a servant, (God) “exhausted himself” (Phil. 2:7). In the words “exhausted himself,” He represents Him as not being forced. Thus, if He intentionally and freely united with nature, taken from us, then there is no longer any need to add the word “natural”, it will be enough to recognize the unity. Unity is accepted in the divided and is never thought of unless it is preceded by division. Thus, by accepting unity, he accepts division in advance. Hence why he says that one should not separate hypostasis or nature, knowing, at the same time, that the perfect hypostasis of God the Word existed before the ages and that it took on the most perfect image of a servant. That’s why he says hypostases, not hypostasis. If both natures have perfection, both are similar, that is, the image of a servant with the image of God that receives him, and it is pious to confess one person, one Son and Christ: then it will not be absurd to say that two hypostases or natures have united, but in accordance with the foundation. If in one person we separate natures, we say - a mortal body and an immortal spirit, and both are one thing - man: then it is all the more consistent with sound reason to recognize the characteristics of the nature of the perceiving God and the perceived human nature. We find that blessed Paul divided man into two and once said: “even though our outer man decays, yet the inner man is renewed all the days” (2 Cor. 4:16), and in another place: “for I delight in the law of God according to the inner man” (Rom. 7:22), and again: “Christ dwells in the inner man” (Eph. 3:17). If the apostle separates the natural connection of natures created together: then on what basis does he accuse us of impiety of separating the particularities of natures - the nature of God, who existed before the ages, and the nature of man, perceived in recent times, who teaches us limitation under another name only? Look how this most intelligent man first falsely denounces the obscurity of words, and, himself having a mind not bright, but foggy, calls such speech dark, which for those who want to think righteously is so obvious and understandable! He imagined that our speech teaches us to speak - a confluence, (συνοδος), and not a combination (συναφεια). Then, showing his art, he proclaims that we have equal strength in the sense of whether someone begins to say a confluence, or begins to use a combination. But I am still amazed at his insight and his mind, which has such sharpness, for the following: - he alone, it seems, knows what everyone knows everywhere, what is so generally known, what is completely clear to people who are completely unfamiliar with worldly science and the art of speech, who have the most mediocre knowledge, acquired through insufficient listening with little diligence. Surprised by his learning, I say: you, who open your majestic lips against us, you subtly contemplate the mystery barely in a waking state, as if through a dream and in an intoxicated state. Some condemn the unity that is in Christ, interpreting it incorrectly in their own way, apart from what is proposed in the Holy Scriptures. They say that natures are mutually divided and separated in all ways, one and the other exist separately and separately, and man, they argue, is united with God through indwelling, according to one dignity, that is, by strength or by the well-known name of sonship. Such opinions are destroyed by anathematism and rebel against such outrageous idle talk. It asserts that in no way should the Word be divided, naturally, that is, not according to dwelling, but truly united to the holy flesh, which has a rational soul, so as not to depict two sons and not to divide the indivisible. But he, not understanding what natural unity consists of, that is, true unity, which does not merge natures and does not mix them up so that one and the other should exist differently than then, uses weak evidence, characteristic of children, to assert that he supposedly thinks and says correctly: if the unity occurred natural, then the exhaustion of the Word was not arbitrary, but caused, as it were, by force and necessity. Nature usually acts forcefully. To this, let someone tell him: hunger, thirst, and the rest that you yourself named are natural imperfections and produce movement in us, since we have a nature that is subject to stimulation; the divine and ineffable nature of the Word, by no means subject to illness and necessity, was not forced by anyone or by itself to take on flesh against its will, to assimilate for itself the measure of humanity and to receive the seed of Abraham. It will not be difficult for anyone to see, if he wants, how meaningless his words are. He says that the natural is completely subject to the laws of necessity, and as proof of this he cites the fact that we feel hunger and thirst regardless of our will, at the call of nature, even if no one wants to. A skilled person, with a mind knowledgeable in these subjects, should discern serious things that are worth great difficulty. If it is true that man is rational by nature, then he is therefore rational against his will and under duress! What then? Tell me, is God not by nature God, or not by nature holy, righteous, good, life, light, wisdom and good? Is it possible that he himself, against his will and under compulsion, eats those who exist? But I think that if you want to reason like this, you must clearly reveal the greatest madness. So what lie do we have, even though he has erected an invincible and insurmountable wall? And he expresses so many weak assumptions, and hearing that a natural union has occurred, that is, a true, uninvolved in transformation and completely unmerged confluence of substances, he strives to subvert the power of what was said so that it seems that it did not really happen, but in the likeness that it takes from us. The daring is not afraid to subordinate the nature of the Word to irresistible necessity! He exhausted Himself not without will; but the Only Begotten voluntarily became man, and did not, as you say, accept humanity, giving it only an inhabitant union, and crowning it with the grace of sonship, like us. So, although it is fitting for us to think that substances were united, that the Word was made man and became incarnate, that the union, in accordance with this, is called in a certain way natural, so as not to give room to the untrue, inhabitable union, which belongs to us, as participants in the divine nature, about which Paul says: “Be cleaving to the Lord, there is one spirit” (1 Cor. 6, 17); However, the Word of God, alien and free from excitement, is not subject to necessity and the power of nature. Not wanting to divide into two what is united after union, in my opinion, is a completely blameless matter and not worthy of blame, especially since this good Theodoret takes as an example a person who, in our opinion, is even thought of as one, and does not allow him to be divided into two, although his very reasoning does not reject splitting and dividing into as much as is necessary in order to know that one is by nature a soul, and the other by nature is a body. So, through reflection on divinity and humanity, carefully seeking unity, in a similar sense, accomplished in Christ, we say that a true confluence in unity has occurred, and we do not forget that the Word of God is by nature something other than flesh, and is another flesh by nature. Not cutting what is once connected is not everything; the spirit of true faith does not allow anyone to divide the one Christ and the Son and the Lord into two sons, as the holy and inspired Scripture teaches. But it is obvious that he cares little about true dogmas and with great diligence avoids understanding something that is necessary for benefit as something that can cause harm, apparently boasts about lies and is even extremely inclined to slander. Let him hear from us: “Why do you boast in anger, the stronger? iniquity all day long, your tongue devises iniquity" (Ps. 51:3-4). 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, and others, as being proper to God, to the Word of God the Father alone: ​​let him be anathema. And this is related to what has already been said. He wants, as if making a restriction, not to see any difference in the words of the Gospel and Apostolic writings, and this is the one who, perhaps, boasts of the fact that he advocates against Arius and Eunomius and other heresiarchs. Let the diligent teacher of sacred dogmas say how he denounces the blasphemy of heretics, while he assimilates to God the Word what is humbly and decently said about the image of a slave? By admitting this, they establish the dogma that the Son of God is the lesser and a creature and a creature and a slave and belongs to the non-existent. And so we who think differently from them, confessing that the Son of the Father coexists and is co-eternal with God, the artist and creator of everything, the decorator, the helmsman and the ruler, is wise and omnipotent in everything, even affirming that He is power itself, life itself and wisdom itself, to whom will we attribute the following: “My God, my God, where have you forsaken me” (Matthew 27:46)? also: “My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass by from me” (Matthew 26:39); and again: “Father, save me from this hour” (John. 12, 27); “But about those days, or about that hour, no one knows, not even the angels who are in heaven, not the Son, only the Father” (Mark 13:32), and everything else that was said by Him Himself, or was said and written humbly by the holy Apostles? To whom do we attribute hunger and thirst? Who cares about wakefulness and sleep, ignorance and fear? Who needed the help of angels? If these are the properties of God the Word, then how is He called wisdom and wisdom reveals ignorance? Why else is it called wisdom, since it is subject to the weakness of ignorance? How can he be true when he says that he has everything that the Father has, and does not have the knowledge of the Father? “But no one, not even the angels of heaven, knows about that day (and hour), except my Father alone” (Matthew 24:36). How will there be an unchanging image of the Father when not everything the Father has has? So if he who said that he does not know was true, then who could think this about him? And if, even knowing the day, he said that he did not know it, then look at what blasphemy the connection should lead to, how does truth, undeservedly called truth, deceive if it contains something contrary to the truth? And if the truth does not deceive, then the Word of God is not ignorant of the day which it itself created, and on which it has to judge the universe; but has the knowledge of the Father as an immutable image. Thus, ignorance does not belong to God the Word, but to the image of a servant who only had as much knowledge as the deity who dwells in him revealed. The same should be said about other things like that. Is it consistent with common sense that God the Word could say to the Father: “Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass by from me: not as I will, but as You will” (Lord) (Matthew 26:39). For here again we encounter many incongruous things. And firstly, that the Father and the Son will disagree, the Father wants one, the Son wants the other: “both not as I want, but as You (Lord).” Further there is great ignorance in the Son. He does not know whether it is possible or not possible for the cup to pass. And to say this about God the Word is completely impious and blasphemous. He who then came and voluntarily took on our flesh, who exhausted Himself, knew perfectly what the end of the economic mystery should be; That’s why he predicted to the holy apostles: “Behold, we are ascending to Jerusalem, and the Son of man will be betrayed..... with the tongue to be mocked and beaten and crucified, and on the third day he will rise again” (Matthew 20:18-19). Who predicted this before, and forbade Peter, who prayed that this would not happen - how did He pray that this would not happen, if he knew perfectly everything that was going to happen? Isn’t it strange: Abraham foresaw this day for many centuries and rejoiced, just like Isaiah predicted His saving suffering, Jeremiah, Daniel, Zechariah and the whole group of prophets, but He himself does not know, asks for deliverance and prays in order to serve the salvation of the world? Consequently, these words do not refer to God the Word, but to the image of a servant who was afraid of death, because death had not yet been crushed. Having allowed fear, God the Word allows this image to speak such words so that we do not take it for the nature of the Father and do not suspect it, which came from Abraham and David, as a dream or fantasy, as the pathetic crowd of wicked heretics suggested. So, what was said and happened that was fitting for God, we will attribute to God the Word; what was said and happened humbly, we will adopt the image of a slave, so as not to become ill with the disease of blasphemy, like Arius and Eunomius. How good it would be if your mind, free from hatred and passions, found the truth in our words! But he doesn’t care about that and again directs it towards what he likes. For he says: and this is similar to what has already been said; wants, as if making a limitation, not to see any difference in the words of the Apostolic and Gospel Scriptures; and this is the one who, perhaps, boasts that he is fighting against Arius, Eunomius and other heresiarchs. This is him; I say that I am as far from saying that natures mutually limited one another, that mixing, merging or transformation was allowed, as far as he is from the true way of thinking. We do not eliminate different modes of expression; We know that some of them are such that they speak decently about God, others are adapted to human nature; the former correspond to great glory, the latter to a measure of exhaustion. We repeat that we do not distribute them between two persons who are in all respects different from one another. If there is one Lord Jesus Christ and one faith in Him and one baptism, then his face must be one, as if he had one. since God is and man at the same time, and He reveals himself even without reproach, because he himself uses words, either worthy of God, or befitting man: that divine and ineffable nature is in no way diminished in comparison with the Father, because what is said about it conceivably about humanity, the faith in the economy with the flesh is not denied from the preaching that God, with what He is according to divinity, became at the same time man, like us. So everything belongs to Christ alone - both that which befits God and that which belongs to humanity. If the Word, which comes from God the Father, did not become a man, then we should not speak of Him humanly, as of us. And if it is true that God became partaker of flesh and blood like us, and in all things became like the brethren (Heb. 2:12-14), that is, to us: why do they so unreasonably condemn the wise economy, refusing the human name, and the modesty of speech speaking about the economy, trying to understand something else separate from the Son, about the image of a servant, as they themselves say? It is completely unreasonable to pretend that they are afraid of the madness of heretics, and at the same time allow oneself to understand the tradition of the true faith outside of a decent sense. It will be better and more reasonable if we say that human names are attributed not to another person, conceived especially and separately from the Son, and, as they usually say, to the image of a servant, but primarily to the measure of His humanity. For He who is God and man together must be ascribed both kinds of names. But I marvel at how he (Theodoret) himself seems to confess one Christ, who is God and man together, and despite the fact that, as if suddenly forgetting what we believe he knows well, he again divides one into two. For he offers the words: “But of that day, or of that hour, no one knows, not the angels who are in heaven, nor the Son, but the Father” (Mark 13:32). He further adds that the Word, begotten of God the Father, is wisdom, which must foreknow all the future, and says: “So ignorance does not belong to God the Word, but to the image of the servant, who had as much knowledge at that time as the divinity dwelling in him revealed to him. The same should be said about other things like that.” So, if you are not lying when you say that there is one Lord and Jesus Christ, then why do you separate and are not ashamed to call two sons? Is it not clear that two things will happen, if the one who has limited knowledge is not the same with the one who knows everything, if the one who is perfect in wisdom and knows as much as the Father is not the same with the one who receives revelation in parts? And if there is one, one because of the true union and there is no other separately, individuality, then it turns out that knowledge and a form of ignorance belong to him. So he himself knows by divinity, like the wisdom of the Father; but having become under the level of ignorant humanity, he economically does what is characteristic of others, although, as I said before, there is nothing that He does not know, but He knows everything with the Father. For why is He called hungry (Matthew 4:3), weary from the journey (John 4:6), since He Himself is life and the life-giving God, He Himself is the living bread, coming down from heaven and giving life to the world, and, finally, Himself the Lord of good (John Chapter 6)? Then, so that they believe that He truly became a man, took upon Himself humanity, has a constant presence in the perfections of His nature and inseparably contains what He has always been, is and will be. Whoever said that revelation was given to the nature of a slave by God who dwells in it, moreover, the revelation is limited, although it already turns Emmanuel into our prophet, a God-bearing man and something else. Then he thinks that he is saying something witty and irrefutable: “if God’s Word exclaims,” he says, “Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass by from me: then, firstly, It is at odds with the Father and unrighteously prays not to drink the cup, knowing that His suffering will bring salvation to the world.” So let him in turn hear from us who wanders in obscene speculations: since you think that such expressions should be removed from God the Word and assimilated into the one nature of a slave, are you not again dividing one into two sons? And which smart person does not realize the obviousness of this? Perhaps someone who shares your thoughts will say that it is incredible and inconsistent with common sense that the image of a slave should avoid suffering and appear to be in contradiction to the Father or even to the Word dwelling in this image. I think that He knew that His suffering was saving for everything in heaven and earth, and would bring life to those who were subject to death. He says he should have taken a sensible look at one who was overwhelmed by great fear and ready to obey the divine beck. Tell me, don’t you really feel like you’re being recklessly idle? What does this absurd unfoundedness of thoughts mean? I would say without hesitation that everything human in the Word born of God is of little significance. I ask, to whom does the exhaustion belong and who bore it voluntarily? For if, as they say, the nature of a servant, which comes from the seed of David, then how or under what condition did it reach exhaustion, if it was accepted by God? If the Word, which exists in the same image and equality with God the Father, is called exhausted: then again, how or by what condition was it exhausted if it avoided exhaustion? To attribute exhaustion to God the Word, who knows no transformation or suffering; - means to conclude and say something about a person, according to his economic union with the flesh. Although He became a man, the essence of the sacrament does not in any way harm His nature. He remains the same as he was, even giving himself to humanity for the salvation and life of the world. Therefore, referring the words of the Gospel and the holy apostles not to two persons, but to one Christ and Son and God, we do not diminish His divine nature and glory for the sake of His humanity, and we do not reject the economy, but we believe in the incarnation of the Word itself, which was accomplished for our sake. Whoever dares to call Christ a God-bearing man, and not, better, true God, as one Son (with the Father) by nature, since the Word became flesh and came close to us, taking on our flesh and blood: let him be anathema. We say that the Word of God, like us, became a participant in flesh and blood and the immortal soul, through union with them. But in order for God the Word to become flesh through some transformation, we not only do not say this, but we also accuse those who say this of wickedness. And this, it seems, is contrary to these words. For if the Word became flesh, it did not partake of our flesh and blood. And if it joined flesh and blood, then in what other way, and not like that, did It join? And if flesh is something else, alien to His composition, then He did not turn into flesh. Thus, using the word communion, we idolize the Son as one, we idolize both the one who received and what was received in Him; but we remember the difference of natures and do not avoid calling him a God-bearing man, as He is called by many of the holy fathers, of whom, for example, Saint Basil the Great used this name in his word to Amphilochius about the Holy Spirit and in his explanation of Psalm 59. We call him a God-bearing man not in the sense that He accepted some particular grace, but in the sense that He completely possesses the one deity of the Son. Explaining this, blessed Paul said: “brothers, take heed lest anyone deceive you with philosophy and vain flattery, according to the tradition of men, according to the elements of the world, and not according to Christ: for in him dwelleth all the fulfillment of the physical deity” (Col. 2:8-9). Again it is very easy to show how dissolutely he is talking idle talk here. We say that Christ should not be called a God-bearing man, so as not to represent Him as one of the saints, but as the true God, made man and incarnate by the Word of God. Again he pursues what is said fairly, and speaks in different ways what is unusual and false. He says that we call God’s Word transformed into the nature of flesh and digs out the foundations by which it is strengthened to show that God’s Word excludes transformation. I must of necessity say here what I have said very often. Since no one says that the divine and unharmed nature of the Word was transformed into earthly flesh, but everyone unanimously confesses that it is incapable of transformation, then it is in vain that you undertake the labor of teaching those who are alien to deception that the Word of God by its nature is inconvertible and unchangeable. Who would be so foolish and insane that he would want to believe and say something so vile and, perhaps, despised by the most senseless? I do not understand how the one who everywhere says that Emmanuel is God is accused of putting Emmanuel on the same level as the prophets. He calls Him (the Son) God-bearing man, who is like us, bearing within us the indwelling Holy Spirit and the God of all. For (the Spirit) dwells in our hearts and we are churches of the living God. And he will not say that the Word became man and think that God dwells in man. And although the word of Blessed Paul is true: “For in him dwelleth all the fulfillment of the physical deity” (Col. 2:8), of course, not through indwelling; however, he says that “there is one God the Father, and one Lord” “Jesus Christ, who is all things” (1 Cor. 8:6). In addition, someone will say that even in a person his spirit lives, which is why it is written about some: “who live in mortal churches” (Job 4:19), among whom we ourselves live in a similar church; but man is conceived and in fact is one because of his structure from the flesh and the rational soul that dwells in it. So why does the right and by no means uncorrupted teaching of faith not cease to be vilified? Sometimes he calls one Christ and Son and Lord God and man together; sometimes, giving Him the measure of the prophets, He calls Him a God-bearing man, perhaps not knowing that this equates Him with us, if, that is, He is not truly God, but a church in which God the Word dwells, just like in us. But the Divine Scripture says otherwise: “The Word became flesh,” it says, “and dwelt in us” (John 1:14), so that no one would think that He was transformed into the nature of flesh through transformation and change. And as soon as he became flesh, that is, man, he is no longer a God-bearing man, but God, who according to His will gives Himself over to exhaustion, and takes into ownership the flesh taken from the wife, flesh, I say, not alien to the soul and mind, but possessing soul and mind. We know that He called His body a church, but not because of its indwelling, which He, for example, founded in us through the Holy Spirit, but is confessed, because of unity, as one Christ, Son and Lord. Whoever dares to say that the Word of God the Father is God or the Lord of Christ, and does not confess, rather, Himself as God and together as man, since according to the scriptures (John 1:14) the Word became flesh: let him be anathema. Blessed Paul says that the nature of a servant is received by the Word of God; but since perception precedes unity, blessed Paul, distinguishing these concepts, calls the image of a servant the perceived nature; the name of slavery has no place in the connection that has taken place. In his letter to those who believe in Him, the Apostle said: “The same shall a servant, but a son, bear” (Gal. 4:7), and the Lord to his disciples: “To whom I say you are servants... but you have been made friends” (John 15:15); much more free from slavery is the firstborn of our nature, through whom we also achieved the gift of adoption. So we confess God and the very image of the servant, because of his joining to God himself; and we believe the word of the prophet, who calls the still child Immanuel, and the born child the Angel of the great council, the Wonderful, the Counselor, the mighty God, the Sovereign, the Prince of Peace and the Father of the age to come (Isa. 7:14, 9:6). However, preaching the perception of nature after the union, the prophet calls the one who came from the seed of Abraham a slave, and thus says: “You are my servant to Israel, and in you I will be glorified” (Isa. 49:3), and again: “Thus says the Lord who created me” from the womb of the servant to himself (Isa. 49:5), and a little later: “I gave you for a covenant of the generation (of Israel), for a light of the tongue, that it might be your salvation, even to the last of the earth” (Isa. 49:6). And what was formed in the womb is not God the Word, but the image of a servant. For God the Word became flesh not through transformation, but through the perception of flesh endowed with a rational soul. The sacrament of the economy of the Only Begotten with the flesh here will also no less protect the words we said above, and will show their conformity and reasonableness, and this is easy. For the only begotten Son, existing in the image of God the Father, equal to Him in everything, in glory and freedom, is called, according to the perception of the nature of a slave, the brother of those who were under the yoke of slavery, that is, our brother. Thus, as one of us, He gave the didrachm to those demanding tribute and was under the law as a man (Matthew 17:24-27), being a lawgiver according to divinity, and taught His disciples: although by nature He was free, like God and from God, because in truth there is a Son and in the form of a slave according to the flesh. However, due to exhaustion, the image of the slave was considered his own property, and was subordinated to the tax collectors. Thus, if someone says that He is called a servant according to the words of the prophets, then it is in no way indecent to be offended by this. For they knew through the revelation of the Holy Spirit that the Word, who is from God the Father, having become man, on the one hand was as free as the Son, and on the other hand did not turn away from the measure of exhaustion, conforming to the yoke of our slavery. So he calls God his Father, although by nature he was God himself and in no way less than the Father in greatness. So, when Nestorius wrote the following about Christ: “but the merciful high priest who suffered so much is not God, the resurrector of him who suffered,” and the Word of God called Christ God, adding at the same time: “there was both a child and the Lord of the child”: then we affirm that his speeches are not only ugly, but also extremely wicked. For if the Word, which is from God, is the God of Christ, then, in any case and without any doubt, two will come out. And how to introduce the baby and together the Lord baby. So, it should not be said that Immanuel is God and Lord to Himself, since He is at the same time God and man, since the Word of God became incarnate and became man. When will anyone begin to doubt that divinity is something different in its nature, and humanity is something different in its nature? Despite this, both natures - deity and humanity constitute one Christ according to economic unity. Whoever says that Jesus as a man was the 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. If human nature is mortal, and God the Word, being life and the giver of life, restored and raised into heaven the church destroyed by the Jews: then how is the image of the servant not glorified through the image of God? If mortal nature became immortal through unity with God the Word, then it received what it did not have. If she received what she did not have and is glorified, then she is glorified by the one from whom she received it. That is why the apostle exclaims: “what great majesty of His power abounds in us who believe, according to the work of the might of His strength, which He did in Christ, raising Him from the dead” (Eph. 1:19-20). Those who call Christ express not that He is an ordinary man like us, but that He is the Word made man and incarnate, born of God; and therefore, if it is said that He accomplished something decent primarily to God, through His body, which He made as His ministerial organ: then nevertheless the action belongs to Christ, the Lord of good himself, who is not inferior to another; since He gave power to the blessed apostles against unclean spirits, the power to cast them out and heal every disease and every ulcer among the people. Therefore, blessed Paul says: “For I dare not say what Christ did not do by me, in the obedience of tongues, in word and deed, in the power of signs and wonders, by the power of the Spirit of God” (Rom. 15:18-19). The blessed disciples once joyfully approached Christ and said: “Lord, even demons obey us in your name” (Luke 10:17). We say that holy people were moved to act by Christ in the spirit; but Jesus, we imagine, was not so excited in the Spirit by the Word to action, as if there were another son besides the Only Begotten from the Father. Unity showed one, and therefore we are careful not to divide Him into two. For although, according to the Scripture, the Word became flesh; however, according to true unity, which exceeds both reason and word, there is such an only begotten Son. So, the one and only Christ Jesus, through his body, as through an organ, accomplished God’s commands, but he did not receive the power to do so in the likeness of the saints. To say this would be impious and very obscene. If, being life and life-giver, He raised His body from the dead and glorified Himself, showing His life-giving nature, then He did not provide anyone else but Himself with the glory of accomplishing His work. And so he spoke to God the Father, who is in heaven: “Father, glorify Me with glory, since before You there was no peace” (John 17:5), although God was from God by nature and the Lord of glory. Then how, as if in need of glory, does he ask for glory that the world did not have before? Because he became a man and, by the good will of God, tasted death for everyone according to the flesh (Heb. 2:9), according to the words of Blessed Paul; hence, as if preventing the reproach of dishonor, he predicted his resurrection, by which he is known to us as the life-giving one, and we believe in Him as God. And so he glorified not another person, but himself, when he truly made the church attached to himself more excellent through death. As for the belief that the body attached to Him is not alien to soul and mind, but has soul and body, we have spoken about this very often. Whoever dares to say that a person assumed (by God) should be worshiped together with God the Word, should glorify Him together with Him and together call Him 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. I have often said that we alone have learned to glorify Christ the Lord and confess Him as God and together as man. For this is what the meaning of unity teaches; but we will not stop talking about the peculiarities of natures. For neither God the Word suffered transformation into flesh, nor man, having ceased to be what he was, was transformed into divine nature. In this way we worship the Lord Christ, recognizing in Him the differences of both natures. But we, an excellent man, accustomed to believe in the best and truest, applying subtle insight to a thorough understanding and knowledge of this sacrament, according to what is presented in the Holy Scriptures and the explanations of it by the holy fathers, we say that it is not man who is received by God the Word and attached to him through some external relationship, but we determine that He (God the Word) became man, and that for this reason those who have withdrawn from the piety of dogmas they dare to call a person accepted and assert that he is worshiped as the Son of God as special to someone special. If He is God and man together, and the worship of Him, as one, is one, and is not worshiped together (only) and is not called God, then one should not believe that Emmanuel is a simple man similar to us, participating only in grace in the divine glory; but we must confess that He is God in the flesh for our sake, that is, He became man not through a change in nature by alienation from it or transformation, but solely through the construction of unity. 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. Obviously, he undertook to anathematize not only those who now think piously, but even those who were in ancient times the heralds of the truth, even the evangelists themselves, the face of the holy apostles and the Archangel Gabriel. For he was the first to proclaim that Christ, who appears in the flesh, is born of the Holy Spirit, and taught Joseph this way even before conception, as after conception. To Maria’s question: “What will this be like, even if I don’t know where my husband is?” - he said: “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you: by the same thing that is holy and will be born, he will be called the Son of God” (Luke 1:35-36). He said to Joseph: “Do not be afraid to accept Miriam your wife: for she is holy in her yearning from the Spirit” (Matthew 1:20). Evangelist: “For He was betrothed to His mother Mary Joseph, and was found with child by the Holy Spirit” (Matthew 1:18). And the Lord himself, having come to the Jewish synagogue and taking the book of the prophet Isaiah, when he read the place where it says: “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, for the sake of anointing me,” and so on, added: “Today this scripture will be fulfilled in your ears” (Luke 4:21). And blessed Peter, in a conversation with the Jews, testifies to this: “Jesus, who was of Nazareth, because God anointed him with the Holy Spirit” (Acts 10:38). Isaiah uttered the following prophecy long ago: “a rod will come out of the root of Jesse, and a flower will arise from its root: and the Spirit of God will rest on it, the Spirit of wisdom and understanding, the Spirit of counsel and strength, the Spirit of knowledge and piety; and the Spirit of the fear of God will fill Him” (Is. 11:1-3); and again: “Jacob is my child, I will accept and: Israel is my chosen one, my soul has received him; my Spirit has come, he will proclaim the judgment of the tongues” (Is. 12:1). The evangelist cited this testimony in his writing. And the Lord himself in the Gospel says to the Jews: “If through the finger of God I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God will come upon you” (Luke 11:20); and John: “having sent me to baptize with water, he said to me: on the unworthy thing you will see the Spirit descending and remaining on him; this is the one who baptizes with the Holy Spirit” (John 1:33). Thus, this subtle researcher of the sacred dogmas not only anathematizes the prophets and apostles, not just the Archangel Gabriel, but extends blasphemy to the Savior of all himself. We have shown that the Lord himself, after saying: “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because He anointed me,” said: “Today this scripture will be fulfilled in your ears,” now again says that the Holy Spirit casts out demons, when some said that He casts them out by the power of Beelzebub. We do not say that God the Word, co-essential and co-eternal with the Father, was formed (in the womb of Mary) and united by the Holy Spirit, but that in the last days He assumed human nature. As for whether the Spirit is characteristic of the Son, then if he (Cyril) says that (the Spirit) is of the same nature with Him (the Son) and comes from the Father, then we confess this with him and accept it as a pious word. If he says that He is from the Son and has existence through the Son, then we reject this as blasphemous and impious. For we believe in the words of the Lord: “The Spirit who comes from the Father” (John 15:26) and in the similar words of St. Paul: “We have not received the spirit of this world, but the Spirit who is from God” (1 Cor. 2:12). I have already said that the power of chapters (XII) overthrows both idle talk and blasphemy and the extremely contemptuous words of Nestorius. For regarding the words about the Holy Spirit: “this is the one who brought such glory to Christ, who made Him terrible for demons, who granted Him ascension into heaven” - regarding such nonsense about Christ as about any ordinary person like us, anathema must be declared - not against those who call Jesus glorified by the Holy Spirit, that is, the Word made man God, but against those who shamelessly say that through the Spirit He used, as it were, an extraneous force. We remember that He clearly said about the Holy Spirit: “He will glorify me” (John 16:14). At the same time, we know that through the action of the Holy Spirit He trampled upon the evil and unclean forces, but we do not speak of Him in the same way as of one of the saints who uses the power of the Holy Spirit, which is completely foreign to him. For the Spirit was and is His, as, without a doubt, the Father. And the divine Paul will explain this to us quite sufficiently in the following words: “But those who are in the flesh cannot please God; But you are not in the flesh, but in Dus, because the Spirit of God lives in you; If anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His” (Rom. 8:8-9). The Holy Spirit proceeds, according to the word of the Savior, from God the Father, but is not alien to the Son; for the Son has all the things of the Father. He himself taught this, speaking about the Holy Spirit: “Everything that the Father has is mine: for this reason he decided that he would receive it from me and tell it to you” (John 16:15). So the Holy Spirit glorified Jesus, doing marvelous things, but glorified Him as His Spirit, and not as an alien power, and the Spirit is all the more perfect because it is confessed as God. So we did not blaspheme either the holy angels or the prophets, as he who only accuses and knows has made it his duty to say. Since the goal of him and his accomplices is to divide the one Christ into two and call Him glorified and aroused to action, and this (Spirit) glorifying and arousing to action: then they madly revile every pious word, as well as those who distract them from the wrong way of thinking. Therefore, having started talking about blessed Gabriel, this slanderer says: he was the first to proclaim that he who is in the flesh, Christ, is born of the Holy Spirit. Thus, there is one Christ, who is in the flesh, then another again, a special Christ the Word, who is from the Father! Where is the unity? And what is the benefit of thinking and preaching that there are two Christs, both separate and special from each other? Although for this reason they put on the guise of piety, saying that Christ is one, however, in reality they represent two, let them hear from us: “As long as you keep churches on both your heads” (1 Kings 18:21). It is better to go straight, having a right and firm faith, unshakable by senseless wisdom. Divine Scripture says that Christ was the high priest and mediator of our confession, that He offered Himself for us as a pleasing aroma to God and the Father. So, if anyone says that our high priest and intercessor was not God the Word himself, when he became flesh and a man like us, but 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. The unchangeable nature did not turn into the nature of the flesh, but took on human nature and placed it above the general high priests, as Blessed Paul teaches: “every high priest is acceptable from man, appointed for men in the service of God, and to offer gifts and sacrifices for sins, so that he may suffer for the ignorant and erring: because of that infirmity he is also burdened. And for this reason, you must eat as you eat for people, so you should also offer for your own sins” (Heb. 5:1-3). And a little lower, in explanation of this, he says: “As Aaron was, so is Christ” (Heb. 5:4–5). Then, showing the weakness of the perceived nature, he says: “Even in the days of his flesh, he brought supplications and prayers to Him who was able to save him from death, with a strong cry and with tears, and was heard quickly out of reverence, even if the Son had been, and both learned from these, even having suffered, obedience; and having been accomplished, all who listened to him were made guilty of eternal salvation: he was called high priest by God, according to the order of Melchizedek” (Heb. 5:7-10). So who is this who is accomplished by deeds of virtue, and not by nature? Who is it that discovered obedience without knowing it until it was experienced? Who lived in reverence, with a strong cry and with tears brought prayer, not having the strength to save himself, but prayed to the one who could save him and asked for liberation from death? – Not God the Word, who is immortal, passionless, incorporeal, the memory of whom, according to the prophet, is joy and freedom from tears. For He Himself wiped away a tear from every face. Another words of the prophet: “I remembered God and rejoiced” (Is. 76:4). He crowns those who live by faith, knows everything before anything came into being, has everything that the Father has, and is the unchangeable image of the Father, depicting the Father in Himself. But this is what He received from the seed of David, which is mortal, subject to suffering and trembling at death, although this itself subsequently destroyed the power of death due to unity with God who received it; this is what walked in all righteousness and said to John: “Leave it now, for it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness” (Matthew 3:15). It received the name of a priest according to the order of Melchizedek, is clothed in the weakness of our nature and is not the omnipotent Word of God. Why does blessed Paul say a little earlier: “The priests are not imams, for they are not able to suffer our weaknesses, but have been tempted in all sorts of ways, except sin” (Heb. 4:15). The nature taken from us and for our sake, which, without knowing sin, endured the temptation of our suffering, is not the one that accepted it for the sake of our salvation. But at the beginning of this chapter, the apostle teaches again the following: “Keep in mind the messenger and saint of our confession, Jesus Christ, who is faithful to him who created him, even as these are mine in all his house” (Heb. 3:1-2). - None of the Orthodox will say that creation is the uncreated, uncreated and co-eternal Word of God with the Father, but that it is the one who came from the seed of David, and not involved in any sin, who became our saint and sacrifice, sacrificing himself for us, and already bearing within himself the Word of God, which is from God, united and inextricably linked with it. The prophet Jeremiah, filled with sorrow, spoke to Israel, who offended and provoked God to anger: “who will give my head water and comb away the source of my tears: and I weep day and night for the slain daughters of my people” (Jer. 9:1). I think that these words apply not only to Israel, but also to those who have unbridled lips and do not control themselves against Christ; they are “daring, pleasing to themselves, and do not tremble at glory with blasphemy” (2 Peter 2:10), as it is written. Truly worthy of weeping and lamentation are those who, out of great madness, abandoning the right and blameless path of piety in Christ, choose evil paths and distort the beauty of the truth with depraved inventions of the senses. So let those who love to think listen to what is despised by everyone: “You are deceived, not seeing the Scripture” (Matthew 22:29), nor the glorious and great mystery of the Incarnation. For the inspired Scriptures teach that Emnanuel is God made man, who partook of flesh and blood, just as we affirm that He is the Word of God the Father and became flesh, that is, man, not through transformation or change, but by the power of an ineffable union. And therefore we say: there is one Lord Jesus Christ, one faith and one baptism. Those who have deviated from the true dogmas and with their rude and arrogant minds are indignant against the Holy Scriptures, they only admit that they themselves seem to be good, they say that man is perceived by God the Word also, perhaps, as it was said through one of the holy prophets: “I was not a prophet, a son of a prophecy, but a shepherd, and he robbed his buttocks: and the Lord praised me from sheep" (Amos. 7:14-15), and as David said: “the meek Lord accepts” (Ps. 140:6), they say that he is received through an internal disposition or spiritual affinity, which consists of will, grace, sanctification, just as we ourselves are united with the Lord - “one spirit with the Lord” (1 Cor. 6:17). But God did not become human in this way and did not partake of flesh and blood like us, but made man more akin to Himself and, moreover, not in any other way, but only as the prophets, apostles and all other saints say. Or do you think that Saint Paul deceives those sanctified through faith, speaking very clearly about the Only Begotten: “For because of your poverty he is rich” (2 Cor. 8:9)? No! The herald of truth speaks the perfect truth. But who is rich, and how did he become poor? Let us also ask, if a person is accepted by God, as they themselves decided to think and speak, then how does one who is accepted become poor, one who is adorned with supernatural riches? For he is glorified! And if this is not true, then they will destroy perception as something that reduces humanity to a worse and lower state. But thinking this way is absurd. Hence the one who is accepted is not poor. So it remains to be said that he who is rich like God has become poor like us. So how did you become poor? Let's talk because it's necessary. He who was confessed to be unchanged by nature did not turn into the nature of the flesh, leaving his own. For he remains what he was, that is, God. So where do we see the assumption of poverty? Is it really true that He perceived someone similar to us, as the jesters of Nestorius’ wickedness decided to say? And what kind of impoverishment and exhaustion is there in that one who wanted to honor a person like us? The God of all is by no means humbled through goodness. So how did you become poor? By the fact that, being God and the Son of God the Father, he became man, being born in the flesh from the seed of David, taking on the form of slavery, that is, humanity - He who was in the image of God and the Father, in whom and through whom are all things, who is the creator of all things. But having become a man, He is not ashamed of humanity. For whoever did not disdain to become a man like us, how will he be ashamed of the fact that he could actually become like us for our sake? If we remove human relations and names from Him, then we will in no way differ from those who, if this is possible, almost strip off the flesh from Him and, not believing the Divine Scriptures, overthrow the mystery of the Incarnation. salvation of the world, hope, resurrection. But perhaps someone will say that it is unworthy and humiliating for God the Word to shed tears, to fear death, to avoid the cup, to be a high priest? It is true that I myself will say that this in itself is incompatible with the divine and superior nature and glory; but in this we contemplate the poverty which He voluntarily bore for us. If the humiliation of exhaustion seems so important to you, then you should be all the more amazed at the divine love for you. What you call derogatory, he did voluntarily for your sake; He shed human tears to prevent your tears. Providentially giving over to suffering the flesh that was temporarily His own, He feared in order to make us more courageous. He avoided the cup so that the cross would expose the wickedness of the Jews. He is called weak in humanity, so that through Him you will cease to be weak. I offered prayers and supplications to incline the Father’s ear to your prayers. I slept to teach you to stay awake in temptations and to be more diligent in prayer. Reproaching some of the sleeping holy apostles, He said: “Was it not possible for you to watch with Me for one hour? Watch and pray, so that you do not fall into misfortune” (Matthew 26:40–41). Having shown his deeds and the image of his holy residence on earth, He assimilated to himself the infirmities of mankind. For what? In order for them to believe that He became a true man, although He remained what He was, that is, God. But I do not know how those who pretend to believe in one Christ, Son and Lord, God and man, do not want to call the Word, begotten of the Father, the saint and messenger of our confession when He became man, but claim that it is like some other, similar person, called for this purpose from the seed of David, perhaps out of fear that, having rejected the perverse teaching of Nestorius, they would not be suspected of having a right way of thinking. For he (Nestorius) said this: “The high priest became faithful to God; “became”, therefore, the one who little by little rose to the dignity of the high priest was not a high priest from time immemorial.” Then, thinking to confirm the truth of his words, he points to the basis, saying: “about him in the gospel it is said: “He grew up growing and became strong in spirit, filled with wisdom: and the grace of God was on him” (Luke 2:40); also: “In every way you must be like the brethren, so that the high priest may be merciful and faithful” (Heb. 2:17). A zealous imitator of his abomination, this excellent Theodoret is not ashamed to say: “he took on human nature and elevated it above ordinary high priests, as the divine Paul also says: “For every high priest is acceptable from man, for men he is appointed to serve in the service of God, and to offer gifts and sacrifices for sins, to show compassion to the ignorant and erring: for even that He is burdened with infirmity to eat, and for this reason he must eat as he does for people, so he should also offer for his own sins" (Heb. 5:1-3). But tell me, does the image of the priesthood in our Savior Jesus Christ frighten you? Are you saying that it is indecent for God the Word to act as a priest in the matter of salvation? Therefore, take away the image, deny the incarnation of the Word, for the reason of which He is called a high priest. Do you really find that It worships the Father as another and higher God? Did you really find that he makes sacrifices according to the custom of those who are chosen from people and can suffer the ignorant and erring, because they themselves are burdened with infirmity? Have you not noticed that He demands faith or confession of faith from everyone as a sacrifice to Himself and the All-Holy Spirit? Tell me, do you really think that it is in the nature of human sacrifice to demand faith from those who have offered themselves as a sacrifice of fragrance in the spirit? Contemplate the essence of God differently, although it is said that He acts sacredly in the work of salvation. For he sits with God and the Father and is perfect in the seat on high. Do human things confuse you? And what is proper to God does not free you from this confusion? You don’t agree to see from the very deeds; that Emmanuel is God and man, but shamelessly and stubbornly wandering into all wickedness, you say that He is being perfected in virtue through labor and is gradually rising to the dignity of the high priesthood. If he exalted himself, then how did he reach exhaustion and impoverishment? If you have perfected yourself in virtue, then you have become perfect from something imperfect and, moreover, in time; and everything that is imperfect is all bad: and everything that is bad is sin. How is it written about Him that “he committed no sin” (1 Peter 2:22)? Haven't you set yourself the goal of talking about what is subordinate? So who, says (Theodoret), administered the priesthood? Who has achieved perfection in virtue through labor, and is not perfect by nature? Who learned obedience through trials, but did not know it before? Who lived in reverence, wept loudly and offered up prayers with tears, and, not having the strength to save himself, asked Him who could save him from death? - O impudent and most lawless voice! What will tears do to wash away the sin of those who have given themselves the obligation to think this way? If you accept unity, then how come you do not know what was told to you about God becoming man? He humbled himself in you and you maliciously exclaim: “You are merciful, Lord: you shall not be” (Matthew 16:22). And thus you will hear the words: “Follow me Satan, you are my temptation” (Matthew 16:23). But at the end of his words (Theodoret) says: “So this is the high priest who is from the seed of David, carrying within himself the attached and inseparably bound Word, which comes from the Father.” How do you say that the Word of God is attached to those who came from the seed of David, if you attribute the high priesthood to those who came from the seed of David? If unity is true, then in any case there are not two, but one Christ and one of both. So it is clear that they pretend to profess unity, deceiving simple minds, and recognize an external connection - according to dwelling, a connection that is also inherent in us, who through the Spirit have become involved in His divine nature. So let us turn our attention away from their madness; Let us turn to the right and intact faith, to the evangelical and apostolic statutes. Whoever does not confess the Lord’s flesh as life-giving and actually belonging to the very Word of God the Father, but as belonging to someone else, distinct 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 own of the Word, who can give life to everything: let him be anathema. I think that he seems to be concerned about the truth for the purpose of covering up the falsity of his opinion, so as not to appear to be preaching the same thing that heretics preach. But there is nothing more powerful than truth, which dispels the darkness of seduction with its rays. Enlightened by this truth, we will expose the falsity of his faith. Firstly, he never mentions that the flesh (of the Word) is rational, and does not confess that he who is received is a perfect man; but, following the teachings of Apollinaris, he always calls it simply flesh; secondly, in his speeches he spreads the idea of ​​confusion, only in other words, and clearly says that the flesh of the Lord is inanimate. Whoever, he says, teaches that the flesh of the Lord does not belong to the Word of God the Father, but let anyone else besides Him be anathema. From this it is revealed that he does not confess that the Word took on the soul, but only the flesh, and instead of the soul, the Word itself served for this flesh. We call the flesh of the Lord both life-giving, and animate, and rational, according to the power of the union with it of the divine life-giving nature. But he involuntarily recognizes the separation of two natures when he speaks of the flesh and the Word of God. and the flesh calls the Word its own. So God the Word did not turn into the nature of the flesh, but has flesh as His own, that is, the perceived nature, and through unity makes it life-giving. Those who, out of ignorance, have fallen away from the right and true teachings and almost say: “I lay down our hope with a lie, and we are covered with a lie” (Isa. 28:15), preach recklessly, forgetting the teachings of the Divine Scripture, which says: “Judge righteous judgment” (Zech. 7:9), and again: “A false witness will not be without torment” (Prov. 19, 5). We call the holy body of your Savior Christ life-giving; for it is actually not only one like us, an ordinary person, but truly the Word itself, the one who gives life to everything, exactly as if one of us happened to call our body our own. But this good man, not forgetting any kind of slander against us, although he agrees with what I said, nevertheless imposes on me the shame of the Apollinarian heresy, and is not ashamed to say that under other words I hide the error of mixture or fusion and assert that the flesh united with the Word is not animate. But, excellent man, someone will say and rightly: is it really possible that you are also laying a crime on the blessed Evangelist John? for he says: “The word became flesh” (John 1:14). You also impudently rush at him and say that he does not mention the rational soul and calls the Lord’s flesh inanimate. What if you hear the words of Christ himself, the Savior of us all: “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man, you do not drink the blood of His life” (John 6:53); and again: “Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him” (John 6:56); and again: “And the bread which I will give, my flesh is, which I will give for the life of the world” (John 6:51). Accuse, if you like, these words of Him! For he calls Him only flesh and makes absolutely no mention in them of the rational soul. And if you were wise and insightful, you would not be unaware that a being consisting of soul and body, that is, man, is sometimes signified by the name of flesh. For he says: “and “All flesh will see the salvation of God” (Luke 3:6). So when it is said that the Word became flesh, he did not know (Theodoret) that it is also mentioned here about the rational soul. But, as I already said, he covered himself with lies and tries to slander in order to show that he was saying something, because he did not know what to say against us. Meanwhile, the fathers did not think like that. The Fathers affirm that the Word of God the Father became man by uniting with flesh, which has a rational soul. The connection occurred without merging and was completely free from change. For the Word is unchangeable, begotten of the Father. And so we believe. 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. Suffering is characteristic of one subject to suffering. The dispassionate is beyond the possibility of suffering. Therefore, the image of the slave suffered, that is, in union with the image of God, by his consent to suffer for the sake of acquiring salvation through him, by assimilating suffering to himself by virtue of the union. Thus it was not Christ who suffered, but the man received from us by the Word. Hence Isaiah, prophesying, exclaims: “a man who is in the plague, and knows to endure disease” (Isa. 53:3). And the Lord Christ himself says to the Jews: “Now you seek to kill me, a man who told you the truth” (John 8:40). It is not life itself that is killed, but the one who has the nature of death. And in another place, teaching the Jews, the Lord said the following: “Destroy this church, and in three days I will raise it up” (John 2:19). the seed of David; the only-begotten Word of God, impassively begotten of the Father before the ages, restored this ruined one. The nature of God the Word, according to the general confession, is impassive. I think that this is obvious to everyone and no one’s madness will rise up against the Word so much as to say that His mysterious nature, superior to nature and the possibility of suffering, is surrounded by our infirmities. But since suffering was supposed to bring salvation to the world, and the Word, born of the Father, could not suffer in its own nature: it accomplishes the work of salvation with great art, makes the body capable of suffering its property, which is why it is called the suffered flesh, subject to suffering, being itself, by the divine nature, outside of suffering. Thus, since he suffered voluntarily in the flesh, he is called the Savior of all. This is what Paul says: “For by the grace of God he may taste death for everyone” (Heb. 2:9). This is also evidenced by St. Peter, wisely saying: “Christ suffered for us in the flesh” (1 Peter 4:1), and not in the divine nature. Otherwise, how is the Lord of glory called crucified? How is it that through whom, according to St. Paul (Heb. 2:10), everything was created, given by God the Father to head the body of the Church, even became the firstborn from the dead? Through the assimilation of suffering that was proper to His flesh! The Lord of glory cannot be an ordinary person and such as we are. But perhaps you will say that the union (of natures) is enough to call the one Christ and Lord the sufferer. Therefore, everyone must confess that the Word of God is the Savior, who remained impassible in the divine nature, but suffered, as Peter says, in the flesh. For, due to the true union (of natures), the body that tasted death became His property. Otherwise, how is it that He who came from the Jews according to the flesh is Christ and “who is God blessed above all forever, Amen” (Rom. 9:5)? Whose death are we baptized into? By believing in whose resurrection we are justified? The Word of God, by its own nature, cannot die; it is even life itself. So, are we really baptized into the death of an ordinary person and, through faith in him, receive justification? Or is it better, which is true, to proclaim the death of God who became incarnate and suffered in the flesh for us, and by confessing the resurrection we lay aside the burden of sin? “For it was bought with natural price” (1 Cor. 6:20), “not with corruptible silver or gold..... but with honest blood, like the unblemished and pure blood of Christ” (1 Peter 1:18–19). And besides this, much more could be said; It would not be difficult to cite the testimony of the holy fathers. But, I think, this is enough for those who have learned. For it is written: “Give wine to the wise, and he will be the wisest; tell the righteous, and apply it” (Proverbs 9:9-10). You might be interested in: