II. O ЕДИНСТВЕ ИПОСТАСИ BO ИИСУСЕ ХРИСТЕ

§ 137. The reality of the union in Christ of two natures into a single hypostasis Confessing in Christ Jesus our Lord two natures, divine and human, we together confess that in Him there is one Person, that the two natures in Him are united into one hypostasis of God the Word: for “we believe that the Son of God... took upon Himself in His own hypostasis human flesh, conceived in the womb of the Virgin Mary from the Holy Spirit, and became man” (Ecclesiastical Eastern Patriarch. on the Right. Faith, Part. 7), and that, therefore, His humanity does not have a special personality in Him, does not constitute a special hypostasis, but is accepted by His Divinity into the unity of His Divine hypostasis. Or let's say in the words of St. John of Damascus: “The hypostasis of God the Word became incarnate, having received from the Virgin the firstfruits of our composition - flesh animated by a verbal and rational soul”; so that She herself became the hypostasis of the flesh... One and the same Hypostasis of the Word, having become the hypostasis of two natures, does not allow either of them to be hypostatic, nor does it allow them to be different hypostases among themselves; and there is no hypostasis of one nature and then of another, but the Hypostasis of both natures always remains inseparably and inseparably... The flesh of God the Word did not receive an independent hypostasis, and did not become a hypostasis different from the Hypostasis of God the Word, but having received a hypostasis in it, it became, better to say, accepted into the Hypostasis of God the Word, rather than an independent hypostasis” 204. This means that our Lord Jesus Christ is the one Divine Person, uniquely conscious of Himself in the duality of his natures, Divine and human, is the true Emmanuel, the God-man. I. Holy Scripture presents the firmest foundations of this truth. It teaches: 1) that in Christ Jesus, with two natures, Divine and human, there is one Hypostasis, one Person, and - 2) that this Hypostasis is precisely the Hypostasis of the Word or the Son of God, which, having taken upon itself and united in itself the human nature with the Divine, remains inseparably the one Hypostasis of both natures. 1) The first thought of St. Scripture preaches: a) When he calls one and the same Jesus Christ, as a specific Person, both God and man, and the Son of God and the Son of man, and presents him with the properties of the divine nature and with the properties of the human nature: we have already seen this. b) It is even clearer when he ascribes to one and the same Jesus Christ sometimes, like God, human properties, and sometimes, like a person, Divine properties, saying, for example, that the Jews, even if they knew, did not crucify the Lord of glory (1 Cor. 2:8), - that they killed the Chief (άρχηγόν, the chief culprit) of life (Acts 3, 15), - that the Lord God acquired the Church with his blood - διά τού αίματος τού ΐδίον (Acts 20:28; demolished: Rom. 5:10; Heb. 5:8); or testifying that no one ascended into heaven except the Son of Man who came down from heaven (John 3:13) - that this Son of Man, born during the reign of Caesar Augustus of Rome, existed, however, before even Abraham did not exist (John 8:58). Places of this kind necessarily assume that the two natures in Jesus Christ are not separated from each other, but are actually united into one Hypostasis: otherwise it would be impossible for what belongs to humanity in Him to be appropriated to His Divinity, and vice versa, it would be impossible to call His blood as a man, His own blood, as God, and on the other hand, His Divine properties - omnipresence, eternity, could not be attributed to Him as the Son of Man 205 . c) Finally, with complete clarity, when he says that Jesus Christ, our Lord, is one, one Person, one Hypostasis, just as there is one God the Father, the first Person, the first Hypostasis of St. Trinity: for us there is one God the Father, of whom are all things, and we are with him: and there is one Lord Jesus Christ, who is all things, and we are (1 Cor. 8:6). One Lord, one faith, one baptism. There is one God and Father of all, who is above all and through all and in us all (Eph. 4, 5. 6). So – not two Christs, not two hypostases in Christ! 8) The second thought, that in Jesus Christ the Hypostasis of the Word or the Son of God, having taken upon Himself human nature and united it in Himself with the Divine nature, remains an inseparably united Hypostasis of both natures, is expressed in those especially passages of Scripture where the incarnation of the Son of God, His birth, and His coming to earth are discussed. So: - a) St. John the Evangelist preaches: God is the Word... And the Word became flesh, and dwelt in us, and we saw his glory, glory as the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth... The Law was given by Moses: but grace and truth came into being by Jesus Christ (John 1:1.14.17). Here the Person or Hypostasis of God the Word is apparently depicted, and it is said that this Hypostasis became flesh or became man, 206 that She lived in the flesh among people under the name of Jesus Christ, and that She, after incarnation or incarnation, remained in Jesus Christ, the God-Man, the same, one and unchangeable Hypostasis of the Only Begotten from the Father (see a similar thought: 1John 1, 1–9; 5, 20). “The expression: the Word became flesh means that the very Hypostasis of the Word without any transformation became the Hypostasis of the flesh,” notes St. John of Damascus 207. b) St. Apostle Paul writes about Jesus Christ: He who was in the image of God was not equal to God by admiration; but he made himself a little lesser, and received the form of a servant, becoming in the likeness of mankind, and being found in the likeness of man (Phil. 2:6.7). These words very separately preach, firstly, the idea of ​​the perfect unity of the Hypostasis in Jesus Christ: for if there were two separate hypostases in Christ, the Apostle could not say that the same one who is in the image of God, or has the Divine nature, took the form of a servant; The same one who does not consider it robbery to be equal with God, having been found as a man, and what He diminished for himself by becoming a man. And secondly, it is preached that this single hypostasis of both natures in Christ remained unchanged His Divine Hypostasis: since, according to the word of the Apostle, it was in the image of God that He took upon Himself the form of a servant, that is, He took on human nature in the unity of His Person, and He diminished Himself, having become in the likeness of humanity, He was found, like a person 208. c) In another letter, the Apostle Paul says: when the end of the year came, God sent his (only begotten) Son, born of a woman, and was under the law: that he might redeem those who were under the law (Gal. 4:4). “He did not say: through his wife,” we repeat after St. Cyril of Alexandria and St. John of Damascus - but from his wife. By this, the divine Apostle made it clear that this very man, born of the Virgin, is the only begotten Son of God and God, and this very Son of God and God is the One who was born of the Virgin, but was born according to the flesh, because he became a man; did not inhabit the man created in advance as a prophet, but He Himself essentially and truly became a man: that is, in His Hypostasis He gave a Hypostasis to the flesh, animated by a verbal and rational soul, and He Himself became a Hypostasis for it” 209 . d) In the third letter, the same Apostle, listing the advantages of the Jews, among other things, expresses: they are the fathers, and from them is Christ according to the flesh, who is God blessed above all forever (Rom. 9:5) 210, and even before that he calls the same Jesus Christ the Son of God, who was from the seed of David according to the flesh (- 1:3). The thought is clear that humanity in Jesus Christ did not receive a special hypostasis, does not constitute an independent personality, but was accepted by the Divine into the unity of His divine hypostasis, so that He, even after His incarnation, remains there as the same Son of God, the second Hypostasis of St. Trinity, as it was before the incarnation (see similar passages 1 Tim. 3:16; Col. 2:9, etc.). II. The belief of the entire Church that in Christ the Savior, with two natures, there is one hypostasis, and the divine hypostasis, can first of all be seen in all its ancient Symbols, starting with the so-called Apostolic: here one and the same Lord Jesus Christ is confessed to be the only begotten Son of God, God from God, who came down from heaven for our sake, became incarnate from the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, crucified and buried, resurrected and ascended into heaven, and sitting at the right hand of the Father 211. And then, with particular clarity, the Church revealed this belief at two Ecumenical Councils, Ephesus and Chalcedon, on the occasion of the Nestorian and Eutychean heresies. The Council of Ephesus, by the way, approved and accepted the epistle of St. as the basis for its teaching about the hypostasis of Christ. Cyril of Alexandria to Nestorius, of which in one it is stated as follows: “we teach that the Word, hypostatically uniting with itself flesh, animated by the rational soul, ineffably and incomprehensibly became man, and began to be called the Son of man...; we say that although the natures combined in a true union are different, there is one Christ, one Son from both natures, and not as if the difference of natures disappeared because of this union; on the contrary, we affirm that Divinity and humanity constituted a single hypostasis of the Lord Jesus Christ, through the ineffable and inexplicable union of these different natures into unity” 212. In particular, the Council of Ephesus accepted and approved twelve dogmatic chapters or anathemas of the same saint of Alexandria, written to the heretic Nestorius. Here in the second chapter we read: “whoever does not confess that the Word, which is from God the Father, is hypostatically united with the flesh, and together with the flesh there is one Christ, that is, one and the same is both God and man: let him be anathema.” In the third chapter: “Whoever in the one Christ separates the hypostases by union, uniting them by a union (συναφεία) only of dignity, importance and power, and not better by a union of natural union (κατ ένωσιν φυσικήν): let him be anathema.” In the fourth: “Whoever distinguishes the expressions found in the Gospel and Apostolic writings and said about Christ either by sacred writers or by Him about himself in such a way that he attributes some of them to man, separately understood from the Word of God, and others, as being fitting for God only to the Word that is from God the Father: let him be anathema.” In the fifth: “who dares to call Christ a God-bearing man, and not better the true God, as the one and natural Son; since the Word was made flesh and like us partook of blood and flesh: let him be anathema.”213 The Council of Chalcedon, as we have seen, in its definition of faith teaches to confess “one and the same Christ, the Son, the Lord, the only begotten, in two natures... knowable..., not cut into two persons or divided, but one and the same Son and the only begotten God the Word.” III. Among private teachers, it is sufficient to cite the testimony of those regarding the dogma being presented who lived and taught before the Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon. This is the evidence: a) St. Ignatius the God-Bearer: “there is one physician, carnal and spiritual, born and unborn, God revealed in the flesh, true life in death, both from Mary and from God. first involved in suffering, and then not involved in suffering, Jesus Christ our Lord” 214; b) Tertullian: “we see a dual nature, not mixed, but united in the one person of God and the man Jesus” 215; c) St. Athanasius the Great: “(Christ) perfect God and perfect man, one to one Hypostasis, both from two and in two natures” 216; d) St. Ephraim the Syrian: “I confess one and the same as a perfect God and a perfect man, in two natures, hypostatically or personally united, cognizable inseparably, unmergedly and unchangeably, clothed in flesh, animated by a verbal and rational soul and made servile to us in everything except one sin; one and the same is... God and man, perfect in both, One in two natures, and One in two” 217; d) St. Gregory the Theologian: “we do not separate in Him (in Christ) man from the Divinity, but we teach that one and the same is not man before, but God and the only begotten Son, the eternal one, having neither a body nor anything corporeal, and finally man, received for our salvation, subject to suffering in the flesh, impassive in the Divinity, limited in the body, unlimited in the spirit; one and the same - earthly and heavenly, visible and intelligible, contained and incontainable, so that the complete man who fell under sin could be recreated as a whole man and God” 218; e) blessed Augustine: “Jesus Christ the Son of God is both God and man; God: because there is the Word of God, and God is the Word (John 1:1); man: because the rational soul and flesh are received into the unity of person by the Word,” and further: “there is one Son of God and the same son of man; one son of man and the same son of God; not two Sons of God, God and man, but one Son of God; God without beginning, man from a certain beginning, our Lord Jesus Christ" 219. IV. And a sound mind, based on theological principles, cannot help but notice that the Nestorian heresy, which divided Jesus Christ into two persons, completely overthrows the sacrament of incarnation and the sacrament of atonement. If the Divinity and humanity in Christ are not united into one hypostasis, but constitute two separate Persons; if the Son of God was united with Christ the man only morally, and not physically, and dwelt in Him, as before in Moses and the Prophets: then there was no incarnation at all, and it cannot be said: the Word became flesh; or: God sent his Son, begotten of his wife. For it turns out that the Son of God was not born of a woman, did not take upon Himself human flesh, but only from the outside became inherent in the man-Christ who was born of a woman. On the other hand, if for us it was not the Son of God who suffered and died on the cross in His flesh, which He assumed into the unity of His Hypostasis, but the simple man Christ, who had only moral communion with the Son of God, suffered and died: then our redemption could not be accomplished, because man, no matter how holy he may be, by his very limitations, is not able to bring sufficient satisfaction to the infinite truth of God for the sins of the entire human race. And by undermining the sacrament of incarnation and the sacrament of atonement, Nestorius’s heresy thereby undermined the entire edifice of the Christian faith. § 138. Image of the hypostatic union of two natures in Christ How the two natures in Jesus Christ, Divine and human, despite all their differences, were united into one hypostasis; how He, being perfect God and perfect man, is only one Person: this, according to the word of God, is a great mystery of piety (1 Tim. 3:16), and therefore inaccessible to our mind. But as far as this mystery is accessible to our faith, on the basis of the same word of God, St. The Church teaches us that two natures were united in our Savior: 1) on the one hand - unfused (άσυγχύτως) and unchangeable, or immutable (άτρεπτως), contrary to the false teaching of the Monophysites, who merged two natures into one in Christ, or allowed in Him the transformation of the Divinity into flesh; II) and on the other hand - inseparably (αδιαιρετως) and inseparably (άχωρίστως), contrary to the error of the Nestorians, who separated the natures in Christ, and other heretics, who rejected that they should be united constantly and continuously (see Dogma of the Council of Chalcedon.). I. Two natures united in Christ - a) unfused, that is, they did not merge and mix with each other so that some new one was formed from them - a third nature, but both remain in the Person of the Savior, as two different natures; b) unchangeable or immutable, that is, neither the Divine nature has changed into the human, nor the human has been transformed into the Divine, but both remain intact in the Person of the Savior (Orthodox Confession, part 1, answer to question 38). This truth about the perfect integrity and difference of two natures in Jesus Christ, and by their hypostatic union with each other, is visible: 1) Of all those testimonies of St. The Scriptures we have already examined, in which Jesus Christ is ascribed the Divine nature, Divine properties, Divine actions, and He is called perfect God; and on the other hand, human nature, human properties, human actions are attributed, and He is presented as a perfect man. But if Divinity and humanity in Christ merged or mixed with each other: then He would be neither perfect God nor perfect man, and neither Divine nature nor human nature could be ascribed to Him; but it would be necessary to attribute some new nature, composed of a fusion or mixture of both, with new properties and differences 220. Likewise, if in the Hypostasis of Christ either the Divinity was transformed into humanity, or humanity changed into the Divinity, being absorbed by the latter: then only one of these two natures could be attributed to Jesus Christ, which remained intact, and not the other, which was abolished and lost its qualities. 2) From the definitions and testimonies - a) all those Councils, ecumenical and local, and teachers of the Church who defended and proved, against numerous heretics, the true Divinity of Jesus Christ 221; b) all Councils and teachers of the Church who defended and proved, against heretics, the true humanity of Jesus Christ 222; c) finally, from the clear definition of faith of the Council of Chalcedon, directly against the Monophysites, about the unfused and immutable union of both natures in Jesus Christ, as well as from the testimonies of all those teachers of the Church who wrote about this dogma during or after the Council of Chalcedon 223. However, even before the Chalcedonian Council of St. The fathers and teachers of the Church no less clearly confessed in Christ two whole and distinct natures, without any confusion or alteration. For example: St. Hippolytus: “For our sake, God the Word became a true man, except for sin..., for our sake He took upon Himself the limitations of the natural flesh, but without suffering a transformation. And being of the same nature with the Father, he did not become identical with the flesh through exhaustion; but remained as completely unlimited as he was before the perception of the flesh, and through the flesh he accomplished by the Divine what is characteristic of the Divine. Through a double action, Divine and human, He revealed Himself to both, both the infinite God and the limited man, fully preserving in Himself both natures, with the action belonging to each nature, or, what is the same, with the essential property of each” 224. St. Athanasius the Great: “Christ must be recognized as perfect God and perfect man, not, however, as if Divine perfection (or perfect nature) turned into human perfection - which is ungodly; and it is not so that two perfections (perfect natures) are professed separated, which is alien to piety...; but in the sense of being complete, so that one and the same would be both, perfect in everything, God and man” 225. St. Ephraim the Syrian: “Divinity and flesh exist in one hypostasis and in one Person, inseparably and unmerged... Whoever divides the natures in Him will be separated from His kingdom; and whoever drains them will be deprived of His life” 226. St. Basil the Great: “I beg... to leave behind the absurd opinion... that God himself turned into flesh and did not accept Adam’s mixture from the Virgin Mary, but was transformed into material nature by his own Divinity. This absurd doctrine is very easy to refute. But since blasphemy is obvious by itself, I think that for one who fears the Lord, one reminder is enough. For if he has turned, then he has changed. But let us not dare to say or think this; because God said: I am, and I do not change (Malach. 3, 6). Moreover, what benefit is it to us to become human if it is not our body, united with the Divine, that has overcome the power of death? It was not through the transformation of Himself that He formed His own body, which occurred in Him as if from the thickening of the Divine nature. And how could the immense Divinity be enclosed in the volume of a small body, if only the entire nature of the Only Begotten was transformed?” 227. St. Isidore Pelusiot: “See that no one seduces you, but stand as an unshakable foundation. For God who became incarnate did not change, did not merge, did not divide, but is one beginningless and eternal Son, both before the incarnation and after the incarnation, equally worshiped by us” 228. 3) Finally, and for reasons of common sense. Based on his natural principles, he cannot in any way allow: a) neither that the Divine and human natures merged or mixed in Christ, and formed a new, third nature, losing their properties: because the Divinity is unchangeable, and the merging or mixing of two completely simple beings, the human soul and the Divine, is impossible, and even more so, it is physically impossible for the merging of coarse human flesh with the simplest Divinity 229; b) neither the Divine nature turns into human, or human into Divine: the first is contrary to the immutability and infinity of God, the latter to human limitations 230. And on the basis of the principles of revealed or Christian Theology, reason must say that only with the unmerged and immutable union of two natures in Jesus Christ, only with their perfect integrity, could the great work of our redemption be accomplished: for the Savior could suffer for us on the cross only with His humanity, and only His Divinity could convey the infinite value of His sufferings. Consequently, to recognize in Christ the fusion or transformation of two natures into one means to overthrow the mystery of our redemption 231. I. The two natures were united in Christ inseparably and inseparably. Inseparable in the sense that although they are in Christ completely whole and different, with all their properties, they do not exist separately, do not constitute two special persons united only morally, as Nestorius taught, but are united into a single hypostasis of the God-man: this truth has already been revealed by us. Inseparable - in the sense that, having united into one hypostasis of the Savior from the moment of His conception in the womb of the Holy One. Virgins, these natures have never been separated and will never be separated: their union is continuous. It, as, in particular, the teachers of the ancient Church revealed this truth, in refutation of the heretical opinions that arose, - 1) It began at the very moment of the Savior’s conception in the womb of the Blessed Virgin (Right. Confession, part 1, answer to question 38). For the prophet predicted that the Virgin would conceive and give birth to Immanuel, that is, the God-man (Is. 7:14); and the Angel announced to Her that She would conceive in her womb and give birth to One who would be called the Son of God (Luke 1:31.35). They also taught: a) St. Gregory the Theologian: “if anyone says that man was first formed in the Virgin, and then God joined: let him be condemned; for this does not mean recognizing the birth of God, but avoiding the birth” 232; b) St. Cyril of Alexandria: “one should not think that he was first born from St. Virgo is an ordinary person, and then the Word descended on him; but we say that the Word in the womb itself united with human nature and was born flesh” 233; c) blessed Theodoret: “the union of natures in Jesus Christ followed at the very conception,” and further: “if the union took place at the time of conception, it is obvious that humanity did not lose its nature after the union” 234; d) St. Proclus: “The Evangelist does not say that the Word entered into a man who was already perfect, but that He became flesh, descending before the very conception of nature and before the very beginning of birth: for just as a person born naturally is not immediately completely ready for action, but first the very embryo of nature becomes flesh, then, over time, little by little receives the powers that form the organs of feeling and action: so is God The Word, having descended to the very beginning and root of human birth, first became flesh, without however being transformed into flesh - let it not be; for the Divinity is above all transformation" 235 ; d) St. John of Damascus: “God’s Word was not united with such flesh as previously existed in itself; but, having moved into the womb of St. The Virgin, without limiting her own Hypostasis, from the pure blood of the Ever-Virgin formed flesh, animated by a verbal and rational soul, and having received the firstfruits of the human composition, the Word itself became the Hypostasis of the flesh, so that it became at the same time flesh, and the flesh of God the Word, and animate, verbal and rational flesh” 236. 2) It was not dissolved even in the moments of the Savior’s suffering on the cross (Orthodox Confession, part 1, answer to question 46). For if His Divinity, as some heretics asserted, separated at those moments from His humanity and abandoned Him: in that case it would not be possible to say, together with the Apostle, that the Jews crucified the Lord of glory (1 Cor. 2:8); that we, having been enemies, were reconciled to God through the death of his Son (Rom. 5:10); that the Lord God acquired the Church with his blood (Acts 20:28). And this heretical thought was unanimously rejected by St. Church Fathers, for example, Athanasius the Great 237, Gregory of Nyssa, Blessed. Theodoret 238, John of Damascus. The latter specifically says: “although Christ died as a man, and His holy soul was separated from his most pure body; however, the Divinity remained inseparable from both, that is, from the soul and body. And thus one hypostasis was not divided into two hypostases: for both soul and body from the very beginning equally had existence in the Hypostasis of the Word. Although at the time of death they were separated from each other, however, each of them did not cease to have a single Hypostasis of the Word; so that one Hypostasis of the Word was the Hypostasis of both the Word, the soul and the body. For neither the soul nor the body has ever had its own hypostasis other than the Hypostasis of the Word; The hypostasis of the Word is always one, and not two. Thus, the Hypostasis of Christ is always one. And although the soul was separated from the body in place, it was nevertheless united (with it) hypostatically through the Word” 239. 3) It was not dissolved after the resurrection of the Savior and after the ascension into heaven, and it will never be dissolved (Orthodox Confession, part 1, answer to question 56). For the Word of God certifies that He was resurrected in His flesh, in which He appeared to His disciples (John 20:26-27); that in the flesh He ascended into heaven as the Son of man (John 6:62; carried down. Luke 24:50.51); He, the Son of man, will appear in the flesh again to judge the living and the dead (Matthew 25:31). “If anyone speaks, we read from St. Gregory the Theologian, that now the flesh has been laid aside by Him (the Savior), and the Divinity remains naked from the body, and does not recognize that with the perceived humanity He now remains and will come; then let him not behold the glory of His coming! For where is the body now, if not with Him who received it? It was not placed in the sun, as the Manichaeans say, in order to become famous through infamy: it did not spill out and disintegrate in the air, like the nature of a voice, and the outpouring of a smell, and the flight of unstoppable lightning. Otherwise, how can we explain the fact that He was tangible after the resurrection (John 20:27), and will once appear to those who pierced Him (John 19:37)? The Divine itself is invisible" 240. § 139. Consequences of the hypostatic union of two natures in Jesus Christ: a) in relation to Himself From the hypostatic union of two natures in Jesus Christ, consequences follow: a) in relation to Himself, b) in relation to the Holy One. Virgin - His Mother and c) in relation to the Most Holy. Trinity. The consequences of the first kind are: I. Communion in Jesus Christ of the properties of both His natures 241. It consists in the fact that in the person of Jesus Christ, each of His natures transfers its properties to another, and precisely, what is characteristic of Him in humanity is assimilated to Him as God, and what is characteristic of His Divinity is assimilated to Him as a man. It is said, for example, in St. Scripture that the Lord God acquired the Church with His blood (Acts 20:28), that He, even if He was the Son, became accustomed to obedience from these things even after He suffered (Heb. 5:8), that we were reconciled to God by the death of His Son (Rom. 5:10; demo. 8:32; 1 Peter 3:18; 1 Cor. 2:8 ; Gal. 2:20), or: the second person is the Lord from heaven (1 Cor. 15:47); No one has ascended into heaven except He who came down from heaven, the Son of man who is in heaven (John 3:13, etc.). Likewise, in the writings of the fathers and in church songs, expressions about Christ are very often found: “God suffered, the Creator and King of the ages tasted death,” or: “the eternal Child,” etc. 242. This is because Divinity and humanity do not constitute two special persons in Christ, but are united inseparably and inseparably into one Hypostasis; because one and the same Hypostasis of God the Word abides in Christ entirely and inseparably, the Hypostasis of both His Divine nature and human nature. “By close connection,” says St. Gregory of Nyssa, the assumed flesh and the assumed Divinity, the names are mutually transferred in Christ, so that the human is called Divine and the Divine human” 243. As for the Hypostasis (Jesus Christ), St. also says. John of Damascus, when we give it a name borrowed either from both natures, or from only one nature; in both cases we attribute to her the properties of both natures. For Christ, since this name expresses both natures, is called both God and man, both created and uncreated, subject and not subject to suffering. Also, when He, in relation to one nature only, is called the Son of God and God: then He assumes the properties of the nature, or flesh, united with the Divinity, and is called the suffering God and the crucified Lord of glory (Acts 26:23), not because He is God, but because He is God and man. Likewise, when He is called man and the Son of man, He accepts the properties and glory of the Divine nature, and is called the eternal child, the beginningless man, not because He is a child and a man, but because, being the eternal God, He finally became a child. This is the mutual communication of properties, by which each nature transfers properties to another, due to the identity of the Hypostasis and the mutual penetration of natures. Therefore we can speak about Christ: this our God appeared on earth and lived with men (Baruch 3:36-38); and also: this man is not created, is not subject to suffering, is limitless" 244 · It must, however, be remembered that such mutual communication of the properties of the Divine and human natures in Christ takes place only when both natures are considered as inextricably united in the single Hypostasis of Christ. But it does not take place, and cannot be allowed, when they are considered, each separately, outside the unity of the Hypostasis. That is, it is in no way possible to attribute to the Divinity of the Savior the properties of His human nature, and to humanity - the properties of the Divine nature: because both natures remain completely whole and different in Christ, as united in Him, according to the expression of the Ecumenical Council, immutably, and, therefore, neither the Divinity turned into humanity, did not receive its properties, but retains its properties; neither humanity turned into the Divine, nor received His properties, but retains its properties. “Therefore, speaking about His (Lord Jesus) Divinity, we do not attribute to Him the properties of humanity; for we do not say that the Divinity is subject to suffering, or created. And also we do not attribute to the flesh, or humanity, the properties of the Divine; for we do not say that the flesh or humanity were not created... We affirm that the two natures, even after union, are preserved in one folded Hypostasis, that is, in one Christ; that they are really the same, and retain their natural properties; and that, just as they are united without merging, they differ from each other and are counted without division” 245. In short, we must remember, on the one hand, that in Christ Jesus there is one Hypostasis and two natures are united inseparably and inseparably - and in this sense, recognize in Him the communion of properties; and on the other hand, that in Him there are two natures, united inextricably and immutably, and in this sense, do not allow the communication of properties between the natures 246. II. The deification of human nature in Jesus Christ. Deification does not mean that humanity in Christ turned into Divinity, lost its limitations and received, instead of human properties, Divine properties; but in the fact that, having been received by the Son of God into the unity of His Hypostasis, it partook of His Divinity, became one with God the Word, and through this communion with the Divine it rose in its perfections to the highest degree possible for humanity, without, however, ceasing to be humanity. Or, let us here also use the words of the God-wise teacher of the Church, who set out the entire dogma about the Person of our Savior with the greatest clarity: “you must know: it is said about the flesh of the Lord that it was deified, became one with God, and God - not by transformation, or transformation, or change, or merging of nature. One of the natures, says Gregory the Theologian, became deified, the other was deified, and I dare say, became one with God; and the anointed became man, and the anointed became God. And this is not due to a change in nature, but due to a providential union for salvation, i.e. hypostatic, according to which the flesh is inseparably united with God the Word, and according to the mutual penetration of natures, to which we see the like in the heating of iron with fire. For as we confess the incarnation without change and transformation; We also affirm that the flesh is deified in the same way. Just as the Word, from becoming flesh, did not abandon His Divinity, and did not lose the divine perfections characteristic of Him; so the flesh, having been deified, did not change in its nature or in its natural properties. For even after the union, both the natures remained unmixed and their properties inviolable. The Flesh of the Lord was enriched with Divine powers due to the closest or hypostatic union with the Word, without losing any of its natural properties; for the flesh did not perform Divine works by its own power, but by the power of the Word united with it; because the Word through the flesh revealed its own actions. Thus, red-hot iron burns not because it receives the power to burn from nature, but because it receives this property from combining with fire. Therefore, the same flesh, in itself, was mortal, but through its hypostatic union with the Word it was life-giving. In a similar way, we say that the will is deified, not because the natural movement has changed: but because it has united with His Divine and omnipotent will, and has become the will of God incarnate" 247. Therefore, we should not understand the deification of human nature in Christ as if it lost its limitations and, indeed, received some infinite Divine perfections, became, for example, omnipotent, infinitely wise, omnipresent 248 and original: this would mean that humanity in Christ changed in its nature and in its natural properties; would mean that it either merged with the Divinity, or was transformed into the Divinity, and not only deified. If the human mind in Christ has become infinitely wise and omniscient, then it is no different from His Divine mind, and in Christ there are not two minds, Divine and human, but one. If the human will in Christ is omnipotent and has received all the properties of the will of God, then the first is no different from the last, and in Christ there are not two wills, but one. If, in general, the human nature in Christ is omnipresent and has all the other perfections of God, then it is no different from the Divine nature, and in Christ there are not two natures, but one. It is another matter to say that Christ, as a single Person, as the God-Man, is omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, and has all Divine properties: this is completely true, according to the unity of the Hypostasis 249. It is also another matter to say that human nature in Jesus Christ was elevated in all its perfections, to the very last degree possible for it, received from the Divine everything that it was capable of receiving, without ceasing to be humanity, was enriched with all wisdom, grace 250, holiness 251 and life-giving power 252: and this is completely true according to the closest the hypostatic unification of natures, and according to the ability of humanity to accept the indicated properties from the Divine to a certain extent. But it is a completely different matter to assert that the very humanity of Jesus Christ, considered outside the unity of His Hypostasis, has indeed been enriched and possesses actually Divine properties: this is contrary to the doctrine of the non-merging and immutability of two natures in Christ, and is also contrary to the limitations of human nature. “Like flesh,” asks St. Justin Martyr, upon union with the Divine, became deified? And he answers: “without a doubt, so that, having been accepted into the hypostasis of the Divine nature, she remained human flesh, which became incorruptible and immortal due to union with the Word. So flesh remains flesh, and the flesh is by no means God, but has become a partaker of the Divine dignity (and not of the Divine nature), by the good will of the Word itself” 253. And the Fathers of the VIth Ecumenical Council, in their presentation of this dogma, say, among other things: “just as His (Jesus Christ’s) all-holy and immaculate flesh, with deification, was not destroyed, but remained in its own limit, and with what it is in itself: so His human will was not destroyed, with deification, but remained intact” 254. I. Jesus Christ, as one Person, as the God-Man, is due one, indivisible Divine worship both in Divinity and in humanity, precisely because Divinity and humanity are inseparably united in Him; because His humanity, although it remains humanity, is accepted by Him into the unity of His Divine Hypostasis, and is the own humanity of God the Word. Such inseparable Divine worship of Jesus Christ, the God-man - 1) St. preaches clearly. Scripture. This includes: a) the words of the Savior himself: For the Father judges no one, but the Son gives all judgment: let all honor the Son as they honor the Father; and whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him (John 5:22.23); b) the words of St. Apostle Paul about the Savior: God also exalted him, and gave him a name above every name, so that in the name of Jesus every knee should bow, those in heaven and on earth and under the earth (Phil. 2:9.10); c) testimony of St. John the Theologian: I saw and heard the voice of many angels around the throne and the living creatures and the elder: and the number of them was thousands upon thousands, saying with a great voice: The slain lamb is worthy to receive power, and wealth, and wisdom, and strength, and honor, and glory, and blessing. And every creature that is in heaven, and on earth, and under the earth, and on the sea, which they are, and that is in them, all heard saying: To him that sits on the throne, and to the lamb, be blessing, and honor, and glory, and dominion forever and ever (Apoc. 5:11-13). See also Matt. 28, 17; Acts 7, 13. 14; Heb. 1, 6; 2, 6–9; 1 Cor. 15, 27; Eph. 2, 6. 2) They unanimously preached St. Fathers and teachers of the Church. For example: a) St. Athanasius: “although the flesh itself is a part of creation; but it became the flesh of God, and when we worship this flesh, we do not separate it from the Word, just as, when we worship the Word, we do not separate Him from the flesh” 255; b) St. Epiphanius: “So let no one say to the Only Begotten: lay down the flesh so that I may worship You, but let him worship the Only Begotten along with His flesh, the Uncreated One along with the holy church, which He took upon Him when He came into the world” 256; c) St. John Chrysostom: “truly, great, amazing and amazing is that our flesh will sit in heaven and receive worship from angels, archangels, seraphim and cherubim” 257; d) blessed Theodoret: “confessing two natures, we worship one Christ, and offer Him one worship” 258, and in another place: “even after the incarnation we worship the one Son of God, our Lord Jesus Christ, and we recognize those who think otherwise as wicked” 259; d) St. Cyril of Alexandria, and together with all the Fathers of the Council of Ephesus, who approved his anathemas against Nestorius: “who dares to say that the assumed man (i.e., human nature in the person of Christ) should be worshiped, together with God the Word, together with Him glorify Him and together call God, as another with another (because the added preposition σύν - with - this always makes one think, that is, distinguish one from another), and not better, honors Emmanuel with a single worship and gives him a single glorification; since the Word was made flesh: let him be anathema” 260; e) St. John of Damascus: “One is Christ, perfect God and perfect man. We worship Him, as well as the Father and the Spirit, in one worship with His most pure flesh. We do not reject the worship of the flesh; for she is worshiped in the one Hypostasis of the Word, which became a Hypostasis for the flesh; but we do not serve the creature, for we worship the flesh, not as simple flesh, but as flesh united with the Divine; because two natures were united into one Person and one Hypostasis of God the Word. I am afraid to touch a burning coal: because fire is connected to wood. I worship both natures of Christ together: because the Divinity is united with the flesh” 261. IV. In Jesus Christ there are two wills and two actions: a dogma that naturally follows from the doctrine of the unfused and immutable union of two natures in Jesus Christ, but deliberately considered, on the occasion of the heresy of the Monothelites, at the sixth ecumenical Council, and solemnly expressed in the following words: “and two natural wills or desires in Him, and two natural actions, inseparably, unchangeably, inseparably, unmerged, according to the teachings of St. Our Fathers, we preach in the same way: two natural desires are not contrary, let it not be, like the wickedness of the heretics, but His human will, subsequent and not opposing, or opposing, but rather subordinate to His Divine and omnipotent will” 262. Here - 1) the reality of two wills and two actions in Jesus Christ is witnessed, and - 2) their mutual relationship is shown. 1) The reality of two wills and two actions in Christ, or the reality of the fact that in Him, contrary to the false teaching of the Monothelites, not only the Divine will, but also the human will remains intact: a) Visible from St. Scriptures. Thus, the Savior Himself spoke of Himself: I descended from heaven, not to do my will, but the will of Him who sent me (John 6:38), and in the Garden of Gethsemane he prayed to the Father: Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from me; Moreover, not as I will, but as you do (Matthew 26:39), not my will, but yours be done (Luke 22:42). Distinguishing in both of these cases his will from the will of the Father, and subordinating the former to the latter, the Lord Jesus pointed, without a doubt, to his human will: because His Divine will is indifferent from the will of the Father, but one and the same with it 263. The Apostle Paul testifies of the Savior that He humbled Himself, being obedient to the point of death, death on the cross (Phil. 2:8; Heb. 5:8), - this humility and obedience can also be attributed to His human will alone 264. The Evangelists repeatedly mention the revelations of His actually human will, for example: giving him a drink is mixed with gall: and he tasted without wanting to numu (Matthew 27, 34; 26, 17; taken down. Mark 6, 48; 7, 24; 9, 30; John 1, 43; 7, 1) 265. b) It was constantly ascribed and confessed in the Church even before the Sixth Ecumenical Council. This truth was preached: a) St. Hippolytus: “through a twofold action, Divine and human, He (the Lord Jesus) revealed Himself to both, both the infinite God and the limited man, fully preserving in himself both natures, with the action belonging to each nature” 266; b) St. Athanasius, when explaining the words of the Savior - Mat. 26, 39: “Here the Lord reveals two wills: human, characteristic of the flesh, and Divine, characteristic of God; the human, due to the weakness of the flesh, begs to reject suffering, but the divine desires suffering” 267; c) St. Gregory of Nyssa, when explaining the same words: “therefore there is another human will in Him and another Divine will” 268; d) Severian, when explaining the same words: “shows two wills, one Divine, and the other human” 269. We find similar remarks when explaining the said passage in St. Ambrose 270 and St. John Chrysostom about 271. c) It cannot but be recognized by common sense for the following reasons expressed by St. defenders of Orthodox dogma against the Monothelites: “Since Christ has two natures - capable of willing, because they are rational - for everything endowed with reason is capable of willing and is free; then we say that Christ has two desires, or two natural wills... since there are two natures in Christ; then it is necessary to recognize two actions in Him. For in whom the natures are different, the actions are also different; and in whom the actions are different, the natures are also different. And vice versa, in whom the nature is one, the action is one; and in whom the action is one, the essence is one, according to the teaching of the God-bearing Fathers. So, one of two things is necessary: ​​either, recognizing in Christ one action, recognize one essence in Him, or, holding to the truth and confessing in Him, according to the teaching of the Gospel and the Fathers, two essences, according to the same teaching, also confess two actions. Christ, as consubstantial with God and the Father in Divinity, must be equal to Him in action, and also, as consubstantial with us in humanity, must be equal to us in action” 272. “If we say that in the Lord there is only one action: then it will be either Divine or human, or neither one nor the other. If Divine, then we will be forced to recognize Him only as God, who does not have our human nature. If human, then we recognize Him only as human, which is blasphemous. If His action is neither Divine nor human, then He is neither God nor man, and is not consubstantial with either the Father or us” 273. “If the action of the Lord Christ is one: then it will be either created or uncreated. There is no middle action between them, since there is no middle nature. If it is created, then it will show in Christ one created nature. If uncreated: then it will be a sign of one uncreated entity. For everything natural must be consistent in everything with its nature. Action in accordance with nature is not something coming from outside; and it is obvious that nature without action in accordance with it can neither exist nor be knowable. Each being, by acting, expresses its nature; and this is an indispensable law" 274. “If there is one action in Christ, then by one and the same action both Divine and human deeds will be accomplished. But nothing existing in its natural state can produce contrary actions. For example, fire cannot both warm and cool; water - make wet and dry. How then did He, who by nature was God and by nature became man, perform miracles and endure suffering with one action?” 275. It must be added that, not having human will, Christ could not have become, for our sake, obedient to God even to the point of death, death on the cross (Phil. 2:8), could not voluntarily endure suffering for us with his human nature, and so on. could not satisfy the righteousness of God for us, and earn salvation for us 276. Consequently, the Monothelite heresy undermined the very possibility of our redemption. 2) The relationship of two wills and two actions in Jesus Christ is explained from the general teaching of the Orthodox Church about the image of the union in Him of two natures into one Hypostasis, on the one hand, unfused and immutable, and on the other, inseparable and inseparable. In order to present this truth more clearly and unmistakably: here are several of the most important provisions regarding it, expressed by St. Fathers of the Church, and set forth by St. John of Damascus in his Theology: First: “As His (Jesus Christ’s) two natures constitute one Hypostasis: then we say that the same one both desires and acts naturally - according to both natures, of which, and in which, and which is Christ our God” 277. Second: “Since Christ is one, and the one who wills by both natures is one and the same: then we must say that the object of His will (θελητον) is one, not because He wanted only what He wanted naturally, like God (for it is not characteristic of the Divine to want - to eat and drink, etc.); but because he also wanted what is essential to human nature, without contradicting arbitrariness and in accordance with the properties of both natures” 278. Third: “As we recognize in Him two natures united and one penetrating the other, and together we do not reject their differences, but also count them and recognize them as inseparable; Thus we precisely recognize the connection and difference of wills and actions, and count them, and do not introduce division. Just as the flesh is deified and has not suffered a change in its nature, so will and action are both deified and have not stepped out of their limits... In Christ, His Divinity is characterized by Divine and omnipotent action; but to humanity His humanity. The product of human action was, for example, that He took the girl by the hand and raised her up, and the product of Divine action was that he restored her life” 279. Fourth: “We do not say that in Christ the activities are separate, and the natures act separately from one another; but we affirm that each of them, together with the other, with the participation of the other, produces what is characteristic of it. For Jesus Christ did not perform human deeds as if he were just a man, because he was not just a man; and Divine deeds were not just God, because there was not just God, but together God and man... Divine signs were performed by the Divine, but not without flesh; and the flesh produced derogatory things, but not separately from the Divinity. For with the suffering flesh was united the Divinity, which itself did not suffer, but made the suffering salutary; and with the active Divinity of the Word was united the holy mind, which understood and knew what was happening.”280 Fifth: “He naturally had a will both as God and as man; however, the human will followed and submitted to His (Divine) will, not acting according to its own disposition, but desiring only what His Divine will wanted. When did the Divine will allow it? then the human will was naturally subjected to what was peculiar to it. So, when she denied death, and His Divine will deigned to do this and allowed it; Then she naturally denied death, and was in struggle and fear. When His Divine will wanted His human will to choose death, then His suffering became voluntary: because He voluntarily gave Himself up to death not only as God, but also as a man” 281. Sixth: “He is one and the same, being both God and man, willed by both Divine and human will. Therefore, the two wills of the Lord differed from each other not by arbitrary arrangement, but by natural forces. For His Divine will was beginningless and all-effective, always accompanied by power and impassive. But His human will began in time, and had natural and irreproachable infirmities” 282. Seventh: “It makes no difference whether to say: Christ acts according to each of his natures, or to say: each nature in Christ acts with the participation of another. Thus, the Divine nature participates in the actions of the flesh, because, by the good will of the Divine will, it allows the flesh to suffer and act as is natural for it; and also because the action of the flesh is without any doubt salutary, and this does not come from the human. action, but from the Divine. The flesh participates in the actions of the Divinity of the Word: because Divine actions are performed through the body, as through an instrument; and also because the one who acts divinely and at the same time humanly is one and the same” 283. Eighth: “God-manly (or God-human - θεανδρική) action means that, after the incarnation of God, His human action was Divine, that is, deified and not uninvolved in His Divine action, and His Divine action was not uninvolved in His human action, but each was accomplished with the participation of the other” 284. § 140. b) – In relation to the Most Rev. Virgin, Mother of the Lord Jesus The consequence of the hypostatic union of two natures in Jesus Christ in relation to the Holy One. Virgin, His Mother, is that She is, truly, the Mother of God (Orthodox Confession, part 1, answer to question 40; Space of the Catholic Church on part III). For She gave birth to One who, being the true God, at the very moment of conception in Her womb, accepted human nature into the unity of His Hypostasis, so that both in the incarnation he was from Her, and, after the incarnation, invariably remains the one Divine Person, as he existed from eternity before the incarnation. Otherwise: She gave birth to the Lord Jesus, not according to His Divinity, but according to humanity, which, however, from the very moment of His incarnation, became inseparably and hypostatically united in Him with His Divinity, from the very minute of His incarnation was deified by Him 285, and became His own Divine Person, so that both the conception, and the stay in the womb of the Virgin during a certain time of pregnancy, and the birth from Her - belonged specifically His Divine Face. Another way: She “gave birth not to an ordinary man, but to the true God, and not just to God, but to God in the flesh, who did not bring a body from heaven and pass through Her as through a channel, but who received from Her flesh, consubstantial with us, which in Himself received Hypostasis” 286. Therefore, St. Scripture teaches us to confess Her as the Mother of God, and St. The Church has always called and confessed Her as the Mother of God. 1) The Prophet also predicted that the Virgin in her womb would receive and give birth to God with us - Immanuel, that is, God, who accepted our nature into the unity of his Hypostasis (Isa. 7:14; taken down. Mat. 1:23). And the Archangel announced to Her that She would conceive in her womb and give birth to a Son, who would be called the Son of God (Luke 31:35). If the Rev. The Virgin, as these heralds said, will conceive and give birth to God in the flesh or the Son of God: then She will rightly be called the Mother of God. 2) Indeed, as soon as She was found in the womb of the Holy Spirit (Matthew 1:18), and when she was still carrying the eternal Child in her womb, the pious Elizabeth, when meeting with Her, solemnly confessed Her as the Mother of the Lord, or, which is also the Mother of God. And it happened, the Evangelist narrates, that when Elizabeth heard Mary kissing, the baby leaped in her womb; and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit: and she cried with a great voice, and said, Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb. And where do I get this from, that the mother of my Lord may come to me (Luke 1:41-43). And what is especially important here is that righteous Elizabeth named the blessed Virgin Mother of the Lord not on her own, but being filled with the Holy Spirit, and so on. according to His inspiration, she named the Divine Child from Her even before the birth (Orthodox. Isp. part 1, answer to question 41). 3) St. Apostle Paul writes: when the end of the summer had come, God sent his Son, born of a woman (Gal. 4:4); and in another place: the great thing confessed is the mystery of piety: God appeared in the flesh (1 Tim. 3:16). And in this way he directly expresses the idea that from the Most Rev. The Virgin Mary was born precisely the only begotten Son of God or God in the flesh, and so on. She truly is the Mother of God. 4) Following St. The apostolic men and subsequent teachers of the Church of the second and third centuries confessed this truth as apostles, often calling them Most Holy. The Virgin is literally the Mother of God. These are: a) St. Ignatius the God-Bearer: “Our God Jesus Christ was in the womb of Mary, according to the dispensation of God, from the seed of David, but also from the Holy Spirit; He was born and baptized in order to sanctify the water” 287; b) St. Irenaeus: “in order to lead Adam in Himself, God the Word Himself was born of the virgin Mary, and in truth took upon Himself such a birth as was necessary for the restoration of Adam” 288 ; c) Origen, about whom the historian Socrates (5th century) notes: “Origen in the first volume of interpretations on the epistle of St. Paul to the Romans included an explanation of why St. The Virgin is called the Mother of God (Θεοτόκος), and he wrote a lengthy interpretation about this” 289; d) St. Dionysius, with a council of other Alexandrian shepherds, wrote to Paul of Samosata: “tell me why you call Christ an excellent man, and not the true God and, along with the Father and the Holy Spirit, worshiped from all creation, incarnate from the Holy One.” Virgin Mary, Mother of God? 290; d) St. Alexander, Bishop of Alexandria, who lived towards the end of the third and at the beginning of the fourth century: “we know the resurrection from the dead, which was originally revealed by our Lord Jesus Christ, who truly, and not ghostly, received the body from the Mother of God Mary, and at the fulfillment of the centuries came to the human race for the destruction of sin” 291. 5) Unanimously and repeatedly confessed to the Most Holy. Virgin Mary Theotokos Fathers and teachers of the Church of the fourth century. For example: a) St. Athanasius the Great: “the purpose and property of St. The Scriptures are to teach us two truths about the Savior: that from all eternity He was and is God the Son, being the Son, the radiance and wisdom of the Father, and that He, in the last days (Heb. 1:1), for our sake, having received flesh from the Virgin Mary, Theotokos, became man” 292; b) St. Ephraim the Syrian: “whoever denies that Mary gave birth to God will not see the glory of His Divinity” 293; c) St. Cyril of Jerusalem in his homily for the Presentation of the Lord: “now the heavenly Bridegroom with the Mother of God, His bridal chamber, comes to the church” 294; d) St. Gregory the Theologian: “if anyone does not recognize Mary as the Mother of God, then he is excommunicated from the Divinity” 295; d) St. Gregory of Nyssa, complaining about some Christians who have deviated from the Church, says: “Why do they hate us, and what do these new altars mean, erected in opposition to ours? Or are we proclaiming another Jesus?... or is one of us daring to St. Call the Virgin Mother of God (άνθρωποτόκον), as some of them call Her with the loss of all reverence” 296? It is impossible not to remember here that Julian the Apostate reproached Christians in his time, among other things, because they did not stop calling Mary the Mother of God 297: this means that this custom was rooted and widespread in the fourth century. 6) In the fifth century, the Most Rev. solemnly confessed. Virgin Mary, Theotokos, the entire Church at the third Ecumenical Council, on the occasion of the Nestorian heresy, having accepted and approved, among other things, the following words of St. Cyril of Alexandria: “Whoever does not confess that Emmanuel is the true God, and therefore the Holy Virgin is the Mother of God: for She carnally gave birth to the Word of God made flesh: let him be anathema” 298. At the same time, blessed Theodoret, despite his previous friendly relations with Nestorius, openly testified: “the first degree of Nestorius’s innovations was the opinion that St. The Virgin, from whom God the Word borrowed flesh and was born according to the flesh, should not be recognized as the Mother of God, but only as the Mother of Christ, while the ancient and most ancient heralds of the true faith, according to apostolic tradition, taught to call and confess the Mother of the Lord as the Mother of God” 299. Likewise, John, Bishop of Antioch, who was even more committed to Nestorius, in a friendly letter to him, urging him to stop the ongoing debate regarding the name of the Mother of God, confessed: “None of the church teachers rejected this name; on the contrary, many, and, moreover, respected ones, used it, and those who did not use it did not reproach those who used it "... And further: “if, due to this birth (Gal. 4:4), the Virgin Mary is called the Mother of God by the Fathers, as she is really called, then I see no need to enter into disputes and disturb the peace of the Church. We are not exposed to any danger when we speak and philosophize as they have said since ancient times and God-wise teachers philosophized in the Church of God” 300. One cannot wish for better witnesses of the truth, more impartial in the present case. And it would be unnecessary to show that even after the Council of Ephesus the Orthodox Church confessed and continues to confess the Most Holy Virgin Mary. As for the name - Christ Mother, which was given by the Rev. To the Virgin Nestorius: then, let us say together with the teachers of the Church, firstly, it is vague and insufficient: for the name of Christ the anointed belongs not only to Emmanuel, who was born of the Virgin, but also to people who received the anointing of the Holy Spirit (Ps. 104:15; 1 Sam. 10, 10; 16, 13, etc.), even to all Christians (1 John 2, 20–27; Acts 10, 44–46). Therefore, he would not sin who would want to say that the mothers of people who received anointing in the womb of their mothers are the Mother of Christ. Meanwhile, as Rev. The Virgin Mary gave birth to Christ, not only a man anointed by the Holy Spirit, but Christ our God. Track. The title of Christ Mother is not enough for her: She is together, truly, Mother of God 301. And secondly, despite such uncertainty of the name - Christ Mother, it could be accepted and adopted by the Most Holy One. Virgin, if understood in the Orthodox sense, precisely in the fact that the Most Rev. The Virgin gave birth to Christ - God incarnate: in this case, the Mother of Christ would mean the same as the Mother of God, just as Christ means God in the flesh. But ever since the wicked Nestorius gave the name Christ Mother a heretical meaning, and began to teach that the Most Holy One. The Virgin is not the Mother of God, but only the Mother of Christ, because she gave birth to Christ - a simple man with whom God later united in one moral way - since then this name, rightly, has been rejected by the Orthodox Church as offensive to the Mother of God 302. § 141. c) In relation to Rev. Trinity Finally, from the dogma of the hypostatic union of two natures in Jesus Christ, the following truths regarding the Holy One follow. Trinity against heretical opinions: I. Not all of the saints were incarnated. Trinity, but only one Son of God was incarnate, the second Person of the Most Holy One. Trinity: The Word became flesh (John 1:1). For although the Divine nature of all three Divine Persons is one and inseparable, they are different from each other as Persons, and the Divine nature does not exist outside of Their Hypostases, but “entirely (albeit inseparably) resides in each of the Hypostases of the Divinity: everything is in the Father, everything is in the Son, everything is in the Holy Spirit - therefore the Father is perfect God, and the Son is perfect God, and the Holy Spirit is perfect God" 303. Next, when the Son became incarnate and united in His Hypostasis two natures - Divine and human, it does not mean that both the Father and the Holy Spirit were incarnated together: for it was not the Divine nature itself, common to all of them, that was directly incarnated, but it was the second Hypostasis of the Most Holy One who was incarnated. Trinity, having a Divine nature. We do not say that the Divinity, understood impersonally, united with humanity, but “we affirm that the Divinity united with humanity in one of its Hypostases ...; that, at the incarnation of one of the Persons of St. Trinity, God the Word, God’s nature in one of its Hypostases was completely and completely united with all human nature..., and that the Father and the Holy Spirit did not participate in the incarnation of God the Word in any other respect, except by good will and will” 304. Here, without a doubt, is the greatest mystery for us (1 Tim. 3:16): we are not able to understand how one Son of God became incarnate, uniting in His Person the divine nature with the human, when the former is one and indivisible in all the Most Holy Persons. Trinity. But we are taught to believe that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, with all the unity and inseparability of their nature, are three different and independent Persons, and that each of them is a perfect God, although not three Gods, but one God. Therefore, it is absolutely possible, although completely incomprehensible to us, the incarnation of one Divine Face without the other two. II. Attitude of the Second Person Rev. The Trinity to the other Persons did not change the least through His incarnation: and after the incarnation, God the Word remains the same Son of God as He was before; and after the incarnation He is precisely the natural Son of God the Father, and not the adopted one. For although He became man, humanity in Him does not have a separate existence and does not constitute a special person that could be adopted, but on the contrary, humanity is perceived in Him by the Divine into the perfect and indivisible unity of His Divine Hypostasis, so that He now remains one, not at all changed, Divine Person, as He has been from the ages. Consequently, if from eternity He was and was called the Son of God the Father, actually as a Person, and not by nature, common to all three Persons of the Divinity: then even now, with two natures hypostatically united in Him, He remains there as the Son of God, and, therefore, a true, natural Son, and not adopted. A very well known truth: 1) From St. Scriptures. Here God the Word, and after the incarnation, is called: a) the only begotten Son of God: the Word became flesh, and dwelt in us, and we saw his glory, the glory of the only begotten of the Father (John 1:14); God so loved the world, as He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life (John 3:16); b) the true Son of God: we know that the Son of God has come, and has given us light and understanding, that we may know the true God, and that we may be in his true Son Jesus Christ (John 5:20); c) God’s own Son, and not adopted: God, says the Apostle, did not spare His (τού ίδίου, i.e., His own) Son, but gave him up to eat for us all (Rom. 8:32). All these passages, as their very content shows, refer to Jesus Christ - the God-Man. 2) From the teaching of the universal Church. Thus, in the dogma of the Fourth Ecumenical Council, she teaches us to confess “the one and the same Christ, the Son, the Lord, the only begotten..., not into two persons divided or dissected, but the one and the same Son and Only Begotten, God the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ, as the prophets of old about Him, and as the Lord Jesus Christ Himself taught us, and as our Father gave us a symbol.” And even before that, the Fathers of the Third Ecumenical Council approved the following confession, borrowed from the writings of St. Athanasius the Great: “We confess Him (Jesus Christ) as the Son of God and God according to the Divine nature (κατά πνεύμα), and the Son of man according to the flesh...; not two sons, one true and venerable Son of God, but another, born of Mary, a man not venerable, and only by grace, like us, adopted by God, - but one Son, who is from God, as it is said, the only Son of God and God, the same one who at the last days in the flesh was born of Mary... for He who was born of Mary is the true Son of God and God according to nature" 305. 3) From the testimonies of private teachers of the Church, for example: a) St. Gregory the Theologian: “in the beginning there was, with God there was and God was not: the third was, confirmed by the very number, He who was not, exhausted, and what was not, received, not through this making two, but deigning from the two to become one: because God is both, and received and accepted, two natures, flowing into one, but not two Sons (let this dissolution not be dishonored by false interpretation!)” 306 ; b) Hilaria: “Many of us are sons of God; but this is not the Son who said: Father, glorify your Son (John 17:1); for He is the true and proper Son by birth, and not by adoption (non adoptione), in truth, and not by name only, by Divine birth, and not by creation” 307; c) St. Gregory of Nyssa: “they divulge (Apollinarians) that some, following the teaching of the Catholic Church, honor two Sons, one Son by nature, and the other who later became a Son by adoption (κατά θέσιν); I don’t know from whom they heard this…” 308; d) St. Proclamation of Constantinople: “There is one Son: for, worshiping the consubstantial Trinity, we do not bring into Her the fourth in number...; There is no other Christ, and no other God, God the Word: for the Divine nature does not know two sons...; we confess one and the same Son, both eternal and incarnate in the last days, without introducing anything counterfeit into His nature: for there is nothing superfluous on the Divine throne” 309; d) St. John of Damascus: “I do not bring a fourth person into the Trinity, lest there be one; but I confess the one Person of God the Word and His flesh. The Trinity remained the Trinity even after the incarnation of the Word... The flesh of God the Word did not receive an independent hypostasis, and did not become a hypostasis different from the Hypostasis of God the Word; but, having received the Hypostasis in it, it became, better to say, accepted into the Hypostasis of God the Word, rather than an independent hypostasis. That is why it does not remain hypostatic, and does not introduce another hypostasis into the Trinity” 310. In these last words of the fathers, not only the thought is clearly expressed, but also the thought is explained, how, even after the incarnation of the Son of God, the Trinity remained the Trinity, and the relationship of the Son to the other two Divine Persons did not change. § 142. Moral application of the dogma about the sacrament of the incarnation Dogma about the mystery of the incarnation - 1) Confirms faith in us. For he tells us that the Author of our faith is not only man, but also God: and therefore, everything that He told us, that He commanded us to believe, all this, no matter how incomprehensible it may seem, is undoubtedly true and immutable. 2) Revives and strengthens hope in us. For if the heavenly Father did not spare his Son, but gave him up for us all, how could he not also give us all things with him? (Rom. 8:32). If the Son of God himself became our Redeemer and spoke to us the sweetest promises: will He not fulfill them? 3) Inflames in us love for God, presenting to us the infinite love that He showed to us sinners in the work of the Incarnation, and especially showed the Son of God, who deigned to take upon Himself our human nature for our sake. 4) Teaches and excites us to glorify with all the strength of our being our most holy, most pure, most blessed, glorious Lady Theotokos and Ever-Virgin Mary, who was honored to serve the terrible sacrament of the incarnation of God the Word, and thus became, as it were, the author of our salvation. 5) Teaches and excites us to respect the dignity of human nature and not to humiliate it with sins, when the Son of God himself deigned to accept it into the unity of his Divine Hypostasis; respect both ourselves and other people, when the God-man himself deigned to call us his brethren (Ps. 21:23; Matt. 12:49). 6) Finally, he presents to us in the incarnate Son of God the most perfect example to follow, according to His own words: I have given you an image, that as I have done to you, you also do (John 13:15). Accur. Exposition pr. faith, book. III, ch. 7 and 8, pp. 155. 160. “By the unity of the Person, which consists in the unity of both natures with each other, it is said that the Son of man came down from heaven, and the Son of God took flesh from the Virgin, from whom he was born; and again it is affirmed that the Son of God was crucified and buried, whereas He endured this not by Divinity, by which He is consubstantial, only-begotten and co-eternal with the Father, but by weak human nature. That is why we all confess in the Symbol that the only begotten Son of God was crucified and buried” (St. Leo in the Epistle to Flavian, in Chron. Read. 1841, 1, 157). Accur. Izl. pr. faith, book. III, ch. II, p. 166. Or as St. notes. Proclus: “with the expression: the flesh became, the Evangelist shows the indivisibility of the most perfect union. For just as a unit cannot be divided into two units, because if it could be divided in this way, then there would be not a unit, but a two: so that which is one by perfect unity cannot be divided into two” (Message to the Armenians on faith, in Chron. Read. 1841, I, 359). Thoughts of other ancient teachers on how to understand the expression: The Word was made flesh, and the blessed one gathered together. Theodoret in conversation. 1 between eranist. and Orthodox (see Chr. Cht. 1846, I, 69–76). See St. Kirill. alex. O man. Gentlemen, ch. 9, in Chr. Thurs. 1847, III, 176–183. Damascus. Accur. Izl. pr. faith book. III, ch. 12, neg. 168. To the same words of the apostles (Gal. 4:4) St. Ambrose notes the following: “He said: his Son, and not one of many, not adopted, but his own. Having said: His, he pointed to the eternal birth of the Son; and when he then added: born of a woman, he showed that his birth also refers to Him, but the birth is not according to Divinity, but according to His perception of humanity” (Apud Binium, Concil. Ephes. T. I, Part. II, Act. I, p. 195). “He called Him Christ in order to show that He became a true man: He called Him descended from the Jews according to the flesh, in order to prove that He began to exist not only from the time He became incarnate; said of Him: this, in order to proclaim that He is without beginning; He said: He is above all, to proclaim that he is the Lord of creation; called God. lest we, deceived by His appearance and passions, reject His immortal nature; called him blessed, so that they would worship Him as the Almighty, and not blame Him as a slave like us; said about Him: forever, in order to show that He who created them (the centuries) is always in them with a word and is proclaimed as God” (Holy Prokl. sent to the Armenians on faith, in Chron. Read. 1841, 1, 373-374). Apud Bingham. Origin. eccles. lib. X, c. 4. Concil. Ephes. T. 1, Patr. II, act. 1, p. 121, apud Bin. In Chr. Thurs. 1841, 1, 57–58. Sent. to Ephesus. Ch. 7, in Chr. Thurs. 1821, 1, p. 34; demolished Ch. 20, p. 41. In annunt. Dei parae n. II, opp. T. II, ρ. 399; cfr. contr. Arian, orat. III, no. 31. 32. Words for transformation Gentlemen, on TV. St. Father XIII, 158–159. Sent. to Kledon. 1, in TV. St. Father IV, 197. St. also expresses Gregory of Nyssa: “δύο γάρ πράγματα περι εν πρόσωπον ό τής γραφής γεγενήσθαι φησί παρά μεν ίουδαίων το πάθος (contr. Eunom. orat. IV, p. 583, ed. Morel.); also Didymus of Alexandria (de Trini t. III, 6), Hilary (de Trinit. X, 52). Words of the blessed We quote Augustine from a work he wrote before the appearance of the Nestorian heresy, namely: from Enchirid. ad Laurent. sar. 35. “A body composed of four elements is not said to be of the same essence with fire, nor fire, nor water, nor earth, and not of the same essence with any of these elements. Therefore, if Christ, as the heretics think, through the union of natures became one complex nature, then He turned from a simple nature into a complex one, and is not consubstantial both with the Father, whose nature is simple, and with matter, which is not composed of Divine and human nature. In this case, Jesus Christ does not belong either to the Divinity or to humanity (Max. Confession. Epist. ad. Joan. Cubic., Opp. T. II, p. 279, ed. Gombefis. 1675; John. Damascus. Exact. Ill. pr. faith III, 3, pp. 140-141). See note above. 103–113 and the very text to which they refer. What are: St. Leo, Pope, St. Cyril of Alexandria, blessed. Theodoret and Augustine, St. Maximus the Confessor, John of Damascus, etc. De theolog. et incarn. contr. Beron. et Helie, n. II. IV; cfr. n. VIIÏ ολος θεός ό αυτός και όλος άνθρωπος ό αυτός . Contr. Apollinar. I, n. 16; cfr. in Ps. XXI. 21: και τέλειος άνθρωπος (apud Galland. V, 203). Words for transformation Gentlemen, on TV. St. Father XIII, 154; demolished 158–159. To the monk Urvicius, in TV. St. Father XI, 244–246. Epist. lib. 1, epl. 419. The same teaching was taught by: Irenaeus (adv. haer. V, 17, n. 3), Tertullian (de carne Christi V. XI. XIII), Hilary (de Trinit. IX, 3), Gregory of Nyssa (adv. Eunom. orat. IV), John Chrysostom (in Joan. homil. XI, n. 2) and others. Their evidence was collected by another blessed man. Theodoret in "conversation" 11 between eranist. and orthodox." (see Chronicle Ch. 1846, 1, 388–397). “There is nothing absurd in the fact that related natures, having united, undergo confusion and are absorbed by one another; but there is an infinite difference between the Divine and human natures, and their confusion represents a sheer impossibility” (Theodoret, conversation II between Iranian and Orthodox, in Chron. Reading 1846, 1, 376). See above the saying of St. Basil the Great, indicated in the note. 227. St. Cyril of Alexandria also notes: “to say that the flesh was transformed into the divine nature, or the Word was transformed into the nature of the flesh, is equally absurd” (Epist. ad Success., Opp. T. V, par. II, p. 140). As St. noted. Leo about Eutyches: “Blind in relation to the nature of the body of Christ, he will necessarily be blind also regarding His suffering. For if he does not recognize the cross of the Lord as a ghost, but on the contrary does not doubt that the suffering He endured for the salvation of the world was true suffering: then, accepting death, he must also accept flesh. Let him not say that the person whom he himself recognizes as suffering was not of our nature: for the denial of the true flesh is the denial and suffering of the flesh. So, if he accepts the Christian faith and does not turn his ear away from the preaching of the Gospel, then let him judge what kind of nature, attached with nails, hung on the tree of the cross? Let him think, when the soldier opened the side of the Crucified One with a spear, then where did the blood and water flow out for the washing and drinking of the Church of God with the bath and the cup?” (Posl. to Flav., in Chr. Thu 1841, I, 160–161). Last to Kledon. I, in TV. St. Father IV, 197. St. Athanasius also says: μήτρας γέγονεν (Contr. Apollinar. 1, n. 1). Epist. 1 ad Nestor., apud Bin. Concil. Ephes. par. II, act. 1, p. 121; cfr. Opp. S. Cyrill. T. V, par. II, p. 23, Lutet. 1639. Conversation II between Iran. and Orthodox, in Chr. Thurs. 1846, 1, 371 and 378. Last to the Armenians about faith, in Chr., Thu. 1841, 1, 358–359. Accur. Izl. Ave. Faith III, ch. 2, p. 139. See also Paul. Emis, homil de nativ. Domin. (in Mai VII, 1, 209); Augustin. contr. serm. Arian. n. 6. Contr. Apollinar. 1, n. 18; 11, no. 14.15; ad Epictet. Corinth. n. 5. 10. Greg. Nyss. in Christi resurr. Orat. 1, p. 392, T. ΙΙ I, ed. Morel., in Xp, Thu. 1841, 11, 25 et seq.; Theodorite. Brief exposition God dogma Ch. 15: “The Divinity was not separated from humanity either on the cross or in the tomb” (Chronicles. Read. 1844, IV, p. 330). Accur. Izl. Ave. Faith III, ch. 27, p. 218. Last to Kledonia 1, to TV. St. Father IV, 198–199. In Greek: ίδιοποίησις (Сyrill. Alex, epist. XXIX), κοινοποίησις (ibid. X), άντίδοσις (Joann. Damasc. de orth. fide III, 4); in Latin: communicatio idiomatum. Clem. Roman. Epl. 1 ad Corinth, n. 2; Irem. adv. haer. III, 19; V, 1. 17; Hippol. adv. Noet. c. 18; Athanas. contr. Apollon. 1, 7; Epiphan. haeres. LXXVII, 26; Augustin. contr. Serm. Arian. n. 8; demolished Octoechos. part 1, sheet. 54.266.283; Part II, l. 15. 76. 245, Moscow. 1838. Epist. ad Theoph. Alex., Opp. T. II, p. 697, Paris. 1615. The blessed one also notes. Theodorite: ή γάρ ενωσίς κοινά ποιεΐ τά ονόματα , άλλ ’ ου συγχεΐ ταότας το των ονομάτων κοινον (Epist. CXXVII ad. Job. Archimandr.). Accur. Exposition Ave. Faith III, ch. 4, pp. 147–148. John. Damascus. ibid., pp. 147, 149. Or, as it is expressed in the language of the school; “the communion of properties in Christ should be recognized only in concreto, that is, when both of His natures are considered in the unity of His Hypostasis, and not in abstracto, when each nature is considered separately, abstracted from the unity of His Hypostasis.” Accur. Izl. Ave. Faith III, ch. 17, pp. 197–198. The Lutheran teaching about the omnipresence of Jesus Christ is contrary to human nature itself: a) St. Scripture: Mat. 28, 5. 6; Mark. 16, 6; Onion. 24, 6; John 11, 15. 21; Acts 1, 11; 3, 21, etc.; b) the teaching of the Ecumenical Councils of the III, IV, V and VI, which recognized that two natures were united in Christ unfused and immutable, with the preservation of the properties of each, also of the VII Ecumenical Council, which condemned the iconoclasts who considered the flesh of Christ indescribable, or limitless; c) finally, the teaching of St. Fathers... (For their testimonies, as well as a generally detailed examination of the aforementioned teachings of the Lutherans, see Feofan Prokopovich - Theolog. vol. III, lib. IX, cap. 9, §§ 209–232). In this way, the apparently contradictory sayings of the ancient teachers of the Church about the knowledge of the Savior are completely reconciled. Some of them, when explaining the words: Mat. 24, 36, they said that Christ did not know the last day of the world according to humanity, which are: Irenaeus (adv. haer. II, 29, a. 6. 8), Athanasius led. (contr. Arian. orat. III, n. 43. 46. 52. 53), Vasily Vel. (Epist. CCXXXVI, n. 1), Gregory the Theologian (Slov. o Theologian. IV, in the Works of the Holy Father. III, 94), Gregory of Nyssa (contr. Apollin. Antirrhet. n. 14. 28; de deit. Fil. et Spir. S. p. 470, T. III, Morel.), Didimus alex. (Enarrat, in 1 Joan. II, 3. 4), Epiphanius (Ancorat. XL), Theodoret (in Ps. XV, 7), Cyril Alex. (contr. Anthrop. c. 14), and in general many, if not all, as Leontius of Byzantium testifies (de Sectis, art. X). And others, although very few, argued that Christ knew the last day of the world, like everything else, not only according to his Divinity, but also according to humanity (Ambros. de fide V, 18, n. 221; Eulog. apud Phot. cod. CCXXX, p. 882; Damascus. Exact. Ill. pr. faith III, ch. 22). The first ones are also fair: because in this case they understood the humanity of the Savior - in abstracto, that is, in itself, outside the unity of His Divine hypostasis, as can be seen from the words of St. Gregory the Theologian: “It is obvious to everyone that the Son knows how God; He ascribes to himself ignorance, like a man, since only the visible can be separated from the intelligible. This idea is also suggested by the fact that the name of the Son is placed here detachedly and irrespectively, that is, without addition: whose Son He is, so that we understand this ignorance in a sense more consistent with piety, and attribute it to humanity, and not to the Divine” (Tv. Holy Father III, 94). The latter are also fair: because they understood the Savior as a single Divine Person, in which Divinity and humanity are inseparably united, which is clearly shown especially by the words of Eulogius (loco citat.). In this last sense, the Church condemned in the 6th century the false teaching of the agnostics, who, merging two natures in Christ, and precisely by allowing humanity to be absorbed in Him by the Divine, argued that Christ, understood even as a single Divine Person, did not know (αγνοέω) the last day of the world (Nicephor. Hist. eccles. ХVIII, pp. 45. 49. 50; “If the flesh, from its very conception, is truly united with God the Word, or better to say, began to exist in Him and have a hypostatic identity with Him; then how can she not be completely enriched with all wisdom and grace? “The flesh does not itself receive grace, and participates in what the Word has, not by grace, but by hypostatic union, from that very time when both the human and the Divine began to belong to the one Christ (because one and the same Christ was both God and man), it exudes grace and wisdom and the fullness of all blessings to the world” (Damascus. Exact. Ill. of the book of faith III, ch. 22, p. 211). Dionys. Areopag. de hierarch. eccles. c. 3; Bac. led on Ps. 44, in TV. St. Father V, 230. “Human flesh, by its nature, is not life-giving; but the Lord's flesh, hypostatically united with God the Word himself, although, by its nature, was not removed from mortality; however, due to the hypostatic union with the Word, she became life-giving: and we cannot say that she was not life-giving, or not always life-giving” (Damascus. Exact. Ill. pr. faith III, 21, pp. 208-209). Justin. Exposit. fidei; cfr. opp. pag. 387, ed. Colon. 1686. Сoncil. VI, apud Вinium. T. III, par. I, p. 184–185. Contr. Arian. orat. 1, n. 43; ad Adelph. Epist. n. 3. 5–8. Ancorat, IV. cf. Ambros. Spirit. S. III, II, n. 76–79. In Epist. ad Hebr. hornil. V, Opp. T. XII, p. 51. Epist. CLI; cfr. in Cant. III, 6; in Eph. II, 7. Epist. CIV ad Flavian. Constantinople. See anaf. VIII, in Xp. Thurs. 1841, 1, 59–60. Accur. Izl. Ave. Faith III, 8, pp. 159–160. Books right St. Apostle Sob. and Father p. 4, ed. 1843. “Before His saving suffering He says: Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from me (Matthew 26:39); but obviously He had to drink the cup as a man, and not as God. Therefore, as a man, He wants His cup to pass. These were words of natural fear. Otherwise, not my will be done (Luke 24:42); not mine, since I have a different essence from yours, but yours, that is, mine and yours, since I am consubstantial with you” (Damascus. Accurate Ill. of the Proverbs of Faith, III, 18, p. 202; demolished, ch. 24, p. 214). “Was you obedient (Phil. 2:8) voluntarily or involuntarily? If it was involuntary, then there would be no obedience, but there would be violence. But the Lord was obedient, not as God, but as a man. For, as God, He could be neither obedient nor disobedient: this, as the divine Gregory says, is characteristic of subordinates. Track. Christ also had a will as a man (St. Maxim. Confess. Disput. cura Pyrrh. p. 179, Opp. T. II, ed. Paris. 1675). “If He, like God, was thirsty, and, having tasted, did not want to drink: then it will follow that He was also subject to suffering, like God; for both thirst and eating are a passive state. If He thirsted not as God, then, without a doubt, as a man; and next and had a will like a man” (Damascus. Exact. Ill. of the book of faith III, 14, p. 177). De theolog. et incarn. adv. Beron. et Helic, n. II. IV. De incarn. et contr. Arian. n. 21. Apud Agathon. in Epist. ad Imperat. (cit. in VI Synod., act. IV. coi. 652, T. VI, ed. Labb.). In Math. XXVI, 38 (apud Anastas. PP, doctrin. de incarn. cap. XVIII). De fide II, 7, n. 52. 53. Conversation on Ev. Matt. LXXXIII, part III, p. 428 in Russian. translation John Damascus. Accur. izl. Ave. Faith III, Ch. 14, p. 174; Ch. 15, pp. 184–185. Maxim. confession Dispute. cum Pyrrh., Opp. T. II, p. 187–188, Paris. 1675; Damascus. Accur. izl. Ave. Faith III, ch. 15, p. 188. Maxim. confession and Damascus. loc. cit. Damascus. ibid., p. 189. “How He was all God together with humanity, His own, and all man together with His Divinity: then, as a man, He in Himself and through Himself subordinated His humanity to God and the Father, and was obedient to the Father, giving us in Himself an excellent example and model” (Damascus. ibid. ch. 18, p. 202; demolished ch. 14, p. 178, and see above note. 264). Book III, ch. 14, p. 172; cfr. Hippol. de incarn. adv. Beron. et Helic, n. 1: άμφότερα θεικνΰς εαυτόν, δ᾿ ών αμφοτέρως, θεικώς δέ φημι και άνθρωπίνως, ενήργησε. Ch. 19, pp. 204–205, ch. 15, p. 190. Cfr. Athanas. in Luc. XII, 10, Opp. T, 1, 974, Colon. 1686. – page 206; cfr. Dyonys. Areop. Epist. IV ad Cajum Monach. “The Word itself became flesh, conceived from the Virgin, and God came from Her with the assumed human nature, which, at the very moment of its being brought into being, was deified by the Word; so these three—the perception, conception, and deification of humanity by the Word—happened at one time. That's why St. The Virgin is revered and called the Mother of God not only for the sake of the nature of the Word, but also for the sake of the deification of human nature” (Damascus. Exact. Ill. - Chapter 12, p. 170). Epist. ad Ephes. c. XVIII, in Xp. Thurs. 1821, 1, p. 40. Contr. haeres. III, 21 al. 31, no. 10. Socrates Hist. eccl. VII, c. 32. See Xp. Thurs. 1840, IV, 17. Alexandri Epist., apud Theodoret. Η. E. 1, p. 4. Contr. Arian. orat. III, no. 29. Or: “John, still carried in his Mother’s womb, jumped joyfully to the welcoming voice of the Mother of God Mary (-paragraph 33). The same name is given by St. Father Rev. Virgo and in other places of his writings (contr. Arian. orat. III, n. 14; orat... IV, n. 32; de incarn. verbi Dei n. 4). Words for transformation Gentlemen, on TV. St. Father XIII, 154. Last to Kledon. 1, in TV. St. Father IV, 197; demolished words O Theologian. III also, III, 56. Epist. ad Eustath. et Ambros. Opp. T. Ι II p. 660, ed. Morel. Cfr. de beatitud. Orat. I, T. 1, p. 767 et de occursu Domini, T. III, p. 460. θεοτόκον δέ υμείς ού παύεσθε Μαρίαν καλουντες. Apud Cyrill. contr. Julian. lib, VIII, in Opp. T. VI, 262. See 1 of XII anathem., in Chron. Thurs. 1841, I, 57. Τών πάλαι και πράπαλαι της ορθοδόξου πίστεως κηρόκων , κατα την αποστολικην παράδοσιν , θεοτόκον διδαξάντων όνομάζειν και πεστεύειν τήν τού Κοριου μητέρα. Haeret. Fab. IV, c. 12, in Opp. T. IV, p. 245, Lut. 1642. Τούτο γάρ τό όνομα ούδεις τών εκκλησιαστικών διδασκάλων παρήτηται .... Apud Harduin. Act. Concil. T. 1, col. 1329. Cyrill. Alex. Epist. ad Aegypt. monach. 1, in Opp. T. V, part. II, p. 6–8. “We don’t call St. Virgin Christ Mother of God: because this offensive name was invented by the obscene, vile, Judaizing Nestorius, a vessel of dishonor, to humiliate the name - Mother of God, and to take away a part from She who alone is truly exalted in honor more than any creature. Both King David and Aaron the High Priest are called Christ, because both kings and priests were anointed: every God-bearing man can be called Christ, but not God by nature, in which sense the frantic Nestorius dared to call the God-Bearer of the One born of the Virgin. But let it not be that we call, or even in our thoughts imagine Him as the God-Bearer; on the contrary, we confess Him as God incarnate” (Damascus. Exact. Ill. verse of faith III, IX 12, pp. 169–170). Damascus. ibid., III, ch. 6, p. 151. Ch. II, pp. 166. 167; Ch. 6, pp. 151. 152. Concil. Ephes. T. 1, part. 1, r. 46, apud Bin. Words on Mat. 19, 1, in TV. St. Father III, 214–215. De Trinit. III, c. II, in Patrolog. curs. compl. T. X, p. 82. Adv. Apollin., in T. III, p. 262 ed. Morel. Last to the Armenians. o faith, in Chr. Thurs. 1841, 1, 361–362 and 364. Accur. Izl. Ave. Faith III, ch. 8, p. 160; Ch. 9, pp. 160–161. You might be interested in: