Christology of Blessed Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus

Contents Introduction. About the Christological problem Chapter 1. The life and works of Blessed Theodoret A) A brief narrative of his life B) An overview of the works of Blessed Theodoret. Theodorit A. Exegetical works b. Dogmatic and polemical works in. Apologetic works d. Historical writings e. Sermons and letters Chapter 2. The teaching of blessed Theodoret about the incarnation of the Lord Chapter 3. Christ is the true God Chapter 4. Christ is a perfect man Chapter 5. The teaching of Bl. Theodoret on the unity of the person of Christ the Savior Chapter 6. The difference between the Christology of Blessed. Theodoret from the Christology of St. Cyril of Alexandria Conclusion. The meaning of the Christology of Blessed. Theodoret for subsequent development Bibliography Introduction. About the Christological problem The great and mysterious truth of the incarnation, the eternal unity of the divine nature of the Son of God with the finite and limited human nature, in the one person of Jesus Christ, formed the basis of the new, most perfect Christian religion. The Holy Apostles and Evangelists testified to the truth of the incarnation of God the Word. In their writings they did not reveal any of their religious systems, but preached a secret that had been hidden in God for centuries and revealed to them. Christianity was destined to overthrow all forms of religious life of the ancient world and on their ruins to establish a new universal Kingdom of Christ, in which there is neither Greek nor Jew, barbarian and Scythian, slave and free, but there is one faith, one God and Father of all. By simple faith, free from all inquisitiveness and doubt, the Holy Church accepted the joyful truth of the Incarnation and did not require any explanations or evidence, and did not need them. But this direct relationship to the truth of the Incarnation did not last long. The ancient Judeo-pagan world, having met the God-Man with irreconcilable hostility, now waged a most persistent struggle against His followers. A life and death struggle begins between the decayed world and the new kingdom, the kingdom of humanity renewed and reborn by Christ. Dying paganism gave up its positions with difficulty and, without ceasing the external struggle, directed all its forces to undermine the Church of Christ from within. This internal, hidden reaction of the ancient world appeared in the form of the first heresies, the first distortions of Christianity, expressed in Gnosticism, monarchism, which had the character of a pagan worldview, and later in Arianism, Eionism, Apollinarism, Nestorianism, Monophysitism, and iconoclasm. The Holy Church, in a stubborn struggle, sealing the truth with the blood of martyrs and confessors, wins victories over heretics and defends the purity of its teaching. Christianity becomes the dominant religion and gradually begins its victorious offensive movement throughout the world. Now comes a crucial period for theologians, who were to reveal the most important Christian truths and principles. The Church consists of people, and therefore, naturally, the inquisitive human mind tried to comprehend the incomprehensible, to assimilate every truth related to the appearance of God the Word into the world, according to the laws of its thinking human nature. Therefore, from the first centuries of Christianity, the main and controversial issue arose was the Christological question. It was this theological question that constituted the very essence of Christianity. Human thought, having accepted the Christian truth, was faced with a difficult and complex task - to understand, as far as possible, about the person of the God-Man, to explain and prove the truth of His Divinity, the truth of His Humanity, to affirm the Hypostatic unity with the Father, and also to substantiate and approve a single opinion about the soul of Christ the Savior, about His will, nature, nature. The revelation of all other dogmas of Christianity depended on the revelation of these truths. On them, as on the cornerstone, the entire Christian doctrine was based and revealed. And when solving these questions, the human mind began to fall into various kinds of delusions, which was the subject of long-term disputes and disagreements between theologians of the East and West. The subject of these disputes was mainly the heretical fabrications of the enemies of Christianity. What the mind of a sinful person, darkened by original sin, could not reach. Collecting their vile dogmas, the heretics opposed the teaching of the Holy Scriptures, the apostolic decrees and the teachings of the holy fathers, and put forward their own self-willed wisdom. Thus, even the heretic Arius, later condemned by the Nicene Ecumenical Council, taught that the Son of God was created and is not co-eternal with the Father, but has divine adoption by grace. He reasoned that if the Hypostasis of the Son is coeternal and equal in dignity to the Hypostasis of the Father, then two Gods must be recognized. Avoiding this, he fell into heresy. And the heretic Macedonius, developing the Arian teaching, argued that if the Son is only like the Father, then the Holy Spirit has no communion in Divinity with either the Father or the Son; Eunomius also adhered to the same heresy, rejecting the consubstantiality of the Son with the Father, he believed that the Son had an essence different from the Father, and that the Holy Spirit was created by the Son. Apollinaris argued that the flesh of Jesus was taken from heaven, from the bosom of the Father and did not have a rational soul, and instead of a mind He had a Divinity that was subjected to suffering and even death. Diodorus of Tarsus taught that a simple man was born of a Virgin, and He became the Son of God by grace; The deity dwelt in Him as in a church. A native of the Antiochian school, the heretic bishop Theodore of Mopset argued that Christ was a perfect Man, in whom God the Word partially indwelled. He did not allow complete infusion, for he said that the infinite cannot inhabit the finite. Therefore, the unity of Divinity with Humanity in Christ took place by good will and, in such images, bore the character of consent, but not by nature. Death could touch His human nature, and the Divinity was separated from Him. Thus, in Theodore’s concept, Christ was a man adopted by God by the power of grace. Therefore, he did not allow the Holy Virgin Mary to be called the Mother of God. As is known, at the Nicene Ecumenical Council, which condemned the heresy of Arius, the Church Fathers established the dogma of the equality and consubstantiality of the Son with the Father in Divinity, but subsequently, when deciding the question of the method of uniting two natures in Christ, the human mind fell into error, known as Nestorianism. Nestorius mainly developed the thoughts of Theodore of Mopsuet. The essence of this teaching lies in the denial of the internal unity in Jesus Christ of two natures - Divine and Human, and in recognizing only purely external contact between them. He distinguished between the concept of “nature” and the concept of “person,” and that is why he taught that in Christ, Divinity and humanity each had their own person, so that since there are two natures, then He has two faces. And their unification was love, which determined the unity of actions and will. Humanity, according to his teaching, served Christ only as an instrument of the Divine. Divinity could not fully unite with humanity. It only coexisted in Him, thus Divinity and Humanity in Christ appear as two parallel forces. Hence, Nestorius considered atonement a legal act, as a substitutionary sacrifice, and represented salvation not as a process of deification, but as a moral feat. We deliberately cited here some fabrications of heretics in order to show the severity of the Christological problem of that time. All these false teachings, heresies, deviations from the right Christian worldview, approved by the holy Apostles and then by the Nicene Ecumenical Council, demanded from Christian archpastors strong faith, a sober and comprehensively developed mind. And the Lord raises up great teachers of the Church. The most prominent theologians of that time stood up for the defense and purity of holy Orthodoxy. So, for example, the heresy of Nestorius provokes a sharp protest from St. Cyril, Archbishop of Alexandria. Blessed Theodoret, being a prominent church figure, moral authority and theologian, as a dear legacy of the fathers, preserved the traditions of the glorious past and held high the banner of church science. He was the last representative of the golden age of church literature. His whole life was a stubborn struggle against heretics, for the purity and triumph of Orthodoxy. During the period of Nestorian disputes and Eutychian movements, he took a very lively and active part. His strong, healthy mind boldly touched on all controversial issues at that time. Relying in his works and apologies on the authority of Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition, Blessed. Theodoret, to evaluate his views, used the Nicene Creed as a foundation. He was the best interpreter, then approved by the council, of the Orthodox understanding of the doctrine of the union in Christ the Savior of two natures: Divine and Human in an unfused, unchangeable, inseparable and inseparable representation, as well as in explaining the Orthodox view of the Mother of God as the Most Pure Mother of God. As an outstanding writer of rare talent with rich erudition, he was the main representative of the Orthodox East in the controversy between Antioch and Alexandria. Humiliated and slandered by Dioscorus at the robber council, the blessed elder continued his struggle with the triumphant Monophysites. Defeating them with his teaching, together with the victory of Orthodoxy itself, in 451, the former “heretic” for Blessed Theodoret was forever replaced by the honorary title “Orthodox teacher.” Thus, the fathers of the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon testified to his devotion to Orthodoxy. Having from God the gift of teaching and interpretation of the Holy Scriptures, Blessed Theodoret rendered a great service to the Church of Christ during this troubled period of Christological disputes. Through his works, he contributed to the discovery and clarification of this then new question about the method of uniting two natures in Christ. This is his main merit for the Christian Church. His Christological teaching, along with the teachings of other Fathers of the Church, formed the basis as an accurate expression of the apostolic confession, and he forever acquired the name of an Orthodox teacher, to the exposition of whose life and Christology we now proceed. Chapter 1. Life and creations of Blessed Theodoret A) Brief narrative of his life Blessed Theodoret is one of the famous teachers and writers of the Holy Church of the fifth century. He was born in Antioch in 394 1 from rich and pious parents. His mother, being barren for 13 years, received this son through the prayers of the hermit Macedonius Critophagus, and therefore named him Theodorite, that is, God-given, and “from the very cradle she dedicated him to the service of God” 2. In accordance with this vow of the pious mother, Theodoret was brought up in a monastery near Apamea. Having lost his parents at an early age, he distributed all his property to the poor and entered the degree of reader in the same monastery. Here, during his ministry and upbringing, he studied Holy Scripture, Greek philosophy, poetry, history, as well as the study of Greek, Hebrew and Syriac. Knew the teachings of St. Fathers, as well as the teachings of heretics. Soon the blessed Theodoret was ordained a deacon by Bishop Alexander of Antioch. By this time he had already become so famous for his virtues, learning and eloquence that in the same year 423, against his will, he was appointed bishop of the city of Cyrus. Such an increase in rank did not change the monastic lifestyle of the blessed one. Theodoret, but on the contrary, the doors opened to him, and he was given the opportunity to devote himself with the greatest dedication to the service of the Holy Church. But the service is blessed. Theodoret's work was not limited only to pastoral and teaching activities. Due to his high position, as a lamp of Orthodoxy, he participated in the general, conciliar government of the Church and, together with other defenders of the right faith, led, often at the risk of his own life, a decisive struggle against the heresies that arose at that time. The diocese of Cyrus at that time was especially populated by heretics. The saint made a lot of efforts to turn them onto the path of salvation. The Lord blessed his labors with success: “He baptized up to ten thousand Marcionites alone; in addition, he attracted countless numbers of Arians, Eunomians, Macedonians, and Apollinarians to the Orthodox faith. Many of the pagans and Jews, having heard a lot about the holiness and wisdom of the blessed one. Theodoret, they came to him for saving instructions” 3. In favor of the external well-being of his flock, Blessed Theodoret opened sources of church income, built several porticoes for public gatherings and two large bridges across the river, restored public baths, installed water pipes in the city, invited doctors, artists, and artisans from other regions and countries for the needs of the city, and also asked Empress Pulcheria to free the city residents from exorbitant taxes and taxes. Thanks to the efforts of the Bishop of Cyrus, such brotherly love soon developed among the flock that each tried to surpass the other in charity. In the affairs of the Universal Church, Blessed. Theodoret took the same part as in the needs of his own flock. Soon after entering the department, he takes part in the disputes that then gripped the entire Christian world regarding the heresy of Nestorius, with whom Blessed. Theodoret knew him while studying in Antioch and was on very friendly terms with him. Nestorius, having ascended the throne of the city of Constantinople, openly rebelled against calling the Most Pure Virgin Mary the Mother of God, and began to call Her the Mother of Christ. Soon both Rome and Alexandria learned of his error. Alexandria Archpastor St. Cyril writes an admonition to Nestorius calling on him to renounce his delusion and offers to sign 12 anathemas directed against his teaching. At the same time, he sends messages to the eastern bishops outlining the essence of Nestorius’s heresy and adds a copy of 12 anathemas against some of his dogmatic views. Blazh. Theodoret, having read the letter of St. Cyril, revealing the unbelief of Nestorius, could not believe such an unexpected change in the theological views of his former friend, moreover, seeing in the anathemas of St. Cyril’s attempt to restore Apollinarian false teaching, he considered it necessary, on the advice of Bishop John, to write his refutations of the anathematisms of St. Kirill. To prevent the spread of the heresy of Nestorius, as well as the theological disputes involved, Emperor Theodosius convened an Ecumenical Council in Ephesus in 431. The Antiochian bishops who arrived at this council did not want to participate in its meetings as a sign of protest that the council was opened by the Alexandrians earlier, who did not wait for the late Antiochian bishop John. Upon his arrival, they formed their own council, at which they condemned St. Cyril, accusing him of Apollinarism, and Nestorius was acquitted. And the Alexandrians, in turn, condemned Blessed Theodoret, accusing him of Nestorianism, anathematized the heresy of Nestorius, and deposed him and all the participants in their council. This was the beginning of a long-protracted theological controversy between the most prominent archpastors of that time, St. Cyril of Alexandria and Blessed. Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus. Emperor Theodosius tried to take some measures to restore church peace, but they did not lead to anything, since the Antiochians, having developed a number of conditions, offered to sign them to the Archpastor of Alexandria, St. Kirill, but he refused, limiting himself to only a brief statement of his legal profession. Only thanks to the courage of John of Antioch, who sent to negotiate with St. Cyril Paul of Emesa, reconciliation took place. Having learned about this, blessed. Theodoret rejoiced, but did not begin an alliance with him, since for this it was necessary to condemn his friend Nestorius. Metropolitan Alexander of Hierapolis also continued to persist, for which, at the order of the emperor, John of Antioch was removed from the department. Blazh. Theodoret retained his position thanks to the intercession of monks and hermits on his behalf. Finally, blessed Theodoret, dissociating himself from Nestorius, entered into an alliance with St. Kirill, but not for long, as he soon broke off relations with him again because of the writings of Theodore of Mopsuet. Only after the death of St. Kirill, having become more familiar with his works, when the hostility towards him due to personal relationships had subsided, the Kirill shepherd began to treat his memory with great respect and even began to refer to some of his works 4 . After the death of St. Cyril, his nephew, the power-hungry Dioscorus, took over his department. This successor had a special reason to hate the blessed one. Theodoret because he was an ardent opponent of the new heresy - the Eutychian, to which Dioscorus himself became addicted. Taking advantage of the frequent trips of Blessed Theodoret to Antioch to discuss the affairs of the Church, Dioscorus, following the denunciation of heretics, accused him of dividing our One Lord Jesus Christ into two in his sermons. Accusing him of Nestorianism and as a disturber of public peace, by decree of Emperor Theodosius the Younger in 447 he was forbidden to leave the city of Cyrus. Two years later, at the Council of Robbers of Ephesus, Dioscorus and his accomplices, not allowing the blessed. Theodoret to participate in the meetings, he was anathematized in absentia, deprived of his chair, and his works were declared prohibited. Having learned about the decision of the council, Blessed. Theodoret bitterly complained to the emperor about such injustices and asked him for permission to either leave Cyrus and seek justice from other bishops, or retire to a secluded place. The Emperor allowed him the latter. After the saint retired to a monastery near Apamea, Blessed. Theodoret sends, through his chorebishops, a message to Rome, to Pope Leo. In this letter, pointing to his works, he proves his loyalty to Orthodoxy and complains about Dioscorus, who condemned and deposed him in absentia, without any examination of his guilt. Pope Leo the Great, having convened a council in Rome, condemns the acts of this robber Council of Ephesus, and Blessed. Theodorit justifies. At the same time, he writes an admonition to the emperor demanding that the Bishop of Cyrus be restored to his former dignity. Despite this demand, the Cyrus archpastor was returned to his see only after his death. Soon the pious sister of Theodosius, Pulcheria, ascended the throne and transferred power to her husband Marcian. This emperor freed the blessed one. Theodoret from captivity, along with other bishops who were unjustly condemned, but required a conciliar decision to be confirmed in their sees. Soon, by order of Emperor Marcian, an Ecumenical Council opened in Chalcedon in 451 on October 8, to which the blessed one also appeared. Theodoret, already, as it were, the legitimate bishop of Cyrus. The descriptions of the moment of the opening of this cathedral are full of drama. The Palestinian and Egyptian bishops, supporters of Dioscorus, as soon as they noticed the appearance of the blessed one. Theodoret, they raised a whole storm. “For mercy, faith is perishing, the rules are driving him out, cast him out” 5. Supporters of the blessed. Theodoret, rejoicing at his presence, in turn exclaimed: “Worthy, worthy.” - “Cast out the murderer of Dioscorus.” “Drive out the blasphemer of Christ” 6. Neither the intervention of imperial dignitaries, nor anything could stop the irritated supporters of Dioscorus, so the chaotic noise at the cathedral continued for a long time 7 . Then the Cyrus shepherd makes an attempt to be a reconciliator of the parties. He says that he is seeking an impartial examination of his complaints, and does not claim full equality with other participants in the council. Hearing this, everyone calmed down a little, but remarks were heard: “If we accept Theodoret, then we will expel Cyril, but the first one was cast out by the rules, God Himself rejected him” 8 . Finally, the dignitaries put an end to the disputes with a statement about the indecent behavior of the fathers and an order to continue everything in order. Thus, the antics of the Egyptians led to nothing, and the Cyrus shepherd was allowed to participate in the work of the council. Blazh. Theodoret, present at council meetings, was not a silent spectator and listener, but constantly made himself known. At the very first meeting, in response to the caustic exclamations of the Monophysitist bishops: “We believe like Cyril! Eternal memory to Kirill! 9 Theodoret said: “Anathema to him who speaks of two sons! We worship the One Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the Only Begotten” 10. Be that as it may, these words of the Bishop of Cyrus did not go unnoticed, but already placed all the participants in the Council in his favor. At the second meeting, held on October 10, Blessed Theodoret also showed himself on the good side, helping out with his eloquence and wisdom the unerudite Archdeacon of Constantinople Astius, who found it difficult to quote passages from the epistle of Pope Leo in a dispute with heretics. It was about the duality of natures in Christ the Savior. Being competent in all these matters, Blessed. Theodoret said: “There is a similar example in Blessed Cyril, containing the following: “And the Logos became Man and did not leave Him, for He remained what He was. The dwelling is understood as another in another, that is, the divine nature in the human.” 11 The dogmatic point of view of the Cyrus shepherd was now even more pronounced: he taught accurately and faithfully, adhering to authoritative models. Two natures in the One Person of the Lord Jesus Christ is a thesis that he clearly formulated and wisely defended against all attempts by the Monophysitists. Now the participants of the council had no doubts about his Orthodoxy and the Orthodoxy of Pope Leo. Therefore, having heard such words, the venerable bishops of the cathedral exclaimed: “This is the fatherly faith, this is the apostolic faith, Cyril taught so, anathema who does not believe so. Why was this not read in Ephesus? Dioscorus hid this." “Peter spoke thus through Leo, the Apostles taught so. Eternal memory to Kirill" 12. In the lists of participants in the third meeting of the Cathedral named after Blessed. We do not find Theodorite. At the 4th meeting, Blessed. Theodoret expressed his opinion regarding the message of Pope Leo, which he, like the rest of the participants in the council, accepted and signed. At the fifth and sixth sessions of the Council, a definition of faith was developed and signed by the fathers of the Council on the union of two natures in Jesus Christ. The seventh meeting was devoted to consideration of private issues. The eighth meeting was devoted to the analysis of issues relating to the personality of the blessed one. Theodoret, since in his teaching some saw features of the Nestorian heresy. But before starting to consider the cases, the council demanded that the Bishop of Cyrus pronounce an anathema on Nestorius. The most difficult moment for the blessed one has come. Theodoret, for he, remembering his friendly relations with Nestorius, did not want to utter an anathema against his former friend, although he had long considered his teaching to be erroneous. Avoiding a direct answer, he said: “I submitted petitions to the most sacred and pious emperor, I also submitted notes to the most venerable bishops interceding for the most reverent Archbishop Leo, and, if you wish, let them be read, and you will know how wise I am.” 13 Although the council knew that this man was Orthodox, it did not want to see his friendship with the heretic Nestorius, so it insisted and forced him to pronounce the anathema according to the formula and certainly right away. “I am by the grace of God,” said the blessed one. Theodoret, - was brought up among the Orthodox, and preached Orthodoxy, and not only Nestorius and Eutyches, but also every person who thinks wrongly, I turn away and consider excommunicated" 14. But the bishops told him: “Say clearly: anathema to Nestorius and his friends.” Using the last opportunity to somehow save the situation and turn away from himself the unpleasant feeling of demanding to curse his friend, the blessed elder, beginning to rearrange sentences, said: “Truly, I am not saying anything except what I know is pleasing to God... First of all, I want to convince you that I neither think about the city nor do I need honor: that is not why I came. But since I was slandered, I came to prove that I am Orthodox, and that I anathematize Nestorius and Eutyches and every person who claims to have two sons” 15. “I will not say before I explain how I believe, but I believe...” But he was not allowed to speak any more due to his obvious evasion of pronouncing the anathema, which is why the bishops exclaimed: “He is a heretic, he is a Nestorian, there is a heretic” 16. Blessed Theodoret, seeing that his matter was taking a serious turn, realized the senselessness of his persistence, but wanting to assure everyone that he was Orthodox, he finally said: “Anathema to Nestorius and to the one who does not recognize the Holy Virgin Mary as the Mother of God, and to the one who divides One Foreign Son into two sons. I subscribed both to the definition of faith and to the message of His Holiness Archbishop Leo. So I'm being wise. Now be healthy." 17 At this point, all research on his case stopped. The Council did not want to read the notes of the Bishop of Cyrus or listen to his confession. The imperial dignitaries present here said: “Any doubt about the most God-loving Theodoret was resolved, for he anathematized Nestorius before us, and was accepted by the most holy Leo, and the definition of faith issued by your piety, he willingly accepted, and, moreover, signed the letter of the mentioned Archbishop Leo. So, all that remains for your love of God is to pronounce the decree so that he receives the church, as His Holiness Archbishop Leo also decided.”18 Thus, blessed Theodoret proved at the council the orthodoxy of his teaching, yet the gray-haired blessed elder found the strength to finally renounce the personality of Nestorius, anathematizing him, therefore joyful exclamations were heard at the council: “Theodoret is worthy of the throne. May the Church receive a shepherd. Many years to come to Archbishop Leo! Leo judged according to God! Let the Church be returned to Bishop Theodoret" 19. After that, oh blessedness. Papal legates and other bishops expressed their opinions to Theodorite. We will quote a few words spoken to the Bishop of Cyrus by Anatoly, Bishop of Constantinople: “The venerable Bishop Theodoret turned out to be Orthodox, but by virtue and, incidentally, because he pronounced an anathema on Nestorius and Eutyches, therefore he justly has to receive his Church.” Maximus, Bishop of Antioch, also gave a remarkable description. “I have long recognized the most God-loving Bishop Theodoret, from the very beginning, as Orthodox, because I heard his teachings in the Holy Church; and even more now I accept his holiness, which anathematized Nestorius and Eutyches and philosophizes in accordance with the definition set forth at this council. Therefore, I determine that he is the legitimate bishop of the city of Cyrus” 20. After these debates about Blessed. Theodoret’s bishops exclaimed: “This is a just court! This is a correct definition! This is the judgment of Christ! We agree with this, we all affirm the same” 21. Thus, justified by the Ecumenical Council, Blessed Theodoret was restored to his former dignity as a shepherd of the Church, and the emperor, according to the decision of the council, canceled the previous decree of Theodosius, directed against Theodorit and his writings. Soon the blessed Theodoret received a message from Pope Leo, who welcomed him with victory over the heretics and also urged him to diligently continue his service to the Holy Church of God. Leo loved and appreciated the Bishop of Cyrus so much that he always wanted to see in him his most faithful comrade and devoted legate, authorized by the authority of the see of St. Petra. And blessed Theodoret justified this trust, as he continued to work tirelessly into his old age. Already an old man, he wrote interpretations of all the historical books of the Old Testament, the value of which is extremely useful and entertaining for every theologian. Information about the time of death of the blessed one. Theodoret has not been preserved exactly, but Gennady of Massimea claims that it was under Emperor Leo the Elder in 457. Professor Glubokovsky, examining some sources, assigns the time of death of the Bishop of Kir to the same date 22. Thus, in peace with the Church, in the consciousness of his rightness before God and people, this zealous, educated, greatest hierarch passed away into eternity. But his name, even after his death, deprives heretics of peace. They again disturb his name in the era of controversy over the “three chapters.” And only in 553, almost 100 years after his death, when a council condemned some of his writings written in defense of Nestorius, an end was put to all controversy against this pillar of Orthodoxy. Paying a fair tribute to this father of the Church of Christ, let us say that this is a major historical significance, which cannot be kept silent or ignored, just as this significant period cannot be erased from the history of the Church. Therefore, he rightly attracts the attention of learned theologians, because science is always indebted to his blessed memory. B) Review of the works of the blessed one. Theodorite Blessed Theodoret, having from God the gift of interpretation and explanation of the Holy. Scripture, is one of the best exegetes, along with such learned theologians as St. John Chrysostom, Basil the Great and others. Scientists around the world use his works more preferably than others. Patriarch Photius, having read the interpretations of Blessed. Theodoret, made the following entry in his library: “This man, truly wise, in explaining prophecies, surpasses not only Hippolytus, but also others. With his pure and expressive words, he truly sheds light on dark sayings, and with the sweetness of his speech he attracts everyone to him. He reached the pinnacle of the best interpreters, so it is difficult to find someone who could better explain and manage to resolve all the perplexities without confusion, without confusion, through the easiest and most understandable reasoning” 23. All works of the blessed. Theodoret, excluding those that he wrote against St. Cyril of Alexandria, are eminently useful to theologians of all times. According to their content they can be divided into: 2. Dogmatic-polemical, A. Exegetical creations Blessed Theodoret, as a wonderful exegete, left us his comments on the books: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 4 books of Kings, 2 books of Chronicles, Psalms, Song of Songs, the prophet Isaiah, Jeremiah, the lament of Jeremiah, Baruch, Daniel, 12 minor prophets, as well as on everything messages of St. Apostle Paul. When explaining and interpreting Holy Scripture, Blessed. Theodoret used the works of his predecessors, the Holy Fathers and teachers of the Church. He compared translations, used reference books, as well as manuals of secular literature 24. His best interpretations from the books of the Old Testament are interpretations of the Psalms. He carefully explains their literal meaning, without deviating into allegories and allegories, and often points to prophetic passages. In the Octateuch, in the books of Kings and Chronicles, he explains only difficult passages, but in the Psalms, Song of Songs, all the prophets and the Epistles of St. The Apostle Paul is given continuous interpretations. b. Dogmatic-polemic works Among the works of Blessed. Theodoret, a special place is occupied by his works of a dogmatic nature, directed against heretics, these are: 1. Refutation of the Arians and Eunomians. 2. Ten words against Arius and Eunomius. 3. Three words about the Holy Spirit against Arius, Eunomius and Macedonius. 4. Works against Apollinaris and Marcion. 5. Refutation of 12 chapters of St. Kirill. 6. Apology of Diodorus of Tarsus and Theodore of Mopsuet. Of his polemical works, his work is important: “Eranist and Orthodox.” The first three, from the above works of Blessed. Theodoret, although they have not survived, their content can be judged from letters 82, 83, 113, 145, as well as from his work “Review of Heretical Fables” (book 5, chapter 32). In them, the Bishop of Cyrus, speaking against Arius and Eunomius, sets out the Orthodox understanding of the doctrine of the Holy Spirit, as emanating from eternity from the Father, proves His Oneness with Him, and therefore says that the Holy Spirit is worthy of all glorification and worship on an equal basis with the Father and the Son. Discussing the Consubstantiality of the Logos with the Father, the Saint expounds thoughts of a soteriological nature. "Refutation of the 12 chapters of St. Cyril." This work came from the pen of Blessed. Theodoret around 430. It was written against Cyril’s chapters, with which the latter spoke out against the heresy of Nestorius. As you know, blessed Theodoret, without seriously familiarizing himself with the work of St. Kirill, accused him of Apollinarism. And St. Cyril, having read the objections of Blessed Theodoret, accused him of Nestorianism. One and the other gave rise to a great theological controversy between Eastern and Western theologians. The works of this era also include the work of Blessed. Theodoret "Apology of Diodorus of Tarsus and Theodore of Mopsuet". This apology was written in defense of his like-minded colleagues, against the accusations of their St. Kirill. The polemical work “Eranist and Orthodox” was mainly directed against Monophysitism. It is constructed in the form of three dialogues between an Orthodox Christian and a Monophysite Eranist (i.e., a beggar) 25 . In the first dialogue, the Divinity of the Only Begotten Son is defended, which, having become Flesh, has not changed. In the second, the doctrine of the non-merger of Divinity and Humanity in Christ Jesus is taught, and in the third dialogue it is stated that the Divinity of Jesus did not suffer even when the Savior hung on the Cross. Blessed Peru Theodoret also owns the work “On the Incarnation of the Only Begotten”. According to Prof. Glubokovsky, “this work was considered lost and gave rise to the most diverse and contradictory guesses, which were not resolved by any undoubted result” 26. But with a careful study of the works of the Bishop of Cyrus and analysis of letters 109,130 ​​and 151 of prof. Glubokovsky comes to the conclusion that this work appeared together with the 109th letter at the end of 448. In its content, it was a double of “Eranist”, represented his “Compendium and should rightly be considered after these dialogues” 27. The professor concludes that this work was insignificant in volume and was devoted to the dogma of the incarnate Son of God, and also outlined the main provisions of the Christological problem and eliminated slander against the author. "Divine Dogmas" 28. This work constitutes the fifth book of the work of Blessed. Theodoret "Review of Heretical Fables". In its content, the book is a symbol of the Orthodox dogma of the Bishop of Cyrus. Here the Orthodox teaching about the dogmas of faith is presented, which is opposite to the teaching of the heretics. Clarity and strict sequence of thoughts, deep knowledge of the Holy Scriptures. The Scriptures, and hence the accuracy of the evidence presented, the simplicity of presentation, making the lofty truths of Christianity accessible to everyone - all this constitutes the distinctive properties of the Scriptures, this ancient most precious dogmatic work. V. Apologetic creations These include the following works by Blessed Theodoret: 2. Healing Hellenic ailments. The first work was lost, but it is mentioned in letters 113, 116, 145. Composition of the blessed one. Theodoret’s “Healing of Hellenic Illnesses” 29 appeared around 437. This work describes the error of both religion and pagan philosophy. This is a wonderful apology for the Orthodox faith against idolatry. Using collections of a philosophical nature, as well as drawing material from the works of the Holy Fathers, Blessed. Theodoret thoroughly proves the futility of worshiping idols, contrasting them with the veneration of martyrs and holy saints of God, praying for the whole world. d. Historical works The historical writings of Blessed Theodoret include: 2. Review of heretical fables. "Church History" Blessed. Theodoret, written by him around 449, covers the events that took place in the Church of Christ in the period from 324 to 428, that is, from the time to which Eusebius of Caesarea brought the narrative of his “Church History”. Composition of the blessed one. Theodoret's Ecclesiastical History 30 is divided into five books. In each of them, he narrates the historical events that took place in the church arena of the period indicated above. In the first book, the author indicates the purpose of writing this work. Arius talks about the beginning of the heresy and lists the names of the bishops of the main churches (chapter 2). Then he speaks about the actions of the First Ecumenical Council, about the atrocities of Meletius, about the virtues of St. Konstantin. Quotes the epistles of Eusebius (chap. 12), about the faith set forth in Nicea, about the death of Arius, about Saint Helen, the mother of St. Constantine, and about her construction of the church of God (chap. 18), as well as about the spread of the faith in Georgia and India (chap. 23–24) 31 . The narrative of the second book 32 gives us the opportunity to learn about the return from exile of St. Athanasius, about strife in the Church of Christ, about new heresies and the struggle of the Orthodox against them, about the wicked and about bishops of holy life. The third book of the history of the blessed one is dedicated to depicting the history of the reign of the apostate Julian. Theodorit. At the beginning, he seemed to be devoted to Orthodoxy, but, having seized power (chapter 7), he took the path of patronage of the pagans. Christians began to be tortured and killed, but the number of confessors of the name of Christ increased. Soon Julian himself was mortally wounded in the war with the Persians. The narrative of the fourth book begins with the accession of Emperor Jovian. This emperor returned from exile all the bishops condemned for the Nicene Confession. He was courageous and kind. After his death, Valentian ascended the imperial throne. He was a kind, fair Christian, defender of the Nicene Confession of Faith. And his brother Valens, himself often deviating into Arianism, forced St. Athanasius and Basil the Great accept his confession. Having met a decisive refusal on their part, he began to write an order for their exile, but at this time his cane broke three times, and then his hand began to tremble. Then he tore the paper with both hands and left St. fathers at rest. Despite this sign, as well as the growing discontent among the people, Valens did not stop persecuting the Orthodox. God's righteous wrath was not slow to come to Valens' head. Soon his province is attacked by semi-wild tribes - the Goths, who defeat his army and burn him at the stake. The fifth book of the history of the Church of Blessed Theodoret is dedicated to the events that took place during the reign of Gratian, Theodosius the Great and Arcadius. After Valens' death, his nephew Gratian ascended the throne. He gave churches to the Orthodox and brought back Orthodox pastors from exile. Gratian placed the regions previously controlled by Valens at the disposal of the wise and brave commander Theodosius. He soon convenes a council, at which, after confirming the Nicene Creed, the then widespread Apollinarian heresy was condemned. Soon Gratian dies during a riot; Taking advantage of this, the Arians wanted to take power into their own hands. But then Emperor Theodosius came to the rescue, who, on the advice and persuasion of Bishop Amphilochius, forbade the heretics to gather their gatherings. He also destroyed the idolatrous churches, and established peace between the disputing Egyptian bishops. Next, Blessed Theodoret narrates the death of Emperor Valentian himself, who suffered at the hands of his commander. Having learned about this, Theodosius, with prayer on his lips, moved his army against Eugene, who then reigned, and won a brilliant victory over him. Having divided the rule of the empire between his sons Arcadius and Honorius, Theodosius himself soon dies. The brothers, having inherited from their father a good disposition towards the Orthodox, issued decrees against heretics. It tells about the activities at this time and St. John Chrysostom Fr. The book ends with a story about the persecution against Christians in Persia, about the pious emperor, the son of Arcadius, Theodosius the Younger. The fifth book of church history ends with a list of bishops who ruled the cities. Theodorit. This very extensive work of the Bishop of Cyrus, which sanctifies historically the events of church and civil life, saturated with an abundance of events and facts, is very valuable for us, and rightly deserves all praise and attention. "Review of Heretical Fables". This work was inscribed by Blessed. Theodoret at the request of the court nobleman Sporius. The purpose of writing was not the need of the Church to refute heresies, but to present and demonstrate the very essence and vileness of each of them. This work consisted of five books, the last - fifth part of which was devoted to the presentation of purely Orthodox dogmatic views. The first book is dedicated to heretics who recognized the plurality of powers in the Divinity, and to the Docetes who belittled the mystery of the incarnation of God. The second - to the heretics who called Christ the Savior a simple man. The third book lists the schismatics from the Nicolaitans to Nepos. In the fourth - the heresy of Arius, Nestorius, Eutyches. So that everyone, after reading all heresies, will be instructed in the right faith, blessed. Theodoret added a fifth book, which is known as “A Summary of Divine Dogmas.” When presenting the work “Review of Heretical Fables,” Blessed Theodoret used the works of his predecessors: the work of Irenaeus of Lyon “Against Heresies”, “Philosophomena”, “Stromata” of Clement of Alexandria, “Ecclesiastical History” of Eusebius of Caesarea, the works of Origen “Against Celsus”, “On the Principles”. These works greatly facilitated the presentation of the teachings of heretics by Blessed Theodoret. This is a real work by Blessed. Theodoret was the fruit of his pious desire - to preserve for posterity the memory of the wondrous deeds of 36 holy ascetics, who in their mortal body were disembodied Angels, and led a heavenly life on earth. Blessed himself. Theodoret says that he saw many of the described ascetics with his own eyes, and heard about others. Surprised by their courage and willpower, the Bishop of Cyrus says that this victory was brought to the saints not by nature, itself mortal and filled with countless passions, but by reason, which attracted the grace of God to itself. Fieryly loving Divine beauty, enduring various hardships for the sake of the Lord, the holy ascetics courageously repelled the clouds of arrows of the devil. By fasting and prayer, having mortified their passions, they forced their body to submit to the spirit. In order not to let the enemy in, they closed all the windows of their external senses, never ceasing for a moment to give praise and thanksgiving to God. Their lives are worthy of emulation and are very useful for the edification of all of us. “The History of the God-Lovers” was used by St. Demetrius when compiling the Chetya Menaion, as Archbishop Philaret testifies to this in his writings 33. Blazh. Theodoret, as a talented church writer, is also known as a wonderful preacher. His “Ten Words about Providence”, “A Word of Praise to John the Baptist” and “Five Words about St. John Chrysostom "34. Most of the letters of the Bishop of Cyrus, and there are about 180 of them, belong to history, depicting contemporary circumstances, especially regarding disputes about the dogmas of faith. Chapter 2. The Teaching of Blessed Theodoret on the Incarnation of the Lord In the teaching of Blessed. Theodoret there are clear indications that the Son of God had to save perishing humanity. In revealing this position, blessed. Theodoret proceeds from the conclusion that the Word, through Whom everything received being and life, had to, through His incarnation, miracles, death on the cross, and then the glorious Resurrection, renew and recreate fallen man, and bring him again to the Author of life - God. Blessed Theodoret says that everything created, as a creation of love and the Divine will, throughout its entire length was and is subject to the providence of God, directing life and its course to perfect good 35. Man, the pinnacle of all creation, the image of the Absolute in the finite sphere, enjoys the primary care of his Creator. God, as the source of goodness, having endowed him with reason and freedom, continues to pour out His mercies on him even after the fall in His redemption. He gives fallen man the opportunity to once again achieve primitive purity and endless glory. The beginning and the end converge in a single Primary Source, Who gave both the Old and New Testaments, there manifesting Himself in judgment over a stiff-necked people, and here in incomparable mercy, opening the path to salvation for sinners through sanctification in the sacrament of Baptism. The incarnation of the Son of God, says the blessed one. Theodoret, there is the eternal mystery of the Holy Trinity, into which even the holy Angels of God want to penetrate (Eph. 3:10), and the entire economy of our salvation is the sea and the fullness of Divine love. According to the blessed father, the incarnation of the Son of God was necessary for the restoration of fallen man and his deliverance from death and corruption, for teaching him true knowledge of God and restoring in him the image of God darkened by sin, as well as his justification, sanctification and reconciliation with God by the propitiatory sacrifice on the cross. Blessed Theodoret says that “no created being could accomplish the salvation of man,” 36 but only the mysterious incarnation of the Son of God. Only He, by His coming into the world, could cleanse sinful human nature and remove divine condemnation from it. To fulfill this eternal Truth of God, the Son of God appeared into the world in order “to accomplish the salvation of the world at the cost of his own Blood” 37 . Not considering the method of building our salvation “humiliating for God”, because, according to the remark of Blessed Theodoret, nature “Nothing can defile the purest” 38, and in fulfillment of the prophecies foretold to mankind from the creation of the world, the Son of God, having borrowed His flesh from the Most Pure Virgin Mary, through the influx of the Holy Spirit on Her, is born in the poor Bethlehem manger. He who could not be comprehended by anything begins to exist in the flesh; the invisible becomes visible. A great mystery has been revealed to human consciousness and is becoming a reality, without ceasing to remain a mystery. The One who created the world, being without beginning, is most closely united with human nature. In the mystery of the incarnation God and man met. God in the form of the Son, Who was born from the essence of God the Father, and in the last days, “when the fullness of the time has come” (Gal. 4:4), is incarnated from the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary. The Son of God, Consubstantial with the Father and the Holy Spirit, “made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a servant, becoming in the likeness of men, and becoming in appearance like a man; He humbled himself and became obedient to the point of death, even death on the cross” (Phil. 2:7, 8). This self-abasement extended not only to the perception of all human nature - body and soul, except for sin, but also to participation in all human weaknesses and suffering (Heb. 4:15). Blazh. Theodoret says that the salvation of the human race, for which the Son of God was incarnate, was a work handed over to Him to be accomplished by God the Father (John 4:34, 17:4). “For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life” (John 3:16) 39. In fulfillment of the eternal counsel of the Holy Trinity, “the Son of Man came to seek and save that which was lost” (Matthew 18:11; Luke 19:10); “he came into the world to save sinners” (1 Tim. 1:15); “He appeared to take away our sins and destroy the works of the devil” (1 John 3:5,8) 40. With the birth of Christ the Savior, according to the teachings of Blessed. Theodoret, the Old Testament prophecies about Him were also fulfilled. Thus, the prophet Isaiah exclaimed: “A child was born to us, a Son, and was given to us; His government is upon His shoulders, and His name will be called: Angel of the Great Council, Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Sovereign, Prince of Peace, Father of the Future, of the Age” (Is. 9:6) 41. He is called the long-awaited Sun of Truth, the Author of life (Acts 3:15), and of our salvation (Heb.2:10), “and there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12). Expounding the doctrine of the incarnation of the Son of God, blessed. Theodoret says that we have learned to believe in our Only Begotten Lord Jesus Christ, the God of the Word made man 42. “We do not say that God the Word became flesh by nature, nor that He became flesh, since the Divinity is untransformable and unchangeable, but we say that He took on flesh and dwelt in us, according to the Gospel word: “And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth; and we have seen His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father” (John 1:14) 43. The Cyrus shepherd notes that the birth of the Word was dispassionate for the reason that the heretics, having heard the name of the Son, would not think that the Creator of all was born in the same way as we are, through carnal lust. But the Word, having formed a church for Himself in a virgin’s womb, did not make flesh, but received it from His Mother, the Most Pure Virgin Mary. “He took on living, rational flesh” 44. Moreover, there was no merging, mixing, transformation or replacement of His Human nature with Divinity, but an ineffable and indescribable union of them occurred. Man, formed at the very moment of conception in the womb of the Virgin, is also God, since conception occurred through the influx of the Holy Spirit, as the Archangel Gabriel foretold to the Blessed Virgin Mary: “The Holy Spirit will come upon you and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God” (Luke 1:35) 45. Continuing his teaching about the incarnation of the Lord, Blessed Theodoret rejects the fictitious fables of the heretics, who claimed that Jesus became incarnate, putting on the external Christ, borrowing for Himself flesh from the essence of the soul, but did not seem to have received anything from the human nature of the Virgin Mary, as well as the opinion that the Only Begotten is another, the Word is another, Christ is another, Jesus is another. The Cyrus shepherd also rejects the heresy of Arius, who argued that Christ was a simple man, not equal to God the Father, but was His creation, and Apollinaris, who argued that Christ did not have a rational soul, since he said that “where God is the Word, there the mind is superfluous” 46. Refuting all these fabrications of heretics, blessed. Theodoret proves that from ancient times the Church of Christ called the Savior of the world the Only Begotten, and God the Word, and the Savior, and Jesus Christ, and He was called God the Word and Lord both before His incarnation and after. Jesus Christ is named after His incarnation, since the word Jesus means Savior, according to the words of the Archangel Gabriel to the Virgin Mary: “You will give birth to a Son, and you will call His name Jesus” (Luke 1:31), “He will save His people from their sins” (Matthew 1:21). He is called Christ because of the anointing of the Holy Spirit, when through the mouth of the prophet Isaiah the Lord Himself said: “The Spirit of the Lord God is upon Me, for the Lord has anointed Me” (Is. 61:1). Continuing his reasoning, the Cyrus shepherd explains that Jesus was anointed not as God, but as a man, therefore “After the incarnation He was called Christ, however, there is not another God the Word, but another Christ, but God the Word, having become man, is called Christ. He became man in order to renew human nature, corrupted by sin. That is why Christ took on all the nature that was in sin in order to heal it.”47 In support of his arguments regarding the incarnation of the Lord, blessed. Theodoret says that the Savior did not take on perfect human nature to cover up the Divinity, for there is a true witness and faithful teacher of this, the holy Apostle Paul, who, revealing the mystery of the incarnation, says in the Epistle to the Romans: “Therefore, just as by one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, so death spread to all men, because all sinned in him” (Rom. 5:12). Thus, having shown the beginning of sin, the blessed one says. Theodoret, the Apostle pointed out that death was the punishment for sin. “But the generosity of God’s love for mankind surpassed justice” 48 and by the birth of the Only Begotten from the Virgin the power of death was destroyed; “Therefore, just as through one crime there was condemnation for all men, so through one righteousness there was justification for life for all men” (Rom. 5:18). Defending the teachings of the Church from the Monophysite heretics who claimed that Christ had ghostly flesh, blessed. Theodoret teaches that the Son of God, who became man, put on the same nature that we have; He took on a true, but not ghostly, human body, pointing first of all to the shrouds with which the baby Jesus was wrapped, since “they were needed for the body, but not for the Divinity” 49. The Creator of all Himself allowed His nature to be revealed in the reception of mother’s milk and other food, in order to expose the infidels who would reject His perception of the body. He allowed His body to hunger and thirst, to be weary and to sleep, and also to suffer and even die. Therefore, all this proves that the body of the Lord was a human body. Confirming this idea, Blessed. Theodoret points to the Apostle Paul, who also clearly teaches this: “As children share in flesh and blood, so He also took part in the same, so that by death he might destroy the one who had the power of death, that is, the devil, and deliver those who through the fear of death were subject to slavery all their lives” (Heb. 2:14, 15). With these words, says the blessed one. Theodoret, - the Apostle clearly showed that “God the Word put on the same nature that we have” 50. Based on the evidence of the Holy Scriptures about the two-part nature of human nature, which states that “And God created man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living soul” (Gen. 1:7), Blessed Theodoret teaches that the Lord took on not only a human body, but also a rational soul. Refuting Apollinaris, who claimed that in Christ, instead of a soul, there was divinity, blessed. Theodoret says that in this case, the suffering of Christ would not have brought any benefit to man, and man would have remained in the same subordination to the devil. Moreover, if Christ had taken on a human body without a soul, then it could not be called a man, because flesh is flesh; and he is called a man only when a rational soul is united with the body, thus Christ received from the seed of David through the Most Holy Virgin human flesh united with a rational soul. And the Evangelist Luke testifies to us that “Jesus prospered in age and in grace with God and men” (Luke 2:52), that is, the Bishop of Cyrus explains, the body prospered in age, and the soul in wisdom 51. But that the Lord took on the soul, He later taught this more clearly about Himself than anyone else. So before His suffering He said: “I have power to lay down My life and receive it” (John 10:18), and in another place: “I lay down My life for the sheep” (John 10:15). The Savior also revealed the confusion of His soul before the sufferings of the Cross, saying: “Now My soul is troubled, Father, deliver Me from this hour” (John 12:27). Based on these sayings of the Holy Scripture, Blessed Theodoret concludes that although in the Only Begotten humanity was united with the Divine and had the anointing of the Holy Spirit, the Angel supported and strengthened the weakness of His soul and body. With these and many other proofs, the Lord Himself confirms us in His perception of the true human body and rational soul, and from here the entire teaching of the blessed father about the incarnation of our Lord and Savior is confirmed. Confessing the Most Pure Mother of the Lord, the Virgin Mary, “Theotokos,” Blessed. Theodorite, to explain Her ever-virginity, points to the omnipotence of God, which preserved Her virginity unharmed. She served as a supernatural birth so that for the sake of our salvation, “the Word became flesh” (John 1:14). The blessed father says that the born God-Child was completely uninvolved in any sin, since the Holy Spirit, according to the Word of the Lord, descended on Her, cleansed Her and gave Her the ability to accept God the Word into Herself and give birth. The Son of God, Consubstantial with the Father, the Hypostatic Wisdom and Power of the Most High God formed for Himself by the Holy Spirit in the womb of His Mother flesh, animated by a verbal and rational soul. We call the Most Holy Virgin the Mother of God, not because She gave birth to God by nature, but to man, united with God, Who formed him. The Cyrus shepherd says that “if we assume that in the womb of the Virgin it was not man who was formed, but God the Word, then it turns out that God the Word will be the creation of the Spirit. However, in view of the fact that the Word is not created, but is consubstantial and co-eternal with the Father, the Word cannot be a creation of the Spirit. If the Holy Spirit did not form God the Word in the womb of the Virgin, then it remains to believe that it was formed, and took on the form, and the form of a servant was conceived and born by nature, which was the church of God living in Him” 52 . Consequently, the born Child should be called the God-Man, and His Mother - the Mother of God. And since He was received by God in the womb of the Most Pure Virgin, the Baby is called, according to the word of the prophet Isaiah, Immanuel (Is. 7:14), which means “God is with us” (Matthew 1:23). So, according to the conclusion of the blessed father, the Infant Jesus is called Immanuel, and the Virgin Mary is called the Mother of God, due to the union in Her of the image of God with the conceived image of a servant. Thus, in the concept of the Cyrus bishop, the Body of Christ, although it was created by the action of the Holy Spirit, was nevertheless formed from flesh “from the essence of the Virgin,” and was of the same kind or consubstantial with our bodies; it was visible and tangible, just like our bodies. Reasoning in this way, blessed. Theodoret clearly proved that the Lord took on both a body and a rational soul at His birth, that is, he truly became human. The Son of God, without ceasing to be God, became incarnate from the Holy Spirit and became man from the Virgin Mary in a mysterious and ineffable manner. Based on the foregoing, the purpose of the incarnation of the Son of God appears more clearly, which is to deliver humanity, through the death on the cross and the Resurrection of the Savior, from the power of sin and the devil, and to grant the opportunity to achieve eternal life. Chapter 3. Christ is the true God A meaningful statement of the belief that Christ is true God and perfect man appeared very early in the Christian Church. It formed the basis of the confession, which in ancient times was called “the apostolic sermon,” “the rule of faith,” etc. This confession was a direct expression of the deep, unshakable faith of the first Christians in their Savior; it was not distinguished by the perfection of presentation, but was the practice and life of the primal Church. As theological thought developed, the doctrine of Christ as the true God and man became the subject of debate and speculation among theologians of that time. This teaching formed the basis of the confession and blessedness. Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus. True, he did not have to introduce anything significantly new into the disclosure of this issue, since St. The Apostles, as well as the holy fathers and teachers of the Church, like St. Clement, St. Ignatius the God-Bearer, St. Polycarp of Smyrna, St. Irenaeus, St. Hippolytus, St. Gregory the Wonderworker, St. Athanasius the Great, St. Cyril of Jerusalem, St. Basil the Great, St. Gregory the Theologian, St. John Chrysostom and many others. Blessed Theodoret is best known in the history of the Church as the best interpreter of the method of uniting two natures in Christ, which will be discussed in the fifth chapter of this work. But in the fight against heretics, blessed. Theodoret appeared as an unshakable guardian and warrior of Christ, always defending the position that Christ the Savior is the true Man and the true God. “We try to preserve our fatherly heritage and faith intact,” says Blessed. Father, - which we accepted, into which we were baptized and we baptize” 53. “We have been taught,” he continues, “to worship the One Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the Only Begotten Son of God, the Word of God made man, therefore we confess Him to be the true God, born before the ages from the Father in Divinity. The Son of God has an immutable and unchangeable Divine nature, just like the Father who begot Him eternally, and since in Him the ineffable unity of two natures was accomplished, therefore we confess One Christ, One Son, One Lord” 54 . Refuting the teachings of the heretics Valentinus, Basilides, Marcion, who, not understanding the meaning of the names: Only Begotten, Jesus, Christ, Word, taught that these are different concepts, and therefore, they say, do not refer to the One God incarnate, the Cyrus shepherd, explaining this position, teaches that these names belong specifically to Him, the One true God Jesus Christ. To prove his words, Blessed. Theodoret points to the words of the Lord Himself, who said about Himself: “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life” (John 3:16), thereby clearly confirming that He is the Only Begotten Son of God from the Father 55. The Cyrus shepherd says that if He was called God the Word and the Only Begotten Son and Lord both before and after His incarnation, then He was called Jesus Christ after He became man. The word Jesus means Savior, just as the Archangel Gabriel predicted to the Blessed Virgin: “You shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins” (Matthew 1:21) 56. Condemning those who declined to call the Infant of God Christ, blessed. Theodoret says that Jesus was called Christ because of the anointing of the Spirit, according to the words of the Psalmist David: “Therefore, O God, Your God has anointed You with the oil of joy more than Your fellows” (Ps. 44:8). At the birth of the Savior, the Angel announced to the night shepherds: “I proclaim to you great joy, which will be to all people: for today a Savior has been born to you in the city of David, who is Christ the Lord” (Luke 2:10, 11). The Bishop of Cyrus also points to the Evangelist Luke, who narrates how the Savior entered the Synagogue, opened the book and read to the Pharisees and all those present the prophecy of Isaiah: “The Spirit of the Lord God is upon Me, for the Lord has anointed Me to preach good news to the poor, He has sent Me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach release to the captives and the opening of prison to the prisoners” (Is. 61:1; Luke 4:18), and then added: “Today this scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing” (Luke 4:21). Blazh. Theodoret also cites testimony about this from St. Apostle Peter: “God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power, and He went about doing good and healing everyone, because God was with Him” (Acts 10:38). Yes, and the Divine beloved disciple of Christ John testifies in the Gospel that “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” (John 1:1) 57. From all the evidence given, according to Blessed. Theodoret, it becomes clear that for the sake of the anointing of the Spirit, Jesus was called Christ. He is anointed not as God, but as Man. If he is anointed according to humanity, then he is also called Christ according to his incarnation. However, there is not another God the Word, but another Christ, since according to the teaching of St. The Apostle Paul “there is no other Christ but the Only Begotten Son of God,” therefore the divine Apostle taught the Universe this way: “We have one God the Father, from whom are all things, and we are for Him, and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by Him” (1 Cor. 8:6) 58. It is clearly shown here, says Blessed Theodoret, that the Apostle calls the same one Jesus, and Christ, and Lord, and Creator of all. The Bishop of Cyrus notes that Holy Scripture often places the name of Christ ahead of the Father, since the order of the Names does not indicate the difference in dignities and natures in the Holy Trinity. So, for example, in the letter to the Corinthians it is written: “The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God the Father, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all” (2 Cor. 13; 1 Cor. 16:22–24). Blessed Theodoret says that much other evidence can be cited that “Our Lord Jesus Christ is no other person than the Son, complementing the Holy Trinity. One and the same “before the ages was the Only Begotten Son and God the Word, and after becoming man he was called Jesus and Christ” 59 . And the Psalmist teaches us that He is the eternal King: “Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever; the scepter of righteousness is the scepter of your kingdom" (Ps. 45:7), and in his epistle to Titus the holy Apostle Paul wrote: "Looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of the great God and our Savior Jesus Christ" (Titus 2:13) 60. Blazh. Theodoret says that here too we see how the Apostle Paul called the same Savior the Great God and Jesus Christ. Therefore, “We must not deprive ourselves of the worship of our Lord Jesus Christ, for although many are called gods and fathers, yet one is above all God and the eternal Father; although many are called sons, there is only one true and by nature Son; although many are called spirits, but there is one All-Holy Spirit” 61. According to the blessed one. Theodoret, the Church especially adheres to this name and always glorifies the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit together. The Cyrus shepherd also points to the words of Basil the Great, who taught that “the name of Christ is a confession of everything,” 62 since it points simultaneously to the anointed Father, the anointed Son, and the Holy Spirit with whom He is anointed. Likewise, the Holy Fathers, who gathered in Nicaea, decreed that one must believe in “One God the Father, and in One Lord Jesus Christ, the Only Begotten Son of God,” teaching that the Lord became man and was called Christ” 63 . Thus, having understood the meaning of the names belonging to the Lord, blessed. Theodoret clearly indicated that the Anointed Christ is the true God, and only to Him belongs the name Jesus, Christ, Only Begotten, Word. Continuing to reveal the doctrine of Christ as the true God, the Bishop of Cyrus says that thousands of examples can be cited from the Old and New Testaments, which are “literally strewn with prophecies or indications of the Divinity of Jesus Christ, the Son of God” 64 . Thus, even before the incarnation of Christ the Savior, the Old Testament prophets called Him the coming Messiah God. Referring to the evidence of Holy Scripture, Blessed. Theodoret points to the prophet Isaiah, who exclaimed: “Behold, the Virgin will be with child, and will give birth to a Son, and they will call His name Immanuel” (Is. 7:14), and the word “Immanuel,” according to the thought of the blessed Father, means both God and Man, for it, according to the teaching of the Gospel (Matthew 1:23), means: God is with us, that is, God in man, God in our nature 65. In another place the same prophet says: “Unto us a child is born, a Son, and given to us; His government is upon His shoulders, and His name will be called: Angel of the Great Council, Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Ruler, Prince of Peace, Father of the Age to Come” (Is. 9:6); and again: “Truly You are the Hidden God, the God of Israel, the Savior” (Is. 45:15). And the divine Jeremiah exclaims: “This is our God, and no one else can compare with Him,” and further: “He appeared on earth and spoke among people” (Bar.3:36, 38) 66. And in the second psalm it is also said: “The Lord said to Me: You are My Son, today I have begotten You” (Ps. 2:7), - this is a clear testimony of the Father Himself, according to the blessed thought. Theodoret, about the Oneness of the Son with the Father. Depicting the prophecies of the New Testament times, the Bishop of Cyrus cites evidence of the Divinity of Jesus of John the Baptist, who, pointing to Jesus coming to him, exclaimed: “This is the one of whom I spoke; A man comes after me, who stood before me, because he was before me” (John 1:30). Blessed brings. Theodoret's teaching about Jesus and His beloved disciple John: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” (John 1:1) 67 and again: “The Word became flesh and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth; and we have seen His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father” (John 1:14). The Apostle Peter called Jesus: “You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God” (Matthew 16:16). And the Heavenly Father Himself said from heaven: “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased” (Matthew 3:17). Blazh. Theodoret says that even the devil testified to the Sonship of Jesus with the words: “What do you have to do with us, Jesus, Son of God? You came here before the time to torment us” (Matthew 8:29) 68. The Apostle Thomas, putting his hand into the side of the Lord, called Him: “My Lord and my God” (John 20:28). Blessed Theodoret also cites the sayings of the holy Apostle Paul, confirming that Christ is the true God, with the words: “We have one God the Father, from whom are all things, and we are for Him, and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we through Him” (1 Cor. 8:6) 69, and also: “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever” (Heb. 13:8). Blazh. Theodoret says that the Evangelist John, calling the Savior the eternal Word - “In the beginning was the Word” - thereby already indicates that He is eternal, for Who was in the beginning, He without a doubt has always been. He often calls this Word both the Only Begotten Son and Jesus Christ. But “since some think that He who is from God cannot be co-eternal with God, thinking that the Divine nature is subject to the laws of human nature, believing that the Father is older than the Son” 70, such people are blessed. Theodoret cites the teaching of the Apostle Paul, who clearly showed that the Only Begotten Son is both from God and with God, calling Him “the brightness of His glory” (Heb. 1:3). Just as the radiance of its being, according to the Bishop of Cyrus, receives from fire and exists with fire, because by its nature it is inseparable from fire, like a ray from the sun, “so the Only Begotten Son, although born of the Father, exists together with the mind, like a word with its producer, like light with fire, like a ray with the sun” 71 . Blazh. Theodoret teaches that “God the Word, the radiance of Glory, is not some action of the Father that does not have originality, but is a living, independent hypostasis in itself” 72 . This Only Begotten Son of God, according to Blessed. Theodoret, not lower than the Father in Divinity and not a different essence, but one and the same with God the Father. He is equal to the Father in Divinity and although he is born from the Father, he is nevertheless co-essential with the One who gave birth 73 . To prove these words, the Bishop of Cyrus cites the teaching of the Lord Himself, Who says: “My Father works hitherto, and I work” (John 5:17), and again: “As the Father raises the dead and gives life, so the Son gives life to whomever He will” (John 5:21) 74. Confirming His Oneness with His Heavenly Father, Christ the Savior asked the Apostle Philip: “Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father in Me?” (John 14:10). “He who has seen Me has seen the Father” (John 14:9) 75. Blazh. Theodoret says that Christ answered Philip this way because the Apostle saw the visible, but did not contemplate the invisible Divinity, and therefore was accused of not knowing the Son exactly, and therefore desiring to see the Father. So, the Cyrus shepherd recognizes that God the Word was born of the Father, and the firstfruits was received from the seed of Abraham and David, according to the word of God the Father given to Abraham: “And all the nations of the earth will be blessed in your seed, because you have obeyed my voice” (Gen. 22:18). And the prophet Isaiah says: “And it will come to pass in that day that the Gentiles will return to the root of Jesse, which will stand as a banner for the nations, and his rest will be glory” (Is. 11:10). From what has been said it is clear that according to the teachings of Blessed. Father, Christ according to the flesh is a descendant of Abraham and David, and that He assumed the nature characteristic of them, but according to Divinity He is the eternal Son of God, the Word, in an ineffable and inaccessible to human understanding way, born of the Father. Therefore, he confesses that our Lord Jesus Christ is “the Only Begotten Son of God, He is God before His incarnation and after His incarnation” 76 . And that Christ is the true God, this is, according to the blessed. Theodoret, is further proven by the numerous miracles that He performed, since they could only be performed by God. The Bishop of Cyrus says that “already at His birth, reclining in a manger and wrapped in swaddling clothes, the Infant God was announced by a mysterious star, He received worship from the Magi and was sung by the Angels” 77. In his message to the monks, Blessed. Theodoret points to the works of Divine Power, done by the hand of the Lord, these are: “Walking the lame, raising the dead, multiplying the loaves of bread, turning water into wine, taming the storm” 78. In a conversation with Eranist, the blessed Father says that “The Divine nature in Christ by hand produced the sense of sight, healed the man born blind, restored hearing to the deaf and resolved the bound tongue; walking on the waters of the sea, Christ revealed the omnipotence of His Divinity” 79. The Son of God, by His coming to earth, destroyed the Old Testament and gave the New Testament. He destroyed death, crushed the bronze gates and broke the iron ropes (Ps. 106) and in three days raised His church (John 11:19) not made by hands” 80. “And what can I say,” exclaims the blessed one. Theodoret, - about the Lord, Who was the true God, and for Whom it was easy to do everything that He did not want” 81. The miracles performed by Jesus Christ give grounds to the Bishop of Cyrus to assert that the birth in the flesh of God the Word did not in any way limit the power of His Divinity. On the contrary, this once again confirms that even after His incarnation, God the Word did not separate from the essence of God the Father, but as Consubstantial with Him, always and eternally abides with Him. Blessed Theodoret believes in One Father, one Son, one Holy Spirit and professes one Divinity, one dominion, one essence, Three Hypostases, for the incarnation of the Only Begotten, in his opinion, did not diminish the power of each Hypostasis, and did not increase the number of members of the Holy Trinity. “Believing that the Son of God became man, we do not deny the nature that He accepted, but we confess,” says the blessed Father, “both that which He received and that He assumed, for the union did not produce a fusion of natures, since the air, penetrated by light, does not unite with it; it is all the more insane to call the fusion of Divinity and humanity in our Savior” 82 . Blessed Theodoret further teaches that God the Word was not incarnate through the transformation into flesh of His Divinity, changing the superiority of His nature over everyone, since the Divinity is immutable and completely unchangeable, but ineffably united with the flesh of our damaged nature. The Cyrus shepherd claims that God the Word did not unite with any holy person, as the heretics taught, but the Word from the immaculate blood of the Virgin Mary formed His own flesh, He Himself imparted a Hypostasis to the flesh, not in the least merging the two natures, but preserving the properties of each. From this it becomes obvious that in Christ Jesus the flesh performed its functions, and the Divinity performed miracles. To confirm what was said, Blessed Theodoret points to the words of St. ap. Paul: “Take heed, brethren, lest anyone lead you away through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the rudiments of the world, and not according to Christ; for in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily” ( Col. 2:8–9 ) 83 . The Cyrus shepherd calls Christ the Savior God, Creator, and Almighty because he has perfect Divinity. “All that the Father has is Mine” (John 16:15), says the Lord. Confessing the Savior as a perfect God and a perfect Man, blessed. Theodoret teaches that He has two wills and two actions, although, however, the human will is always subordinated to the will of God in Him: “Not my will, but yours be done” (Luke 22:42) 84. The Only Begotten Son of God, inexpressibly uniting with human nature, united with his soul and body. Blazh. Theodoret does not say that at His birth the Lord accepted a soul devoid of reason, as Apollinaris blasphemed, but took on the whole man, that is, the flesh - “The Word became flesh” (John 1:14), and the soul - “My soul is now troubled” (John 12:27) 85, also: “My soul is grieved unto death” (Matthew 26:38), and also: “Father, into Your hands I commend My spirit” (Luke 23:46). Having tasted death for us on the Cross, according to the thought of the blessed one. Theodoret, although the Divinity of the Savior was with Him urgently, both during suffering and after, but “the Lord Christ suffered humanly, remaining impassive, like God” 86. Having endured this shameful, terrible death for our salvation, the Lord died as a man. His most holy soul separated from his saving body to descend into hell. But the gates of hell could not hold back the soul of the conqueror of hell and death; on the contrary, He alone appeared among the dead, free from suffering, as the only sinless one of all people, as the liberator of sinners from all punishment and guilt. Many sayings of the Holy Scripture testify to the descent of the Lord into hell, for example, in Acts it is said: “For You will not leave My soul in hell, neither will You suffer Your holy one to see corruption” (Acts 2:27), or “Christ, in order to lead us to God, once suffered for our sins, the righteous for the unjust, being put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the Spirit, by which He also was in prison He went down and preached to the spirits” (1 Peter 3:18). According to bl. For the Father, the Lord’s descent into hell was in order to announce victory over the enemy and apostate devil, to humiliate pride and weaken him, and to free those held there for the sake of their ancestral sin from bonds and sorrows and lead them to freedom. After three days, Christ rose from the dead and, appearing to His disciples, ate and drank before them. The risen Savior, having glorified flesh, entered them through closed doors, so that some of the disciples had difficulty recognizing Him. “When they saw Him,” says the Evangelist, “they worshiped Him, but others doubted” (Matthew 28:17). Finally, in all His Divine glory, He ascended into heaven, according to the words of the Angels: “This Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will come in the same way as you saw Him going into heaven” (Acts 1:11). So, the Lord ascended in flesh to His Father into heaven and “sat at the right hand of God.” From there, concludes the blessed one. Theodoret, we look forward to His Second Coming as the World Judge, when “He will resurrect everyone on the last day and reward everyone according to his deeds” 87. He, as the true Only Begotten Son of God, was given all authority in heaven and on earth. He sent from the Father to His disciples the Almighty and All-Holy Spirit, through whom they were filled with all wisdom. The Savior sent them to preach to all ends of the Universe to preach repentance and forgiveness of sins to all who would believe in Him as the True God and Savior of the world. As the Lord of all, Christ the Savior fulfilled His mission on earth: by His death on the Cross and glorious Resurrection, He saved the human race from sin and death; forever reconciled us with the Heavenly Father, He opened for us the entrance to the doors of heaven, to the eternal kingdom. “The kingdom of our God and Savior,” says the blessed one. Theodoret, - it will not be earthly, where there are perishable amusements and various types of voluptuousness, but we expect eternal, ageless life; our life is in heaven, from where we wait for the Savior, the Lord Jesus” 88. And the greatest blessing is that the life promised by the Savior will be free from sin, because when bodies are resurrected incorruptible, souls will assume immutability, and sin will no longer have any place. Then the righteous will inherit eternal life and, according to the Savior, “their faces will be illuminated like the sun” (Matthew 13:43), and sinners will face hell and eternal shame” 89 . Chapter 4. Christ is a perfect man Confessing Christ the Savior as the true God, blessed Theodoret also confesses Him as a perfect man. The blessed father especially defended this position from heretics who denied true human flesh in Christ, recognizing it as illusory. Blazh. Theodoret, following in the footsteps of St. The Apostles and the teaching of the Church, sees in the Lord Christ not only Divinity, but also perfect humanity. The Cyrus shepherd points out that “the Savior took on the body not because he needed a body, but in order through it to grant immortality to other bodies, just as He accepted the soul that rules the body, so that through it every soul would become a participant in immutability” 90. Refuting the errors and blasphemies of the heretics Marcion, Manes, Valentinus and others, who denied God’s perception of human nature by the Word, Blessed. Theodoret says that “we confess our Lord Jesus Christ as perfect God and perfect man from a rational soul and body, born before the ages from the Father according to the Divinity, and in the last days, for our sake and for the sake of our salvation, from the Virgin Mary” 91. He is Consubstantial with the Father in Divinity, and with us in humanity. The Cyrus shepherd, affirming the perception of perfect human nature by our Lord, says that the shrouds with which the baby Jesus was wrapped indicate that they were needed for humanity 92 and not for the Divinity. Maternity milk, other food and drink also indicate human nature, which was capable of accepting all this. The Savior Himself allowed the body to show its own nature in order to more clearly expose the falsity of future heresies that denied His perception of the body. “He allowed His body to hunger, and to thirst, and to be weary, and to sleep, to grieve, to cry, to suffer, and even to die, in order to fulfill the mystery of God’s economy. All this testifies that the Body of the Lord was a human body" 93 . The fact that the Savior accepted the integral human nature with all the fullness of its component parts is clearly indicated, according to the blessed one. Theodoret, holy Apostles and Evangelists. Thus, His birth followed after the usual time of pregnancy (Luke 2:6). On the eighth day He was circumcised, and on the fortieth day He was brought to the church to be dedicated to the Lord (Luke 2:22). About His further life, the evangelists say that “The child grew and became strong in spirit, filled with wisdom; and the grace of God was upon Him” (Luke 2:40) 94. The Evangelist John also testifies to the birth of the Son of God according to the flesh with the words: “The Word became flesh and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth” (John 1:14). He writes: “Every spirit that does not confess Jesus Christ who has come in the flesh is not from God, but is the spirit of Antichrist” (1 John 4:3). The Holy Apostle Paul also says: “As children share in flesh and blood, He also received them” 95, and further: “For He does not receive from angels, but He receives Abraham’s seed” (Heb. 2:14-16). The Savior Himself says about His body: “The bread that I will give is My flesh, which I will give for the life of the world” (John 6:51) 96. And at the Last Supper, teaching the divine sacraments, breaking bread and giving it to the disciples, He said: “Take, eat; This is My Body, broken for you for the remission of sins.” And then, taking the cup and giving thanks, he gave it to them and said: “Drink from it, all of you; for this is My Blood of the New Testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins” (Matt. 26:26–28; Mark 14:22; Luke 22:19; 1 Cor. 11:24) 97. True proof of the truth of the human body of the Savior, blessed. Theodoret sees in the sayings of Christ to the Jews: “Now you seek to kill Me, the Man who told you the truth, which I heard from God” (John 8:40) 98, and also: “Destroy this church, and in three days I will raise it up” (John 2:19), here, according to the remark of the blessed Father, Christ spoke about the Church of His Body. Having human flesh, Christ, before His suffering, was afraid of death, needed the help of Angels and asked His Heavenly Father to deliver Him from this hour. Blazh. Theodoret says that “in Christ at these moments everything that He received from the seed of David, that is mortal, that is subject to suffering and that trembles at death, trembled.” 99 Thus, it becomes completely clear, concludes the blessed one. father, that Christ had a human body, visible to us through His suffering. In support of his conclusions, the Cyrus shepherd says that Joseph of Arimathea, having come to Pilate, asked for the Body of Jesus, wrapped Him in a shroud and delivered him to the tomb (Matthew 27:57; Mark 15:43; Luke 27:52; John 19:38). “And Mary Magdalene, coming with other women early in the morning to the tomb, looked for the Body of Jesus, and not finding It, they ran to tell His disciples about it” 100 (Matthew 27:57-60; Mark 15:43-46; Luke 23:50-55; John 19:38-42). Yes, and the Angel announced to them: “Come, see, the place where the Lord lay” (Matthew 28:6). The Cyrus shepherd says that “the angel with these words did not imprison the deity, but the body of the Lord, calling by the name of the Lord” 101. After His resurrection, He showed the disciples his hands and feet, and to Thomas his ribs and wounds from nails and spears. According to the blessed one. father, “Although the Savior had the glorified Divine flesh after the Resurrection, he kept intact the signs from the nails and from the spear in order to expose with His wounds those who denied His perception of the body” 102. Body to the Lord, continues the blessed one. Theodorite is a body, but it is a dispassionate body, incorruptible, immortal and glorified by divine glory. “It is not separate from the Divinity and is not the body of anyone else, but the Only Begotten Son of God Himself, who took on our nature” 103. The teaching of the Apostles also teaches us, notes Blessed Theodoret, that the perfect Man was accepted by the perfect God. Confessing that the Only Begotten Son of God had true flesh from His Most Pure Mother, the Virgin Mary, the blessed Father says that we do not deny the nature that He accepted, but we confess both that He received and was received, for the union did not produce a fusion of the particularities of natures even after the Resurrection of the Savior, as many claimed, that His body ceased to be a human body. “After all, the air, explains the blessed one. the father, imbued with light, does not cease to be air, but with our eyes we see light, and through touch we still know air” 104. The Cyrus shepherd persuades anyone who is perplexed and doubtful about this issue with his arguments to accept this truth with deep faith in the omnipotence of God, which is often inaccessible to our understanding. Such persons are blessed. Theodoret says that let them say how in a moment Habakkuk was transported from Judea to Babylon, penetrated into a closed ditch, gave food to Daniel and came out again without damaging the seal of the ditch? (Dan.14:33–39) 105. It is even more crazy, the blessed father continues, to investigate how the Lord Christ, for example, was born of a Virgin without violating Her virginity, or how He performed miracles, how He entered the disciples when the doors were closed? After all, the Holy Scripture teaches us that after the Resurrection our bodies will also be incorruptible and immortal, free from earthly heaviness, and will become light and heavenly. The blessed one speaks about this. Theodoret, St. clearly teaches. Apostle Paul: “So it is with the resurrection of the dead: it is sown in corruption, it is raised in incorruption; sown in humiliation, raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in strength; a natural body is sown, a spiritual body is raised” (1 Cor. 15:42–44), “then we who are alive and remain will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we will always be with the Lord” (1 Thess. 4:17). “If the bodies of saints, concludes the Cyrus Shepherd, become light, heavenly and move freely through the air, then it is not surprising when the body of the Lord, united with the Divinity of the Only Begotten, which became immortal after the resurrection, penetrated through closed doors” 106. Even after the uprising, the body of the Lord remained truly human, but became incorruptible, immortal, glorified by divine glory. It was not separated from the deity, and is not the body of anyone else, but the Only Begotten Son of God Himself, who assumed human nature 107. Having shown that Christ really had a human body, blessed. Theodoret teaches that along with the body, the Lord Christ also received a rational soul. So in the message to the soldiers, Blessed. the father says that “Christ the Savior, having an immortal nature, took on a body capable of suffering, and together with the body the human soul. Keeping both free from all attacks of sin” 108. According to the teachings of the Bishop of Cyrus, our souls, although immortal, are not unchangeable, but are subject to frequent changes, enjoying now one thing or another. Therefore, just as every person, deviating from the right path, sins, clinging to the worst, the Son of God, having taken on body and soul, preserved them free from all vice in order to sacrifice them for the entire human race. According to the blessed one. father, if only Adam’s body had sinned, then only the body should have been healed, but since the soul also sinned, and it was the first to represent the sin, and then the sin was committed through the body, then, naturally, it was fair to heal the soul as well. That is why the Lord Christ took on both the body and the rational soul 109. Refuting the teaching of Apollinaris, that in Christ the place of the rational soul was occupied by deity, blessed. Theodoret teaches that in such a case, the suffering of Christ would not have brought any benefit to man, and everything human would still be subject to the devil, and the souls of the dead righteous would still remain in hell along with sinners. But a body without a soul cannot be called a man, because flesh is flesh, and it is called a man only when a rational soul is united with the body, since then the whole body is revived. Representing the body of Christ with a rational soul, blessed. Theodorite more clearly depicts her inherent powers, properties and manifestations. So, for example, the Evangelist Luke testifies that “Jesus increased in wisdom and age, and in favor with God and men” (Luke 2:52) 110. Here the Cyrus shepherd explains that the body prospered with age, and the soul with wisdom, that is, as the body grew, the nature of God revealed its wisdom. But most clearly, according to the remark of Blessed. father, the Lord Christ Himself teaches about taking the soul upon Himself. Thus, before His suffering on the Cross, He said to the disciples: “I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it up again” (John 10:18). And again: “This is why the Father loves Me, because I lay down My life in order to take it again” (John 10:17), “My soul is grieved to death” (Matthew 26:38). The upcoming suffering brought the soul of Christ into such struggle that “His sweat was like drops of blood” (Luke 22:24) and an Angel came and strengthened Him (Luke 22:43) 111. And at the moments of death, the Savior cried out to His Father: “Father! into Your hands I commend My spirit” (Luke 23:46). From all the evidence given in Holy Scripture, says Blessed. Theodoret, we see the weakness of human nature and that “the nature of God allowed all this to happen, so that in subsequent times the believers’ perception of soul and body by the Savior could be confirmed by these proofs” 112. And the Lord Himself, says, is blessed. father, often called Himself both Man and Son of Man. He repeatedly repeated to the Holy Apostles: “The Son of Man will be delivered into the hands of men” (Luke 9:44); “And they will kill Him, and on the third day He will rise again” (Mark 9:31); and again: “Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has no place to lay his head” (Luke 9:58). The Savior openly said to the Jews: “Now seek to kill Me, the Man who told you the truth, which I heard from God” (John 8:40) 113. Blazh. Theodoret cites numerous evidence from both the Old and New Testaments that the Messiah, Christ the Savior, had to assume perfect human nature in order to show and recognize Him as consubstantial with us in humanity, in body and soul. Thus, in a conversation with Eranist, the Cyrus shepherd points to the words of the Apostle Paul to Timothy: “For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all” (1 Tim. 2:5–6). After all, He, as God, could perform His service as an Intercessor or Mediator (μεσίτης) between God and people only by becoming a true Man, explains the blessed one. father. “Christ could not be called a mediator if He were only God, because how could He fulfill the office of mediator between God and people if He had nothing of ours?” 114 But since He was united with the Father, being Consubstantial with Him, and as Man is united with us, having borrowed from us the form of a slave, then rightly, the blessed one notes. Theodoret, “He is called the Mediator, as uniting in Himself the divided natures, that is, Divinity and Humanity” 115. In the Holy Scripture, according to the conclusion of the Cyrus shepherd, one can find many testimonies preaching about the kinship of the Savior with us according to the flesh, starting from the promise that the Seed of the Woman will erase the head of the serpent (Gen. 3:15), including the statements of all the Old Testament prophets, to the holy Evangelist Matthew, who depicted for us the book of the kinship of Jesus Christ, the Son of David, the Son of Abraham" (Matt. 1:1). And St. The Apostle Paul speaks directly about Christ: “These are the fathers, and from them is Christ according to the flesh, who is God over all” (Rom. 9:5). The evidence we have presented sufficiently demonstrates the Orthodox teaching of Blessed. Theodoret, that the Lord, as God, took upon Himself perfect human nature. He, both a perfect God and a perfect Man, has given us the opportunity to receive perfect salvation. Chapter 5. Teaching bl. Theodoret on the unity of the face of Christ the Savior Starting to present the teachings of Blessed. Theodoret on the unity of the Person of Christ the Savior, we briefly point out that in the previous two chapters we showed his purely Orthodox view of the Divinity and Humanity of the Only Begotten Son of God. The Blessed Father clearly, simply and easily understood by everyone, set forth the doctrine that Christ in Divinity is the true Son of God, and in Humanity He was the true Son of Man. Revealing the image of the union of Divinity and Humanity in the One Person of the God-Man Jesus Christ is the subject of writing this chapter. But, before proceeding with its presentation, we consider it appropriate to first briefly outline the teaching of the heretic Nestorius on this issue, for the reason that for our friendly relations and sympathy for him, blessed. For a long time in history, Theodoret was accused of being a Nestorian. Although, as was indicated in the first chapter of this work, Blessed. his father was a friend of Nestorius and at first supported Nestorius from the attacks of the Egyptians, 116 but he never fully shared his teachings, and even often considered them erroneous. Subsequently, the Cyrus shepherd finally dissociated himself from him and even anathematized him at the Ecumenical Council 117. As you know, after the Council of Nicea, which condemned the heresy of Arius, the debate about the Face of the God-Man did not stop, one might say, not for a minute. The human mind could not calm down in the knowledge achieved, but demanded more and more new facts, evidence and research. Instead of a pure heart, deep faith, as demanded by the Alexandrian theologians led by St. Cyril, to accept everything that the Savior Himself, the holy Apostles, as well as the holy fathers and teachers of the Church taught, in order to submit to the decisions of the Holy Nicene Ecumenical Council, assembled and guided by the Holy Spirit, the mind of the Antiochian shepherd Nestorius worked for itself. Nestorius, having ascended the throne of Constantinople, soon came out with his vile heresy, which, in essence, denies the birth of God the Word in the flesh and divides the One Person of Jesus Christ into two Persons. In his view, Christ humbled Himself, was born, grew, gradually increasing in wisdom, then suffered and died. Although He was the God-man, He suffered from humanity, since, according to Nestorius, the Divinity could not suffer. Therefore, in Christ the natures were divided. And the birth of Christ from the Virgin, Nestorius reasoned, was a human birth, and not a Divine one, moreover, “The Son of God, having been born pre-eternally from the Father, could not yet be born in time, therefore, they say, only a man was born who entered into communion with the Son of God” 118. But this communication began from the time of the conception of Jesus, therefore, Nestorius concluded, in the womb of the Virgin Mary there was a Child and the Lord of the Child. But only man developed in body, but not the Son of God, since the divine and human natures were not united. Therefore, Nestorius concluded, it was not God Himself who was born from the Virgin Mary, but the clothing that was supposed to clothe the Son of God, or the church in which He wanted to dwell. Hence Nestorius denied the name Theotokos 119. He began to call the Mother of God the Mother of God, since She gave birth to the Man - Christ. In his later life, according to Nestorius, Christ gained wisdom as Man, but not as God, since the natures in Him were divided. Nestorius also attributed the suffering of Christ to human nature, 120 since, according to his reasoning, the Divinity was alien to suffering, again due to the division of natures in Him. In this teaching of Nestorius, his opponents saw the idea that by dividing natures, one suffering and the other remaining indifferent to suffering, Nestorius thereby introduced the doctrine of two sons in the God-man, of two persons in one Person. Feeling possible criticism against him, Nestorius, however, sometimes expressed that Christ was One and indivisible 121 and that the Divinity and humanity in Him had communion 122, but only to the smallest degree. Nestorius designated this communication with the term (συνάφειαν), that is, contact 123, while the Orthodox theologians of Alexandria, led by St. Kirill, was designated by a more understandable term ἕνωσις φυσική, that is, a connection by nature 124. This heretical teaching of Nestorius caused indignation and indignation among Western theologians. After all, in fact, if Christ humbled himself and suffered on the Cross as humanity, and at the same time the Divinity abandoned Him, then faith in the reality of redemption wavered. It turns out that only man suffered, although of the highest righteousness, but man could not satisfy the eternal truth of God. The descent of the Son of God to Earth seems unnecessary here. From here it is revealed that Christ Himself was a sinner, that He also had a need for atonement, and on the Cross suffered for Himself, and, therefore, in the sacraments Christians are offered not the Body of the Lord, but the body of a man 125. Nestorius also attributed the Gospel sayings concerning the derogatory or superior virtues of Christ separately, either to the Divinity or to humanity. It seemed that the Evangelists, when they wrote about the One Christ, described not one, but two Persons. As we see, this teaching of Nestorius looks clearly heretical. Blazh. Theodoret, being a prominent theologian, could not support such an evil teaching of his friend, but on the issue of the unity of natures in Christ he was like-minded with him. So, for example, Nestorius taught that it is necessary to imagine the natures of the God-man not in union by nature, but in separation from one another. Likewise, the Cyrus Shepherd pays attention more to the moment of separation of natures than to their fusion. The Alexandrian theologians, led by St. Cyril, having previously learned about the heresy of Nestorius and having read the Refutations of Cyril’s chapters written by Blessed. Theodoret, they saw that the Cyrus shepherd, like Nestorius, divides the Lord Jesus into two sons with his teaching; They accused him of Nestorianism. The Alexandrians also saw the opinion that the Bishop of Cyrus divided the One Person of Jesus Christ into two sons in his following saying: “Who was it that lived in reverence, with a strong cry and with tears brought prayer, not having the power to save Himself, but prayed to Him who was able to save Him and asked for liberation from death? Not God the Word, Who is immortal and impassive. But this is what He received from the seed of David, which is mortal, subject to suffering and trembling at death - the nature taken from us, and not the one that received it for the sake of our salvation” 126. In this saying, as we see, the separateness of natures is clearly emphasized rather than their unity. Blazh. Theodoret indeed tried to divide the natures in Christ as much as possible, but he did this with a goal directed against heretics, who, with their teaching, allowed the complete merging of natures in Jesus Christ. Seeing in this the danger of Monophysitism, the blessed Father therefore defended his teaching in the following expression: “We idolize the Son as One, we idolize what has been received and received in Him; but we must always remember the difference of natures” 127. In general, it is necessary to admit that the teachings are blessed. Theodorite were not constant, but under the influence of various influences, such as: the teachings of Nestorius, Apollinaris, St. Cyril, the Monophysites, Blessed. Father often theologized and argued, but always avoided extremes, sticking to the golden mean. The Egyptians' attacks on the blessed one were in vain. father, accusing him of being a Nestorian. His teachings were restrained, gentler than those taught by Nestorius. So, for example, Blessed Theodoret accepted and used the expression Theotokos. He admitted the idea of ​​the deification of Christ's humanity from the very time of conception and incarnation. The Cyrus shepherd used a formula, later adopted, which expressed the Orthodox teaching that in Christ the natures were united inseparably άσυγχύτως (asynhitos) and inseparably ἀχωρίστως (achoristos). As for the disputes, Blessed. Theodoret with St. Kirill, then history itself suggested that this polemic between the most prominent theologians of that time was undertaken partly due to a misunderstanding, partly due to their different understanding of theological terminology, which had not yet been established by that time, although, as we will show in the sixth chapter of this work, in essence, both fathers sought to establish the same truth. Yes, blessed one. Theodoret at first, not understanding the term “hypostasis” ὑπόστασις, confused this concept with nature and therefore tried in his teaching to more strongly divide the natures in Christ, and if he heard about their unity, which St. taught. Cyril, he considered this a heresy, meaning that it was preached in one nature - two natures. He called these heretics, Monophysites, Apollinarians, and even such teaching seemed to him Arianism. On the other hand, the Cyrus shepherd, understanding the word hypostasis as nature, was alienated from the doctrine of the hypostatic union of two natures in Christ, calling it strange and alien to the Holy Scriptures and the Fathers of the Church. According to the blessed one. Theodoret, “if we recognize the hypostatic union, then in the Person of the God-man from Divinity and Humanity a middle nature was formed, something mixed, then God is no longer God (the Son of God), and the church (His Humanity) is not a church, but the church appears to be God and God is a church, such, in his opinion, is the concept of this middle” 128. Discussing the method of uniting two natures in one Person of Christ the Savior, the Cyrus shepherd, in a letter to the lawyer Eusebius, draws an analogy using the example of the unity of soul and body in a person. He writes like this: “Just as a person, generally speaking, is a rational and mortal animal, has a soul, has a body, but is still thought of as a single living being, and the difference between two natures does not divide one into two, and in the same thing we know both the immortality of the soul and the mortality of the body, we recognize the soul as invisible, the body as visible and, however, we find here one living being, rational and mortal together, - in the same way we know that Our Lord is Master Christ and after the incarnation one Son: for as much as the union is inseparable, it is also unmerged” 129. “If we,” writes Blessed. Father to Bishop Timothy, - we affirm unity in relation to the soul and body - simultaneous natures (by origin) and physically connected with each other, and we call the soul simple (uncomplicated), rational and immortal, and we call the body complex, passionate and mortal, and for all this we do not separate the connection and do not cut one person into two, then all the more should we do this to the One who was born before the ages from the Father according to the Divinity and received from the seed of David according to humanity and clearly proclaim the first to be eternal, eternal, simple, indescribable, immortal, unchangeable, and the second to be new, complex, describable, changeable and mortal” 130. As we see in the latter case, the fact of the coexistence of soul and body in the living person of a single subject serves as a blessing. Theodoret to substantiate the theory of a non-fused union of natures in Christ, while in the first one he explained the idea of ​​indissolubility. In a letter to the monks of Constantinople, the Cyrus shepherd writes that “every person has an immortal soul and a mortal body, and, however, until this day no one has called Paul two Pauls, since he has both soul and body, or Peter two Peters, or Abraham, or Adam, but everyone recognizes the difference in natures, and does not call one two Pauls” 131. These and other examples of blessed. the father tried to emphasize the difference of natures in a single human organism and on them to affirm and prove the difference of natures in the One Person of Christ the Savior. When the heretics, trying to accuse the Cyrus shepherd, as if by his teaching about the separateness of natures in Christ Jesus, he divides our Lord into two sons, then blessed. the father says that “we are far from these false thoughts, for we, together with our mother’s breast, accepted the apostolic nourishment, we were taught the faith set forth in Nicaea by the holy and blessed Fathers, and we ourselves teach it as the right to confess Christ, and we accuse those who think differently from her of wickedness” 132. “But those who divide Jesus Christ our Savior into two persons, or two sons, or two masters, we call wicked” 133. Blessed Theodoret also considered as wicked those who dared to unite the two natures of the Only Begotten into one, for which, as it seemed to him, the Alexandrians stood up. In revealing the dogma of the union of natures in the One Person of Christ the Savior, he himself, holding on to the concept of ἕνωσις, especially pointed to the duality of natures, and, in types and under the influence of polemics with the supposed Monophysitism, he strongly put forward the moment of separation. In this point of view, he agreed with Nestorius, therefore he easily ignored the fact that in Nestorius διαίρεσις was completely excluded from ἕνωσις, meanwhile, for him, both were inseparably linked. In this case, blessed. Father also fought for the Orthodox truth of non-fusion in unity. Blessed Theodoret, although he was not convinced of the complete impeccability of the teachings of Nestorius, but, keeping to the middle, did not consider it permissible to join the teachings of St. Kirill, whose wrong-headedness seemed to him beyond doubt. The dogmatics of Nestorius were far from the own views of the Cyrus shepherd, and he advocated for him only out of a misunderstanding, for which he incurred condemnation. Trying to avoid attacks from heretics, who, according to the blessed one. Father, “they buzzed everyone’s ears and armed Alexandria against him, as if he, like Nestorius, preaches two instead of one Son,” the Cyrus shepherd repeats that he is so far from such vile wisdom that he is annoyed and does not allow such a division 134. He says that “let anyone who wishes become acquainted with my previous writings, which were written before the Council of Ephesus and after it, for by the grace of God we accused all the heretics, Arius, Marcion, and Apollinaris, and our church teaching still shines today” 135. Blazh. Theodoret also joined the definition of the Council of Ephesus, which set forth the Orthodox teaching about the Son of God and the Mother of God, presented in the following statement of faith: “We confess that our Lord Jesus Christ is perfect God and perfect Man, consisting of a rational soul and body, that He was born before the ages from the Father according to the Divinity, and in recent times for our sake and for the sake of our salvation from the Virgin Mary according to humanity; that He is consubstantial with the Father in Divinity and consubstantial with us in humanity; for in Him there is a perfect union of two natures. That is why we confess one Christ, one Son, one Lord. On the basis of such an unfused union, we confess the Most Holy Virgin Theotokos, because God the Word became incarnate and became man, and at the very conception united with Himself the church received from her” 136. As we see, the Cyrus shepherd shared the thoughts of the fathers of the council and, like them, recognized the unfused union of natures in Christ, but at the same time confessed One Father, One Christ, One Lord. So in the message to the monks of Syria, Blessed. The Father says that “we do not divide the One into two Persons, but we believe that in the One Person two natures were united inextricably” 137. In a letter to Deaconess Celerinus 138, the Cyrus shepherd affirms the difference between Divinity and humanity in Christ, but confesses one Person in one Son, God the Word made man. Worshiping the One Christ, Blessed. the father confesses two natures united in the womb of the Virgin from the very conception, and says that he does not divide the two natures into two Christs, but recognizes that God the Word was born from the Father, and our firstfruits was received from the seed of Abraham and David according to the word of the Ap. Paul: “Remember Jesus Christ, who was raised from the dead, from the seed of David, according to my gospel” (2 Tim. 2:8), and in the Epistle to the Romans he says: “His Son, who was of the seed of David according to the flesh” (Rom. 1:3), and the evangelist Matthew wrote: “The book of the relationship of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham” (Matt. 1:1). “We have been taught to believe in the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,” says the blessed Father in a letter to the lawyer Eusebius, “and no one taught us or baptized us into two sons, but we know the One Father and the One Holy Spirit, also the One Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the Only Begotten Son of God, God the Word made man. We do not deny the peculiarities of natures, but we consider those who divide the one Lord Jesus Christ into two sons to be wicked, and we also consider those who try to merge natures to be enemies of the truth, since we believe that the union was unmerged, and we know which nature is characteristic of humanity and which of the Divine” 139. In a letter to Bishop Flavian, the Cyrus shepherd says: “Let your sacred and God-loving head know that no one has ever heard of us preaching two sons, for this dogma seems to me disgusting and ungodly, since there is One Lord Jesus Christ, and by Him are all things (1 Cor. 8:6)” 140. We consider the evidence and sayings of the blessed father that we have cited to be quite sufficient to show his Orthodox way of thinking. As we see, the Cyrus shepherd zealously defended himself against heretics and defended the teaching that in Christ the Divine and human natures were united inseparably; he correctly taught that “The Divinity is untransformable and unchangeable, therefore the Word did not turn into flesh” 141. In turn, human nature in Christ did not change when united with the Divine. In Christ it was neither absorbed by the Divine, nor changed into another nature, but remained in Him, retaining its properties unchanged. “The body of Christ,” says the Cyrus shepherd, “did not change into another nature, but remained a body, only filled with Divine glory and emitting rays of light” 142. Therefore, if the nature of the Word did not turn into flesh, nor human nature changed into another nature, then, recognizing in Christ “the unity of two perfect essences,” blessed. Theodoret did not allow a merger between them, since with a merger a change would follow, which he could not allow. Thus, blessed. Theodoret strictly adhered to the teaching that the natures in Christ are united inseparably, unchangeably and inseparably. Along with this confession, Blessed. Theodoret argued that the natures in Christ are united and inseparable. Beginning from the very moment of conception in the womb of the Blessed Virgin, having once united into one Hypostasis, the Divinity and Humanity of the Savior have never been separated and will never be separated, “that is why we worship,” says the blessed one. father, to the One Only Begotten God the Word, and we call the Holy Virgin the Mother of God, since she gave birth to Emmanuel, which means God is with us” (Matthew 1:23) 143. Thus, in this teaching, Blessed. father, both natures did not separate even after the birth of Christ, but remained in Him inseparably, therefore the Most Holy Virgin appeared, according to him, the Mother of God incarnate. The union of two natures in Christ, according to the teachings of the Cyrus shepherd, remained inseparable even during His suffering. Thus, setting out divine dogmas, blessed. Theodoret writes that “the Divinity was inseparable from humanity both on the Cross and in the tomb” 144. This union of two natures in Christ remained inseparable even after the resurrection of the Savior. “The sovereign body, although it has risen incorruptible, impassive, immortal, shining with Divine glory, and although it is honored with worship from the powers of heaven,” says the Cyrus shepherd, “it is nevertheless all a body and has the same limitations” 145. In a conversation with Eranist, Blessed Theodoret cites the statements of the great hierarchs, the lamps of the Universe, where it is also stated that the unmerged union of Divinity and Humanity in Jesus Christ took place both after His birth and after His saving suffering, resurrection and ascension” 146. Yes, blessed one. Theodoret quotes the words of St. Gregory the Theologian in the Word for the new week, which says that at His glorious coming the Lord will again come to judge the living and the dead. “He will come no longer flesh, but also not incorporeal, in some more God-like body, which He Himself knows, in order to be visible from those who pierced Him, and at the same time to remain God, alien to the coarseness of the body” 147. St. John Chrysostom also teaches that “by the union of natures, God the Word and the flesh are one - not by the fusion of natures, lower by annihilation, but by some inexplicable and ineffable union” 148 . Finally, this union of natures in Christ, according to the Cyrus Shepherd, will continue forever, and the second Person of the Holy Trinity will always be united with the flesh. And according to the testimony of Revelation, he says, the Savior was resurrected in His Flesh, in which He appeared to the disciples, in the flesh the Savior ascended to heaven as the Son of Man (John 6:62; Luke 24:50–55); He will appear in the flesh and judge the living and the dead. “I hear,” says the blessed one. Theodoret, - and the voice of the holy angels: “This Jesus will come again in the same way the disciples saw Him going into heaven” (Acts 1:2). “But they saw,” says the blessed one. father is a limited nature, not an unlimited one. I also hear what the Lord Himself says: “Behold the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven” (Matthew 26:64). But I know that what people can see is limited; that unlimited nature is inaccessible to vision" 149. Summarizing all of the above, we can conclude that according to the teachings of the Bishop of Cyrus, the union of the Divine and Human natures in the one Person of Jesus Christ, which once occurred in the womb of the Blessed Virgin Mary, is never separated. Therefore Christ is perfect God and perfect Man. Not two Persons, but one - the God-Man, not two Sons, but One Lord Jesus Christ, the Only Begotten Son of God, in the last days incarnate and made man by the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary for our salvation. Thus, the two natures were united in Christ into one Person, unfused, inseparable, unchangeable and inseparable. This is the teaching of the blessed one. Theodoret is professed by the Holy Church of Christ to this day. Chapter 6. The difference between the Christology of Blessed. Theodoret from the Christology of St. Cyril of Alexandria Starting to present the distinctive features of the Christology of Blessed. Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus, from the Christology of St. Cyril, Archbishop of Alexandria, let us briefly recall that these were two outstanding theologians of the fifth century. Blazh. Theodoret was the leader of the theologians of Antioch, and St. Kirill – Alexandrian directions. Let us indicate the main qualities of the theological views of both sides on the question of the relationship of faith to reason, science to dogma, since this is the initial point of view that determines the attitude of this party to dogmatic issues. The Orthodox side is what we will henceforth call the Alexandrians, led by St. Cyril, adhered to the principle of the previously former St. Fathers, that reason must be subordinated to faith, a limit must be placed on reason in the study of faith. Faith is higher than reason - this is the meaning of the views revealed by Orthodox theologians, opponents of Nestorianism. In particular, regarding the greatest dogma about the incarnation of the God-man by St. Cyril wrote that “we must accept the favor of the Father, who has given us the property of the Son. Please do not investigate this matter. It does not lend itself to the reason of pagan wisdom and ordinary understanding, which is alien to both” 150. The Holy Father called on everyone not to delve into such subtle issues, but called on them to better explain moral teaching to the people. So, Bishop Theodore of Ancyra, an adherent of St. Kirill, encouraged us to look at the image of the Incarnation as a miracle, and demanded that “at the sight of this miracle the mind should fall silent” 151. The Antiochian theologians in their teaching, in essence, demanded a freer relationship of reason to faith, thought to dogma. They wanted to penetrate at least a little into the mysteries of faith with their minds. The Alexandrians saw such a desire mainly among the Nestorians. In fact, the Nestorians, at first, to whose party the blessed one also joined. Theodoret, they tried not to subordinate reason to faith, but faith to reason. So, for example, during disputes with the Orthodox, they expressed demands that were alien to the latter. The dogmatic views of the two parties of Antioch and Alexandria regarding the controversial point about the union of two natures in the God-man Christ the Savior were also different for many reasons. Having outlined in the previous 2, 3, 4 and 5 chapters of this work the Christological view of the Cyrus shepherd, we will now briefly outline the theological views of the Christology of St. Kirill, and then we will indicate their distinctive features. As is known, St. Kirill, just like Blessed. Theodoret confessed that Christ the Savior was a perfect God and a perfect Man. We will confirm what has been said with quotations from his own works. Thus, defending his anathematisms directed against Nestorius, the Alexandrian shepherd says: “The Only Begotten Son of God himself, through the perception, as I said, of one flesh, animated by a rational soul, became true Man so that he also remains God” 152. On the basis of the Christological views of St. Cyril lies the teaching of St. Apostle Paul: “As children share in flesh and blood, so He also received them in all sincerity, so that through death He might destroy the power of death, that is, the devil” (Heb. 11:14). Thus, St. Cyril teaches that the Son of God received both flesh and blood from His Most Pure Mother, the Virgin Mary, and in explaining the first anathematism he says: “Being God by nature, the Only Begotten Word of the Father received from the seed of Abraham... and, like us, became partaker of flesh and blood from the Holy Virgin and became a Man, like us, without ceasing to be God” 153. As we see, the Alexandrian shepherd correctly taught that Christ took on both flesh and blood and was born of His Mother, the Virgin Mary. St. Cyril also calls Her the Mother of God, and anathematizes anyone who does not confess as he does 154. Regarding the question of the union of natures in Christ, the Alexandrian Shepherd says that “the Word became Man, without undergoing transformation into what it was not, nor change,” and asserts that “no confusion, or fusion, or fusion of His nature with the Flesh took place,” but says that “the Word was united with the flesh, which has a rational soul, incomprehensible and ineffable, and as soon as Itself knows" 155. And in these points of theology, as we see, St. Kirill defended the Orthodox point of view. He correctly taught that at the very conception of the Son of God there was no change, no transformation, no confusion of one nature into another, but the union of Divinity and Humanity took place “as He Himself knows.” These last words confirm what we said earlier that St. Cyril always demanded not to delve into research inaccessible to our understanding with our limited human mind, especially concerning the conception, union of natures and incarnation of the Son of God, but to accept it with deep heartfelt faith. In this principle is the immeasurable superiority of the judgments of St. Kirill in front of the rational curiosity of his opponents. The judgments of St. Cyril was completely satisfied with the religious feelings of a Christian, and this is their high dignity. The history of the Church of Christ might not have known that truly, one might say, polemical theological battle that befell the Holy Father of Alexandria on the one hand, and the Shepherd of Cyrus on the other. The Nestorian heresy arises like a whirlwind in the church field. Nestorius himself, rejecting the birth of God the Word from the Holy Virgin, forced St. Kirill to take up his pen and defend the holy cause of Orthodoxy. Having learned about the heresy of Nestorius, St. the father set out 12 anathemas against his false teachings 156. Despite the fact that the entire blow of St. Cyril directed against the teachings of Nestorius, but indirectly this blow was also directed against the leader of the Antiochians, Blessed. Theodoret, since at the beginning of the controversy he shared some of the thoughts of Nestorius, and also, defending his friend, later wrote his refutations of all 12 chapters of St. Kirill. Nestorius in his teaching went so far as to separate two natures in Christ the Savior, and therefore began to confess both natures and two persons. Blazh. Theodoret, in his own teaching, although he supported the separateness of natures in Christ, did not divide the Lord Jesus, the Only Begotten Son of God, into two Persons. On the contrary, he considered this idea to be a heresy and constantly defended his teaching from the attacks of heretics and dissenters 157. In turn, St. Cyril continued to direct his entire Christology against Nestorius, since he saw that this heretic separated two natures to such an extent that in Jesus Christ there appeared to be two separate persons. As a result of this, St. Kirill paid special attention to the moment of the union of two natures in the most intimate way, not allowing any separation. The difference between them, St. Kirill paid secondary attention. In his teaching, the Alexandrian shepherd recognized that Divine and human unity in Christ are united into one Person. This union of two natures in Christ is indescribable and incomprehensible to the human mind. And this, according to St. father, it is not surprising, just as no one is able to explain, for example, how a person’s soul is connected to his body. If this union of the soul with the body is incomprehensible to man, then even more so the image of the union of divine and human nature in our Savior is incomprehensible to his mind. According to the teachings of St. Kirill, there are different types of connections. Often it happens through friendship, through an application, through mixing or merging. The union of two natures in Christ, according to St. Kirill, not like that, but hypostatic ἕνωσις καθ’ ὑπόστασιν and natural φυσική. Blazh. Theodoret in his “Ἀνατροπή 12 chapters of St. Cyril” rejects the term ἕνωσις καθ’ ὑπόστασιν, as unknown and alien to the divine scriptures and the Fathers who interpreted them. He also condemned the term “ἕνωσις φυσική”, since the words φύσις and φυσική, in his opinion, mean something forced and involuntary, which is not applicable to the union of two natures in Jesus Christ. In turn, St. Kirill himself confused the concepts of nature φύσις and face πρόσωπον. He uses the word φύσις in the sense of ὑπόστασις. That he mixed these terms is beyond doubt. Thus, in his scholia on the incarnation of the Only Begotten, using the example of a gilded tree, trying to show the unmerged natures in Christ, he says that the “natures” or “hypostases” remained unmerged. And in the apology of 12 chapters against the Bishop of Cyrus, Theodoret, explaining what the hypostatic union of two natures is, says that “refuting his (Nestorius’s) words with the expression “hypostatic” - an expression meaning nothing more than that the nature of the Word or hypostasis (which means the Word itself) truly united with human nature without any transformation or change... and is thought and is one Christ - God and Man" 158. Thus, as we see, the Alexandrian shepherd mixed the concepts of nature and hypostasis, and sometimes even, as we will show below, used these expressions as synonyms. Admitted St. Cyril and inaccurate, difficult to understand sayings, such as, for example, in the first anathematism there is an expression that “The Virgin according to the flesh gave birth to the Word, who is from God the Father, who became flesh” 159. Confused the blessed one. Theodoret and the expressions of St. Cyril: “One nature of God the Word incarnate” for the reason that the Alexandrian shepherd in his teaching attributed suffering to the One Person of Christ the Savior, while the Cyrus shepherd attributed suffering to the human person of Christ 160. Therefore blessed Theodoret in this saying of St. Kirill saw the complete merging of natures in Christ to such an extent that human nature was absorbed by the Divine, which is why he allegedly used the expression “One nature of God the Word incarnate.” From this formula, the Cyrus shepherd also concluded that, according to the teachings of St. Kirill, Christ on the Cross also suffered from Divinity, which he himself never allowed in his teaching 161. As we see, there were quite fair objections. St. Cyril, in turn, considering himself Orthodox, sets about explaining his terminology. So regarding the expression ἕνωσις καθ’ ὑπόστασιν, he says that it is directed against the heretic Nestorius, who rejects the birth of God the Word according to the flesh and divides Jesus Christ into two Persons. This expression means that nature or hypostasis, that is, the Logos Himself, united with human nature, is conceived and is one Christ, the same God and Man” 162. Regarding the term ἕνωσις φυσική, then according to the teaching of St. Cyril, it does not mean any coercion, since the words φύσις and φυσικός do not always mean need and necessity, as the Cyrus shepherd thought about it. Therefore, the expression ἕνωσις φυσική meant that God the Word was truly united with human nature by nature and was directed against the heretic Nestorius 163. Thus, St. Kirill used the expression ἕνωσις φυσική instead of ἕνωσις ἀληθής. With these terms, the Alexandrian shepherd indicated that two natures in Christ were truly united into one indivisible Divine Person, who accepted and united with Himself the perfect human nature. Now let us touch upon another controversial point, the disclosure of which helps to clarify the Christological views of St. Kirill and Blessed Theodorit. This is an exegetical question, how to understand the Gospel and Apostolic sayings of a Divine and Human nature relating to Christ? Should we attribute them to the single Person of the Savior, or should we attribute some of them (divine) to God the Word, and others (human) to the image of a slave? Unfortunately, there were disagreements on this point as well. So, for example, blessed. Theodoret believed that St. Cyril did not recognize any difference between divine and human sayings 164, and this, they say, is a consequence of the fact that St. the father mixed two natures. Therefore, the Cyrus shepherd insisted that although the Gospel sayings refer to the same Person of the Savior, it is necessary to separate them, and the sayings (divine) should be attributed to God the Word, and others (human) to the image of the slave 165. St. Cyril, for his part, considered Blessed. Theodoret was like-minded with Nestorius and thought that with his teaching he attributed the Gospel sayings to two Persons. Meanwhile, in essence, both sides taught the same way, and the misunderstanding again arose from the use of the term διανέμειν or διαιρεῖν of St. Cyril and the Kirill shepherd in different understandings. As for the view of St. Cyril on the suffering of Christ, he argued that the Son of God assimilated to himself the sufferings of human flesh, and confessed that “the Son of God, although impassive by his own nature, nevertheless suffered for us in the flesh and in a crucified body dispassionately assimilated to himself the sufferings of his own flesh. According to the good pleasure of God, He accepted death for all (Heb. 2:9), giving over His own body to it, although by nature there is life and He Himself is the resurrection” 166. As we see, the meaning of this confession of St. father. After all the reasoning, it remains mysterious as before. This comes from the fact that in his judgments both on the issue of the incarnation and on the issue of the suffering of the Savior, St. Kirill stands at the point of view of deep faith. His opponents, including Blessed. Theodoret, it was attributed to him that Christ suffered and was Divine, that he resurrected the Arian heresy, Apollinarism was attributed to him, although he had nothing in common with the teachings of Apollinaris, since he allowed the fullness of human nature in Christ 167, which Apollinaris did not do 168. But all these vain attacks on the holy father soon collapsed on their own, as if they had no solid foundation. The reason for this was the desire of St. Kirill and Blessed Theodoret to mutual understanding and the establishment of church peace. Since for both the subject of reasoning was the Person of the God-man Christ the Savior, and although they followed different paths in considering Him: one was based on the moment ἕνωσις, the other started from the idea ὑπόστασις, then sooner or later they had to meet at one common point and be reconciled in the position that Christ is one Person, inseparable, inseparable, and unmergingly embraced both humanity and divinity. This is how union came into being. Thanks to the wisdom of John of Antioch, who sent Paul of Emesa to negotiate with the Alexandrians, after long explanations, the reconciliation of Eastern theologians with Western ones took place (433). When St. Cyril, having drawn closer to the teachings of the East, led by Blessed. Theodorite, will be convinced that their teaching has nothing in common with Nestorius, then it will not be difficult to accept Theodorite’s teaching about the division (difference) of the Gospel sayings according to the two natures of Jesus Christ, and other provisions that were set forth in the confession of John of Antioch 169, since this teaching, in essence, did not differ from his own teaching. Analyzing the activities in the church field of St. Kirill and Blessed Theodoret, it can be said that in their Christological views both fathers always defended the correct Orthodox apostolic teaching. Each side had the Nicene Creed as the basis for its views. Each father was confident in the correctness of his teaching, but with the advent of any heresy, they did not consider it necessary to seriously and carefully study the controversial issue from the position of love and peace. Thus, we see that the Fathers often resorted to anathemas and curses in theological disputes, and in letters and epistles sometimes even (this applies especially to Blessed Theodoret) resorted to rudeness and insults 170 . Finding out the reasons that gave rise to everything negative in their polemical struggle, in order to justify them we can only say that one of the reasons was a different understanding or theological terminology, which, unfortunately, had not yet been established by that time, as well as from an ardent desire to prove to each other the truth, which in its essence and is completely inaccessible to the limited human mind. In revealing the doctrine of the union of two natures in Christ, St. Cyril proceeded mainly, like the fathers of the Council of Nicea, from living religious experience, from the idea of ​​​​saving people through the incarnate Son of God. Therefore, he found the difference of “Persons” in Christ dangerous - the Nestorian understanding of the incarnation, in which the Face of the man Jesus was predominantly put forward, belittled the mystery of the incarnation of God and led to docetism. If Christ is recognized only as a God-bearing Man, if in Him human nature was elevated to Divine glory, and not to see in Him the exhaustion of God the Word to the point of accepting the form of a servant, then the death of such a blessed Man, according to the thought of St. Kirill, cannot give salvation to people. But it was to save people that the Son of God came to earth. St. Cyril saw the solution to the mystery of salvation in his teaching about the Incarnation of God. That is why he resolutely rebelled against the Nestorian idea of ​​the union of two natures in Christ. Having based his views on the Face of the God-Man on the teaching of St. Apostle Paul, St. Kirill most often relies on two main texts. “Just as children share in flesh and blood, so He also took them in sincerity, so that through death He might destroy the power of death, that is, the devil” (Heb. 11:14); and “Since the law, weakened by the flesh, was powerless, God sent His Son in the likeness of sinful flesh as a sacrifice for sin and condemned sin in the flesh” (Rom. 8:3). In all these sayings St. The Apostle Paul's teaching about Christ is connected with the teaching about the salvation He accomplished. We find the same thing in St. Cyril, his Christology is connected with soteriology, and he sees the redemptive meaning of the death of Christ in the “death of God in the flesh.” According to the thought of the Alexandrian shepherd, if we were baptized into the death of Christ and are justified by faith in His resurrection, then we can only be justified by baptism not into the death of an ordinary person, but into the death of the Incarnate God, who died for us and rose again. Christ the Savior became the new Adam, the ancestor of the reborn humanity. This same unification of believers is accomplished in the Sacrament of the Eucharist, not morally only out of love, but also essentially, physically, in which human nature is freed from sinful corruption and perceives eternal life. The image of the union of two natures in Christ St. Cyril sets out in his second letter to Nestorius, where it is not stated that the nature of the Word, having changed, became flesh, nor that It was transformed into a whole man, consisting of soul and body. But it is said that the Word according to Hypostasis, having united with Himself a body, animated by a rational soul, inexpressibly and incomprehensibly for the human mind, became Man, became the Son of Man, not by will alone and good will, not by the perception of the Face only... it does not seem that in this union the difference of natures was destroyed, but Divinity and Humanity in the ineffable and inexplicable the union remained perfect, revealing to people the One Lord Jesus Christ and the Son 171. St. Cyril, in his teaching, pursues the idea that He who is and was born of the Father before the ages according to the flesh was born from a wife, not in such a way that His Divine nature took the beginning of existence in the Most Pure Virgin, and not in such a way that He, after being born from the Father, had the need to be born from Her. For it would be reckless and frivolous to say that He who, before all ages, always abides with the Father, still had a need to begin His existence. Since He was born for our sake and for the sake of our salvation from a Woman, uniting human nature according to Hypostasis (with Himself), that is why it is said that He was born in the flesh. It is not that a simple man was first born from the Holy Virgin, and then the Word descended on Him. But It, having united with the flesh in the womb itself, was born according to the flesh, taking upon itself the flesh with which it was born. Such St. Kirill confesses Christ both in suffering and in resurrection. He does not say that the Word of God by its very nature was subjected to blows and beatings, because the Divine nature, as incorporeal, is not involved in suffering. But since the Body of Christ, which is His own, underwent all these sufferings, he says that the Word suffered for us. Because the dispassionate one was in a suffering body 172. Completeness and clarity are expressed in this Orthodox confession of St. Kirill. It affirms the unity of the two essences while preserving the fullness of the properties of Divinity and Humanity in Jesus Christ. To explain this truth, the Alexandrian Shepherd gives an analogy of the union of soul and body in a person with the unity of self-consciousness. As for the terminology of this Father of the Church, it is the same as that of Blessed. Theodorit, was not clear and stable. St. Cyril, as noted above in this chapter, used terms with different meanings, such as nature, Hypostasis, Person, to express the unity of the personality of the God-man, but in other cases, giving these terms different meanings and connotations, he distinguished Hypostasis from Person. No wonder blessed Theodoret, in some of his inaccurate expressions, suspected St. Father's bias towards Monophysitism. But in his dogmatic constructions, the Alexandrian Shepherd proceeds from a soteriological basis. The idea of ​​saving people and introducing them to the Divine life could not be supported by the Nestorian concept of Christ as Man with whom the Divinity was united by grace, since only the suffering, death and resurrection of the God-Man could be the source of rebirth and life for the fallen human race. This truth was comprehended by St. Kirill not so much with logical constructions, but with inner experience and deep heartfelt faith in the Savior 173. Therefore, the main efforts of St. the father used to affirm the dogma of faith, allowing for inaccuracies in expressions. But for the sake of church peace, he was ready to make some concessions. The result of this desire for church harmony was the formula of “unity” with the East in the union that took place in 433. Although it omitted some expressions and definitions of St. Cyril, but the general meaning of his Christology has been preserved. His doctrine was eventually approved at subsequent Ecumenical Councils, receiving the meaning of the rule of faith. The Cyrus shepherd is blessed. Theodoret, in resolving Nestorian disputes, just like St. Kirill took an active part. Although he entered into polemics with St. Cyril, but his Christology in its essence was almost no different from his teaching. Blazh. Theodoret also took an active part in composing a letter to Nestorius, in which he urged him, for the sake of preserving peace in the Church, not to oppose the name of the Mother of God. The blessed one has risen. father and against the anathematisms of St. Kirill. Misunderstanding his teaching, having crossed the permitted boundaries of disputes, he leaned in his passion towards the teaching of Nestorius. Some of the reasons for this were, noted above, the ambiguity of the theological terminology of St. Kirill. As a result, his Christological views in their development were not constant, therefore blessed. my father, adhering to tradition, always followed the middle path. So in the polemic with Apollinaris, Blessed. Theodoret affirmed the fullness of the Divine and Human natures in Jesus Christ, which were inseparably united in Him. Sharply distinguishing the concepts of Person and Hypostasis, understanding hypostasis in the sense of nature, he objected to the hypostatic union of two natures in Christ, affirmed by St. Kirill. The Cyrus shepherd saw the very image of union as the indwelling of God the Word in a visible person, as in a church. He calls human nature a church, sharply contrasting it with the nature of God the Word, thereby emphasizing, in contrast to the teachings of St. Kirill, independence, separateness and completeness of two natures. Having seen in the anathematisms of St. Cyril the threat of confusion of two natures, understanding hypostasis in the sense of nature, the Cyrus shepherd concluded that in this case the union was not in the nature of a free feat of exhaustion, accepted in the name of love, but according to the natural compulsion and necessity of nature. Therefore, the weaknesses and sufferings of the Savior are blessed. Theodoret attributed Christ to the human nature, but not to the One Person of the Son of God, as St. Kirill. Subsequently, on this issue, the fathers came to a common opinion, thanks, as we have already noted, to the union that took place. Thus, in his teaching, St. Cyril emphasized the unity of natures in Christ the Savior, and Blessed. Theodorite separateness. Although the Cyrus shepherd adopted the Orthodox view in the union that took place, he retained the characteristic features of the style of his theology to the end. Whereas St. Cyril goes from the Divine nature in Christ to the human, affirming the idea that “the Word became Flesh,” then from humanity to the Divine - this is the idea of ​​Blessed Theodoret. Conclusion. The meaning of the Christology of Blessed. Theodorit for subsequent development Reviewing the historical creative life of Blessed Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus, and also drawing a line after the presentation of his Christological views, we can conclude that Blessed. his father, despite his unfortunate closeness to Nestorius in the early years of the Nestorian heresy, retained the general respect of Orthodox Christians. The holiness of life and zeal for Orthodoxy did their job. So after the death of St. Blessed Kirill Theodoret, continuing to defend the purity of Orthodoxy, now waged a stubborn struggle with Monophysitism, which was increasingly engaged in the church horizon. Defeating the Monophysites with his teaching, he was a strict accuser of their errors. Therefore, despite the fact that his authority was shaken at the robber council of 449, six hundred Fathers of the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon solemnly recognized his teaching as Orthodox. The Council of Chalcedon made decisions that put an end to all disputes between East and West. At this truly historic Forum of Chalcedon, a crushing blow was dealt to the Monophysite heresy. Considerable credit for the defeat of the heretics, as we will show a little below, also belongs to the Cyrus shepherd, blessed. Theodorit. The creed of the Council of Chalcedon soon acquired general respect in the Church, for it once and for all resolved and clarified one of the most mysterious dogmas - the doctrine of the Face of the God-Man. The dogmatic definition of the Council of Chalcedon derives its importance from the fact that it did not give preference to either the theological views of Alexandria or Antioch. It reconciled them with each other. Their teachings merged into one teaching, and one theological movement arose from two types of theology. True, there were many heated disputes about the Face of the God-Man even after the Council of Chalcedon in the Monophysite spheres, but they could no longer overthrow the council’s decrees. The council's definitions formed the basis for the views of subsequent Ecumenical Councils, which were based on it as the most correct point of view on controversial issues. Recognized as Orthodox, the Cyrus shepherd received some encouragement from the Council. Thus, according to the definition of the Council, by the imperial edict everything done against Theodorit at the robber council was destroyed, and the edict of Emperor Theodosius against Theodorit and his writings was also canceled 174. Justification of the blessed. Theodoret by the Ecumenical Council gives us the right to assert that his teaching was recognized as purely Orthodox. And since the Council of Chalcedon, in terms of the importance of its definitions and its dignity, can be said to have no equal in the history of the Church, therefore it can be argued that the teaching of Blessed. Theodoret is the rule of faith for all times of the post-Chalcedonian period. Hence the conclusion that the Christology of the Cyrus shepherd in the history of the Church is very important. Although, it is true, the Fifth Ecumenical Council condemned some of the works of Blessed. father, written by him in heated debate, and partly due to misunderstanding, addressed to Orthodox-minded fathers, but his name and honor, as an Orthodox teacher, remained inviolable. Now let us try to present at least a few practical moments from the life of the Church that show the significance of the Christology of the blessed. Theodorite in subsequent development. Let's take, for example, the Sixth Ecumenical Council. The Fathers of the Council, in opposition to Monophysitism, which had not yet been completely destroyed, pronounced the doctrine of two wills in Christ. What guided the Council in this determination? It is not difficult to prove this by the fact that the creeds of the Sixth Ecumenical Council are based on the creeds of the Council of Chalcedon. If we take into account the actions of the Seventh Ecumenical Council, then we can confidently say that in its definitions there are touches of the works of Theodorite teaching. Thus, the dogma of icon veneration, proclaimed at the Council, finds its support in the Chalcedonian definitions of faith. Iconoclasts denied the permissibility of icons in the Church on the grounds that the divine-human Face of Christ cannot be depicted, that on canvas or wood only the human image of Christ is conveyed, and not His Divine image. This idea of ​​the iconoclasts was based on the Monophysite view that the Divinity in Christ, as it were, abolished humanity in Him. The solution, the opposite of the iconoclastic one, could be based to a greater extent on the teachings of the blessed. Theodoret, that in Christ there were two perfect natures - Divine and Human. Two natures, unmerged, but not separate, in the One Person of the God-man Christ the Savior, and this is the teaching proclaimed in the definition of the Council of Chalcedon. Thus, the Chalcedonian definition of faith in the further course of the Church reveals its effect in resolving the most important dogmatic issues. The Council of Chalcedon supported and confirmed in the Church the authority of the famous union, which represents the greatest church-historical phenomenon. If before then the theologians of the two schools avoided each other, then after the Union they began to study and quote in their works the views and teachings of the other side 175 . The joy of the reconciliation with the Antiochians and its spirit of St. Cyril expressed the words in his letter to John of Antioch, “Let the heavens rejoice and the earth rejoice.” The Union united the Alexandrian and Antiochian doctrines, contained in the writings of John of Antioch and Blessed. Theodoret, with the complete elimination of the extreme, intolerant views of Nestorius in the Church. It should also be noted that some provisions developed during the Union became the common property of theological science after the Council of Chalcedon. This is, for example, the exegetical rule, which again was defended in his teaching by Blessed. Theodoret that some evangelical and apostolic sayings must be attributed to the Divinity of Christ, others to Humanity, and others to the One Person of Christ the Savior. The documents developed in this formula of agreement were the basis on which the decisions and decrees of the Council of Chalcedon were approved. As we see, the meaning of the Christology of Blessed. Theodoret is very important in the history of the Church. He made his worthy contribution to the preservation of the apostolic faith. His works are highly respected and respected by the Orthodox world, and the merits of his numerous writings have been noted with satisfaction in the writings of teachers of the Church 176 . So, for example, Patriarch Photius, having familiarized himself with his works, called him “blessed.” St. Demetrius of Rostov even ranks the Bishop of Cyrus among the Fathers of the Church, saying: “We are with the holy fathers - Gregory of Nyssa, Theodoret and others...” 177 O blessed one. Theodorite, we can say that he “fought the good fight, finished his course, kept the faith” (2 Tim. 4:7). The rest is known by God Himself, to whose desired judgment Theodoret, the glorious Bishop of Cyrus, “the lamp of not just the East, but of the entire Universe,” appeared. We will also give a review of the blessing. Theodorite of the famous polemicist writer Leontius of Byzantium. Thus, in his work “De sectis” he writes that “together with John of Antioch, the most famous Theodoret, bishop of the eastern city of Cyrrhus, was in Ephesus. He attacked the 12 chapters of Cyril, which he placed in the third letter to Nestorius, and refuted them, arguing that St. Cyril thought like Arius, Eunomius and Apollinaris. For in defending the economy against Nestorius, who divided (the nature in Christ), he was primarily concerned with unification, which is why it seemed to Theodoret that he was teaching about one nature, like the Arians and Apollinarians. But it seems that Theodoret never defended Nestorius, but only reproached Cyril for the dishonor inflicted on John. If anyone wants to know how much Theodoret hated Nestorius, let him read his essay “On Heresies” 178. Being an outstanding personality of the Church of Christ of the fifth century, Blessed. Theodoret was not only the greatest learned theologian, but also a deeply Orthodox Christian. Having a number of brilliant talents from the Lord by nature, the Cyrus shepherd rendered a great service to the Church of Christ and theology. This tireless worker left us a legacy of many wonderful works and interpretations of the Holy Scriptures. Many centuries have passed since his death, but his glory has not faded, and in our time St. The Church draws more and more lessons from his edifications. Blazh. Theodoret forever remained in the Church with the name “blessed” and in the rank of teacher, along with the great luminaries of the universe. The Orthodox world has always extolled his name and will continue to extol it, therefore the remark of Prof. Glubokovsky about him that “the glory of the glorious is never destroyed with death.” 1. The Bible is in Russian. Publication of the Moscow Patriarchate, 1956. 2. Glubokovsky N.N., prof. - “Blessed. Theodoret, bishop Kirsky, his life and literary activity." In 2 volumes. M, 1890. 3. Glubokovsky N.N., prof. – “Historical position and significance of the personality of Theodoret, bishop. Kirsky". St. Petersburg, 1911. 4. Acts of the Ecumenical Councils. – Volume 1, Kazan, 1887. Volume 2, Kazan, 1861. Volume 2, Kazan, 1892. Volume 3, Kazan, 1863. Volume 4, Kazan, 1865. Volume 5, Kazan, 1868. Volume 6, Kazan, 1908. 5. Lebedev A.P. professor - “Ecumenical Councils of the IV-V centuries,” St. Petersburg, 1904. 6. Bl. Theodoret, bishop Kirsky - Creations. “Church History”, St. Petersburg, 1852. 7. Bl. Theodoret, bishop Kirsky - “Instructive words about Providence.” M., 1784. 8. Bl. Theodoret, bishop Kirsky - “Abridged presentation of Divine dogmas.” M., 1859, vol. 6. 9. Bl. Theodoret, bishop Kirsky - Creations. T. 6, M., 1850. 10. Bl. Theodoret, bishop Kirsky – Letters, parts 7 and 8. 11. Bl. Theodoret, bishop Kirsky - “Eranist”. J. “Christ. Reading", St. Petersburg, 1846, part 1. 12. Bl. Theodoret, bishop Kirsky - “A Brief Exposition of Divine Dogmas”, w. “Christ. Reading", St. Petersburg, 1844, part 4. 13. Bl. Theodoret, bishop Kirsky - “The History of Bogolyubtsev”, St. Petersburg, 1853. 14. Filaret, Archbishop. Chernigovsky - “Historical teaching about the Fathers of the Church.” Chernigov, 1864, volume 3, St. Petersburg, 1859. 15. “Christian Reading” - “Brief features of the life of Blessed. Theodorite." Part 3, St. Petersburg. 1845. 16. “Christian Reading” – “Brief information about St. Kirill, Archbishop of Alexandria", part 2, St. Petersburg, 1840. Filaret, Archbishop. Chernigovsky. “Historical. teaching about the Fathers of the Church", Chernigov, 1864, p.248. “Brief features of the life of Bl. Theodorite." Christ. Reading, 1845, p.86. Acts of the Universe. Soborov. T. 3, Kazan, 1863, p. 544. Prof. N. N. Glubokovsky. “Bl. Theodoret Bishop of Cyrus, his life and literary activity." T.1, Moscow, 1890, p.276. Acts Universe. Soborov, T. 3, Kazan, 1863, p. 227. Prof. Glubokovsky. Decree. cit., vol. 1, p. 285. Prof. Glubokovsky. Decree. cit., vol. 1, p. 285. Acts Universe. Soborov, T.4, Kazan, 1865, pp.179–181. Prof. Glubokovsky. Decree. cit., vol. I, p. 301. Christian magazine Reading”, 1845, p.110. Bl. Theodorite. Creations, vol. 6, M., 1850, pp. 276, 358–360, 449; t. 7, M., 1861, pp. 119, 298, The first two conversations were preserved and placed in the railway. “Christ. Reading" for 1846. Prof. Glubokovsky. “Life and literary activity of Bl. Theodoret", vol. 2, p. 192. Prof. Glubokovsky. Decree. cit., vol. 2, p. 192. This work is included in the “Christ. Read." for 1844. This essay is included in the journal. “Christ. Reading" for 1845. part 4, pp. 395–423, and for 1846, part 2, pp. 196–233; part 3, pp. 176–201; and part 4, pp. 47–69. This work is presented in Russian (St. Petersburg, 1852). Blazh. Theodorite. Church history. St. Petersburg, 1852, book 1. Filaret, Archbishop. Chernigovsky. “Historical. teaching about the Fathers of the Church, Chernigov, vol. 3, 1859, p. 128. Bl. Theodorite. Creations. “It will teach. words about Providence”, M., 1784, p.238. Bl. Theodorite. Decree. cit., p. 248. Bl. Theodorite. “A Brief Exposition of Divine Dogmas”, g. "Christ. Reader", Petersburg, 1844, p. 182. Bl. Theodorite. Creations, part 8, letter 151, p.253. Bl. Theodorite. Creations, part 7. letter 109, p. 122. Acts Everyone Soborov. T. 2, Kazan 1892, p.55. Bl. Theodorite. "A Brief Exposition of Divine Dogmas." and. “Christ. Reading, Pb., 1844, part 4, p. 312. Bl. Theodorite. Decree. cit., p.314. Acts Universe. Soborov, vol. 2, Kazan 1892, p. 56. Bl. Theodorite. Creations, part 8, letter 151. Lebedev A.P. “Ecumenical Councils”, Petersburg, 1904, p.205. Bl. Theodorit. “Summary. Divine. dogmas", Christ. Reading, Pb., 1844, p. 182. Bl. Theodorite. Creations. Letter 146, p.207. Bl. Theodorite. “Summary. Divine. dogmas", w. “Chr. Read.”, Pb., 1844, p.185. Bl. Theodorite. Creations, part 7, letter 146, page 206. Bl. Theodorite. Decree cit., p. 207. Bl. Theodorite. Creations, letter 146, page 213. Bl. Theodorite. Decree cit., p. 215. Bl. Theodorite. “Summary. Divine. dogmas", part 6, M., 1859, p. 46. Bl. Theodorite. Creations, letter 151, page 239. Bl. Theodorite. Creations, part 7, letter 144. Bl. Theodoret, creations, part 8, letter 151. Bl. Theodoret, “Summary. god dogmas", Chr. Reading, Pb., 1844, p.185. Bl. Theodorite. Creations. “Crat. exposition god dogmas", Chr. Reading, St. Petersburg, 1844, part 4, page 183. Bl. Theodorite. Creations. Letter 146, page 206. Bl. Theodorite. “Crat. exposition god dogmas", Chr. Reading, St. Petersburg, 1844, part 4, p. 186. Bl.Theodorit. Decree. cit., p. 187. Bl. Theodorite. Summary god dogmatov, vol. 6, M., 1859, p. 12. Bl. Theodorite. “Crat. exposition Divine. dogmas", Chr. Reading, St. Petersburg, 1844, p. 188. Bl. Theodorite. Creations. "Abbreviation" exposition god dogmas", M., 1859, vol. 6, p. 13. Bl. Theodorite. Creations, part 7, letter 146, page 207. Act of the Universe. Sob. Kazan, 1892, p. 24. Bl. Theodorite. Creations, letter 151. Bl. Theodorite. "Eranist", Christ. Reading, St. Petersburg, 1846, p. 40. Bl. Theodorite. Creations, letter 151, page 243. Bl. Theodorite. Creations, letter 145, page 202. Acts Universe. Soborov. T. 2, Kazan, 1892, p. 67. Bl. Theodorite. “Crat. exposition god dogmas", St. Petersburg, 1844, part 4, p. 323. Bl. Theodorite. Creations, part 7, letter 130, p.166. Bl. Theodorite. Creations, part 6, M., 1859, p. 73. Bl. Theodorite. Creations, part 6, M., 1859, p. 72. Bl. Theodorite. Creations, part 7, letter 145, page 197. Bl. Theodorite. Creations, part 8, letter 151, page 237. Acts Everyone Soborov, vol. 2. Kazan, 1861, pp. 148, 177. Bl. Theodorite. Creations, vol. 6, M., 1859, p. 53. Bl. Theodorite. Creations. “Crat. exposition god dogmas", w. “Christ. Reading", St. Petersburg, 1844, p. 321. Bl. Theodorite. Creations, letter 145, p.199. Bl. Theodorite. “Crat. exposition god dogmas", w. “Christ. Thu." St. Petersburg, 1844, p. 324. Acts Everyone Soborov, vol. 2, Kazan, 1861, pp. 148,177. Bl. Theodorite. Creations, letter 144. Bl. Theodorite. Creations, letter 145, page 201. Bl. Theodoret, works, letter 145, p. 203. Bl. Theodoret, works, letter 144, p. 189. Bl. Theodoret, works, letter 145, p. 197. Bl. Theodorite. Creations, vol. 6, M., 1859, p. 54. Bl. Theodorite. Creations, “Brief. exposition god dogmas", St. Petersburg, 1844, part 4, p. 323. Bl. Theodorite. Creations. “Crat. exposition god dogmas", St. Petersburg, 1844, part 4, Christ. Read., p. 324. Bl. Theodorite. Creations, "Chron. Read.”, St. Petersburg, 1846, part 1. Eranist, p. 353. Bl. Theodorite. Creations, part 8, letter 172; page 304. Prof. Glubokovsky. “Bl. Theodoret, bishop Kirsky, his life and literary activity." M., 1890, vol. 1, p. 285. Prof. A. Lebedev. “Universe. cathedrals of the 4th–5th centuries.” St. Petersburg 1904, p.179. Bl. Theodorite. Creations, part 7, letter 149. Ibid., letter 148, p. 224. Lebedev A. “Vel. cathedrals of the 4th–5th centuries.” St. Petersburg 1904, p.180. Bl. Theodorite. Creations, part 7, letter 148, page 223. Lebedev A. “Vel. cathedrals of the 4th–5th centuries.” St. Petersburg 1904? page 181. Bl. Theodorite. Creations, part 7, letter 148, page 224. Acts of the Universe. Soborov, vol. 2, Kazan, 1892, pp. 74–75. Lebedev A.P. Universe. cathedrals of the 4th–5th centuries.” St. Petersburg 1904, p. 183. Bl. Theodorite. Creations, part 7, letter 21. Bl. Theodoret, Works, part 7, letter 130. Ibid., letter 145, p. 195. Bl. Theodorite. Creations, part 7, letter 83. Bl. Theodorite. Creations, part 7, letter 82. Lebedev A. “Vel. Cathedrals of the 4th–5th centuries.” St. Petersburg 1904, p. 205. Bl. Theodorite. Creations, part 7, letter 101. Bl. Theodorite. Creations, part 7, letter 21, page 25. Acts Universe. Soborov, vol. 2, Kazan 1861, p. 128. Bl. Theodorite. Creations. "Eranist", Christ. Reading, St. Petersburg 1846, part 1, page 387. Bl. Theodorite. Creations. "Abbreviation" exposition god dogmas", M. 1859, p. 59. Bl. Theodorite. Creations, "Eranist", Christ. Reading, St. Petersburg 1846, part 1, page 384. Bl. Theodorite. Creations. Decree. cit., p. 397. Bl. Theodorite. Creations, "Eranist", Christ. Reading, St. Petersburg 1846, part 1, p. 385. Lebedev A. “History of the Universe. Soborov", St. Petersburg. 1904, p. 172. Lebedev A. “History of the Universe. Soborov", St. Petersburg. 1904, p. 173. Acts Universe. Soborov. Kazan 1892, vol. 2, p. 59. Ibid., “First Anathematism.” Acts Universe. Soborov. Kazan, 1892, vol. 2, p. 15. We, deliberately departing from this topic, briefly outline this story once again in order to introduce the reader to this labyrinth of future disputes between Eastern theologians and Western ones, and hence more clearly show the difference in their theological views. This is the teaching of the blessed. Theodoret is clearly stated in chapter 5 of this work. Acts of the Universe. Soborov, Kazan 1861, vol. 2, p. 138. Acts Universe. Soborov, Kazan 1892, vol. 2, p. 55. Bl. Theodorite. Creations, part 7, letter 130, page 166. Ibid., part 8, letter 151, p. 236. Acts Universe. Soborov. Kazan, 1861, vol. 2, pp. 133–134. Bl. Theodorite. Creations, part 8, letter 151, page 235. Ibid., part 7, letter 21, p. 26. Lebedev A. “The Universe. Cathedrals of the 4th–5th centuries.” St. Petersburg 1904, p. 187. Christ, according to the teachings of Apollinaris, was without spirit, or, in our terminology, without soul. Lebedev A. “Vel. Cathedrals of the 4th–5th centuries,” St. Petersburg. 1904, pp. 205–206. We have already cited this confession in Chapter 5 of this work on page 81 (author's note). Bl. Theodorite. Creations, part 8, letter 151, page 236. Acts Universe. Soborov, Kazan 1887, vol. 1, p. 135. Lebedev A. “Vel. Cathedrals of the 4th–5th centuries.” St. Petersburg 1904, p. 187. Acts Universe. Soborov. Kazan 1865, vol. 4, p. 427. Acts Universe. Soborov. Kazan 1863, vol. Z, p. 227. J. "Christian Reading", St. Petersburg, 1845, p. 110. Glubokovsky N. “Bl. Theodoret, bishop Kirsky. His life and literary activity." M. 1890, vol. 1, p. 349 (note). Glubokovsky N. “Bl. Theodoret, bishop Kirsky. His life and literary activity. M. 1890, vol. 1, pp. 347–348.