Treatise on Legal Thought

“Treatise on Legal Thought” contains a lengthy confession of faith compiled by St. John of Damascus for a certain Bishop Elijah, a Monothelite Maronite who converted to Orthodoxy. The work consists of 8 chapters, which briefly outline the main tenets of the Orthodox faith based on the Nicene-Constantinople Symbol. Chapter 1 contains a precise statement of the doctrine of the Holy Trinity. Among other things, it is said that the Holy Spirit has His cause and beginning in the Father, since He proceeds from Him. Chapters 2-4 outline Christology. The author's attention is particularly focused on the question of two wills in Christ. Chapters 5-8 reject the addition of Peter Foulon to the Trisagion hymn: “Crucified for us,” speaks of faith in the six Ecumenical Councils and their decrees, and also rejects various heretical errors (the preexistence of souls, their transmigration, apocatastasis, etc.). * Title of the work in Greek: Λίβελλος περ ὀρθοῦ φρονήματος. * Title of the essay in Latin: De recta sententia liber. Contents Introduction Triadology Christology About the Trisagion Song. Six Ecumenical Councils and their resolutions. Rejection of heresies There are several versions of the origin of this small dogmatic work by St. John of Damascus, preserved under the title "Treatise on Right Thought" (Λίβελλος περἰ ὀρθοῦ φρονήματος; De recta sententia-CPG. 8046). According to one of them, it was written by St. John in the Damascus period of his life (c. 650–700 706), when he, while in the service of the Damascus caliph, “entered the struggle for Orthodoxy with the Monophysites and wrote a lengthy denunciation against them on behalf of the Damascus Archbishop Peter” 1. However, this hypothesis seems highly unlikely. The second version suggests that the “Treatise on Legal Thought” was written by St. John already in the Palestine period of his life, which began in 700 or 706 2, at the request of a certain Bishop Elijah, who presented this treatise to Peter II, Metropolitan of Damascus († c. 743), as a confession of faith during his ordination 3. The very need for such a confession of faith was probably explained by the fact that this Elijah, Bishop of Yabrúd, was a Maronite Monothelite 4 who converted to Orthodoxy after 726. 5 ; to assure the sincerity of his conversion, he read this confession before Metropolitan Peter 6. In its content, the treatise is a summary of the main tenets of the Orthodox faith based on the Nicene-Constantinople Symbol. After a short introduction, the author first sets out the doctrine of the Trinity (§ 1), and then the doctrine of Christ (Christology), which, as in other works of Damascus, occupies a central place in this treatise (§ 2–4). He speaks in detail about one complex Hypostasis, two natures, natural properties, wills and actions of the Lord Jesus Christ, and speaks out polemically against Monophysites and Monothelites. At the end of the treatise (§ 5–8), the correct understanding of the Trisagion Song, faith in the six Ecumenical Councils and their decrees are set out, various heretics are rejected - the Origenists with their doctrine of pre-existence and transmigration of souls and apocatastasis, as well as iconoclasts, Maronites who professed monothelitism, and Manichaeans. The treatise clearly shows the influence of the theological ideas of St. Gregory the Theologian, Areopagite Corps, St. Leo the Great, Leontius of Jerusalem and St. Maximus the Confessor. In general, this treatise, remarkable in its brevity and depth of presentation, along with the “Accurate Exposition of the Orthodox Faith” and “A Brief Introduction to Dogmas,” complements our understanding of the dogmatic genius of St. John of Damascus. The translation of the treatise into Russian below is carried out for the first time and is based on J.-P.’s “Patrology”. Minya (PG. 94. Col. 1421–1432), who published the text based on the manuscript of Vaticanus gr. 1262. A critical edition of the text is still missing. Considerable fear and anxiety grip me for two reasons, O best of fathers and most holy archpastor of shepherds 7 . On the one hand, I am afraid of disobedience, on the other hand, I am embarrassed by the weight of the burden. I am at a loss as to where to run and how to avoid [this]. But to you, the spiritual father, I commend myself and, like a gentle sheep, 8 I will neither contradict, nor cry 9, nor feed myself, but I will obey your command. I bow my neck not like a stung heifer 10, but like an obedient calf, for, having asked for leniency, I did not receive [it] 11. I know the chains of my sins, but I am sure that if you resolve them on earth, they will be resolved in heaven 12. Here, I am humble before you - do what you want. For I have Almighty God as my helmsman. So, since your Holiness (ἡ σή ἁ γιωτάτη κορυφή) commanded that I confess my faith, let all the house of Israel know 13, let heaven hearken and speak, and let the earth hear the words of my mouth 14. 1. I believe in the Father, Son and Spirit, the Trinity consubstantial and the Trinitarian Unit, in one beginningless Beginning, in one will, in one action, one power, one dominion, one Kingdom, in three Hypostases, differing in no way except in relation to ungeneracy, birth and procession. [I believe in] the Father - unbegotten (ἀγέννητος) and unborn (οὐκ γεννητός), in the Son - begotten and not unbegotten, in the Holy Spirit - proceeding, neither cause nor unbegotten. For the Holy Spirit has [its] cause and source from the Father, from whom he proceeds not by birth, but by procession, so that there may be one Father, one Son, one Holy Spirit. The Father is perfect God, the Son is perfect God, and the Holy Spirit is God; not two Gods, not three, but three [Hypostases] - one God. For They are not separated by time, image, or power, but mutually penetrate each other without any confusion or merging. For the Word and the Holy Spirit are the Powers of the Father, therefore there is one God. But even if They are Forces, they are by no means hypostatic. For each is a perfect Hypostasis, so that the Divine nature is not composed of essence and powers. Therefore, each of Them, considered separately 15, is a perfect God, a perfect Hypostasis. And the three [Hypostases], conceived with each other and in each other, are one God. This is completely unusual and befits only God. So, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are one God, one Creator of heaven and earth and every creature, visible and invisible, who brought everything into existence from non-existence (ἐκ τοῦ μἠὂ οντος), and not from some pre-existing matter (ἐκ προϋποκειμένης ϋλης ). One God and one Beginning of everything, not two. One super-divine Deity, one super-existent essence 16, super-good goodness 17, a sea of boundless and boundless essence 18, the Cause of all goods, the existent (οὐσιωποιός) power, beginningless, immortal, eternal and indescribable, Eternal Light, tri-radiant, trinitarian, hidden darkness of incomprehensibility 19. 2. I also believe that the Only Begotten Son and Word of God, pre-eternal, uncreated, consubstantial with the Father and the Holy Spirit, one of the Holy Trinity, by [His] boundless goodness and inexpressible love for mankind and by the good pleasure of the Father in the last times, for our sake and for the sake of our salvation, was seedlessly incarnated from the Holy Spirit and the Holy Ever-Virgin and Mother of God Mary, remaining what he was - perfect God, consubstantial with the Father, and becoming what he was not - a perfect Man, consubstantial with the Mother and us, [and] flesh, animated by a rational and thinking soul. And there is one Christ, one Lord, one Son of God and Man 20; one and the same - perfect God and perfect Man, one Hypostasis, composed of Divinity and humanity ἀνθρωπότητος), from two natures; one and the same there are two natures, and in two natures, perfect according to the definition and logos appropriate to each. He is the Son of God by eternal incorporeal birth from the Father and the Son of Man by the saving incarnation and perception (πρόσληψιν) [of human nature] that occurred in recent times. First, how God He [was born] of a Father without a Mother (ἀμήτωρ); secondly, as a Man He was [born] from a Mother without a Father (ἀπάτωρ) 21; He is two natures and one Hypostasis. For if there are two hypostases, then there is not one Son; but [it turns out] that we worship the four. After all, if there is one Hypostasis of the Only Begotten Son of God and another of the Son of the Virgin, then another is the Son [of God] and another is the [Son of the Virgin], and not one Son, but two, for two hypostases cannot be one Son. And again, if there is another Hypostasis of the Only Begotten Son of God and another of the Son of the Virgin, then either the Only Begotten Son of God is eliminated and instead of Him the Son of the Virgin is introduced, or the quaternity sits on the throne, and we worship the God of the quaternity - the Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit and the Son of the Virgin. But let us not think of this, but [let us confess] one Hypostasis of God the Word, the only begotten Son of God, together with His flesh, consisting of two natures and [being] in two perfect natures, but inseparable and unmerged (ἀσυγχύτοις, ἀδιαιρέτοις), inseparably united according to Hypostasis. I am not talking about one complex nature, so as not to say blasphemy 22 that the Son is of another nature (ἑτεροφυής) and of another substance (ἑτεροούσιος) to the Father. After all, the Father is uncomplicated and simple by nature. But I am talking about one complex Hypostasis, so that I do not call Him only God or only man and do not introduce a fourth hypostasis into the Trinity. For if He is perfect in Divinity, then He is also perfect in humanity after the union. After all, it is clear to everyone that before the union the Son of God existed in one nature of the Divinity and was only God, just like the Father and the Holy Spirit. When He, out of ineffable goodness, took on our nature and united with us, and, remaining perfect in Divinity, became a man like us, except for sin (Heb. 4:15), then He appeared in two natures. For if after the union one and the same is perfect in Divinity and perfect in humanity, it is clear that He will be in two perfect natures; for Divinity and humanity are two natures, not one. For nature alone [cannot be] simultaneously created and uncreated, subject to suffering and impassive. But if there is one complex nature of the Divinity of Christ and His humanity, and Christ suffered, then only His nature suffered, that is, His humanity. If we affirm two natures of Christ, one impassive, and the other subject to suffering, then that which is by nature subject to suffering suffers, and that which is impassive remains impassive. And how, moreover, being of one nature, will He be consubstantial with the Father? After all, the Father and we are not of the same essence; and neither the Father nor we are composed of Divinity and humanity. I'm talking about one complex Hypostasis. For the animate flesh of the Lord did not exist in itself, and did not have its own hypostasis (οὐδε ἰδίαν ἔσχεν ὑπόστασιν), and was not some kind of separate [person] (καθ ’ ἑαυτὸν ὁ δει V55; να), but belonged to God the Word and had Him as a Hypostasis. Therefore, truly and truly, with my mind, heart, and lips, I confess and preach the Holy Virgin Mary as the Mother of God, since She truly gave birth to the eternal and only begotten Son of God and God by nature, incarnate from Her. 3. I also confess all two [rows] of natural properties (διπλ ᾶ τὰ φυσικὰ ἰδιώματα) of His two natures: uncreated and beginningless [property] of the Divine, created and having a beginning [property] of humanity; the indescribable, invisible and intangible [property] of the Divine, the describable, tangible and visible [property] of humanity; the dispassionateness of the Divine, the subjection to the suffering of humanity; Divine natural will and human natural will; Divine natural action and human natural action. For He wanted and acted as God, consubstantial with the Father, performing Divine miracles, and wanted and performed human [deeds] as a man, consubstantial with us, willing, acting and suffering like us. He wanted and performed the natural and impeccable volitions (τὰ φυσικὰ καὶ ἀδιάβλητα θελήματα) of our nature, not in opposition to personal intention, but due to the peculiarity of natures (οὐκ ἐναντιότητι γνώμης , ἀλλ ’ ἐν ἰδιότητι τῶν φύσεων ) 23 . For the natural will of man is not opposed to the Divine will. Man desires the natural according to the will and good pleasure (εὐδοκί ᾳ) of God, for God gave it to human nature according to His will. And sinful [desires], which occur contrary to the Divine law according to our personal intention (γνώμην) or pleasure, are our selective and hypostatic wills (γνωμικὰ καὶ ὑποστατικὰ) that are contrary to the Divine will θελήματα ) 24 . Christ, as God, wanted by the Divine will and performed by Divine action with the Father and the Spirit what befits God, such as, for example, the preservation and management of the whole world, the salvation of people and everything that is desired by the Divine nature. And as a man, He wanted with a human will and performed by human action that which is characteristic of man (τὰ φυσικὰ τῆς ἀνθρωπότητος), such as, for example, eating, drinking, looking, thinking, stretching out his hand, walking, sleeping and all this kind, according to the Father's good pleasure. After all, as God, He wanted our salvation, but did not accept the sinful and incoming will associated with pleasure ( θέλημα) 25, for He committed no sin, and no flattery was in His mouth (1 Pet. 2:22). For, being Divine hypostasis (θεία ὑπόστασις) and having assumed human nature, He used human natural will (φυσικ ῇ θελ ή σει τῆς ἀνθρωπότητος) in accordance with the Divine will of the hypostasis itself (κατὰ τὸ θεῖον τῆς ὑποστάσεως αὐτῆς ἐχρήσατο θέλημα ); and thus the new Adam saved the old 26. For as a man He became obedient to God the Father in everything “even to the point of death” 27. In fact, as God He was not obedient, because obedience is the voluntary subordination of one’s will to another will, and the Divine will is neither slavish nor obedient. For it is unusual for the Divine will to strive for food, drink, sleep, to want to hide and not be able to 28, because the Divine will is omnipotent. And it is not characteristic of the Divine action to look with bodily eyes, to breathe, to walk and to stretch out hands. 4. Therefore, just as we confess two natures, so together we confess two natural wills, and two natural actions of one and the same Christ, one complex Hypostasis of the Son of God and the Son of Man, [and we confess] one and the same will by nature, Divine and human: Divine - by Divine will, human - by human will. After all, one and the same Christ, being one Hypostasis of two natures - Divine and human, wanted one in a Divine way, and the other in a human way, and performed the Divine and human in a godly manner (θεανδρικῶς) 29. For even if as God He wanted the Divine, and as a man - human, then He wanted the Divine not just as God, and the human - not just as a man, but, being “manly” (ἀνδρισθείς), that is, incarnate, God, by natural Divine will and action as God and together man He wanted and accomplished the Divine, but by natural human will and action as man and Together with God, He wanted and accomplished human things, since it was in His nature to desire and accomplish human things, like a man. After all, He wanted and did what is characteristic of each of the natures during their mutual union, 30 since the Divinity acted autocratically and omnipotently through His humanity, and humanity freely and completely in accordance with His Divine will wanted what the Divine will wanted from it, because of the singularity of the Hypostasis. So, it is clear that there is one Christ and one Hypostasis. After all, He asked: Who do people say that I, the Son of Man, am? And the disciples said: Some for John the Baptist, others for Elijah, and others for Jeremiah or one of the prophets. - Who do you think I am? – Peter answered: You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God (Matthew 16:13–16). [So, Christ] recognized Himself as the Son of Man, and Peter proclaimed Him the Son of God, and therefore heard: Blessed are you, Simon, son of Jonah, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. You, Peter, and on this rock the Church is established, and the gates of hell - that is, the lips of heretics - will not prevail against Her (Matthew 16:17-18). About the Trisagion Song. Six Ecumenical Councils and their resolutions. Rejection of heresies 5. I also confess that the Trisagion Hymn denotes three Hypostases of the Divine and one essence and dominion. Therefore, I do not accept the addition of the superstitious Peter Gnafei 31. After all, he either attributes the suffering of the Cross to the Trinity, or adds a fourth person to It. 6. I also deny Origen’s inventions: the pre-existence of souls, their absurd migration and wonderful (τερατώδης) apokatastasis. This is how I think and truly confess and pray, so that with this faith I may appear before the terrible judgment seat of Christ 32 . 7. I accept six Holy Councils: the first - three hundred and eighteen holy fathers in Nicaea against Arius the Tritheist. The second is one hundred and fifty fathers in Constantinople against Macedon the Doukhobor. The third, which took place for the first time in Ephesus, was of two hundred fathers against the man-worshipper Nestorius, who shared the Hypostasis of Christ God and the opponent of the true Mother of God. Fourth - six hundred and thirty fathers in Chalcedon against Eutychus and Dioscorus - theopaschites 33. Fifth - one hundred and sixty-four fathers in Constantinople against the idle old man Origen. And the sixth most holy and orthodox Council of two hundred and eighty-nine fathers, convened in the great Constantinople against Sergius, Cyrus, Paul, Peter, Pyrrhus, Macarius and his disciple Stephen. I love all the definitions of these [Councils] and rejoice in them, accepting everything that they accepted, and rejecting and anathematizing everything that they rejected; and all heresies, starting with Simon the Magus 34 and up to those who have now rebelled against the Holy Church of Christ and our God 35 . 8. I swear before the Holy, consubstantial and worshiped Trinity, without any guile, to believe this way and not to accept anything other than this and not to communicate with any of the other faiths who do not profess this, especially with the Maronites 36. [I promise] not to accept a second-married cleric into the priesthood or into any work appropriate to fathers. [I also promise] to submit to the most holy catholic and apostolic Church of our Christ-loving Metropolis of Damascus and in everything to obey and submit to your holiness and the primates of the most holy Church who will come after you, and not to accept any of the Manichaeans rejected by your holiness, against the will and command of your holiness. [I swear] to follow and firmly adhere to the holy canons of the holy Apostles, the holy Councils, the holy and divine Basil 37. I will observe all this, trusting in the ineffable mercies of God and in your prayers, and with this faith I will appear before the judgment seat of Christ 38 and achieve salvation by His grace. To him be glory and power with the beginningless Father and the Holy Spirit, now and ever, and unto ages of ages. Amen. See: Maxim Kozlov, prot. Brief information about St. John of Damascus and his creations // Creations of St. John of Damascus. M., 1997. P. 8. Louth A. St. John Damascene. Oxf., 2002. P. 6. See: Χρήστου Π. K. V57; Ελληνική Πατρολογία. Θεσσαλονίκη, 1992. Τ. 5. Σ. 320. Compare: Admonitio // PG. 94. Col. 1421. This is indirectly confirmed in the treatise itself (§ 8), where the author, or rather its giver, swears “not to communicate with any of the other faiths... especially with the Maronites.” Those. already after the start of iconoclastic disputes, about which there is a faint hint in the text of the treatise (see § 7 and note 40). See: Nasrallah P. J. Saint Jean de Damas. Harissa, Beyrouth, 1950. P. 139. In the introduction, the author, the giver of this confession of faith, actually addresses some bishop, without calling him by name, and at the end (§ 8) expresses his obedience to him and the metropolis of Damascus. Apparently, we are talking about Peter, Metropolitan of Damascus. See preface. Jer. 11, 19. To the synod. trans.: “like a meek lamb.” See also: John of Damascus, St. Homilia for Holy Saturday. 21 // PG. 96. Col. 617s. Apparently, having asked Metropolitan Peter to relieve him of the obligation to draw up this confession of faith, Bishop Elijah (the giver of the confession) did not receive such permission. Compare: Dionysius the Areopagite. About divine names. 1. 1 // Corpus Dionysiacum, I Hrsg. v. B. R. Suchla. B.; N.Y., 1990. S. 109. (PTS; 33); John of Damascus, St. Statement of Faith. I 8 // PG. 94. Col. 821a; Right there. I 12 // PG. 94. Col. 848b. Compare: Dionysius the Areopagite. About divine names. 2. 4 // Corpus Dionysiacum, I. S. 126; John of Damascus, St. Statement of Faith. I 8 // PG. 94. Col. 808d; Right there. II 2 // PG. 94. Col. 864c. Compare: Gregory the Theologian, St. Word 38. 7 // PG. 36. Col. 317b; Word 45. 3 // PG. 36. Col. 625c; John of Damascus, St. Statement of Faith. I 9 // PG. 94. Col. 836b. Wed: Gregory of Nyssa, St. About the life of Moses. 2.163.8; Dionysius the Areopagite. About mystical theology. 1. 3; 2 // Corpus Dionysiacum, II Hrsg. v. G. Heil, A. M. Ritter. B.; N.Y., 1991. S. 143–145. (PTS; 36). Wed: Heb. 7, 3; Gregory the Theologian, St. Word 29. 19 // PG. 36. Col. 100a. Wed: Maxim the Confessor, St. Opusc. 24: About the fact that it is impossible to assert that there is one will in Christ // PG. 91. Col. 268b; John of Damascus, St. Statement of Faith. III 14 // PG. 94. Col. 1037a; About two wills in Christ. 27 // PG. 95. Col. 160b. At St. Maxim at the end of the phrase the word φύσις is in the singular: φύσεως (of nature), i.e. this refers to the peculiarity of the human nature of Christ, and from Damascus, who borrowed it from St. Maxim, – in the plural: φύσεων (natures), which makes it difficult to understand this place. As we see, Rev. John admits the existence of hypostatic wills, which, however, as a rule, oppose the will of God, which is not opposed to natural human wills. Wed: Rome. 5, 14–15; 1 Cor. 15, 22, 45–49. Wed: Mk. 7, 24; John of Damascus, St. Statement of Faith. III 14 // PG. 94. Col. 1040d. See: Dionysius the Areopagite. Letter 4 // Corpus Dionysiacum, II. S. 160–161. See: Leo the Great, St. Letter 28.4 // PL. 54. Col. 767b; Word 54. 2 PL. 54. Col. 319c; John of Damascus, St. Statement of Faith. III 3 // PG. 94. Col. 996a. Peter Gnatheos, or Knafeos (Greek κναφεύς, “fuller”) - Monophysite, disciple of the Neoplatonist Proclus, Bishop of Antioch († c. 488). While still a presbyter, he made an addition to the Trisagion hymn “Crucified for Us,” which led to theopaschite disputes. Eutychus, Archimandrite of Constantinople, and Dioscorus, Archbishop of Alexandria, are known as the founders of Monophysitism (mid-5th century); since they taught that after the union of natures in Christ, one nature arose - the Divine, which completely absorbed the human, and therefore suffered on the cross, which is probably why St. John calls them theopaschites. Apparently, we are talking about the emergence of iconoclasm, of which St. Petersburg was a contemporary and harsh denouncer. John of Damascus. The Maronites are a Syriac (now Arab) Christian church in Syria, in union with Rome. They got their name from the monastery of St. Maron, one of the main monasteries of Syria in the 6th century. The Syrian Monothelites, persecuted by the Byzantine authorities, retired here. The Maronites professed Monothelite doctrine until the 12th century. This means St. Basil the Great. Subheadings belong to the translator