Часть I. Христологические и полемические трактаты

Anti-heretical treatises of St. John of Damascus, the translation of which is now becoming available to the Russian reader for the first time, represents a rather sharp difference from the homiletical works of the same writer, combined with them in one volume of the “Patristic Heritage” series. There is neither sublime poetry nor exquisite eloquence here, because they would be inappropriate in this genre, but in terms of the depth of development of theological issues, these works are among the best examples of patristic literature. Moreover, the polemical treatises of St. John are, as will be seen from what follows, a necessary addition to his greatest work - “The Source of Knowledge”. The fact is that the harmonious system of theological views set forth in the “Source” with the inherent St. John's accuracy and clarity, here it is, as it were, tested for strength in a clash with opponents, and although the latter do not always think as clearly and consistently and are often unable to argue at the same level of comprehension of the subject, nevertheless, the very movement of the dispute forces us to illuminate in detail such aspects of Orthodox dogma that, perhaps, it would be unnecessary to present to co-religionists. It must be admitted that the works presented here are quite difficult to understand. But the efforts made will reward the reader handsomely. For rarely in any other creation is the patristic teaching about the incarnation of the Word so fully and with so many shades set forth. That is why this introduction will focus on the Christology of St. John, which truly absorbed almost everything that was achieved by Orthodox theology from Justin Martyr to St. Maximus the Confessor. For the treatises “Against the Manichaeans” and “Conversation of a Christian with a Saracen,” which are not directly related to the issue of the House of God, separate explanations (placed in the commentaries) were written, necessary for a correct understanding of the goals and objectives of St. John in these works. Discussions about how exactly “the Word became flesh” have been going on in the Church since the first decades of its existence. However, they led to really deep shocks and difficult-to-heal schisms later - starting from the end of the 4th century AD. The turning point from the so-called “Trinitarian” to the “Christological” debates can be defined in different ways: for the sake of convenience of presentation, we will consider the Apollinarian heresy as such. In the second half of the 4th century, Bishop Apollinaris of Laodicea, in polemics with the Arians who denied the Divinity of Christ, put forward the position that the Divine Logos occupies in Christ the place that is assigned to the rational soul among ordinary people (“logos” in Greek also means “reason”). At the end of his life, St. spoke out against this. Athanasius of Alexandria, and then the Cappadocian fathers, one of whom is St. Gregory the Theologian created the famous formula: “what is not perceived is not healed.” But since the Apollinarian heresy continued to occupy a fairly strong position in Syria, a new generation of theologians of the Antiochian school attempted to determine the relationship between the Divine and human principles in Christ, based on the premise “Perfect God and perfect Man.” Despite the best intentions, these theologians, among whom the first place is undoubtedly occupied by Theodore of Mopsuestia, were unable to sufficiently express the unity of the Savior. They described the union of perfect Divinity and perfect humanity with the extremely unfortunate term “synaphy,” meaning a superficial connection of two independent objects. The absence of a real unifying factor, on the one hand, and the consistent refusal to attribute to God the Word what the Gospel says about Christ in the human sense (virgin birth, suffering, crucifixion), on the other, led this movement to what later became known as the Nestorian heresy. The Nestorians recognized in Christ two natures, which also represented two hypostases, since nature, especially a perfect one, cannot exist outside of hypostasis. At the same time, in general, the Nestorians did not see a difference between the terms “nature” and “hypostasis”. Thus, it turned out that the Son of God and the Word are not the same as the man Christ: He only adds him to Himself in order to save the human race. Nestorian views, especially in their extreme form, came into conflict with nothing other than the Nicene Creed, which says that we believe “in the Only Begotten Son of God... crucified for us under Pontius Pilate.” The Nestorians met their most decisive opponent in the person of St. Cyril of Alexandria, the most prominent representative of the Alexandrian theological school. St. Cyril showed that the real unity of the person of Christ cannot be maintained without recognizing the so-called “communicatio idiomatum” (in Russian can be translated as “interchange of properties”), which consists in the fact that statements relating to His humanity are applied to the Divinity of the Word, and vice versa, such as “God the Word was crucified” or “Christ our God.” At the same time, St. Cyril, speaking about Christ, not only did not make a clear distinction between “hypostasis” and “nature,” but practically used them as synonyms (in this he agreed with the Nestorians). Unfortunately, St. Cyril was also very committed to the formula “one incarnate nature of God the Word”, since he thought that it belonged to St. Athanasius, whereas in fact this expression was of Apollinarian origin (it first appears in a work fabricated by the Apollinarians and attributed to St. Athanasius). And although St. Cyril put completely Orthodox content into this formula (as can be seen at least from the fragments cited by St. John); people who claimed to be defending his heritage used it to substantiate their own heretical teaching. Although Monophysitism was condemned as a heresy already in 451 at the IV Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon, for a long time there was no theologian among the Orthodox who could give a worthy rebuff to such undoubtedly outstanding personalities as Timothy Elur or Severus of Antioch. The situation began to change for the better only in the middle of the 6th century, when three major thinkers entered into polemics with the Nestorians and Monophysites on the side of Chalcedon: Leontius of Byzantium, Leontius of Jerusalem and Emperor Justinian I. The first of these theologians, despite his Origenist errors 23, rendered a great service to Orthodoxy by introducing into Christology the concept of “hypostasis,” which made it possible to distinguish with much greater clarity nature (that which exists in hypostasis) from hypostasis (that in which nature exists). At the same time, speaking abstractly, Leontius of Byzantium admitted that the hypostatic human nature of Christ could well have existed before the Incarnation 24 . He also refused to identify the hypostasis of God the Word with the one hypostasis of Christ after the Incarnation. It is precisely this identification that constitutes the main merit of Leontius of Jerusalem. He directly and unequivocally stated that the human nature of Christ is “hypostatized” in the eternal hypostasis of the Son of God and showed how the so-called “Theopaschist” (from θεός - “God” and πάσχω - “suffering, I endure”) formulas like “God the Word suffered in the flesh” can be used without attributing suffering to the Divine nature. Nevertheless, in defining hypostasis, Leontius of Jerusalem did not go further than what could be gleaned from the Platonic-Aristotelian philosophical arsenal, although in reality he, of course, proceeded from the specifically Christian content of this term. Finally, Emperor Justinian not only helped consolidate and formalize the achievements of Orthodox thought by convening the Fifth Ecumenical Council, but also introduced a very important clarification, consisting in the fact that the two natures differ in the single person of Christ not in direct action, but “in speculation” or “invention.” In addition, the creation of Justinian is considered to be a wonderful troparion, which has become an integral part of every Orthodox liturgy: “The Only Begotten Son and the Word of God,” in which the doctrine of the one Christ, the Son of God, is expressed with extraordinary power 25 . There is no need to dwell here on the views of St.’s immediate predecessor. John, one of the greatest theologians of the Orthodox Church, Ven. Maximus the Confessor, since the reader can turn to the previous volumes of the “Patristic Heritage” series, where he will find not only a translation, but also an extensive commentary and a detailed introduction 26. Let's just say that Rev. Maximus St. John drew upon the doctrine of two “wills” as volitional abilities organically inherent in the natures that make up the hypostasis of Christ, without which neither the Divinity nor humanity can be considered perfect. Rev. Maxim, together with St. Anastasius of Sinaite and Sophronius of Jerusalem, also substantiated the position that “action” cannot be an attribute of hypostasis, because the action of all three Persons of the Holy Trinity is one, so that both Divine and human “energy” are certainly present in Christ. Since St. John was an unrivaled taxonomist; it would be pointless to give a full statement of his views in the introductory article - to get an idea of ​​them, it is much easier to go straight to the “Source of Knowledge”. Therefore, here we will focus on only one fundamental problem, which particularly clearly reflects the huge leap not only in theological, but also in the philosophical comprehension of the world that Christianity brought in comparison with Greco-Roman philosophy. The main position of the Orthodox teaching about Christ, which St. John had to defend in a dispute with the Monophysites, is that the Son of God, having become incarnate, is still one hypostasis, but now existing in two natures, Divine and human, united in Him unfused and inseparably. From this it follows that in Christ there is no human hypostasis, but at the same time there is perfect humanity, similar to us in everything except sin. Meanwhile, St. John, like all Orthodox theologians, proceeds from the fact that no nature can exist abstractly, outside of its specific bearers. This teaching in the West was called nominalism, in contrast to realism, which asserts that abstract concepts have their own real existence. It must be said that modern scholars have introduced a lot of confusion into this issue, repeating unfounded assertions that Orthodox theology followed Plato more and therefore leaned toward realism, while Latin theology preferred Aristotle and nominalism 27 . Creations of St. John of Damascus leaves no doubt about the falsity of this theory. So, the specific bearer of nature is designated by St. John, in full accordance with patristic tradition, the term “hypostasis”. This term, however, had a very definite philosophical meaning. Let's see how it is reflected in “Dialectics,” the introductory philosophical part of “The Source of Knowledge”: “The name of hypostasis means two things: sometimes simply existence, in which sense essence and hypostasis are identical, so that some of the holy fathers spoke of “natures, that is, hypostases”; and sometimes a special and independent existence, in which sense it shows an indivisible being, distinguished by number, that is, Peter, Paul, such and such a horse” (chapter 26 (43)). And here is one of the definitions from the treatise “Against the Jacobites”: “After all, the hypostasis or indivisible being of nature is nature, but not only nature, but together with [particular] properties” (chapter 52). And from the treatise “On Two Wills”: “A hypostasis is a certain essence together with incidental [properties], which has actually and in fact received an independent existence separately and apart from other hypostases, something communicating with indivisible beings of the same type by definition of nature, but differing from those similar to itself in appearance and nature in some incidental and distinctive features” (chapter 4). None of these definitions is unconditionally suitable for the Orthodox doctrine, because the humanity of Christ has not only common signs of nature, but also individual, “additional” features (due to which, for example, the Savior can be depicted on an icon). Christ as a person is certainly different from other hypostases of humanity and represents an individual (“indivisible being”) who can be counted along with others. Why then cannot we talk about His human hypostasis? 28 This is exactly what the Nestorians and Monophysites reasoned (oddly enough, the train of thought of these opposing heresies was very similar). Recognizing two natures, it is impossible not to recognize two hypostases, which is what the Nestorians did, tearing Christ into two sons, the Son of God and the son of the Virgin. The Monophysites, refusing to talk about two hypostases, accordingly rejected two natures. However, when it came to defining this very same nature, they began to offer a variety of solutions. Unfortunately, St. John does not talk about these differences between the Monophysites themselves, so we will have to dwell on them in more detail. The most extreme movement in Monophysitism, Eutychianism (named after the Constantinople Archimandrite Eutyches), asserted quite definitely that Christ has one Divine nature, while the flesh, even if animated by a rational soul, in comparison with the Divine nature does not deserve the designation of “nature.” Christ therefore, according to Eutyches, is consubstantial with the Father, but not consubstantial with us and with His Mother. This view is quite often presented in popular reviews on the history of dogmatics as Monophysitism as such, but in fact, neither the Egyptian nor the Syrian Monophysites accepted it and anathematized Eutyches no worse than the Orthodox. The attentive reader will notice that St. John does not argue with this teaching - a sure sign that it was not particularly widespread. On the contrary, St. John constantly keeps in view two logical points, between which the Monophysitism that really prevailed in his time fluctuated. This is, firstly, tritheism, or tritheism, most clearly expressed by the outstanding Alexandrian philosopher and Monophysite theologian John Philoponus, and secondly, the so-called “co-existence”, especially noticeable among the other largest leader of the acephalians - Severus of Antioch. John Philoponus proceeded from the Aristotelian distinction between the “first” and “second” essence. The “first essence” (πρώτη οὐσία), according to Aristotle, is the individual nature of an individual being or object, in contrast to the general, species essence (“second essence” in his terminology). Philoponus' teachers, the Alexandrian Neoplatonists, replaced the “first” with the “private” (μερική), and the “second” with the “general” (καθ ᾽ὅ λου), which allowed him to talk about a single “private essence” in Christ and identify it with nature. Philoponus practically does not use the word “hypostasis,” so at first glance, his discrepancies with the Chalcedonian teaching look purely terminological: it is worth substituting “hypostasis” instead of “private essence,” and the only deviation will be the incorrect use of the term “nature” 29 . In reality, everything is not so simple. Application of the concept of “private entity” to St. The Trinity leads to the destruction of Her unity, because it turns out to be impossible to maintain the uniqueness and uniqueness of the relationship of the Divine hypostases, which is so wonderfully formulated by St. John in the “Epistle on the Trisagion Song” (chapter 7). Of course, the point here is not what words to use, but that a certain train of thought, carried out with sufficient consistency, gives a logical result, in this case tritheism. The Monophysites themselves condemned such views at the Council of Alexandria in 616, but Philoponus, one of the best logicians of his time, in essence, only discovered the hidden potential of the Monophysite doctrine. Severus Antioch, unlike many of its fellow heresies, recognized two essences in Christ as a “pure invention.” However, he considered the main unifying principle to be the so-called “single Divine action” 30. Therefore, when the North speaks of “one complex nature,” this is not just a terminological confusion, since one action corresponds to one essence, and not just one hypostasis. So, before St. John’s task was to supplement the above definitions in such a way as to explain how the hypostasis of the Word can also be a hypostasis for human nature, possessing both essential and incidental characteristics. And here he could only rely on church tradition, and not philosophy, to support him, because the solution to this problem required going beyond the Platonic-Aristotelian dialectic of the abstract and the concrete. Nevertheless, the result obtained is quite amenable to philosophical interpretation and therefore can be considered as a very important achievement of human thought in general, and not just theology. First of all, St. John, following the Cappadocian fathers, widely uses the formula “one and the other - one and the other,” in which the first part refers to hypostases or persons, and the second to natures or essences 31. Application of the definition “one and the other” to the humanity of Christ, which, we recall, is endowed not only with abstract essential features, but also with specific accidents (συμβεβηκότα), shows that a simple sum of general and particular properties, even existing separately from all other hypostases of the same type, is not enough to constitute a personality. Personality is not a sum, it is something indecomposable and extremely difficult to define - and at the same time, it is the only thing that can hold together even opposites in an unfused and indivisible unity - the immortal and the mortal, the uncreated and the created, the beginningless and the arisen, the Divine and the human. These are the words of St. John: “... He became what he was not, a perfect Man, having assumed a nature, not a hypostasis, a nature not extra-hypostatic, but in Him having acquired a hypostasis and having His hypostasis - for she became not the flesh of someone else, but of God the Word. For about all flesh and every soul it is said that it is someone’s, and it belongs to someone and has him as a hypostasis - after all, Petrov’s flesh and soul have Peter as a hypostasis, and Petrov’s soul does not have one hypostasis, and the other is his flesh” (“On Two Wills,” ch. 9). Petrov's flesh and soul, of course, have a full set of individual properties - but they are a hypostasis only because they belong to Peter as a single and indivisible personality, which, for its part, can exist only by being realized in the soul and body. Thus, the Divinity and humanity of Christ are inseparable, because they belong to the one Son of God, and unfused, because a single hypostasis, that is, personality, binds them so firmly that they can retain all their essential and accessory (if we are talking about humanity - the Divinity has no accidents) characteristics, including volitional ability and natural action, without any damage to the unity of the Savior 32. It would, of course, be wrong to say that St. John of Damascus was the first to put forward and substantiate the Christian doctrine of personality. Science has long been recognized that it is Christianity as such, that is, ultimately, the Gospel preaching, that is the source of this teaching, unknown to the ancient world. However, in the works of St. John's idea of ​​the uniqueness and intrinsic value of the individual, not only Divine, but also human, is expressed with exceptional clarity and completeness, whether through the prism of Christological problematics, as in anti-Monophysite and anti-Nestorian works, or through the dialectic of free will, as in treatises against the Manichaeans and Muslims. It remains to say a few words about the principles of this translation. Its main purpose is to make the thought of St. John of Damascus is understandable to any Russian reader who may not have special theological training, but is ready to make some intellectual effort (in some cases considerable). Therefore, from the point of view of language, the translator did everything in his power to facilitate this task, without entering into a compromise with the currently dominant jargon of “mixed simplification”. How successful this was is for the reader to judge. The translation of all treatises is made according to the edition: Die Schriften des Johannes von Damaskos, IV. Besorgt von B. Kotter, Berlin; New York, 1981. Quotations from the Holy Scripture are given, as a rule, in the Synodal translation, however, in cases of discrepancy between its Jewish Masoretic original and the Septuagint (the Greek version, which was used by the overwhelming majority of the Holy Fathers), the corresponding passages are adapted from the Church Slavonic text accepted in the Russian Orthodox Church, the original of which was the Septuagint. Liturgical texts are given in Church Slavonic. The author expresses gratitude to Fr. Valentin Asmus for very valuable comments and advice regarding the “Message on the Trisagion Song.” Χρυσῶν ῥ εῦμα λόγων μετενεγκ ὼ ν Ῥ ωσσίδ ’ ἐς αὐδήν , Σῆς μάλ ’ ἔολπα τυχεῖν, θέσκελε, προστασίης. Like the Saints of our father John of Damascus, monk and presbyter, against the Manichaeans (1) Orthodox: Since we have come together for conversation and reflection, I will ask you: what is our goal? Manichaean: To practice reasoning about faith in order to find the truth. P: But what is truth? M.: Recognition and recognition of existence. P.: Is a lie the opposite of the truth? M.: Because truth is knowledge of things that exist, and falsehood is knowledge of things that don’t exist. P: You answered incorrectly that truth is the knowledge of things that exist, and falsehood is the knowledge of things that do not exist, because things that do not exist cannot be known. M.: What then is a lie? P: So, if truth is knowledge of things, and falsehood is ignorance of things, then tell me: is knowledge possession? P: If knowledge is possession, then ignorance, of course, is deprivation. M.: And ignorance is possession. P: Does the particle “not” indicate deprivation or presence and possession? M.: “No” shows deprivation. P: Do we call something devoid of being non-existent? P: So, if ignorance is the lack of knowledge, and “not” indicates deprivation, then ignorance, therefore, is deprivation, and not possession. P: Therefore, if truth is knowledge, it is clear that it is possession, and if falsehood is ignorance, then, according to true reasoning, it is deprivation. So, it turns out that truth is possession, and falsehood is deprivation, and truth is existence, and falsehood is non-existence. P: Is evil true or false? P: So, evil is not a being, but a deprivation of a being and a non-existence, and is opposite to good as a deprivation of possession. But let's return to our subject. (2) P.: Are you saying that there is one principle of beings, or two? M.: Two: one good and one evil - and the good is called the good tree, containing and creating all good, which cannot give the fruit of evil, and the evil is darkness, corruption, the evil tree, the receptacle of all evil and filth, which cannot give the fruit of good. P: Do these two principles communicate with each other or not? M.: They do not communicate at all and are opposite to each other. P: Do they exist in each other, with each other or separately? M.: They were initially separated, each within its own limits. P: How did they get mixed up now? M.: The good was in its place, in all goodness and bliss, and matter, that is, evil, was lifeless, motionless, ugly, disgusting darkness, insensible for many centuries. Then the substance rebelled against itself, and its fruits fought with each other, and when some fled and others pursued, they reached the borders of the light, and seeing the light, they desired its beauty and stopped fighting with each other, and, conspiring, attacked the light. And the Good One sent power from himself, and in the battle the leaders of darkness devoured a particle of light. For the Good One allowed his power to be taken away from him, fearing that they might take possession of his place. He did this in order to overcome evil with the help of the particle he gave. And so there was a mixture of good and evil: for from a particle of good souls arose, and from the essence of evil - bodies. (3) P.: In how many senses is the word “beginning” used? P.: That which has no beginning is beginningless, and the word “beginning” is polysemantic - after all, it means many things. For they speak of a “beginning” in time, just as we call the sunrise the beginning of the day or speak of the beginning of the year. The beginning is also used in the sense of place, as we say “the beginning of the path,” or that Pishon originates in paradise. They also talk about the “beginning” in dignity and power, just as we call the king the beginning of his subjects. “Beginning” is also called that which precedes by nature, as with numbers. For if there are two, then there will certainly be one, and if there is one, there will not necessarily be two - after all, two are one and one, and one is one, and not two. Therefore, one is the beginning of two. It says “beginning” and in order, as first the dignity of the reader, then the subdeacon, then the deacon, then the presbyter, and then the bishop. It is said “beginning” in the sense of cause, and in three ways: either about a natural cause, like the beginning of a son’s father, or about a creative one, like the beginning of a creation, the Creator, or about an imitative one, like what is depicted – the beginning of an image 33 . So, since beginning has so many meanings, this is what is truly called beginningless—what is called beginningless in every sense. So how do you affirm two beginningless principles? M.: In every sense - because only in this way will they be beginningless. P: But your initial statement is false, and if you start with a lie, you will end up with a bad end. P: Having said “two,” you began with a number, but two is not a beginning - for two have a different beginning, one. Therefore, when discussing the beginning, name one beginning, so that the beginning is perfect: after all, by nature, the beginning of the binary is one. So, if there are two beginnings, then where is the beginning that precedes by nature, that is, one? (4) M: So you are talking about three hypostases, and how do you claim that we must start from one? P: Although I speak of three hypostases, I affirm a single beginning: for the Father is the beginning of the Son and the Spirit, not in time, but in reason. For the Word and the Spirit are from the Father, although not after the Father. Because just as light comes from fire, and fire does not precede light in time (after all, it is impossible for fire not to emit light), but fire is the beginning and cause of the light emanating from it, so the Father is the beginning and cause of the Word and the Spirit, since the Word and the Spirit are from the Father, but does not precede them in time: for it is impossible for the Father to be from the Son or the Word from the Spirit. So, I confess the one principle of the Father as the natural cause of the Word and the Spirit. But you don’t say that evil comes from good or good from evil. (5) And in this way we will verify that it is impossible for your principles to be without beginning in time. That which has not begun to be is unchanged. For if it has changed, it is not entirely without beginning. For what changes from incorporeal to body, or from formless to species, or from motionless to movement, or from calm and silence to disturbance, begins to be what it was not before. And that which turns from the beginningless into the beginning is not without beginning - for the one who receives the beginning and the beginning is not without beginning. M.: What then? Was not your God transformed by giving birth to the Son and bringing forth the Spirit? P.: In no way, because I do not say: “Not being first a Father, He later became a Father,” but He always had His Word from Himself and His Spirit, emanating from Him through His Word. (6) M.: So He did not transform and when did He then create creation and become the Creator? P: Because He did not create creation from His essence, but from non-existence into being by will. M: So, when He wanted to create a creature, He did not transform by desiring what He did not desire before? P.: In no way - after all, He did not want it later, not wanting it before, but always wanted the creation to arise at the time determined by Him. (7) And that in the spatial sense it is impossible for two to be without beginning, it is clear from this: two either are in each other, but it is impossible for light and darkness to be in each other, because the presence of light dispels darkness, or each is in its own place. Thus, each is limited in its own place, and the end of the place of one becomes the beginning of the place of another. But it is impossible for light not to mix with darkness if there is no barrier that would prevent them from dissolving into each other. So, it is necessary that there be light and its place, darkness and its place, and a barrier that fences off and determines the place of each - and there will be not two beginnings, but five. (8) M.: So, your God, and His Son and His Spirit, don’t they fall under the same reasoning? P.: No way. After all, I do not say that the Divine exists in space - for It is immeasurable and immense - and I do not say that the three hypostases are separated from each other, but just as a thought, born from the mind, does not come out of it, and is not separated, but is born from it and abides in it, so the Son and the Spirit are from the Father and in Him. For They are one essence and inseparable hypostases, because the powers of the mind are inseparable from it itself. For the Word and the Spirit are supernaturally both the inseparable powers of the Father and perfect hypostases, because it is fitting that the powers of a supernatural God should be supernaturally hypostases. Therefore, although there are three hypostases, there is one God, not three. For the mind, and the thought, and his spirit are one mind, but: not three minds, just like the stem of a rose, and a flower, and a fragrance - each of them is called a rose and is a rose, but they are not counted together as three roses, but one rose and root, and stem, and flower. (9) And that in terms of dignity and power there will not be two principles, let us be convinced. If there are only two principles, God and matter, then either one would rule and rule the other, or no one would rule over anyone, or there would be something else that obeys the dominance of the two principles, coeternal with them, and there would be not only two, but more - two ruling ones and still other subordinates - or, if the subordinates are not coeternal with the principles, then there was once a time when they were not principles. M: Then won't the same thing happen to your God? After all, either the creature subordinate to Him is coeternal with Him, or there was a time when He did not rule. P.: No, not so: for creation is not coeternal with Him, but He has always been and will be the Lord, ruling over being, bringing entities from non-existence into being by His Word and the Spirit of His mouth. And His Word is not pronounceable, but essential and hypostatic, 34 and His mouth is not a bodily organ, nor His Spirit a dissipating breath, but everything is presubstantial with the Presubstantial, even though we think of what is above us through what is accessible to us. (10) But even in the sense of a natural and essential cause there will not be your two principles - for the Father is the Parent of the consubstantial Son, the Eternal of the Eternal, the Incorporeal of the Incorporeal. So, if your two principles are the beginning of everything that exists as a natural cause, then everything with you will be consubstantial and coeternal with your principles. And if co-eternal, then it is unchangeable, and opposite, and incommunicable, and in command, and not under command, and everything will dominate, and not be enslaved. If your two principles are the principles of existence by creative causality, then souls are not from the essence of God, and bodies are not from the essence of matter, but were brought into existence from non-existence, and matter did not fight with light, and did not steal a part from it, and did not create souls from it. And how did non-communicating opposites come together in the creation of a single world? Or how did the Evil One create the body, and the Good One the soul, and they formed a single being, man? If, in the sense of imitation, as the depicted prototype is the cause of the image, then your principles are other worlds, in the likeness of which the world arose. For beings have not one form, nor one or two forms, but without number. And how are these innumerable species images of your two principles? Thus, your opinion about two principles is impossible and unfounded. After all, ask a crowd of children inexperienced in evil: is the beginning two or one? And they will say that one is the beginning of every number. O you who are infants and more foolish than infants! (11) Answer us this question: is plurality of command beautiful, stable and orderly, or unity of command? It is clear to everyone that plurality of command is a lack of command, fraught with disturbances, that it is the cause of war, and battle, and evil, and decay, and unity of command is strong and legal and is the cause of peace, order, tranquility, justice and growth for the better. So, if, in your opinion, there are two beginningless beginnings, then the beginning of beings is many beginnings, and the beginning of everything is evil, and thus there is one beginning, evil. And how can you say that two principles that you yourself invented have nothing in common? After all, if both exist, and one essence is a beginningless and eternal beginning, and the other too, then they are not completely devoid of commonality. For they have a commonality in being and in essence, and in the fact that [each] is a beginningless and eternal beginning - and it has been proven that your reasoning is false in all respects. (12) And again: if there are two beginningless principles, each rejoices and delights in its own, and considers its composition good - after all, for each, what constitutes its essence is good. Therefore, both your Good and your Evil, each rejoices in himself and enjoys his own, and considers his own good. So who decided that one is good and the other is evil? And he is more likely to be a god, greater than both of these, because the lesser is judged by the greater and the subordinate to those in authority. (13) Tell me this: do your two principles communicate with each other, or are they completely incommunicable? M.: They were completely uncommunicative, for one was in the fullness of good, and the other in the fullness of evil - but after that a confusion occurred. P: For now, let’s wait to talk about mixing. First, explain to us: is the opposite in being of existing or non-existent? M.: Real evil is the opposite of real good. P.: I did not ask whether they are opposite in good and evil, but in being. After all, existing things are not completely opposite - for by their very being they have commonality with each other, and non-existence is the opposite of existing. So if evil is completely opposite to good, then evil does not exist. So evil is a lack of being and is called evil - and if good is an essence, then evil is immaterial, otherwise they are not completely opposite. (14) M.: Then [tell me]: isn’t evil seen in those who exist? P.: Perfect evil is not seen in those who exist - for the truly existing God and the cause of being is not evil, nor anything that has arisen as it arose is evil, but the cause of everything is good, and everything that arises from it is good. And everything that exists was brought by her from non-existence into being, and everything is beautiful and very good (Gen. 1:31). Evil is nothing more than the loss and voluntary deprivation of what God has given to the rational nature, just as poverty is the loss of wealth: for wealth is the acquisition of existing things - gold, silver, gems, various clothes, servants and maidservants, cattle, arable land and the like, each of which is an essence. Therefore, the one who has acquired this is called wealthy 35 - as if “multi-essential” 36, whose property consists of many essences 37. Partial poverty is a partial loss of these things, and complete poverty is complete deprivation, just as the integrity of the body is a good, and the loss of one member is a partial evil, non-existent, but deprivation of the existing. It is seen or thought of in existence not as an existing thing, but as something lost, just as, for example, the eye and vision exist and exist, and blindness is not an essence, but the loss of an existing eye. It is considered in the existing and whole body not as an existing thing, but as the deprivation of an existing eye. And thus the gradual increase in the absence of members is called an increase in evil - for evil does not exist, but the absence of what is lost in a crippled body is called and considered not as existing, but as not existing, not as possession, but as deprivation. Likewise, evil, that is, sin, is a voluntary deprivation of the benefits given to rational nature by God - for among the dumb and soulless one cannot speak of voluntariness, but only among the rational. So, evil is the abuse of natural capabilities. For if we use the powers given to our soul by God for the purpose for which we received them, that is, according to the law of the Giver, then this is good. If we use them not for what we received, but against the law of the Giver, this is evil: neither the powers themselves nor their use are evil, but a bad way of using them contrary to the law of the God who gave them. For if God is good, His natural law, which is from Jehovah, is also good. Disobedience to him is the deprivation of the law that we had, like lust, and anger, and deed, and action, and the thought before them is not evil, but good if we use them for what we received, according to the law of the One who gave - they are not evil [themselves], but their use is not according to the law of the One who gave. For if we use food, drink, sleep and the like to support life, each of them is good. And if we use love and lust for God, who is the only thing desired by nature, and for our neighbor according to the law of God, this is good. And if we use intercourse with our wives for procreation according to the law given to nature by God, it is good, but if we use lust for someone else’s against the law of God, this is evil. For God said: “You shall not covet your neighbor’s house, nor his wife, nor anything that he has” (Ex. 20:17). Fornication is bad not because of the union, but because of the union with another woman. Vanity is bad not because of the love of glory, but because the love of glory is not from God. Hatred and anger are good when they are directed against those who hinder the salvation of the soul and its union with God through obedience, and against those who lead away from God, that is, against the devil and his servants. For it is said: Have I not hated those who hate You, O Lord, and have I not given up for Your enemies? I hate them with complete hatred; They are my enemies (Ps. 139:21–22). And the holy martyrs were angry at the tyrants, justifiably angry. And if I become angry at my own thoughts that separate me from God, good. If someone deprives me of salvation, it is good to be angry and hate me, and if he upsets me in worldly things and benefits me by depriving me of something material, I would rather love him than hate him. Murder is evil - for only God belongs to separate the soul from the body, for He united, but if I kill at the command of God, it is good - for everything that is from the Good is good. So, it is bad to desire to seize what is not ours, but God’s. Condemnation is evil - for judgment belongs only to God, and it is bad to assign Divine dignity to those who are not given by God to judge. Vanity and pride are evil - for only God deserves exaltation and glory. So evil is nothing more than the unnatural and illegal use of natural possibilities, which is not an essence, but our behavior. (15) For it should be known that both good and evil are understood in two ways - because what is actually called good is what is given from what is good by the nature of God. Just as every light is illuminated by the sun or fire, so every good has its existence from the boundless and incomprehensible abyss of goodness, and everything that is from God is good truly and in its own sense. But good is not actually, but in a figurative sense and according to our custom, that which seems pleasant to our feelings and desires, which for the time being delights, then bears bitter fruits, which occurs against the law of the Creator and seems to be good, which is not good, but actually evil. And evil in the same way - for what is actually called evil is what happens against the law of the Creator. Not exactly, but according to our custom, what is called evil is something that is painful and painful for our feelings, something that now brings suffering, and then the fruit of salvation and eternal joy. (16) But tell me: is the beginning of every thing one or two, say, the beginning and cause of the soul is one or two? M.: Alone. After all, if there are two, then how can the same thing come from two opposites? After all, those who are completely opposite do not have a common action - for how can an immaterial soul arise from immateriality and matter? Or how did the opposites produce the same thing without conspiring? After all, by nature, opposites have no communication. P: Well said. And each of the existing ones has one beginning? P: Is being the beginning of your two beginnings, or are two beginnings the essence of the beginning of being? P: If being is the beginning of your two beginnings, then you get one beginning, not two. For if being is the beginning of being, then [they] are in a single beginning - after all, I am not talking about being something, that is, good or evil, but about being itself as such. So, if being the path is the beginning of your two beginnings, then there is one beginning, not two. If your principles are the essence of being, then there will be two opposite principles for one and the same thing. For just as a simple essence, being one, is capable of taking on various qualities, and in accordance with this they speak of many essences, so simply being is one, although, contemplated in various things, it gives its name to many beings as a derivative. So, I determine that opposites have absolutely no community of action, that being is not from two principles, much less opposite, but from one. For being is not the cause of existing things - after all, being did not exist before existing things. Because what would it be contemplated in? But being, contemplated in the originless Existence, arose in Him and from Him, as from a cause. So, there is one beginning of being, and there is no opposite to it. (17) And again: the beginning of the movement of each of the existing ones is one or two - existent, temporal, spatial and real (existent - for the origin of each, temporal - from what time did it begin, spatial - from what place did that which begins from the place begin, real - from what action does that which is put into action: say, the first appearance of man, and from what time did he appear, and from what place did he begin to move, for example, to walk, and the beginning of the action of walking)? P: That’s right – it’s impossible for there to be two beginnings of one existence. P: Can this be seen in each of the existing things, or not? M.: In each of all things. P.: What is seen in each of all will be seen in all together - for example, what each person has, all of humanity has, like life and the ability to reason. And what each essence has, also has a common essence, like self-existence and being not in another. In the same way, if each of the existing things arose from one beginning, then all existing things arose from one beginning, and not from two, and there will not be two beginnings, but one. (18) M.: Why is God without beginning? P: Because what does not exist has no existence from itself. Therefore, what does not have being from itself, how can it come to be from itself? This means that it is necessary for something that does not exist to receive being from something that exists, and the first giver of being, which has being from itself, is always without beginning. (19) M.: Why one beginning, and not two? P: Because the duality comes from the unity as a product of the unity, and the unity is the beginning of the duality, and the unity, of course, comes before the duality, and because the beginning of every thing is one, and if each of the existing things has one beginning, then all of them will have one beginning - for the judgment applicable to each of the existing ones will be applicable to all. (20) And again: if there are two principles, then this is a plurality of principles, if a plurality of principles is disturbance, if disturbance is the beginning of beings, then the beginning of beings is evil - for disturbance is evil. So it is fitting that God should be and possess more than all that is said and thought. So, what is more - to divinely create essences from non-existents or to deal with matter humanly with the help of construction, or rather, carpentry? M.: Of course, to create from non-existent things. P: Therefore, it is fitting for God to create essences from non-existents, and there was no substance, but God created it. (21) M.: Is God beginningless in all respects, or in some ways yes, and in others no? P: If He is not beginningless in all respects, then He is both beginningless and not without beginning. If He is beginningless in all respects, He is beginningless in truth and in nature. And the beginningless is limitless, for the end is one of the types of the beginning. So, everything that has a beginning, by its nature also has an end, and everything that has an end also has a beginning. And the angels, therefore, having a beginning, by their own nature also have an end, although by the grace of God they begin to be again and are renewed. For just as a motionless body that has begun to move begins from a place (I am talking about circular motion), and having reached the place from which it began, it makes a revolution and closes the circle, but again begins to move, and receives a new beginning of movement, and so remains moving as long as the one who commands it to move wants it, so the angels, in their life movement reaching the natural end of their existence, [again] begin life movement, until again, by the order of the Creator, they stop moving. For they always receive being, vital and intelligible movement from God, although they do not have it from themselves. And just as a wheel set in motion moves and stops - and if it has eternal motion, then it moves forever, having a movement not from itself - so the angels, having being not from themselves, move insofar as they are moved by the Creator; however, if He does not move, they stop moving. So whoever has a beginning must have an end, and whoever has an end must have a beginning. And by nature, the beginningless is beginningless in all respects, in reason, and time, and place, and power. (22) So, the two [principles] will either be in each other, or limited by place and not without beginning. Then how are there light and darkness in each other? After all, light destroys darkness. If there are no boundaries of light and boundaries of darkness, then neither light is limitless, since it is not everywhere, nor is darkness. And they are not entirely beginningless, having a spatial beginning. For it is impossible for light and darkness not to mix at all, unless there is some kind of barrier and mediastinum. After all, if we light a lamp at night, the space around the lamp will be lighter, and at a short distance it will be darker, until the light disappears completely and there will be complete darkness without any admixture of light. For either darkness was originally mixed with light, and they are not completely opposite and incommunicable, or something else was originally the mediastinum separating them, and there are no longer two principles, but three. That which is by nature does not change, and that which changes is not natural. So, if light and darkness are by nature incommunicable, how did they then come into communication? How did good and evil come into one being, man? After all, if they came to an agreement, then they communicated with each other - for an agreement is a common decision. And neither the good one remained purely and completely good, nor the evil one, but both changed. But what changes is not without beginning, and is not God - for God, foreseeing what is in our will, determines everything that is not in ours 38 . And again: is being the opposite of being or is being the opposite of non-being? P: Then it will turn out that one of your completely opposite principles is, and the other is not. (23) And again: is being the opposite of being? M.: To be kind and to be evil are opposites. P: This means that they coexist and are co-realized by one and the same thing. How are they opposite? M.: What does not exist cannot be named - for it must be, and then it must be named. So how is non-existence the opposite of being? After all, opposites must first be, and then be opposites, and then be called them - for that which is not something is not named. P.: Having said “non-existent”, did you name it or not? M.: I named it in a negative, not an affirmative sense. P: Affirmation means possession, and denial means deprivation? P: Possession is the opposite of deprivation? P: So, non-existence is the opposite of being as deprivation - possession? P: Is “evil” said in the sense of deprivation or possession? P: And “Good” in the sense of deprivation or possession? P: So, evil is not exactly the opposite of good - after all, possession is not the opposite of possession. M.: Isn’t illness the opposite of health? P.: Yes, but as a lack of possession and a lack of integrity. P.: So evil will rather be deprivation and the opposite of good, just like deprivation of possession, because evil is nothing more than the deprivation of good, and perfect evil is complete deprivation of good. Therefore, evil, as the deprivation of natural possession, we call non-existent rather than existing. (24) What, in your opinion, is matter - life, or decay and death, movement and the moving, or immobility and the movable, light or darkness? M: Corruption and death, immobility and immobility, darkness and not light. P: Then how did it produce fruit if it is decaying? How did life begin? After all, corruption does not live, does not have life and does not give life - for if someone does not have something, how can he give? And how, being motionless, it began to move and reached the boundaries of light? Who gave it life and movement? If he is Good, then he is not good and not wise - not good, because he revived and set in motion evil, not wise and not knowledgeable, because he brought wars and worries to himself, and stirred up a resting and inactive evil against himself - after all, he became the culprit of disturbances and disasters. And if not God, then someone else, and not two, but three, because what you don’t have cannot be acquired from yourself. M.: But the substance had life and movement in the possibility. P: If it potentially had life and movement, then it was potentially good. M.: Life and the movement of evil are not good, but evil. P: That which passes from possibility into action is changeable and has a beginning, and is not without beginning. And if it had life and movement in potentiality, then it acquired action subsequently; if its life and movement were evil, then it was evil in potentiality, and not in action, and evil will not be without beginning. If his life and movement are good, then from evil it has turned into good. M.: So what? Isn't the decay of one the emergence of the other? P.: It is not disintegration that becomes creation, but this latter is produced by God, created by the command of God from non-existent into existence, being changeable, for it began with transformation. After all, to go from non-existence to being is transformation - and that whose existence began with transformation is transformable and changeable. So, matter, being changeable, is revived by the command of God, perishes and is revived again - so that it is not corruption that produces the coming into being, but God’s command vivifies and creates that which comes into being. (25) But tell me this: are the limits of light full of light or not? M.: It is clear to everyone that they are filled with light. P: Are light and darkness receptive to each other, or impervious? P: This means that they are what they are not by nature - after all, what is inherent by nature does not change, and by nature life is impervious to death. Then how did the darkness communicate with the light and not dissipate? Further, was the place of light full of light and goodness, or not? P: Then how did the darkness fit in? After all, a vessel with a capacity of a medimn will not hold two, that is, a vessel that holds one modium will not fit two modiums. (26) Then, what did they do or what did they suffer from the fruits of evil when they entered the limits of the light? M.: They saw the light and admired it, and clung to it, and loved it. P: Oh, dark and senseless! Is darkness blind or enlightened? P.: How can a blind man see, or how can something ultimately evil admire and love good? (27) However, are these two principles destructive to each other? P: Then not only is evil corruption, but also Good. M.: Evil is decay, and Good is life. P: So, evil destroys the Good and has no existence, and the Good revives evil, and evil will receive existence, and the Good will perish. So, as you said, matter is evil, corruption and death. This means that evil, if for others it is evil, but for itself good, then it constitutes itself, and is not entirely evil, not entirely corruption - after all, being in agreement with itself, in this it will not be evil. If it is entirely evil and entirely corruptible, then it will be self-destructive and deprived of existence. But tell us the essence of the co-dissolution you mentioned. (28) M.: There were, as I said, God and matter, each within its own limits, the Good - God, life, light, movement, knowledge, thinking and all good, and matter - evil, corruption, darkness, death in complete rest and inaction. Then, after many centuries, matter rose up against itself and its fruits against each other, and then some fled, others pursued, and there were, as I said, God and matter, that is, two principles, and the soul is a particle of light, and the body is a creation of darkness and matter. And the mixing happened like this. Each of them was in parts, and the Good One was one-part, and the Evil One was three-part. Then the evil one moved in a disorderly onslaught from his borders and came to the boundaries of the Good One, and the Good One, having recognized it, produced from himself a force called the Mother of Life, and the Mother of Life produced the First Man (I call the First Man the five elements, which are air, wind, light, water and fire). So, having put on this, he went out and fought against the darkness. And the leaders of darkness devoured part of his armor, which is the soul - they grabbed the First Man, and he, tormented by them in the darkness, cried out to the Good, and he produced another force called the Living Spirit. And he came down and gave his right hand to the First Man, and brought him out. But below he left the part that the rulers devoured, that is, the soul, because souls arose from a part of the Good, and bodies from the essence of evil. (29) P.: If, according to the divine apostle, there is no communication between light and darkness (2 Cor. 6:14), how did the merging of soul and body happen? And experience itself, which is stronger than vain words, teaches. Has darkness entered the confines of light and not dissipated? And again: how did darkness fit within the confines of light? And one more thing: if the Good One was wise, why didn’t he foresee the attack of the Evil One and first strengthen himself and his place? After all, if he was not wise and foresighted, then he is stupid - but how do you call a stupid person Good? And again: if all the darkness entered the limits of the light, its place remained empty - and if part of it, then how did the part defeat the one who was sent by the Good One to fight it? After all, he who sends the weakest to fight the stronger is not wise. Or the Good One is weak, and the Evil One is stronger. And again: if the Good One voluntarily gave up a part of himself, that is, his soul, then he who gave up the good to the evil is not Good. How did he himself give up his soul to the Evil One? [How will he] judge those who are enslaved to evil? After all, they will tell him: you yourself gave us away, there is no judgment. And if against his will the evil chiefs stole a part of him, then he is weaker and more ignorant than them, firstly, because he lost a part of himself, and secondly, because he was unable to take away what was stolen from him - after all, if he failed from the very beginning, then he will not be able to do so after that. And how, having captured the leaders of evil, he crucified them and made heaven from their flesh, mountains from bones, but did not capture his stolen part? And thus the court is also destroyed. After all, then the sinners are innocent - for if he himself could not return a part of himself, how can a subservient soul not sin and be innocent? And if in the end the Good One binds the evil, he will receive back the soul in perfection, and the person will not be punished. And one more thing: if evil for the soul comes from the body, then the soul is innocent. And again; a lying dead body does not sin. So, evil does not come from the body, but from the soul. (30) Tell us, O Manichaeans, is your beginningless evil, which you call matter, incorporeal, or a body, or something complex? And if it is incorporeal, then how can it be a substance? After all, matter is not incorporeal. But you may say: it is incorporeal, but it created the body. Then answer: did it create from its essence, or from something that does not exist? And if you say “from your essence,” it is not true. After all, a body cannot come from an incorporeal essence - for what is by nature does not change, and the essence will not turn from incorporeal to body - just as from body to incorporeal, neither from rational to irrational, nor from irrational to rational. For the essential quality is immovable, but the transforming and changing is transformed according to incidental signs, arising and disappearing without the destruction of the subject. If you say “from something that does not exist,” then answer us why, being evil and incorporeal, he did not create a mixture of evil ones, and why did he not create souls that were evil by nature, just as the body, in your opinion, was evil by nature, why did he merge a particle of good with his own evil? After all, it was not the Good One who did this - which means that he is not completely evil, but also has a good part. This is what happens if you say he is incorporeal. If evil is a body, then how did it come into motion? After all, every body in itself is devoid of will and dead. So how did it start moving? Who gave him the movement? Good? Then he is not good, or wise and not a seer, since he has accomplished evil. If you say that evil is complex, know that everything complex easily disintegrates, and it is necessary that first there be simple [components] from which the complex is formed, just as it is necessary that first there be resin on its own and wax on its own, and then the composition into a resin wax takes place. So there will be two principles of evil, not one. (31) So, tell me, Manichaeans: are your two principles completely incommunicable, or do they have something in common and differ in others? And if they are completely uncommunicative, then one is there and the other is not. If they are communicated by existence, as essence and incidental attribute, then one has existence in the other - for the incidental attribute does not exist in itself, just as color cannot exist outside the body. But the body is the essence, and the color is an incidental attribute, and it appears and disappears without destroying the essence - when the color changes, the body remains the same. So, name any essence and any adjunct attribute - if both are essences, then know that the essence is not different from the essence, and the essence is not opposite to the essence except through an adventitious attribute. If there is Good and there is Evil, and each of them is an eternal, unchanging, effective, creative essence, then both of them are one in essence, but differ in quality. And one more thing: we see that the elements and times, heaven and earth, and the sea are always the same, and night and day, the movement of the sun, and the moon, and the stars, and showers, and the products of the earth are intelligently and harmoniously ordered and distributed. So, if there are two principles that are opposite to each other, then how can everything happen successfully if they do not agree with each other in a friendly manner? If matter destroyed itself, how did it move? If it was moving towards its own destruction, how did it reach the limits of the world? If matter gravitates downward, and its natural place is lower and darker, then how did it come out of its own nature in order to come to the limits of light? Darkness is blind: how then did it see the light? If matter is disordered and unreasonable, how can it have superiors? And how can one fight against something that has order and meaning? And even to gain the upper hand, so as to seize something from the wise and not be captured? If the Good God was unable to keep the substance from moving into its limits except by allowing a particle of it to be stolen, then the Evil One is stronger, and the Good One is a mastermind. And how can he be Good or God who uses cunning and not strength? That which is always as it is is truth, and truth is good. The beginningless is unchangeable. So, if a substance is without beginning, then it is unchangeable, always remaining as it is: but if it is always as it is, then it is truth, and if it is truth, then it is good. If a substance is transformed, then either from good to evil, and before being good, then became evil, or from evil to good, and before being evil, then became good - because the transformation leads to the opposite. The eternal essence is unchangeable - for it did not come into existence from something that does not exist, but for one whose existence is not from development, the essence is unchangeable. So, God, being good and eternal, does not suffer transformation, but is always good, and what He creates is good - for it is impossible for evil to arise from good - but it is changeable, because He brings it into existence from non-existence. Thus, rational beings allow transformation due to being brought into being from non-existent, but have free will because they are rational. By their own will, they remain the same as they arose, that is, good, slaves who know the Creator and are obedient to Him, which is inherent in created nature - for it is good to remain within the limits of one’s own nature. So, by his own will, man turned, desiring great things, but not in a good way - for it is a great thing to be God, but it is not good for one who is not God to be ungrateful to the Creator and to transgress his own nature, and to want to be what it is impossible for him to become - for it is impossible for one who is not without beginning to be God or for one who has begun to be without beginning. So the search for the wrong leads to the loss of what is available. (32) M: What is the evil of the devil? P.: In rebellion against the Creator. Therefore, God gave him existence, so that it would not seem that He was afraid of the rebellion of a slave, and in order to teach us to act kindly even towards the evil. After all, He not only created him, but also made him the head of the world, and if he wants to become good, He will accept him and bless him. Therefore, although He could destroy him, He did not destroy him, but endures his folly, benevolently and unenviously providing him with the existence that belongs to Him. And for him to become good, it depends not only on God, but also on himself - after all, what happens forcibly is not good or virtue. (33) If you say: why did He allow him to fight against people, I will answer that for the benefit - for many will be crowned through this. If you say that many are perishing, I will answer that just as the devil himself managed to become evil without outside influence by his own decision (which for him is the worst accusation), so a person could become evil on his own and without an instigator, and it would be a worse sin for him - for he who sins at the instigation of another is worthy of greater forgiveness and condescension than from himself. For he who has sinned on his own account is inexcusable, just as the one who follows virtue on his own merits deserves greater praise. Therefore, the devil, having sinned on his own, remained unrepentant, and man, who sinned not on his own, but under the pressure of the devil, came to repentance and was awarded renewal and remission of sins. So being is a good and a gift of God. (34) M.: Why did God, foreseeing that the devil would be angry, create him? P: He created it out of abundance of goodness. For he said: “If this one is evil and loses all the benefits given to him, then I will completely deprive him of the benefit and make him non-existent? No way. But even if he himself is angry, I will not deprive him of My communion, but will give him one good, My communion through being, so that even against his will he will participate in My good through being.” For no one holds and binds things in existence except God - for existence is the good and gift of God. (35) M.: The existence of those who exist is from the good God: therefore, if for all those who exist existence is good, as given by the good God, then existence is good for the devil. P: All things that exist received their existence from God. Everything that God has given to everyone is good, for whatever a good person gives is good. And evil is nothing more than the loss of goods, that is, those given by God. So in those who have at least existence from God, good is partly present, as if as a last echo. So, being is good, and good being is better. For health is perfect existence, being in illness is partial evil and corruption - for it is not perfect non-existence, but partial existence and partial non-existence. Non-existence is complete evil, for what is completely non-existent is complete corruption and non-existence. Therefore, being and good being are good and from God, and from good to become evil depends on the will of the one who becomes. So, God, out of the abundance of goodness, gave good to the evil, being and good being. (36) You impute to us, O Manichaeans, why God, foreseeing that the devil would be evil, created him, and we have proven in detail that, according to the natural sense of justice, He acted well in creating him - for according to the natural sense, it is better to at least somehow be and, by reason of being, to partake of the good. For being itself is from God, the only ever-bearing, good and Giver of goods - and that which is from good, of course, is good. If you say that it would be better for him not to appear than to appear and endure endless punishment, we will say that this punishment is nothing more than the fire of lust for evil and sin and the fire of unsatisfied lust. For those who invariably remain in evil do not desire God, but evil, and there will no longer be the action of evil and sin. After all, [in eternity] we neither eat, nor drink, nor dress, nor marry, nor become rich, and envy has no power, and no form of sin. Therefore, lusting and not having the object of desire, they are burned by lust, as if by fire. And those who desire the good, that is, the one God, who exists and ever-present, and those who achieve Him, rejoice in accordance with their lust, according to which they achieve what they desire. So, true good is good by nature - at least somehow joining the good by being itself. And what seems good is not good by nature, but evil. It is not the business of the righteous and good to prefer the pleasure of the creature to the pleasure of the Creator and one’s own will to the will of the Creator, and to prefer what seems good to us, which turns out to be rather evil, to what is good by nature. But [it was better] for him to arise and have at least the slightest part of the true good, than because of evil, that is, unrighteous aspirations and sorrow, to lose even that smallest part of the good. For God does not judge by our unreasonable judgment, but according to what is truly good and righteous, does not follow our passions and does not betray justice because of imaginary compassion, which in truth is partiality 7 39 . (37) And again: God names those who do not yet exist as existing, and contemplates and judges the future as already accomplished. So, just as a judge fairly punishes someone who has already sinned - and if he does not punish, he will be unjust - and it is not he himself who is the cause of the sin or punishment of the person being punished, but the choice of the sinner, so God, seeing the future as already accomplished, judged that he should arise, and if he became evil, he would be punished by Him. Therefore, He created him and made him good - he himself, by his own choice, became evil and became the author of punishment for himself, or rather, he punishes himself, coveting what is not. And that it was not God’s foreknowledge that was the reason that the devil became evil, it is clear - after all, a doctor who foresees a future illness is not the cause of the illness, but the cause of the illness is disorder, and the doctor’s foresight is a sign of learning, and the reason for the foresight is that this should happen. And that this is so, says the apostle: calling things that do not exist as though they exist (Rom. 4:17). And you need to know that as soon as the soul leaves the body, then it remains unchanged, whether it is attracted to good or evil. (38) In all these things we recognize as good what God wants - for just as light is determined by the sun, so good is determined by God. So, everything that the Good One wants is good, and good is what He wants. God is the judge, and we are not the judges of God. So why do we judge Him? Is God afraid, frightened and timid? A fearing God would not be God. (39) If the sun and moon arose as ships to transport the particle that matter stole from God, then before that there was neither sun nor moon, and man was in darkness. (40) If, in your opinion, sorrow is evil, then pleasure and pleasure are, of course, good, and if so, then fornication, and gluttony, and everything that pleases and pleases the performer is good, and what depresses, abstinence, fasting, vigil and the like is evil. (41) If you impute to God the universal destruction in the flood, and the burning of the Sodomites, and the drowning of Pharaoh, when He punished them for the sake of benefit, then much more impute eternal punishment to Him. (42) To produce from one’s own essence is not creation, and from non-existents is creation. So, if evil creates, then it translates from non-existents, and the body is no longer from substance - but if from substance, that is, from the essence of evil, then if evil is without beginning, it will certainly be both immortal and unchangeable - for what has begun does not cease and does not transform - and if evil is immutable, then the body from its essence will be incorruptible and unchangeable. Then whose was the corruption and evil? After all, corruption, of course, destroys something, otherwise it is not corruption. And if the good endures, then the Good also suffers, and how will he be completely good? Destroyed by corruption, the Good One will pass into non-existence. If it destroyed itself, then it collapsed and died, and it no longer exists. If he destroyed partly the good, and partly himself, then in whose nature the part is corruptible, the whole nature is corruptible - after all, it is impossible for one and the same nature to be both corruptible and incorruptible. For if we call the human body, a part of man, perishable, and the soul incorruptible, then they are not of the same nature. For the soul, although it lives in the body, is not a body, but is incorporeal - so the soul is of one nature, and the body of another, and not in one and the same nature is one part perishable and the other incorruptible, but one nature of man is perishable, and the other is incorruptible. And neither the soul is from a beginningless essence - after all, it is transformable - nor the body, because it is transformable and perishable. And a person is called one-natured not because the soul and body are of the same nature, but because all people equally have soul and body, and each has two natures. (43) Transformation is a transition from one opposite to another, from non-existent to being, or from existing to non-existent, or from virtue to vice, that is, from natural possession to deprivation of it. Virtue is the fulfillment of God's law, but God's law is His will - for no one commands what he does not want - but God's will is good, unchangeable and always the same. So good is a thing that exists, just like virtue (for virtue is good), and evil is not a thing that exists, but a voluntary disobedience and abolition of a thing that exists, that is, the law of God, which is gradually realized in action and ceases with the cessation of action. (44) You should also know that God does not punish anyone in the future, but everyone makes himself receptive to the communion of God, but the communion of God is pleasure, and non-participation is punishment, but here God sends temptations not by punishing, but by nurturing and healing evil, so that we recognize Him and turn and achieve His goodness. The Lord God opened my ear (Isa. 50:5). (45) M: If He is good, then why in the next century does He punish the Evil One and not destroy him? P: God is good, but also just: therefore, since He is good, He created the good things that He created. Therefore, just as it was fair that His future good creations, which would not only preserve the good given to them, but also increase it, should arise and be awarded perfect good and eternal pleasure, it was also fair that those future His good creations, which would not preserve the good given to them, but voluntarily deviate towards evil through the loss of goods, should also arise and be deprived of eternal pleasure. (46) The seraphim are further removed from God than the Evil One is from the seraphim. Therefore, if the devil had not arisen, the one who was before him would be worse than everyone else and, in comparison with those who were before him, would be evil, and we would say: why did God, knowing that he would be like this, create him? In exactly the same way about who is before this, until we get to the seraphim themselves. And often we see some most deplorable thing and think that there is nothing more deplorable, and then we see another, even worse one. For if we consider something to be the extreme evil that we have seen, we think that it cannot be worse. (47) Therefore, God created everything very good (Gen. 1:31), each according to its nature, as He wanted - for He is not subject to the law, but what He wants is good, and not what we judge. For we are not judges of God, but just as every light shines from the sun, that is, fire, so every good is determined from the will of God. For if you say that God did good here and bad here, why He did this and why He didn’t do that, you are a judge of God, and greater than Him, and wiser. Therefore, as God, He has the power to create what He wants, and He has the power to reveal to us what reasons He wants for what He does, and what reasons He wants to hide. Each of the intelligent good beings that arose either by their own will remained in goodness, as they were created, or by their own will they transformed and moved away from goodness and lost it. For good is the best order, preserving for everyone what is characteristic of his nature - and the same thing is virtue - and violation of order, that is, disorder, is evil. Everything that exists, insofar as it exists, is good and from the Good, and to the extent that it is devoid of good, it is not good and does not exist. After all, the lifeless, because it has not received life from the Good, is lifeless, as deprived of life, and similarly, the insensitive and dumb, because they have received it, are good. (48) God knows evil as good, just as He knows fornication as attraction, and friendship, and union. And even the causes of evil are for Him beneficent powers: often chosen vessels were born from fornication. (49) If evil is evil, then the punishment that drives it out is good. For evil is fornication, and not chastity; after all, punishment is not evil, but to make oneself worthy of punishment. (50) If evil is eternal and creates, and can, and exists, and acts, where does it come from? Either from good, or for good it is all from evil, or for both from a different reason, because evil is also realized in the good, and because He turns both evil and deprivation of Himself to good. For friendship, being good, allows fornication to appear good, because in a good way even things that do not exist are jealous to be. For they say that God does not exist by superior negation 40 . (51) And that nature itself presupposes one beginning is explained by the counting, which begins not with two, but with one. So, if the beginning of counting is one, then the beginning of beings is one. (52) If evil is completely incommunicable with good, and good is a being, then evil is not a being: for two beings are communicated by being. If good is an essence, then evil is non-essential, for two essences have in common that they are essences. (53) If evil is initially motionless, then motion is good, and motionlessness is evil. So where did evil get its movement? Life is good and movement, and has always been and is in good, and the Good was and is alive. Death, as you say, is evil, and corruption, and mortification, and, moreover, non-existence. But evil was death, according to you. Therefore, just as the Good is alive and life, evil is death, and mortification, and mortification. So where did it come to life and the nomination come from? If from oneself, then life comes from evil, which is unthinkable - for corruption does not give life. If from good, then the good that was the cause of life and movement for evil is not good. And why, foreseeing the evil that would come from him, did he revive him? (54) Evil, insofar as it is evil, is incommunicable, and opposite, and hostile to good, and the desire for good is good. So how did the evil desire the good to the extreme? (55) Evil is motionless and decays rather than arises. So how did lifeless and unfeeling evil give birth to its works? And how does it perceive good and the products of good? (56) That which came from the essence of the beginningless and uncreated is without beginning and uncreated. So how do you say that everything came from the essence of your beginnings? After all, if everything is from their essence, then all these are beginningless beginnings and nothing [more]. If they are creations, then they are not from their essence. (57) Evil is corruption and death. Then evil, if for others it is evil, but for itself good, constitutes itself, and is not entirely evil - for it constitutes itself and to that extent is not evil. If it is entirely evil, then it is evil for itself, and self-destructs and does not exist. If, in the corruption of some, the emergence of others occurs, then it is not corruption that causes the emergence, but goodness, due to the excess of goodness, even from the corruption of one makes the emergence of another. For the substance subordinate to the Good, created by Him, is good - after all, in the beginning He brought everything from non-existent into being. (58) It is impossible for the same thing in one and the same relation to be good and evil, and for the same power to be the disintegration and emergence of the same thing in the same relation, neither self-power nor self-disintegration. So, evil itself is neither existing nor good, it is not creative and cannot create existing or good - and good in which it turns out to be perfect makes it a perfect good, and in what is partial - partial, and that in which it is not at all does not exist and is called complete evil. (59) Fornication, since it is attraction, friendship and union, is good, and since it is an attraction to the unlawful and forbidden, it is evil, for what is not commanded, but forbidden, does not exist, as it should not exist. Therefore, the attraction to what does not exist and should not be is evil. (60) Evil is twofold. True evil is, as it were, a falling away of natural properties. For God created man upright, but people indulged in many thoughts (Eccl. 7:29). Another evil is the sensual, like constraint in temptation, for the name of evil is general. After all, it means two things: sometimes it means the lack of virtue, and sometimes it means joy, that is, what is desired. After all, fornication is nothing more than a lack of chastity and bad use - because instead of loving his own vessel, that is, his wife, and merging with her, he loves and merges with someone else’s. Unbelief, instead of believing and loving God by nature, believes in a non-existent God. So, evil lies in using things that do not exist as if they exist, not giving each one his own, but for each one his own is what God has determined for him. What is proper for God is the glory and honor due to Him as the Creator, and what is proper for creatures is the measure that the Giver of existence has determined for each. But it is in our power to either use what God has given us for what He gave it for, and in our power to use it not for what He gave it for - just as, for example, He gave us lust so that we would lust after Him, the only good. If we use lust for this, this is virtue and goodness, and if we love something other than Him, then this is not use, but abuse. After all, it was precisely for this reason that He created us, so that we, by lusting after Him, would be involved in Him. (61) There was, in your opinion, a substance without beginning, unemerged, within its own limits, eternally moving randomly, fighting with itself and destroying itself. There was, they say, God - within his limits, beginningless, unemerged, eternal, incorporeal, the whole world - but matter, moving randomly and senselessly, Came to the limits of light. And, amazed at God’s light, she stopped fighting with herself, and went to war against the light, so that she even stole a particle of it into herself - after all, they assure that there were also leaders of the substance, as in the hidden kingdom, about which they say that these are the rulers of the world of darkness and the spirits of malice (Eph. 6:12). The good God, according to them, allowed a particle of it stolen by the substance to be captured in order to limit the substance and set a limit to its further advancement within its own boundaries. If matter is beginningless, did not arise, incorporeal, qualityless, invisible, and so is the Good God, and everything came from their essence, why is what happens from them visible? After all, what comes from an incorporeal and invisible essence will also, of course, be incorporeal and invisible. And more than that, if there are two beginningless principles, unoriginating and eternal, and we are from them, but not brought into being by them from non-existent, but from their essence, then we are also beginningless and eternal - after all, the generation of each essence is consubstantial with the one that gave birth to the essence: [the generation of] the eternal is eternal, the ungenerated is ungenerated, the beginningless is beginningless. And again: if our composition is from the essence of good and evil, then we are not creatures, but children, and there is no creation in the world. And again: if it is impossible for the essence of good to turn into evil or even to think or do evil, and it is impossible for the Evil One to turn and think or do something good - and our soul is [from] the Good - then it is impossible for our soul to think anything bad, and for our body to do anything good. But we see many souls thinking evil, like the souls of the Manichaeans, and many bodies doing good, like the bodies of saints. And one more thing: if an evil [person] is composed of body and incorporeal, and also a good one, but our soul is [from] the essence of good, and our body is from the essence of evil, then our soul will be composite of corporeal and incorporeal, and body. And one more thing: if matter is without beginning, if it is incorporeal, how did it come out of the incorporeal essence? After all, the beginningless, of course, is unchangeable - the simple by nature does not unite. So how did the merger happen? And again: if matter is complex from the incorporeal and the body, and the body is opposite to the incorporeal, then who united the opposites? After all, opposites would not communicate with each other, amicably connecting into one plexus and one hypostasis, if the power of the Creator did not bring them together. This means that the substance, being complex, received the existence of the Divine Word. And again: is matter corruptible or perishable? For corruption destroys and is not destroyed, but corruptible is destroyed by corruption - and corruptible, that is, decaying, is matter. (62) What is destructive, or corruption, or perishable? After all, decay is the disintegration of components. The one who causes corruption destroys, and the disintegrating complex decays. Both destruction and decay are the essence of essence, and corruption is an incoming sign, seen in the disintegration of the constituents, which does not exist before and does not remain after. (63) So what is a substance - destroyer, decay or perishable? If you answer that it is a destroyer, tell me what does it destroy if not the Good? After all, you say that there is nothing except matter and the Good. So, if there were two, then the substance destroys, and the good one creates, or the substance is formed, and the Good one decays and perishes. If it destroys itself, know that nothing destroys itself, and if it did destroy itself, it would destroy itself and go into non-existence. And how is perishable without beginning? If it is perishable, how is it destroyed, if not by the Good, and it will be the Good destroyer. If it is decay, then how is it produced and from what does it come from? After all, corruption is decay, as we said. So, who is the destroyer and what is being destroyed? And that matter cannot be corruption and a corruptible essence can be understood from here - after all, the corruptible essence precedes and pre-exists as a composite hypostasis. Smoldering comes after addition, dissolving the components. How could there be an essence of matter if it was accompanied and co-realized by decay? But perhaps you will say that corruption was once not in action, but in possibility, and also corruptible. But know - indeed, there is destruction and creation, but corruption and creation do not yet act, because what is corrupted and created cannot be coeternal with the destroyer and creator - however, you say that nothing was brought from non-existence into being, but that evil is destructive and destructive for itself, so that, having not action, but the ability to destroy and decay, it was imperfect. And that which develops from imperfect to perfect is not without beginning - for if the unchangeable is without beginning, then what is transformed is not without beginning. And again: what comes first in a substance – its essence or decay? And if it is decay, then the substance could not exist before it began to collapse. If its essence pre-existed corruption, then it is essence and existence rather than corruption, and was once incorruption, not having the opposite corruption, and corruption is not without beginning. If its essence was always self-destructive, then how did it produce fruit? If it destroyed in part, then it was not entirely destructive, and not entirely perishable, and not completely evil. If, being destructive, it stopped destroying itself, then either destruction is evil and it turned from evil into good, or destruction is good, and then from good it became evil. If a substance is evil and destroys itself, then it is good, because the destroyer of evil is good. And again: tell me, was the substance light or dark? And if light, then from the essence of good - and here is one beginning, not two. If there is darkness, then how does darkness see? After all, if he sees, he has light. If she does not have light, then she is blind, and how did she see the light? And how will the darkness be in the light and not dissipate? And what does light have in common with darkness? (2 Cor. 6:14). And again: was the substance alive or not? And if it was not alive, then how did it come into motion? After all, everything that does not have life is motionless. If it was alive, then it had life either from itself or from without. And if from itself, then it was life, not death. If it received life from the outside, that is, from the Good, then how is the one who revived evil good? If from another, then there will be not two, but three. And one more thing: the substance was from itself without beginning or originated from another. And if it came from another, it is not without beginning. If it was without beginning, then it always had existence and never had non-existence. How do you call it corruption and death? After all, decay produces non-existence, but matter never had non-existence - after all, it has always existed, as you say. So how can it give what it doesn't have? And again: emergence and decay are opposites. For emergence is a bringing from non-existent into being, and corruption is decay from existing into non-existence. So, if a substance, in your opinion, is decay, then how does it produce fruit and give birth? And again: perfect corruption destroys itself - for if it forms itself, it is not perfect corruption. If it destroys itself, it will not exist. (64) Good (ἀγαθόν) is called so because everything strongly strives (ἄγαν θεῖν) towards it, and by nature it is attractive and desirable, which everything naturally desires. Evil is an unnatural aspiration, that is, when we strive for something other than the natural object of aspiration. “So, good is the beginning and the end of both good and evil - for everything is for the sake of good, both good and the opposite - after all, we do this in thirst for good. For no one does what he does with evil in mind. Therefore, evil does not have a hypostasis, but a secondary existence, occurring for the sake of good, and not for its own sake” 41. For everything that happens happens either for the sake of good or for the sake of imaginary good. (65) A prophet is deceived by God either when God allows him to be deceived because of the merit of his desire, or when he prophesies and God does otherwise than was predicted, and then it is said that he was deceived by God, that is, he turned out to be a deceiver. (66) So tell us, Manichaeans: the substance that you call evil, and darkness, and corruption, and death, beginningless and eternal, was it an essence or an incidental one? And if the essence, then it was either a body, like earth, water, air, fire - or incorporeal, like God, an angel, a soul - or a complex of body and incorporeal. And if it was a body, then it was motionless - for every body is soulless and motionless. And how, without moving, did it come to the limits of the light? Or how did the movement get started? Either the one who gave movement to evil is good and not good, or someone else gave it movement besides the Good, and there will be three principles, not two. If you say that the substance was incorporeal, then where did the body come from? After all, an incorporeal and beginningless essence cannot turn into a body. Where then does the innumerable multitude of bodies come from? If you say that a substance is complex from body and incorporeal, know that it is impossible for a complex to arise except from simple ones, just as it is impossible for two to arise except from one and one, and it is impossible for a person to arise unless from soul and body, and it is impossible for a body to arise unless from simple elements, earth, water, air and fire. So, it is necessary that first there be simple ones, and then the complex arises from the simple ones. And then there will be not two beginnings, but three. Thus, it is impossible for a substance to be without beginning. And if it is complex from the body and the incorporeal, why did it not create man from the body and from its incorporeal essence? (67) Hear, O heavens, and give ear, O earth (Isa. 1:2). Listen, heaven, I will speak; and listen, O earth, to the words of my mouth (Deut. 32:1) For I will speak the words not of my own heart, but of the darkened and defiled Manichaeans. Listen, peoples, tribes, tongues, listen. May heaven and earth become one disgrace today. Listen to what the damned Manichaeans, darkened about the light, the lips of the devil, say. They say that the substance fought with God and tore away a part of Him. They say that God is limited, warring and defending, and grieving and cut. Is God defending himself? Is God being dissected? Alas, alas for me, and we will not kill them? We won't destroy it with fire? Shall we talk to them? Will we accept them into fellowship? He who communicates with them is like them and will be on their side both in this and in the next century. Brothers (this is what they call fellowship), we will die, but we will not accept the Manichaeans into fellowship. Let us die in order to live - whoever accepts them into fellowship is a Manichaean like them. It is better to fall into Judaism and die as a Jew than to associate with the Manichaeans. And you, of the Manichaeans, listen for God’s sake, O men, listen to what the godless Mani says. The world, he says, is not God’s, but the devil’s. They want to separate us from our God. And God was upset, he says, that a part of Him was cut off, and suffered. If a part of Him was cut off, then He is perishable - after all, everything that is cut is perishable. Evil has stolen and captured, he says, a particle from God, and because of this God sends, captures and kidnaps the part stolen from Him. Are you bringing in the robbers of God, you godless one? But God also created the tools, he says, the twelve vessels, the sun and the moon, in order to take away what was his 42 . And what then, in order to finish with something - so that the Good One would send fire and burn the world and destroy everything, and return the substance down to its place, and [with it] the souls that did not accept Mani? Listen to what the enemy of God says, what power the substance gives - it overthrows the power of the Almighty. First, he says, He was robbed and robbed. What powerlessness! Are you saying that my God is powerless? But he allowed it voluntarily. Why was He upset if He did not suffer violence? No one is upset when they give theirs voluntarily. If He [did this] so that His place would not be conquered, unable to otherwise cope with the substance, and became upset, then how is He not powerless? Then, He is upset and tormented by that part that is from Him, and comes up with tricks, and arranges tools to get what is his, and does not even get all of his own back - for the souls that did not follow Mani are punished forever - and in the end, the substance, having rebelled and oppressed the Good, itself not oppressed, but in the worst case returned to itself, again finds itself in its place, moreover, together with the souls, not those who believed Mani. But maybe it will rise again. (68) Tell us, O Manichaeans: was the substance that was at rest at first good or evil? If he was evil, then, having rebelled, he became good. If at first it is good, then it is evil. Then, having risen up on itself and in a disorderly movement having come to the limits of the light, if it saw the immaterial light, how is it blind? And how can matter see immaterial light? And if she thought, how unreasonable and wordless? And if, in your opinion, she loved, then how soullessly? And why is it evil? After all, loving good is not evil. And why is it unreasonable and unwise [if] it came out of its limits not like a dumb animal, but like the best commander, in perfect order, and, having captured a fair amount of spoils of light, returned to itself? And why do you call it bad, since it received and contained good? After all, what is capable of perceiving good is not opposite to it and is not hostile. And again: if a substance stole a part of God, then the substance is active and creative, but the nature of good is passive and fluid. If it desired good, and the Good gave part of its share to evil, then both turned - after all, evil desired good and became good, and good, allowing itself to be mixed with evil, became evil. And again: was the good damaged by the theft and confusion, or did it itself damage, bring or benefit? If it has received a benefit, then the one who has benefited is effective and good, but the one who has received is painful and weaker than it. If it is damaged, then what is damaged is painful, and what is damaged is stronger than it. If it hurts, then it is evil. If it brought benefit, then the Good One is envious, upset and vindictive, since he consigned the substance to fire, and due to an excess of vindictiveness, along with it, a part of himself. If the good did not suffer and did not cause harm, did not bring and did not receive benefit, then, firstly, it is ineffective - after all, the good, wherever it is, helps, having a good effect - and secondly, it is unfair, because, without suffering harm and without bringing benefit, it punishes an innocent substance. If, in your opinion, God is angry and upset because matter has loved Him and communed with Him, let no one love Him. And if, as you say, God, having learned about the approach of the substance, voluntarily allowed a part of Him to be stolen from Him, in order to, by limiting its movement, take revenge, like melting a net in Gehenna - then, firstly, why didn’t He immediately melt it and deliver it to Gehenna? If he could not do otherwise than in this way, why does he reproach us for not resisting the evil one, when he himself betrayed our souls due to impotence? Further, speaking about Gehenna, you will say that it is either consubstantial with the Evil One, or another essence, and then there are no longer two, but three [principles]. If it is consubstantial with good, then how does it punish? After all, Gehenna is not good. If it is consubstantial with evil, then it does not punish evil - for nothing punishes itself. And if there is something other than two, then there are three principles, and not two, or it was brought into being from something that does not exist. And if so, then why didn’t we take the direct path and say that everything was brought from non-existence into being? The beginningless is unchangeable: for transformation is the emergence of something that did not exist before. And whose existence is from transformation is changeable by nature, and whose existence did not begin from transformation, but without beginning, then by nature it is unchangeable. Then how did we arise from two beginningless entities? After all, if they themselves are not like that, then they, like us, are also people. If so, how did they become? This means that we are not from beginningless entities, but from non-existence. If matter and evil are a beginningless and eternal principle, having from itself being and everything that it has, that is, tyranny, and power, and evil, then it will have this unchanged. So how can one who is so afraid of him that he allows a part of himself to be captured by him to overcome him in the end? (69) M.: Why did God, foreseeing that the devil in the future would turn from good into evil and lose good, and remain in the non-existence of good, which is evil, [still] created him? P: If he foresaw it, then he foresaw that it would definitely happen, because foreseeing something that will not certainly happen is not foresight, but ignorance and delusion. M.: Did God want to create him? M.: Why did He, being good, want to create him, who would be evil? P.: God created him good, but he voluntarily turned and lost his goodness. M.: Why did he lose the benefit? P: Because he had free will. M.: Why did He create him free and changeable? P: Every creature is changeable by nature, for whose origin began with transformation must necessarily be changeable. Isn’t bringing from non-existence into being a transformation? So, only the Divinity by nature is unchangeable as uncreated and ever-present. Creatures, those that are intelligent, are voluntarily changeable, transforming according to their own will, and everything else [transforms] bodily. Free - because [he acts] not out of necessity: for everything rational is autocratic. For what will he use his reason for if he is not autocratic? Or how can one be virtuous or good without being autocratic? After all, what happens by force or by natural necessity is not virtue - therefore the dumb ones do not have virtue. And because of someone’s frivolity, to abolish the virtue of the good is not a just thing. M: This means that He had to create only those who would be virtuous, so that only good and only virtue would be created. P.: Perfect good is only God, and in comparison with Him everything is imperfect, and is good and is called it insofar as it participates in Him, and in comparison with each other. For what is more involved in good is and is called greater good, and what is less is called lesser - and what is not at all involved is not good at all. And that which is not good at all is entirely evil. And being itself is good, for being is from the good God, so that the devil, existing, is good by his very being. (70) M.: Why does the Lord say: it would have been better for that person not to have been born (Matthew 26:24)? P.: Because it is fitting for the Good to give blessings, but for the recipient it is shame and reproach not to preserve the blessings that he has received, not because of the Giver, but through his own fault and because of his frivolity. And God, being good, cannot help but deliver good, that is, he does not want, and he who does not want to receive is to blame for himself, considering it better for himself not to receive than to receive. So, it is unfair and not good that because of his reluctance to accept the Good, there should be an obstacle to good deeds and the bestowal of benefits. For in this way evil would conquer good if God, through goodness, brings from non-existent into being, and evil, voluntarily transformed from good, would hinder the good creation of the Good. Therefore, the Lord did not say: “It would have been better if that person had not been born,” but it would have been better for that person. It is good, and natural, and just for the Good One to do good and give benefits, but the one who accepted and did not save, made the acceptance a reproach for himself - for, not wanting the good, he does not enjoy and does not even desire the good that he has. For being is not in our power, but only from God, and to be good is both from God and from us. So, God, as is His nature, gives existence and good existence, and we either do what is in our power - to preserve the given blessings - or not. And what depends on God alone, He Himself gives to us as good, whether we want it or not, so that there is goodness in us at least to some extent. (71) God always provides benefits to the devil, but he does not want to accept. And in the next century, God gives good to everyone - for He is the source of good, pouring out goodness on everyone, and everyone partakes of good, as much as he has prepared himself for those who receive it. Therefore, here, having an attraction to other things and achieving them, we at least somehow enjoy, and there, when God will be all and in everything (1 Cor. 15:28), and there will be neither food nor drink, nor any carnal pleasure, nor injustice, those who no longer have ordinary pleasures, but also those from God, are no longer receptive, suffer inescapably, not because God created punishment, but because we ourselves arranged our punishment, since God did not create death, but we ourselves brought it upon ourselves. For by nature everything that is complex disintegrates, but since Adam was united with God through speculation, he had within himself life that supernaturally vivified his mortal nature. When he retreated from unity with life, that is, with God, he passed from supernatural incorruptibility to the natural disintegration of the complex, which is death. (72) But since some say that God should have, foreseeing those who would sin and not repent and be condemned, not bring them from non-existence into being - after all, it was not fitting for something good to create and punish - let us first answer them with the words of the Apostle: And who are you, man, that you argue with God? For who can resist His will? (Rom. 9:20; 19). For what He wills is good, and the potter has the power to make one vessel for honorable [use], and another for base (Rom. 9:21). For He Himself creates both the righteous and sinners, but He Himself does not make them righteous and sinners, or honorable or base: for the Apostle himself says in his letter to Timothy, after listing the vices, adding: Therefore, whoever is clean from this will be a vessel of honor (2 Tim. 2:21). For, being autocratic, we have the power to cleanse ourselves of the most shameful passions - and to defile ourselves. However, God created everyone good. So, He Himself provides existence and prosperity to everyone, like the sun, extending the rays of His goodness to all His deeds. And it is not in our power to receive being, but to be good is in ours. Therefore, if we want and thirst, we will participate in His goodness and will forever be in the light. If we are careless and blind ourselves, and do not thirst for Him, then we will remain unrelated to Him. So, it should not have been that, because of our frivolity, He should have refused to give the gifts of His goodness, of which the first is being, and it was impossible that our vices would prevail and render His goodness ineffective. For if this were so, then nothing would come into being from among those that exist - for nothing that exists lives worthy of His goodness. Indeed, in comparison with Him, in fairness, everything is unworthy of existence. (73) However, God is not only good, but also righteous, and sees everything that has not yet come into being as existing. For He calls those things which are not as though they were (Rom. 4:17). If, out of goodness, He should not have created those punished, then rather, out of the abundance of goodness, He should have created them and not punished them, but forgive them their sins - for He is the Lord of both, to create and forgive. If it is fair that sinners should be punished, then it is fair that they should arise. For God sees “things that do not exist as if they exist” and judges not by the outcome of the matter, but by foreseeing the future. Because He does not know by the outcome of what is happening, but He foresees the future and, according to His providence, predetermines. But how does He foresee what will not happen? For if He had foreseen the sinner and had not created him, then this would not have been providence, but error - after all, just as they know what exists, so they foresee what will definitely happen. (74) Therefore, let us not judge God, for we do not know His purpose. Who understood the spirit of the Lord and was His counselor? (Isa. 40:13). After all, He did not reveal to us His entire plan, but how useful it was for us to know, and He hid what was not useful. So, let us not ask God for an account - for He Himself is the Judge and the Source of good things, and there is no good except what He desires, just as there is no light except that emitted by the sun. (75) So, God Himself, being by nature good and compassionate, does not want sin, does not want the death of the sinner (Ezek. 33:11) and does not rejoice at the death of the living (Wis. 1:13), is not possessed by the passion of anger and does not punish, but pours out good things to everyone. The thirsty one receives, and the good one achieves blessings - and in this life there is a certain structure and management and an ineffable providence, calling sinners to conversion and repentance, and after death there is no longer any transformation or repentance - not because God does not accept repentance, because He cannot deny Himself and does not refuse compassion - but the soul no longer transforms. Therefore, even if someone fulfills all righteousness and, having converted, sins and leaves life with an attraction to sin, he will die in his sin. Likewise, if a sinner repents and dies in repentance, his sins will not be remembered to him. For just as demons do not repent after falling away, and angels now do not sin, but both have received immutability, so people after death have immutability - and the righteous, drawn to God and possessing Him, rejoice in Him forever, and sinners, drawn to sin, not having the object of sin, are punished without any consolation, as if consumed by fire and a worm. And what is punishment if not deprivation of what one desires? Therefore, in accordance with their lust, those who thirst for God rejoice, and those who thirst for sin are punished - for just as those who achieve what they desire rejoice according to their lust, so those who do not achieve it suffer according to their lust. (76) You tell us: what is the Almighty? – Of course, “he who possesses all things,” because the apostle says: and he who arranged everything is God (Heb. 3:4). But how will God be the Almighty without dominion over matter and evil? Or how will he be the Creator without creating the substance Himself? Or how is He God, being imperfect and having insufficient power? For why did He not destroy and subjugate matter, but allow it to rebel, even if only for a moment? If He did not will, then it is not good - for it is not the business of the good and the righteous to calmly look at those who sin. If he could not, then the weak God is not God (you cannot say, as we said about the emergence and existence of the devil, that the very fact that he exists is good. For we, giving him existence from good, would rightly say: it is good that he is, because what is given from good is good. But you, giving existence to a substance not from good and, moreover, calling it evil and by nature evil, and completely not involved in the good, you cannot say that its existence is good). So, in your opinion, God is either not good or weak, since he did not destroy him in the first place. And again: if everything is from the essence of good and from the essence of evil, then neither the Good One will be the Creator, nor the evil one - but [both of them] are the fathers of existence. And again: if evil is opposite to good as being to being, and the beginning to the beginning, and the essence of essence, and, as you put it, as God to God, and to do good or evil is in our will, then it is in our will to bring victory to Good or Evil, and we are the reason that one takes over. (77) For we say that the one God is good, righteous, the Creator of everything, rules over everything, is omnipotent, can do whatever He wants, and that everything was created by Him, visible and invisible, not from His essence, but from the Non-existent [brought] into being - for the Lord creates everything that He wants (Ps. 135:6), - and we call good what He wants, for creation does not they judge the Creator. But we do not know the essence of His providence: for who has known the mind of the Lord? Or who was His counselor (Rom. 11:34). If His desire and His will were known, He would not be a wonderful God. For just as His essence is incomprehensible, so is His will and His providence. After all, if no one knows what is in a person, except for the spirit of everyone that is in him (1 Cor. 2:11), but even each person does not know everything in himself - after all, he does not know the future, and he does not know what he wants, or what he wants or desires tomorrow - then how will he know the will of God and His desire, who often forgets his own thoughts? (78) God's providence is that He foresees everything. And to us, who know neither the future, nor the past, nor the whole present, His government seems impermanent, but in reality it is constant, and good, and just. For, foreseeing what is in our will, the future as existing, He judges fairly, as He Himself wants and desires - after all, God does not see as man sees. For man looks at the outward appearance, but the Lord looks at the heart (1 Samuel 16:7). And we see that what according to general judgment is fair is often unjust because it leads to evil and because not everyone likes the same thing - after all, not everyone likes the same thing, but everyone likes something different. God judges not by change of opinion or recognition, but by foreknowledge. For God, having foreseen everything before it came into being, predestined for everyone justly, providentially and usefully what is not in our will, in accordance with what is in our will. For one is knowledge, and another is foreknowledge and another is recognition, another is determination and another is predestination. After all, knowledge is to know something that exists or arises, foreknowledge is to know something that has to be before its emergence, and recognition is true knowledge that comes after the false. And determination is a judgment and a decision on what has already happened, and predestination is a judgment and a decision on what will happen. (79) So, God, foreseeing what we will do voluntarily, that is, what depends on us - I mean virtue and evil - predetermines what does not depend on us. And the foreknowing power of God does not have a reason in us, but the foreknowledge of what we are about to create is in us: after all, if we were not about to create, then He would not have foreseen what would not happen. And God’s foreknowledge is true and inviolable, but it itself is not the reason that the future will definitely come true - He foresees that we will have to do this or that. He foresees many things that He does not like, and for which He Himself is not the cause. Just as a doctor is not guilty of illness when he foresees that someone will fall ill, but the disease is caused by another cause producing the disease, and the doctor’s foresight is a matter of his art, so what we do has a reason not in God, but in our free will; Free will is not evil if we use it for what it was given to us for. And what God foresees refers to His foreknowledge power. But our punishments are not caused by God. For it is not the judge who is the cause of the punishment of the villain, even if he judges of his own free will, but the criminal himself is the cause of his own punishment, and the judge is the cause of justice, and justice is good. After all, even if he judges according to his own will, it is not according to the previous one, but according to the subsequent one. The previous will is what someone wants in itself, and the subsequent will is from the reason for what happens, for God first wants from Himself that all people should be saved and attain the knowledge of the truth (1 Tim. 2:4). When we sin, He wants us to be educated for our benefit. And the previous will of God refers to His goodness, and the subsequent will to His justice. (80) And that God predestined everything according to His foreknowledge, we will understand this way. The Deity is unchangeable and judges not by recognition, but by foreknowledge. So, if He judges and determines every day, then He learns every day about what is happening, and repents, and adds years to life, as some say, not knowing what they are saying. After all, if He adds, then His will and knowledge are changeable, and this is unworthy of God. If the Scripture says that He added to Hezekiah, then He added not because He did not know or did not predetermine - He Himself both foresaw and predetermined what happened to Hezekiah - but providentially presented the matter in such a way, arranging our salvation, to show how much repentance can do. And that He repents is said by comparison with us. For Scripture speaks about God to the infancy of those who hear in a more human way. After all, as it is said: why are you sleeping, Lord? (Ps. 43:24), - but God does not sleep, and His long-suffering, and generosity, and the delay of His help are called sleep - after all, those who sleep do not help us; so is repentance: after all, when we give wealth to someone and he uses it badly, we repent. So when God created Adam and anointed Saul to be king, but they sinned, it is said that He repented - not because God repented (after all, He foresaw the future), but because they committed something worthy of repentance. Let us therefore be diligent in doing good and becoming good, so that we may be among those who are good, foreseeable and predestined to eternal life. (81) It should be known that good (and virtue is the same thing) is the best order, preserving to each his own nature, while evil is a violation of order or disorder. And good is called in two ways: either real good, like the order mentioned, or apparent - sensual pleasure, contrary to the above-mentioned order, which is not good, but rather evil. And “evil” is also said in two ways: either real evil, that is, what happens against the natural order and against the law of the Creator of one’s own will (after all, obedience to the Creator is natural order, and disorder is disobedience), or apparent good, that which is unpleasant to the feeling and painful for us, like education, which is rather good and useful to us, since it returns to the natural order. And voluntary evil is called real evil, varieties of sin, and involuntary evil is called painful. (82) So God is not the cause of either, as we have shown. After all, even if involuntary so-called evil (because it seems to us to be evil) God justly brings upon us because of our abomination and recklessness, and because we sin, that is, we do not achieve the desired goal through greed for pleasure, he brings us, educating us for our benefit, but this evil, called involuntary, depends on the voluntary, for involuntary evil follows the voluntary. After all, misfortunes for the most part are punishments and education for correction, and the punishment of the future century is the complete destruction of evil and sin, or, conversely, for those who desire bodily pleasures contrary to the natural law and sin for their sake, the suppression and lack of use of these pleasures will be eternal punishment. After all, punishment is failure to achieve what is desired. For pleasure reaches the point of sin when it is contrary to the law of nature. It is twofold, mental or physical: spiritual is the desire for glory, and bodily is food, drink, rest of the body, sleep, intercourse with a woman. All this is natural and good when it occurs in accordance with the natural order and the law of the Creator, and bad - when contrary to the law of the Creator and the natural order and use. (83) The natural order is to strive for glory from God, and to strive for glory from each other is unnatural - for only God, who is glorified by nature, is entitled to glory from all His creatures, and for us to humble ourselves before God as the Creator and before each other for the sake of the Creator's law. For this is evidence of love for God and neighbor, which is the law of God: Love the Lord your God with all your heart and... your neighbor as yourself (Mark 12:30-31) and everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted (Luke 18:14). So the love of fame from each other leads to unbelief. For it is said: How can you believe when you receive glory from one another, but do not seek the glory that comes from the one God? (John 5:44). (84) Again: bodily pleasure, food, drink and so on, taken according to natural use and the law of the Creator, is good, - and when this happens against the law of God through our will and abuse, it is evil: for example, food and drink, since they serve for life and maintenance of the body, is good, like sleep, and intercourse with a woman - it is good to know one’s own vessel, and to use food and drink and women indiscriminately for unreasonable pleasures, like dumb animals - evil. (85) So, because of vanity, and immoderate eating and drinking, and fornication, the love of money [appears], their support, envy and quarrels, and wickedness, and lies, and slander, and theft, and murder, and hatred of one’s neighbor, And because of the increase of iniquity, the love of many will grow cold (Matthew 24:12). He called “many” those who resort to lawlessness. So, the unnatural comes from the natural at the instigation of the devil. (86) Against all this, there are two greatest ways to help us: overpowering ourselves, for effort is a sign of love for God, and prayer, for prayer is a sign of humility. After all, we call on the power of God, admitting our powerlessness. You should know that non-judgment also delivers from sin: for not to condemn is a sign of humility. Nothing attracts God's help more than humility. For it is said: Behold my humility and my labor, and forgive all my sins (Ps. 24:18) and: Behold my humility and deliver me (Ps. 119:153) - deliver me from the enemy who is at war with me, and from my sin, and my folly. Living together with virtuous people is also useful for virtue, since man is an imitative creature, and abstaining from sensual communication with annoying people, because out of sight, out of mind. For through them the memory of sensory things arises in the soul. We must separate the mind from the memory of the sensory, so that it soars on light wings to the intelligent sun and is illuminated by its inaccessible and unimaginable beauty. For the mind becomes denser with the memory of the sensory and is drawn towards it and moves away from comprehending mental beauty and enjoying it: for no one can serve two masters (Matthew 6:24). Any art is achieved by a person through skill, perseverance and effort. (87) So, through effort that comes from love, and prayer, which comes from humility and flight from the sensual, and avoidance of cohabitation with the careless, and non-judgment, and humility, and communication with the virtuous, and obedience, let us accomplish our salvation, without hiding the thoughts and passions that are within us. For everything hidden is bad, but what is revealed is light. For a serpent does not give birth in the sun, but in holes, and the seed does not grow when lying on top of the earth, but hidden under the earth. Likewise, evil thoughts that are not made known bear fruit to corruption, and good ones to eternal life. May it be possible for us all to achieve through the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, with Him be glory to the Father, together with the most holy, and good, and life-giving, and consubstantial Spirit, now and ever and unto the ages of ages. Amen. Conversation between a Saracen and a Christian (1) To the Saracen’s question: “Who do you consider to be the author of good and evil?”, the Christian replies: “We say that only God and no one else is the author of all good things, but not of evil.” To this the Saracen says: “Who do you call the culprit of evil?” X.: Of course, the one who is the devil by his own will, and us, people. X.: Because of free will. S.: So, you are free, and you can and do whatever you want? X.: I was created by God free for only two things. X.: For evil and for good, which is good and evil. Therefore, when I do evil, I bear punishment from the law of God, and when I do good, I do not fear the law, but I am also honored and pardoned by God. Likewise, God created the devil free even before people, and he sinned, and God cast him out of his order. But perhaps you will object to me: “What do you call good and evil? What is it? Behold, the sun, and the moon, and the stars are good - create something from these.” But is it not because of this that I tell you even before: I do good and evil in accordance with man: good, such as glorifying God, prayer, alms and the like, and evil - fornication, theft and the like; if, as you say, good and evil are from God, then your God will turn out to be unrighteous, which is not so. After all, since God commanded, as you say, the fornicator to commit fornication, the thief to steal, and the murderer to kill; then they are worthy of honor - for they did the will of God. Your legislators will turn out to be liars, and your books will be forged, because they order the flogging of a fornicator and a thief who did the will of God, and the execution of a murderer who should have been honored because he did the will of God. The Saracen says: “Who fashions babies in women’s wombs?” “For the Saracens set this task before us as the most difficult, wanting to prove that God is the author of evil. After all, if I respond by saying that God fashions babies in the wombs of women, then the Saracen will say: “Behold, God is the helper of the fornicator and the adulterer.” To this the Christian replies: “We by no means find Scripture to say that God fashions or creates anything after the first week of peacemaking. If you doubt this, show yourself any creation or work created by God after the first week. But you will in no way be able to show it, for all visible creatures arose in the first week. After all, God created man in the first week and commanded him to give birth and be born, saying: be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth (Gen. 1:28). And since man was animated, having an animated seed, the seed sprang up in his own wife. So man begets man, as the divine Scripture says: Adam begat Seth, and Seth begat Enosh, and Enosh begat Cain, and Cain begat Maleleel, and Maleleel begat Jared, and Jared begat Enoch (Gen. 5:3–18). And it is not said: God created Seth, or Enosh, or anyone else, and from this we know that the one and only Adam was created by God, and his descendants are born and give birth to this time. And so by the grace of God the world stands, because from then on every grass and plant gives birth and is born by the command of God - for God said: Let the earth produce green grass (Gen. 1:11), and by His command every tree and every kind of grass and plant grew, having seed power in itself. The seed of every plant and herb is animate, and falling again onto the earth, either by itself or sown by another, it sprouts, not created by anyone, but in obedience to the first command of God. So, as I said before, being free only in the things already mentioned, wherever I sow, using my power, whether in my own wife or in someone else’s, the seed rises and becomes obedient to the first command of God, and not as He creates and does every day, because in the first week God created heaven and earth, and the whole world in six days, and on the seventh day He rested from all His works (Gen. 2ff.), as the Scripture testifies to me.” Saracen: But how does God say to Jeremiah: before I formed you in the womb, I knew you, and from the womb I sanctified you (Jer. 1:5)? Christian: God formed the animate and seminal power of every man from Adam onwards. For Adam, having Seth in his womb, begat him, as I have already said, and Seth Enos, and every man, having first had a son in his womb, [gives birth to him], and a son begat and is begetting to this time. And “from the womb he sanctified you” understand as [the womb] truly giving birth to the children of God, according to the testimony of the Holy Gospel: and to those who accepted Him, to those who believe in His name He gave the power to become children of God, who were born neither of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of a man, but of God (John 1-13) through baptism. (2) The enemy: was there baptism before Christ? After all, Jeremiah is born before Christ. X.: It was, according to the testimony of the holy Apostle, who said that some were baptized into the cloud, others into the sea (1 Cor. 10:1). And the Lord says in the Gospels: unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the Kingdom of Heaven (John 3:5). So Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and the rest of the saints before Christ, entering the Kingdom of Heaven, were first baptized, because according to the testimony of Christ, if they had not been baptized, they would not have been saved. The Holy Spirit also testifies, saying: Sinners are alienated from the womb (Ps. 57:4), that is, from baptism. Therefore, we confess that all those who have been saved and are being saved by baptism are saved and are being saved by the grace of God. (3) S.: Do you call the one who does the will of God Himself good or evil? Having guessed his cunning, the Christian says: “I know what you want to say.” X.: Do you want to ask, did Christ suffer willingly or unwillingly? So that if I answer: “I suffered by will,” I can say to me: “Go now, bow to the Jews, because they have fulfilled the will of your God.” S.: This is exactly what I wanted to tell you - if you have arguments, answer me. X.: What you call will, I call patience and generosity. S.: How can you prove this? X.: Business, because if you and I are sitting or standing, can any of us, outside the power and dominion of God, get up and move? X.: When God says: “Do not steal, do not fornicate, do not kill,” does He want us to steal, fornicate, kill? S.: No, because if He wanted to, He would not have said: “do not steal, do not fornicate, do not kill.” X.: Thank God that you recognized what I want to say. So you agreed with me that none of us can get up or move without God, and that God does not want us to steal or fornicate. If now I get up, go and steal, or commit fornication, will you say that this is the will of God or permission, patience and generosity? (4) Realizing and being surprised, the Saracen said: “Indeed, it is so.” X.: Understand also that, although God can strike, He abstained for a while, that is, showed magnanimity about sin. But if I do not repent, He will reward me when He wants, just as He did with the Jews. For after a few years He raised up Titus and Vespasian and the Greeks against them, and overthrew their arrogance. (5) If a Saracen asks you and says: “Who do you think Christ is?”, answer him: “The Word of God, and I think that I am not sinning in anything here, because He is called the Word in Scripture, and Wisdom, and Mice, and the Power of God, and much more - for He has many names. Ask him in turn: “What is Christ called in your scripture?” And maybe he will want to ask you something else, wanting to elude you - do not answer him until he resolves your question. And he will definitely have to answer you: “In my scripture Christ is called the Spirit and Word of God.” And then you ask him again: “Does your scripture consider the Spirit and the Word of God to be uncreated or created?” And if he says that they are uncreated, tell him: “You agree with me - after all, what is not created by anyone, but what creates, is God.” If he even dares to say that they were created, tell him: “But who created the Spirit and the Word of God?” And if he, in difficulty, answers that God created them, tell him: “You just said that they were uncreated, and now you claim that God created them. Now, if I told you that, you would tell me that “you yourself have refuted your testimony, and I no longer believe you, no matter what you say.” However, I will ask you one more thing: “Before God created the Spirit and the Word, He had neither the Spirit nor the Word?” And he will run away from you, not having anything to answer you - after all, such people are heretics for the Saracens, very vile and disgusting - and if you want to divulge about him to the rest of the Saracens, he will be very afraid of you. (6) And if a Saracen asks you, saying: “Are the words of God created or uncreated?” After all, they present this question to us as the most difficult, wanting to prove that the Word of God is created, which is not so. After all, if you say: “They are created,” he will answer that “behold, you call the Word of God created.” If you say: “They are uncreated,” he will answer that “behold, all the existing words of God are uncreated, but they are not gods. So you admitted that Christ, being the Word of God, is not God.” Therefore, in response, do not tell him that they are created or that they are uncreated, but answer him this way: “I confess that only one hypostatic Word of God is uncreated, as you also admitted, and I call all my Scripture not words, but the verbs of God” 43 . And if the Saracen says: “But how does David say that the words of the Lord are pure words (Ps. 11:7), but not “the words of the Lord are pure words”?”, tell him that the prophet spoke figuratively, and not in the proper sense. And if he says to you: “What is figurative and proper meaning?”, answer him that proper meaning is a firm indication of a thing, and figurative meaning is not solid. And if a Saracen says to you: “Is it permissible for a prophet to give an unsteady command?”, tell him that it is the custom of prophets to personify inanimate things, and they endow them with eyes and lips, as, for example, the sea saw and ran (Ps. 114:3). After all, it is clear that the sea has no eyes - for it is not animate. And again the same prophet addresses him as if he were animate: What is the matter with you, sea, that you ran away? (Ps. 113:5) and so on. “And my sword shall be satisfied with flesh,” says Scripture, because “satisfying” speaks of the mouth of one who eats and consumes, but the sword cuts, but does not consume. So, in a figurative sense, he called verbs words, which actually are not words, but verbs. (7) And if a Saracen says to you: “How did God descend into a woman’s womb?”, say to him: “Let us use your scripture and my scripture; your scripture says that God first purified the Virgin Mary more than all female flesh, and the Spirit of God and the Word descended into Her, and my Gospel says: The Holy Spirit will come upon You, and the power of the Most High will overshadow You (Luke 1:35). Here is one voice of both sayings, and one meaning. Know also that Scripture speaks of the descent and ascent of God in a figurative sense, and not in the proper sense, in relation to our properties - after all, the descent and ascent of the philosophers in the proper sense speaks of bodies, but God contains everything and is not contained by any space. For it is said by one of the prophets: Who measured the waters of the sea with his hand, and the heavens with a span, and the whole earth with a handful? (Isa. 40:12). And in general, all the waters are under the hand of God, and the whole sky is an inch, and the whole earth is a handful. How can He Himself descend and ascend in His own hand, which contains everything? (8) If a Saracen asks you, saying: “And if Christ was God, how did He drink, and eat, and sleep, and so on?”, tell him that the eternal Word of God, who created everything, as my Scripture and your writing testify, Himself created from the flesh of the Holy Virgin Mary a perfect man, animated and endowed with intelligence, and he drank, and ate, and slept, but the Word of God did not eat, did not drink, and did not sleep, and was not crucified, and did not die, but the holy Flesh, which He received from the Holy Virgin, she was crucified. Know, then, that Christ is considered dual in nature, but one in hypostasis. For the one eternal Word of God is hypostatic even after taking on the flesh, that is, personal, but not by nature - for a fourth person was not added to the Trinity after the ineffable union with the flesh. (9) If a Saracen asks you: “Is she whom you call the Mother of God dead or alive?”, tell him: “She is not dead,” relying on the evidence from Scripture. For the Scripture speaks about this: “Natural human death also came to Her, but without confining and subduing, like us, no, but as if we say: the first man fell asleep and lost a rib.” (10) If a Saracen says to you: “Well, I received a blow in a certain place of my flesh, and the flesh from the blow produced a bruise, and a worm grew in the bruise. So who created it? - tell him, as we have already said, that after the first week of peacemaking we do not find that God created or was creating anything, but by the command of God, which He gave in the first week, what is happening is happening. For after the Fall the earth was condemned to grow thorns and thistles. And to this day, not sown, it produces thorns and thistles. And our flesh, condemned then, produces lice and worms to this day. (11) Next the Saracen asks the Christian: “Who do you have greater, the one who sanctifies or the one being sanctified?” The Christian, having guessed his tricky question, says: “I know what you want to say.” And the Saracen: “And if you know, tell me.” The Christian says that “if I say that he who sanctifies is greater than that which is sanctified, you will answer me: go, worship John the Baptist as the one who baptized and sanctified your Christ.” The Saracen says: “That’s exactly what I wanted to tell you.” The Christian asks the Saracen allegorically: “If you go with your slave to the bathhouse and he washes and cleans you, who will you call greater, that pitiful and bought slave, or yourself, whom he washes as his master?” “You mean that I who bought him are greater than he who was bought by me,” the Saracen said to the Christian. The Christian answered: “Thanks be to God. Also understand that John, as a slave and servant, served Christ in the Jordan, by being baptized in which, my Savior crushed the heads of the evil demons that nested there.” The Saracen, very surprised and perplexed, and not having anything to answer the Christian, left, no longer challenging him to argue. About the properties of two natures in the One Christ our Lord, and along the way about two wills and actions and one hypostasis (1) Those who confess two natures and one hypostasis in our Lord Jesus Christ must recognize the natural properties of the two natures as dual and different, and that which relates to the hypostasis is individual. For it is impossible for nature to exist outside of the natural properties inherent in it, which compose it and separate it from other natures, properties, the totality of which cannot be seen in another species. And again, it is impossible for one and the same hypostasis to differ from itself by those properties that constitute and distinguish it, and limit it from other hypostases of the same type, that is, by hypostatic properties, the totality of which cannot be seen in another hypostasis. Experts usually call them incidental or inherent characteristics. (2) They say that nature is compared with nature and nature is distinguished from nature (that is, species from species) by essential and natural differences. In the same way, a hypostasis is compared with a hypostasis of the same type, and differs from hypostases of the same type in distinctive properties - but the hypostasis as such is not compared with a hypostasis of another type. After all, the hypostatic characteristics of, say, Peter in comparison with that bull, rather determine nature, and not hypostasis - we say that this man differs from this horse not in that one is bald, and the other has a magnificent mane, or that one is large, and the other is short, but in that one is reasonable, and the other is dumb - but also not in that the first son of so-and-so, and the second son of so-and-so. And even if we say that this is the son of Nestor, and that is the son of this stallion, and the first is wise, and the second is not, this refers to natural differences - for the hypostatic differences of people in relation to the hypostatic differences of horses are considered natural. Therefore, in our Lord Jesus Christ, the physical appearance and facial features, and the fact that He is the Son of the Virgin, regarding the fact that He is the indescribable Son of God, defines not different hypostases, but different natures and one hypostasis, delimiting it from those who are consubstantial with it in Divinity, that is, from the hypostases of the Father and the Holy Spirit, and from the hypostases that are consubstantial with it in humanity, that is, from the mother and other individual people: for when one complex hypostasis arises from two natures, both of them, that is, the natural and hypostatic properties of, say, the Divine and human natures, become components of one and the same hypostasis. Hence Christ God and Man, beginningless and having a beginning, one and the same hypostasis, visible and invisible, created and uncreated, limited and limitless, suffering and impassive, the Son of God and the Son of the Virgin, that is, the Son of Man, without a mother from the Father, without a father from the Mother, eternal and new, indescribable both in the form of a slave and in human form, more beautiful than the sons of men (Ps. 45:3). All this constitutes and distinguishes the hypostasis of Christ God, and He is named for all together and for each individually [of these properties]. (3) So, the Creator wisely created great differences between natures, that is, species, showing the wealth of His wisdom and power, so that a thinking and rational being, for the sake of which He created many species, admiring Him, would be more attracted to Him, because of the attraction, would think more about Him, and He would make the thinking one more like God. For the invisible things of Him... from the creation of the world are visible through viewing the creations (Rom. 1:20) and from the beauty of the creatures the Author of their existence is comparatively known (Wis. 13:5). And among the hypostases in each form, He, again, created difference and closeness in relation to each other - natural closeness, because all hypostases of the same type are united by the definition of nature, and the difference is hypostatic, for they differ from each other by certain distinctive properties, that is, by added attributes. For since loneliness is unsociable and unkind, and communication with one’s own kind is sweet and welcoming—after all, every being loves one’s own kind and rejoices in him—even the first and only blessed, beginningless and undying nature itself is contemplated in three hypostases, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. So, hypostatic Wisdom says: I am, in whom He rejoiced (Prov. 8:30), that is, God the Father. Therefore, in each regiment of angelic forces He created different hypostases, likewise in human nature, moreover, in each form, so that, having a natural community with each other, they rejoiced at each other and, bound by a natural relationship, were mutually friendly. And the difference of hypostases separates one’s own from another’s, so that everyone, knowing those close to him by family or property, takes care of them, and does not encroach on someone else’s as if it were his own, and so that one can know what belongs to whom. So, anyone who asks a question about any object must first know what kind of object it is, and then decide whether there are two of them or one. I mean questions about our Lord Jesus Christ, about natures and hypostases, wills and actions and other properties. But to make this clearer, let us first say how nature differs from hypostasis, and then we will know quite clearly what properties constitute hypostasis and nature. And then we will consider them in our Lord Jesus Christ, whether they are double or single. (4) 44 So, nature, according to the holy fathers, is a general and indefinite form, that is, the most specific form, like a man, a horse, a bull, and hypostasis is a particular that exists in itself, like Peter, Paul, John. For nature is a community that embraces and includes many - after all, each species is a nature, and first of all, although it is super-essential, the blessed nature of the Divine, for it is one and common, embracing three limitless hypostases, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Likewise is angelic nature, and human nature, and every kind of animal, or plant, or inanimate object. You should know that, according to the holy fathers, nature, essence and appearance 45 are one and the same. And a hypostasis is a certain essence together with incidental [properties], which has actually and in fact received an independent existence separately and apart from other hypostases, something communicating with indivisible beings of the same type by definition of nature, but having a difference from similar ones in appearance and nature in some incidental and distinctive features. For Peter and every man are an essence (after all, he is a man), but together with those who are incidental (after all, he is either tall, or short, or snub-nosed, or hook-nosed, and these are incidental signs), and each has existence in itself. And it’s easier to say: nature is general, like, for example, humanity - after all, Peter is a man, and Paul, and the others, each of them is a man - but hypostasis is particular, such and such. Peter is a hypostasis, and Paul is a different hypostasis, but Peter is not one nature, and Paul is another nature, but Peter is a hypostasis, having the perfect nature of humanity - therefore he is a perfect man. But Paul is a different hypostasis, having exactly the same nature of humanity. And every human hypostasis has the same nature, but not the same hypostasis. All people do not have one [common] hypostasis - after all, one is Peter, and another is Paul, one and another hypostasis, but not a different nature, Peter, and a different Paul. For all people are of the same nature. Both Peter and Paul, each of them is a perfect man: but Peter is not Paul, and Paul is not Peter. For now, let’s finish talking about nature and hypostasis (hypostasis, a person, and an indivisible being are one and the same). Let us now say what is a natural property and what is a hypostatic property, and what is the difference between them. (5) A natural property is one that constitutes nature, without which the nature to which it belongs cannot be preserved, like in man life, reason, volition, feeling, walking, breathing, action, mortality, and the like. For a person who is not alive or who does not understand is not a person - after all, there is no person who is not alive or who does not understand, whether it is bad or good. And one who does not have a will is not a perfect person, because there is no person without a will, whether evil or good. Likewise, someone who does not feel, and does not breathe, and does not walk is not a perfect person, but an inferior one. So, a natural property is what constitutes nature and separates species from species, that is, nature from another nature, and is seen in each hypostasis of the same species, like rationality and mortality. For the latter constitute the nature of man, entering into his definition (for man is a rational and mortal being) and separate man, rationality from all dumb things, and mortality from immortals, God and angels. And every man is rational and mortal, for he who is not rational and mortal is not a man. For it is impossible for a person not to be a rational mortal being. (6) And the hypostatic property is that which separates a hypostasis from another hypostasis, like a snub nose, white or dark skin, baldness, and the like - after all, not every person is snub-nosed, but one is snub-nosed, another is hook-nosed, and another is with a straight nose, and not every person is white-skinned, but one is white-skinned, another is dark-skinned, and another is dark-skinned, and not every person is bald, but one is bald, and another is hairy, that is thick hair And simply put, regarding humanity: everything that people have given from the Creator, according to the holy fathers and true judgment, are their natural properties, that which is from creation or from condemnation 46. But sin is not natural, for it was not given by the Creator. For nature is a possibility given by God's command to each species, in accordance with which it acts and suffers. And the fact that some of the hypostases have the same type, and others do not, are hypostatic properties. So, it is impossible to see either the totality of properties of a given type in another form, or the totality of properties of a given hypostasis in another hypostasis. For the same natural property is seen in different forms, like rationality in an angel and a man and mortality in a person and in all dumb animals, and the same incidental attribute, that is, a hypostatic property, is seen in different hypostases, just as whiteness is seen in different hypostases (after all, many people are white-skinned) - but neither all the natural properties of a person in another form, nor all the hypostatic properties of some person are seen in a different form. What is seen only in one species and in all its hypostases is called not a property, but a feature. Thus, having eyes, a nose and other members is natural for a person (after all, someone deprived of one of them is not a perfect person), and their difference is hypostatic and delimits the hypostasis from the one-type and consubstantial hypostasis, but not from the other-type and other-essential one - after all, as we have already said, the hypostasis is compared with the hypostasis of another species not as a hypostasis, but as nature with nature. Sight and vision are natural, but different vision, that is, good and bad, is hypostatic. The lust for food and food itself are natural, but the lust for various types of food and various lusts, strong and weak, that is, large and small, are hypostatic; will and action and to desire and act are from nature, and different desires and actions, and to desire and act differently, good or bad, are from hypostasis. It is good to desire by nature in obedience to the Creator, but bad - against nature for the sake of pleasure and willfully, contrary to the law of God. (7) So, you should know that every human hypostasis has existence and is brought into existence by the Creator from non-existents, that is, it has createdness, and vitality, and action, and feeling, and attraction, sensual or rational, that is, free will, and existence, consisting of essence and incidentals. All this is essential and natural, and the peculiar and self-elected movement of these [properties] is a hypostatic difference. For participation in them represents the identity of nature, and the mode of existence introduces the difference of hypostases, [as well as] the separate and independent hypostasis and composition of each, and the peculiar, original and different use of natural properties shows the hypostases and makes us talk about the plurality of people. Thus, as regards the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, since the hypostasis of each is different, They are three hypostases; and since nature and its properties are equally seen in each hypostasis, they are one essence and one nature; and since They are not separated and Each one desires and acts not in its own image and choice, but united, the Three are not three Gods, but each other with each other and each other in each other, they are and are called one God. Having stated this, let us see whether there are two natures in Christ, and thus we will find out whether He has dual natural properties - after all, nature cannot exist outside the natural properties that constitute it. (8) Is Christ God perfect and is Man perfect even after the union of natures in hypostasis? Yes, sure. Perfect in Godhead and perfect in humanity? Truly so. Are Divinity and humanity one nature or two? Two, truly, because one is the nature of Divinity and the other is that of humanity. One and the other are not one, but two. So, there are two natures in Christ, and in two natures Christ after the hypostatic union, if He is perfect God and perfect Man after the union, perfect in Divinity and perfect in humanity. And again: do we confess Christ of two natures? Certainly. Why of the two? Because He is of Divinity and humanity. So what? To say “Divinity and humanity” is not, of course, to represent two natures? Of course: after all, there is not one nature of Divinity and humanity. Then: shall we confess Christ after the union in Divinity and humanity? Certainly. So, if after the union we confess Him in Divinity and humanity, and Divinity and humanity are two natures, and not one, then it is necessary to say that after the union He is in two natures, as from two natures. And again: does Christ have the nature of the Father even after the union, perfect, indestructible, unchangeable and unfused? Of course. And does the nature of the Mother, that is, Adam’s, also have a perfect, indestructible, unchangeable and unmerged nature? Without a doubt. Are the natures of God the Father and the nature of the Holy Virgin one or two? Of course, two, not one. So, two natures in Christ after the union. For before the union the Word of God has not two natures, but one Fatherly nature. And again: Is the Divinity which is in Christ a passionate nature or an impassive one? Of course, passionless. And is humanity that is in Christ passionate or dispassionate? It is clear that it is passionate. So, the passionate nature and the impassive are not one nature, but two natures in Christ. Is the Divinity of Christ the same Divinity as that of the Father and the Spirit, or not? The same and nothing else. Is this nature in Christ perfect or part of nature? Perfect. Is His humanity perfect nature in Him? Perfect. So, in Christ there are two perfect natures. If you say that Christ has one complex nature, then the Divinity and humanity are parts of the complex nature of Christ, and God the Father and Adam will be parts of the one nature of Christ, and Christ will be a perfect nature, and the Father will be partial and imperfect in comparison with Christ. And again: why don’t you talk about two natures in relation to Christ? Because number brings division. Therefore, the statement about the three hypostases of the Divine divides the Divinity. But this is not so: after all, number only indicates the difference and quantity of the things being counted, regardless of whether they are combined or separated. After all, speaking about the three hypostases of the Divine, we do not separate them from each other - for they are united in essence - but we designate the difference between the hypostases, and the fact that they do not merge and are not pulled together into one hypostasis. In the same way, when speaking about the two natures of Christ, we do not separate them - after all, they are united hypostatically - but we designate the difference of natures and the fact that they did not transform and did not merge. For you, declaring Christ to be of one complex nature from Divinity and humanity, affirm [thereby] that He is not consubstantial with either the Father or us - after all, the Father is not of a complex nature, and we are not composed of Divinity and humanity. In addition, you confess the Divinity as passionate: after all, if Christ is of one nature, complex of Divinity and humanity, and Christ suffered, it is clear that His single complex nature, God-manhood, suffered. But it is clear that this is Arianism, because you, like them, say that nature and hypostasis are one and the same, and that the Divinity of Christ is passionate, and that His nature is complex, in order to blaspheme Him, calling Him other than the Father. God forbid that we should think like this, because we know the difference between nature and hypostasis according to the holy fathers. Therefore, we confess in the Divinity both the trinity of hypostases and the singularity of nature, and in our Lord Jesus Christ, “on the contrary in comparison with the Trinity,” according to Gregory the Theologian, we preach the singularity of the hypostasis and the duality and difference of natures, and we confess Him as one complex hypostasis, consubstantial with the Father and impassive by the nature of the Divinity, and Him consubstantial with us and passionate by the nature of humanity 47 . For it is impossible for one and the same nature to be created and uncreated, beginning and beginningless, passionate and impassive. After all, if it began to be, it is not without beginning, and if it is uncreated, then it is not created. So Christ is not one nature, but one hypostasis, having two natures, one uncreated and one created, one beginningless and one begun, one impassive and one passionate. And again: if nature is composed of different natures, then none of them is consubstantial. For each has only its own definition, and the complex one has a different, complex definition. But it is impossible for things that take different definitions to be of the same essence. So, if Christ has one nature, how will He be consubstantial with the Father and Mother? After all, He is God, and He is also man, and God and man are not one nature, because Divinity and humanity do not have one definition. For He is the Creator, this one is the creature. And again: one and the same nature cannot be of the same essence with different essences. And one more thing: they do not say that nature is consubstantial with nature or that a hypostasis of the same nature is consubstantial with hypostases of different essences. Therefore, if Christ, after the union, is of one nature, how will He be consubstantial with the Father and Mother, who are of different essences? And that Christ is one hypostasis, and not two, we learn from this: is Christ one Son or two? Of course, one. But what about two hypostases if there is one Son? If there are two hypostases, one and the other, there will be either two Christs, or one Christ, and the other the Word of God, and no longer one Son. And again: if there are two hypostases of Christ, and He sits at the right hand of the Father on the cherubim throne and receives worship from all creation together with the Father and the Holy Spirit, then it means that we worship the quaternity, and not the Trinity. And again: if there is one nature of Christ after the union, what is it called? Christhood, therefore, or God-manhood. By what nature did [He suffer]? If she is alone, it is clear that she is alone by Her nature. So, His God-manhood is [passionate], and the Divinity in Christ will be passionate 48. And again: did Christ suffer? Certainly. Which nature suffered, His Divinity or humanity? Humanity. And His Divine nature remained impassive? Yes. His nature that suffered and that which did not suffer, is it the same nature or different and different? Of course, different and different. And if the other and the other, how are the two the same? But two natures, or one and the other, are not one nature, but one hypostasis, two natures, one passionate and the other impassive. And the reasoning will be consistent. (9) We call Christ a single complex hypostasis - for, being one of the Divine hypostases, with the favor of the Father, He was incarnated by the Holy Spirit and Mary the Ever-Virgin and Mother of God and became a perfect Man, not by transformation, or merging, or change, but by taking on flesh, animated by a rational and thinking soul, remaining the same as He was, perfect God, and becoming what He was not, perfect Man, having assumed nature, not hypostasis, nature not extra-hypostatic, but having acquired hypostasis in Him and having His hypostasis - for it became not someone else’s flesh, but God’s Word. For about all flesh and every soul it is said that it is someone’s, and it belongs to someone and has him as a hypostasis, because Petrov’s flesh and soul have Peter as a hypostasis, and Petrov’s soul does not have one hypostasis, and his flesh has another. For the soul has one nature, and the flesh has another, the soul is incorporeal and immaterial, and the body is material, but since they belong to one thing, they have one hypostasis. So, whose flesh became animated by the Virgin? If God is the Word, she has His hypostasis. If there is another besides Him, then he should neither be worshiped nor served - after all, we do not worship the creature or anyone other than the Holy Trinity. But she did not [belong to] another - after all, she was not an angel, not a messenger, but the Lord Himself came and saved us. And the first Adam was from the earth, earthy, the second Adam, the Lord from heaven (1 Cor. 15:47). The Trinity is said because there are three hypostases of the Godhead, the Father and the only begotten Son, and the Holy Spirit. So, if one hypostasis is the only begotten Son, and the other the son of the Virgin, then either the only begotten Son is expelled and the son of the Virgin is introduced in its place, or the son of the Virgin is not subject to worship, or four sit on the throne, and we worship the quaternity. But let it not be that we serve the fourfold, but the holy and worshiped Trinity, one Father, one hypostasis, one Son and Word of God incarnate, one hypostasis together with His flesh, one Holy Spirit, one hypostasis, the Most Holy and Glorified Trinity. And again: that there is one hypostasis of Christ, we learn from this. The beginning of the existence of every embryo is a seed thrown by the father into the womb of the wife; the wife, conceiving it, delivers her blood, and this is how the embryo is formed. One hypostasis of the seed and maternal blood, forming flesh in it, and the conception of the seed. And a woman conceives from intercourse with her husband the seed implanted by him, and it is the hypostasis of the embryo. So what did the Holy Virgin conceive? Flesh? This means that the flesh is not from Her - after all, a woman does not conceive of herself. So what did she conceive? Word of God? For the Holy Spirit intervened instead of intercourse and overshadowed Her, and the Son and Word of God was conceived and Himself became flesh, animated by a rational and thinking soul, and Himself, like the Divine seed, became a hypostasis for the flesh, one hypostasis of two natures, Divinity and humanity. For being perfect God, He became perfect Man, and is one Son of God and Man, without a mother from the Father as God, without a father from the Mother as Man, the same two natures, one hypostasis - for there is one Son Christ, and not two. If there is one Son, how are there two hypostases? After all, a hypostasis creates another, and separates one from the other - because if two hypostases from one father and one mother, born as twins, are not one son, but two, then how can hypostases, born one from a non-essential Father, the other from a non-subsisting mother, be one Son? After all, God the Father and the Virgin are not of the same essence. And if two human hypostases, being of the same essence, do not become one son, how will two hypostases of different essences become one Son? So, it is necessary either to call Christ and the Word of God two sons, or one hypostasis and one Son. And how can you say that Christ is two-natured, if one is Christ, and the other is God the Word? After all, in your opinion, it turns out that God the Word is of one nature and one hypostasis, and Christ is of one nature and one hypostasis. If we allow this, then, of course, the Scriptures will turn out to be false, declaring that God and the Word, who was in the beginning, became flesh, and that just as there is one God the Father, so the Lord Jesus Christ is one, God’s own and only begotten Son, was given by the Father for the world and suffered, and that from the Israelites, coming from the flesh, Christ is God above all, blessed forever, and the Power of God, and the Wisdom of God, and the Heir of all, and the Creator of ages, and the radiance of the glory of the Father and the image of His hypostasis (Heb. 1:3), and that the great God, being in the form of God, took on the form of a servant (Phil. 2:6-7), and similar [sayings]: for this and the like are said about one and the same Christ, and not about one and another person, and not about one and another hypostasis, that is, not about one and another son and Christ. Yes, and Christ our God himself will appear to be speaking the truth, affirming that he was before Abraham (John 8:58) and the ancient foundation of the world (John 17:24), and that He came down from heaven (John 3:13), and that He is the light (John 8:12), and the life (John 14:6), and the resurrection (John 11:25), and, crying: I and the Father are one (John 11:25). 10:30) and He who saw Me saw the Father (John 14:9) and the like, through which He is shown not to be a simple and recently appeared man, but to be God incarnate and one Christ the Son of God in two natures (I mean in the Divinity, by which He was known as one with God the Father, and in humanity, by which He is of another substance to the Father, but to us, the earthly, consubstantial and in no way not different from us by nature), and not one and the other, but one and the same hypostasis, carrying within itself one and the other nature without merging or transformation, one uncreated, and pre-eternal, and creating creations, and the other created and new. For humanity is not co-eternal, not one in kind and not consubstantial with the Divine, and did not come down from heaven, but since He was one and the same Word of God, who hypostatically united humanity with Himself, therefore He sometimes uttered lofty words about Himself and befitting God, and sometimes derogatory words befitting man. Therefore, He wanted Him to be thought of both as the Lord and as the Son of David, and approved as pious both those who called Him the Son of God and those who called Him the Son of David - the first, because they pointed to His invisible Divinity and the eternal birth from God the Father, and second, because they preached the truth of the visible essence of His humanity. If we abandon all this, we will be forced to speak of two only begotten sons, one the Son of God the Father and the other of the Virgin and Mother. And the Only Begotten will no longer be called the Only Begotten, because another will be added to Him by adoption, and He will be the eldest, and the other the younger, one natural and genuine, and the other adopted and by-product. And then, even if we dared to introduce a fourth hypostasis, born of Mary, and worship her together with the Trinitarian Divinity, it would turn out that we worship an alien God, new and recent, which is forever prohibited to do, and, like the Greeks, we would fall under the charge of serving man, and would be condemned by the curse that befalls man-worshipers: for, as it is written, cursed is the man who trusts in man (Jer. 17:5). But we do not wickedly introduce another hypostasis in addition to the three hypostases of the Godhead, which alone are worthy of worship and veneration, because we are taught from inspired sayings not to call the one Son and Christ two sons and Christs. And we do not tolerate the service of the common man, which is hateful to God, but we serve and worship the one Christ, composite of Divinity and humanity and perfect in both essences, of which and in which He is composed, we eternally worship the Father and the Holy Spirit, with one worship honoring His Divinity and humanity, as inseparably and beyond any division, hypostatically united and forming one person. And let it not be that we serve the fourfold, but the Holy Trinity, one Father, one hypostasis, one Son and Word of God incarnate, one hypostasis together with His flesh, one Holy Spirit, one hypostasis, the Most Holy and Glorified Trinity. For just as a flaming sword remains one even after being incandescent, so even more so Christ is one and one hypostasis even after the incarnation. And just as I fear to touch a flaming sword, not because of the nature of iron, but because of the nature of the fire united with it, so I worship God the Word incarnate and together I worship flesh, not for the sake of the nature of the flesh, but for the sake of God the Word united with it. I worship the king together with the scarlet and I honor the scarlet for the sake of the king. Because the union of the king and his robe is not hypostatic and does not endure forever, but in Christ our God the hypostatic union is indissoluble and abides forever. Therefore, together with the Father and the Holy Spirit, I worship Christ, the incarnate Son of God and God, as one of the Holy Trinity. (10) So, it is shown that there are two natures of Christ and one hypostasis. Therefore, since He has two natures, it is necessary to recognize in Him the natural properties of two natures completely and without damage, if we know Him as a perfect God and a perfect Man. (11) From the Divine and Fatherly nature He has uncreatedness, timelessness, originlessness - after all, He did not begin to be, was not previously, but [He] always had in His birth being God, volition, action, omnipotence, infinite power, creativity, omnipotence, limitlessness, limitlessness, incomprehensibility, unsearchableness, immortality, omnipotence, omnipotence, goodness, wisdom, righteousness, salvation, simplicity and uncomplicated nature, immutability, immutability, all-seeing, providence of the future, embracing everything, that is, all-embracing, inaccessibility, accessibility by the sacrament by action, and not by nature 49, autocracy and omnipotence, beneficence, enlightenment, invisibility, intangibility, pre-divinity, super-essence, and, simply put, everything that the Father has belongs to Son, except unbornness. And the true witness to this is our Lord and God, who said: All that the Father has is Mine (John 16:15). And he says to the Father Himself: And all that is mine is yours, and yours is mine (John 17:10). (12) The proper property of His hypostasis is that He is the Son, begotten of the Father, and not the unborn Father and not the Parent. For He was born of the Father dispassionately, without substance, that is, without confusion, like light from fire, or rather, perfect light from perfect light. So from the Father He has being and everything that He has. That is why he says: My Father is greater than Me (John 14:28) - “for I am from Him, although not after Him, but He is not from Me.” That is why He honors the Father. (13) So, having spoken about the properties of the Divine nature of Christ, which He has from the Father, let us also say about the natural properties of His human nature, which He acquired from what He received from us. For if, being a perfect God, He became a perfect Man for our sake, then it is clear that, having all the natural properties of Godhead and in this sense being a perfect God, He will also have all the natural properties of humanity, that is, all the natural possibilities of humanity, active and passive, to be a perfect Man - after all, if He did not accept any of the natural [properties], then He is not perfect, but a flawed man. (14) Let it be determined in advance that we received the ability of every action, use, deed and suffering from the Creator by nature, and that these are natural [qualities] - after all, it is impossible for any nature to use such an act, or perform such an action, or endure such suffering, the ability of which it did not receive by nature. The earth, for example, cannot grow without receiving the creative power from the Creator, and water cannot give life, so to speak, the birth of fish and contribute to the growth of the fruits of the earth, if it has not received such an ability from the Creator, and a plant cannot grow if it has not received a growing power, and a bird cannot fly without receiving the ability to fly, and a land animal cannot walk, and a reptile cannot crawl, if each of them has not received the corresponding ability 50. Likewise, a person cannot see, or think, or desire and act freely, if he has not received each of the abilities by nature from the Creator. (15) Man is a small world. For he has soul and body and stands in the middle of mind and matter - because he is the connecting link between the visible and the invisible, that is, the sensible and intelligible creation. For the mind is the eye of the soul and its purest part. Therefore, a person has in common with inanimate bodies the mixing and composition of the four elements, with plants - in the same thing and in the nutritional and growth (as well as seed) ability, with a dumb animal - in the same thing, but also in vitality, imagination and memory, in feeling and movement according to aspiration 51 (and movement according to aspiration is the movement of the whole body), in voice, and breathing, and moving from place to place. With incorporeal and intelligible forces, he is connected by reason and the rational aspiration of the mind, which is will, the first movement of the mind - for, rushing, he moves towards thinking, and rushing, he calculates, and rushing, he judges. And this aspiration is autocratic - for he thinks, calculates and judges, striving with free will. (16) The intrinsic properties of the body are dissection, and expiration 52, and change in quality, that is, in cold, heat, moisture and dryness, and the structure of the members. Actually, what is inherent in the rational soul is that it lives alone by itself, thinking and rational aspiration, which, in fact, is will. And even before that, the most exclusive property of the soul, separating it from the angelic essence, is that it resides in the body and imparts life and movement to it, and freely directs the body according to its own aspiration and will, as well as unreasonable aspiration, lust and anger, movement according to aspiration, and the fact that by nature it rules over the body as over its slave. Therefore, man is more in the image [of God] than an angel, since an angel does not have a natural slave, and he is not a master by nature. (17) What is common to the soul and body is that the soul gives to the body - vitality, imagination, that is, the perception or recognition of sensory things, feeling itself, that is, the five senses: sight, hearing, smell, taste, touch, as well as memory and movement according to aspiration, nutrition, growth and unreasonable desire, I am talking about anger and lust, hunger and thirst, and fatigue, and salivation, pleasure, sorrow and disgust, fear, timidity and anxiety, melancholy, confusion, sweat and death - for death is the separation of the soul from the body - and the whole arrangement of nutrition and growth. (18) All these are unreasonable sufferings and actions: actions and abilities of nature (that is why everything natural is given to nature from God), but suffering, because every created creature moves and acts passively - and only the Divine nature is impassive, moving non-passively and acting immovably. Moreover, some of them seem to be rather actions, and some of them undergoing - for life is more appropriately called action, and death, cutting and expiration - suffering. So, dissection, and expiration, and qualitative change, that is, whitening, blackening, cooling, heating, illness, and the like, are undergoing, and so is the arrangement or placement of members - for nature acts, arranging and placing, and the body endures, being arranged. By nature I mean the law and ability originally given by the Creator to each species, in accordance with which it moves or rests 53 . He moves in those actions for which he has the opportunity: thinking, reasoning, wishing, feeling, moving from place to place - because he received the opportunity to do this from the Creator. And it rests, not moving, incapable of those actions for which it did not receive the opportunity. Movements are emergence, destruction and change, increase, decrease and spatial movement. The latter is of six types: forward, backward, left, right, up, down. And all the other things listed are also movements, but thinking and rational striving, reasoning, searching, consideration, advice, judgment, disposition and choice, decision and striving for use are actions. But thinking is rather represented as action, and striving as undergoing - for everything that strives undergoes. But we call rational aspiration action because it is free, ruling over unreasonable sufferings and judging, controlling and curbing them, [that is,] anger, lust, and feeling, and movement according to aspiration. For these are irrational passions, subject and obedient to reason, because they are by nature subject and obey reason and move as it commands, if we talk about the natural man. These same passions are also components of the animal essence - for without them there can be no life. And they were given by the Creator to help man: lust for God and His will, anger against the devil and sin, and to instill courage in lust. So, an irrational desire is given to maintain the animal essence, and a rational and free one is given in order to curb any natural movement with free will, to subordinate it and to obey the law of the Creator. Therefore, thinking and striving are combined in man, so that we do not endure the passions of dumb [creatures] against our will, while being rational. After all, the mind, intelligently, intellectually and autocratically striving, in aspiration thinks, and considers, and seeks, and consults, and distinguishes, and is tuned in judgment, and chooses, and rushes to action - for the rational naturally rules over the unreasonable. Therefore, if man, being rational, was created as the king of all dumb creatures, how could he not be sovereign over all irrational passions in himself? So, being both rational and thinking, he strives to think and reason and strives intelligently, thoughtfully and freely. And from what is common to the soul and body, vitality is rather an action, and imagination, feeling, memory and movement according to aspiration are rather passive actions or active undergoings, while anger and lust, hunger and thirst, fatigue, fear, timidity and anxiety, pleasure, sorrow, salivation and sweat, nutrition and growth, and, above all, death are sufferings. (19) All this is natural and impeccable, since it was given by the Creator to human nature. For He gave both existence and this way of being, and there is no person who is not involved in Him. The possession of this speaks of the wisdom and virtue of the Creator, but for us it is not considered either a virtue or a vice, for all this is good and given by the Good for good, and the method of use constitutes a virtue or a vice. For if the will is subject to the law of God, and the mind governs its subjects according to His law (I mean all mental movements, especially anger and lust - after all, they are subordinate to the mind), then we have done virtue and fulfilled righteousness. For for this we received power over them, and as those who received power, we accepted the law and became subject to the law - after all, the dumb, not having a leader of the mind, autocratic over anger and lust, did not receive the law. So, being by nature slaves of the Creator, and having free will, a condition of virtue (after all, what happens violently is not virtue and does not bring joy), we received the law in order to know that we have a Master - so that, walking in darkness, we would not fall into pits: Your law is a lamp to my feet and a light to my paths (Ps. 119:105), - said the prophet David; so that we know attraction and devotion to the Master and so that we share the good with God, “so that the good of the one who receives the seed is no less than the one who delivers it” 54 - after all, He Himself gave us the ability to do good deeds. He created us free, so that good would come from Him and from us (after all, God works for the good of everyone who chooses good), so that by observing the natural, we would achieve the supernatural, incorruptibility and deification through union with the Divine by making the will as similar to Him as possible; so that, by foolishly using our natural abilities, we do not equate ourselves with foolish beasts and become like them. For if our will does not submit to the will of God, but a self-willed mind uses anger and lust according to its own decision and choice, evil will be committed - for evil is nothing more than sin, and transgression, and disobedience to the Lord's law. So free will is the first good befitting rational nature, and to use it, to rule and subdue irrational passions, that is, anger and lust, is a virtue, but to betray free will, and to submit to irrational passions, and to live unreasonably in a bestial manner is evil, this is sin. So that we do not act indecently, doing the same as the dumb, but with reason we restrain the impulses of nature. For it is not appropriate for a rational person to live the life of the dumb, but rather to rationally use even irrational passions, and to order them through reason, and to lead and direct with authority, and to yield to the law of God, and to be guided by it, and to use these passions as the Lord has ordained. (20) It is therefore necessary to know that heretics are misled by the confusion of names. Therefore, just as for the Monophysites, that is, the acephalians, the identification of nature and hypostasis became the reason that they speak about one nature in Christ, so as not to separate Christ into two hypostases, and for like-minded people of Nestorius - that they speak about two hypostases, so as not to merge Christ’s two natures into one, so for the Monothelites, ignorance of the difference between natural and hypostatic, that is, gnomic 55, will became the reason for the affirmation of one will in Christ. Therefore, in order to avoid confusion due to the same name, let us make the following argument about the will. (21) “Will” is a polysemantic word. For sometimes it means volition, that is, volitional ability, and sometimes the thing desired, subject to volition, that is, the very thing that someone wants. But one is desire, and the other is desired, just as one is vision, and the other is visible, because vision is the visual faculty operating in the eyes, thanks to which we see, and the visible is the visible thing itself, a stone, a tree or something else. So volition is the very volitional ability of the soul that we desire, and what is desired is the very thing that someone desires. For example, I want to swim, and swimming is what I want, I want to get married, and marriage is what I want. But, in any case, what is desired is either action, that is, action, or suffering. So, let's see whether volition is natural or hypostatic. (22) Does every person have the ability to will or not? It is clear that every person has the ability to desire and will - for what kind of person is who would not want anything? But not every person wants the same thing, but one wants this, and another wants that, and not every person wants the same, but one wants it well, and the other badly, each according to his own choice. So volition, that is, the volitional ability, and simply wanting something is natural, but what is desired, that is, wanting this and that, is hypostatic and selective 56 . (23) And again: “will,” belonging, as we said, to the number of polysemantic words, sometimes means willing, and sometimes desired. For one must know that there is another will, another to want, another what and how to want, another desired, another ability to desire, and another who wants, as there is another vision, another to see, and another what and how to see, and another visible, and another seeing, and another seeing. After all, vision is the very visual faculty of the soul, acting in the eyes, with which we see. To see means to use the visual ability, and to act and look: no one sees without having vision, that is, the ability to see. To see something means to see the sky, or the earth, or something else. How to see means good or bad. The visible is that which is subject to vision, that is, the visible body, or color, or appearance. What is sighted is that which by nature has the visual ability, just as, for example, a person by nature has the visual ability, even if he is asleep or blind - for man is a sighted being. The seer is the one who uses the visual ability, acts and looks. Thus, volition is a volitional ability naturally given to the soul by the Creator, that is, the ability to want. To want means to use the volitional ability in action and strive; but no one wants without having the will, that is, the ability to want. What is desired is something subject to volition, the very thing that we want: for example, I want to swim, and “swimming” is what is desired, I want to become chaste, and chastity is what is desired. What is undesirable is that which someone does not want, as something invisible, something that someone does not see. To want something means to want to unite with God, to want to eat, to want to drink, to want to swim, to want to unite with a woman. To want such and such means to want in a good way, that is, let’s say, in a good way and according to God’s law, to want to get along with one’s own wife, or badly and contrary to God’s law – with someone else’s. And the ability to desire is something that by nature has the ability to will, like a person, like an angel, like God. For each of them by nature has a strong-willed ability - after all, each hypostasis of the Divine wants, and each hypostasis of the angels wants, and each human hypostasis wants. And what each hypostasis has is natural - for what is natural is what is seen in all consubstantial hypostases of the same type. The desiring person is the one who uses the will, that is, the volitional ability, and the striver, or hypostasis. (24) So, will sometimes means volition, that is, volitional ability, and sometimes what is desired, that is, the very thing that we want - so, volition is natural, and simply wanting is natural. For every person has the ability to want, and every person wants, that is, uses the will - for a person is a being capable of wanting. What is desired is not only natural, but also selective and hypostatic. But not every person wants the same thing - so how to want, good or bad, or what to want, this or that, is not natural, but selective and hypostatic, as regards people and angels. After all, in the Holy and indivisible Trinity there is one natural will of the three hypostases and one natural good, and each hypostasis does not have its own desired or its own movement, but there is one movement and one desire in the three hypostases - therefore, not three gods, but one God with three hypostases, one God with His powers, but not complex. For each of the hypostases is a perfect God and a perfect hypostasis, but the composition of nature does not come from the hypostases, and this is completely unusual and befits only God. This is not the case with angels and people, for angels have a single will, the ability to want, given to them by God. For every angel wants, and every person wants, but there is not one movement of all angels, much less all people, but each hypostasis has its own movement and its own desired - after all, all angelic hypostases, like human ones, do not desire the same thing and not the same thing, but one is good, and the other is bad, and one is this, and the other is that, and when one moves and wants, the other does not move and does not want with him. So with angels and people volition is natural, and likewise it is natural to want. For every person is able to desire and wants, but not every person is able to desire the same thing and not everyone wants the same thing. For in the Holy Trinity the three hypostases are in each other, and the Word and the Spirit are the powers of the Father, and therefore one movement and in the same way one desired. With angels and people, each has its own hypostasis separately and independently, even if they are of the same nature, - therefore, the ability to want and wanting is one and natural, but how and what to want is hypostatic and selective. And they have one strong-willed nature, but there are many who want, who desire this or that differently. (25) So, will is a vital and rational desire - and if vital, then, of course, also sensual. Therefore, the dumb strive sensually, but unreasonably and not freely, and man, being a rational being, as a living being strives vitally and sensually, and as a rational being, rationally and freely. So, natural will is a rational and vital desire, aimed only at natural things. Natural desires are, first of all, to obey the law of God (for man is by nature a slave and servant of God), and then the components of nature, such as hunger, thirst, sleep and the like; and hypostatic and selective will is the desire of the hypostasis using it in accordance with its own pleasure and according to its own choice, and not according to the law of God, and the way of using natural will according to the choice of the using hypostasis. Therefore, the separation of hypostases produces a difference in choice. (26) But they say that man does not have a natural will. And they say that there are only two wills - one Divine, good, the other evil, devilish; and when a person wants good, he has the will of God, and when he wants evil, he has the will of the devil. But they do not know that it is impossible for any nature to produce any action, the ability of which it has not received by nature. Just as, for example, a bird cannot fly if it has not received the ability to fly by nature, so a land animal cannot walk if it has not received the corresponding ability by nature. Likewise, a person cannot think if he has not received thinking by nature, nor can he speak if he has not received the ability to speak by nature, nor can he see or want if he has not naturally received the ability to will. Therefore, one must first by nature have the ability to want, which is volition, and then one must want. Therefore, our Lord Jesus Christ has two natural wills, since He also has two natures, so that He may be both perfect God and perfect Man, not deprived of any of the properties, either Divine or human; and two desires and different desires according to the difference of natures, Divine and omnipotent (for the Divine will is omnipotent) and not omnipotent, but weak and passionate (for the human will is passionate and weak), and one and the other natural desired. For the desires of humanity are also not desirable for the Divine - after all, human nature naturally desires and strives for food, and drink, and sleep and the like, but the Divinity does not strive for this. For It itself does not strive for this, although it wants human nature to strive for this naturally, as needed and when needed. (27) So, by natural difference, the two wills of our Lord Jesus Christ are not opposite. For the natural will of man is not contrary to the will of God, nor the natural volitional ability, nor its natural objects, nor the natural use of will - after all, the creator of everything natural is the Divine will. And only the unnatural is contrary to God’s will, that is, the desire for sinful pleasures and by one’s own choice, that is, sin. The Lord did not accept him: He committed no sin and no flattery was in His mouth (1 Peter 2:22). And since there is one hypostasis of Christ, one Christ, the one who wills according to both natures, as a well-willing God and as a Man who obeys our will, His Divine and Fatherly will. For He obeyed God not in relation to His Divine will - after all, the Divine will can neither be obeyed nor disobeyed. “For this is characteristic of subjects,” as Gregory the Theologian says, 57 and the image of a slave received from us. He obeyed naturally according to His human will - for obedience is the free and non-violent subordination of a will to another will. So, He desired and desires as God the Divine, and desired and desires the human as Man, not because of the contradiction of choice, but due to the peculiarity of natures. For He desired and desires the human as a Man, and then that which His Divine will pleases, because His human will voluntarily submits to His Divine will. (28) “For the will and action of God,” according to Blessed Irenaeus, “is the creative and providential cause of every time, and place, and age, and of all nature,” and human will is a natural ability, striving for what exists by nature and embracing what is essentially inherent in nature - for the essence strives to be, and to live, and to move sensually, and to think, achieving its own full natural fulfillment. For nature desires itself and with its desire is directed towards everything that composes it in accordance with the cause of being for which it exists and arose. Therefore, others, defining this natural will, say: “natural will is a rational and vital desire” 58, aimed only at the natural. So, “will,” according to Blessed Clement, “is the ability to strive for one’s own existence” and also “a striving corresponding to the nature of the rational,” and also “the free movement of the autocrat of the mind” 59. For God, having first created man, “created him with a sinless nature and a free will,” as St. Athanasius says 60. And sinless nature is all creation, rational and irrational, sensory and inanimate, but not all creation has free will. And the Divine nature is sinless and free will, but not changeable, but immutable. So, the Divine nature is volitional, and free, and sinless, and immutable. All creation was created by God sinless - for everything that God created was very good (Gen. 1:31), but changeable. For that whose emergence began with transformation is changeable by nature - transformation is a bringing from non-existence into being. So, if He did not accept the will of man, by what will did He obey the Father? If He did not accept human will, by what will did He submit to the law? If you did not accept human will, by what will did you fulfill all righteousness? About the fact that He has surpassed all virtue and righteousness, listen to how He says to John the Baptist: Leave now, for in this way it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness (Matthew 3:15). For He fulfilled all virtue and righteousness, but did not prosper from works or virtue, but was perfect from the very union - after all, He did not become God, being [before] a man, but, being perfect God, became perfect Man. If He did not accept human will, then He did not become a perfect Man. If He did not accept the human will, He did not heal the first-suffering thing in us. “For what is not received cannot be healed,” as the Theologian Gregory said 61. For what has fallen if not the will? What sinned if not the will? Therefore, that which fell, that which sinned, was in greater need of healing. If you say that He did not accept the sinner, then He did not accept the sinned and sick nature. If he did not accept this, then he did not accept the nature of humanity - after all, it was she who sinned. If He did not perceive the human will, how, before He understands good and bad, will He reject the bad and choose the good (Isa. 7:16)? After all, it is not the Divine will that rejects, or obeys, or chooses. So, He rejects the bad and chooses the good, voluntarily submitting, as a man, to the will of the Father - for election is [an action] of free will, but He, not like us, decides, and judges, and reasons about this or that opposite, that is, about virtue and vice, and knows them - but knows only good, which is the good will of God, and thus pays the debt of Adam. Therefore it is said: before he understands good and bad, because God the Word incarnate did not know and did not think bad due to the hypostatic union; His thought was not double or doubtful, but Himself being one Christ, both, that is, God and Man, He used His human properties, that is, everything that is inherent in humanity by nature, to obey His Father’s and Divine will. If He accepted help from the angels (for it is said: and behold, an angel strengthened Him (cf. Luke 22:43), as befits human nature), did He not accept the will? After all, it is said that He will command His angels concerning you, and they will bear you up in their hands (Ps. 91:11–12). If He accepted God-forsakenness, [then] did He not accept will? After all, He says: Eloi, Eloi, Lama Savachthani? that is: My God, My God! Why have you forsaken me? (Matthew 27:46). For God the Father, for our sake, gave His only begotten Son, who became Man, to death - and His flesh was not abandoned, was not separated from His Divinity, did not see corruption (cf. Ps. 15:10), and His soul was not abandoned in hell, but God the Father did not spare His own Son, but for us gave Him to reproach, and dishonor, and to unrestrained and sinless passions and to death. Therefore, being obedient to the Father's good pleasure even to the point of death and despising shame (Phil. 2:8; Heb. 12:2), He crowned our nature with the glory and honor of incorruptibility (cf. Ps. 8:6). If those who profess one nature in Christ and deny two accept the difference of natures, why, by declaring two natures in Christ, are you fooling your head with His will alone? But they say: the will is not natural, but hypostatic. So what kind of will are you talking about? About volitional ability, and simply about wanting, and about natural desires, or about the way of using desire, that is, about how to want, and about what is desired by one’s own choice and for the sake of pleasure? But if you call volitional ability and simple desire hypostatic, you are speaking incorrectly. For every person has a volitional ability and simple desire, and what is seen in all hypostases of the same type is natural, and not hypostatic. But not every person wants the same thing, and not in the same way. So the volitional ability and simple desire are natural, but wanting something is somehow different for each hypostasis, and, as an incidental sign, is hypostatic. And Saint John, truly Chrysostom, is a witness to this, who says in the first book, in the fourteenth word of the explanation of the Epistle to the Hebrews: “For desire is innate and from God, and this or that desire is ours and from our choice” 62. In addition, if the willpower is hypostatic, then since the Son is other-hypostatic to the Father, He will also have a different desire. They don’t learn what is natural: no one learns to hunger or thirst, sleep or breathe, and no one learns to want. And how to desire, good or bad, or what to desire, they learn this. For the law of God does not teach us to want - after all, this is given to us by Him by nature - but to desire well and to desire this and that. So to want is natural, but how and what to want is hypostatic and different, except for the Holy Trinity - for there the hypostases desire the same thing and equally in the essence of the Divinity. For One is from the Holy Trinity, the incarnate Son and Word of God and God, since, unlike the Father and the Holy Spirit, He took on human flesh and in the fact that He became Man, He is different from the Father and the Spirit, in the same way in the natural properties of humanity He is different from the Father and the Spirit, having two natures and two natural identities. Moreover, what is essential and natural is that which, when present, preserves, and when absent, destroys the definition of nature. Does this mean that man will be a weak-willed creature? No way. For there has never been a person devoid of desire. Therefore, volition is natural. If hunger, thirst, and the desire to sleep, being irrational aspirations, are natural, then is not the rational and free aspiration of the mind natural? We are created in the image of God, in the sense of thought and free will. Therefore, if He did not perceive the mind and free will, then He did not perceive it “in the image” (a little lower we will briefly explain about the image). If He did not accept human will, then everything that Christ wanted, He wanted by Divine will. But what about entering the house and wanting to hide, he could not (Mark 7:24)? Therefore, God's will is not omnipotent, but weak. Stop talking this nonsense, man. It is not the divine will to want to eat and drink, to move from place to place, and the like, but to the human, even if Christ desired this by human will according to the Father’s good pleasure. (29) But they say: free will was not given to man by nature, but by honor, relying on the words of Gregory the Theologian: “Honoring him with free will.” But also listen to your father: “him, venerable in the mind and image of God” 63. This means that he will not have reason by nature, but by honor, and it is appropriate for you to say that the Lord did not accept a rational nature, but a dumb one. (30) In how many senses is it said “in the image”? In the sense of rationality, and thinking, and freedom, and because the mind gives birth to the word and exhausts the spirit, in the sense of leadership. In this sense, both angels and people are in the same image. Also exclusively human in the sense of the ungeneracy of Adam, and the birth of Abel, and the procession of Eve; in the sense of command, for the soul by nature has the body as a slave and rules over it; and because it brings together all creation: after all, all creation is united both in God and in man, since he is the connection of the intelligent and sensory creation. And in the image that the Son of God had to become - after all, He became not an angel; but a Man. (31) Every complex hypostasis, composed of different natures, necessarily possesses the natural properties of these two natures, even if the connection is seen as a fusion. For fire and water are completely opposite, fire is hot and dry, water is cold and wet, but when a body is formed from the four elements, it has four qualities, heat and cold, dryness and wetness. So, if where a merger is seen, one has to see the natural properties of the terms, then how much more so in a non-fused compound. (32) However, they say that man does not have a natural will, and in a Manichaean manner they assert that there are only two wills - one Divine, good, and the other devilish, evil. And when a person wants good, he has God’s will, and when he wants evil, he has the devil’s will. O excess of madness! O darkness of ignorance! Can God's will do everything or not? Yes, they say. So, if a person, desiring good, has the will of God, he, in their opinion, will be omnipotent. But they do not know that it is impossible for any nature to use any action, the ability of which it has not received by nature. Just as, for example, a bird cannot fly unless it has received the ability to fly by nature, so a land animal cannot walk if it has not received the corresponding ability by nature. Likewise, a person cannot want and act if he has not received by nature the volitional and effective ability, - after all, he cannot think if he has not received the thinking ability by nature, likewise to see or do anything else: so a person by nature has a volitional and effective ability, and will, and action. Therefore, natural actions are always inherent in all nature and exist together with it. And natural volition, that is, volitional ability, is one, but the desired objects are numerous and varied. After all, Scripture says: all His desires are in them (Ps. 15:3). It is not said: “The Divine will is in them,” but all His desires are in them, that is, desired objects. (33) It should be known that the desires of the Divine are natural - for it is not characteristic of Him, the unchangeable One, to will one way or another, but It always desires the same: Therefore the desires of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit are the same - for all the natural properties of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit are the same, just as Their nature is the same. And there is nothing hypostatic in the all-essential Divinity except the ungeneracy and parenthood of the Father, and the begetting of the Son, and the procession of the Holy Spirit. (34) As we said about the will, so we say about action, that the naming of action means different things. The property of God’s action is not only to be infinitely higher than any feeling, mind and any age, but any essence and name. For the natural motion and force of every essence is a natural action. And again: the innate movement of every essence is a natural action. And again: the force that manifests each essence is a natural action. And one more thing: the ever-moving power of the thinking soul, that is, its ever-moving word, naturally flowing eternally from it, is a natural and first action. Actions are also called actions, such as seeing, speaking, breathing, walking, eating, drinking, that is, using any natural ability. And natural passions are often called actions, like hunger, thirst, and the like. And simply put: natural action is the force and movement of every essence, outside of which there is only non-existence. So how will the Lord not have the natural action of human nature? After all, the absence of natural action in each case is the absence of nature. Therefore, if He did not have natural human action, He did not have human nature either - for those who have a different nature have different will and action. (35) So, another is the action, and another is the action, and another is what and how to act, another is the action, that is, the deed, and another is the active, and another is the doer. Therefore, action is the active ability itself, that is, the ability to act, and to act means to use the active ability. Doing something means seeing, thinking, listening, walking, eating, drinking. How to act means good or bad. The active is that which has the ability to act, for example, a person, an angel. The doer is the one who uses the action, that is, the hypostasis. So, action sometimes means actual ability, sometimes action, and sometimes deed. So, action, that is, an actual ability, and action is natural. For every person has the ability to act and every person has action - for man is an active being. The matter is not only natural, but also hypostatic among angels and among people. For in the Holy Trinity, everything desired and effective is natural, and therefore the same in the three hypostases. Angels and people do not have the same desire, and not the same deed, and not the same method of use - for each hypostasis of angels and people has its own movement and separately wants and acts. Therefore, in Christ our Lord there are two natural actions, since there are two natures, in order for Him to be perfect God and perfect Man, and two desires and different desires in accordance with the natural difference of natures, Divine and human, omnipotent and impassive according to the Divine nature and weak and passionate according to the human. And one and the other are natural affairs, for one is a matter of Divine nature, and the other is of human nature. For the effect of human nature is not the effect of the Divine nature, and the effect of the Divine nature is not the same as that of the human, because human nature does not create and the Divine does not eat, and does not move from place to place, although the Divine effect acts through human action. But the Actor of both is one, because there is one hypostasis. For if He did not perceive human action, then He did not live as a man, did not think, did not reason, did not eat, did not drink, did not taste food, did not walk, did not see, did not hear, did not breathe, and did not do anything human, and did not become a man at all. For Gregory of Nyssa says: “Having fasted for forty days, at last he became hungry - for he allowed nature to produce its effect when he wanted” 64. (36) Having analyzed and explained this in this way, let us see whether the Holy Gospels, and the Apostles, and the Holy Fathers confirm that the Lord possessed all this or not. So, that He had a human soul, the Lord Himself says in the Gospel of John: I have power to lay down My life, and I have power to take it again (John 10:18) and also: And I lay down My life for the sheep (John 10:15). And that He had a body was witnessed by Joseph, who asked for His body and dressed Him, and laid him in a tomb. And that He had the constitution of His members is testified by the one who anointed His head with ointment and wet His feet with tears, as well as the nails driven into His palms and into the soles of His feet, the spear that pierced His ribs, and the disciple who fell to His chest, and the tongue that said: if anyone thirsts, let him come to Me and drink (John 7:37), the lips that gave the Holy Spirit, the teeth that ate the Passover, and the throat, which carried it into the stomach, and the liver, which converted it into blood, and fatigue from the journey, which came from overstraining the muscles and veins, as the divine Basil says, and circumcision of the foreskin, and the lads mounted on a donkey, and the scourging of the back, and the blowing of the cheeks along with spitting in the face. And that He accepted both my cut and my discharge is evidenced by the circumcision, the nails, the spear, the spitting, the sweat, the blood and water that flowed from the ribs. And that He perceived both spiritual actions and passions is evidenced by the actions of His holy soul through His immaculate body - for it is said that, seeing the city of Jerusalem, He wept (Luke 19:41), and that He heard that John was thrown into prison (Matthew 4:12), as well as the olfactory sensation of the world, and the voice that raised Lazarus, and the tasting of bile and vinegar, which caused natural disgust (all of this, of course, is not actions Divine nature), and touching the leper, and walking, and stretching out hands on the cross, and from the natural ability the nutrition and growth of the body - for it is said that blessed is the womb that bore You, and the breasts that nourished You (Luke 11:27) and that the child grew (Luke 2:40). From the sentient, since animate, but unreasonable nature - feeling, movement according to aspiration, hunger, thirst (for it is said that at last I was hungry (Matthew 4:2), and on the cross: I thirst (John 19:28), desire for food (for it is said: I greatly desired to eat my Passover with you (Luke 22:15)), anger (for it is said that I was troubled in spirit, and testified, and said: One of you will betray Me (Jn. 13:21)), digesting food and drink and turning them into blood - because where does sweat, saliva, saving blood and water come from, if not from digestion? For He felt and used everything, but not passionately, but naturally, and ate not for the sake of passionate pleasure, but to replenish what was exhausted. For even if His all-holy body did not know corruption, it nevertheless underwent dissection and flow naturally - after all, corruption is the disintegration of the body into its components. But first of all [witnesses] life itself, which is the first action of a living being, given to the body by the soul. (37) He did not have seed or generation - for the properties of the Divine hypostases are indispensable, and the Father or the Spirit cannot become the Son. Therefore, it was precisely the Son of God who became the Son of Man, so that the property would remain unchanged. Then, the hypostasis is combined with a hypostasis of the same nature. But there is no other hypostasis like the Son of God and man - for there is one only begotten Son, the only one from the only Father and the only one from the only Mother, the Son of God and the Son of Man, God and Man, Jesus Christ the Son of God. In addition, although it is natural to mix for the sake of multiplying people, it is not necessary - for it is possible for a person to live and be a person without entering into a relationship, and many are free from this passion. (38) After all, the body itself has no action of its own, except for cutting and expiration, which are experiences, and not actions - and everything else is quite obviously the actions of the soul using the body, and not the Divinity. Like confusion, for He says: My soul is now troubled (John 12:27), sorrow and anguish: I began to grieve and yearn (Matthew 26:37) and My soul grieves unto death (Matthew 26:38), fear of death: My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me (Matthew 26:39), and death. All this is not characteristic of the Divine - after all, He is impassive, and ever-living, and immortal - but of a living being, that is, an animate and sensual entity. From the rational and thinking soul [He had] wisdom. For he increased in wisdom and stature (Luke 2:52). After all, He did not succeed in Divine wisdom - for from the very conception a perfect union and highest combination took place, and He did not have an addition to any Divine power, but He succeeded in human wisdom. For human wisdom manifested itself in Him as His bodily age increased - after all, just as from the very conception He became a perfect embryo, without the gradual development and structure of the body, as Basil the Great says in the Word for the Nativity 65, so from the very conception He became perfect in Divine and human wisdom, of course, as a Man - for as God He did not become perfect in Divine wisdom, but was such from eternity, the revelation in Him, perfect human wisdom in accordance with advancement in bodily age was considered advancement [in wisdom]. If He had human wisdom, then, of course, He also had intelligence, because wisdom is the product and power of the intellect. Yes, and the apostle says: we have the mind of Christ (1 Cor. 2:16). And the holy fathers, whose testimonies we have enclosed, understand “in the image” in the sense of thinking. So, if He took on man created in His image, that is, the nature of humanity, He certainly took on a thinking and rational nature. He also accepted free will. For just as He accepted an irrational desire obedient to reason, so He also accepted a rational one - after all, He did not perceive nature without mind and reason. After all, if He took on an unreasonable and dumb nature, He took on not a man, but a dumb animal. For man is a thinking and rational nature. (39) So, all the holy fathers spoke both about two natures in our Lord Jesus Christ, and in a dual number about all natural properties - after all, nature cannot exist outside of the properties that constitute it. Thus, it follows of necessity that those who speak of His two natures also recognize two wills, that is, two volitional abilities, because as God by nature He had the omnipotent Divine will, but as having become man by nature He had a human will, with which He wanted to hide when He entered the house, but could not. After all, I think they will not attribute impotence to the Divine will. So, He possessed the volitional ability of His human soul, and with it He desired the human, and according to His spiritual will moved toward the human, just as by Divine will the One and the same Son of God Christ, perfect God and perfect man, desired the Divine, but without the opposite of choice - for His human will voluntarily submitted to His Divine and Father’s will and desired what His Divine will wanted it to desire. (40) For since Adam’s will did not submit to the will of God, but his choice desired something contrary to God’s will - and this was the Fall, and none of Adam’s descendants became obedient to God’s will in everything, but each hypostasis, by its own choice, disobeyed the will of God (for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, according to the Apostle (Rom. 3:23) - therefore the Son of God, by good will Therefore, having become a Man, he accepted human nature and natural human will, but did not accept human hypostasis, so that the natural will of humanity would not behave according to its own hypostatic and gnomic will contrary to God’s will, but so that it would be voluntarily obedient in everything, and so the ancient Fall was resolved. (41) And again: He had a human will, according to the Evangelist Mark, because, having entered the house, he wanted to hide, but could not (Mark 7:24). Consequently, the Divine will is omnipotent, and not powerless, but human will is powerless. Therefore, He wanted with human will, while the Divine will deigned and gave the opportunity to His human nature to take advantage of what actually belonged to it, that is, to want and not be able to. And again: Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me (Matthew 26:39), that is, the cup of death. This is the natural desire and desire for life, which both rational and dumb creatures naturally have. However, not My will, but Yours be done (Luke 22:42). This is the natural and reasonable aspiration of the mind, free, reasonable and curbing the unreasonable aspiration. Not My will, but Yours be done. “Mine”, human, as far as it is not common with You - after all, You did not become a person like Me, that is, the same, and did not accept human passions. “But Yours,” common to Me and You, to which I am involved, as well as to the nature of the Divine. For I came down from heaven not to do My will, but the will of the Father who sent Me (John 6:38), not so that My human will would act according to my own choice, contrary to Your will, but so that I would obey Your will, and so that the desire of Your will would become the desire of My human will. For it is the will and good pleasure of the Father that He should suffer for the salvation of the world, for the sake of which He became incarnate. For here will does not mean volition, but what is desired - after all, He has to create not the will of God (for it is uncreated and without beginning), but the Desire of God's will, in which sense we must understand all His desires in them (Ps. 15:3). After all, God does not have many volitional abilities, but one, and there is no volitional ability of God in the saints, because there is no nature either - for whose will is one, nature is one - but the wills of God, that is, His commandments, are in the saints. (42) So, it is shown that Christ has both two natures, and two natural wills, and two natural actions, in order to be perfect God and perfect Man - after all, he is not a perfect God who does not have all the properties of the Divine, and he is not a perfect man who does not have a perfect human nature and all the natural properties of humanity. So, He possessed the Divine will, which as God willed the Divine with the Father and the Spirit - Who have both one nature and a will corresponding to it. He also possessed natural human will, that is, natural volitional ability, as having become a perfect man, the same as His Mother, with whom He had both the same nature and the same will. He also had Divine action, with which, freely willing, He performed Divine deeds together with the Father and the Spirit; He also had human action, with which, freely willing, He accomplished human deeds. For it was not by Divine will that He wanted to hide, but He could not, and He wanted to drink and eat - after all, these are the desires of human, and not Divine nature; - and it was not by the Divine action that he walked or stretched out his hands - after all, it is not characteristic of the Divine action to walk or stretch out his hands. However, each of Christ’s natures, together with the other, desired and did what was characteristic of it, and His human will and action served His Divine will and action. For just as through His bodily action His Divine action acted - after all, He took the girl’s hand with His hand and said: maiden, stand up (Luke 8:54), and through touch and word the Divine action revived the girl - so through human will His Divine will acted. For having wished divinely, He performed miracles, and having wished humanly, He extended His hand and said: “Get up.” And it’s simpler to say: what He willed and accomplished humanly became the salvation of the world - after all, He created the Divine not as God (for a pure God does not perform miracles by touching and stretching out hands) and the human not as a man (after all, the passions of a mere man are not saving the world) - but, being God and becoming Man, He revealed some new and extraordinary Divine action 66, Divine, but acting through the human, human, but serving the Divine and showing signs of the Divinity co-hypostatic with it. (43) For just as iron is of one nature and fire is of the other, and each of them has a different effect: for just as fire does not cut, but burns and shines, so iron does not burn and does not shine by its own natural action, but cuts and is black in color; when the combination of both occurs, each produces its own action jointly, and not separately - after all, along with the cut, a burn occurs, and the fire burns and shines through iron, but not one natural action, but two, one natural and burning with the fire, and the other natural and cutting with the iron, and the own influence of each, the fire has a burning, and the iron has a cutting, although there is a burning cut and a cutting burning - so it is with our Lord Jesus Christ each nature does its thing together with the other, and the two are not one, and the two do not have the same thing, but His human nature is to obey and serve the Divine will and, with its own will, reach out and touch the girl in obedience and service to the Divine will, while the Divine resurrects the girl through touch. So the limit of human action is the voluntary outstretching of a hand and touch, and the limit of Divine action is the resurrection of the girl. (44) Therefore, the great Dionysius spoke not about one “God-manned action”, but abstractly about the “new”, that is, unusual 67. For each of them was unusual and God-given - after all, he said this, indicating not a number, but an unusual way. After all, the Lord, having taken pity on his own creation, which voluntarily accepted the passion of sin, like the enemy’s sowing, accepted the disease entirely in order to heal it as a whole: for “what is not accepted cannot be healed.” And what is received is saved. What fell and suffered first, if not the mind and its rational aspiration, that is, the will? This, therefore, needed healing - after all, sin is a disease of the will. If He did not accept the rational and thinking soul and its will, then He did not heal the suffering of human nature - that is why He accepted the will. He did not accept sin - after all, sin is not His creation. So, in order to expel from the soul the disease of sin planted by the enemy, for this purpose He took on the soul and its will, but did not create sin, and in order to free the body from corruption and the service of sin, He also took on the body. He also accepted the punishments for the first fall, so that, by paying our debts for us, he would free us from condemnation - for a slave cannot free a slave. Therefore, He, being Himself, as sinless, free, and not subject to death or any other punishment, took upon Himself our punishments for us and died for us, in order to give those who accepted Him the power to become children of God (John 1:12), and to grant them incorruptibility, and to give them equal angelic, carefree and serene life in the rebirth of the next century - for they must first endure what belongs to the first Adam, from whom we came, and then already receive the gifts of the second Adam. If we follow in His footsteps and keep the law of freedom, and do not enslave ourselves again to the yoke of sin - for, having freed our nature, He also gave us a commandment and showed us the path, following which, we will reign with Him, going where He Himself went as our forerunner, and having gone along a different path, we will remain outside - so, may it come true for us, following in His footsteps, to always be with Him and eat from His glory and kingdom now and ever and unto ages of ages. Amen. Venerable Abba John of Damascus Zlatostroya (1) The word to the like-minded people of Nestorius should begin like this: Tell us, people, whom did the Holy Virgin conceive by nature, the Son of God and God, or man? And if they say that by nature the Son of God and God, they are Orthodox. After all, they will, of necessity, confess the Holy Virgin as the Mother of God - because who conceived God and gave birth to Him incarnate, how could she not be the Mother of God? If they say: man, then, as to heretics, let us address them this way: do you recognize the Son and the eternal Word of God the Father as the Son of God by nature and God by nature, and consubstantial with God the Father? Yes, they will say. Then we ask: do we recognize the son of the Virgin as the Son of God by nature and God by nature? They will say: no. Then we will say: it means that you confess two sons of God, one by nature, and the other by grace, and you worship two sons, and you have a quaternity, not a Trinity. And then tell us: where did you learn to preach two hypostases? Do you not hear how the Gospel clearly says: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was to God, and the Word was God (John 1:1), and a little further: the Word became flesh and dwelt in us (John 1:14)? And on what basis do you believe that the indwelling of God the Word occurred after the conception of animate flesh? Isn’t it written that the Angel, entering her, said: Rejoice, full of grace! The Lord is with You; Blessed are You among women. She, seeing him, was embarrassed by his words and wondered what kind of greeting this was. And the angel said to Her: Do not be afraid, Miriam, for You have found favor with God; and behold, you will conceive in your womb and give birth to a Son, and you will call His name Jesus. He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High, and the Lord will give Him the throne of His father David; and He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and His kingdom will have no end. Mary said to the angel: How will this be when I don’t know my husband? The angel answered Her: 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 1:28–35). It is clearly shown that when Mary asked about the manner of conception, the angel did not say that first You will conceive, and then there will be the indwelling of God, but that conception will take place through the influx and action of the Holy Spirit and the indwelling of God the Word, so that first there was the overshadowing by the power of the Most High, that is, the conception of the Word, and then the existence of the flesh, the hypostasis of which was the Word Himself. And that the Word Himself became man, John the Theologian cries, saying: And the Word was God, and the Word became flesh (John 1:1; 1:14). It became without change or transformation - for the Divinity is immutable and unchangeable. (2) So, the Word became flesh, not being transformed by nature and not in an imaginary economy, but, being one hypostasis from the hypostases of the Divinity, it also became one of the hypostases of humanity, realizing in its hypostasis the flesh animated by the rational and thinking soul from the unartificial Virgin and appearing as a hypostasis for this flesh. For just as a sword made of iron is one of the hypostases of the nature of iron, and a lit fire is one of the hypostases of the nature of fire, and the sword, approaching the fire, ignited and did not take on the former hypostasis of fire itself, but, having taken from it a certain firstfruits of the fiery nature, became a hypostasis for it, and the sword, which previously was a simple hypostasis of the nature of iron, became a complex hypostasis, being hypostasis also of the nature of fire, [moreover] the nature of iron is unchangeable, and the nature of fire assumed by him without lack - so Christ, being one hypostasis from the hypostases of the Divinity, and having in himself the whole nature of the Divinity without lack, received from the Holy Virgin the hypostatic flesh - not a hypostasis, but having found a hypostasis in Him, the firstfruits of our nature. And being at first a simple hypostasis, later he became complex, not complex by nature, but a hypostasis, complex from the Divinity that was previously in Him and subsequently received flesh, animated by a rational and thinking soul. (3) If you say that He became flesh in the same sense as He became sin and curse, we answer that in this case, either as He became sin and curse for the sake of the destruction of sin and curse, so He became flesh for the destruction of flesh, or as He became flesh for the maintenance and renewal of the flesh, so also for the sake of the maintenance and renewal of sin and curse He became sin and curse - but sin and curse are neither the essence nor the creation of God, but the flesh is the creation of God. This means that He became flesh not through sin and curse. (4) Who is He who, like us, became involved in blood and flesh? After all, about a simple person, who is flesh and blood, they do not say that he is involved in flesh and blood. If He became like us in everything, then who is like us? After all, what is likened to something must necessarily be different from it. (5) How did God send His Son, who was born of a woman (Gal. 4:4)? After all, something that does not exist is not sent. So, tell me, what was He and what did He become when He was born of a woman? (6) If he who is born of a virgin is not the Son of God and God by nature, how is he seated at the right hand of God (Heb. 10:12)? It is clear that having expelled the natural [Son], either we and all the intelligent forces are worshipers of man and serve the fourfold. (7) I will not give My glory to another (Isa. 42:8), says God. So, if the one born of the Virgin is other than the natural Son of God and God, how is he served and worshiped? (8) If Jesus, the Son of the Virgin, is not the Son of God by nature and is not God, then how did every knee bow at the name of Jesus, in heaven and on earth and under the earth (Phil. 2:10)? If only before the natural Son every knee bows, then how is God given the name that is above every name (Phil. 2:9), if He is not also a man? After all, as God, He does not accept it - for He has it from eternity. (9) If Christ is from the Jews according to the flesh (Rom. 9:5), then it remains for Him to be thought, to be and to be called also from something else by something else - after all, the words “according to the flesh” presuppose that He is [also] from something else by something else: and from Who and by what, if not from God, and because He is God? For when he calls Him “He who is,” and “God,” and “blessed,” and “above all,” he means precisely this. Because He is “the blessed God who is over all” from the Father from all eternity. For it is clear that God was born of God from Jews “according to the flesh” when he became Man. (10) Blessed Paul says: For let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus: He, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, but 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, becoming obedient even to the point of death, even death on the cross. Therefore God has highly exalted Him and given Him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father (Phil. 2:5-11). Tell me, who is “he who exists in the form of God,” who did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, but made Himself of no reputation, taking on the form of a servant? Man is not in the form of God - for man is not in the nature of God. For the whole host of saints knows that appearance is nature 68. And the slave does not degrade himself by taking the form of a slave. For how does he accept what he is? And how does a person become like people or, being obedient to God, humiliate himself? After all, a person, having become obedient to God, rather rises and, becoming equal to God, considers this robbery. So this is said about the Son of God and God by nature when He became Man. After all, it was not so that He, being first a man, then called himself God - this is what He considered robbery - but, being originally God, He then became a Man. And as being God by nature, He humiliates Himself, becoming Man by nature, and as having become Man, He is exalted by the name of the Son of God, which is above every name - after all, this is what the divine Apostle proclaimed. He did not say: “being a man, he became God,” but being in the form of God, he did not consider it robbery to be equal with God: for the Most High does not exalt himself, but humbles himself, voluntarily becoming a man. So, he did not attribute humiliation to one thing, and exaltation to another, but to the One and the Same. For He alone accepted both, one because, being God, He became Man, and the second, because, being Man, He acquired the inherent [Divine] nature, and that is why it is said that He was exalted. (11) The Lord says to the Father: Father, glorify Me with the glory that I had with You before the world was (John 17:5). If He is only God, then how is He glorified? If only man, then how did he have glory before the ages? (12) Thou shalt have no other God (Ne. 80:10). So how do you think that a person is deified by relative accession 69 to the Word and turns out to be a fellowship with the Father in glory and dignity? And we say not that man is recently deified, but that the eternally existing Son of God and God is incarnated without transformation - for He remained no less God, even after becoming Man. (13) Blessed Paul says: For although there are many gods and many lords, we have one God the Father, from whom are all things, and we are to Him, and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we through Him (1 Cor. 8:5-6). He speaks of one Christ, “in whom are all things.” Who do you think this is? If born of a Virgin, you will have to admit that He is the same from the eternal God, by whom are all things. If the Son of God is other than the one born of the Virgin, then the one born of the Virgin, in your opinion, is not Christ - after all, [the apostle] spoke about one Christ, by whom are all things. If the one born of the Virgin is other than the Son of God, then you either recognize two Creators of the world, or that the Son of God is neither Christ nor the Creator. (14) Scripture says that whoever confesses that Christ is the Son of God, God abides in him, and he in God (1 John 4:15). It does not say “one of the sons of God,” but “the Son of God,” the one and only. (15) Do you say that Christ has two natures or one? They say two. Which ones exactly? Of course, Divinity and humanity. Then how is He not God by nature and Man by nature, if He has two natures? If you call the union of God the Word with the flesh relative, where is the humiliation, where is the incarnation, where is the incarnation? After all, if you accept this in the sense of a relative union, then you will introduce many incarnations and incarnations of God, even partial ones, for God was relatively united with many God-bearing men, righteous people, forefathers, and prophets. This means that in each case, in your opinion, He underwent incarnation and becoming man. (16) The prophet Micah says the following about the One born of the Virgin in Bethlehem: Whose origin is from the beginning, from the days of eternity (Mic. 5:2). How then is His origin from the beginning, from eternal days, if He is not also the eternal God? (17) The Lord, testifying to His eternal existence, says: Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am (John 8:58), and also: No one ascended into heaven except the Son of Man who came down from heaven, who is in heaven (John 3:13). How was the Son of Abraham from the seed of David before the existence of Abraham, if not as God? And how is He the Son of Abraham, if not because in the last times He became Man? No one has ascended into heaven except the Son of Man, who is in heaven, who came down from heaven. How did the Son of Man come down from heaven and is in heaven? And as he who is in heaven ascends into heaven, if not because One and the same, being God and Man, since He is God, by condescension descends, and is incarnated, and becomes Man, but does not leave heaven and the bosom of the Father, but because Man, “ascends to where he was before,” as God, according to the fact that again He Himself, the unfalse, hypostatic Truth, said: Well, if you see the Son of Man, ascending to where he was before (John 6:62). For as God He is pre-eternal and indescribable, even if it is said that He descended - because by His descent we will call condescension, and humility, and appearance on earth - but as He who appeared by man is limited and subject to time. (18) The Forerunner and Baptist John says: This is the one of whom I said: A man comes after me, who stood before me, because he was before me. I did not know Him: but for this purpose I came to baptize in water, so that He would be revealed to Israel (John 1:30–31) and behold the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world (John 1:29). Notice how, calling Him a Husband and calling Him the Lamb, he does not say that another takes upon Himself the sin of the world, and [namely] He gives great and truly unprecedented and divine dignity. And he says that He is ahead and before him, although He goes behind, I mean according to the time of birth according to the flesh. For although Immanuel was born recently as a man, He was before the ages as God. So to Him belongs both newness in the human sense and eternity in the Divine sense. That is why Zechariah, the father of John, prophesying to his own son, says: And you, little child, will be called a prophet of the Most High, for you will go before the face of the Lord to prepare His ways (Luke 1:76). (19) The Son of the Virgin asked his disciples, saying: Who do people say that I, the Son of Man, am? (Matthew 16f.). And when some answered one thing, others another, and expressed the guess that He was one of the prophets, He, not approving them because they answered incorrectly, asked again: and you, who are more knowledgeable than others, who do you say that I am? Then the best Peter, the supreme head of the apostles, seeing before him not the pure and incorporeal Word, and not just a God-bearing man, but the Son of God and God by nature, by nature becoming Man, Who, however, in both was one Christ, says: You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God (John 16:16). He did not say “Christ,” without a specific term 70, but “That same Christ,” hoped for, prophesied, and did not limit himself to this, but added: Son of the Living God. He did not say “son,” but “Son,” the only begotten, one, eternal, and heard [in response]: Blessed are you, Simon, son of Jonas, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven (Matthew 16:17). For no one knows the Son except the Father (Matthew 11:27). (20) And the disciples, amazed at the Divine sign of walking on water, said: Truly You are the Son of God (Matthew 14:33). But if He is not genuine and adopted, then it is not “true.” So, bring charges against the blessed disciples. (21) If there is one nature of the Holy Trinity, and one action, and everything in It is common, except for the hypostases, and God the Word was united with the flesh, animated by the rational and thinking soul, by attitude and action, and not hypostatically, then the Father and the Holy Spirit were no less united with it. If the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit have equal and equal union with the flesh, then let him who is born of the Virgin be called Father, and Son, and Holy Spirit. For why is there such emphasis that He should be called only the Word and Son of God? If only the Son had union with him in relation to action, then the Son will be other-active in relation to the Father and the Holy Spirit, which is absurd. If the union took place according to hypostasis, nothing absurd follows from this - after all, the Son is other-hypostatic in relation to the Father. (22) Blessed Paul says: There is one God the Father, from whom are all things, and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things (1 Cor. 8:6). Why is Jesus Christ placed directly behind the Father, and there is no one between them? Then where will we place the Only Begotten, elevating man to His place, and, moreover, as you say, governed by Him and revered for His sake? If you say that, just as Jesus was born in Bethlehem, but was called a Nazarite because of his settlement in Nazareth, so God the Word is called Man because of his dwelling in man, then it means that He became neither flesh nor Man, and it would be wrong to call Him not Man, but “carnal” and “human,” as well as “Nazarene” - after all, Christ is not called Nazareth, but Nazarene. (23) If God the Word is called Man because of His indwelling in man and relative union, then we will call both the Father and the Holy Spirit men - for the fullness of the Holy Trinity dwells in us through the Spirit. After all, the wise Paul also says: Do you not know that you are the church of God, and the Spirit of God lives in you? (1 Cor. 3:16), and Christ Himself: whoever loves Me keeps My word; and My Father will love Him, and We will come to him and make our abode with him (John 14:23). But in no way will the Father, nor the Holy Spirit, be a man because he dwells in us. So, the Son is not called Man because he dwells in man, but because he has truly become Man in essence. (24) If Christ performed signs because the Word was in Him, you probably claim that He is one of the holy prophets - after all, [the Word] performed Divine signs also by the hands of saints. (25) It is written that Christ was sanctified by the Father and received the influx of the Spirit. So how does He baptize with the Holy Spirit and fulfill what only befits the Divine nature? After all, He is the Giver of sanctification. And showing it as his own property, He says: receive the Holy Spirit. Whose sins you forgive, they will be forgiven; those whose sins you forgive, they will remain (John 20:22–23). Therefore He is sanctified as Man, but He sanctifies as God, being One and the same. (26) It is written about Christ: He, in the days of His flesh, with a strong cry and with tears uttered prayers and supplications to Him who was able to save Him from death; and was heard for His reverence; Although He is the Son, He learned obedience through suffering, and, having been perfected, became the author of eternal salvation for all who obey Him (Heb. 5:7-9). Likewise the Lord Himself: My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me! (Matthew 27:46). If this were said about a simple person, despairing and unable to endure an attack of temptation, overcome by fear and not brave, not having courage - after all, these are the words of one suffering from cowardice: My soul is grieved to death (Matthew 26:38), and My soul is now indignant (John 12:27) and My Father, let this cup pass from Me (Matthew 26:39) - this is a speech or one who does not know the will of God, or one who resists God’s will; if this is said about God, who is not involved in humanity, then this is completely incredible and unthinkable. About God incarnate, and made man, and through His own sufferings of His flesh, healing our passions, and leaving us an example, this is said quite accurately. For the words in the days of His flesh... though He were a Son (Heb. 5:7–8), this is exactly what they mean. For the spirit-bearing Paul was amazed at the mystery of the spirit-bearing Paul, and God’s economy for us, and the humane condescension toward us, that “even though the Son,” “in the days of His flesh,” endured all this in our nature in order to strengthen it against passions and teach us in temptations to look to God and call on Him for help, and how much it means for perfection, and what rewards enduring suffering and obedience bring. That is why Blessed Peter wrote: For what is praise if you endure being beaten for your faults? but if, doing good and suffering, you endure, this pleases God, because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, so that we would follow in His footsteps (1 Pet. 2:20–21). So, Christ, being not only Man and not just God, but God incarnate “in the days of His flesh,” endured and accomplished this, leaving us an example - otherwise why did He, when He predicted His suffering for them, forbade Peter, who said: be merciful to yourself, Lord, so that this will not happen to you (Matthew 16:22)? (27) If it is said that Jesus increased in wisdom and stature and in favor with God and men (Luke 2:52), do not think that he was just a man, but God made man and incarnate, allowing His flesh to have its own nature with its inherent properties, so that becoming man would not be considered a deformity. (28) Paul dares to call Jesus not a man - not because He is not a Man, but because He is also God. Therefore He writes; Galatians: Paul is an apostle, chosen not by men or through man, but by Jesus Christ (Gal. 1:1), and further: I declare to you, brethren, that the gospel which I preached is not of men, for I received it and learned it, not from man, but through the revelation of Jesus Christ (Gal. 1:11–12). It is written: Neither an intercessor nor an angel, but the Lord Himself saved us (Isa. 63:9). Paul says: Therefore, imitate God as beloved children, and live in love, just as Christ loved us and gave Himself for us (Eph. 5:1-2). After all, he who grieves and prays for the passing of the cup, how did he “give himself up” if he was only a man? (29) Blessed Peter says: Therefore, just as Christ suffered in the flesh (1 Pet. 4:1). Why does he add “flesh,” if not because he knows that He was God, impassive in Divinity? If just a person suffered for us, how is the word about the Cross... the power of God (1 Cor. 1:18)? And why is he who does not consider His Blood sacred condemned as trampling on the Son of God (Heb. 10:29)? (30) Why does Christ say that He ascends to where He was before (John 6:62)? After all, He does not ascend as God, since He is indescribable, but ascending and descending is characteristic of a limited nature; and He was not in heaven as a man before ascending, but ascends as a Man to where He was before as God, for He is both God and Man. (31) It is written: 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). Where is the abundance of love if He gave for us an ordinary person adopted by grace? And how can one be the only begotten who is honored by adoption and is not God by nature, if Scripture says: I said: you are gods, and you are all sons of the Most High (Ps. 81:6) and to those who received Him I gave the power to become sons of God (John 1:12)? But just as God is by nature one - despite the fact that there are many gods by position and grace - so with many, honored by sonship, there is one natural Son of God, the only begotten, whom God gave for us. (32) The most divine John announced, saying: No one has ever seen God; The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has revealed (John 1:18). Who is the One who manifested, if not born of the Virgin and dwelt among men? This is our God, and no one else can compare with Him... After that He appeared on earth and spoke among people (Bar. 3:36, 38). How did He appear on earth and interact among people, if He did not become a man? For He Himself said: No one has ever seen God. (33) The Apostle says: The first man is from the earth, earthy; the second person is the Lord from heaven (1 Cor. 15:47). After all, the body was not delivered from heaven, but, being God and the Son of God by nature, He came down from heaven and became Man, the second Adam as the second principle for those who are recreated and transformed into incorruption by resurrection. That is why he says: The first Adam was a living soul, the second Adam was a life-giving Spirit (1 Cor. 15:45). (34) The Lord says to His disciples: Go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit (Matthew 28:19). And the most divine Paul said: As many as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death (Rom. 6:3). The Lord mentioned one Son, saying “and the Son,” but not “and sons.” The Apostle affirms that we were baptized into Christ and into His death. So, in your opinion, the natural Son was cast out, and the son adopted by grace was brought in. Or you were baptized into a quadruple. But not us, let it not be, - after all, we are baptized in the name of the Father, and the Son, incarnate, and made man, and crucified in the flesh, and the risen, and the Holy Spirit, into the Trinity, consubstantial and indivisible. For the natural Son of God and the only begotten God remained no less consubstantial with the Father, even after becoming man, as the Church symbol teaches. (35) “We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Only Begotten, begotten of the Father before all ages, Light from Light, true God from true God, consubstantial with the Father, by whom all things came into being - for our sake, people, and for the sake of our salvation, who came down from heaven and became incarnate from the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, and became man. And he was crucified for us under Pilate the Pontius, and suffered, and was buried, and rose again on the third day according to the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven, and is seated at the right hand of the Father; and who will come again with glory to judge the living and the dead, of whose kingdom there will be no end.” Look how the assembly of the saints and God-bearing fathers spoke about one Lord Jesus Christ, born before the ages from the Father, and not created, consubstantial with the Father, Light from Light, true God from true God, incarnate, and suffering in the flesh, and resurrected, and ascended into heaven, and seated at the right hand of the Father, and coming again to judge the living and the dead - after all “coming again” shows most clearly that He had already descended from heaven when He became man, incarnate in voluntary humiliation. For they did not say that one was born before the ages from the Father, and the other was incarnate from the Virgin, but that one and the same (36) But you will say: therefore, let us admit that the Word Himself from God the Father suffered for us? Of course, however, by the flesh, and not by the Godhead, if Paul is right when he speaks of Him: Who is the image of the invisible God, the first begotten of all creation; For by Him were all things created that are in heaven and earth, visible and invisible: whether thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers - all things were created by Him; and He is before all things, and by Him all things stand. And He is the head of the body of the Church; He is the firstfruits, the firstborn from the dead, so that He may have primacy in all things (Col. 1:15–18). After all, he says, and it is absolutely clear, that the image of the invisible God, begotten before all creation, visible and invisible, by whom are all things, and in whom are all things, was given to the Church as the head, and that He is the firstborn from the dead, Who endured the Cross, despising the shame (Heb. 12:2). For we affirm that it is not just a man, unknown to you, honored by joining Him, who is given for us, but that the Crucified One is the Lord of glory Himself. It is said that if they had known, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory (1 Cor. 2:8). (37) So how did One and the Same both suffer and not suffer? After all, if, as God, He did not suffer at all, but it is said that He suffered, how could He be God? Consequently, those who suffered, apparently, only think of [a person] from the seed of David. However, isn’t it a sign of weak mind to say such a thing? After all, the Father did not give an ordinary person for us, honored by relative inclusion and adoption, - after all, it is written: 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). So, since He wanted to suffer for the salvation of the world, and without flesh this is impossible, for as God He is impassive, He took on flesh, susceptible to suffering, and, being God, also became Man in order to be able to suffer. So it was inherent in Him to suffer both in the flesh, but not in the Divinity, for He was at the same time God and Man, One and the Same. Therefore, any invention of examples for a clear depiction of the sacraments is weak, but nevertheless, from a meager imagination, we will say this: just as iron or another similar substance, when it comes into contact with fire, receives it and gives birth to a flame, and if, say, it receives a blow, then the substance suffers harm, but the nature of fire does not suffer any damage from the blow - so understand what was said that the Son suffered in the flesh, but did not suffer in the Divinity. (38) Since we find that the prophetic, evangelical, and apostolic sayings sometimes speak of Christ as Man, sometimes as God, and sometimes both as God and as Man, how can we assert that they do not contradict each other, unless we admit that the natural Son of God and God became by nature Man, and after the incarnation the One is both God and Man? For just so, according to the apostle, although He was crucified in weakness, He lives by the power of God (2 Cor. 13:4), and was raised by the Father, and raised Himself up, and ascended, and voluntarily ascended and sat down at the right hand of the Father in heaven, above all principality, and power, and dominion, and every name that is named (Eph. 1:21). (39) If the flesh inexpressibly united with Him did not immediately become its own for the Word, how could it be thought of as life-giving? For I am the living bread,” He says, “which came down from heaven and gave life to the world. This bread that goes forth will live forever: and the bread that I will give is My flesh, which I will give for the life of the world (John 6:51, 33). If this were not said by the One Who Descended Himself, we would say that this was said as if on behalf of an adopted person. But since He says: I am the living bread that came down from heaven, how can His flesh be anyone's besides Him? Even if it is written: Truly I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you will not have life in you (John 6:53), we understand that there is one Son of God and Son of Man, the Son of God eternally as God, who became human in the last times, as having become man. Otherwise, how could He be the Son of Man and [at the same time] come down from heaven? Blessed Paul in his letter to the Hebrews says: God, who spoke of old to the fathers in the prophets at many times and in various ways, has in these last days spoken to us in the Son (Heb. 1:1). Note that the prophets were worthy of adoption, but this one in whom God spoke to us in the last days is not an adopted son, but a natural one - and therefore is separated from the prophets. This is understandable - after all, it is said: whom he appointed heir of all things, through whom also he made the worlds (Heb. 1:2). How can He become the heir of all things, through whom He created the worlds, if He is not God and Man? And since God, He is the creator of centuries - since Man is appointed heir. This one, being the radiance of glory and the image of His hypostasis and holding everything by the word of His power, having accomplished the cleansing of our sins, sat down at the right hand of power on high, being as much superior to the angels as He inherited a name more glorious than them (Heb. 1:3). Note that He Himself is “the radiance of glory and the image of the Father’s hypostasis,” “upholding all things by the word of His power,” He is appointed heir of all and inherits a name that is higher than the angels. Therefore, how is One and the same “the radiance of glory”, and holds everything, and is appointed heir of everything and the name, if not One and the same, being God, became Man? For this is not said about one or the other, but about one and the same Son of God, in whom He spoke to us in the last days (Heb. 1:2). (41) Besides all this, what is this great and new and hidden thing that was not made known to the generations (Eph. 3:5)? Or what wealth, what hidden wisdom, or what abundance of love, if salvation was through man? Or what would the sacrament of the economy be called by humiliation, and incarnation, and incarnation, if we are saved not through the Son of God and according to the nature of God, but through one of those subject to corruption, who by grace found salvation with us? If the truly natural Son of God and God became Man and accepted all suffering, where is the humiliation? How did you humiliate yourself? And what kind of incarnation is it to not become flesh? And if the common man is now served together with those on earth and those in heaven and kneel, has things not turned out for the worse? For previously only people served creation, but now, in your opinion, along with those on earth and the underworld, those in heaven also serve. But you, who place hope in man and serve man saved by grace, will rightly be called man-worshippers. We worship, and serve, and “believe in one God, the Father Almighty, and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Only Begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all ages, Light from Light, true God from true God, consubstantial with the Father, born of the Father before all ages, and in the last times incarnate of the Holy Spirit and of the Ever-Virgin Mary, and became man, and crucified, and who suffered, and was buried, and rose again, and ascended into heaven, and is seated at the right hand of the Father; and who will come again with glory to judge the living and the dead, whose kingdom will have no end; and in the Holy Spirit." (42) And that he who was born of the Holy Virgin and Crucified is the same eternal Son of God is testified first of all by the divine host of prophets. For David cried out, saying: Thy throne, O God, endureth for ever. But here he is talking with God: the rod of righteousness is the rod of Your Kingdom. You loved righteousness and hated iniquity, therefore, O God, Your God anointed You with the oil of joy more than Your fellows (Her. 44:7). Now he clearly says that God, whose throne is forever and ever, will be anointed by God the Father, who is His Father inasmuch as He is God, and His God inasmuch as He is incarnate and as man is anointed. Micah says: And you, Bethlehem, the land of Judah, the house of Ephrath, are in no way less than the provinces of Judah, for from you will come a leader who will shepherd my people Israel, and whose origin is from the beginning, from the days of eternity (Micah 5 according to Matthew 2:5-6). Who has origin from the beginning, if not the One about whom John the Theologian says: In the beginning was the Word (John 1:1)? And again David: God! grant to the king your judgment and to the king's son your righteousness (Ps. 71:1). And a little further: And he will humble the slanderer, and will remain with the sun, and before the moon, generations of generations (Ps. 72:4-5). Doesn't this clearly show the pre-eternal existence of Christ? And Baruch: This is our God and no one else can compare with Him. He found all the ways of wisdom and gave it to His servant Jacob and His beloved Israel. After that He appeared on earth and spoke among people (Bar. 3:36–38). Also John, the Theologian and Evangelist: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was to God, and the Word was God. It was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through Him, and without Him nothing came into being that was made (John 1:1–2). And a little lower: And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth (John 1:14), John testifies of Him, and cries out, saying: This is the one of whom I said: He who comes after me has stood before me, because He was before me (John 1:30). That is, he was before as God - after all, as a Man, Christ was born after John. And again: no one has ever seen God; The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has revealed (John 1:18). Who showed it if not Christ? So, He is the only begotten Son, existing in the bosom of the Father. Also John the Baptist: And I saw and testified that this is the Son of God (John 1:34). The words “Son of God,” and not “son of God” without a specific member, mean Him, the one and only Son of God. And the Lord Himself said to Nicodemus: No one has ascended into heaven except the Son of Man who came down from heaven (John 3:13). How did the Son of Man come down from heaven, if, being the Son of God and God by nature, He did not become Man and did not annihilate Himself? For this is the descent: after all, it is unusual for the Divine to move from place to place, for It is not limited [by place]. And again the Lord: For God did not send His Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him. He who believes in Him is not condemned, but he who does not believe is already condemned, because he did not believe in the name of the Only Begotten Son of God (John 3:17–18). And again John: He who comes from above is above all; but he who is from the earth speaks as one who is from the earth; He who comes from heaven is above all (John 3:31). And a little later: The Father loves the Son and has given everything into His hand. He who believes in the Son has eternal life, but he who does not believe in the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him (3:35–36). All this is said about Christ. And again the Lord: My Father works until now, and I work. And the Jews sought even more to kill Him because He not only violated the Sabbath, but also called God His Father, making Himself equal to God (John 5:17–18). And again the Lord: For the bread of God is the one who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world (John 6:33): And a little lower: I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me will never hunger, and he who believes in Me will never thirst (John 6:35). And again: Everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him has eternal life (John 6:40). So, if Christ came down from heaven, how is He other than God the Word, the Son of God? And if faith in Him is eternal life, then how is He not God by nature? After all, those who believe do not have eternal life in a creature or a prophet, but only in the true God. And again: It is not that anyone has seen the Father except Him who is from God; He saw the Father (John 6:46). And again: I am the living bread that came down from heaven (John 6:51). And again: What if you see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before? (John 6:62). If He is not the same Son of Man and the eternal Son of God, how did He ascend to where He was before? After all, He ascended as Man to where He was before as God, being at the same time both God and Man. And again: I lay down My life in order to take it again. No one takes it away from Me, but I Myself give it. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to receive it again (John 10:17–18). Who has the power over life and death if not God alone? And one more thing: I and the Father are one (John 10:30). A person would never say: I and God are one, nor: I and an angel are one, but even an angel would not say: I and God are one, or: I and a man are one. For the most part, the creature will never say: I and the Creator are one. For among creations, perhaps a person would say: I and the angel are one, by creation, by slavery, but the creation is in no way one with the Creator. And a little lower, drawing a comparison between Himself and those who become gods by position, and not by nature, He says: Is it not written in your law: I said: you are gods and sons of the Most High, all of you? If He called those gods to whom the word of God came, and the Scripture cannot be broken, do you say to him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world: you are blaspheming, because I said: I am the Son of God? (John 10:34–36). And having shown that He is God and consubstantial with the Father, He speaks in the likeness of works: If I do not the works of My Father, do not believe Me; and if I do, then if you do not believe Me, believe My works, so that you may know and believe that the Father is in Me and I in Him (John 10:37–38). As above, He says: just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, so the Son gives life to whomever He wants, because He is the Son of Man. Do not marvel at this; for the time is coming, and has already come, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and having heard, they will live (John 5:21, 25-27). Having said: just as the Father resurrects and gives life to the dead, He adds: so the Son gives life to whomever He wants, showing that the Son, like the Father, is life-giving autocratically and by nature, and not by grace. Then he adds: because this Son of God, by nature life-giving, is the Son of Man. He did not say, “is called the Son of Man,” but “is,” and “do not marvel at this,” that “the Son of Man gives life.” For this Son of Man is the Son of God, not by name or by grace, but by nature, because He is by nature life-giving, like the Father, [and is] God, like the Father. And again He says to Martha: I am the resurrection and the life; He who believes in Me, even if he dies, will live (John 11:25). And again: He who sees Me has seen the Father... Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father in Me? (John 14:9). And again: This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus, whom You have sent (John 17:3). And when Philip said: Show us the Father, and that is enough for us (John 14:8), the Lord, knowing that it is impossible to see God with bodily eyes, and also that knowing Him is knowing the Father as one in essence (after all, the knowledge of one in essence is one and identical), answers him with reproach: I have been with you for so long, and you do not know Me, Philip? (John 14:9). For he knew Him as a Man, but He reproaches him that by faith and the eyes of reason he did not recognize Him as God. For if he had recognized Him, he would have recognized the Father, for he who saw Him, that is, God, also recognized the Father. For he who saw in Him only a man did not yet know the Father - after all, the Father is not a man. And this knowledge, that is, to know the Father as God, and Jesus Himself as God, is eternal life, and not to know this is eternal death. And Thomas called God and Lord Him whom he touched, and he is charged with the guilt that he did not believe before he saw, and those who did not see and believed are declared blessed. Also, the Apostle Paul says: when according to the gospel, God will judge the world through Jesus Christ... Who is God over all, blessed forever (Rom. 2:16; 9:5). And in the letter to the Galatians: But when the fullness of the time was come, God sent forth His Son, who was born of a woman, made subject to the law (Gal. 4:4). And to the Hebrews: Therefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider Jesus the Apostle and High Priest of our confession, who is faithful to him who created him, as was Moses in all his house. For He is worthy of greater glory before Moses, the greater the share in comparison with the house of the one who built it, for every house is built by someone; and the one who arranged everything is God. And Moses was faithful in all His house, as a minister, to testify to what was to be declared; and Christ is like a Son in His House; and we are His house (Heb. 3:1–6). Note that by calling Jesus, as a man, created and comparing Him with Moses, he says that He is worthy of greater glory than Moses, and in so far as the Creator is greater than the creatures, and the son of the servant. For Moses is a God-bearing servant, but Christ is God and the indwelling Lord, whose house we are. For we are the church of God, and the Spirit of God lives in us (1 Cor. 3:16). This means that Jesus is God, who by nature creates, because gods by grace and communion are not yet creators. (43) All this said about Him who was born of Mary and Crucified, does not it show with complete clarity and distinctness, at least for reasonable people, that he is God and Man? But the darkness of vanity, like a thorn, lies on the mental vision of heretics, not allowing the ray of enlightenment of the Gospel to break through to it. For those who receive glory from people cannot believe, but those who do not seek the glory of the One God (John 5:44). But we, who have been given from God, having avoided superstitious delusion, to be with God, think like this, think like this and preach like this: one God the Father, one God the Son, one God the Holy Spirit, one God of the Three conceived with each other, each God in Himself, one God of the Three, the first because of special properties, the second because of unity of command. For there is one nature in three hypostases, and That which is from Him belongs to One. Therefore, the Three are One God, but perfect nature, that is, Divinity, in each of the hypostases, and therefore Each is a perfect God in Himself. One God is Three, for God, and His Word, and His Spirit are one God, because man with his word and his spirit are not three people, but one. Each perfect God is not the hypostatic forces scattered in the air, the Word of God and His Holy Spirit, but Each is hypostatic and perfect, so that there is no complex God, composed of perfect from imperfect, but one Perfect in Three Perfect, super-perfect and super-perfect. We believe and undoubtedly preach that the only begotten Son and Word Himself from the Father before the ages, God of one essence with the Father by nature, by whom all things came into being, in the last days, by the grace of the Father, was conceived in the all-pure and all-immaculate womb of the Holy Virgin, like a Divine seed, and was incarnated without transformation or change, that is, realized in Himself flesh, animated by the rational and thinking soul, and became a perfect Man, while at the same time remaining What He was, a perfect God. For the Holy Virgin did not conceive a man, but God by nature, the eternal Son and Word of God, who was incarnate from her. After all, for every woman, conception occurs after the injection of seed from the husband, and the husband’s seed is conceived: and the seed is a hypostasis, while the woman, along with conception, delivers her own blood, and a combination occurs when the blood is realized in the male seed, and the seed itself becomes a hypostasis for them, a common hypostasis both for himself and for female blood. This is not the case with the Holy Virgin - for conception was not from male seed, but after the consent of the Holy Virgin, the Holy Spirit came upon Her according to the word of the Lord, which the angel spoke, purifying Her and delivering the power capable of receiving the Divinity of the Word, and then the hypostatic Wisdom and Power of the Most High God, the Son of God, consubstantial with the Father, like the Divine seed, overshadowed Her and fashioned Himself from the immaculate and purest Her blood is flesh, animated by a rational and thinking soul, Himself becoming its hypostasis. This is how, being God by nature from the Father, He also became Man by nature from the Mother. And One and the Same is both, truly perfect God and unfailingly perfect by nature Man, one hypostasis in two natures inseparably. For we do not confess a deified man, but God incarnate and made man - for “the Word became flesh.” And we proclaim the One and the Same as wholly God and wholly man—whole God together with His flesh, and wholly Man together with His Divine Deity, and we teach about the one incarnate nature of God the Word. And we know and proclaim two births of the natural Son of God and God: one eternal from the Father, incorporeal and without cause, and one in the last days for the sake of our salvation, incarnate and made man from the Holy Virgin, bodily and in time. That is why we preach the Holy Virgin as the Mother of God, as having given birth to God, who was incarnate from Her truly and in the full sense. We also recognize Her as the Mother of Christ (after all, She gave birth to Christ), but since the godless Nestorius abused this word to overthrow the word “Theotokos,” we call Her not the Mother of Christ, but rather, the Mother of God - the Mother of God, after all, are other mothers of kings and prophets, and the only Mother of God is the Holy Virgin Mary. We know the two natures of one Christ, the Son of God, and two natural volitions and actions - for He acts in each of the forms and wants what is characteristic of it, with the participation of the second. And even after the incarnation of the Son of God we serve the Trinity, and not the quaternity, one Father, one Son of God and the Virgin, one and the same God and Man, and one Holy Spirit forever. Amen. Like the saints of our father John of Damascus, the word about faith against the Nestorians (1) We ought, having been saved from God through His only begotten Son, whom He gave as a ransom for us, according to the word of the Lord, to believe in the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, one God and one essence of the Divinity in three hypostases, and that the Word of God, for the sake of our salvation, without transformation, became flesh and dwelt in us (John 1:14), to believe, obeying the sacred Gospels - but since the tare-grazer, using tools worthy of him, confused and shocked the people of God, raised up the Holy Spirit to protect the truth, shepherds and teachers, as lights in the world containing the word of life (Phil. 2:15-16), and through them guided us to the royal path. They taught us to follow the middle path, not deviating either to what seems right or to what is obviously left, and by following them with all our might, we will not fall into error. (2) So, we believe in the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, the Trinity consubstantial, one Divinity, Whom in three hypostases, that is, persons, all creation worships and serves, and that the only begotten Son and Word of God, begotten of the Father before all ages, Himself by the grace of the Father, without transformation, became flesh from the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, so that the Divinity was not transformed into nature flesh (for the Divinity is immutable and unchangeable), and the flesh has not changed into the nature of the Divinity (for the Divinity cannot receive any addition). (3) That is why we confess in our Lord Jesus Christ, one of the Holy Trinity, two natures, each perfect in its own definition and essence, so as not to introduce transformation or fusion, but one hypostasis, so as not to introduce a duality of Sons or a fourth person into the Trinity - after all, nature creates the “other,” and the hypostasis delimits the “other” and the person 71 . For if in the Holy Trinity, speaking about the three hypostases of the Divinity, we preach three persons, then those who confess two persons in our Lord Jesus Christ should at the same time confess two persons. (4) So, nature, essence and image mean species, that is, community, like Divinity, humanity, while hypostasis and person are particularity and something existing in itself, for example, such and such, in Divinity - Father, Son, Holy Spirit, and in humanity Peter, Paul, John. (5) Just as it is impossible for nature and nature to be one nature in Christ, so it is impossible for hypostasis and hypostasis to be one hypostasis. If it is possible for hypostasis and hypostasis to be one hypostasis, and person and person to be one person, then it is also possible for nature and nature in Christ to be one nature. (6) Just as there is no hypostasis without essence, but each hypostasis does not necessarily have its own essence, so there is no essence without hypostasis, and it is not necessary for those who unite to have their own private hypostasis. (7) Just as in the Holy Trinity, speaking of three hypostases, it is not necessary for us to give the own nature of each hypostasis, but the three have one nature and common essence of the Divinity, and not one of them is insubstantial, but each does not have its own special essence, so in Christ, speaking of two natures, there is no need to give each nature its own hypostasis, but the two natures have one common hypostasis of Sonship, that is, [hypostasis] of the Son of God - for this hypostasis is the Son of God in Divinity and the Son of the Virgin in humanity, and each of the natures is neither devoid of hypostasis nor has a special hypostasis; and just as there we call three hypostases one nature, so here we say that two natures are one hypostasis. (8) Question: “Is there a hypostasis without essence?” You will say: “No way.” Then they endowed each hypostasis of the Holy Trinity with its own special essence. But you don't. If you say that the three hypostases have one and the same nature, I will also say that although there is no nature without hypostasis, the two natures of Christ have one and the same hypostasis. (9) Question: “If there is no hypostasis without a face, but in Christ there are two hypostases, is it necessary to talk about two persons?” (10) Just as Peter is one hypostasis, but two natures, soul and body, and in accordance with one nature, that is, the spiritual essence, he thinks, and in accordance with the other, that is, the bodily essence, he is dissected, 72 but there is one Peter and one hypostasis, both doing the first and undergoing the second, and neither the soul is dissected, although Peter is dissected, nor the body thinks, although Peter thinks, but Peter thinks insofar as he has a soul, it is dissected because it is corporeal - so Christ, being one hypostasis, but having two natures, Divinity and incarnations, worked miracles according to His Divinity, and suffered according to His humanity, and neither His Divinity suffered, nor the body gave life, but one Christ, one hypostasis, one person, created one as God, and endured another as a man. And just as in Peter the soul imparts life, feeling, movement to the body, and the body receives them, but there is one hypostasis of the giving and receiving humanity, so in Christ the Divinity gives, humanity receives, but there is one hypostasis of the giving Divinity and the receiving humanity. (11) So, if the Son of the Virgin became the Son of God by grace, that is, two sonships, one by nature and the other by grace, and not one Son, but two: for the Son by nature and the Son by grace can be called brothers, but never one Son, because then we all, adopted as sons of God by grace through baptism, will be one Son and one person with the natural Son of God. (12) We do not say that the Son of the Virgin became the Son of God, nor that the hypostasis of man became God, but that the Son of God became the Son of the Virgin, and the hypostasis of the Son of God appeared as Man. (13) “God” is a name, and “man” is a name, likewise the soul and body describe not a hypostasis, but a nature, and even if applied to a hypostasis, it does not mean the definition of a hypostasis, but what nature this hypostasis is. God the Father: “God” does not mean the property of a hypostasis, but what nature it is, and “Father” means a hypostatic property. Peter is a man: “man” indicates what nature he is, and “Peter” denotes his own hypostasis. (14) Hypostasis is contemplated in nature, nature in hypostasis, and therefore we speak of two natures in Christ, Divinity and humanity, and of Christ in two natures, Divinity and humanity, - after all, the whole is in parts, and the parts as a whole. (15) Soul and body are parts of Peter, but parts of Christ are Divinity and humanity. (16) It is common for Scripture to sometimes name the whole by both parts, as the Lord says: Fear Him more than He who is able to destroy both soul and body in Gehenna (Matthew 10:28). Here He names the whole, that is, a person, by both components. And sometimes - one of the parts, as David says: Let all flesh bless His holy name (Ps. 144:21), meaning “every man” - after all, flesh without a soul does not bless God - and: Jacob went over to Egypt with [the number of] seventy souls ( Acts 7:14), and his soul entered into iron (Her. 104:18) - after all, a soul without a body is not bound. (17) So, sometimes Scripture calls Christ sometimes God, sometimes Man, and sometimes [at the same time] God and Man, and sometimes it speaks of His Divinity, sometimes of His humanity, and sometimes of both. So, the high should be attributed to His Divinity, the low - to His humanity, but both of them - to one hypostasis. (18) The words “perfect God and perfect Man” indicate the perfection of natures, and do not denote hypostases. “God” is an indicator of nature, just as “man” is. We know the Son and the Word of God, that He is a perfect hypostasis, and that He is timeless, and invisible, and incomprehensible, and intangible, and indescribable, and impassive, and that neither passion nor reproach concerns Him. So, since He is a perfect hypostasis, He is different in relation to the Father - after all, there is one Father, another Son and a third Holy Spirit, that is, one and another hypostasis, as Gregory the Theologian says: “For there is one and another, so as not to merge the hypostases, but not one and the other, for the three are one and identical in Divinity” 73, that is, in nature. For Divinity is the name of nature, and not of hypostasis. Eternal existence, and invisibility, and dispassion, creativity, the Divine and omnipotent will, omnipotent action, all this belongs not to hypostasis, but to nature - for they are equally seen in the Father, and in the Son, and in the Holy Spirit. And that which is equally seen in all consubstantial hypostases is natural, [and hypostatic] that which separates a hypostasis from the consubstantial hypostasis, such as the ungeneracy of the Father and the birth of the Son and the procession of the Holy Spirit. (19) Again, we know that the flesh of the Lord has a temporary existence, and bringing from non-existence into being, and outlines, and size, and shape, and members, and boundaries, and tangibility, and human life, and movement, and feeling, and movement from place to place, and human volition, and human action, and hunger, and thirst, and sleep, and thought, and fear, and melancholy, and strangling, and spitting, and help from angels, and suffering, and dying, and everything human. But all this relates to nature, and not to hypostasis, for all this is seen in each hypostasis. After all, it is not the fact that someone has a nose that shows hypostasis, but the fact that his nose is upturned or hooked separates him from consubstantial hypostases - after all, having a nose is natural for all people, and an upturned or hooked nose determines hypostasis and personality. So, neither the human is elevated to the Divinity, nor the Divine is brought down to humanity, although the flesh participates in the Divine - after all, the Divine gives, but is not involved; He gives Himself, but does not participate in the flesh. So, both the Divine and the human do not define hypostasis, but mean one and the other nature. (20) We know, again, that the flesh of the Lord never existed in itself, and had no beginning or cause of existence, except the Son and the Word of God, and this holy body or immaculate soul did not belong to anyone else except the Son of God, and all their properties are His and are considered His [properties], not His Divine nature, but since the flesh is His and no one else, then all the properties of His flesh are and are considered to belong to Him. Therefore, we are talking about one hypostasis of the Word and the flesh, and not about two, because not one and the other, but one. After all, if there are two hypostases, then one and the other, because hypostasis means another person - and if one and the other, then there is not one, but two sons. (21) So there is one Christ, not two. For the flesh was realized, and it cannot be accepted that it was not realized, but it was not realized on its own, and was not someone’s apart from God the Word - after all, existence does not mean hypostasis and hypostasis, but the private, separate and isolated existence of each one in himself, and that he is such and such and has his own personality. (22) We do not say that the flesh of the Lord does not have a hypostasis or person - because this is impossible - but we affirm that it has no other hypostasis or person besides God the Word - for whose soul and body are their hypostasis and person. Therefore, if that flesh was someone else’s, and not God the Word, like the one Son? After all, we noted that hypostasis means such and such a person, for example, Peter and Paul, and that Peter and Paul are not one son, and neither Peter is Paul, nor Paul is Peter. Therefore, if we say, as you do, that there are two hypostases, one of the Son of God and the other of the son of the Virgin, then neither the Son of God is the son of the Virgin, nor the son of the Virgin is the Son of God, unless, like us, by grace. And it is impossible for the Son by nature and the son by grace to be one Son - for a son and a son are called brothers if they are sons of the same father or the same mother, but in no way one son, because we, who have become sons of God by grace, will then be one son together with the Son of God, and let those in heaven, earth and hell worship us - but this is not so. And that son and son are many sons, the apostle says: For it was fitting that He, for whom are all things, and from whom are all things, should bring many sons to glory (Heb. 2:10). Behold, there are many sons by grace, and not one. (23) We do not say that the Word was transformed and became flesh, but that the Word Himself dwelt in the womb of the Virgin, like a Divine seed, and took from the Virgin from her immaculate blood and in Himself realized flesh, animated by a rational and thinking soul, and that truly the flesh was realized and arose not on its own, but in God the Word, and did not have a seed or anything else as hypostasis, but only God - for the hypostasis of every embryo is the seed, and its hypostasis is God the Word 74. And any flesh is someone else’s, but this one is none other than God the Word. Therefore, one hypostasis. This is how we understand the Word became flesh (Jn. 1:14), and became incarnate and became man, not that He was transformed (for Divinity is immutable and unchangeable), and not that flesh was transformed into Divinity (for each remained completely within the limits of its own nature), but that this holy flesh had no other beginning or cause of existence except the Son Himself and the Word of God, and did not become anyone else’s besides Him, and that in Him it was realized, and that in Him the union of natures, Divine and Divine, took place. human, without any merging, transformation or change. (24) About the sense in which the suffering of the Word is spoken of. We do not say that the Word was mocked or suffered in His nature, but since He Himself became a hypostasis of the flesh, and the flesh belongs to Him and no one else, and there is not one and the other, but one and the same Son, and Christ, and the Lord, then the passions of His flesh belong to Him - for they are His and no one else’s. (25) Just as my soul belongs to me, and not to another, and my body is mine, and not to another, and all the properties of my soul and body are mine, and not to another, but the properties of my soul are not the properties of my body, nor the properties of the body - my soul, but dissection and flow are inherent in the body, and not the soul, reason and piety are inherent in the soul, and not in the body, but both are mine, because it is I who reason with the soul, but we are dissected with the body - so God the Word suffers flesh and works miracles by the Divine, and neither the Divinity suffers, nor the nature of the flesh works miracles, although the Divine action appeared through the human. (26) So, it is impossible to say or think anything about God other than what He Himself has revealed to us through Holy Scripture, and it is impossible to say to God: Why did you... do this? (Rom. 9:20). For the Lord does whatever he wants (Ne. 134:6), and there is no need to say with human thoughts: how is this possible? God is faithful, but every man is a liar (Rom. 3:4). Because tell me: how do we know that God created everything? How did the Father beget the Son? Or how the Holy Spirit is not born, but proceeds? Or how did the Word become flesh (John 1:14)? And we learned from Holy Scripture that the Son is born and the Holy Spirit proceeds, and that “the Word became flesh,” and how, no one knows except the Father Himself, and the begotten Son who became flesh, and the outgoing Holy Spirit. (27) What is this extraordinary mystery, hidden from generation to generation (Col. 1:26), which the wise men and rulers of this age did not know, if not the word about the Cross, the madness of preaching that God became man and was crucified? After all, Abraham was a friend of God, but died, Moses the legislator, but died, Isaiah the prophet, but was sawn to pieces, Jeremiah was sanctified from his mother’s womb, but was thrown into a dirty pit (Jer. 38:6) and died, and John from his mother’s womb was filled with the Holy Spirit, but his head was cut off, and none of this was considered madness, but only the word about the Cross, because God became man and the Lord of glory was crucified. This is what is incredible, crazy and impossible for people, that God was visible and mocked. This is the power of God for the faithful, that He can do whatever He wants. This is an extraordinary and untold secret. For if they had known that the Son of the Virgin is God and Lord of glory, they would not have crucified Him. So the invisible one is seen, and the impassive one suffers, and yet remains dispassionate. For He suffers from the nature of the flesh and remains dispassionate by the Divine - for the Divine is dispassionate, although it is hypostatically united with the suffering body. It is necessary, therefore, to keep the Scriptures consistent, and that the Word became flesh and dwelt in us (John 1:14), and that He is the Son of David and the Lord of David, and the Son of Abraham, and that He took flesh, and took on the seed of Abraham (Heb. 2:16), what was before Abraham, and what man is, and who can know Him? (Jer. 17:9), and that He is the Man who comes after John and was before him (John 1:15), and that His flesh is the bread of life that comes down from heaven (John 6:48–51), and that no one ascended into heaven except the one who came down from heaven (John 3:13), and the second Adam is the Lord from heaven (1 Cor. 15:47), and that the Son of Man, the nature of which it is said: Dust you will return to dust (Gen. 3:19), sits on the throne, and creation serves Him, and the Trinity has not received addition, and cursed is everyone who trusts in man (Jer. 17:5). (28) How can all this be in agreement with each other, if the Son and the Word of God and God by nature did not become the Son of the Virgin, Man, two natures, one hypostasis, He is the eternal, before Abraham and John and the Lord of David, invisible, impassive, intangible like God - and He, who recently became Man, and He as Man is visible, tangible, passionate, given over to reproach, although His Divine nature is nothing not subject to this. (29) For the Scripture says that He received the seed of Abraham (Heb. 2:16), and that of the seed of David according to the flesh (Rom. 1:3), both the son of David and the son of Abraham (Matthew 1:1), because from Abraham's line and the seed of David was the Virgin and the flesh taken from Her by the Word, and because the flesh was of our nature, and not of one substance with the Father, and did not descend from heaven, but the Word became flesh, because He Himself became a hypostasis of the flesh, and is one hypostasis; but dwelt in us to show the difference and immutability of natures - after all, one nature is the inhabitant and the other is the dwelling place. For the seed also receives a body from the blood of a woman, and one hypostasis of the seed, and another hypostasis of the woman, and the blood refers to the hypostasis of the woman, but not two bodies and not two hypostases of the seed and the body it received from the woman, but one body and one hypostasis in the two natures of soul and body. So the Son of God was a perfect hypostasis, and although he received animate flesh from the Holy Virgin, there are not two hypostases, but one hypostasis in two natures: for what is natural there is here beyond nature and thought. (30) This is how Christ is God. Therefore, the Virgin who gave birth to Him is the Mother of God. For the one who gave birth to God could rightly be called the Mother of God, not because She gave birth to a pure God, or that the Divinity of the Only Begotten had its beginning from Her, but because She carried in her womb the God incarnate from Her - after all, if the Mother of God is not the Mother of God, then the One who was born is not God. After all, He did not become God after He was born of Her, but, being God, He became incarnate from Her and was born God incarnate. (31) After all, there are other mothers of Christ. For Jeremiah was anointed and sanctified from his mother’s womb, and John from his mother’s womb was filled with the Holy Spirit, and all prophets, priests, and kings are the Lord’s anointed, and all Christians are anointed 75. You came out to save Your people, to save Your anointed (Hab. 3:13). For there was no other Mother of God, there is no other Mother of God, and there never will be. Therefore, it is just and worthy that the only one who gave birth to the truly existing God and the incarnate Son of God should be called the Mother of God. (32) There is no hypostasis without a face. So, if there are two hypostases, then there are certainly two persons, even if they assimilate each other’s actions and sufferings. (33) If we say that there is one nature of Christ, His Divinity and His humanity, we introduce the fusion and transformation of His natures, and attribute suffering to the Divine nature. If we say that there are two natures of Christ, then we keep the union unfused, and the Divinity impassive and untransformed. And if we talk about two hypostases, we will introduce two sons and worship the quaternity of hypostases, and the Trinity will be a quaternary, whether we like it or not - after all, if you add three and one, it is impossible not to say four, and existing and named things cannot but be counted. If we say that Christ has one hypostasis and two natures, everything will be correct - as they say that the soul exists and lives in the body, and the body is called the vestment of the soul, but there are not two hypostases, but two natures, and one hypostasis, say, Peter or Paul. (34) For if two hypostases of the same essence, twins from one father and one mother, alike in everything, were not called one son, how would two hypostases of different essence, born from one and the other nature, become one Son? (35) Why is the creation worshiped together with the Creator, if they are not of the same nature, nor of the same hypostasis? After all, if, in your opinion, the Son of God and the Son of the Virgin are not of the same nature and not of the same hypostasis, then how are they one and not two? After all, Peter and Paul, although they have the same nature, and grace, and apostolic dignity, are not one person or one apostle. (36) Just as in the Holy Trinity the three hypostases, because of their natural identity and transition into each other, are and are called one God, so in our Lord Jesus Christ the two natures, because of their hypostatic identity and transition into each other, are one Son - for the name “Son” refers to the hypostasis, and not to the nature. And just as there is one worship of all Three, then there is one worship here, because if there is not one nature and not one hypostasis, why is there one Son, one dignity and worship? (37) Just as one cannot touch a flaming sword, not because of the own nature of iron, but because of the nature of fire hypostatically united with iron, so the flesh of the Lord is worshiped not because of its own nature, but because it is hypostatically united with God the Word. (38) If God the Word is the lord of Christ, how are they two one? After all, master and slave could not become one son. (39) If God the Word is the lord of Christ, they are not of the same dignity - after all, domination and slavery are not the same dignity. (40) If it was not the person of the Eternal and the Only Begotten that was insulted, then it was another person - but if it was one and the other person, then they are not united even in person 76 . (41) If the suffering body belonged to the only begotten Son of God, then the suffering also belonged to Him: and if to another son, then what if not two sons? (42) The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit have everything in common, except hypostasis. Therefore, if you talk about non-hypostatic union and incarnation, you will also recognize the incarnation of the Holy Spirit by the Fathers. After all, if we recognize that the incarnation occurred by grace, by the identity of will, in relation and love, we will affirm the incarnation of both the Father and the Spirit - for the will, grace and love of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit are one. If by the same name, then He is no more than us: after all, He gave them the power to be children of God (John 1:12) and I said: you are gods, and you are all sons of the Most High (Her. 81:6). God is both the Father and the Holy Spirit. (43) If there are two hypostases, one only from the Father and the other only from the Mother, then there will not be one and the same without father and without mother. (44) If incarnation is considered a union by grace, then God became man many times, albeit to a greater or lesser extent - after all, He lives in us, and we are His church. (45) I will not give My glory to another (Isa. 42:8), says God. Then how will the son of the Virgin be glorified with God if he is of a different nature and a different hypostasis? (46) Those of the same essence are not compared with each other in essence - after all, no one compares Peter with Paul in essence, because the essence is one - but those of another essence are compared in essence, and not in hypostasis - after all, no one says that John is higher than this horse. The soul and body are different in essence, but one-hypostatic. So, to have members is characteristic of the body, and sense organs belong to the body, and the sensory ability belongs to the soul, and because of this they do not differ from each other in hypostasis, because it is natural for the body to have members and sensory organs, and it is also natural for the soul to have the sensory ability and act through the body - for the body is the instrument of the soul. So this difference is natural and defines nature. And that Paul is bald, and Peter has thick hair, that one is snub-nosed, and this one is hook-nosed, [there is a hypostatic difference and defines hypostases] 77. Whether or not to receive spitting and choking does not determine the hypostasis - for all human nature is subject to spitting and choking, but the nature of the Divine is not susceptible. So when Christ was spat upon, the flesh was spat upon, but the Divinity was impervious to the spitting - similarly, when He was buffeted and suffered, the fleshly nature accepted it, but the Divinity did not. After all, even when a simple person is spat upon, the body accepts it, but the soul in no way, and despite this, the soul does not have a different hypostasis, or a different face, other than that of the body. For to have members and a face that is visible and spitable, or not to have members and a face that is visible or spitable, belongs to nature. For the visible and the invisible, the material and the immaterial, the imageable and the indescribable, are the differences of nature. (47) What is hypostasis and face? Hypostasis means to exist on its own and be different, and the person means to act separately and separately. [The flesh] of the Lord never existed in itself and was not someone other than God the Word, and it did not act separately from Him, just like the soul and the body - for the body and the soul are not one and the other, and the body does not belong to one, and the soul to the other, and they do not act separately, but the soul acts through the body, and the Divine will and action acted through the soul and body, through the union and will of the soul and the movement of the body. (48) Each hypostasis desires, acts and moves separately and separately: this is the property of the hypostasis, and therefore the hypostasis and the person are identical. And only in the Divine each hypostasis does not desire separately and does not act separately, but there is one will, one action, one movement of the three hypostases, and only ungeneracy is the property of the Father’s hypostasis, only begetting is the Son’s, and only procession is the property of the Holy Spirit. If you believe that our Lord Jesus Christ has two hypostases, then it is necessary that each of them desires and acts separately and separately, and they are not united either in action or in any other way. If they are united in action and will, then they are one hypostasis and one person. (49) We can say that the Virgin gave birth to God the Word, and that the Son and Word of God was not born of a woman. For we know two births of the only begotten Son and the Word of God: one pre-eternal incorporeal and according to Divinity from the Father alone, by which birth He was not born of a woman and has no mother, and another birth - in the last times from the Mother alone for the sake of our salvation, by which birth He has no father. According to the first birth, He was not born of a wife, but according to the second birth, He was born of a wife - for He did not have the beginning and cause of Divine existence from a wife, but only from the Father, and the beginning of incarnation and becoming a Man - from the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary. For much is said in different ways and seems contradictory to those who look inattentively - after all, about the Transfiguration of God, one evangelist says: after six days (Matthew 17:1), another but after eight days (Luke 9:28), and they will disagree, if you look attentively - but for someone who is attentive, this is not disagreement, but agreement. After all, the one who said six days did not count either the day when the Lord said this or the day of the Transfiguration, but the one who said eight days later counted both. (50) Nature is a community of species, like Divinity, humanity; the name “God” is sometimes used for the Divine nature, as we say “one God,” that is, one Divinity, and sometimes for hypostasis, as we say: “God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit,” and we transfer this name from the designation of nature, just like “God.” Therefore we say: one is God and the other is man, that is, one is the nature of Divinity and the other is humanity. And Saint Gregory the Theologian writes to Clidonius: “For there are two natures, God and man, because both are soul and body” 78 . And again we say: “God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit, and the man Peter and the man Paul.” (51) Hypostasis is such and such, Peter and Paul, And Peter is not Paul, and Paul is not Peter, but one and another, and two, and not one, although they have a common nature, and Peter and Andrew are not one, but two, although they have a common nature, and one father and one mother, and the same grace and dignity - for nothing can create one son except the identity of hypostasis. (52) Just as with the holy fathers essence and nature are one, so hypostasis and person are one. (53) Is the only begotten and eternal Son of God and the Son of the Virgin of one nature, or two? One person or two? One will of Divinity and humanity, or two, one and the other? One action of Divinity and humanity or two, one and the other? Is natural sonship and sonship by grace one thing, or are they both? Is the Son of the Virgin a servant of God? Is slavery and domination one virtue or one and the other? They spat in the face of the only begotten and eternal Son, but in what face? When Gabriel was sent and spoke to the Virgin on behalf of God, was his face and that of God the same? If there is one and another nature, and one and another will, and one and another action, and one and another hypostasis, and one and another sonship, and one and another dignity, and one and another person, how not two sons? (54) It is imperative to observe this: the Divinity is impassive and unchangeable, God has three worshipable hypostases, and one believes in the Holy Trinity and is baptized, and does not serve the creation, and maintains agreement in the Holy Scriptures, Old and New. Epistle, as if on behalf of Holy Peter, Bishop of Damascus 79, to the false bishop of Dara 80, Jacobite The sages have this wise saying: “And good is not good when it is not done kindly.” And about the sons of the Jews, the divine apostle testifies that they have zeal for God, but not according to reasoning (Rom. 10:2), not in praise of them, of course, but with reproach. The zeal of piety is good, but in combination with love, vice is disgusting - but the one who accepts it [into himself] is worthy of pity. I hate the abscess, but I take care of the [affected] member while it is not yet completely useless, and, as they say, I put everything into action, seek out every art, prepare a cure for the disease and call on God as an assistant, driven by attraction and respect for my fellow tribe and the same and [trying] to ward off reproaches from the outside. So, if I can convince, then I will give health and gratitude for it, and if not, “Iattatai! Oh, woe is me! Iattatai” - I will deliver my beloved to be cut off, with pain, but still I will betray it, avoiding communication, so that evil, having spread, does not increase the damage, and I will exclaim with the prophet, not in mockery, but in sorrow: We healed Babylon, but was not healed (Jer. 51:9), adding the reason: “because he did not want to” (cf. Jer. 50:33). For both illness and acceptance of treatment are voluntary. This is what prompted me to write: not a quarrel, not envy, not reproach, not the desire to gain the upper hand or express oneself, not hatred, but regret, the cause of which is attraction to God and neighbor. If you doubt, it is said, My soul will not be pleased with you (cf. Hab. 2:4), For this is what God has given us to do - to exhort, instruct, convert, court, dig, manure, heal infertility. And we also call infertility infertility, as “voiceless” - a singer with a bad voice: woe to me if I do not preach the good news (1 Cor. 9:16), and if I bury my talent, and through indecisiveness I become wicked and lazy (Matthew 25:25), then I will be sent away from the joy of my Lord. So accept the word of healing, sounding with the grace of the Spirit, so that God will rejoice and the Church will share the rejoicing. The Cross of the Lord made it one for those on earth and those in heaven. (2) Since our whole discussion will be about nature, let us say that Arius and Eunomius and their no matter how polytheistic and godless minions openly talked about the holy, all-essential Deity, that is, the one-origin and consubstantial Trinity, as if these were three essences, dividing nature together with hypostases and in their ignorance thinking that hypostasis and nature are one and the same thing. Sabellius the Libyan thoughtlessly spewed out “one hypostasis,” deliberately combining three and, because of the unity of essence, mixing them into one, considering the hypostasis equal to nature 81 . In the most good and saving economy of One of the Holy Trinity of God the Word, the only begotten Son of the Father, our Lord Jesus Christ, the ill-fated and evil man-worshipper Nestorius, who perished by an evil death, together with Diodorus 82 and Theodore of Mopsuestia 83, recognizing two natures, separate the hypostasis and, according to the two natures, they speak of two hypostases, and dissect the one Son, Christ and the Lord into two sons and two persons, because they assume that the hypostasis is identical with nature. Dioscorus 84 and Severus 85 and their many-headed, and therefore headless hydra 86, having established one hypostasis, declared nature to be one, not understanding either what they were talking about or what they were affirming (1 Tim. 1:7) - for they also thought of nature and hypostasis in the same way, and in their wickedness they did not stop there, but imagined that in the Divine and Holy Trinity there were three particular essence and nature, and one common one, unknown as existing in speculation and devoid of hypostases. And they do not know, the noblest and supposedly wise ones, that those who adhere to piety should not follow in everything the opinions of external wise men, 87 but be skillful money changers and recognize the coinage of truth, distinguishing the genuine from the counterfeit. (3) But these are not the children of piety, the heralds of truth - following the law of God and guided by the light of divine knowledge, they did not think too much and were not more righteous than they should be, but, having walked the middle, royal path, they did not deviate to the left, did not turn to what seems right, and did not correct the imbalance with the imbalance, but between two evils, standing within the limits of truth and avoiding deviation in one direction or another, they secretly taught the one essence and three hypostases of the Holy Trinity, enlightened by Itself. And on the contrary, as the God-speaking Gregory says, in the saving economy they defined two essences or natures, but one hypostasis or person, and that essence and nature are identical, and also person and hypostasis 88. And between the essence-nature and the hypostasis-person there is a huge difference, the same as between the general and the particular. (4) Therefore, first, if you will, having examined what concerns nature and hypostasis and having learned the meaning of each of these words, we will thus clearly find out whether we should speak of one nature in Christ or of two. And let the goal be predetermined - not to drive out the truth by discord, but to pursue its trail with inquisitiveness - for this is how those who seek find it. Turn to Me, it is said, and I will turn to you (Zech. 1:3) and where two or three are gathered in My name, there I am in the midst of them (Matt. 18:20), but you ask and do not receive, because you ask not well (James 4:3) and if there is envy, disputes and disagreements among you, then are you not carnal and acting according to human custom (1 Cor. 3:3) and you cannot believe in Me, receiving glory from men (cf. John 5:44). (5) Let us begin, however, the reasoning with this. God-bearing Basil says in his letter to Amphilochius: “Essence and hypostasis have the same difference as the general and the individual.” And a little lower: “The name of “essence” represents to us a certain indefinite concept, which, due to the generality of its meaning, is not connected with anything, and “hypostasis”, through the manifestation of distinctive features, represents and limits the general and limitless in some specific thing” 89. Who, committed to the truth, does not recognize how great the difference between nature and hypostasis is? After all, if essence and hypostasis are one, and the Son is of one essence with the Father, then They will have one hypostasis, or, being a different hypostasis; It will be of a different nature. And just as the Son is consubstantial, so he will also be found to be of one hypostasis, or, just as he is otherhypostatic, he will also, by lawful treatment, be of other substance. It is similar for humanity: if what exists is a hypostasis, and human nature exists as a hypostasis, then just as all humanity is one indivisible nature, so it will be one indivisible hypostasis. (6) If you say that one thing is the holy Divinity, and another is the economy holy for our sakes, answer us the question: if nature and hypostasis are one and the same, then don’t you, who confess Christ from two natures 90, have to consider Him also from two hypostases? And will not our arguments force you either not to dare to talk about two natures in relation to Christ, or to recognize two hypostases in Him? If nature and hypostasis are one and the same, and you say that one nature is in the Divine, and the other is in His flesh, then admit that one hypostasis is in His Divinity and the other is in His humanity. (7) If nature and hypostasis are one and the same, and Christ is consubstantial with God the Father and consubstantial with us, then he will be consubstantial with both the Father and us: and [all] the hypostases of Divinity and humanity will be of one hypostasis. If nature and hypostasis are one and the same, then why don’t you talk about the difference in hypostases, as well as natures, in relation to Christ? That nature and hypostasis are not the same thing has been sufficiently proven for those who are not blinded by reason. (8) I mean hypostasis in itself - for the word “hypostasis” has many meanings. For sometimes it means self-hypostasis and self-existence, and when something has existence not in another and is not an incidental sign, as the holy fathers occasionally used this word in relation to essence 91, sometimes - something that exists in itself, that is, an indivisible being 92, sometimes - something that is not a subject and non-existent 93, and sometimes - the subject of a statement. (9) Therefore, abandoning stubbornness, teach the word of truth faithfully (2 Tim. 2:15) and like the holy fathers, do not say that nature and hypostasis are identical, but rather recognize the private and separate nature as hypostasis. And what should not be said about private natures, we learn from here. (10) If you profess particular natures in the Holy Trinity, then for you it is of different essences, and Arius has risen again. If, however, you give each of the Divine hypostases of the Holy Trinity a separate essence, and in terms of their common essence you confess them to be consubstantial, and the essence and hypostasis are identical, then, in your opinion, you will get a quaternity of hypostases, three particular and one common, and a similar quaternity of essences. And each hypostasis will have two natures and hypostases, one general and one particular, and they will turn out to be of the same essence and of different essences, of the same hypostasis and of different hypostases. And who does not laugh, or rather, does not mourn the excess of madness. Is this not nonsense, is it not an invention of a mind possessed by an evil demon, a dark invention of demons and the darkness of Hellenic deception? Which of the God-bearing men has ever said such a thing, unless you introduce us as the thirteenth apostle of your holy Aristotle 94 and prefer the idolater to the divinely inspired? But let's return to our subject. (11) After all, although there is no nature outside of hypostasis, nor essence outside of person, hypostasis and face, on the contrary, do not exist without essence - for this does not happen - nevertheless, essence and hypostasis, nature and person are not the same thing. Because essence is not identical with the realized, and hypostasis with the hypostatic, for that which is in something is one thing, and that in which it is located is another. After all, what is realized is what is contemplated in the essence, that is, the totality of incidental properties that reveal the hypostasis, and not the essence itself. What is hypostatic is not hypostasis, but is considered in hypostasis. Essence means, be that as it may, it exists in some form: either on its own, or together with another, or in another - on its own, as the essence of fire, with another, as soul and body (because they have [one] hypostasis with each other), in another, as fire in a wick and as the flesh of the Lord in His beginningless hypostasis. Because hypostasis means someone or something specific that can be pointed at with a finger, and “hypostasis” means essence. Hypostasis is determined by the distinctive properties of a face. And the definition “hypostatic” [shows] that this is not an adventitious sign that has existence in another. After all, if what is in something is identical to what it is in, then it is time for you to identify virtue and the virtuous, and by lawful treatment, evil and the one in whom there is evil, and in your opinion the devil will be evil and his Creator will be the creator of evil, and since the adventitious sign [is present] in essence, he will turn out to be the essence, and that will be the adventitious sign. Or, since the body is animated (I mean human), then, in your opinion, it will be a soul. Who can stand such crazy confusion? (12) Therefore, we know for certain that there is no essence outside of hypostasis, but we do not identify the hypostatic with the hypostasis and the realized with the essence, but the hypostasis is realized and the essence is hypostatic. After all, we know that the essence of the Holy Deity is hypostatic (for it is in three hypostases) and that in the same way each of the hypostases is realized (for they reside in the essence of the Holy Deity). And in relation to the ineffable economy of the Lord, which surpasses all understanding, we call the hypostasis realized, as existing in the essences from which it is composed; and subhypostatic each of His essences, because they have a common one hypostasis of His - the Divinity in eternity, like the Father and the Spirit, and His animate and rational flesh or, what is the same, His humanity - after it has recently been realized in it, having acquired its own hypostasis. So, not one of the natures of Christ is without hypostasis, but in itself each is not a hypostasis and does not have a separate and special hypostasis, but both of them are one and the same. (13) Having determined this at the beginning, let us return to what we were looking for. The question is whether Christ has two natures, and whether he is in two natures, or one, as you talk idle talk. Meanwhile, someone who makes conclusions about something needs to put forward initial statements or principles based on general and true concepts - by “general” I mean those recognized by both sides, for in this way the construction will be a conclusion, and not a delusion, and the conclusion will be true and not absurd. (14) So, for all the holy fathers it is generally accepted that the union came from Divinity and humanity, and that Christ is perfect in Divinity and He is perfect and complete in humanity. So tell us – do you think so too? It seems to me that you will confirm. What is Divinity and humanity - essence or incidental, nature or hypostasis? I think you will say that nature and essence. The fact that this is not an inherent property is clear to everyone, and that it is not a hypostasis has been quite convincingly proven above. After all, if the names “Divinity” and “humanity” mean hypostasis, it’s time for you to talk about three Deities because of the trinity of hypostases, and about infinite humanity because of the infinite number of hypostases, or about hypostases in hypostases - which not only some sage, but even a weak-minded person would never dare to assert. This means that each of these names, that is, Divinity and humanity, is a designation of nature. Therefore, Divinity and humanity are one nature (I am not talking about the Lord, but in general)? “No,” the one who is not mad will answer, because what is created is not identical in essence to the Uncreated and the Creator, neither is the body to the Incorporeal, nor what has begun to the Beginning. So, there is one nature of Divinity, and another of humanity, and these are two natures. Consequently, Christ, being from Divinity and humanity, is from two natures. Therefore, if you admit that Christ is from Divinity and humanity and from two natures, tell us: are these two [principles] present in Christ or not? You will answer in the affirmative, unless you prefer ultimate wickedness. Then how come you do not recognize two natures in Christ? After all, if you, saying that Christ is from Divinity and humanity, agree that He is from two natures, and “from Divinity and humanity” means the same thing as “from two natures,” then why do you, calling Christ and after the union Divinity and humanity and existing in Divinity and humanity, do not you confess Him to be two natures and in two natures? (15) If the Divinity and humanity are not identical in quality of nature, but are one and the other, another and the other, let every sensible person judge whether one and the other by nature are one in essence, or two, and if two and not one, then it means [two, and not one] nature - for “other” denotes nature, as experts define. Are nature and nature one or two? It is clear that two are one and one, and even a child can understand that there are two. (16) If you assert that those who are united are one, then know that those who are united are not one in all respects, but insofar as they are united. For if those who unite are one in all respects, then, since man is composed of two dissimilar natures, we will have to consider that soul and body are one in all respects, and the incorporeal will turn out to be body, and the body incorporeal. And since Divinity and humanity are united, it turns out that they are one in the sense of essential difference - and either the Divine will be created, or the human will be uncreated. (17) If those who are united are one in all respects, and the body consists of opposite qualities, then we will say that heat and cold are one and the same, and dryness and moisture are likewise one and the same, and since Peter and John are united by nature, it means that hypostatically these two are one. But the truth and sensible people do not think so, but, on the contrary, those who are united are one in that in which they are united, so that Peter and John, since they are united by nature, being consubstantial, are one by nature, while the soul and body, since they are united hypostatically, are one by this hypostasis - for no one with a sober mind would say that soul and body are one by nature. (18) If the union came from two natures, then there were two of them either before the union, or in [the] union, or after it. And if they existed before the union, then why do we blame Nestorius? If the flesh exists hypostatically even after union, why do you blame us? And if you say that in [the] union itself, the union remains indissoluble both now and forever, then now and forever there will be two [natures]. If you claim that during the incarnation of the Word one [was created] through a union, then before the union there were two of them, or were they united? After all, if both existed before the union, we will have to say that the union occurred from two hypostases. But if you assert that two are in the union itself, but number, in your opinion, necessarily introduces division, it turns out that the union is the cause of division, and in the union itself you separate the union. (19) If each of those [principles] of which Christ retains its own essential definition and content even in union, and one definition of Christ's Divinity, and another of His humanity, why do you call two things that do not fall under the same definition one, and not two natures? (20) If, in your opinion, the flesh of God the Word is consubstantial with His uncreated Divinity, then you suffer from sinusosis 95. And why don't you vomit out what's been on your mind for a long time? If it is not of the same essence, then how can those who are not of the same essence be of the same nature and the only begotten not of the same essence? After all, if we are in sober memory, the definition of consubstantiality is when something has the same essence. (21) If Christ is consubstantial with the Father and consubstantial with us by one and the same nature, then we, it turns out, are consubstantial with the Father - for things that are consubstantial with one and the same thing by one and the same nature are consubstantial with each other. If He is consubstantial with the Father in Divinity, and with us in humanity, then tell me: are Divinity and humanity one essence? But if not one, then, of course, two, and Christ is two natures and in two natures - and if one, then how do they differ? For what is different is distinguished either by essence, or by accessory properties - but if by accessory properties, then these are hypostases, not natures, and if essentially, then natures. After all, there [must be] at least two different things, because one, since it is one, does not differ. For difference necessarily introduces number. (22) The same judgment is made about consubstantial ones. So, if Christ is one incarnate nature, and this is, as you say, the definition of His essence, and He is consubstantial with the Father and consubstantial with us, then consequently both the Father and we are one incarnate nature of the Divinity. (23) Distinction presupposes at least two different things - either natures, or hypostases, or one hypostasis, different from itself. And if these are natures, then they [differ] essentially, if hypostases, then according to their accessory properties, and if there is one hypostasis, then it changes and transforms through a separated accessory attribute. Therefore, choose one of two things: either say that after the union, Christ is two hypostases, or that His Divinity differs from His humanity according to the separated accessory attribute, so that uncreatedness, and originlessness, and impassivity, and omnipotence, and the like - and in the same way, creation, beginning, passion and everything else - [in one word], those of whom Christ is - will be accessory properties, moreover, subject to separation, transformation and change. Or, together with us and the truth, proclaim Christ to be two natures, the difference of which you [already] recognize. For when speaking of the difference of essences, you are forced to speak of them as existing and persisting, since a non-existent would have no differences. For how could things be distinguished that are not preserved - and if they really are preserved, then let them be counted. (24) If you say that from two natures one complex nature arose, then tell us; How do the terms add up? After all, one complex nature is composed of different natures, when what arises from their combination becomes something different in comparison with those combined, and actually [no longer] one or the other, but is thought and named as something else - just as a body is formed from the four elements, that is, fire, air, earth and water, that is, when all four are combined and mixed, and what arises from them is not and is not called either fire, air, water, or water. earth, but something other than them. In the same way, a mule, from a horse and a donkey, is not and is not called either a horse or a donkey, but something else, from them and besides them. Our Lord Jesus Christ, being from Divinity and humanity, is perfect in Divinity and humanity, and is, and is called God and Man, all God and all Man, which is not the case with a complex nature - for the whole body is not fire, and the whole man is not the soul, and the mule is not the whole horse. Therefore, Christ is not one complex nature, but one complex hypostasis, not from different others, but from different [principles] the same [principles], for from Divinity and humanity He is perfect God and Man, however, two natures in one complex hypostasis, and in two natures one complex hypostasis. (25) If Christ is of the same nature and consubstantial with the Father, who has a simple nature, and He Himself has a complex nature, then He will have two natures, one simple and the other complex. (26) If the Divinity of Christ is uncreated and without beginning, but His humanity is created and has a beginning, how can the beginningless and the beginning be of the same nature? (27) If Christ is one complex nature, and the simple and the complex are not consubstantial, and the Father of the simple nature, then Christ is not consubstantial with the Father. (28) If Christ is one nature, composite of Divinity and humanity, but His Mother is not of Divinity and humanity, then He is not consubstantial even with His Mother - and you have endured the eternal boundaries that our fathers set (Prov. 22:28), who said that Christ is consubstantial with the Father in Divinity and consubstantial with us in humanity. (29) If you are talking about the two natures of Christ by imagination and speculation, then tell us, O thinkers and speculators of natures: this is the imagination of true and real things, as, for example, when it mentally divides and dismembers what seems simple to the senses - as in a person, along with the visible body, it recognizes the invisible soul; or is it an invention of the mind, which, through the interweaving of feelings and imagination, composes and invents from what is, something that in no way exists, like the fabulous centaurs and goat-deer. So, does this “imagination” mean any actual thing, or is it just a meaningless sound like “ta-ra-ra” or “jabber-jabber”? And if the second, then the sacrament of economy is a deception and an invention, and if the first, and you contemplate two natures by imagination - and this is the speculation of what exists - then why don’t you calculate the existing, while the holy fathers spoke by imagination not about two natures, but about their division 96? “When natures,” it is said, “are divided in imagination.” Therefore, if natures are separated in the imagination, then it is clear that “in the imagination” is not “in action” and not “in existence,” because if “in the imagination” meant “in existence,” then since the father spoke about separation by imagination, it means that he was talking about separation in existence and in action, which is unthinkable. Therefore, when you say that after the union the Divinity and humanity in Christ exist by imagination, you do not recognize them in reality and in practice. And then in truth and in existence He will not be with you either man or God, but something else besides this. (30) And again, if you are talking about the two natures of Christ in speculation, and speculation, as experts define it, refers to what exists, then Christ’s natures undoubtedly exist [in fact] - and if they exist, then why do you, like some kind of scarecrow, avoid calculating them? (31) If you assert that the one who speaks of two natures separates the economy and introduces two Christs, then it means that the one who says that the union came from two natures [thereby] asserts that it also came from two Christs. (32) If to speak of two natures means to divide Christ, and in union you speak of two natures, then in union you separate the union, and your union will come out of division. (33) Nature and nature will never be called one nature - but, perhaps, one hypostasis. Both hypostasis and hypostasis are not one hypostasis, but one nature. Therefore, if you say that those of whom Christ is one nature, you would recognize them as hypostases, and not natures. If you, preferring truth to falsehood, would say that those [principles] from which Christ are, after the union, are one hypostasis, then you would recognize them as natures. (34) If you recognize the difference of natures even after the union, then how, speaking in the plural of “natures,” do you not recognize two natures? After all, if, in your opinion, after the union there is one complex nature, then you should not have spoken about the difference of natures, but about the difference of one nature from itself. And only you can say and think like that, but not us - for the same nature will never have an essential difference from itself. (35) If the nature of Christ is one, tell us. its name - after all, it is necessary that what exists be called, and moreover, by its own name, just as the nature of God is Divinity, and human nature is humanity. So what do we call Christ's nature? Christianity? But none of the divinely inspired ones said such a thing. Or divinity? 97 But this is not there either. Why are you introducing us to nameless nature? If you say that natures are renewed and because of the extraordinary nature of the sacrament something extraordinary happens, then nothing higher and incomprehensible than the nature of God exists - and, however, the only Incomprehensible One has suffered that we name It. Then either say that the nature you have built is stronger and higher than the Divinity, and that is enough for us, or reveal its name - or, together with the heralds of truth, say that the Divinity and humanity are the natures of Christ, and not nature, for the Divinity and humanity are not one nature. (36) If the nature of Christ is one from Divinity and humanity, then the nature of the Divinity in Him is not a perfect nature, but a part of it, just like humanity. (37) If your complex nature is not at all consubstantial with either the Father or the Mother, and Christ is the whole, then Christ, since He is the Christ, is not consubstantial with anyone. And if so, then if He is consubstantial with anyone, He is not Christ. This means that one of two things is necessary: ​​either, being consubstantial with the Father, He is not Christ - or, being Christ, He is not consubstantial with the Father. (38) The complex is made up of opposites, but essence, according to physicists, 98 has nothing opposite. So, it is impossible for there to be an entity, a complex of entities. (39) Natures or essences are formed by essential differences. So, if one nature is composed of Divinity and humanity, then Divinity and humanity will not be natures, but essential differences. (40) That which has a common nature is necessarily heterogeneous, and that which has a common hypostasis is heterogeneous. Therefore, either, calling the Divinity and humanity of Christ one nature, speak of one and the other hypostasis - or, saying that they belong to one hypostasis, confess two natures. (41) Since you are talking about one nature of the Divinity of Christ and His flesh, then tell us by what nature Christ suffered? “It’s clear that it’s complicated,” you say. After all, by asserting that she is alone, you will necessarily attribute suffering to her, and both the Divinity of Christ and humanity will be passionate for you. (42) Philosophical reasoning usually raises the question of quantity before the question of quality, and this is justified by the fact that where there is quality, quantity is also necessarily found - “for difference is the difference of those who differ” 99 . So how is it that, speaking about the difference of essential qualities, you do not recognize the calculation of essentially different [principles]? (43) If there is one complex nature of Christ, then it is either only passionate, or only impassive, or passionate-impassionate, or both at the same time. Either it is changeable and sometimes passionate and sometimes dispassionate, or part of it is passionate and part is dispassionate. So, choose whichever wickedness you want. After all, if she is only passionate, then Christ is not God. If it is only impassive, then He is not a man. And if sometimes she is passionate and sometimes impassive, then she is both not by nature, but rather by an incidental attribute, because what is inherent by nature does not change. If part of it is passionate, and part is impassive, and each is what it is by nature, then these parts are not of the same nature, and thus Christ will turn out to be two natures, which are not one nature, but one complex hypostasis of two natures, in two natures and two natures. For it is impossible to call the same nature both passionate and impassive, because the same nature cannot accept opposing essential differences. (44) With any connection, what is united, even merging, even dissolving, is preserved and does not go beyond the limits of its own nature. For if wine is diluted with water, two natures are present in the solution, and wax and resin, even if they merge, neither one nor the other changes its nature, but two natures remain in the mixture. For even if they are united, and each component does not reveal its originality in a pure and undistorted form due to fusion and dissolution with the other, nevertheless each remains what it was, and such things are called by those who are able to judge two natures, and not one. For who does not know that in a solution of wine and water there are two natures present? And if this is so, then why do you, knowing the difference and recognizing the uniqueness of natures, proclaim them to be one, and not two natures, and do not assign to the unfused [principles] even that which remains even after merging? But it is clear that you have transformation, and disappearance, and sinusiosis on your mind, but you do not want to bring this to light, ashamed of your wickedness. (45) Things that are joined become one in the union, and not after the union, and as long as they remain in the union, and the union persists, they are one, since they are connected. So how do you talk about two in connection, and then arrogantly assert one nature after the connection, although Blessed Cyril used the expression “by connection” instead of “in connection”? For when did the union that took place cease, and what stopped it, in order to suspect that its product, being something other than its components, exists after this union and not in it? After all, the nature of the connection is not the same as that of something that happens and no longer exists - like time, dance and the like. (46) If after the union something other than the union arose, it is not a union, but a merger. (47) If fusion makes one nature out of two, and non-fusion does the same for you, then tell me, what is the difference between non-fusion and fusion for you? (48) If Christ is called visible and invisible, mortal and immortal, tangible and inaccessible as one and the other, and not as one and the other, “one and the other” marks the essence - why don’t you talk about two essences? (49) “Other” in logic is a designation of essence, and “other” is a hypostasis: therefore, if you, saying that Christ is one and another, are not forced to talk about two natures, also admit that He is one and another - after all, this will not be a designation of two hypostases. (50) If you say that twoness introduces division, then recognize and understand well that philosophy defines number not as division, but as an accumulation or multitude of units, so that it rather marks a union than a division. For the division of one is half and half, and two is the addition of one. Rather, even talking about two “one and one” is separation, but putting one and one together and calling them “two” is combination and connection. Consequently, number reduces and does not divide, because if two is a dissection of one, and what is divided is cut into two, then number would be a dissection and not an addition. But if this is so, then just as the cut one produces two, in the same way it would follow that the number two cut produces four. Where did “three” come from? After all, [in this case] it would be necessary to count only the even ones, excluding the odd ones. Or it would be more correct to say that number is expressed in two ways: one in itself, as the very nature of number, and the other, contemplated in relationships and in things, just as “white” is both whiteness and something whitened. And this nature of number does not divide and does not combine, but accepts both - like a binary, if we consider the units of which it consists, it is divided into them (for two is divisible by one and one), and if we consider their unity, then it, on the contrary, is composed of them (for one and one are two, and two and two are four). And again, number is not a division, but a sign showing the number of objects connected or separated, and it is not the number that combines them and separates them, but another reason - for, speaking, for example, of a single log “ten cubits,” we do not divide the unity of the ten-cubit log when calculating. And again, when we talk about ten dates, we know that they are separate, and when we talk about, say, one modia of grain or dates, we know about the separateness of the grains contained in the modia. And if number is spoken of natures, then it will primarily represent not their quantity, but their heterogeneity. After all, say, when speaking about the two natures of a bull and a horse, we do not denote their quantitative division, but a difference in appearance. Speaking about three horses or people, for example, Peter, James and John, we rather explain their separateness, not that they are such and such, but that there are so many of them. And in the Holy and Consubstantial Trinity, while we proclaim three hypostases, we confess their one essence and nature. And in the saving economy, when we speak of two natures, we denote their otherness, not their separateness, and just as there we rightfully discard the number of essences, although there is no hypostasis without essence, so here we omit the number of hypostases, although no nature could exist without hypostasis. (51) If the binary necessarily introduces division and therefore you avoid the calculus of natures, then why do you not shy away from the calculus of singularities? (52) You confess one incarnate nature of God the Word, and this is precisely what you and we have in common - for this is the word of the fathers. But if you want to thereby show two natures, then your war with the truth is pointless. If you put this forward as an indication of one simple nature, as opposed to two, then in vain you put “incarnate.” And if this expression does not represent either one simple nature or two combined, then, of course, “incarnate” will be perceived by you as some kind of fraction between one and two, or two-thirds, or half. Name the quantity yourself - despite the fact that blessed Athanasius and Cyril used the word “nature” not in a literal, but in a figurative sense, as a more general one. For more general names are applied to particulars, and although this is not exactly the same thing (for hypostasis is not nature, because hypostasis is not a universal concept), they nevertheless accept the name and definition of the general, but not vice versa. After all, the hypostasis or indivisible being of nature is nature, but not only nature, but together with [particular] properties, whereas nature is not a hypostasis or indivisible being. So in a figurative sense, and not actually, they designated the hypostasis by the name of nature, so that a single incarnate hypostasis of God the Word is meant - after all, it was not the nature of God the Word that was incarnate, but the hypostasis. And the witness is the divine evangelist, who proclaims with a loud voice: The Word became flesh (John 1:14). The Word, as shown above, is not nature, but hypostasis. And the God-bearing Cyril himself in another place says the following: “the nature of the Word, that is, the hypostasis, which is the Word Itself.” For if the nature of the Word was incarnate, that is, Divinity (after all, the Word had no other nature than Divinity, and It is of the same nature as the Father and the Spirit, and everything common to the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, except for the manner of existence) - then both the Father and the Spirit were incarnate. That is why we profess the hypostatic union of natures, and the incarnation of the Word, and the deification of the flesh - for the incarnation is participation in the flesh and its properties. So, the realized hypostasis of God the Word is incarnated, that is, God the Word [Himself], and is condensed and becomes a hypostasis for the flesh, and Who was before God becomes flesh or Man and is called one complex hypostasis of two natures, in which two natures, Divinity and humanity, are united through incarnation and interpenetrate each other. Penetration occurs from the side of the Divine - for It imparts to the flesh its own glory and splendor, without participating in the suffering of the flesh. Therefore, the nature of the flesh is deified, but does not solidify the nature of the Word with flesh, while the nature of the Word deifies what is received, but is not solidified, since the weakest receives help from the strongest. But the stronger does not suffer harm from the weaker, for just as iron burns, but the flame does not become iron, and you animate the flesh, but the soul does not become denser - so the Divine nature deifies the flesh, but does not itself become denser. For the Divine nature is impervious to any addition or decrease. She gives, but does not perceive - that is why one complex nature did not arise. So, it is equivalent to say “realized hypostasis” or “nature” of God the Word, for, as already said, blessed Athanasius and Cyril by the name “nature” meant hypostasis. After all, hypostasis is also nature, but nature is no longer hypostasis, for conversion here is impossible. Because the general is reflected in the particular, but the particular does not apply to the general. If, however, it is said about a certain flaming piece of iron that the nature of the iron is flaming, then you should know that this is because the nature of iron allows ignition, and because ignition is a work of nature - whereas with the incarnation of the Word, the incarnation is not a work of nature, but a way of an economic descent. Therefore, it cannot be said that one of the hypostases of the Divine has something that all hypostases do not have, with the exception of the mode of existence. The Incarnation, as an image of secondary existence, befits only the only begotten Son and the Word, so that the special property remains unshakable. (53) But you may say: “So how do we say that the nature of the flesh was deified and suffered? By asserting this in relation to all hypostases of humanity and saying that the nature of the Word was incarnate, do we not refer the incarnation to the Father and the Spirit? Because all human nature perceives the natural, the unnatural, and the supernatural without changing nature, and the Divine nature is impervious to any change or addition. But not only for this reason, but also because that flesh was the firstfruits of our kneading, and did not become an independent hypostasis, but an interhypostatic nature, replenishing the complex hypostasis of Christ, and it united with God the Word not for its own sake, but for the sake of common salvation - that is why we say that the nature of the Divinity united with the nature of humanity, but the hypostasis of the Word became incarnate, for incarnation is the acceptance of flesh, and union is the descent and combination any two things into the same thing. (54) If you take the example of man in relation to species and nature, then this does not apply to Christ - for until now we have not heard anything about the form of “Christs”. Therefore, Christ is not nature, but hypostasis: for, according to Blessed Cyril, “the name Christ does not have the power of definition and does not denote anyone’s essence” 100. But if [the same example] is taken in relation to a given person, then this is not without meaning. But it must be borne in mind that examples do not have to be in every way similar to the things explained with their help, but rather, they must also have dissimilarities in some ways, because otherwise they would not be examples. So Justin, the philosopher and martyr, says this in his “Exposition on the Right Confession” 101: “Some, reflecting on the union of soul and body, expressed it in this way (an example, if not in everything, then at least in some way): that man is one, but has two natures.” (55) Note that he did not say: “Man is one of two natures,” but “has two natures,” so it turns out that man has two natures even after the union of the two natures. “For just as man is one,” he says, “and has two different natures in himself, and thinks with one, and fulfills the thought with the other (for having conceived with his rational soul, say, the construction of a ship, he brings the plan to fruition with his hands), so the Son, being one and two natures, with one performs Divine signs, and with the other accepts humiliation. For since He is from the Father and God, He performs signs, and since man is from the Virgin, He by nature voluntarily endured suffering and so on.” What do you think, in whose favor does the example speak - those who dare to affirm a single nature in Christ, or those who Orthodoxy preach two unfused and inseparable ones? And Gregory the Theologian says this: “For there are two natures, God and man, because both soul and body, but there are not two Sons, just as there are not two Gods” 102. (56) And that here [you] have a lot of absurdities, we will see from here. What, you say, is a person made of? Of course, from the soul and body. So why do you not confess Christ from God and man? And why do you not recognize man from soul and body, as Christ from Divinity and humanity? Why is it not said about man that he is all soul and all body, like Christ is all Man and all God, and that He is all perfect in soul and all perfect in physicality, and all soul together with the body, and all body together with soul, as Christ is all God together with His flesh and all Man with His beginningless Divinity? After all, man from soul and body became something other than them, that is, man, and Christ from different ones became the same, from Divinity and humanity God and man. If He has similarity in everything, then your complex nature should be called “Christianity,” just as human nature is and is called “humanity.” (57) On the other hand, the soul, anticipating the suffering of the body, often suffers before it, and suffers with it constantly: for it often worries about the dissection of the body and suffers even before the bodily suffering, and is oppressed, and after the dissection, no less than the body in suffering, it accepts pain, which no one will ever say about the Divinity of the Lord without being damaged by reason. Therefore, if it is said about a person that he is of one nature, then it is as a species, and not as a hypostasis. For when a person is compared with a person, they are called the only begotten, as being of the same essence and falling into one species - and when we talk about the natural science of man, two natures are seen in him, that is, soul and body. After all, who is so foolish as to compare soul and body and say that they have the same nature? There is no type of “Christ”, because there are not many Christs, composed of Divinity and humanity, so that, falling under one type, they could be declared of the same nature - but one Christ, cognizable from two and in two natures. (58) “Learn that Blessed Cyril describes Him in two goats, but he gives this example not in relation to the hypostases, but to distinguish between the living and the slain.” Let us also say that it is not impossible for one nature to arise from two created things, but for one nature to arise from the created and the uncreated, participating in both of them or as something other than them - this is unthinkable, as Gregory the Theologian says. For how did one and the same nature both begin to be and not begin? (59) If it is the same thing to say “from Divinity and humanity” and “from two natures,” then, denying two natures in Christ after the union, you do not recognize in Him after the union both Divinity and humanity. (60) What is of the same nature will have exactly the same differences. Indeed, for the reason that a person is reasonable and an angel is reasonable, it is not said that an angel and a person are of the same nature - for an angel is immortal, and a person is mortal, and there is no complete similarity between them. And man is mortal, and so is the dog - but man is rational, and the dog is dumb, and they are not of the same nature. It is necessary, therefore, that things that are of the same nature should have exactly the same essential differences. This means that if the Divinity of God the Word and His flesh have the same nature, then both of them will have exactly the same differences. (61) If those [principles] of which Christ are not in Him, then they either disappeared or are in another: then indicate where? (62) If, when one nature is spoken of among those who are of the same essence, what is meant is the identity of natures, and not of the hypostases, how will the two natures of those of different essences mean not a difference of essences, but a separation of hypostases? (63) Those who relate to something together always [stay] together. [Definitions] of “connecting” or “connection” belong to relationships. So, the connection and those connected are together. Therefore, either recognize the united [principles], or reject the connection. And then what is the reason for the division? (64) “One” and “another” are the pronouns of hypostases, and natures are “one” and “another,” according to Gregory the Theologian. So, if “one” and “another” in theology mean hypostases, then, consequently, in the economy 103 “one” and “another” will always designate natures. (65) To say “different by nature” and “different nature” are one and the same thing. Therefore, if the first is always used in relation to the Divinity of Christ and His humanity, then the second can always be used. One and the other nature is not one. (66) What do you mean by “complex nature”? Does this word in the singular signify two things, as in the fathers "double" or "double" nature and as [in expressions] like "choir", "people", or in the plural one, as in "Athens", "Thebes" and the like? And if the former, then it is unnecessary to talk about “one”, because even the fathers did not talk about one. If the latter, then it is unnecessary to talk about “complexity” - after all, with you both “simple” and “complex” mean the same thing. And if there is something other than what has been said, then you introduce us to another, united nature, like a mule or some monster from Hellenic tales about multi-species animals. (67) One incarnate nature is either clothed with flesh as an appearance and is one and incarnate, like copper transformed into the form of a statue, or so that the received flesh turned into the nature of the Perceived, or the nature of the Receiver turned into the nature of the received and underwent a departure from its own essence, or the essence was united with the essence, and there are two of them. Whatever you choose, declare Christ to be either two natures, or ultimately not two - for opposite statements exclude each other. So either preach two, or speak unconditionally about one. For why leave a word whose meaning you deny to deceive the simple-minded? (68) When speaking of one incarnate nature of God the Word, you either deny the meaning of the word “incarnate,” or in the name and definition you speak descriptively of two natures, naming one directly and pointing to the other in the definition, if, of course, the flesh, animated by a rational and thinking soul, is human nature. (69) What is different in essence becomes one through union, and not by nature - for by nature those who are of the same essence are one. Therefore, there is another nature, and another is the connection, and what arises from each of them is one and the other, from consubstantiality is one nature, and from a hypostatic union is one hypostasis. (70) “The name Christ,” according to Blessed Cyril, “has neither the power of definition nor denotes someone’s essence.” If it does not denote essence and does not have the power of definition, then it will, perhaps, be a hypostasis, and not a nature. For the definition is given to essence and nature, and the description is given to person and hypostasis, since the first is composed of essential, and the second - of non-essential characteristics. The name “God” is a designation of essence, just like “man”. Then why don't you recognize one Christ, God and Man, one complex hypostasis as Christ, but two natures as God and Man? (71) Even though the connection came from perfect [principles], but in relation to the whole, that is, to what arose from the connection, that which constitutes the unity is called parts, like, say, a brick made of clay, water and straw, each of which is perfect, but is considered a part in relation to the brick. This means that two natures are parts of Christ - for He is from the Divinity and humanity. Therefore, how can these parts [be] not in the whole, and the whole not in the parts? After all, they are either in him, or in another place, or have disappeared, and He is either in them, or in others besides them, or nowhere at all. (72) If the flesh is of the same nature as the Divinity of the Word, how can the Trinity not become a Quaternity? After all, consubstantial people have different hypostases. And if the flesh is of another nature, then is Christ not of two natures? (73) If God the Word and the Father are in some respect two, but the flesh and God the Word are not two in any respect, then God the Word is more united with the flesh than with the Father. If not more, then at least in some way God the Word and the flesh are two, and if they are two in something, then by nature - after all, not by hypostasis! (74) One Christ, a complex hypostasis, is identical in nature with the Father and the Spirit, the Mother and us - for He is consubstantial with both the Father and us, but differs in hypostasis. Therefore, if you see in Him one complex nature, then you will get that the Father and the Holy Spirit are of a complex nature, and that the Trinity is consubstantial with humans - and if a hypostasis manifested in two natures, then in one He will be consubstantial with the Father, in the other with us. (75) Divinity speaks of the three hypostases of the Life-Giving Trinity, just as humanity speaks of the countless hypostases of human nature. This means that if you say that there is one nature of Divinity and humanity, then, in your opinion, in Christ there was formed a single nature of the three holy hypostases of the Holy Trinity and the endless hypostases of humanity. (76) If you are talking about the private and special essence of the Word and that hypostasis and nature are one and the same, then show us one of the holy fathers who spoke about three natures or essences in the Holy Trinity, and we will remain silent, covering our lips with our hands. If you cannot show it, then why do you vainly boast, speaking from your heart, and not from God. (77) The quantity of things is expressed not only by a definite number, but also by an indefinite number, such as “many”, or “little”, or “more”, or “less”, and it can often be expressed by comparison, as “more”, and “equal”, and “worse”, but also by demonstrative words - I mean “this”, and “that”, and “these”, and “other”, and “other” - and by order, as “before this”, and “after this”, and “initially”, and “later”, and perhaps in other ways. So, if you call all ways of expressing the number of things separative, then it’s easy to catch you. After all, you are talking about one and one nature, about one and another, another and another, and indefinitely about natures, and about peculiarities, and about greater and lesser, and about the former and the subsequent. If you believe that only a certain number, and especially two, separates, then this is an arbitrary judgment - for what kind of unreasonable choice is this, when in fact everything is different? After all, binary in the collective sense expresses two things that can be counted together [much more accurately] than your number split into two units, considered by itself. (78) In addition to all this, tell us this: does Christ have a Divine nature even after the union? Yes, you say. Does it have a human one? And you will agree with this, unless, of course, you want to commit outright wickedness. So, are Divine nature and human nature one nature or two? But if you say “one,” then the Father will be consubstantial with us, and if there are two and not one, then why don’t you, throwing away arrogance along with the one who gave birth to it, confess with us one Christ, one Lord, one hypostasis from two natures, and two natures, and in two natures after union? After all, if you say that Christ was never in two natures, then why should you vainly say that He was after the union of one nature? If, saying that He was in two natures before the union, you confess Him to be of one nature after the union, then you are obviously going against the truth - for before the union, that is, the Divine Incarnation, being one hypostasis of one simple nature, that is, the Divine, He was not even Christ. So, you either completely exclude two natures in Christ, or you assert that before the incarnation there was a two-natural Christ from the Virgin, not allowing us to recognize for Him the two natures that actually belong to Him after the union. For we, standing at the harbor of piety and repelling every storm of heretical evil with the breath of the Spirit, in the Holy and Glorious Trinity we honor one essence, one nature of the Divinity, but three perfect hypostases, confessing that they have no essential difference among themselves. Nevertheless, we apply all the names of God: dominion and holiness, kingdom, strength, action, will, power - in a common, single, identical, simple, indivisible and integral manner to the entire Divinity, that is, to the essence or nature of the three hypostases, but separately we recognize the names “Father”, “Son” and “Spirit”, ungeneracy, begetting and procession, knowing the unbegotten only of the Father, the begotten only of the Son, the proceeding only The Holy Spirit, and the uniqueness of Each does not pass or move, and we consider it not as an incidental sign - for nothing comes to God - but as a distinctive property of the hypostasis of Each. We know God the perfect Father, God the perfect Son, God the perfect Holy Spirit, God, God and God, but one God of Three, each other conceivable and cognizable, not merging into one person and one hypostasis - let there not be! - but the Son and the Spirit, relating to the Father as the cause. For there is one God, because there is one Deity, but not three Gods as three people - for they are not separated in essence, are not separated by force, nor do they diverge in place, nor in action, nor in will, being inseparably affirmed and interpenetrating into each other. For where would They be if they were not in each other? After all, then Each of Them would be limited. So, there is one God in three perfect hypostases, so as not to consider Him a complex nature, composed of imperfect [parts], but from three perfect ones, one simple and uncompounded, superperfect and superperfect. (79) As for the saving and surpassing all understanding of the economy, we confess that one of the Holy Trinity, the only begotten Son and Word of God, by the grace of the Father, will be incarnate from the Holy Spirit and the Holy Ever-Virgin and Mother of God Mary. And we honor His two Nativity, one pre-eternal and eternal, without causality from the Father without a mother, and one from the Virgin Mother without a father for the sake of our salvation, and we say that neither the Father was born, nor incarnate, nor the Holy Spirit - for the uniqueness of the Sonship is unshakable. Therefore, being. Son, He became Son again - for, being the Son of God the Father, He became the Son of Man, from two natures into one complex hypostasis. For, being a realized hypostasis, He assumed the hypostatic nature, the firstfruits of our dispensation. We say “hypostasis” not in the sense that it exists independently or has its own hypostasis, but in the sense that it exists in the hypostasis of the Word. For she is at the same time the flesh and the flesh of God the Word, at the same time the rational animate flesh and the rational animate flesh of the Son of God, with the difference of natures in no way eliminated due to the union - after all, those of whom there is only one Christ and the Lord remained unchangeable and unchangeable, but came together unfused and inseparably into one complex hypostasis - for we affirm the hypostatic union. The hypostatic union preserves the distinction of the combined entities and maintains the unity of the person. After all, if the Word is not consubstantial with the flesh, but also not separate from His co-hypostatic [beginning], then it is impermissible to speak of either His nature or two hypostases - for this leads to a plurality of hypostases. For consubstantial means one and identical in essence, but different in hypostasis, and, conversely, heterogeneous [means] identity in hypostasis, but difference in nature of the united. (80) Thus, Christ is not one and another, so as not to serve us as a quaternity, but one and another, so as not to attribute suffering to the Divinity. For if He is one and the other, then in vain do we boast that the incarnation of the Word brought about the deification of our nature - after all, if the indwelling of one into the other is incarnation, then God experienced many incarnations. For I will dwell in them,” He says, “and I will walk in them (2 Cor. 6:16) and don’t you know that you are the church of God, and the Spirit of God lives in you! (1 Cor: 3:16). If not one and the other, then by nature the flesh and the Divinity are one and the same, and everything merged and mixed. Therefore, if not one and the other, then there is one Christ and one hypostasis - for the “other” is a hypostasis. If one and the other - and the “other” is nature - then, obviously, they are not one by nature. If there is not one, then it is clear to everyone that there are two. So, He is one in hypostasis, identical to Himself, and delimited from both limits by distinctive properties. For although His holy flesh was not devoid of distinctive properties, their combination, and formation into hypostasis, and unity did not occur in itself, but in the hypostasis of the Word, and [it was] this latter, and not [some] of its own special flesh, that it acquired as hypostasis. Therefore, the flesh was not without hypostasis, but also did not have its own hypostasis, but Christ is two natures, united and divided by one being with limits and dispersing [component] parts. (81) In speaking of two natures, we do not separate unity, but avoid transformation and fusion - for we know that they are calculated by the concept and image of difference. For in the same way we avoid fusion, we also object to division in the Holy and God-originating Trinity and in the economy of One of the Holy Trinity. Because just as there we profess three hypostases, but preach a single essence and nature, knowing that not a single hypostasis is without essence, but without attributing to each a separate essence and without declaring the number, the determinant of quantity, as the number of essences, so as not to introduce foreignness and other essence - so here, speaking of two natures, we do not separate the hypostatic unity and thereby do not introduce calculation hypostases (although nature is not devoid of hypostases), but we show otherness and foreignness. For just as there the number of hypostases does not harm the consubstantial essence and does not introduce division by nature for the hypostases, but, signifying the difference of the hypostases, does not dissect the unity of the essence, so here the number of natures does not dissolve the identity and unity of the hypostasis, but shows the difference in natural quality and the multiplicity of components. That is why, when we affirm that the union arose from two perfect natures, we speak of the union not as a mixture, or merging, or transformation, or dissolution, and, conversely, not about a union of personalities, relative, or according to dignity, or according to the identity of will, or name, or according to equality, as the godless Nestorius said - no, we Orthodoxy preach unity in essence and in hypostasis, not like that, that two essences formed one complex one, but that they were truly united with each other into one complex hypostasis of the Son of God; and we determine that their essential difference remains. After all, the created remains created, and the uncreated remains uncreated, the mortal remains mortal, and the immortal remains immortal, and this shines with miracles, but this is subject to insults. For although One endures suffering and One performs miracles, so that both are the common property of One, yet that [beginning] from which insults become common is different from that from which glorious deeds arise. They are different and different in reasoning and method of difference, but what is characteristic of one is communicated to the other in the form of mutual exchange, due to the interpenetration of parts into each other and their hypostatic connection. “For each image has what is peculiar to it, in common with another,” which is why it is said that the Lord of Glory was crucified (cf. 1 Cor. 2:8) - not by the Divinity, of course, but by the hypostatic flesh. And it is written that the Son of Man ascended to where He was before (John 6:62) - not to where He was before as a man, but to where He was God, undivided with the Father. For we do not declare that the Divinity is passionate or suffers in the flesh, and we do not recognize the flesh, that is, humanity, as the cause, but the One to whom both belong, sometimes we call Christ for both, and sometimes for one of the parts, we call God God for the Divinity, and, on the contrary, Man for humanity. And we call God passionate, but not as God, but as [simultaneously] both man and Child, we declare pre-eternal, not because He is a Child, but because He is also God - for both are One, God and Man, perfect God and perfect man, the bearer of all the properties of the Divine: Divinity, originlessness, immortality, Dominion, omnipotent will and action - and the whole essence of flesh without exception, soul, body, mind and their natural and non-blameable properties and passions 104, autocratic will and action, hunger, thirst, tears, sorrow, melancholy, anxiety, death. “My Lord and my God,” says Thomas (John 20:28), and the Theologian by inspiration said: The Word was God (John 1:1) and the Word became flesh (John 1:14), and in the beginning was the Word, and I want you to be clean (Matthew 8:3), and the Lord of Glory would not have been crucified (1 Cor. 2:8). This, and the like, and the power of divine signs proclaim His Divine nature and action. (82) Therefore I have power to lay down My life, and I have power to take it up again (John 10:18) and touch Me and see; for a spirit does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have (Luke 24:39), and we have the mind of Christ (1 Cor. 2:16) and entering the house, I did not want anyone to know, but could not hide (Mark 7:24). And Father! not My will, but Thine be done (Luke 22:42); and the breaking of bread, and walking, and stretching out hands on the cross, and thinking, and the vital, nourishing, growth and feeling power represents human action, as in the end I was hungry (Matthew 4:2), and thirsty (John 19:28) and My soul is now troubled (John 12:27), and My soul grieves unto death and began to grieve and yearn (Matthew 26:37,38 ), and Father! I commit My spirit into Your hands. And having said this, he gave up the ghost (Luke 23:46). Is it not clear that just as the first testifies to the Divinity, so does this testify to His humanity and the difference and unity of natures? For how can both be said about one nature? (83) So, He is perfect God and perfect man, God by nature and man by nature, and without defect in humanity - after all, although He became man economically, He became man by nature: all God and all Man, all God even together with His flesh, and all Man together with His super-existent Divinity. We affirm that this is exactly what Gregory the Theologian meant when he said: “Of which one has become deified, the other has been deified” and “I dare to call them co-God” 105 . For just as we know that the incarnation of the Word was without transformation or change, so is deification. For the Word Himself became flesh, carried in the womb of the Virgin, and came into the world as God together with what was received, which was deified by Him at the same time as being brought into being, so that all three [events] happened together - acceptance, implementation and deification by the Word, and therefore the Holy Virgin is thought of and called the Mother of God, not only because of the nature of the Word, but because of the deification of the human [beginning]; and their conception and implementation miraculously worked together, the conception of the Word, the flesh in the Word Himself, the implementation through the Mother of God Herself, supernaturally granting creation to the Creator and the incarnation of God and the Creator of everything, deifying what was perceived, and the union preserves the components as they were united - I’m talking not only about the Divine, but also about the human [beginning] of Christ, which is above us and like us. For it is not that what first became like us then became superior to us, but both were always there, from the very beginning of existence, because from the very conception they had existence in the same Word. Therefore humanity by its own nature is what it is, but supernaturally it belongs to God and is divine. (84) We preach the Holy Virgin truly and truly as the Mother of God, for just as he who was born of Her is the true God, so She, who conceived the incarnate God in Herself, is the true Mother of God. And we say that from Her God was born, not because He received from Her the eternal existence of the Divine, but because from Her He became incarnate without transformation and became man, and was born, one Christ, one Son, one Lord, one hypostasis, He is God and Man, bringing no other person into the Trinity. (85) Hence, we consider the addition to the Trisagion 106 blasphemous, because it introduces a fourth person into the Trinity and posits the hypostatic power of God separately from the Crucified, as if He were different from the Mighty One, or because it imagines the Holy Trinity to be passionate and co-crucifies the Son with the Father and the Holy Spirit, or declares the Holy and immortal Spirit to be passionate. For this trisagion of praise of ancient times was secretly taught by the Holy Spirit through the seraphim, His ministering spirits, to Isaiah the seer of God (Isaiah 6:2), mysteriously revealing the three hypostases of the Divinity and one Dominion and nature. For Isaiah himself says that he saw the Father (Is. 6:1), John the Theologian claims that the Son was revealed to him, and the divine Apostle Paul - that the Holy Spirit. That is why the whole series of holy fathers decided that this trisagion of praise refers to the Holy Trinity. Therefore, Gregory the Theologian says: “So the Holy of Holies, hidden by the seraphim and glorified by the three consecrations, converge into one Dominion and Divinity, about which someone else before us spoke in the most beautiful and highest way.” (86) Historical books describe how under Proclus, the primate of Constantinople, when the people there were praying because of some terrible divine punishment, according to some Divine revelation a youth was taken away from the people and so taught this praise by some angelic secret guidance: “Holy God, Holy Mighty, Holy Immortal, have mercy on us,” and it was commanded to sing this 108. The revelation was confirmed by the speedy outcome: for at the same time as the singing, the anger also ceased. We affirm that the meaning of the praise is this: “Holy God the Father, from whom is God the Son and God the Holy Spirit”; “The Mighty Holy One – the Son, Wisdom and Power of the Father”; “The Holy Immortal is the Holy Spirit”: for it is said: the Spirit gives life (John 6:63) and the law of the Spirit of life (Rom. 8:2) and the Godfather David said: My soul thirsts for the mighty, living God (Ps. 42:3). And we say this without limiting the Divinity only to the Father, nor the power - only to the Son, or immortality - to the Spirit, but to each of the hypostases simply and uniformly applying all the names of God and imitating the divine Apostle, who said: But we have one God the Father, from whom we are all and we are for Him, and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things and we by Him (1 Cor. 8:6), (87) It is truly ridiculous and amusing that the Trisagion hymn, previously and subsequently mysteriously communicated by the angels, certified by the cessation of the misfortune and confirmed by the testimony of the holy fathers, as showing the one Trinitarian Divinity, should be trampled upon by the senseless judgment of the fuller - for he, wanting to cleanse this praise, like a sacred robe, and adorn it more than necessary, as if he were higher than the seraphim, added an addition to the Trisagion, as if legislating contrary to the Holy Spirit. But what arrogance, not to say madness! And we say this, and let the demons at least break: “Holy God, Holy Mighty, Holy Immortal, have mercy on us.” (88) To certify what has been said, we have also attached the sayings of the holy fathers, whose lips were the lips of God - respectfully be ashamed of them and, together with us and the truth, Orthodoxy preach one God and one nature in three hypostases and one of the Holy Trinity, the only begotten Son of God, one Christ and after the incarnation one Son, one Lord and one hypostasis in two natures, unfused and indivisible. (89) Sayings of the Holy Fathers, showing that there is one Christ from two natures, and two natures, and in two natures, even after His saving and most good incarnation. St. Irenaeus, Bishop of Lugduno, from the word against Valentinian: For just as the ark was gilded within and without with pure gold, so the body of Christ was pure and radiant, adorned from within by the Word, and guarded from without by the Spirit, so that the natures of both were clearly shown. (90) St. Justin the philosopher and martyr from the third chapter of the third book on the Holy Trinity: And having entered Her womb, the Divine, as it were, a seed fashions Himself a church - a perfect man, and taking a certain part of Her nature, and realizing it in the construction of the church, and putting on it, He came out through the closest union with both as the Son of God 110. (91) The same from chapter seventeen of the same work: Just as man is one, but has two different natures in himself, and thinks with one, and fulfills the thought with the other (for having conceived with his rational soul, say, the construction of a ship, he brings the plan to fruition with his hands), so the Son, being one and two natures, with one performs Divine signs, and with the other accepts humiliation. (92) St. Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, from the book against heresies: He, being in the image of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, but made Himself of no reputation, taking on the form of a servant (Phil. 2:6). Here are two images for you. Hold on to them and do not distort any of them: for God and the Son of God, being a man, did not lose the Divine image, and being God, did not abandon the human image. So, since we have two images, I am talking about the Master and the slave, one by nature Divine, and the other by nature human; one before the ages, and the other from the Virgin; one from the One and the other from the One, because these two principles were realized in One - for we do not separate God the Word from the body and do not recognize two sons and Christ, but the eternal Son of God, who in the last times became a perfect man from Her womb. For just as the Parent Father gave birth to a perfect Son, so the same Son and Word of the Father, wanting to save a completely perishing man, became a perfect man, so that, having saved the external, He would not leave the internal faithful: after all, having received the body, He did not abandon the soul, but took on both the soul and the mind 111. (93) St. Methodius, Bishop of Patara and martyr, from the word for the Presentation: In the vision of the Invisible, in the perception of the Incomprehensible, in the smallness of the Great One, the One who is in the church and in the highest, on the throne of the Virgin and on the chariot of the Cherubim, who is in the form of a servant and in the form of God the Father, a subject - and the King of all 112. (94) Saint Basil, Bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, from the word against Eunomius: For I affirm that to be in the image of God is tantamount to being in the essence of God, for just as taking the form of a servant means that the Lord appeared in the essence of humanity, so the words that He abides in the image of God represent the peculiarity of the Divinity 113. (95) From a conversation with Aetius the Arian: After all, neither you nor anyone else could ever truly provide or prove that the above-mentioned our fathers and teachers, or ourselves, or any of the elected fathers of the Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, said or taught in writing or unwritten, as you say, about the one nature of Christ our God, complex, or simple, or uniform, or about one will, or what other opinions are forbidden and rejected by the Catholic and Apostolic Church. For if we build anew what we have overthrown, we expose ourselves as apostates. On the contrary, we rather proclaimed that our Lord Jesus Christ is always dual in one hypostasis and in one person, without any division or fusion: for to assert one nature, or will, or action in the same Lord Jesus Christ is the teaching and judgment of evil and blasphemous people who are like-minded with you 114 . (96) Saint Athanasius from the Epistle to Epictitus: If the Word is consubstantial with a body that has an earthly nature, and the Word, according to the confession of the fathers, is consubstantial with the Father, then the Father Himself will be consubstantial with the body that originated from the earth. And what else do they reproach the Arians for, who call the Son a creation, if they themselves say that the Father is consubstantial with the creatures? 115 What hell vomited this, as if the body from Mary was consubstantial with the Divinity of the Word? (98) St. George the Theologian from the second letter to Clidonius: For there are two natures, God and man, because soul and body - but not two Sons and God. After all, there are not two people here, although the Apostle Paul so designated the inside and outside of a person 116. (99) The same from “Apologetics”: This is precisely what the educator the Law, and the prophets, who are between the Law and Christ, instills in us, and Christ, the Perfecter and perfection of the spiritual law, is also the humiliated Divinity, and the assumed flesh, and the unprecedented mixture of God and Man, from both one, and through the One both 117. (100) From the second word about the Son: The sign is that when the natures diverge in invention, the names also diverge with them. Listen to Paul as he says: that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of Glory (Eph. 1:17). To Christ He is God, but to Glory He is the Father: for if both are one, it is not by nature, but by descent 118. (101) His addition to the above saying from the first letter to Cledonius: To put it briefly, that from which the Savior is one and the other, if the invisible is not identical with the visible, and timeless with the temporal, but not one and the other - let this not be! For both are in co-dissolution, because God became incarnate, but man became deified, or whatever else you call it. And “one and the other” I say is the opposite of what is in the Trinity. For there is one and the other, so as not to confuse the hypostases, but not one and the other - after all, three are one and the same thing, which is the Divinity. (102) Scholium. If “not one and the other” is due to the fact that nature is one, then, consequently, one and the other are not one nature. And if “it is the opposite of what is in the Trinity,” and there are three hypostases, because “one and the other,” but one nature, because “not one and the other,” then there are two natures, because “one and the other,” but not “one and the other.” (103) And from the second word about the Son: This is what causes heretics to go astray, the combination of names, because the names are interspersed due to co-dissolution. The sign is that when the natures diverge in invention, the names also diverge with them. Listen to Paul as he says: that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of Glory (Eph. 1:17). To Christ He is God, but to Glory the Father, for if both are one, then not by nature, but by combination - what could be more obvious? 119 (104) Scholium. What by nature is not one - of course, two. If it is a combination, then according to hypostasis. Consequently, the Divinity of Christ and His humanity are two by nature, but one by hypostasis. (105) From his poems: He came to God and mortals, gathering two natures together: One is hidden from eyes, the other is revealed to people 120. (106) St. Ambrose of Milan from the word on the Incarnation, or against Apollinaris: But while we are convicting them, others appeared, saying that the body and the Divinity of the Lord are of the same nature. What hell spewed out such blasphemy? After all, then the Arians are already more tolerant, for whom shoots, contradictions and unbelief arise from this, when they stubbornly insist on the assertion that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are not of the same nature, because they say that the Divinity and the flesh of the Lord are of the same essence. 121 (107) His words to the emperor Gratian - this saying was quoted by St. Cyril at the Council of Ephesus: Let us preserve the distinction between the Divinity and the flesh: for in both one and the other the Son of God speaks, because in Him both natures are in Him. 122 (108) This is from the interpretation of the Holy Symbol: Those who say that Christ is a simple man, or that God the Word is passionate, or turned into flesh, or has a co-existent body, or brought it from heaven, or that it is ghostly - or who say that God the Word is mortal, or needed to be resurrected by the Father, or took on a soulless body, or a man without a mind, or that the two essences of Christ, merging in dissolution, became one essence - and not those who confess that our Lord Jesus Christ is two unfused essences, but one person, because there is one Christ, one Son - such are anathematized by the Catholic and Apostolic Church 123. (109) Saint Amphilochius, Bishop of Iconium, from the letter to Seleucus: Thus I confess Christ as God and man, the Son of God, one Son with two natures, passionate and impassive, mortal and immortal. 124 Therefore, I speak of one Son with two natures, unfused, unchangeable, indivisible. So Christ, the Son of God, suffers not as Divinity, but as humanity. (111) The same from the same message: The perceived nature suffers, but the perceived nature remains dispassionate. God the Word dispassionately assimilates the human passions of his own church - I’m talking about the cross and death and other things that are seen in His economy - assimilates, without undergoing anything Himself. Because dual natures are combined into one person. (112) Saint Gregory, Bishop of Nyssa, from the letter to Philip the monastic: Those of the same essence have identity, but those of different essence have the opposite. For although both in an ineffable union are one, they are not by nature because of their lack of fusion. Therefore, Christ, Who is two natures and is truly known in them, has the only person of sonship 125. (113) From the words against Apollinaris: So, if the nature of each is contemplated in opposite properties, that is, in the flesh and in the Divine, how are the two natures one? 126 (114) Saint Cyril, Archbishop of Alexandria, from an address to the Alexandrians: I do not accept co-dissolution - for this is alien to the apostolic faith and the right tradition of Christ. For co-dissolution leads to the disappearance of natures, while the ineffable union, professed by those who think right, unmerges both natures and makes one of them the visible Christ, God, and at the same time Him who became man, and not two Christs, but, on the contrary, one and united, and not dissolved. After all, if two natures are dissolved, being of different essences, into one mixture, then neither is preserved, but both of them, having merged, disappear 127. And the church, at His will, is destroyed during a three-day burial - and again He restored it and united with it in an indescribable and inexplicable way, not dissolving in it and not becoming denser, but preserving in Himself unfused the characteristics of two different natures. For in fact, the natures were not dissolved in an ineffable and unfused union, but were united in an ineffable and inexplicable way and remain above all understanding, according to the much-blessed and truly ecumenical teacher of the Orthodox faith, our Archbishop Athanasius, who appeared at the great Council in Nicaea among three hundred and eighteen bishops, who said: “There was no co-dissolution of the ineffable God and the mortal body, but the descent by nature of two things dissimilar and unequal, not by disappearance or consolidation, but by an inexplicable, ineffable and ineffable union in one Christ, the Son of God, of two different natures, which are preserved and do not merge, do not disappear and are not separated” 128. (116) Scholium. See how the holy fathers, equally avoiding fusion and division, say that two natures are preserved in one Christ, that is, one hypostasis. (117) From the word about faith: For He never deviated from His own Divinity, although He humiliated Himself, for our sake taking on the image of a servant, but without losing the Divine image, so that, like you, He could readily be deified as a man - God forbid! - and having built for himself an animated and perfect church in the holy womb of the Virgin, and having clothed himself in it, and in an inexpressible way united with it, while preserving and without dissolving both natures, he came out as a manifest man, the conceivable God Jesus Christ 129. (118) From the letter to John of Antioch: We know about the Gospel and apostolic sayings about the Lord that theologians used some of them in a general sense, as if about one person, and others in a separate sense, as if about two natures, and [expressions] appropriate to God for the Divinity of Christ, but low for humanity 130. (119) Scholium. If there is truly one Person in Christ by union, there are truly two natures. (120) This is from the letter to Akakios, Bishop of Melitino: But our opponents might have said this: those who compiled the confession of the right faith clearly name two natures and claim that the sayings of the God-speaking men are divided, at least where their difference is concerned. So doesn't this contradict what you said? After all, you could not distribute the utterances among two persons, or hypostases. But, excellent, I would say, we wrote in the “Chapters”: “If anyone distributes sayings into two persons, or hypostases, and ascribes some as if to man, thought separately from the Word of God, and [expressions] appropriate to God - to the Word from God the Father alone, let him be condemned.” We in no way eliminate the differences in speech 131. (121) Scholium. You see how he refuses not to speak [in general] about two natures, but to confess them specifically and separately. (122) From his commentary on the book of Leviticus: For he commands to catch two birds, living and pure, so that you may think through the birds of the heavenly Man, and together with God, Who, as far as the two natures are concerned, is divided according to the characteristics appropriate to each. Because He who shone from the Father in the flesh from the wife was the Word - and He is indivisible into parts, because of both there is one Christ 132. (123) From the word about the Trinity: Having, as it were, a certain borderland of Divinity and humanity, the descent of both into one and the combination into identity of those differing in nature through connection and interweaving 133. (124) From the word to Sukens: And so, as I said, thinking about the image of the economy, we see that two natures have come together in an indissoluble unity, invariably and unchangeably: for the flesh is flesh, and not the Divinity, although it has become the flesh of God; likewise, the Word is God, and not flesh, although He economically made His flesh. When we think this, we do no harm to the descent into unity: saying that He came from two natures, we, however, do not separate the natures from each other by union, and do not divide the One and Indissoluble into two sons, but we speak about one Son and, as the fathers said, about one incarnate nature of the Word of God 134. Therefore, as regards the mental representation and contemplation only with the eyes of the soul of the manner in which the Only Begotten became man, we affirm that there are two natures, confessing, however, that the Word of God became man and became incarnate as one Son, Christ and Lord. (125) Scholium. Let everyone who is not blind in mind consider the fatherly thought. After all, he did not say that “however, by union” we do not confess nature, but “we do not separate” - for he says that there are two natures, “but one Son, and Christ, and Lord,” and, having said that “we are talking about one Son,” he added: “and about one incarnate nature of the Word of God,” here calling hypostasis nature. For if the Son is nature, and the Father is not the Son, then He will not be of the same nature as the Son. However, he also points to the nature of the flesh when he writes to Sukensu - so even if, as you think, he is talking here about nature as an essence, he also introduces the nature of the flesh through the word “incarnate.” This is how he writes. (126) The same from the second letter to Sukens: For if we, having said “one nature of the Word,” were silent, not adding “incarnate,” but, as it were, putting aside the economy, then perhaps their speeches would not be unconvincing, pretending to ask: if everything as a whole is one nature, then where is the perfection in humanity, or how does an essence similar to us exist? Since both perfection in humanity and the designation of an essence similar to us are introduced through the expression “incarnate,” let them stop relying on the reed staff (cf. Isa. 36:6; 2 Sam. 18, etc.) 135 . (127) Scholium. So stop, obeying the teacher, leaning on the reed staff. Well, he clearly said that “through the expression “incarnate” both perfection in humanity and the designation of an essence similar to us are introduced,” and that “everything as a whole” is not one nature - and if not one, then everyone understands that there are two. (128) St. John Chrysostom from the word on Lazarus: Tin is associated with lead and silver: silver in appearance; lead by nature. So Christ, God and man, preserves two natures in Himself, and just as He preserves natures in Himself, so Himself exists in them, not being anything other than them 136. (129) From the letter to Caesarea the monk: So here too, when His Divine nature created one Son, it created both with one person, cognizable, however, unmerged and inseparable, not in one nature only, but in two perfect ones. For where is the unity in one [nature]? Where is the inseparability? How could one then talk about connection? For it is impossible to unite and separate from oneself. What kind of hell spewed out this, to speak of one nature in Christ by union? After all, either, by retaining the Divine nature, they renounce the human, that is, our salvation, or, leaving the human, they renounce the Divine - because let them say, which has lost its own? After all, as long as the connection is preserved, then, of course, it is necessary that the properties of the connection also be preserved - because otherwise it would not be a connection, but a merging and disappearance of natures 137 . Like the saints of our father John of Damascus about the complex nature against acephalous (1) One complex nature arises from different natures, when when natures are combined, something other than the combined natures is obtained. And what results is not and is not called in the proper sense either this or that, but another. For example, from the four elements, that is, fire, air, water and earth, a body is made up by the combination and co-dissolution of all four, and the resulting body is not and is not called either fire, air, water, or earth, but from them is something other than them. Likewise, a mule is born from a horse and a donkey, and it is neither a horse nor a donkey, and is not called that, but is something other than them. Our Lord Jesus Christ, being from Divinity and humanity, is both in Divinity and in humanity, and is and is called perfect God and perfect man, and wholly God, and wholly man, which cannot be found in complex nature - after all, the whole body is not fire, and not all of it is air, just as neither is earth or water, and a mule is not wholly a horse, nor wholly a donkey, and not a perfect horse, nor a perfect ass, but Christ, as I said, is perfect God and perfect man and wholly God and wholly man. Therefore, He is not one complex nature, but one hypostasis, cognizable in two natures, and two natures in one complex hypostasis. (2) So, let us ask the heretics: when you say that Christ is of two natures, which natures are you talking about? They will answer: about Divinity and humanity. Then let us say: how, when you say that Christ is in Divinity and humanity, do you deny that He is in two natures? After all, they cannot answer that Christ is not in Divinity and humanity. Let us ask them again: is there one complex nature of Christ or two? And they will say: one is difficult. Then we say: are the simple and the complex consubstantial? And they cannot say that the simple and the complex are consubstantial. Then we say: therefore, if Christ is of one complex nature from Divinity and humanity, then He is not consubstantial with the Father - after all, the Father is not of a complex nature from Divinity and humanity, but simple. But He will not be consubstantial with the Mother - after all, the Mother is not composed of Divinity and humanity. We, saying that Christ is one hypostasis in two natures in Divinity and humanity, affirm that in Divinity He is consubstantial with the Father, and in humanity He is consubstantial with the Mother, and we do not separate Him, speaking of one hypostasis, and do not merge Him, confessing two united natures. And again let’s say this: if the nature of the Divinity of Christ and His flesh are one, and the nature of the Father and Christ is one, then the Father and the flesh will have one nature. And again: how do you profess the difference of natures? After all, difference introduces at least two different natures, or hypostases, or one hypostasis, which changes and is transformed according to the separated incoming attribute. The fact that you do not mean the difference in hypostases is clear in relation to Christ. It is also clear that [we are not talking] about a separable attribute - after all, you don’t say that He is sometimes immortal, and sometimes mortal, passing from immortality to mortality, just as we pass from illness to health. So, it remains for you to talk about the difference of natures, which you recognize, and, having first confessed the difference of natures, to also confess those natures between which there is a difference - after all, if there are no essences, there will be no essential differences. If there is one nature, just as there is one hypostasis in Christ, why, when speaking about the difference of natures, do you not also talk about the difference in His hypostases? Why, while claiming that Christ is of two natures, do you not say that He is also of two hypostases? If Christ is of one complex nature, He is not consubstantial with the Father - after all, the Father is of simple nature. The simple and the complex are not of the same essence. If Christ, by one and the same essence, is consubstantial with the Father and consubstantial with us, then the Father and we will be of the same nature. If Christ is of the same nature and consubstantial with the Father, Who is of a simple nature, but also has a complex nature, then He will have two natures - one simple and the other complex. If, in your opinion, nature and hypostasis are identical, then, since there are three hypostases of the Divine, He will have three natures, or, since there is one nature, there will be one hypostasis. If you say that one thing is the general nature, and another is that which is seen in the indivisible being, 138 which you call particular, then you need to admit that not only Christ, but also the Father and the Holy Spirit have two natures, one simple and one complex. If the Divinity is uncreated and without beginning, and humanity is created and has a beginning, then how can the beginningless and the beginning be of the same nature? (3) Since they present to us the saying of Saint Athanasius and Saint Cyril, which speaks of “the one incarnate nature of God the Word,” we say that the saying of Saint Gregory the Theologian is equivalent to it, saying: “Of whom one was deified, and the other was deified.” For just as incandescence does not mean the transformation of what is incandescent, but union with fire, so deification means union with the Divine, and incarnation means union with the flesh. Therefore, we know one nature of God the Word, that is, His Divinity, incarnate, that is, united with the flesh, and one nature of the flesh of the Word deified, that is, united with the Divinity. So there are two natures connected to each other. After all, if he had spoken about the one nature of God the Word, even incarnate, then this would have meant without contradiction that both are one nature. Having said “one nature of God the Word” and adding “incarnate,” he designated the essence of the flesh, as he, interpreting himself, says in his letter to Sukens: “For if we, having said “one nature of the Word,” were silent without adding “incarnate,” then perhaps they would not be unconvincing speeches pretending to ask: if everything as a whole is one nature, then where is the perfection in humanity? Since the designation of flesh is introduced through the expression “incarnate,” let them stop leaning on the reed staff” (cf. Isa. 36:6, 2 Sam. 18, etc.). So he clearly refused to call the whole, that is, both principles, one nature, and says that through “incarnate” the designation of flesh was introduced. So, we have “one nature of God the Word,” and the word “incarnate” refers to the flesh - but the flesh is not without essence. Therefore the nature of the Word and the realized flesh will be two essences. (4) Why, while confessing in Christ the nature of the Divinity and the nature of the flesh and saying that they are one and the other, do you not recognize two natures, fearing fear where there is no fear (Ps. 52:6)? And they say that number is the beginning of division and that, “avoiding division, we do not recognize the two natures of Christ.” And we tell them that every number denotes the quantity of those being counted, but not the ratio, because when we speak of three people, we do not denote three separate natures, and when we speak of the three hypostases of the Divine, we do not confess them to be separate. So, while affirming two natures in Christ and designating a number, we do not allow separation, for just as in the Holy Trinity the three hypostases are united inseparably and at the same time unfused - inseparably because of the uniqueness of nature and unmerged passage into each other, unfused because of the hypostatic difference, or mode of existence, that is, ungeneracy, birth and procession - and the number of hypostases does not introduce division, so when In the incarnation of God the Word, two natures are united inseparably and at the same time unmerged - inseparably because of the uniqueness of the hypostasis and unmerged transition into each other, unmerged because of the essential difference, I mean between created and uncreated, mortal and immortal, limited and indescribable, and the like - and the number of natures does not introduce division. (5) Since they, as it seems to us, are in difficulty, citing shaky arguments that if there is no essence without hypostasis and nature without person, then, speaking of two natures and essences in Christ, you necessarily recognize two hypostases and two persons, we will answer that [indeed] there is no essence without hypostasis and nature without person - for the essence is contemplated in hypostases and persons, but the essence is not is not a hypostasis, but nature is a person. After all, if essence is a hypostasis, and nature is a person, it will be necessary in the Holy Divinity, speaking about one nature and essence, to recognize both one hypostasis and one person, or, confessing three hypostases and persons, to confess at the same time three essences and natures; and moreover, in humanity, in the same way, either recognize one nature and one hypostasis, or talk about infinite essences, as well as hypostases, but, saying that Christ is from two natures, one will also have to assert that He is from two hypostases. (6) So, we say that the essence is contemplated in hypostases (which is why it is hypostatic), but not hypostasis. This means that what is hypostatic should not be called hypostasis. After all, hypostasis and the hypostatic are understood in two ways. For hypostasis sometimes means simply existence, in which sense it means not a simple essence, but an incidental one, and sometimes it means an indivisible being, that is, a person, which is called hypostasis in itself, which points to Peter, Paul, this horse, and the like. Hypostatic sometimes means essence, as contemplated in hypostasis and independently existing, and sometimes - each of those included in one hypostasis, as in the case of soul and body. Therefore, the Divinity and humanity of Christ are hypostatic - after all, both of them have one common hypostasis - the Divinity is eternal and eternal, but the animate and thinking flesh, being perceived by Him in the last times, received existence in Him and acquired His hypostasis. (7) They also say that the holy fathers used the likeness of man in relation to the sacrament of Christ - and people have one nature, which means Christ will also have one nature. So let them hear: the name “nature” is also used in relation to species. Therefore, they say that all people are of the same nature, as belonging to the same species, humanity. But man is not of one nature, since he consists of soul and body - after all, the incorporeal and invisible soul is not consubstantial with the visible body. Therefore, when a person is compared with a person, they say that they are of the same essence as falling under one species, and since everything is composed of soul and body, and everyone carries two natures within themselves - in the natural sciences of man, two natures are seen in him, souls and bodies, combined in one hypostasis. For when comparing soul and body, who would be so unreasonable as to speak of the same nature of both? In relation to Christ, there is no species - after all, there are not many Christs made up of Divinity and humanity, so that they all, belonging to the same species, could be called one nature, but one Christ, cognizable from two and in two natures. For Gregory the Theologian says: “There are two natures, God and man, because there are soul and body, but there are not two Sons.” (8) Again: how can one and the same nature have opposite essential differences? After all, if an essence can have even non-essential differences separately, and not simultaneously, 140 then even more so the essential ones. After all, it is clear that in one and the same essence there cannot be opposite essential differences - because the same essence cannot be rational and unreasonable, created and uncreated. Also: essences are formed by the differences that make up the essence, which is why they are called essential and components, and exist in essences. Therefore, if you confess in Christ the essentially formative differences, it is necessary to confess the essences as well - otherwise to what would they belong? And without forming entities, [these differences] would be unnecessary. Again: since you speak of the same nature of the Divinity and humanity of Christ, tell us by which nature Christ suffered? It's clear that it's complicated, you say. For speaking about one, you will necessarily attribute to it suffering, and you will have both humanity and the Divinity of Christ passionately. Again: if there is one complex nature of Christ, it will either be only passionate, or only impassive, or passionate-impassionate, that is, both passionate and impassive, or changeable, that is, sometimes passionate and sometimes impassive, or part of it will be passionate and partly impassive. So, choose whichever wickedness you want. For if she is only passionate, then Christ is not God. If it is only impassive, Christ is not a man. If sometimes it is passionate, and sometimes it is impassive, then it is neither passionate by nature, nor impassive by nature, but by an incidental sign - after all, what is inherent by nature does not pass on. If part of it is passionate, and part is impassive, but both are what they are by nature, then the parts will not be of the same nature, and then Christ will be two-natural, Who is not nature, but hypostasis. For it is impossible for one and the same nature to be both passionate and impassive, since one and the same nature cannot simultaneously accept opposite essential differences. (9) Tell us also this: does Christ have a Divine nature? Yes, of course, you say. Does it have a human one? And you admit this, unless, of course, you want to decide on outright wickedness. So, are Divine nature and human nature one nature or two? But if you say, “one,” the Father will be consubstantial with us. If there are two, and not one, then why don’t you, throwing away pride along with its parent, that is, the devil, confess with us one Christ, one Son, one Lord, one hypostasis from two natures, and two natures, and in two natures after union? After all, if you admit that Christ never had two natures, then why in vain do you say that He is of one nature after the union? If you speak of one nature after the union, claiming that before the union He was two-natured, then you are directly opposing the truth. For before the union, that is, the Divine incarnation, He, being one hypostasis of one simple nature, that is, the Divine, was not and was not called Christ, except when the future was foreshadowed by a prophetic word. Therefore, you either completely eliminate the two natures in Christ, or you affirm that Christ was two-natured even before the incarnation from the Virgin, not wanting to recognize for Him after the union the two natures that actually belong to Him. We do not think like this, and this is not the lot of Jacob (Jer. 10:16), but, standing within the limits of piety, we call Him one complex hypostasis - for this eternal hypostasis of God the Word, having settled in the womb of the Holy Ever-Virgin, realized in itself the rational animate flesh, itself becoming a hypostasis for the rational and animate flesh, and became from the perfect Divinity and of perfect humanity there is one Christ, one Son He is both God and Man, one and the same Lord, perfect God and perfect man, completely God and completely man, in an unfused, untransformed and inseparable union of natures with each other. Unmerged, for each nature retains its difference - Divinity uncreated, humanity created, Divinity dispassionate, humanity passionate, and the like. It is immutable, because each of the natures remained unchanged, without turning into another and without appearing as one complex nature, but two natures exist and remain forever. Inseparably, because they are hypostatically united with each other, having one hypostasis, eternally incorporeal and simple, but in recent times, without transformation, having acquired a body from the Holy Ever-Virgin - for she is both, incorporeal by the beginningless Divinity, corporeal by the arisen, that is, perceived flesh. This hypostasis is the eternal Son and Word of God, Who Himself is both incorporeal as God, and corporeal as in the last days He became man. So, natures are united hypostatically and interpenetrate. Blessed John the monk and presbyter's message, written to Archimandrite Jordan, about the Trisagion Song From John to the God-honored and divinely jealous Archimandrite Jordan, adorned with kirk. Such a strong attraction for you, O best of fathers, does not arise in me from some unstable reason, but from divine love, which is characteristic of “never ceasing” (1 Cor. 13:8). For we know the orthodoxy of your faith, and the right teaching of the word of truth (2 Tim. 2:15), and the heat of jealousy, and the sincerity of love for God, because of which and through which you are chained to your neighbor: for that [love] is, as it were, the primary source, and the second is a symbol of the first. After all, love for one's neighbor speaks of what love for God is like. We know your longing and delight in the words of God, which is sweeter than honey for you, for you, having imagined divine beauty and soared towards it as if on wings, became an immaculate mirror of God and divine phenomena. Your beauty is a virtue, and in its truest features you have appeared as a true imprint of Divine beauty, as a prototype of all good. Therefore, when we are attracted to you, it is an attraction to virtue and God, from whom you have primacy in virtue. But alas for me, father, alas. How the enemy of the Church always tries to bring confusion into it, and worst of all, when through the pets of piety! For our most pious brother Abba Sergius, fellow citizen, confidant and friend, through his own brother the Rev. Abba Job, informed us in a letter that the most sacred Cyrus Abba Anastasius, the glorious leader of the monastery of blessed Euthymius, cited some statements of the holy fathers, allegedly relating the Trisagion hymn to the Son alone (and if we allow this, nothing will prevent the misfortune the creeping fuller's damage 141 harm everyone at once). I am surprised, very surprised, if this is so, because we know the Orthodoxy of the venerable man (I am talking about Kir Abba Anastasia), and we are not ignorant of his splendor [of life] in speech and active virtue, but we also know for certain the truthfulness of the accuser. For one who is drawn to the Lord and lives for Him would not, I think, lie and slander an innocent person distinguished by the merits of virtue. This brought considerable torment to my mind. He strongly condemned him through the mouth of the most God-fearing Abba Job, his own brother, and hurried us to make known our opinion on this matter without any delay or delay. He also wrote that he claimed that we too were inclined to such a judgment, being in agreement and like-minded with him (at which I was all the more amazed - for he, I will not deceive, presented us with sayings, and we confirmed that they belong to the holy and chosen fathers - but did not at all agree that in them the Trisagion canticle refers to the Son alone), and that John, the much-blessed patriarch of the Holy City 142 of our Lord Jesus Christ, the man of God and most divine, thinks the same way. That is why, as [Abba Sergius] writes, he spoke out. Therefore, we considered that it was necessary to completely clarify this matter and the opinion that we hold to your godly holiness, so that you would not have any ignorance of our [thoughts]. Because this is both familiar and pleasant to us. (2) So, we affirm that definitions and designations that occur in the proper order are the most solid. After all, Divine Scripture says that God brought all the animals to Adam to see what he would call them. And as Adam called every living soul, so was its name (Gen. 2:19). So, we see names that distinguish one species from another and proper names that distinguish one hypostasis from another, that is, definitions and laws that are still in force. I affirm that this is exactly how, definitively, the one Trinitarian Deity and Dominion was revealed to Isaiah through the seraphim and the Trisagion Hymn, as if in some kind of numerical revelation. After all, why didn’t they sing “Holy” twice, or four times, or innumerable times, and why didn’t the seraphim proclaim twice, or three times, or innumerably the Lord of hosts, the heavens and earth are filled with His glory (Isa. 6:3), but “Holy” three times: “Holy, Holy, Holy,” and “Lord” – once, if not showing that the three are holy hypostases, but one in all three Dominion, and one beginning and glory, essence and Divinity, and that three hypostases are one Holy God, Holy Father, Holy Son and Holy Holy Spirit, but one Holy One, and not three saints, one Lord, and not three Lords? For the three hypostases are God, God and God, but there is one God, and not three Gods; Holy, Holy, Holy, but one Holy One, not three Holy Ones; Lord, Lord, Lord, but one Lord, not three Lords. That is why it is added: “Fill heaven and earth with His glory,” and not theirs. Therefore, the Divinity, that is, the essence, inseparably unfolds in trinity without division, cognizable in three hypostases, and the three hypostases are united and bound into one essence, that is, the Divine, and the Divinity is hallowed and glorified threefold: “Holy, Holy, Holy,” and the three hypostases are glorified singly: Lord of hosts, fill heaven and earth with His glory, For one God is in three hypostases and three are one, that is, one nature, but not one hypostasis, and each of the hypostases is glorified and sanctified more than three times. For the Godhead, being a Trinity of hypostases, is properly and appropriately sanctified in trinity: Holy the Father, Holy the Son, Holy the Holy Spirit, the Lord of Hosts. For the Three are one God and Lord. Each of the hypostases, being one hypostasis, why should it be sanctified three times, and not once, not twice, not four times, and not innumerable times? After all, each of the hypostases of the Divinity is not a Trinity - because then the Divinity will turn out to be a nine, and not a Trinity. After all, why did they sing not the two-holy, or the four-holy, or the ten-holy hymn, but the three-holy hymn, according to the number of hypostases? For just as we speak about the hypostasis of the Father, the hypostasis of the Son, and the hypostasis of the Holy Spirit, and about the Divinity, that is, the trinitarian essence, as embracing three hypostases, and just as it is impermissible to call either the Father, the Son, or the Holy Spirit trinitarian, so one of the hypostases cannot be called triholy, but [should be called] Holy of the Father, Holy of the Son, To the Holy One the Holy Spirit, to the Trisagion the Trinitarian Divinity. So, if the Trisagion hymn does not mean three hypostases, then let us sing “Holy” twice and add “Lord of Hosts.” But this is impermissible, and this is not how the seraphim sang. Let us not invent unnecessary things, lest we appear wiser than the seraphim. (3) If the God-bearing fathers, whose word is law, say that the seraphim said “Holy, Holy, Holy” when singing the Son, then if they said that only the Son, then one could suspect that the Trisagion also refers only to the Son. If the Son is inseparable from the Father and from the Spirit, then the song is inseparable - for we worship the Son together with the Father and the Spirit, and we sing together and glorify together. We say that the song refers only to the Son when we mention the signs of His hypostasis, such as “Son of God,” “Word,” Wisdom and Power of God, born of the Father, incarnate, crucified in the flesh, resurrected, ascended into heaven, seated at the right hand of the Father, and the like. Therefore, just as all of these are signs of one hypostasis, which in no way can be applied to another or to the community of the Divine, so the Trisagion, being an indication of three hypostases, cannot be applied to one. After all, just as we call each hypostasis of humanity a person, and we call a city that contains many people populous, but we cannot call every person populous, so in the Trisagion we call each of the hypostases holy, and trisagion the Trinitarian Deity, but we cannot call one hypostasis trisagion. And just as when enumerating we say “one, one and one,” but we cannot say “three” about each one, so in the Trisagion; and just as we say: “lantern, torch and torch,” and collectively we call it triple radiance, but do not call each trisagion, so it is in the Trisagion. Everything that is individually, simply and abstractly said about the whole Divinity, the same is said about each of the hypostases, and the number “three times” in relation to the Holy Trinity indicates three hypostases. For the God-bearing Epiphanius beautifully and very accurately said: “Why do the seraphim not say “Holy” twice or four times, but three times, if not thereby proclaiming the number of hypostases united into one Dominion and Divinity?” 143 “Holy is God,” and the Father, from whom is the Son and the Holy Spirit, the “Holy Mighty” Son, the hypostatic power of God, the “Holy Immortal” Holy Spirit, the life-giving, as the Apostle says: the law of the Spirit of life (Rom. 8:2) - not because God the Son or the Holy Spirit is not, and not because the Father or the Holy Spirit is not strong, or the Father and the Son are not immortal, but as he said the apostle, wanting to show the hypostases: But we have one God the Father, from whom are all things, and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and one Holy Spirit, in whom are all things (1 Cor. 8:6), and so here, David also proclaimed this, saying: As the deer desires the streams of water, so desires my soul unto Thee, O God (Ps. 41:2). And so, having spoken about the Divinity in general, he adds, wanting to designate the hypostases: “My soul thirsts for the mighty, living God,” that is, for the immortal, eternally living - for the eternally living is immortal. Having said: “My soul longs for You, O God,” he designated the one Divinity. Then, saying: “My soul thirsts for the mighty, living God,” he showed the trinity of hypostases. And again he returned to the singularity of nature: When will I come and appear before the face of God? (Ps. 42:3). (4) If anyone objects that it is often said about one hypostasis “thrice happy”, “thrice desired”, “thrice blessed”, let him know that τρεῖς (three), when written through the two-vowel ει, means a ternary number, and when through a simple iota, it is put instead of “many times”, as we say: “three people”, or: three testify: water, blood and spirit (1 John 5:8), but “three times” (τρίς) with an iota - adverbially, instead of “many times”, as in the apostle: Three times I prayed to the Lord about this (2 Cor. 12:8), instead of “many times.” You should know that the ternary number, when used in the adverbial sense, is written through a simple iota, as “once”, “twice” (δίς), “thrice” (τρίς) and “four times” (τετράκις). And in complex words, whether it means trinity or plurality, it is written through an iota: “three-named” (τρισώυμος) - having three names, “thrice desired” (τριπόθητος) - very desired, “triblessed” - many times blessed, “thrice happy” - many times happy. This is also permissible in relation to one person, much-desired, much-happy and much-blessed. And the meaning of a ternary number can only be attributed to this very number itself, just as it is impossible to call something two-named that does not have two names, and does not wear three colors - three-colored. Therefore, when we say “three-named,” we mean that what is called three-named has exactly three names. If we say “trisagion,” then this is appropriate in relation to the Holy Trinity - for She, having precisely three hypostases, each of which is holy and glorified, could quite accurately be called “trisagion.” If this is said about one hypostasis, then one might suspect that it has three holy essences or three holy hypostases - but both of these are impermissible and impious to speak about one of the hypostases of the Divine. Let us also say that the Trisagion Hymn, which reveals the three hypostases of the Divine, is absurd to attribute to one of these hypostases. After all, if it pointed to the community of essence, it could apply to each of the hypostases, but since this song indicates the number of three hypostases, it would not be appropriate to pronounce it in relation to one, so that the Holy Trinity would not turn out to be nine saints among us. For the number three, when multiplied by itself, naturally produces nine. (5) We said that he who has two names is called two-named, and three - three-named, no more and no less. So, is only the Father, or the Son, or the Holy Spirit thrice Holy, or is only the Father, or only the Son, or only the Holy Spirit Trinitarian, so that everyone can be called thrice-holy? It won't happen! But the infinite number of times is infinite [They are holy]. The Holy Deity, as having three holy hypostases, should naturally be called the Trisagion. So it is not about one of the hypostases that the Trisagion must be sung, which points to the three hypostases of the Divine, for, speaking of the infinite Divinity, it is impossible to use a specific number, except as one in relation to the essence and trinity in relation to the hypostases. If someone asked us why during baptism we perform three immersions, what else can we say in response, except that for each of the hypostases of the Divine there is one immersion and three for the sake of the three number of hypostases, but not three immersions for each hypostasis (after all, in this way we would perform nine immersions, which is not allowed)? Therefore, at each immersion we pronounce the name of one of the hypostases. In the same way, if we are asked why “Holy” is said three times, and not twice or four times, we will answer that because of the Trinitarian nature of the Divinity. So how can we attribute the Trisagion hymn to one hypostasis? After all, we will present ourselves as liars and apostates from our own words: “Each of the hypostases of the Divine,” as the divine Basil says, “is proclaimed individually” 144. One Father and one Holy, for there is one hypostasis, one triholy essence of the Divinity, for there are three hypostases. The Father is not thrice holy, for there is one hypostasis, the Son is not thrice holy, for there is one hypostasis, and the Holy Spirit is not thrice holy, for there is one hypostasis. The entire host of divine and divinely inspired fathers proclaimed with every breath the Holy and All-Holy Spirit. We have not yet found Him as the Trisagion in any patristic writing. This is the stupidity of the fuller, who, out of complete madness, dared, baring, as they say, his head (which serves as a sign of the shamelessness of depraved women), as if he were above the seraphim in wisdom and occult knowledge, to felt the Trisagion hymn, like some kind of unfinished canvas. For if we attribute the Trisagion only to the Son, every doubt has been resolved unconditionally, and let us then, like the Maronites 145,. Let's add the crucifix to the Trisagion. But may the merciful God not cause my lips to say this - death is better! Remove this destruction from me! Death in this cauldron! (2 Kings 4:40). (6) If someone says, as I have heard from many: “Why, when we say “glory to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit,” do we often add “to him crucified by will and risen from the dead,” or something else of that kind, but when we say the trisagion, we do not add: “crucified for us?” - we will answer him that we must observe the customs and traditions of the church. For it is said: Do not move the old boundary that your fathers set (Prov. 22:28). And the great Basil said that “everything distinguished by antiquity is venerable” 146 So, the Church has a custom, inherited from ancient times, to say as a saying “Glory to the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit.” Therefore, when we pronounce a saying 147, say, a psalm or a song, we often add the hymn of the troparion, which does not depend on the meaning of the saying, so when we say as the saying “glory to the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit,” we add a troparion that is suitable only for the Son and is not related in meaning and content to “glory to the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit.” After all, “Glory to the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit...” has a dative case, and the chant is often genitive, accusative, nominative or vocative, and from here it is clear that the chant is not connected in meaning with “glory to the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit.” And when we say only “Glory to the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit” not as a saying, then in no way do we add the Cross or anything else that defines only the hypostasis of the Father, Son or Holy Spirit. “Holy God” Father, “Holy Mighty” Son, incarnate and crucified in the flesh, and risen, “Holy Immortal” – the Holy Spirit. Having named the three hypostases and wanting to show that they are one God, I, connecting, add: “Have mercy on us,” as God says, giving Moses the law: The Lord God, the Lord is one (Deut. 6:4), and the seraphim: “Holy, Holy, Holy is the Lord of hosts.” God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit, but one God, said the God-speaking fathers, and Holy the Father, Holy the Son, Holy the Holy Spirit, but all three are one Holy; Lord, Lord and Lord, but one Lord. And what is God, God and God the Father, or God, God and God the Son, or God, God and God the Holy Spirit, or Holy, Holy, Holy, or Lord. Lord, Lord about one of the hypostases - none of our chosen fathers expressed this. For just as it is impossible to call the Trinity one hypostasis, it is not appropriate to call any of the hypostases Trinity. So, under the triblessed Proclus, according to the revelation of God, they sang the Trisagion hymn: “Holy God, Holy Mighty, Holy Immortal, have mercy on us,” when, as they say, a child was caught up into the air from the crowd of worshipers and taught this song by some angelic power, and the evidence of the divinity of the hymn was the end of the misfortune 148 . Thus the divine fias of the six hundred and thirty fathers sang, leaping with the divine spirit 149 . And what is this new and empty teaching that is now confusing and disorderly shaking the people of God? (7) But someone, perhaps, will say again: why, when we say “hypostasis, hypostasis, hypostasis,” are we talking about three hypostases, but “God, God, God” – not about three Gods? To this we answer that particular properties are not generalized, but general ones, even if they are inherent in each of the particulars, are considered in a single and general way, and each hypostasis is considered separately, and they do not have one common hypostasis. Divinity, and sanctification, and Dominion, although each hypostasis participates in it, is common to the three hypostases, being one. After all, there is not one deity for the Father, another for the Son, a third for the Holy Spirit, and sanctification and dominion - but one and the same, wholly and inseparably existing in each of the hypostases, wholly Fatherly, wholly Sonular, wholly Spiritual, one of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. The hypostases are not like this, but one is the Father’s, another is the Son’s, and another is the Holy Spirit. Therefore, each hypostasis in itself is called God, and the Holy One, and the Lord, and the like - and when they are counted together, then there are not three Gods, or Saints, or Lords, but three - one God, one Lord, one Holy One, because God and His Powers, the Word and the Spirit, one God, one Holy One, one Lord, and not three. But God, God and God because of the hypostatic perfection of each: the Holy One, the Holy One and the Holy One, and the Lord, the Lord and the Lord, but not three Gods, Saints or Lords. Because the Word and the Spirit are powers of the Father, but they are hypostatic powers and inseparable from Him, from Whom and in Whom They are, and to Whom They relate as a cause - for They are not separated from Him by place, nor by desire, nor by action, nor by force or authority, nor by anything that is said about God, but only by the hypostases and distinctive properties of each hypostasis. For when we are born, we are immediately rejected and separated from our fathers: this is what Gregory the Theologian means when he says: “having left, we are abandoned” 150. After all, with us the son is not the power of [his] father, or reason [logos], or wisdom, but with God both coincide - the Son and the Spirit are the Powers of the Father, just as the word and spirit are the powers of the mind, and [at the same time] perfect hypostases, as befits only the all-essential God. We are cut off by will, and by force, and by place. That is why it is said about us: such and such are people, and not “man” - but with God it is not so, but according to the above. But let us consider the sayings they cite and carry out an accurate study of them. Yes, they belong to the fathers, and we in no way deny this - but it must be proven that the holy fathers and teachers agree and do not contradict each other, much less refute or disagree 151. After all, the single power and illumination of the Spirit revealed their thoughts about faith as one and unchanging. (8) So, this is what the divine Athanasius, who abides in the blessed, says in his Word on the Incarnation and the Trinity: “Therefore he who was born and became man is God, and we say that he who became man for our sake is God. But not God, God and God is one of the Trinity, the Son of God and the Holy God - but not the Holy One, the Holy One and the Holy One. And not only three times Holy, but infinitely and infinitely Holy and Most Holy.” And also in another place: “We saw Him, and He had neither form nor beauty. For before he beheld Him in a Divine and glorious form, seated on a throne, high and exalted, when the cherubim praised Him: Holy, Holy, Holy is the Lord of hosts. And then he sees Him taking the form of a servant and becoming like men” 152. This is what they bring, and we welcome it - but let them say: did he see the Son alone sitting on the throne, or together with the Father? Alone, the one being praised, or together with the Father and the Spirit? Now, if there is only one, then let them sing the Trisagion hymn to the Son alone. If it is with the Father and the Spirit, let them understand that it is inseparable from the Trinity, the praise of one essence and Lordship, revealing three hypostases. For the seraphim sang “Holy, Holy, Holy,” and, bringing the song to the Trinity, they sing the Son, because the Son is one of the Trinity. And whoever attributes the Trisagion hymn only to the Son makes the Father and the Spirit not part of the praise, because the general embraces the particular, but the particular does not embrace the whole. For the one who said “man” designated all individual [people], and the one who said “Peter” indicated only him alone, excluding the other hypostases of humanity. (9) Again they present the words of St. Epiphany from the word about the Holy Mother of God: “Blessed One among women, who gave birth to the Word, from You incarnate, the Word - the Son of the Father, the Word - the eternal God, the Word without beginning and eternal, the Word, consubstantial with the indivisible Trinity, the Word, worshiped by the Father and the Holy Spirit, the Word, co-throne with the Father, the Word, seated on the cherubim, the Word, Whom the four-shaped animals glorify: Holy, Holy, Holy is the Lord Hosts, fill heaven and earth with Your glory" 153. If His glory is different from that of the Father, then we recognize that the song belongs only to Him. If the doxology is one and common for the entire Holy Trinity, then the song is one and common. For by saying “Holy, Holy, Holy,” they glorify the Son, but not only the Son, but one of the Holy Trinity, among the Father and the Spirit. (10) Then Chrysostom, on the Blessed One 154, whose beginning: “From miracles to miracles”: “Today the King of glory is prophetically glorified on earth, and proclaims its inhabitants to be partners in the heavenly feast, in order to show that He is Lord of both earth and heaven, for both are sung accordingly. Therefore, those on high, proclaiming salvation on earth, sang: “Holy, Holy, Holy is the Lord of hosts, the whole earth is filled with His glory,” while those below, celebrating the heavenly rejoicing, exclaimed: Hosanna in the highest, Hosanna to the Son of David (Matthew 21:9).” Who, being in their right mind, will say that the Son of David is excommunicated from the thrice-holy praise? For He, one of the Trinity, is glorified together with the Father and the Spirit, but the Trisagion does not refer only to Him. For the seraphim, saying “Holy, Holy, Holy,” signify not only the Father, or only the Son, or the Holy Spirit, but the Trinitarian Divinity as one triholy Lordship. This means that One and the Same One was praised in heaven with the Father and the Spirit, and the seraphim sang Him not alone, but together with the Father and the Spirit, crying: Holy, Holy, Holy. And He was sung on earth: Hosanna in the highest, Hosanna to the Son of David, almost proving with the song that He was one of the highest hypostases of the Divine, although He was called the Son of David. (11) And if the God-bearing father says that “those on high sang, proclaiming salvation on earth,” then he said it beautifully and by inspiration. After all, we know that heaven and earth are always full of Divine glory. For all the works of the Lord bless the Lord (Ps. 103:22) and proclaim His glory (Ps. 19:2). But since in heaven the angels knew the glory of the existing God, human nature, having received the earth as its inheritance, fell into error and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image similar to corruptible man, and birds, and four-footed animals (Rom. 1:23), the God-bearing father says that the earth was filled with Divine glory when the inhabitants of the earth knew it, and this - and nothing else - became their salvation. The Divine glory, of course, is the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit. For in this way the unfaithful Lord spoke to the Father: Father, I have finished the work that You gave Me to do... I have revealed Your name (John 17:4-6), and also: This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus, whom You have sent (John 17:3). Thus, both nature and glory are common to the three hypostases of the Godhead. (12) Also Cyril of Alexandria from the sixth word on the Holy Trinity, of which the beginning: “So, equalities”: “And the divine Isaiah says that he beheld the Son in no less glory, for he said: “I saw the Lord of hosts sitting on a throne, high and exalted, and His glory filled the whole church. The Seraphim stood around Him; each of them had six wings: with two he covered his face, and with two he covered his feet, and with two he flew. And they called to each other, and spoke of sanctification, which at the beginning is threefold, but ends in unity and one Dominion"" 155. Now, he clearly says that, chanting the Lord of hosts, Who is one God, glorified in three hypostases, they sang a hymn with a trinitarian beginning, that is, first a triple hymn to the three hypostases - sanctification, ending in unity and one Dominion, that is, [according to him], the trinity of hypostases is one in essence and one Dominion expressed by the threefold sanctification. So “Holy, Holy, Holy” indicates three hypostases, and not one, and “Lord of Hosts” reveals one Deity and Dominion. (13) And also Cyril of Alexandria from the ninth word “On Worship in the Spirit”: “And the fact that the cherubim thus eternally look at the propitiation obviously shows the intense concentration and insatiability of the higher powers in contemplation of God. And the prophet Isaiah writes: “I saw the Lord of hosts, sitting on a throne, high and exalted, and around Him stood Seraphim,” and says that each had six wings: with two they covered their legs, with two they covered their head, and on two they flew.” 156 “The propitiation, therefore, is Christ, who, even having appeared in the flesh, is nevertheless God and Lord by nature and truth, and around Him the highest powers also servilely stand.” Whoever has intact powers of reason should know that the word “also” means that it was not only He who had the singing powers, and it was not He who was offered the Trisagion. For the expression, because of the conjunction “also,” refers to both the Father and the Spirit. After all, “also,” being a connecting conjunction, denotes addition. Therefore, while the singing forces undoubtedly stood around the Father, he said that the same forces also stood around Christ, Who is with the Father. If the forces singing “Holy, Holy, Holy” stand around the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, then the Trisagion, which reveals three hypostases, should not be offered only to the Son. For if they chanted “Holy” once; twice or four times, while there are three hypostases, we would say that the song refers to each hypostasis separately - after all, the general affects each of the particulars. But since the Trisagion Hymn has a proper [number] and points to three hypostases, it is not appropriate that what signifies three hypostases should be spoken of one. After all, if this were said about one, then it would no longer be an indication of three, and since this is, of course, an indicator of three hypostases, then they will not say that about one. (14) Also from the same Cyril from the fourth word to Hermias, whose beginning: “God from God”: “And even being, for whatever reason, equated with the angels, He shines on the Throne of the Father and is seated with the Father, and they stand around, not despising the measure of His slavery, and He is and is called the Lord of hosts, they magnify Him with the praises of the Lord and say that heaven and earth are full of His glory. So, to say that this One, to whom even the possessors of the highest glory are so amazed, was created - is this not a disease dull and rotten mind? 157 Who will object that the Son is preceded by Seraphim, or that He is co-praised with the Father and the Spirit and together with Them accepts the song that He is the Holy Lord of Hosts, and that heaven and earth are full of His glory? But the one who says this does not relate the Trisagion hymn to the Son alone - as if someone sings the Twelve of the Divine Apostles, calling it the twelve-stringed lyre of the Spirit, none of the apostles will be left without honor - for each is called the string of the Spirit, but the song does not refer only to each one individually - after all, not only Peter is the twelve-stringed lyre of the Spirit, and not only Andrew, but the whole Twelver, and at least one uttered [this] song, chanting, say, Peter, it would still mean not only Peter, but would sing with him the whole host of the apostles. If anyone says: “The twelve-string lyre of the apostles, the son of Jonah of Bethsaida, who suffered martyrdom in Rome under Nero,” he will show himself to be a liar. In the same way, whoever says: “Holy, Holy, Holy, He was crucified for us,” will turn out to be a blasphemer, just as he who says: “Thrice Holy, Crucified for us.” (15) Also from the same Cyril from the fifth Word to Hermias, whose beginning: “Let it be with us”: “And around the supernatural and exalted throne stand the seraphim, praising Him and calling Him Holy and Lord of hosts, and saying that heaven and earth are full of His glory. And the One who rules everything equally is equal and equal to the Father, and no less glorious - for everything is full of His glory" 158. We affirm, and this is true, that the meaning of these words is the same as the previous ones. (16) Also from the above Word: “But if he were dishonored and far from worship, why do the seraphim stand around the Son seated on the throne of the Godhead, honoring Him with songs and hymns, and calling Him Lord of hosts, and saying that heaven and earth are full of His glory?” We also know this saying and agree with it, but it does not prescribe that the Son be considered thrice-holy. (17) Blessed Proclus of Constantinople from the “Sermon on the Holy Theotokos”: “He is crucified on the cross, and His throne in heaven is not empty, He is enshrined in a tomb and He stretches out the sky like a skin, He is numbered among the dead and He casts down Hell, He is slandered down as a deceiver and the mountain “Holy, Holy, Holy” is glorified” 159. In one, and two, and many old books, I saw that the most holy Proclus says “Holy” here once. But even if we admit that he wrote “Holy” three times, this has the same meaning as the previous statements, that is, that He, as one of the Holy Trinity, is glorified with the Father and the Spirit when the seraphim cry: “Holy, Holy, Holy is the Lord of hosts.” (18) The same Saint Proclus from the “Praise to the Holy Mother of God”, which begins: “All testimonies and celebrations”: “There is nothing in life like the Mother of God Mary. O man, mentally go around all creation, and see if there is anything greater or equal to the Holy Mother of God. Search the earth, survey the sea, explore the air, study the heavens with your mind, think about all the invisible forces and see if there is such a miracle in all creation? For the heavens preach the glory of God (Ps. 18:1), the angels serve with fear, the archangels worship trembling, the cherubim, not carried away, are terrified, the seraphim do not approach, flying around and crying out in trepidation; “Holy, Holy, Holy is the Lord, the earth is full of His praise” 160. It is clear that here the meaning is the same as in the previous passages - but let those who quote this saying heed and understand - and I am convinced that they will understand and be enlightened by the fullness of knowledge about this, if only the Spirit of God lives in them. (19) St. Athanasius from the “Sermon on the Incarnation and the Trinity,” whose beginning: “Those who are evil”: “And when the seraphim glorify, saying three times, “Holy, Holy, Holy is the Lord of hosts,” they glorify the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit” 161. (20) Saint Basil from the “Word to Amphilochius on the Holy Spirit”: “As the seraphim would say, “Holy, Holy, Holy is the Lord,” if they had not learned from the Spirit, how many times would it be pious to offer this praise?” 162. The Father saved us from long conversations by telling us more clearly how many times it is pious to offer this praise. For it is not pious twice or four times, but three times and once: three times “Holy” for the sake of the trinity of hypostases, but once “Lord” for the sake of the uniqueness and unity of the essence. For if only the Son, then why not “Holy” once and “Lord” once, why not twice and not four times? After all, the number “three” is not dedicated to one of the hypostases, and is no more characteristic of it than other numbers. (21) Him, Saint Basil, from the “Fourth Word against Eunomius”, which begins: “If the Son is by nature God”: “That in vision and in prophecy the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are inseparable, said the prophet Isaiah: I saw the Lord sitting on a throne, high and exalted, and His glory filled the whole church. Seraphim stood around Him; each of them has six wings. And a little later he says: And the Lord said to me: Tell this people: You will hear with your ears and will not understand, and with your eyes you will see and will not see. For the heart of this people has become hardened (Isa. 6:9-10) and so on. So, according to this statement and the sequence of the prophetic book, the Lord of all, the Father, appeared and spoke to the prophet. The Son of Thunder, however, whose speech is more amazing and terrible than thunder, whose own speech was the Word (John 1:1), and not “There was no Word,” 163 says that the Son appeared and spoke to the prophet. For in his essay he writes: Therefore the Jews could not believe in Jesus, because, as Isaiah also said, this people had blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts, so that they would not see with their eyes, nor understand with their hearts, nor should they be converted, so that I would heal them. Isaiah said this when he saw His glory (John 12:39–41). Paul declared the vision and prophecy [coming from] the Spirit, saying: Well did the Holy Spirit say to our fathers through Isaiah: You will hear with your ears and not understand, and with your eyes you will see and not see. For the heart of these people has become hardened (Acts 28:25–27). The prophet speaks on behalf of the Father, in whom the Jews believed, the evangelist speaks about the Son, and Paul speaks about the Spirit, together calling him the Lord of hosts. Their word about the hypostases is separate, but their judgment about the one God is indivisible. For the image [of existence] 164 and the expression of hypostasis are inseparably divided, which is why “Holy, Holy, Holy” is threefold, because of the trinity of hypostases, but “Lord” is once, because of the uniqueness of the Divinity.” (22) St. Gregory the Theologian from the “Word for Christmas”: “When I say “God,” I mean the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, because the Divinity [with us] does not spread beyond this number, so as not to introduce a crowd of gods, and is not limited to less, so that we are not condemned for the lack of Divinity, as Judaizers because of unity of command - or Hellenizers because of excess: for evil both there and there are the same, although they are opposites. So the Holy of Holies, hidden by the seraphim and glorified by three consecrations, converge into one Dominion and Divinity, about which someone else before us philosophized in the most beautiful and sublime way” 165. (23) And Saint Cyril of Alexandria in the “Herald to Euthymius on the Spirit”, of which the beginning: “Good Works”: “Well, doesn’t Scripture call the words of God Himself the words of the Spirit? After all, the prophetic Isaiah, telling us about this extraordinary and most terrible vision, says: I saw the Lord sitting on a high and exalted throne. And, adding something else, he continues: And I heard the voice of the Lord of hosts, saying: Whom shall I send? and who will go for Us? And I said: here I am, send me. And He said: Go and tell this people: You will hear with your ears and not understand, and with your eyes you will see and will not see (Isa. 6:8-9). But the divine John speaks of the Only Begotten: This was said by Isaiah, who saw His glory and spoke of Him (John 12:41). The wisest Stephen said, addressing the Jews: Stiff-necked ones! people of uncircumcised heart, you always resist the Holy Spirit, just as your fathers did, so do you (Acts 7:51). Isn’t it still clear that by the otherness of its special hypostasis it is fully recognizable what is the Father, what is the Son, and what is the Spirit, and by the coincidence in natural unity of all Their presence, and speech, and participation, and action, and glory, and everything that adorns the Divine nature? 166 Well, doesn’t anyone who is at least a little familiar with dogma see clearly that the Trisagion hymn “by the otherness of its special hypostasis,” as the divine father said, shows the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and with the word “Lord” - unity of command and “coincidence in natural unity.” For the numeral “three times” is the designation of three, and one is one. Therefore, “Holy, Holy, Holy” and thrice-holy, for there are three hypostases, “Lord”, because three hypostases are one God. Three are one God, because there is one Divinity, and that which is from Him belongs to Him, and the hypostases do not go beyond His boundaries, are not composed and do not merge. (24) Saint Gregory of Nyssa from the First Discourse against Eunomius: “The same is true of the seraphim in Isaiah, by whom the mystery of the Trinity was clearly preached, when they, delighted with the beauty of each of the Holy Trinity, proclaimed in amazement the word “Holy”" 167. Here the God-speaking father clearly says that with the Trisagion hymn “the mystery of the Trinity was clearly preached”: with the threefold exclamation “Holy” - the trinity of persons, with the single invocation “Lord” - the unity of nature and Dominion. (25) And the holy and wondrous Epiphanius says approximately this in the book entitled “The Anchor”: “Through the triple witness they will receive the Holy Spirit and will be clearly filled with the voice of the cherubim and seraphim, crying three times “Holy, Holy, Holy” - for the doxology in heaven is not accomplished with two exclamations. And for the fourth time these same holy, invisible and spiritual beings do not call and make a fourth proclamation. And not just one, but three exclamations in the singular: “Holy, Holy, Holy,” and not “holy, holy, holy,” so as not to represent the one with many names, but also not to hide the three-number of three. They pronounce the consecration three times, but they pronounce the word in the same way and in the singular, so as not to name polytheism” 168. This theophanized father delivered us by speaking more clearly than anyone about this matter, that the doxology in heaven is accomplished not by two or one exclamation, and not by four, but by three, and, moreover, in the singular. Why? Because the song points to three hypostases, and not to one. Therefore, just as the hymn is performed not with two or four exclamations, but with three due to the trinity of hypostases, so the Trisagion hymn, indicating three hypostases, cannot be attributed to one. So, it is impossible, as I said above, to apply a specific number to God, except one because of the unity of nature and three because of the trinity of hypostases. And the singular number is said about the three hypostases: God, God and God, but one God, and not three Gods, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, so that unity of command would not be considered polytheism, and the one and indivisible God would not be separated from His hypostatic powers. For God, and His Word, and the Holy Spirit are one God, although each is a perfect hypostasis according to the supernaturality of the Divinity: the Trinity number does not refer to one hypostasis. For each hypostasis is not trinitarian, so that the triple number shows the trinity of each hypostasis. Away, away - this is not from a pious thought, but beyond the bounds of sound mind. (26) This, O divine father, pillar and affirmation of the truth, we beg you to read to all the fathers and brethren and the entirety of the Church, and with meek words to exhort our father Cyrus Abba Anastasius, the glorious leader of the gracious monastery of our God-bearing father Euthymius, so that he ceases to insist on his own, but, together with us, following in the footsteps of the God-inspired fathers, says: “Holy God and Father, Holy Mighty Son, incarnate and crucified in the flesh for our sake, Holy Immortal Holy Spirit: only Lord of hosts, have mercy on us.” And let him not accuse either us or the Triblessed Patriarch John, as if, in our opinion, the Trisagion hymn is spoken about one of the Divine hypostases. After all, anyone who thinks or speaks like this is an accomplice of the thoughtlessness of a low fuller. Because who knows better than me the way of thinking of His Beatitude Patriarch John? Nobody. To tell the truth, he never took a single breath of faith that he did not tell me, his student, about. Why, while the sacred man was alive and could speak out, was this not said about him? At best, this is nothing more than some speculation that has no solid basis. Let them not slander the zealot who breathed the fire of Orthodoxy, the calf 169 of the glorified John, all the idle talk of a persecutor and destroyer who joined the holiest fathers of theology. But let his zeal be welcomed, and let him be praised as a most holy and illustrious [husband]. May the God of peace, the Father of Christ our God (for He is our peace), fill our hearts with the Holy Spirit to test controversial opinions, and drive away from us all evil stubbornness, pacifying the Holy Church, which His beloved Son, the Divine Jesus, acquired for Him with His honest blood. Pray for us, God-honored one, for you are honored by God. (27) We must add the following to our reasoning: at the sacred offering, during the performance of the Divine Mysteries, after the people have uttered the Trisagion hymn, the priest, as if explaining it, says: “Holy art thou, the eternal King and Lord of all holiness and Giver. Holy and only begotten is Thy Son, by whom Thou hast created all things, Holy is Thy Most Holy Spirit, who testeth all things and the depths of Thy God.” Why does he not say: “Holy, Holy, Holy to the King of the ages, Holy, Holy, Holy is Your only begotten Son,” but together with the Trinity: “Holy, Holy, Holy,” and to each of the hypostases – once “Holy”? And at the exaltation of the Eucharistic Bread we do not say “thrice Holy” or “thrice Lord,” but “One Holy, One Lord, Jesus Christ to the glory of God the Father with the Holy Spirit, to Him be glory.” (28) Since in ordinary prayers we recite the Trisagion hymn three times, it is worth considering this - that not once to the Father and not once to the Son and not once to the Holy Spirit do we offer the Trisagion hymn, but three times we present it to the whole Holy Trinity. For the seraphim always stand before God, constantly bringing the trisagion of praise, and we, since we send up the established hymn to God at certain hours, appropriately and fittingly give the trisagion three times in general to the Holy Trinity. And because of this, we prefer the triple number to others in everything, as pointing to the Holy Trinity and having received completeness and perfection from Her. For one has no quantity, two is the beginning of calculation, and three is a perfect number. The Divinity is not in the Trinity because of the number, but the number three is perfect, because the Divinity is threefold. For one, having moved from the beginning into two, stopped when it reached the trinity - for God is the beginning and cause of existence. Therefore, from the Beginning and Cause of existence, number received this power, because, just as the Father is the Parent of the Son and the Producer of the Spirit, so number, passing through the two and reaching the trinity, stops. Therefore, the singular number denotes one, the dual signifies two, and the plural signifies three, and none more exists. After all, we talk about one person “man”, about two - “[two] people”, and about three “people” 170 - and about God that there is “one hypostasis” of the Father, “two hypostases” of the Father and the Son, “three hypostases” of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, because the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are distinguished by hypostasis, and likewise there are three hypostatic features. Where hypostasis does not differ from hypostasis, that is, in the properties of nature, it is impossible to count God in the plural, but each hypostasis should be spoken of individually when it comes to natural properties, and, connecting, again speaking individually about these properties in general for three hypostases: God, God and God, but one God, and not three, because God and His hypostatic powers are one God. Each, since He has His own special hypostasis, is called perfect God in Himself, and since They are counted together, there are not three Gods, but one, because the Word and the Spirit are the powers of the Father. The Father is the Father, and not the son, for He comes from no one. The Son is the Son, for He is from the Father and not the Father, so that the Father may be one. The Holy Spirit is the Holy Spirit, for He comes from the Father through the Son and the Word, but not in a filial manner. For if the Son is the Son of the Father and the Spirit is the son, then He will have other sons, and so on ad infinitum. If the Spirit is the son of the Son, then He will also have a son, and he will have another, and so on ad infinitum, and there will be many gods and many lords, and a crowd of gods, and not just one God. We have one God the Father, and His Word, and His Spirit. The Word is an enhypostatic generation, therefore He is the Son, and the Spirit is an enhypostatic procession and issuance from the Father, the Son, but not from the Son, as the Spirit of the mouth of God proclaiming the word. And of course, the mouth is not a bodily organ, and the spirit is not a dissolving and spreading breath. But this requires another study. Now, having explained our subject as far as possible, let us conclude our discussion. But I know that you, filled with the Spirit, will yourselves, in a friendly manner, fill in what is lacking, praying for us unceasingly. Since some imagine that dragons take on human form and become snakes, sometimes small, sometimes huge, differing in length and body size, and sometimes, as has already been said, turning into people, they enter into communication with them, appear, kidnap women and cohabit with them, then we ask [those who tell all this]: how many rational natures did God create? And if they don’t know, then let’s say it ourselves: two, I mean angels and people. After all, the devil was one of the angelic forces and walks in darkness after he voluntarily fell away from the light. So, these two rational natures [He] created: but if the dragon changes form, communicates with people and cohabits with women, becoming either a snake or a man, as if one of many, then it clearly follows that he is a rational [creature] and significantly superior to man; but this is precisely what never happened and never will happen. Let them say again: who actually tells about it? For we trust the teaching of Moses, or rather the Holy Spirit, who spoke through [the prophet]. [The teaching] this says: “And God brought all the animals to Adam to see what he would call them; and as [the man] called, so was their name” (cf. Gen. 2:19). Therefore, the dragon was one of the animals. After all, I do not tell you that there are no dragons: dragons exist, but they are snakes, born from other dragons. Being just born and young, they are small, but when they grow up and reach the limit of age, they become large and thick, so that they surpass the other snakes in length and size. As they say, they grow over thirty cubits 171, and become as thick as a large log: Dio the Roman 172, who wrote the History of the Roman Empire and the Republic, in which he spoke about the glorious Carthaginian War, reports the following: once, when the Roman consul Regulus was fighting against Carthage, a suddenly crawling dragon settled down behind the rampart of the Roman army; The Romans, by order of Regulus, killed him and, having torn off his skin, sent it to the Roman Senate. When the skin, as Dion says, was measured by order of the Senate, then, a great miracle, it turned out to be one hundred and twenty feet 173 in length; The thickness was also appropriate for the length. There is another kind of dragons that have a wide head, golden eyes and horny protrusions on the back of their heads; still others have a beard [growing] from the throat - this kind of dragons is called “agathodemons” 174 and they say that they have no faces. And this dragon is a kind of animal, like other animals. After all, he has a beard like a goat, as well as a horn above the back of his head. His eyes are large and golden. They come in both big and small. All kinds of snakes are poisonous, except the dragon, which alone does not release poison. They also tell a fable that a dragon is driven out by thunder: it rises and is killed. Hearing this made me laugh. How can one imagine [the dragon] as either humanoid and intelligent, or as a snake, or as resisting God, or as being persecuted by Him? Truly, ignorance is an unreliable thing. And therefore, most of all, we harm ourselves when we neglect to read the Holy Books and study them according to the word of the Lord. But the warrior says: “I am a warrior and do not need to read,” - the farmer excuses himself by farming; Others do likewise, so that we all find ourselves failing to fulfill [the commandment of the Lord]. Thunder does not chase the dragon; thunder comes from a cloud when a cloud, pouring rain due to humidity and being driven by a breath or wind, thickens. And when a breath penetrates into it and destroys it, then a rumble occurs; this noise above is called thunder, and what falls to the ground under the influence of the force of the wind is called lightning. If it hits a house or a tree, it breaks or splits them, but if it hits a person or any other living creature, it causes death to them; Therefore, we see that people and other animals, and not dragons, are often killed by such a blow. As for lightning, some of them are similar in shape to lines, others are sinuous, and others are fire-like. It is also said that lightning and thunder happen together; Immediately after the cloud breaks, lightning and thunder follow, while the lightning, previously invisible, appears immediately, and the thunder lags until it descends from a height. Therefore, a thunderclap is heard later than lightning. I'll give you another example. Look carefully, when someone standing in the distance on an elevated place gives a signal, you first see his hand knocking on the wood, and only after a while the sound of a blow reaches your ears. Consider that the same thing happens in the cloud. When it, filled inside with wind, is destroyed by the force of moisture, it produces sound. If it happens that it collides with another cloud, then the sound will be [especially] strong. I want you not to be ignorant about the following. Some of the more ignorant claim that there are ghost women, who are also called geludas. They say that they appear in the air at night and, if they visit a house, it is impossible to prevent them either by doors or locks, but they enter through doors that are locked with all care and strangle babies. Others say that they eat the liver and the entire [internal] composition of [children], putting the limits of their life. At the same time, some claim that they saw, others that they heard, how [ghosts] enter houses with locked doors, whether with a body or only a soul. I will tell them that our Lord and God Jesus Christ alone did this when He entered after His resurrection from the dead to His holy apostles with the doors locked. And if women witches did and do this, then the Lord did absolutely nothing worthy of surprise when he entered when the doors were locked. If they say that the soul enters naked [of the flesh], while the body lies on the bed, then, behold, hear from me what our Lord Jesus Christ said: I have power to lay down my life, and I have power to take it up again (John 10:18). Which He did once during His Holy Passion. And therefore, if a sorcerous and vile woman does this whenever she wants, then it turns out that the Lord has not created anything [miraculous] at all. And one more thing: if a witch eats a baby’s liver, how can he continue to live? [Hence it is certain] that all this nonsense is invented by certain heretics who are hostile to the Holy Catholic Church in order to turn the simple minds away from right understanding. See: Evans D. B. Leontius of Byzantium. An Origenist Christology. Washington, 1970 (Dumbarton Oaks Studies 13). About “excessive symmetry” in Leontius of Byzantium, see: Florovsky G.I. Byzantine fathers of the VI-VIII centuries. Paris, 1933, p. 125. Wed. also Grumel V. L’union hypostatique saint Maxime le Confesseur // Echo d’Orient, 25, 1926, p. 393–406. About Leontius of Jerusalem and Justinian, see the corresponding sections in the book: Mey endorff J. Christ in Eastern Christian Church. Washington, 1969. Rev. Maxim the Confessor. Creations. Translation, commentary and introductory article by A. I. Sidorov. Moscow: Martis. Book 1, 1993. Book. 2, 1994. Compare, for example, Iwanka E. vop. Aristotelismus und Platonismus im theologischen Denken. Westliche und Östliche Theologie // Scholastic, 14, 1939, S. 373–396. An example of what kind of judgment can be made about the theology of St. John, if you ignore everything except these definitions, see: Langen J. Johannes von Damascus. Gotha, 1879, S. 148. At the same time, objections to this point of view are found in Rozemond K. La Christologie de Saint Jean Damascène. Ettal, 1959, b. 22–23 are clearly insufficient. See note. 83 and 89 to the treatise “Against the Jacobites” For the theological terminology used in Monophysite disputes, see: Richter G. Die Dialektik des Johannes von Damaskos. Ettal, 1964 and a valuable article by Natte rschmidt E. Einige philisophisch-theologische grundbegriffe bei Leontios von Byzanz, Johannes von Damaskus und Theodor Abu Qurra // Ostkirchliche Studien, 4, 1955, S. 147–154. See treatise “On Two Wills,” chap. 42 and 44, approx. 66–67. See "The Word of Faith against the Nestorians", approx. 73. Given here, St. John's classification of causes goes back to Aristotle. The "Word" (λόγος), according to the teaching of the Stoics, could be either "pronounced" (προφορικός) or "internal" (ἐνγιάθετος). The contrast between the “spoken” word and the hypostatic Word of God can be found already in the apologists of the 2nd century, and before them in the Jewish writer Philo of Alexandria. The play on words in the Russian translation is conveyed conditionally. In this formula, as in further reasonings of St. John, there is a very strong emphasis on the freedom of human will, which should not be understood in the sense that the author completely ignored the role of Divine grace: the fact is that in a polemical work against the Manichaeans it was necessary to show that evil is not natural, but is the result of free choice. Compassion, in the original συμπάθεια, where our “sympathy” comes from. Ἐμράθεια, a single-root word, differing only in a prefix, means actual susceptibility to passions (usually in the modern sense of the last word). The translation is made taking into account this play on words. For the root word πάθος, see also note. 104 to the treatise “The Epistle to the Jacobite.” In the sense that God is above being itself as its cause and only source. Therefore, “God exists” is not said in the same sense as “creation exists,” so one can say either that creation does not have existence in the proper sense (since it cannot exist on its own without the Creator), or that God “does not exist” (since He is above any definition, including being). St. Dionysius the Areopagite. About the Divine Names (PG 3, 732 VS). According to Manichaean mythology, the sun, moon and planets served as certain “way stations” through which particles of light (that is, saved souls) were transported from the material world to the region of the good principle. St. John uses here the word λόγια, which in colloquial Greek could serve as the plural of λόγος, thus acquiring a narrower meaning (since λόγος means thought, mind, rather than an element of speech). On the other hand, ῥ ῆμα (“verb”) has a distinct connotation of an order, a command. Nevertheless, this passage represents advice to a Christian, dictated by purely tactical considerations, since θεῖα λόγια was a quite common designation for Holy Scripture among Christians. From this point to the last paragraph of Ch. 9, the manuscript tradition has preserved two slightly different versions of the text, which complement each other. In translation, they are combined, since this can be done without compromising the meaning and consistency of the argument, and in each specific case, preference is given to a more detailed version. The appearance (μορφή) here most likely refers not to philosophical terminology, but to the well-known expression of the apostle. Paul “having taken the form of a servant” (Phil. 2:6), where this very word is used in Greek (in the Church Slavonic translation “zrak” as opposed to “image” - εἰκών). The translation “image” in this case is impossible, since it would cause confusion with the teaching of the same St. John about icons. This means that, although sin is not an essential property of human nature, the Fall of Adam changed this nature as such. The definition of a person accepted in ancient philosophy, which St. uses here. John (a rational and mortal living being, ζῶον λογικὸν θνητόν), applies only to fallen human nature, since death was a consequence of the Fall. See note. 81 to the treatise “The Epistle to the Jacobite.” The text of this paragraph appears to be corrupted. Added for meaning. In the original, the opposition is ἀμέτοχον – μεθεκτόν, something in which one cannot or can be involved. St. John wants to say that one can participate not in the Divine essence, but only in the Divine action. The difference between the absolutely unknowable essence of God and His partially knowable action is explained in great detail in the works of St. Gregory Palamas. Here, in all cases, the word δύναμις is used, the meaning of which is conveyed by the philosophical term “potency”, but the translation into literary Russian may vary depending on the context: strength, opportunity, ability. Movement according to aspiration (καθ ’ὁ ρμὴν κίνσις) – the ability to arbitrarily move your body in space; according to the ideas of the ancients, one of the characteristics by which animals differ from plants. By “outflow” (ῥ εῦσις) one should understand what in modern biology is called “metabolism”, i.e. that the material composition of the body is not constant, but fluid. “Dissection” (τομή) is one of the main characteristics of the body, because the soul, unlike it, cannot be divided into parts. Moreover, τομή is inherent in any material body, and ῥ εῦσις only in living nature. About this law, as a form of Divine creation after the creation of the world, see “Conversation between a Saracen and a Christian,” chapter 1. St. Gregory the Theologian. Sl. 45 b (PG 36, 632 C). From the word γνώμη - moral choice, a conscious decision manifested in actions. Γνωμικόν, object γνώμη. From unsurvived creations, fr. V. Clement of Alexandria, fr. 40. On the Incarnation against Apollinaris, 1 (PG 26, 1120 B) (authenticity doubtful). Message 101 (PG 37, 181 C). In fact, in Discourse 13 on the Epistle to the Romans, ch. 2 (PG 60, 510). The source for these two quotes has not been found. The quotation itself was omitted from the manuscripts and was filled in by the publisher according to the treatise “On the Beatitudes,” chapter 4 (PG 44, 1237 A). Θεανδρικὴ ἐνέργειαε, a concept first found in Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite (5th century). The Orthodox interpretation of this expression, which is reproduced here by St. John, it was given to Rev. Maximus the Confessor. Dionysius the Areopagite. Message 4 (PG 3, 1072 C). See note. 45 to the treatise “On the properties of two natures.” Σχετικὴ συνάφεια, a key Christological term for the Nestorians, against which St. Cyril of Alexandria (σχετική – from the noun σχέσις, “relationship”, συνάφεια – from συνάπτο, “to bind”), in both of its parts emphasizes the fragility of the union of Divinity and humanity in Christ. This refers to the definite article ὁ, roughly corresponding to the German der, English the or French le. "Christ" without the article would simply mean "anointed one" This refers to the repeatedly cited St. John’s definition that the words “one and the other” refer to persons (hypostases), and “one and the other”, in the neuter gender, refer to natures (see the corresponding passages in the “Epistle to Jacob”, 101, and also in Chapter 18). Although St. John refers only to the corresponding statements of St. Gregory the Theologian, for the first time this formula is found in the church writer Didymus the Blind (IV century) (“On the Trinity,” I, 27; III, 6). See note 52 to the treatise “On the Properties of Two Natures.” Message 101 (PG 37, 180 V). See more about this in the treatise “On the Properties of Two Natures”, ch. 9. In Greek, “Christ”, from the verb χρίω, means “anointed one.” The argument is based on the fact that in Greek πρόσωπον, "face", means both a body part and a person. In the Latin language, on the contrary, there are two different words for this, facies and persona, respectively, and the Greek usage passed into the Russian language through Church Slavonic, and the Latin usage into the new European ones. Completed by the publisher according to the meaning. Message 101 (PG 37, 180 A). This is the same Peter II who, as reported by Theophan the Confessor (Chronography, p. 349, ed. de Boor), was deprived of his tongue by order of Caliph Walid and exiled to Arabia, where he miraculously continued to serve the liturgy as clearly as before until he suffered martyrdom. His memory is celebrated by the Orthodox Church on February 24. Dara is a metropolis of the province of 1st Mesopotamia, 29 km northwest of Nisibin (modern Nusaybin in Northern Syria). It fell into the hands of the Jacobites in the 6th century. According to the views of the Arians, only the Father can be called God in the proper sense, while the Son and the Holy Spirit, depending on which movement in Arianism we are talking about, either constitute some kind of intermediate link between God and creation, or are directly recognized as created (Eunomius). Naturally, no identity of essence is possible here. It is no coincidence that St. John begins his reasoning with the Arians: it was in the struggle against them that the Church Fathers developed a precise definition of hypostasis and its difference from essence. A key term that has been particularly hotly debated, ὁμοούσιος, “consubstantial,” was included in the text of the Nicene Creed, but can only be properly understood in conjunction with a concept that would indicate the differences in the Holy Trinity. Such a concept in the East, in the Greek-speaking areas, became “hypostasis,” while Western, Latin-speaking Christians, not finding a satisfactory correspondence in their language, preferred “persona,” i.e. "face". Sabellius the Libyan (III century) is the most famous representative of the monarchist (or modalist) heresy. Denied the real difference between the persons in the Holy Trinity. Diodorus († 394), Bishop of Tarsus in Cilicia (South-East Asia Minor), enjoyed great authority during his lifetime, participated in the Second Ecumenical Council in Constantinople, and was the teacher of both Theodore of Mopsuestia and St. John Chrysostom. After his death, however, it became clear that in the fight against the Apollinarian heresy, he separated the eternal Son of God from the son of Mary and was thus the founder of the Nestorian heresy. Diodorus was condemned as a heretic by the Third Ecumenical Council in Ephesus in 431. Theodore, Bishop of Mopsuestia (also in Cilicia) (c. 350–428) was also a prominent and revered church figure during his lifetime, whose writings were later seen as the source of Nestorianism (this is currently disputed by some scholars). Theodore's works are among the so-called. “Three Chapters”, condemned at the V Ecumenical (II Constantinople) Council in 551. Dioscorus - Patriarch of Alexandria from 444 to 451 († 454), one of the main Monophysite heresiarchs, who presided over the so-called. “Robber” Council in Ephesus in 449. Deposed at the Council of Chalcedon in 451. Severus - Patriarch of Antioch from 512 to 518 († 538), considered the founder of Monophysitism as a theological system. He belonged to the moderate Monophysites (in contrast to the extreme ones, who believed that human nature in Christ is completely absorbed by the Divine). Recently, an opinion has been expressed that the rejection of Chalcedonian Orthodoxy by the North was mainly due to a misunderstanding of the terminology used by the Orthodox fathers. "Akephalas", i.e. “Headless”, the Monophysites were called, since they did not have one generally recognized heresiarch. The Monophysites of Syria and Palestine received the nickname “Jacobites” after James Baradeus, who in the 6th century organized an underground Monophysite hierarchy in Syria. See also note. 251. The mention of “pagan sages” (hereinafter directly called Aristotle) ​​is not accidental: although Monophysitism arose from completely different sources, two centuries before St. John, his most prominent defenders (as well as their Orthodox opponents) began to resort to the help of Aristotle and his Neoplatonic interpreters to substantiate their views. At the same time, the Monophysites, unlike the Orthodox, often ignored the fundamental difference in the content of some concepts in Greek philosophy and Christian theology (the case of “hypostasis” is the most striking example). It should also be noted that, as can be seen from this place, despite the very widespread use of Aristotelian logic and metaphysics by the so-called “New Chalcedonian” theologians, the founder of the Peripatetic school himself was never such an authority for them as for the Western scholastics. See Epistle 101 (second letter to Clidonius) (PG 37, 180 A). It should be borne in mind that despite many relevant statements by Sts. fathers, for the Monophysites the identification of nature and essence did not seem so obvious, since, proclaiming “one nature,” they, at least in words, rejected the “one essence” in Christ. Basil the Great, era. 236, 6. The Monophysites recognized that Christ was “of two natures” (ἐκ δύο φύσεων), but rejected the Chalcedonian (i.e., adopted at the IV Ecumenical Council of 451 in Chalcedon) formula “in two natures” (ἐν δύο φύσεσιν). The fact that the word ὐπόστασις could also mean “essence” significantly complicated things in the 4th century. the fight against the Arian heresy, since misunderstandings arose among Orthodox Christians regarding the use of this term. Yes, St. Gregory the Theologian reports that St. Athanasius of Alexandria had to explain to Western Christians that the Latin translation of the word ὐπόστασις, substantia (usually translated “essence”), does not correspond to the meaning that the Orthodox in the East assigned to its Greek prototype. Subsequently, ὐπόστασις began to be translated into Latin with the specially invented term subsistentia. By the way, “hypostasis” is practically the only theological term that does not have a Church Slavonic correspondence. The expression “indivisible being” is conveyed from the Greek. ἄτομον, to which the term “individual” most accurately corresponds, introduced by Cicero specifically as a Latin tracing of the mentioned Greek word. In this case, “subject” (ὐποκείμενον) means qualityless matter, which exists only potentially (τὸ μὴ ὄν, here translated “non-existent”) until it is formed by any attributes or properties. The same word is used to designate the subject of the statement, like the Russian “subject”. As a matter of fact, the concept of “private essence”, around which there is a dispute here, does not appear in the works of Aristotle. But the late Alexandrian Neoplatonists of the 6th century, such as Simplicius (a pagan) and John Philoponus (one of the prominent Monophysites), used it in their comments on the works of this philosopher, which can serve as good confirmation of the connection between the Neoplatonism of the Alexandrian school and Monophysite theology (see Simplicius. In Aristotelis categorias commentarium 8,44,24–25; 8,72,30; Ioannes Philoponus. In Aristotelis categorias commentarium 13,1,30,34; Literally "co-existence", a word reflecting the judgment that the Divinity and humanity of Christ form one essence. Moderate Monophysite movements, including the Jacobites, always renounced this idea, since it came from the Apollinarians, who argued that the Divine Logos replaces the human mind and soul in Christ (therefore, these heretics are sometimes also called “Sinusiasts”), but in fact, sinusosis or tritheism (tritheism) are the inevitable logical consequences of the Monophysite doctrine. Moreover, the very definition of “one incarnate nature of God the Word,” which St. Cyril considered it to belong to St. Athanasius and interpreted in the Orthodox sense, in reality had an Apollinarian origin. The heretical potential of this formula made itself felt after the death of St. Kirill. "Conception" (ἐπίνοια) is a term introduced by the Cappadocian Fathers for those theological definitions that deal with things that exist only theoretically and do not manifest in reality. In this case, we are talking about the fact that dividing the Divine and human nature in Christ is possible only in speculation, while reality and Holy Scripture show us only their unity. Θεοτητανθρωπότης, "divine-humanity", as opposed to θεανθρωπότης, "God-humanity". Philosophy in ancient times was divided into three parts: dialectics, or logic, ethics and physics. The latter, according to its etymology (φύσις nature), was concerned with the interpretation of the visible world, but to a large extent also included what is now commonly called “metaphysics.” Wed. Leontius of Byzantium. Chapters against the North (PG 86, 1909 A). St. Cyril of Alexandria. Scholium on the Incarnation of the Only Begotten. Acta Conciliorum Oecumenicorum, Strasburg 1914, Berlin 1924–1971. This work is actually by Theodoret of Cyrus. See PG 6, 1225 BC. Theology and economy are used here in the same sense in which “triadology” and “Christology” are now used, i.e. the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, on the one hand, and of Christ as the incarnate Word, on the other. The word “passion” (πάθος) in theological usage can mean, like its Greek prototype, “passion” in the ordinary sense, and simply any suffering. Therefore, for clarification, in relation to Christ, the epithet ἀδιάβλητος, “unreprehensible”, is introduced. Word 38 (PG 36, 325 V) and Word 45 (PG 36, 641 A). See “Message on the Trisagion Song” below, where the same arguments are presented in more detail. Sl. 38 (РG 36, 320 ВС), cl. 45 (PG 36, 628 C-629 A). See note 148 to the “Message on the Trisagion Song.” This is the creation of St. Irenaeus has not survived. This passage also belongs not to Justin, but to Theodoret (PG 6, 1224 C). Source of quotation not found. From the “Tale on Simeon and Anna” (PG 18, 360 C), the authenticity of which is disputed. Against Eunomius I,18 (PG 29, 552 C-553 A). Source of citations not found. Epistle to Epictitus 4 (PG 26, 1056 C). Word 2 (PG 35, 438 V-C). Word 30, ch. 8 (PG 36, 113). Poems, book. I, 9 art. 48 cl. About the mystery of the Incarnation of the Lord, ch. 49 (PL 16, 817 sq). Statement of Faith (see Ba rdy G. L'"Expositio Fidei" attribuée à s. Ambroise. Roma, 1946, pp. 200–202). The entire message has not survived; it is quoted as fr. XV. The Epistle to Philip has not yet been published. Against Apollinaris (PG 45, 1124 sq). St. Athanasius of Alexandria. Against the pagans (РG 25, 4 sq.). St. Cyril (РG 77, 1112 sq). Message 39 (PG 77, 175). Message 40 (PG 77, 175). “Chapters” - “Defense of the Twelve Chapters against the Bishops of the East” (PG 76, 316). Glafira on Leviticus (RS 69, 539). Conversations on the Trinity, 3 (PG 75, 853 C). Message 45 (PG 77, 227). Epistle to Caesarea (PG 64, 496) (apparently not authentic). See note 92 of the Epistle to Jacobite. That is, when a person is considered from the point of view of his nature (φύσις φυσιολογία). St. John implies that it is impossible to simultaneously have two different incidental (non-essential, or non-essential) characteristics of the same category: for example, the same horse cannot be both black and bay. Felting's corruption - the words “crucified for us” added to the Trisagion, introduced by the Monophysite Patriarch of Antioch Peter Knatheus (i.e., the Felting) in the middle of the 5th century. See also note. 287. This refers to John V († 735). No exact match to the quote was found. Wed. Ankorat (“Anchor”), I, 34, 21–30. Maronites are a sect named after the elder Maron (5th century). During the time of St. John of Damascus professed Monotheliteism, i.e. the doctrine of one will in Christ, condemned by the VI Ecumenical Council. Nowadays the Maronites, who make up a significant part of the Lebanese population, are in a union with Rome. Homilies on Psalms, 165 C 14 ff. What St. John calls it “speech” here, now it is customary to call it “verse.” The practice described is still widely used in worship. According to legend, under Patriarch Proclus of Constantinople (434–446), a strong earthquake occurred, during which the Trisagion was sung for the first time, and the earthquake immediately stopped. Fias - pagans have a festive procession in honor of the god Dionysus. Here in the meaning of “solemn sacred assembly.” This refers to the IV Ecumenical (Chalcedonian) Council of 451, which condemned Monophysitism. Homily 29 (“First Word of the Son”), 5. St. John implies that, along with the sayings that his opponents cite, he will put forward others in favor of his opinion. However, the task of the Orthodox theologian is to show how both can be interpreted in a consistent way. On the Incarnation and Against the Arians (PG 26, 1024 AB). PG 43, 496 C (authenticity disputed). That is, from the Word for the Week of Vai (according to the words “blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord”): PG 59, 705, the authenticity is doubtful. Conversations on the Trinity (PG 75, 1036 C). On Worship in Spirit and Truth (PG 68, 601 A and 601 D). A word on the praises of Mary (Sermo de laudibus Mariae) (РG 65, 680 sq.). An allusion to the well-known Aryan formula “it was when He (the Son) was not.” The work from which the quotation is taken belongs to Didymus the Blind (Against Eunomius, book V (PG 29, 721 B-724 A). According to the teaching of the Cappadocian Fathers, the persons of the Holy Trinity are distinguished by “the mode (or mode) of existence (τρόπος ὐπάρξεως)”, therefore with τρόπος we restore “existences”. Word 38 (PG 36, 320 BC). Conversations on the Trinity, 1093 C-1096 A. Against Eunomius I, 118 (PG 45). Ankorat, I, 17–18 (PG 43). “Taurus” is not a completely clear word, which can also be understood as a proper name. In this case, this John would have to be considered John Moschus († 619), and the author of the treatise would be Sophronius of Jerusalem, which is extremely unlikely. Therefore, apparently, it should be understood as a “sacrificial calf.” This refers to three grammatical numbers that existed in both ancient Greek and Church Slavonic: singular, plural and dual. The Russian form “(two, three, four) tables,” as opposed to “(five, etc.) tables,” etymologically goes back to the ending of the dual number. Elbow is a measure of length equal to 45–47 cm. Dio Cassius (c. 155 – c. 236) – Roman historian. Wrote in Greek. language “Roman History” in 80 books, where he described events from the early history of Rome to the 3rd century. AD Dion had a strong belief in the supernatural. A foot is a measure of length equal to 308.3 mm. Ἀγαθοδαίμων - good genius.