Ambigva to Thomas (about various perplexities of Saints Dionysius and Gregory)

“Ambigvy to Thomas” (or “Difficulties to Thomas”) are part of the work of St. Maximus the Confessor “On the various perplexities of Saints Gregory and Dionysius.” The work was created in 634-635. and addressed to the monk of the Chrysopolis monastery, Thomas. The work (in publication - Message 1) consists of 5 chapters and is devoted to an explanation of the texts of St. Gregory the Theologian and “Areopagitica” by Dionysius the Areopagite. Chapter 1 examines the doctrine of the Holy Trinity. Chapters 2-5 are devoted to issues of Christology and the controversy with monoenergism. Adjacent to the “Ambigvam” is the “Second Epistle to Thomas” (in the publication - Epistle 2), probably written in 640. The work consists of 3 chapters, in which St. Maxim develops and deepens the thoughts he expressed in “Ambigvah”. *The title of the work in Latin is Ambigua ad Thomam. To the sanctified servant of God, spiritual father and teacher Thomas, humble Maxim and sinful, unworthy servant and disciple Unchangeable contemplation of the unchangeable skill 1 having accepted from the beautiful teaching in divine [things], you have become, oh, much beloved by God 2, not just “wisdom”, but “its beauty”, a most prudent “lover” (Wisdom 7:30, 8:2). Beautiful wisdom is active knowledge (γνωσις εμπρακτος) or action with wisdom, the distinguishing feature of which is the complementary logos of divine providence and judgment through both. According to which, having united the mind with feeling through the Spirit, you truly showed how it is characteristic of God to “create man in the image of God” (Gen. 1:27, 5:1), making the wealth of goodness known 4, by a good mixture of the opposite 5 you abundantly show God in yourself as embodied by virtues, and having measured His height by imitation of humility, you did not fail to condescend to me, asking about what he himself knew from experience. The essence of the chapter in Dionysius and Gregory, these saints and highly praised and blessed men, truly chosen from above, “at the suggestion of the ages” (Eph. 3:11, cf. Rom. 8:28) offered to God, having received into themselves all the truly possible outpouring of wisdom for the saints 6, and by putting aside life by nature the essence of the soul has been qualified ( πεποιημένων), and for this reason those who live within themselves have acquired one Christ, and - I will say even more - who has become the soul of their soul, and through all their deeds, words and understandings appears to everyone, therefore it is as if it is not them who we have to listen to, but Christ, who by grace presented Himself to them. But what about “the river of the Lord Jesus” (1 Cor. 12:3) without receiving the Spirit of holiness? How can I “declare the might of the Lord” 7 I, “who are rotten” (Is. 35:6, Mark 7:32) and whose mind is nailed to the possession of [things] perishable? How can I “hear” even though some “His praises” (Ps. 105:2), I, “deaf” (Is. 35:5, Mark 7:32), and having the hearing of the soul through friendship with the passions, am completely turned away from the words of that blessed voice? How will the Word become apparent to me, defeated by the world, accustomed to “overcoming the world” (John 16:33), but “not appearing to the world” (John 14:22), if it is by nature unknowable for those attached to the material? How is it not insolence [to] approach the holy with the unclean 8 and the clean with the unclean with your opinion? Therefore, I would have refused the commanded enterprise, fearing the reproach of insolence, if I had not been more afraid of the danger of disobedience. So, being between these two [dangers], I rather neglect the reproach of insolence, as more tolerable, fleeing from the danger of disobedience 9, as not forgivable. And through the intercession of the saints and with the help of your prayers, [through the gift of] Christ, “our Great God and Savior” (Titus 2:13), who gives pious understanding and proper speech, I will answer briefly about each chapter (my word is to the teacher), for it is possible for small things to achieve great things, starting with the godly Gregory, as the one closest to us in time. I. To the words of St. Gregory the Theologian from the first word about the Son: “Therefore the Unity, which from the beginning moved into duality, stopped at the Trinity” 10, and again, from the second word about the world, about “The Unity, which moved because of wealth, surpassed the duality (for [the deity] is above the matter and form of which bodies [are composed]) and the Trinity, determined because of perfection" 11. If, due to apparent disagreement, servant of God, you are perplexed about true agreement, then it is impossible to find words closer in meaning than these. For it is one and the same thing to “transcend binarity” or “not stop at binary”; also “to be determined by the Trinity”, or “to stop at the Trinity for the movement of the Unity”, if only we defend a unity of command 12 not unsociable 13, as if limited to a single person, or disorderly, as if pouring out into infinity 14, but one that [consists of] a Trinity of equal honor by nature, Father and Son, and Spirit, a holy union 15 ( συνίστησιν όγιον), whose wealth is fusion and a single outpouring (τό εξαλμα) of lordship 16, and not beyond this the overflowing divinity, so that we do not introduce a crowd of gods, and no less limited than this, so that we are not condemned for the poverty of the deity 17 . This, however, is not an explanation of the cause for the super-essential Cause of beings, but an exposition of the pious teaching about this: since [divinity] is One, but not two; Trinity, but not plurality, as beginningless, incorporeal and consistent (αστασίαστος). For the Unit is truly singular, for it is not the beginning of what comes after it, by compression of extension (κατά διαστολης συστολήν), so that it can be poured out, naturally rushing towards the multitude, but is hypostatically being ( ενυπόστατος οντότης) of the consubstantial Trinity. And the Trinity is truly trinity 18, not replenished by the decomposing number 19 (for it is not the addition of units in order for It to undergo division), but the essential being (ενούσιος υπαρξις) of the Trinitarian Unit. For the Trinity is truly singular, because It is so, and the Unity is truly trinitarian, because It came into being that way. For there is one deity, existing singly and existing threefold 20 . And although you, having heard about the movement, were surprised at how incomprehensible the deity moves; We first [should] not explain its properties, but the very concept (λόγον) of its being, and then clarify the tropos 21 of how it really exists, since being itself in every way logically precedes how it exists 22 . So, the movement of the deity is the knowledge that occurs through revelation to those who are able to accept it that It exists and how It is realized. II. On his own from the same first word: “In a word, the more exalted words refer to the deity and to nature, which is higher than suffering and the body, and the more derogatory ones refer to the complex, exhausted and incarnated for you, and what’s worse, and made human” 23 . The Divine Logos, being all a complete essence, for He is God, and all a hypostasis, not lacking, for He is the Son, but having exhausted Himself (cf. Phil. 2:7) became the seed of His flesh, formed with it by ineffable conception, and became a hypostasis for the received flesh. And through this new sacrament, truly and immutably, having become completely human, He Himself appeared as a hypostasis from two natures, uncreated and created; impassive and passionate, and without exception all the natural laws (τούς φυσικούς λόγους) of natures, from which His hypostasis appeared to those who applied to Himself. If He essentially accepted all the natural (from which His hypostasis is natural) laws, despite the fact that He Himself became complex in hypostasis from taking on the flesh, the teacher very wisely, so that they would not be considered in vain, added the passions of His flesh to Him (after all, it is His own flesh) to what is truly God in it, suffering [in the struggle] against sin 24 . However, showing the difference between the being, according to which - although He was incarnate - the Logos remained simple, and the hypostasis, according to which He became complex by taking on the flesh and was called the economically suffering God, the teacher speaks this way, so that we do not, like the Arians, fall into the error of determining what pertains to the hypostasis out of ignorance of nature, and worshiping a God who is passionate by nature. And the words: “it is no worse to say, and became man,” he added not only for the sake of the Arians, who posit deity instead of the soul, or the Apollinarians, who teach about a mindless soul and thus truncate the perfection of the nature of the Logos, which is consistent with us, and make Him passionate according to the nature of the Divinity, but also to show us the “Only Begotten God” (John 1:18) who has become truly a perfect man, Who, through acting according to the nature of the flesh, rationally and verbally animated, Himself accomplishes our salvation, and Who, although “in all things without” one “sin” (Heb. 4:15), not a single logos of which is in any way infused into nature, but not without natural action, having truly become a man, of whom [i.e. – natural action] logos – such is the law of essence – characterizes everything naturally, with which it is essentially fused. For what is said in general about the kind of certain [creatures] is the definition of their nature, and the deprivation of it [i.e. This attribute] in every way produces the disintegration of nature, since nothing of existence, devoid of what is inherent in it by nature, remains what it was. III. On his own and from the same words: “For this One, now despised by you, was once greater than you. Now He is a man, but He was not complex. What He was - remained; and what was not - perceived. In the beginning He was without a reason (for what reason does God have?), but later He began to be for a reason, and the reason was to save you, a scolder, who despises [His] divinity because He took upon [Himself] your fatness through the mind, the God of the valley who joined the flesh and became a man, because it was mixed [i.e. whiteness] with God and became one with Him, so that the best prevailed, so that I could become as much a god as He is a man” 25. He says: “for this One, now despised by you, was once above you,” of course, being Himself beyond [in relation to] every age and every nature, even if He now became for you - [Himself] desiring it - under the power of both. He who is now a man, but was also uncomplicated, was simple in nature and in hypostasis; after all, He was only God, not clothed in a body and in that which belongs to the body, even if now by taking on flesh possessing a rational soul, He became what He was not - a complex hypostasis, remaining what He was - simple in nature, in order to save you, man. For He had only this as the reason for His carnal birth - the salvation of nature, of which passion, having taken upon Himself as if a kind of plumpness, became part of the flesh through the mind. And God became man, “becoming” for all [us] “all” (1 Cor. 9:22), which we also [are] except sin (cf. Heb. 4:15): body, soul, mind, among which is death, from which together man is made up, being seen by reason of the intelligible as God 26. So, the Word Himself, truly, without changing our natural passion, exhausted Himself and, having truly become sensually comprehended through the incarnation, was called visible God and God below, making manifest through the medium of the nature of passionate flesh a super-incomprehensible power. For it is obvious that the flesh mixed with God and became one with Him, so that the best prevailed in the hypostatic identity of the Word that truly received it and deified it. “It became one,” but not “one,” said the teacher, showing that even in the identity of the single hypostasis, the natural otherness of the united was preserved unfused, since one serves as a sign of the hypostasis, and the other – of nature. And “so that I may become as much a god as He is a man” - it is not for me to say, who are stained by sin and who do not at all strive for a truly existing life, but to you, who, having completely tamed nature, are known only by grace and have through it to be so adorned with power, inasmuch as by the nature of the existing God, having become incarnate, he shared our weakness, proportioning, as He Himself knows, to His exhaustion the deification of those being saved by grace - wholly God-like and containing [in themselves] the whole God and [This] one. This is the perfection to which 27 those who believe that this truly is the promise hasten. IV. On his own from the second word about the Word and the Son: “For as the Word, He was neither obedient nor disobedient (for this belongs to the subordinate and the secondary: one is prudent, and the other is worthy of punishment). And as “the image of a servant” (Phil. 2:7) He descends upon fellow servants and slaves and is imagined in something alien, carrying all of me in Himself along with everything that is mine, in order to exhaust the worst in Himself, like fire wax, or like the sun - steam from the earth, and so that I would partake of His properties through dissolution. For this reason, He considers obedience to be a deed and practices it through suffering (cf. Heb. 5:8). For disposition is not enough, just as it is not enough for us, if we do not accomplish it through deeds, since deed serves as proof of disposition. But it may not be worse to assume that He tests our obedience and measures all our sufferings by His own, by the art of love for mankind, in order to see with His [eyes] our [capabilities], and how much to demand from us, and how much to forgive, taking into account, along with suffering, weakness” 28. For, as by nature God, the Word is completely free - he says - from obedience and disobedience, because naturally he appears, like the Lord, to give all the commandments, the fulfillment of which is obedience, and the crime is disobedience. For the law of the commandments and its fulfillment applies to those who are by nature subject to movement (των φύσει κινουμένων), and not to the One whose being by nature is rest (στάσις). And as the image of a slave, that is, having become human by nature, he descended upon his fellow servants and slaves, imagining himself in something alien, and along with his nature, taking upon himself the passion inherent in our nature. For the penance of the sinner, which is the passion of all nature, to which he is condemned because of the crime, is alien to the nature of the sinless. If, having exhausted Himself to the slave image that man is, and having descended, he is imagined into something alien, that is, he becomes a passionate man by nature, then exhaustion (κένωσις) is seen in relation to Him, as good and at the same time loving mankind, also as condescension. The first is that He became truly a man, and the second is that He became truly a man by nature passionate. Therefore, the teacher says: “carrying all of me in Himself along with all that is mine,” that is, the entire human nature in hypostatic union with its impeccable passions, with which it has wasted the worst (because passion was condemned by nature - I mean the “law of sin” that came from disobedience (Rom. 7:23), the power of which is in the unnatural disposition of our will ( γνώμη), an addiction that has become a natural passion in accordance with the weakening [of some of its manifestations] and strengthening [of others]), He not only saved those possessed by sin 29, but also communicated - by allowing our penance in Himself - to those who by deed try to honor grace, the divine power (Compare 2 Pet. 1: 3-4), which makes [in them] immutable soul and incorruptibility of the body in the identity of will (γνώμης) [caring] about what is good by nature. What, as I believe, is what the saint is teaching: “so that I may exhaust the worst in myself, like fire wax, or like the sun vapor from the earth, and so that I may partake of His properties through dissolution,” that is, so that by grace I may become pure from passion just like Him. I also know another reasoning about “imagining something alien,” which I learned from a certain saint, wise in word and life. He said, when asked, that obedience is alien to the Word by nature, as well as submission, which He accomplished for us, who transgressed the commandment, having “made” everything for the [human] race “salvation” (Ps. 73:12), through the assimilation of ours to Himself. For this reason, he considers obedience to be a deed, becoming a new Adam by nature for the sake of [Adam] the old (Cf. 1 Cor. 15:45), and he learns it in suffering, through the voluntary taking on of our passions. Because, according to this truly great teacher, he labored, hungered, thirsted, suffered pain and wept [submitting] to the law of the flesh, which is a clear proof of an effective disposition and a sign of condescension towards fellow servants and servants. For He, who by nature was a Master, became for my sake, by the nature of a slave, a slave, in order to make [me] a master over that which by deceit tyrannically began to rule over me, and for this purpose, dominionally accomplishing what is due to a slave, that is, pertaining to the flesh - in a divine way, dispassionate and by nature dominion over the carnal [forces] shows strength by destroying corruption with passion and establishing indestructible life by death; and doing what befits a ruler slavishly, that is, what relates to the deity - carnally, showing ineffable exhaustion, deifying with passionate flesh the entire race, earthed by corruption. For by the interconnection of these [properties] He clearly confirmed the natures of which His hypostasis was, and their essential energies 30 - that is, movements (κινήσεις) - of which He Himself was an unfused union, without any division according to both natures, of which He Himself was a hypostasis, since in the only manner peculiar to Himself - that is, in one way - acting, through everything He did, by the power of His deity, He inseparably revealed the action of His flesh to Him. For there is nothing more united than His unity, and even He Himself has absolutely nothing more united or more whole. Therefore, the Suffering One was truly God, and He, the miracle worker, was truly a man, because He was, by an ineffable union, a true hypostasis of the true natures. Acting in accordance with the manner characteristic of each of them, the Preserver of them seemed to be truly unfused with what was being preserved [i.e. saved] 31, since One and the same - by nature remained impassive and passionate, immortal and mortal, visible and intelligible, as God by nature and man by nature. And thus - to say in my opinion - He who is by nature the Master honors obedience, and practices it in suffering, not only in order to save by His [actions] all nature, cleansing from the worst, but also in order to test our obedience, having studied our experience (cf. Heb. 5:8) (although by nature He contains in Himself all knowledge): how much to demand from us and how much to forgive, [leading] to perfect obedience, which is characteristic of Him to bring those being saved to the Father, revealing them to be similar to Himself by the power of grace. For the mystery of our salvation is truly great and terrible. What is required of us is as much as He [became] a nature like us; we are forgiven to the extent that for our sake He united with the unity [of His hypostasis] that which is characteristic of us. Ε if only the habit of a sin-loving will (φιλαμαρτήμονος γνώμης) does not make the weakness of nature a substance of malice 32. This great teacher clearly adheres to this idea, confirming this to us below. For he says: “For if the “light” that “shines in the darkness” (John 1:5) of this life was persecuted because of the covering of another darkness (I mean the evil one and the tempter); then how much more darkness, as more weak? And is it surprising if, despite the fact that He escaped completely, we are somewhat overtaken? For according to the right reasoning about this, it is more important for Him to be persecuted than for us to be overtaken” 33. V. In response to the words of the Epistle to Gaius therapetus of Saint Dionysius the Areopagite, Bishop of Athens: “How do you say that Jesus, [being] outside of everything, is essentially associated with all people? Not, however, as the culprit of men, he is called here a man, but as, by his very complete essence, truly being a man” 34. Since, according to the simple perception of Holy Scripture, God, as the Cause of everything, is designated by all the names of the [things] produced by Him, and since, perhaps, the therapet Gaius, even after the Incarnation, called God man in this sense only, then with these words the great Dionysius corrects him, teaching that it is not simply the God of all who has become incarnate that is called man, but as, by his very complete essence, truly being a man, which [i.e. essence] the only and true proof is its force, which is an integral part of nature (η κατα φύσιν αυτης συστατικη δύναμις), which if anyone calls natural energy, will not sin against the truth, and which primarily and primarily characterizes it [i.e. essence], being a movement that constitutes a specific attribute (ειδοποιος κίνησις), more general than all its qualitative collective properties, and without which only nothing exists (μη ον), since only that which does not exist at all - according to this great teacher - has neither movement nor existence itself 35. So, he teaches quite clearly about the incarnate God, who in no way renounces anything of ours except sin (which, in fact, did not belong to nature), not as a mere man, but decisively proclaims Him as, by his very entire essence, truly being a man, which title - he affirms by means of what he cites [further] - belongs to Him in the proper sense, as having existed humanly 36 . He says: “But we are not human Jesus [i.e. not according to human essence] we define” 37 because we do not teach about Him as a simple man, cutting [thus] the unity [of His hypostasis] that exceeds understanding. For we, in [our] essence, but not as the Cause [of being] of men, call the very essence of God, who truly existed according to us, by the name “man.” For He is not only a man, but He Himself is also God, and not only the All-Essential, but He Himself is also a man, although He is neither a simple man nor a naked God, but is truly a man and a considerable Lover of Mankind 38 . For according to [His] incomprehensible desire of man, He became by nature exactly that which was desired [i.e. man], without suffering at all in His own essence from inexpressible exhaustion 39, and without changing anything from the entire composition of human nature 40 or diminishing for the sake of the mysterious acceptance [into His hypostasis], which [i.e. natures] logos truly showed it [i.e. hypostasis] composition (ων ο λόγος κυρίως αυτης καθέστηκε σύστασις) above [the way of being] men (for in the divine way without a husband) and according to man (for humanly, by the law of womb-bearing) being realized from the human essence, the All-Essential 41. For He did not simply show us the appearance of flesh in Himself, as the Manichaeans prattle, and He did not bring down with Him from heaven the flesh co-essential with Himself, as is the case in Apollinarius’s fables, but He became, in its very complete essence, truly a man by acceptance, that is, flesh possessing a rational soul, united with Him by hypostasis. And the Ever-essential One remains no less filled with transubstantiality 42 . For He was not bound by [human] nature, becoming a man, but rather, on the contrary, He combined nature with Himself, making it another sacrament, and He Himself remained in everything elusive [i.e., incomprehensible], and His incarnation, which received the all-important birth, showed it to be incomprehensible beyond any sacrament, becoming by reason of it as comprehensible as it was more cognizable through it as incomprehensible 43 . For He is hidden even after the appearance, says the teacher, or, to say more divinely, in the appearance itself. After all, this too is hidden from Jesus; and no word or mind can explain the mystery associated with Him, but what is spoken remains inexpressible, and what is understood remains unknown 44 . What [serves] to prove the divine pre-essentiality more than this proof, [revealing] by the appearance - the secret, in a word - the ineffable, by the mind - ignorance primarily, and - I will say more - by the existence [revealing] the Super-essential? He does not care about its [superiority] excess, and having truly entered into the [human] essence, he existed above the essence, 45 thereby renewing the laws of birth in accordance with nature and, without visible male seed, truly became a man. And the Virgin Herself supernaturally gave birth 46 to the all-essential Word 47, without a husband from Her virgin blood, formed according to a law 48 strange from a human point of view in relation to nature. And above man, He acts in ways that are characteristic of man, 49 dispassionately renewing the nature of the elements with His feet. And [this] is manifested by impermanent water, bearing the weight of material and earthly feet and not parting, but by supernatural force held together until [the state of matter] does not flow 50, since with truly unmoistened feet, having bodily volume and material weight, He moved through the wet and unstable water element 51, “walking on the sea” (Matthew 14:26) as on dry land, and together with strength His deity inseparably revealing, through movement, the natural action of His flesh, since it was by its nature that the movement of movement was accomplished, and not [by nature] by the super-incomprehensible and all-essential deity united with it by hypostasis. For, having once existed as a human being, the all-essential Word 52, together with the human essence of the undiminished, had as His own, and wholly characterizing Him as a man, the movement of [this] essence, as a specific sign for everything that as a man He naturally did, since He truly became a man breathing, speaking, walking, moving his hands, properly using the senses to perceive the sensory, hungry, thirsty, eating, sleeping, working, crying, struggling - although He was a self-hypostatic Force - and for everything else, through which He, moving (according to the custom of the soul, spontaneously [i.e., by its own power] to move the body connected to it) the perceived nature, as truly becoming and being called His nature (or, more precisely, He Himself without change became what exactly [human] nature is) non-dreaming [i.e. not only in appearance] fulfilled the dispensation for us. So, the teacher does not reject the energy that is an integral part of the perceived essence, just as he does not reject the essence itself, saying: “above the essence existed and above man acts that which is characteristic of man” 53, but showed in both [i.e. essence and energy] renewal of tropos, preserved in the constancy of natural logos, without which nothing that exists can be what it is 54. If we say that the assumption of the perceived nature, and the rejection of the energy that forms part of it, is primarily apophatic, then what word will we use to express it [i.e. apophatic], applied equally to both and denoting existence for one, and certainly abolition for the other? Or, again, if the perceived nature is not self-moving, being moved by the deity united with it in hypostasis, and we deny the movement that is its integral part, then we will not confess the essence itself, which [thus] appears not to be self-existent (ουκ αυθυπόστατον), that is, [not existing] in itself, but truly in Itself the Word that existed by it received being, having the same apology for both 55; or we will confess, together with essence, movement, without which it is not essence, realizing that one is the logos of being, and the other is the tropos of how it exists ( ετερος δε ο του πως ειναι τρόπος), and that one certifies nature, and the other economy, which together constitute the great mystery of the supernatural physiology of Jesus, 56 showing at the same time the distinction and unity of energies preserved. Difference is inseparably contemplated in the natural logos of the united, while unity is inseparably cognizable in the only [for both] tropos of those realized 57 . For what or who, where and how is nature deprived of an integral part of its power? For that which has no power at all does not exist, and does not represent anything, and has absolutely no place 58, says this great teacher. If there is no question of this at all, then we must piously confess the [two] natures of Christ, of which He was a hypostasis, and the [two] His natural energies - of which He was a true union - according to both natures, since in a manner befitting Him, uniquely, that is, uniformly, acting in everything, inseparably with His divine power, He manifested together the energy of His flesh. For how can God be by nature and man again by nature, without having what is inherent in the nature of both undiminished? What and who one knows to be without being witnessed by that which naturally acts without changing. How then will we testify in relation to each [nature], of which, in which and by which He appears, if He remains motionless and inactive in them? So, above the essence, He existed, having created “other” by the nature of “birth” and creation “beginning” (Wisdom 7:5), for when He was conceived He became the seed of His flesh, and when He was born, He became the seal of the virginity of the One who gave birth. For she is both the Virgin and the Mother, who renewed nature by the union of opposites, since virginity and birth are opposite things, the combination of which, according to nature, cannot in any way be conceived. Therefore, the Virgin is truly the Mother of God, who supernaturally conceived 59 in the image of a seed and gave birth to the all-essential Word, as in the exact sense of the word the Mother who gives birth to the All-Ever and the Conceived. And above man acts that which is characteristic of man, immutably united to the extreme, showing human action with His divine power, because nature, unfused with nature, was completely clothed [with it], having absolutely nothing separate from the deity united with it in hypostasis. For truly, above us by our essence, the pre-existent Word, which existed, united into one with the affirmation (τη καταφάσει) of nature and its natural [signs] predominantly negation and became a man, having a supernatural tropos of being attached to the natural logos of being 60, in order to certify nature, which is not subject to change from the renewal of tropos, in that refers to its logos, and the super-incomprehensible power to show, also cognizable at least in the image of the birth of far-distant (των εναντίων) 61 [from each other natures in a single hypostasis]. He, without a doubt, freely (εξουσία) did [related to] natural passions as a matter of will (γνώμης), and not like us - as a result of natural necessity; in contrast to ours, He freely went through all our natural passion from beginning to end, showing in Himself subject to the will (γνώμη κινητόν) that which usually happens in us to enslave the will (γνώμης κινητικόν), as the teacher makes clear. in the following words: “What can we say about the rest, so many things, through which the divinely seeing above the mind also recognizes what is affirmed [i.e., said affirmatively, cataphatically] about the love of Jesus for mankind, as having the power of superior negation (apophasis)” 62? For the all-essential Word, together with [our] nature, clothed itself in His ineffable conception and in everything pertaining to this nature, having nothing human, affirmed by the natural logos, which would not be a divine, supernatural image (τρόπω) denied [i.e. which would not be spoken of apophatically, in accordance with his supranatural tropos], and of which knowledge is above the mind, as unprovable and comprehensible only by faith alone of those who truly worship the sacrament of Christ, which, expressing in a short word, the teacher says: “So, to express it to us briefly: He was not a man” 63, for by nature He was free from natural necessity, not being subject to our law of birth, not as a non-man 64 (for He, by His very complete essence, was truly a man, undergoing [by His human] nature what is naturally characteristic of us), but as from men [originating] 65, since He was consubstantial with us, being just like us by man by nature, [and He was] transcendental [in relation to] men 66, not in the same way as we define nature by updating tropos. And above man, having truly become man 67, having prenatural troposes and natural logoi united, not violating each other, the combination of which was impossible, He, for Whom nothing is impossible, having truly become a union [of natural logoi with prenatural troposes], and not one of those from which His hypostasis was, not acting at all separately from the other, but rather through each certifying the other 68, since truly He was both [i.e. – both of them]. As God, He moved His own humanity, and as a man, He manifested His deity 69, in a divine way, so to speak, having to suffer (for this [with Him] was voluntary), because He was not a simple man, but in a human way - to work miracles (for [he did this] through the flesh), because He was not naked God; so His passions are miraculous, renewed by the natural divine power of Him who was subjected to them, and His miracles are passive, performed together with the natural passionate power of the flesh of the miracle worker. Knowing this, the teacher says: “and finally, not as God accomplishing the divine, for not only in a divine way, separately from the flesh (for he is not only non-essential), and not as a man - human, for not simply in a human way, separately from the deity (for not only a man), but as God who has become a man, living with us by some new God-husband energy" 70 . For by accepting rationally animated flesh, the great Lover of Mankind, who truly became a man, having humanized (ανδρωθεισαν) divine energy through an ineffable union fused with the flesh, fulfilled [His] economy for us in a godly manner, that is, divinely and at the same time 71 courageously accomplishing the divine and human, or and, more precisely, living with divine and at the same time masculine energy. Thus, the wise man, by denying the division between the divine and the human, affirming [their] unity with each other 72, did not neglect the natural difference of the united. For unity preserved from division does not abolish difference. If the tropos of unity leaves the logos of difference unharmed, then what was said to the saints is a periphrasis, which by the appropriate name of the dual nature of Christ also indicates a double action (since from unity in no way (κατ ΄ ουδένα τρόπον) the essential nature and quality logos of the united), but not like some, by denying extremes, creating the affirmation 73 of a certain middle. For in Christ there is nothing average, affirmed by the negation of extremes. “New” [he says – energy], since it characterizes a new sacrament, the logos of which is the mysterious tropos of union 74. For who has known how God becomes incarnate and remains God? How, while remaining true God, He is true man, in both showing Himself to be truly by nature, 75 and through each [showing] the other, despite the fact that none of them turned [into something else]? Faith alone accommodates this, silently honoring 76 the Word, to whose nature no logos of beings is akin to 77 . “God-married” [calls her] - as not simple, but also not as something complex; not as belonging to one naked deity by nature, or one simple humanity, or something complex in nature, average in relation to two extremes, but as one who has become a man, that is, most characteristic of God who has become completely human. Again, he does not [call it] “one”, since it is only possible - as it seemed to some - to understand the “new” [energy] except as “one” τισιν εδοξεν, η μιας δυναμένης). For quality, and not quantity, newness will necessarily introduce with itself such a nature (since the definition of any nature is the logos of its essential action), which the Creator will never name 78, as if in competition with myths about incredible monsters, goat-deer 79. How, if we can imagine such a thing, having become such (ο τουτο πεφυκώς), having one energy, and that natural one, performs with it both miracles and passions, differing in nature from each other, without the deprivation that accompanies the destruction of the property? For nothing that exists, bound by the determination and logos of nature, is capable of doing the opposite with the same energy. Therefore, it is not permissible to simply talk about one or about the natural energy of the deity and the flesh of Christ, since the deity and the flesh are not the same in their natural quality, because [not one] in nature, and the Trinity then becomes a quaternity. For by none of the things with which it is characteristic of Him to be identical with the Father and the Spirit by reason of a single being, the Son did not become identical with the flesh by reason of union - although He made it, which by nature had mortality, life-giving union with Himself - because otherwise He would turn out to be a perverter of nature, changing the being of the flesh into what it was not, and identifying unity with nature. So, let us, as is customary, understand the godly energy with which He, for our sake, and not for Himself, having lived, renewed nature with supernatural [properties]. For “residence” is a life conducted according to the laws of nature; and the Lord, dual in nature, rightly appeared, having a life in accordance with this, at the same time subordinated inextricably to the divine and human law, as well as new energy, not only as alien and strange to those living on earth, and in no way recognizable by the nature of beings, but also the character of the new energy of the Newly Living One, which [i.e. energy] godly, probably, was called by the one who invented a suitable name for this sacrament in order to show the image (τρόπον) of imparting by mutual exchange in the ineffable unity of the natural properties of each Christ part to the other, carried out without mutual transformation or confusion of their natural logoi. Just as with a sword heated by fire, its ability to cut became the ability to burn, and to burn - to cut (for just as iron with fire, so the ability to cut iron was united with the ability to burn fire), and iron became burning from its union with fire, and fire became cutting from its union with iron, but in this union neither of them gives any change to the other, but each, even in the property of that with which it was combined in unity, remained not deprived and inherent in his nature; so, although in the mystery of the divine incarnation deity and humanity were united in hypostasis without any frenzy [i.e. going beyond] from the natural [for each of them] energy due to unity, but also did not [no longer] possess it after the union, independently and differently in relation to the united and co-hypostatic [nature]. With all, therefore, the active power of His divinity, the incarnate Word, having all the passive power of His humanity fused in indissoluble unity, humanly, being God, performs miracles with the participation of flesh, which is passionate by nature, and divinely, being a man, raises natural passions, doing this by divine [His] power; or - better to say - both [do] theanthropic, being God together and man, through one giving us to ourselves, who appeared what we became, through the other, giving us to Himself, who became what He showed, 80 and through both, assuring the truth of that from which, in what and by what He appeared, as the only True and Faithful, and Willing, so that we confess what He is. Having it, O sanctified ones!, portrayed in word and life, imitate “long-suffering” (cf. Eph. 5 and 1 Tim. 1:26) and, having accepted this scripture, appear to me as humane judges of what is presented to [your attention], overcoming with compassion the shortcomings of your child, who expects only this reward for his obedience, and be my mediators reconciliation with Him, making “peace”, “having gained all understanding” (Phil. 4:7), of which the “Chief” (Is. 9:6) is our Savior, who through active skill frees “those who fear Him” from the agitation of free passions (Ps. 24:14, 32:18, 102:11, 13, 17, 146, etc.), and “Father of the coming century”, giving birth to the Spirit through love and knowledge of those with whom the heavenly world should be filled 81. To him be “glory, majesty, dominion” (Jude 25) with the Father and the Holy Spirit forever, amen. The second message is also To the sanctified servant of God, spiritual father and teacher Thomas, humble Maxim and sinful, unworthy servant and disciple. They say that the hypostasis of wisdom is virtue, and the essence of virtue is wisdom. Therefore, the tropos of the behavior of contemplatives is a manifestation of unadulterated wisdom, and the logos of contemplation of doers has become the solid foundation of virtue. The surest sign of both (χαρακτηρ αψευδέστατος) is an unshakable aspiration towards That which is actually being (το κυρίως ον), which is divided into desire (πόθος) and fear: desire that attracts to the beautiful, fear that horrifies the greatness of the Creator, from the union of which a true 82 unity with God is formed, which by position (θέσει) makes the one who endures it, what the Maker is called by nature. So, who preferred them [i.e. wisdom and virtue] to all created things, whether you or someone else, O sanctified one, showed wisdom, indelibly revealed by the tropos of those done, and presented virtue, firmly confirmed by the logos of things understood, and the distinctive feature (χαρακτηρα) of both - the aspiration to That which is actually being - of the deeds, consisting in desire and fear of the Creator, according to which [the aspiration] of all oneself to all God with a spiritual relationship (σχέσει πνευματικη) having dissolved, it is not false to “walk by faith” (2 Cor. 5:28) to the contemplative 83 communion of goods, the manifestation of which is deification, endowing you with only those signs, through of whom God becomes a knowable being under the [law of] birth 84 . Hence, exercising solely in the insatiable desire (απληστία) of idolizing knowledge, you have an ever-moving desire (εφεσις), which for you makes satiety the father of desire (πόθος), strangely [only] increasing the appetite for communion. Therefore, you - pearls - question dirt (cf. Matthew 7:6); “fed on scarlet garments, you are clothed in pus” (Lam. 4:5); pure, I say, and bright, and not bearing [on itself] any signs of substance - [you ask] the carnal and nothing better than this free life, to which you are firmly attached; enjoying bright and fiery understandings - who has made the only sign of [his] life the stench of passions. And the burden burdens me beyond my strength, not carrying [in myself] your extreme God-imitating exhaustion, to touch spiritual words again, without having in any way acquired in practice “John’s baptism” [i.e. repentance], “but if the Holy Spirit is” through spiritual “hearing” (Acts 19:2–3) contemplation. And again I undertake [this], although it is rash (for what is more rash than when an unlearned one teaches?), fulfilling your commandment, my sacred ruler and father, whose prayers support me, and I am writing this short word, starting with the first of the proposed [questions]. I. On the words of Saint Gregory the Theologian from the first word about the Son: “Therefore the Unity, which from the beginning moved into duality, stopped at the Trinity,” and again from his second word about the world, about “The Unity, which moved because of wealth, surpassed the duality (for [the Divinity] is above matter and form, from which bodies [are composed]) and the Trinity, determined by reason perfection." Since you ordered you to harmonize the reasons for the movement of the pre-primary Unit contained in these different [from each other] words, and the mind working in them [forcing] to stop in bewilderment, I, God-honorable lord, see one (although I am deprived of the eye of the soul due to the whiteness of thought) and the same reason, understood in both [cases], which the teacher himself clearly and clearly, and without any mystery, presented, speaking in Word about the Son: “But we honor the unity of command; not that unity of command, however, which is determined by the unity of person (for it happens that one, being in discord with itself, forms a multitude), but that which constitutes the equality of nature, the unanimity of the will (γνώμης) and the identity of movement, and the general direction towards the One of Those who are from Him” 85... ... gives for both the same [reason for] the movement, saying that it is impossible for human knowledge of how the Unit is the Trinity to combine the vision of the logos of the being of the Divine, and the tropos of how it is realized, even in their joint appearance. So, the One moves because of wealth, so that the Divinity, in the Jewish way is constrained within one person, is not meager, surpasses the two, so that the divine is not revered as a body contemplated in volume, form, appearance and image, but is determined by the Trinity because of perfection, so that the Divine, in Hellenic fabulousness in multitude, is not contradictory. For It is by nature completely unique, uncomplicated, undispersed and equally moving away from both unity in hypostasis and duality in substance, as well as plurality in essence, as in the volume sent [to you] I briefly stated: “For it is the same thing - “to pass over duality,” or “not to stop at duality”; also “to be determined by the Trinity,” or “to stop at the Trinity for the movement of the Unity,” if only we defend a unity of command that is not unsociable, as if limited to a single person, or disorderly, as if pouring out into infinity, but one that [constitutes] a Trinity of equal honor by nature, the Father and the Son and the Spirit, a holy union” 86 . And also: “since [divinity] is One, but not two; Trinity, but not plurality, as beginningless, incorporeal and consistent” 87. And, having saved, I did not hide anything from what was selected, holy father, reserving some most mysterious word for the best listeners (for who is better than you capable of both perceiving and proclaiming the divine?), but everything that was in my power was expressed, even if my word, because of my poverty, did not fulfill, as it should have, what was promised. II. On his own from the same first word: “Through the mind, the earthly God who joined the flesh and became man, because it was mixed [i.e. plumpness] with God and became one with Him, so that the best prevailed, so that I could become as much a god as He is a man.” And this too, holy father, I did not leave unexamined, but, according to my inherent strength and mental perception, I subjected this too to the proper test in the writing sent to you, saying: “So, the Word Himself, without changing in the proper sense into our natural passion, exhausted Himself and, having become truly sensually comprehended through the incarnation, was called God visible and God below, making it manifest through the medium of nature. passionate flesh super-incomprehensible power. For it is obvious that the flesh mixed with God and became one with Him, so that the best prevailed in the hypostatic identity in the proper sense of the Word that received it and deified it” 88. How else was it possible, servant of God, for me, poor in word and understanding, to speak more clearly about this? After all, I said that the flesh mixed with God and became one with Him, so that the best prevailed. And for one more reason, I, showing how and to what extent the victory was achieved, saying: “in the proper sense of the Word who received it and deified it,” added “in hypostatic identity,” in order to clearly imagine that due to the hypostatic identity, the Word, having become incarnate, won the victory. How and to what extent? – “Truly” and to the extent that It adores the hypostasized [humanity]. For if, without transformation, the ineffable Word, exhausted, became the seed of His own flesh, then His received flesh had [its] hypostasis, its logos (I mean hypostasis) without differing from Him. If according to the hypostasis to the Word... ...believing that the Lord experienced by experience the things inherent in man “except” only “sin” (Heb. 4:15). For in other words, which essentially characterize the perceived nature, it is not safe to talk about victory, lest we neglect the natural difference of intelligently animated flesh [from the deity] after unity, as being defeated by the best and not showing any signs of its existence. How Severus, whom I consider the wicked Apollinaris to be the most wicked disciple, began to teach about the one complex nature of Christ and His one action, thereby clearly alienating Him from both the Father and the Mother in nature and in energy. For if, according to Sevier, complex nature is Christ, then Christ is also complex in nature. If Christ is complex by nature, then He is also Christ by nature. If, according to Sevier, Christ is by nature Christ, then He is not consubstantial with either the Father or the Mother, since neither the Father is by nature Christ, nor the Mother is by nature Christ, and Christ will be an intermediate nature, having a corresponding action that essentially characterizes it, which is impossible. For some kind of intermediate nature between these, between creation, that is, and God, or not involved in either one or the other, or composed of both, cannot be invented even by those who create goats and deer 89 . Therefore, we will not neglect the union, so that the Nestorian division does not take place, serving as the cause of alien idolatry for us, nor put aside the difference, so that the rapid Apollinarian heresy 90 does not find a loophole, bringing us the birth of a newly-manifested nature. But the first [i.e. union] piously let us recognize in the identity [consisting of] essentially different [divinity and humanity] of a single hypostasis, the second [i.e. let us confess the difference in the natural properties of those united by hypostasis [of natures], of which none cuts, conceals or damages what belongs to the other, so that, having blasphemed in any way the logos of being in accordance with the nature of being 91, we may not lose everything (for an imperfect nature has no logos at all) and be condemned to receive a lot of an imperfect salvation, or else fall completely from all salvation, out of cowardice or ignorance 92 allowing or causing its deprivation for themselves 93 . For by nature God, who truly became by nature man, is all God truly, and all man truly, and all the [signs] by which He is naturally perceived He has from both of these [natures] without derogation, except for sin, which the mind invented, moving [i.e. acting] contrary to nature, because [sin] truly is neither of these, even if it is considered to have insufficient both 94. If He truly is both, as possessing without lack of everything in which they [i.e. both natures] are naturally contemplated, then we will understand victory as it has been given to us, believing that truly the Creator of all things, while preserving His deity immutable, was conceived in the virgin womb as He [Himself] desired, making His own the nature He adopted, ineffably becoming for it a hypostasis from the very conception, by which (I mean by nature) from the Mother He Himself was born, begotten of the Father before all ages, and was a man, without blemish [characteristic of man] by nature, just as He [was] God. If, by nature, He had each of them without defect (for He was perfect in both), it is clear that along with the natures of which He was a hypostasis, He also had their essential movements, of which He was a unity, as natural to Himself, unmerging them with each other in a manner consistent with the unity. Without them, He would not have known that He, who He is and how He is, even if Apollinaris and Sevirus stopped, creating defects in the natural properties of His intelligently animated flesh, in order to create only in the image of the flesh an empty appearance or, more precisely, a name, in the Manichaean way applying it to God, and showing Him as devoid of the thing itself. III. To the words of the interpretation of the Epistle to Gaius of Saint Dionysius: “and everything else by means of which He, moving (according to the custom of the soul, spontaneously [i.e., by his own power] to move the body connected to it) the perceived nature, as truly becoming and being called His nature (or, more precisely, He Himself without change became what exactly [human] nature is) is non-dreamlike [i.e. not only in appearance] fulfilled the dispensation for us” 95. I am amazed at your wisdom, O truly sanctified one, and I never cease to be amazed at its strength. For by asking you teach and by learning you become wise, and by humiliating yourself you raise yourself up, and by achieving the opposite, you imitate the salvation of the Lord in everything and for everyone, from Whom you received the “spirit of meekness” (1 Cor. 4:21), and made the unstumbling teaching by asking: “And what, shall we call every simple movement in Christ one and divine, or and after this [union] the movement of the soul remains, mediating 96 between God the Word and the flesh, to which the passions of the flesh are naturally transferred, according to the definition of the divine Gregory? passions, and fishermen to deliver as from the waves of everyday temptations, and those who do not tolerate anything of the Pharisees and are not puffed up, and who have partaken of the fire of knowledge, and to whom therefore the gospel is entrusted. With them, you, sanctified, were sought out because of a similar disposition, found and entrusted to you “the word of service” (Acts 6:4); and you have not received the dignity appropriated by human election for this, but by the judgment of God and the purification of life, having received the grace required, you apostolically teach about the incarnation of the Lord, affirming that through the rational soul 97 He is united with the flesh and moves it in its own way, and setting the words of the great Gregory as the limit of piety, so that we can learn how the received nature is observed in the preservation of its constituents essential movement, without which the word about the economy [of human salvation] cannot be true in any way, since it does not have in Christ the confirmation of our nature through confirmation of it by the essential movement, the denial of which is the destruction of the nature to which it belongs. And the face of the madmen clearly testifies to this - I mean Simon and Valentinus, and Mani, Aria and Apollinaria, and Eutyches, and Dioscorus, and Timothy, and Sevirus, who insidiously apply the Christian name to themselves to the destruction of many and, by rejecting the perceived nature, accompany the denial of its movement, and therefore calling the Lord rather simply in an empty form of flesh, rather than truly without the transformation of the intelligently animate flesh that existed, so that, teaching about the one nature and one divine action in Christ, to show the divine essence either pretending and falsely representing our [nature], or changing and unnaturally falling into what is characteristic of us. This is who really [needs] a single nature and movement in Christ; here is someone who is a deity pretending to be flesh and unnaturally falling into the things of the flesh; here are the opposite manifestations of the same energy of Christ, now by nature possessing power and working miracles, now unnaturally deprived of it and subject to passions; These are the ones who [need] to define Christ Himself by the same nature and energy as impassive and as passionate and consider nothing more glorious than the confused faith: they reject Christ... …Let us hear how the great David calls “Truth” the “beginning of the words” of God (Ps. 119:160), and we will truly learn from Ezra that it is all-conquering, as the only strong one (1 Ezra 3:12, 4:35). For she is the realization (ουσίωσις) of beings and the indestructible foundation of the most divine logoi of their existence, containing [her] as [she] is the indelibly making the appearance of every word and thing. If [my] word has depicted the truth, as far as is possible for me, then nothing is more necessary than the truth. And everything that is truly true is absolutely necessary. So, since we believe that Christ is truly in essence and nature the true God, and He is in essence and nature truly true man, then there is nothing more important than to speak and think about Him, both of them, and, through the manifestation of the quantity of number, to certify about the one essential difference [of natures], of which, in which and which He is, especially by adding the right word [in relation to] reason and measure, when it is necessary to stand on the side of the truth and clearly express our disposition towards it, so that we can not only be justified, piously “believing in our hearts,” but also be saved, “with the lips” of everyone everywhere, “confessing the right” (Rom. 10:10) ... ...But it’s good, my honest head! Now be to me, more than before, a humane judge of what is written, and to the extent [more] that, through the weakening of virtue, I have become lower than myself and the decay of passions has weakened the mental strength of the soul, so that the burden of my anger, which easily drags me into its nets, 98 declaring the majesty of your virtue, comfort me, “who was like fur on the side” (Ps. 119:83), dried up by the cold. sin, and oppressed by the remembrance of hellish torment, and make [me] stripped of old age new, receptive to Christ’s most mysterious teaching alone, by which the ardor of the spirit is mysteriously communicated to you, 99 elevating and, as it were, inflaming the soul to love for the Creator alone, to Him be glory and power forever, amen. Clement of Alexandria, Stromata, VI, 7.61. Dionysius the Areopagite, Epistle 10/ Works, St. Petersburg. (Oleg Abyshko publishing house), 2002, p. 854 (r.p., ibid., p. 855). One of the key things in the theology of St. Maxim is the concept of “logos”, which has no exact correspondence in the Russian language. Pre-revolutionary theological researcher Rev. Father S.L. Epifanovich explains that “In relation to God, logoi are divine ideas or desires; in relation to any thing - its formative principle, by which it received being, its definition, law; in relation to activity - its meaning, purpose, intention, plan, rule. As an object of our knowledge, logoi are divine insights of our mind and are perceived (subjectively) as thoughts, contemplations, truths” (“St. Maximus the Confessor and Byzantine Theology”, M., “Martis”, 1996, p. 65, Note 1). All logoi are eternally contained in the Logos - the Word of God as His energies, through which all being participates in God. The logoi of providence are the divine plan for the world as a whole and each creation separately, as it should be according to the will of the Creator; logoi of judgment - God's assessment of how creation has realized this divine plan of its existence. Existing outside of time in God, they are the beginning and the end of temporary existence, some preceding its origin, and others following its cessation, and showing the Logos, some as the Creator, without the Worthless thing that came into being (John 1:3), and others as the Judge, to whom the Father handed over all judgment (John 5:22). Gregory the Theologian, Sermon 38 (r.p. Creation like the saints of our father Gregory the Theologian, Archbishop of Constantinople., vol. 1, St. Petersburg, publishing house P. P. Soykin, p. 527) Dionysius the Areopagite, On the Heavenly Hierarchy, 7, ibid., p.102 (r.p. p.103). Dionysius the Areopagite, Epistle 10, p.854 (r.p., ibid., p.855). Gregory the Theologian, Slovo 2 (r.p. Slovo 3, p. 62). Gregory the Theologian, Sermon 29 (r.p., p. 414). His, Word 23.8 (r.p., “[The Deity] emerged from the Unity because of wealth, having passed through the two, for [It] is higher than matter and form, of which the bodies [are] made, was determined by the Trinity because of perfection,” Word 22, ibid., p. 332). Word 29.2 (r.p., p. 414). Word 23.8 (r.p. Word 22, p. 332). His, Word 40.5 (r.p., p. 546). His, Word 38.8 (r.p., p. 525) and Word 45, P.G. 36, p.628C (r.p., p. 664). Word 23.10 (r.p., Word 22, p. 333). Μονάς γάρ αληθως η Τριάς , οτι ουτως εστί , καί Τριάς αληθως η μονάς , οτι ουτως υφ , έστηκεν . επειδή καί μία θεότης ουσά τε μοναδικως, καί υφσταμένη τριαδικως. This sentence can be translated: “The Trinity is truly one, because She is such in essence, and the Unit is truly Trinitarian, because She is such in hypostasis. For there is one deity, being essentially one, but in hypostasis – threefold,” because the word “being”, “ουσία” – is derived from the verb “ειμι”, “to be”; and “hypostasis”, “υπόστασις” – from “υφίσταμαι” – to be realized, to really exist in a concrete, personal way. Τρόπος, along with logos, is one of the key concepts of the theology of St. Maxim, forming a categorical pair with the latter. Means an image or method, the implementation of something. principle in its concrete manifestation. On the relationship between logos and tropos, see below. 79. In other words: “the concept of being in general precedes the understanding of k.-l. concrete manifestation of being,” although being is impossible in an abstract form outside of its real implementation in concrete hypostases. Word 29.18 (r.p., p. 426). Word 30.1 (r.p., p. 429). Word 29.19 (r.p., p. 426) significantly distorts the meaning. The end of this passage looks like this: “... you despise the Divine because He took upon Himself your rudeness, and through the mind entered into communication with the flesh; and the inferior man became God after he united with God and became one with him; because the best prevailed, so that I too could be God, since He became man.” Further words of St. Maximus confirm our reading of St. Gregory). Word 30.21 (r.p., p. 443). Word 30.6 (r.p., p. 433). Word 30.6 (r.p., p. 432). Word 30.3 (r.p., p. 430). In the following, we indifferently translate the Greek “ενέργεια” into Russian “energy” or “action”. When, for example, he escaped from the wrath of Herod by fleeing to Egypt (Matthew 2:14–15) or when, in order not to be stoned, he “hid himself and left the church” (John 8:59). In the Greek text, the same root words are used for “preserver” and “saved”: “σώζων αυτάς αληθως ασυγχύτους σωζόμενος.” That is except that the attraction to sin has become part of human nature. Gregory the Theologian, Sermon 30. (cf. pp., vol. 2, p. 432). The meaning of this passage is that if the devil, due to the covering of the flesh, did not see the light of Christ’s Divinity and therefore persecuted Him as if He were a simple man, then all the more does he persecute a simple man who, being deprived of the glory of divine light due to the Fall, is darkness. Dionysius the Areopagite, Epistle 4, p.774 (r.p. ibid., p.775). Him, On the Church Hierarchy, II, ibid., p. 582 (r.p. p. 583). Wed. his On the Divine Names, IÏ9, ibid., p. 268 (r.p. p. 269 - “realized as a man”). Epistle 4, ibid., p. 774 (r.p., p. 775). The same, in the same place, p. 774 (r.p., p. 775 - “He is not only a man (after all, He would not be the Essential One if He were only a man), but is truly a man, in a different [from people] way, a Lover of Mankind”). On the Divine Names, 2:10, ibid., pp. 272–274 (r.p., pp. 273–275). “μη αμείψας “ – it is also possible to read “without replacing”, in contrast to the Apollinarian teaching that the Logos in the hypostasis of Christ replaced the human mind with Himself. The same, ibid., p.774 (r.p., p.775). Those. through the incarnation of the Lord we only become more aware of His unknowability, and this unknowability is actually what we can learn about him as about God. His, Epistle 3, ibid., p. 772 (r.p., p. 773). Epistle 4, ibid., pp. 774–776 (r.p., pp. 775–777). The same, ibid., p. 776 (r.p., p. 777). On the divine names, II, 6, ibid., p. 260 (r.p., p. 261). The same, in the same place, p. 268 (r.p., p. 269 – somewhat different in meaning). Epistle 4, ibid., p. 776 (pp. 777). The same, ibid., p. 776 (r.p., 777). On the divine names, IÏ9, ibid., p.268 (r.p., p.269). Logos, as eternally existing in God, cannot change, and it correlates with nature, which is unchangeable for all creatures of a given species (for with a change in nature, a being ceases to be what it was before), while tropos, being a specific way of realizing being, correlates with hypostasis. The created world exists in accordance with the divine meaning or plan - logos, but the image of its existence may not correspond to the plan. Thus, in man, the image of God is the logos, and the likeness is the tropos, brought into agreement with the logos. The ability of the tropos to change is evident from this word itself, the first meaning of which is “turn”, “turn”, “direction” and only the second - “image”, “way”. Those. we could with equal justification deny both energy and essence itself. On the divine names, IÏ9, ibid., p. 268 (r.p., p. 269). " των γινομένων " - We have chosen from the various meanings of this word - “realized”, based on the concept of hypostasis, as the concrete realization of the existence of the essence. In Christ, His two different natures, by union, are “realized” in His single hypostasis and therefore have a common tropos, in relation to which the expression “single godly action” is used. It can also be translated “ των γινομένων" as "becoming [one Hypostasis]." On the divine names, VIIÏ5, ibid., p.476 (r.p., p.477). "συλλαβουσα" - can be translated not only as “conceived”, but also as “grabbed”, i.e. perceived; Thus, the hypostasis of the Begotten is not formed, as is usually the case for human conception, from the hypostases of father and mother, but the Virgin received the same One whom she gave birth to. "" λόγω της φύσεως “is the supernatural tropos of how it is, and the logos of what nature is. In Slavic - “dispersed”; Wed from the Akathist: “Rejoice, you who have gathered together in the same thing.” Epistle 4, ibid., p. 776 (r.p., p. 777). The same, ibid., p. 776 (r.p., p. 777 - “over people”). Those. certifying His deity with humanity, and humanity with deity. Literally, “he was the engine of his own humanity” and “was that through which His divinity is revealed.” Epistle 4, ibid., pp. 776–778 (r.p. pp. 777–779). Gregory the Theologian, Ep.101,16 Literally: “through the apophasis of separation, accomplishing the cataphasis of unity,” i.e. Every apophatic concept implicitly contains the opposite cataphatic concept and is thus a positive knowledge of God. Pyrrh. Const., Tom. Dogm., p.152,37–38. Those. the tropos of the union of natures in Christ is also logos - the divine plan for our salvation and deification of creation, the “new sacrament” predetermined at the Eternal Council of the Holy Trinity. Literally – “natural being” (υπάρξει φυσικη). On the divine names, Ï3, ibid., p. 214 (r.p., pp. 215–217). Wed. About the divine names, V- “in none of the existing things and not being anything of the existing ones” (ibid., p. 214 (r.p., pp. 215–217)). " ου δέ πλάστης ειποι " - that is, He will not create, because He creates everything, calling it by name; cf. “He calls what is not as if it is” (Rom. 4:17). For Ming, this sentence is read differently: “For it is quality, not quantity, that is new, because it will necessarily introduce with itself such a nature (since the definition of all nature is the logos of its essential action), which [he] will never call double (ου διπλην ειποι), as if competing with myths about incredible monsters, goat-deer,” and the modern Greek translation by I. Sakalis gives the following reading of the end of the phrase: “... which [anyone] fascinated by myths about incredible monsters will never call double” See ΜΑΞΙΜΟY ΤΟY ΟΜΟΛΟΓΙΤΟY, ΠΕΡΙ › › ", 1992, σ .49. That is By miracles the Lord turns to fallen man, showing the weakness of our nature and the need for His divine help and power coming to us from outside, and by passion He leads us to deification, when already in our very weakness “His power is made perfect” (2 Cor. 12:9). Gregory the Theologian, Word 38, pp., vol. 1, p. 522. ακραιφνης – literally “not violated by anything”, “not darkened by anything”. Literally “in vision,” which continues the allusion: ““We walk by faith and not by sight.” εκείνοις σε μόνοις σημαίνουσα , δι᾿ων ο Θεος τοις υπο γένεσιν καθίσταται γνώριμος - this place can also be translated: “revealing you only by those through whom God becomes known by beings under birth.” Word 31.6 (r.p., p. 446). “Co-heresy” in relation to Nestorianism, i.e. such a heresy, which, being the opposite deviation from the truth contained in the middle between them, reveals, together with the first pair, like two sides of one counterfeit coin. " τον του ειναι και πεφυκέναι λόγον " – i.e. literally “being and being-by-nature.” The word “ignorance” (αγνοια) has a clearly negative connotation and also means “negligence”, “error”. The latter meaning brings it closer to the concept of “sin”; Wed Russian "error". "παθόντες η δράσαντες καθ᾿εαυτων ταύτης την αλλοτρίωσιν " – literally: “enduring or doing”, i.e. by Those who accept heresy in ignorance, although they do not actively deprive themselves of salvation, nevertheless suffer deprivation of it by others, and their passivity in matters of faith also turns “against themselves” (καθ᾿εαυτων), as does the heretical activity of others. The monk’s thought here is that although sin, like evil in general, is not a special essence, but a lack of good, just as illness is a lack of health, it is still not the nature of this good, because nature cannot at all be defective, deprived of any part of itself, without completely ceasing to exist. Sin, therefore, is not part of human nature; and the Lord, being similar to us in everything, “except for sin,” took upon our entire nature without exception. See above, Amb.Thom., V, p.11. Gregory the Theologian, Sermon 38 (r.p., p. 529). Word 38.13 (r.p., p. 529). τον ογκον της εμης ευπεριστάτου κακίας - cf. Hebrews 12:1, – ογκον αποθέμενοι πάντα και την ευπερίστατον αμαρτίαν, translated in Church Slavonic: “put aside all pride and make convenient sin”, and in Russian, in the Synodal translation: “... every burden and sin that besets us.” Gregory the Theologian, Sermon 17, PG 35, 965B (r.p., p. 254). Nyssa. – Editorial staff of “ABC of Faith”