D'Ales relies on the new edition, and this is the first merit of his interesting, though too brief, book. This is a transcript of his special course delivered this spring at the Institut ctholique in Paris. The historian must also reveal and show the meaning of what happened or happened. And this is becoming more and more difficult in the history of the Council of Ephesus. The history of the council is the history of schism. The fathers who had gathered in Ephesus to discuss Nestorius were divided. Two councils met in Ephesus, mutually excommunicating each other. True, only one of them was true and "ecumenical", the council of Cyril of Alexandria and Mnemon of Ephesus, to which the Roman legates also joined; and the second council or conciliabulum, the council of the "Easterners," was and turned out to be an "apostate council." But at the same time, even at this "council" the overwhelming majority was indisputably Orthodox. The historian must, first of all, show and explain how and why this schism or division of the Orthodox episcopate was possible and, in a certain sense, even inevitable. The preliminary answer is quite simple and easy: it was a division and clash of two theological schools or trends, Alexandrian and Antiochian. And this is connected with the recently fashionable attempt at the historical and even dogmatic rehabilitation of Nestorius. The question arises whether he was justly condemned, and whether his enemies did not really impute to him such false teachings, which he did not actually preach and did not share... The acuteness of the question lies in the fact that Nestorius was historically supported by almost the entire Orthodox "East", i.e. the Church of Antioch or Asia Minor, and here Nestorius was renounced in essence more canonically than dogmatically... In the final analysis, the question of Nestorius is the question of Diodorus and Theodore of Mopsusetia), the question of Bliss. Theodorite. Thus this question was posed at the Fifth Ecumenical Council, when Theodore was condemned, and of the works of Bl. Others were anathematized. And here again the doubt arises whether these posthumous anathemas were not biased and hasty. If only a few stand up for Nestorius in modern theology, then it is unlikely that the majority does not defend the Antiochians... And so, it is a great and indisputable merit of Fr. d'Alès that he is quite free from these fashionable hobbies. This testifies not only to his sober theological conservatism, but also to his great theological observation. In the last chapter of his book, he poses a general question: Nestorius and Cyril of Alexandria; and makes an attempt to restore the teaching of Nestorius, first of all, on the basis of those indisputable passages from the sermons of Nestorius, sent by him himself to Rome, which served as a pretext for his condemnation both in Rome and in Alexandria, even before the Council of Ephesus... With all caution and frugality, with all the reservations and amendments, we have to recognize here in Nestorius a dangerous and deceptive theological tendency, a tendency towards the excessive isolation of human nature in Christ... And this tendency, indeed, was common to all Antiochian theology. It cannot be said that this was "Adoptian" theology, but the temptation of "Adoptianism" was not overcome and decontaminated here... On the contrary, St. Cyril, in all his slips of the tongue, was an unshakable confessor of the Incarnate Word... Fr. d'Ales will not deign to complete his analysis. But a more careful and detailed analysis can only confirm his characteristic... At the Council of Ephesus, indeed, a "misunderstanding" was revealed. But this misunderstanding did not lie in the fact that, roughly speaking, "they did not know their own," and the Orthodox in their temper anathematized each other as heretics, but in the fact that some of the Orthodox turned out to be theologically short-sighted... The Antiochians, the "Easterners," were guilty of this short-sightedness. For them, the ghost of Apollinaris obscured the real image of Nestorius, just as in their time, after the Council of Nicaea, the ghost of Sabellius overshadowed the image of Arius. At that time they argued with the imaginary Sabellianism of St. Athanasius and the Cappadiceans, now with the imaginary Aollinarism of St. Cyril. The truth of Athanasius is not detracted from by the later birth of the Monophysites from the spirit of "Egyptian" piety, no matter how much the Monophysites lay claim to the heritage of St. Cyril... And the shortsightedness of the Antiochians was not determined solely by their philosophical skills or intellectual presuppositions. It is organically connected with their religious ideal, it must be said, with their anthropological ideal, with their teaching about the vocation and destiny of man. Anthropology is the main weakness of Antiochian theology. The clash of Alexandrian and Antiochian theology already at the Council of Ephesus was a clash of two anthropological intuitions, two anthropological ideals. The history of the Christian disputes of the fifth and eighth centuries in general can be fully understood only from anthropological premises. After all, the whole dispute was about an anthropological fact: after the victory over Arianism, they no longer argued about the Divinity of Christ, the Incarnate Word; they argued only about His human nature. And they argued from a soteriological point of view. The theology of the Antiochians can be defined, first of all, as a kind of anthropological maximalism, as an exaggerated self-assessment of human dignity. This maximalism was theoretically sharpened, probably in the disputes with Apollinarius, in the confrontation against Apollinarian minimalism in anthropology, with its disgust and disdain for man, which led Apollinaris to circumcision, to the truncation of human nature in Christ. In Apollinarianism, premature and excessive self-distrust of man, premature self-denial and excessive hopelessness were manifested. The human seemed too weak and base to be worthy of "deification." But the Antiochian reaction against this unrighteous anthropological self-abasement was nourished by an untransformed humanistic optimism, probably of Stoic origin. It is not without reason that Nestorianism was already in antiquity compared with Pelagianism (cf. Maria Mercatora). There is an undeniable psychological affinity, if not a genetic link. It was easy to draw soteriological conclusions from such a feeling. On the one hand, "salvation" was reduced to the simple liberation of human nature, to its restoration in natural, immanent measures and powers, in puris naturalibus—the Antiochians seldom spoke of "deification"... On the other hand, salvation seemed to be realizable by the "natural" powers of man, hence the doctrine of human podvig and the growth of Christ develops so vividly in Antiochian theology. And Christ was revealed to the "Easterners" as an ascetic, and in this sense, as a "simple man." These anthropological prerequisites prevented the "Easterners" from accurately discerning and describing the unity of the Divine-human face. In any case, they were inclined, so to speak, to the symmetrical representation of the "two natures" in Christ, and with hasty suspicion they regarded any asymmetry as a heretical "fusion." Meanwhile, it is precisely asymmetrical diophysitism that is Orthodox truth. The temptation of the "East" is not in the "division" of nature, but precisely in their symmetrical equalization, which leads to the doubling of the Divine face, to the "dual Sons"... The paradoxical asymmetry of the Divine-human face lies in the fact that human nature in the Divine-human unity does not have its own "face," its own "hypostasis," that it is perceived in the hypostasis of God the Word—why it is necessary to say: the Incarnate Word, and it is impossible to say: God-bearing man. This the Antiochians could not understand... Orthodox asymmetrical diophysitism is closely connected with the soteriological idea of "deification" as the transfiguration or "revival" of man, which is quite clear in St. Cyril. This does not in the least truncate human fullness, but, without any belittling of human dignity, it means that man is presented with a superhuman goal and limit, that he must surpass the human measure or "the measure of nature" — in transfiguration, in union with God... The fullness of human nature, which does not transform into the other, but unlocks in "deification"—this could not be understood and recognized by the minimalists in anthropology, the Apollinarians and Monophysites. They did not know how to think of this "unlocking" of human self-sufficiency as anything other than a "transformation," as a fall out of the measures of nature, a kind (Greek). They exaggerated the incommensurability of the human in Christ with the human in us, in the "common people"... For other reasons, the anthropological maximalists could not understand and accept the "hypostatic" unity — like "deification," it meant too much for them, more than their religious-soteriological ideal demanded and allowed... In Ephesus, no injustice or mistake was committed. Nestorius was condemned and deposed with reason, and his condemnation was a tragic warning of the inherent dangers of "Eastern" theology. The history of "Eastern" theology actually ends with Bl. Theodorite. The historical thread breaks. The path turned out to be a dead end... And if, after the Council of Ephesus, the divided bishops were reunited on the basis of a dogmatic formula set forth in terms of "Eastern" theology (as the Chalcedonian Oros later did), this meant neither victory nor "rehabilitation" of the Antiochian school. For the meaning of a formula is determined by its interpretation. And this interpretation given by the Church completely excludes "Eastern" maximalism. "Fr. d'Alès's book only introduces the history of these painful and disturbing disputes. But in modern literature it is perhaps one of the best books on the history of Christological movements in the ancient Church.

I. Life

D'Ales relies on the new edition, and this is the first merit of his interesting, though too brief, book. This is a transcript of his special course delivered this spring at the Institut ctholique in Paris. The historian must also reveal and show the meaning of what happened or happened. And this is becoming more and more difficult in the history of the Council of Ephesus. The history of the council is the history of schism. The fathers who had gathered in Ephesus to discuss Nestorius were divided. Two councils met in Ephesus, mutually excommunicating each other. True, only one of them was true and "ecumenical", the council of Cyril of Alexandria and Mnemon of Ephesus, to which the Roman legates also joined; and the second council or conciliabulum, the council of the "Easterners," was and turned out to be an "apostate council." But at the same time, even at this "council" the overwhelming majority was indisputably Orthodox. The historian must, first of all, show and explain how and why this schism or division of the Orthodox episcopate was possible and, in a certain sense, even inevitable. The preliminary answer is quite simple and easy: it was a division and clash of two theological schools or trends, Alexandrian and Antiochian. And this is connected with the recently fashionable attempt at the historical and even dogmatic rehabilitation of Nestorius. The question arises whether he was justly condemned, and whether his enemies did not really impute to him such false teachings, which he did not actually preach and did not share... The acuteness of the question lies in the fact that Nestorius was historically supported by almost the entire Orthodox "East", i.e. the Church of Antioch or Asia Minor, and here Nestorius was renounced in essence more canonically than dogmatically... In the final analysis, the question of Nestorius is the question of Diodorus and Theodore of Mopsusetia), the question of Bliss. Theodorite. Thus this question was posed at the Fifth Ecumenical Council, when Theodore was condemned, and of the works of Bl. Others were anathematized. And here again the doubt arises whether these posthumous anathemas were not biased and hasty. If only a few stand up for Nestorius in modern theology, then it is unlikely that the majority does not defend the Antiochians... And so, it is a great and indisputable merit of Fr. d'Alès that he is quite free from these fashionable hobbies. This testifies not only to his sober theological conservatism, but also to his great theological observation. In the last chapter of his book, he poses a general question: Nestorius and Cyril of Alexandria; and makes an attempt to restore the teaching of Nestorius, first of all, on the basis of those indisputable passages from the sermons of Nestorius, sent by him himself to Rome, which served as a pretext for his condemnation both in Rome and in Alexandria, even before the Council of Ephesus... With all caution and frugality, with all the reservations and amendments, we have to recognize here in Nestorius a dangerous and deceptive theological tendency, a tendency towards the excessive isolation of human nature in Christ... And this tendency, indeed, was common to all Antiochian theology. It cannot be said that this was "Adoptian" theology, but the temptation of "Adoptianism" was not overcome and decontaminated here... On the contrary, St. Cyril, in all his slips of the tongue, was an unshakable confessor of the Incarnate Word... Fr. d'Ales will not deign to complete his analysis. But a more careful and detailed analysis can only confirm his characteristic... At the Council of Ephesus, indeed, a "misunderstanding" was revealed. But this misunderstanding did not lie in the fact that, roughly speaking, "they did not know their own," and the Orthodox in their temper anathematized each other as heretics, but in the fact that some of the Orthodox turned out to be theologically short-sighted... The Antiochians, the "Easterners," were guilty of this short-sightedness. For them, the ghost of Apollinaris obscured the real image of Nestorius, just as in their time, after the Council of Nicaea, the ghost of Sabellius overshadowed the image of Arius. At that time they argued with the imaginary Sabellianism of St. Athanasius and the Cappadiceans, now with the imaginary Aollinarism of St. Cyril. The truth of Athanasius is not detracted from by the later birth of the Monophysites from the spirit of "Egyptian" piety, no matter how much the Monophysites lay claim to the heritage of St. Cyril... And the shortsightedness of the Antiochians was not determined solely by their philosophical skills or intellectual presuppositions. It is organically connected with their religious ideal, it must be said, with their anthropological ideal, with their teaching about the vocation and destiny of man. Anthropology is the main weakness of Antiochian theology. The clash of Alexandrian and Antiochian theology already at the Council of Ephesus was a clash of two anthropological intuitions, two anthropological ideals. The history of the Christian disputes of the fifth and eighth centuries in general can be fully understood only from anthropological premises. After all, the whole dispute was about an anthropological fact: after the victory over Arianism, they no longer argued about the Divinity of Christ, the Incarnate Word; they argued only about His human nature. And they argued from a soteriological point of view. The theology of the Antiochians can be defined, first of all, as a kind of anthropological maximalism, as an exaggerated self-assessment of human dignity. This maximalism was theoretically sharpened, probably in the disputes with Apollinarius, in the confrontation against Apollinarian minimalism in anthropology, with its disgust and disdain for man, which led Apollinaris to circumcision, to the truncation of human nature in Christ. In Apollinarianism, premature and excessive self-distrust of man, premature self-denial and excessive hopelessness were manifested. The human seemed too weak and base to be worthy of "deification." But the Antiochian reaction against this unrighteous anthropological self-abasement was nourished by an untransformed humanistic optimism, probably of Stoic origin. It is not without reason that Nestorianism was already in antiquity compared with Pelagianism (cf. Maria Mercatora). There is an undeniable psychological affinity, if not a genetic link. It was easy to draw soteriological conclusions from such a feeling. On the one hand, "salvation" was reduced to the simple liberation of human nature, to its restoration in natural, immanent measures and powers, in puris naturalibus—the Antiochians seldom spoke of "deification"... On the other hand, salvation seemed to be realizable by the "natural" powers of man, hence the doctrine of human podvig and the growth of Christ develops so vividly in Antiochian theology. And Christ was revealed to the "Easterners" as an ascetic, and in this sense, as a "simple man." These anthropological prerequisites prevented the "Easterners" from accurately discerning and describing the unity of the Divine-human face. In any case, they were inclined, so to speak, to the symmetrical representation of the "two natures" in Christ, and with hasty suspicion they regarded any asymmetry as a heretical "fusion." Meanwhile, it is precisely asymmetrical diophysitism that is Orthodox truth. The temptation of the "East" is not in the "division" of nature, but precisely in their symmetrical equalization, which leads to the doubling of the Divine face, to the "dual Sons"... The paradoxical asymmetry of the Divine-human face lies in the fact that human nature in the Divine-human unity does not have its own "face," its own "hypostasis," that it is perceived in the hypostasis of God the Word—why it is necessary to say: the Incarnate Word, and it is impossible to say: God-bearing man. This the Antiochians could not understand... Orthodox asymmetrical diophysitism is closely connected with the soteriological idea of "deification" as the transfiguration or "revival" of man, which is quite clear in St. Cyril. This does not in the least truncate human fullness, but, without any belittling of human dignity, it means that man is presented with a superhuman goal and limit, that he must surpass the human measure or "the measure of nature" — in transfiguration, in union with God... The fullness of human nature, which does not transform into the other, but unlocks in "deification"—this could not be understood and recognized by the minimalists in anthropology, the Apollinarians and Monophysites. They did not know how to think of this "unlocking" of human self-sufficiency as anything other than a "transformation," as a fall out of the measures of nature, a kind (Greek). They exaggerated the incommensurability of the human in Christ with the human in us, in the "common people"... For other reasons, the anthropological maximalists could not understand and accept the "hypostatic" unity — like "deification," it meant too much for them, more than their religious-soteriological ideal demanded and allowed... In Ephesus, no injustice or mistake was committed. Nestorius was condemned and deposed with reason, and his condemnation was a tragic warning of the inherent dangers of "Eastern" theology. The history of "Eastern" theology actually ends with Bl. Theodorite. The historical thread breaks. The path turned out to be a dead end... And if, after the Council of Ephesus, the divided bishops were reunited on the basis of a dogmatic formula set forth in terms of "Eastern" theology (as the Chalcedonian Oros later did), this meant neither victory nor "rehabilitation" of the Antiochian school. For the meaning of a formula is determined by its interpretation. And this interpretation given by the Church completely excludes "Eastern" maximalism. "Fr. d'Alès's book only introduces the history of these painful and disturbing disputes. But in modern literature it is perhaps one of the best books on the history of Christological movements in the ancient Church.

Part 1

1. Theodoret was born, probably, in 393 in Antioch, in a Christian family. He received a good and comprehensive education, Christian and Hellenic; but it is difficult to say with certainty from whom he studied. He was probably not a student of Chrysostom. It is unlikely that he was a student of Theodore of Mopsuestia. From childhood, Theodorite came into close contact with the monastic environment, but it is unlikely that he himself lived in any monastery. The life of Theodoret before his election to the Cyrus cathedra is not known to us. We know that he was a reader in Antioch, that after the death of his mother he distributed all his inheritance and, apparently, retired to one of the Nicert monasteries, "a school of wisdom," as he put it. You have to think that he somehow showed himself and attracted attention. This alone can explain his election as bishop of the city of Cyrus in 423. Cyrus was a small and almost deserted town not far from Antioch, but Theodoret loved it and called it "the best of any other glorious city." He cared for his flock not only spiritually, but also in everyday life; By his own admission, he was "busy with innumerable concerns, urban and rural, military and civil, ecclesiastical and social." At the same time, he did not break his ties with hermits and ascetics, and he himself led a temperate and non-acquisitive life. "I have acquired nothing but the rags in which I am dressed," he said of himself in his old age. Both in his own region and in other cities of the East, he had to encounter pagans, Jews, and various heretics, and the struggle with them was not always safe: "often my blood was shed, and I was prematurely thrown into the very doors of hell"... Apparently, he had to travel a lot in the East, and everywhere he delivered a catechetical and instructive sermon. He gained honorable fame far beyond the boundaries of his remote region. From his letters of that time, it is possible to restore his rather bright and attractive image. 2. With the beginning of the Nestorian controversies, Theodoret moved to the forefront of church figures, and for a long time. It can be thought that he had already taken part in the compilation of the Antiochian Epistle to Nestorius, with an exhortation not to oppose the designation of the Most Holy Virgin as the Mother of God. He responded to the anathematisms of St. Cyril sharply and severely, more sharply than Andrew of Samosata. He doubted that they belonged to Saint Cyril and saw in them "the empty and at the same time impious teaching of Apollinarius". Other "Easterners" received them in no other way, and before leaving for Ephesus, John of Antioch spoke of the "heads" of Cyril as "the teaching of Apollinarius." The ghost of Apollinaris confused the "Easterners" in any case more than the personality of Nestorius. And in Ephesus they wanted, first of all, to demand an answer from Cyril. Their suspicion was intensified by the haste and harshness of St. Cyril's action at the council. In the schism that took place in Ephesus, Theodoret was one of the main figures from the "Eastern" side. "Egypt is mad again against God, and is at war against Moses and Aaron and with His servants," he wrote from Ephesus to Andrew of Samosata. At Chalcedon, at a conference convened by the emperor of representatives of both councils, Theodoret spoke harshly of his opponents, equating them with pagans, and bitterly remarked that even the pagans considered the sun and sky, which they deified, to be impassible, and the stars immortal, while the Egyptians revered Christ as passionate. To them he appends the Old Testament texts about the lawless and apostates. Theodoret did not understand Saint Cyril, he was frightened by the imaginary danger, and in his infatuation he inevitably inclined too close to Nestorius, calling him "a sweet-voiced pipe", interceding for him, defending him from "the injustice inflicted on him by the impious". In Theodoret's sympathy with Nestorius, the decisive influence was played by the fact of "murder," i.e., the deposition, as the "Easterners" believed, "without trial and illegally." Theodoret did not enter into the discussion of the views of Nestorius, and most of all he argued with Cyril... With a heavy feeling he returned to Syria after the council — it seemed to him that "the darkest darkness of the Egyptian plague" had thickened, that the right faith had been put to shame and "evil dogmas" had triumphed. He longed for peace, but the "wicked chapters" continued to frighten and disturb him. And at the same time, he firmly and distinctly sums up the dogmatic results of the dispute, more with Cyril than with Nestorius. In Cyril, in his anti-Nestorian writings, Theodoret saw the main obstacle and threat to the world. Reconciliation with Egypt seemed to him possible only on the condition that Cyril renounce all that he had written against Nestorius. And this made it necessary to reconsider the whole case of Nestorius. "To anathematize indefinitely, without any restrictions, the teaching of the said bishop, means to anathematize piety itself," thought Theodoret. And he decided: "Not to agree to the unjust and unlawful condemnation of the most holy and God-loving Nestorius, either with his hand, or with his tongue, or with his mind." This determines the position of Theodoret in the history of the reunification of the East with Egypt. He soon became convinced of Cyril's dogmatic Orthodoxy, but in the new and indisputable confessions of the Archbishop of Alexandria he saw a rejection of the "false verbosity" of the impious heads, he saw repentance and conversion "from the false to the right," from "impious reasoning" to the truth. And therefore for him the insistence of Cyril on the question of condemning Nestorius remained incomprehensible and suspicious. The danger of Nestorianism remained unclear to Theodoret. The ghost of Apollinaris still stands before him... The most he was ready to agree to was to keep silent about the question of Nestorius. In the end, he agreed to the cautious formulation of the condemnation, "everything that he said or thought otherwise than that which somehow contains the apostolic teaching." He did not want to mention the name of Nestorius at all in the terms of conciliation... And St. Cyril was almost right when, in defending his disputed "heads" against Theodoret, he said of him that he "exquisitely contemplates the mystery, — barely in the waking state, as if through sleep and in intoxication." In any case, the fear of Cyril's alleged Apollinarianism hindered the triumph of Orthodoxy as much as in his time, during the anti-Nicene struggle, the fear of the alleged Sabellianism of the strict Nicaeans. Just as in his time the ghost of Sabellius had obscured the real image of Arius, so now the ominous shadow of Apollinaris closed the entire dogmatic horizon to the "Easterners," including Theodoret. And they preferred to retreat into the realm of dogmatic innuendo and uncertainty. It was not until the end of the thirties that peace finally came to the East, and the concord with Egypt was restored, which had almost been broken again by the question raised in Edessa and Alexandria about the faith of Theodore and Diodorus. The restraint of St. Cyril and Proclus of Constantinople prevented a new rupture. In the history of these troubles, Theodoret occupies a prominent place, he was, if not the head, then the soul of the Orthodox, albeit suspicious, East. 3. Under the cover of an external agreement, the old struggle continued. After the death of Saint Cyril, it flared up with renewed force under his tough and arrogant successor Dioscorus. The dispute about faith was complicated by personal and regional enmity and rivalry. There were many dissatisfied with the established dogmatic situation not only in Egypt, but also in the East itself. The ghost of Apollinarianism began to come true. A real Monophysitism appeared and, relying on the court, immediately went on the offensive. Relying on the slanders of the offended fugitives from Antioch, Dioscorus, under the pretext of defending the memory and faith of Cyril from the "shameful" objections of the "Easterners", in 448 in an epistle to Domnus of Antioch raises the direct question of the Orthodoxy of the whole East and of Theodoret above all. Still earlier, in the same year, an imperial decree had appeared prohibiting the writing, reading, and preservation of books written against the opinions of St. Cyril under threat of the death penalty, with a clear indication of "some ambiguous teachings." At the same time, the emperor ordered the removal and deposition of the Metropolitan of Tyre, Irenaeus, who had recently been installed on the advice and with the participation of Theodoret. Irenaeus had a very dubious past: at the Council of Ephesus he was a zealous defender of Nestorius and after the Council wrote in his defense (a lost book called "Tragedy"); together with Nestorius he was exiled to Petra of Arabia; even after his consecration he spoke carelessly and seductively, so that Theodoret had to exhort him not to argue about the name: Mother of God: and, finally, he was married for the second time. The pretext for the attack was therefore very well chosen. But in the East they did not fulfill the imperial decree and asked for its repeal. This time Theodoret correctly guessed in Dioscorus the enemy of truth, guessed that a storm was approaching, and began to prepare for it and prepare others. He responded to the suspicions of Dioscorus with a clear and precise confession in the spirit and meaning of the "agreement" of 433. But in Alexandria the excitement increased. Discontented monks from the East wandered everywhere in the Egyptian monasteries and everywhere talked about the danger to the "Cyril faith". A special embassy was sent to Constantinople from Alexandria, and the envoys first of all brought the accusation of heresy, and "everyone's ears buzzed that instead of one Son, Theodoret preached two." However, it was not this accusation that attracted the emperor to the side of the "pharaoh", as Theodoret called Dioscorus, but rather hints at the restless spirit of the Bishop of Cyrus, at his danger to public order and authority. The struggle was waged primarily against Theodoret. The Alexandrians managed to obtain an imperial decree on the removal of Theodoret to Cyrus without the right to leave there, in view of the fact that he "often convenes councils and thereby outrages the Orthodox." In his honorable exile, Theodoret did not break his ties with his Eastern brethren, as well as with friends in Constantinople and at court. It was at this time, in November 448, that Eusebius, bishop of Doryleia, of the Metropolis of Synaad, filed an accusatory complaint against Eutyches against Flavian of Constantinople, and Eutyches was condemned and "excommunicated." For Theodoret, it was, according to him, a ray of light in the middle of the night. Soon after the Council of Constantinople, an "Eastern" embassy went to the capital to defend the Orthodoxy of the suspected East. This embassy was not a lasting success. But in the desire of a conciliar court, Theodoret agreed with his accusers, and under their suggestion, on March 30, 449, an imperial decree was announced to convene an ecumenical council for August 1 in Ephesus, and Dioscorus was given primacy at it, and Theodoret, as suspected, was excluded from participation in the council, unless this would be pleasing to the council. In response to a request to lift this ban, the emperor repeated his decision, "because he dared to expound the opposite of what Cyril of blessed memory wrote about the faith"... It was possible to foresee in advance what the forthcoming council would be like. Theodoret clearly saw "the beginning of a complete apostasy," and did not expect anything good from the forthcoming council. The council met in order to judge some of the Eastern bishops, "infected with the impiety of Nestorius," as the emperor expressed it in letters addressed to Dioscorus, and was prepared in advance "to expel them from the holy Churches and to uproot all the devil's root." The council turned out to be in reality a "robber council", and with this name it went down in history. Theodoret was condemned here in absentia, as a notorious Nestorian, "deprived of all service, all honor, and every degree of priesthood." The sentence was based on the complaint of the Antiochian presbyter Pelagius, on the selections from the book of Theodoret presented by him in defense of Diodorus and Theodore, on the letter of Theodoret to the monks against Cyril – the very fact that Theodoret "dared to think and write contrary to the writings of our blessed father Cyril" proved for the council his impiety. And besides, he spoke out in defense of the Nestorian teachers... The verdict did not meet with objections from the "Easterners" present; they recognized the deposition of Theodoret, including Domnus of Antioch, although he himself was deposed together with Theodoret. In addition, Flavian of Constantinople, Eusebius of Doryleia, the first accuser of the now restored Eutyches, and Ives of Edessa were deposed. The sentence was enshrined in an imperial decree. Any communication with the condemned was forbidden, "both in the city and in the field," under the threat of constant exile. The works of Theodoret, along with the works of Nestorius and the books of Porphyry against Christians, were ordered to be publicly burned, and it was forbidden to keep and read them. All bishops had to express in writing their agreement with the conciliar decision. To supervise the collection of signatures, a special imperial official was appointed from among the henchmen of Dioscorus. The Roman legates did not sign the conciliar decrees and were forced to flee from Ephesus. Before leaving, they received from Flavian and Eusebius an appeal to the Roman see. Theodoret also turned to Rome. He expected a formal review of the whole case from the pope. He addressed him as the primate of a local church that had not yet spoken, and moreover, it was especially independent of the pressure of Constantinople. There was nowhere to turn but Rome. The East was powerless and weakened. Alexandria and Constantinople were in the power of enemies. Theodoret expected the pope to intervene as an arbitrator. The expectation of Rome's help was justified. The Pope did not recognize the acts of the Dioscorus Council. Theodoret, the Roman Council, apparently, received him into communion and restored him to the episcopal dignity. Theodoret himself at this time lived in his remote monastery of Apamia, apparently in great need. In his letters, he continued to complain about his unjust "murder," and emphasized the dogmatic meaning of the persecution raised against him. In particular, he was embarrassed and disturbed by the cowardice of the majority, intimidated and depressed by the harsh behavior of Dioscorus. "Which polyps change their colour according to the rocks, or chameleons their colour according to the leaves, as these change their minds according to the time," asked Theodoret mournfully. And he called on everyone to take care of "akrivia". He wrote a lot at this time, and in his letters he explained Christological truths, at the same time refuting the false interpretations and slander spread by his enemies. As an example of an accurate dogmatic interpretation, he points to the tomos of Pope Leo to Flavian, which was not adopted at the robber council, but later approved at the Council of Chalcedon. "As soon as I read it," wrote Theodorite, "I praised the humane Lord, that He did not completely abandon the Churches, but preserved the spark of Orthodoxy, and not even a spark, but the greatest fire that can ignite and illumine the universe"... With the accession of Marcian, the situation in the empire changed. The exiles were allowed to return, returned to Cyrus and Theodoret. On May 17, 451, an imperial sacra was issued convening a council for September 1 at Nicaea. This corresponded to the desires of Theodoret, who directly asked "to convene a council not of rebellious people and vagabonds, but of those to whom the works of God are entrusted"... At the council, Theodoret was greeted violently. The Egyptians refused to recognize him as a bishop and to sit with him. But the "senate" and the imperial dignitaries, supported by the "Easterners," came to the defense of Theodoret, as the plaintiff and accuser against the council of 449. From the very beginning, he took part in the Council's votes and deliberations as a full member. At the eighth session, Theodoret was restored to his Cyrus cathedra, and "all doubts about the most God-loving Theodoret were resolved." They demanded from him only a direct anathema against Nestorius. From the Council's Acts it is evident that Theodoret seemed to have tried to evade this, proposing to read his own statement of faith in order to establish how he believed and taught. "I was slandered," he said, "and I came to prove that I was Orthodox. I curse Nestorius and Eutyches, but I will not speak of it until I have stated how I believe." Obviously, he feared that a simple condemnation of Nestorius would be ambiguous, since the Orthodox and the Monophysites, who were not at all of the same mind, could agree on it. The excommunication of Nestorius does not yet resolve the question of the Orthodoxy of the excommunicater. Therefore, when the council did not want to listen to his detailed confession, Theodoret added to the anathema against Nestorius a reference to the decisions (oros) of the council that had already taken place and to the tomos of Pope Leo. In any case, Theodoret was restored and returned to the cathedra. Almost nothing is known about the life of Theodoret after the Council of Chalcedon. In the last years of his life, he seems to have shunned church events, although as early as 453 he had been called to do so by Pope Leo in a special letter. He probably died in 457.

Part 2

4. The controversy about Theodoret did not end with his death. Already after the Council of Chalcedon, Marius Mercator, known for his struggle with the Pelagians, came out against him in the West. He accused Theodoret of Nestorianism and proved his accusation by comparing excerpts from Theodoret with the writings of Theodore (of Mopsuestia) and Nestorius, on the one hand, and Cyril, Pope Celestine, and the decisions of the Council of Ephesus, on the other. Such a selection and comparison turned out to be very unfavorable for Theodoret. Marius Mercator did not enter into the analysis of Theodoret's views on the merits. This polemical speech had no practical consequences. The situation escalated later. It goes without saying that in Monophysite circles there was an irreconcilable hostility to Theodoret. For the Monophysites, the condemnation of Theodoret was naturally connected with the rejection of the Council of Chalcedon, at which he was received into communion and his Orthodoxy was recognized. At the end of the fifth century, the emperor Anastasius directly raised the question of anathematizing Theodoret. At the same time, Philoxenus of Hierapolis opposed him, selecting seductive passages from his creations. In the course of time, the excitement grew, and in the year 520 the emperor Justin testified that "Theodoret is everywhere accused of error in faith." In contrast to these rumors, solemn meetings were held in Cyrus in honor and memory of the blessed bishop... Under Justinian, the offensive of the Monophysites became especially violent. At the Constantinople interview between the Severians and the Orthodox in 531, the question of Theodoret was again directly raised. The Monophysites questioned the sincerity of his renunciation of Nestorius at Chalcedon. Again the question arose about the meaning of the disagreement between Theodoret and Cyril... Thus gradually the question of the "three chapters," of Theodoret, Yves, and Theodora, was brewing. This question was sharply posed by Justinian in his edict, probably in 544 (known only in paraphrases and references). Apparently, little was said here about Theodoret. He was accused of objecting to St. Cyril and censuring the Council of Ephesus. Justinian tried to separate the question of Theodoret and the Council of Chalcedon, and asserted that neither Theodoret nor Iva took part in the dogmatic acts of the council, that they were summoned to the council after the condemnation of Eutyches and Dioscorus and after the compilation of the exposition of the faith... Under the threat of exile, Justinian managed to obtain the consent to the condemnation of the "three chapters" from Patriarch Menas of Constantinople and from other patriarchs. Pope Vigilius had given his consent even earlier. But the West expressed a strong protest, especially the African clerics. Vigilius then changed his attitude and, having been summoned by the emperor to Constantinople, stood in opposition there, and pronounced excommunication on Patriarch Menas. However, he soon yielded to the emperor again. However, he is again under pressure. The Hermian bishop Facundus presents an extensive work "In Defense of the Three Chapters". Facundus did not say much about Theodoret, but he tried to explain the meaning of his disagreements with Cyril in essence and to justify the behavior of the "Easterners" in Ephesus in general. At the same time, Facundus reveals the conclusions that can be drawn from the condemnation of the "chapters" in undermining the significance of the Council of Chalcedon. He refutes Justinian that Iva and Theodoret did not participate in the acts of the council. And he concludes: "The writings of Theodoret against Blessed Cyril cannot be condemned without the Council of Chalcedon appearing reprehensible, because Theodoret took part in his reasoning and definitions, defended the letter of Pope Leo, refuting the madness of Eutyches, and proved his correctness to those who do not understand." It is not without the influence of Facund's defense that Pope Vigilius, in his new judgment (April 11, 548), speaks of the "chapters" very mildly, stipulates the inviolability and dignity of the former councils, and limits his condemnation of Theodoret only to his objections to the "heads" of Cyril. But this judgment of the pope also provoked protests throughout the West, and in 549 Vigilius again retracted it. In 551, Justinian renewed the question of the "three chapters" in his "Confession of Faith". Here the question of Theodoret is reduced to his struggle against the Council of Ephesus and against St. Cyril, and to his individual expressions. At the same time, Justinian emphasizes the recognition of the Council of Chalcedon. During these vacillating decisions and judgments, the question was gradually freed from the Monophysite elucidation. He received the final decision at the Fifth Ecumenical Council. In its details, the course of affairs at the council is not quite clear to us. But the general meaning of the Council's decision is quite definite. The personality of Theodoret as a man and teacher, and the correctness of his faith are recognized above suspicion. But among his works are found those which, for various reasons, through carelessness and thoughtlessness of presentation and language, must be recognized as seductive. The council decided to reject "that which Theodoret had impiously written against the true faith and against the twelve chapters of St. Cyril, and against the first Council of Ephesus, and which he had written in defense of Theodore and Nestorius." This was not the excommunication of Theodoret, but meant the denial of dogmatic authority behind his unsuccessful polemics with St. Cyril, which, however, does not give the right to doubt his right-thinking in general. Such an interpretation of the decrees of the Fifth Council was given at the same time by the Pope. This is precisely how the Church's consciousness perceived them. Theodoret is venerated in the Church as a blessed man among the fathers of the Council of Chalcedon and teachers of piety. But his theological judgments are accepted with reservations, taking into account the inaccuracy and carelessness in the presentation and language.

II. Works

1. Theodoret is one of the most remarkable exegetes of antiquity. He wrote a number of commentaries on individual books, on all the prophets, on the Song of Songs, on all the epistles of the Apostle Paul. In addition, he composed in question-and-answer form explanations of selected difficult passages from the Osmibook and the historical books of the Old Testament. In his interpretations, Theodoret relies on a historical and grammatical analysis of the text, dwelling primarily on its literal meaning. At the same time, he takes into account the discrepancies in the Greek text, and often turns to the Hebrew; However, it is unlikely that he knew the Hebrew language thoroughly. Theodoret was harsh about the extremes of allegorism, and in allegorical explanations he saw "the fables of the foolish", "the ravings of drunken old women", "the fictions of superstitions". He considers the task of the interpreter to be "to penetrate into the mysteries of the all-holy Spirit," and for this illumination is needed from above—restless imagination is useless here. But Theodoret does not stop at the "simple letter", does not refuse, in necessary cases, to plunge into the depths and catch the "innermost beads of understanding". In the biblical text, much is said in an applied, metaphorical way, and the interpretation should reveal the meaning of these images and tropes. The meaning of the Old Testament ritual legislation must be explained "according to the laws of allegory"... In his commentary on the Song of Songs, Theodoret objected to the deniers of its divine inspiration, who were unable to delve into the meaning and "reveal the mystery of the word"... At one time it was understood that Theodoret had in mind Theodore of Mopsuestia — "although he concealed his name, he revealed his madness"... Fencing herself off from Theodore in her commentary, Theodoret, on the contrary, uses Origen... In addition to the allegorical and moral meaning, Theodoret finds in many Old Testament texts hidden hints at the Christian truths of the faith. Thus, he recognizes the plural in the story of the creation of man as a prototype of the Trinitarian mystery; in the Burning Bush he sees the image of the virgin conception. In this way, Theodoret preserves a living connection between the two Testaments. As for Chrysostom, for Theodoret the Old Testament is an image of the New, τύπоς... And this "typicality" does not detract from historical realism: the facts themselves have a pre-educational meaning, the very faces are prototypes. In the Old Testament law everything is full of indications of the kingdom of grace. Prophecies should be distinguished from images. All the prophets foresaw what was realized in the Church, but they saw from afar, and therefore it is not clear, and in the prophetic speeches one cannot look for the same clarity as in the apostolic works. In his interpretation of prophecies, Theodoret tries to avoid immoderate allegory, and at the same time he condemns those who "applied prophecies to some previous events, why their interpretation is more beneficial to the Jews than to the children of faith." Prophecy always exceeds the boundaries of its time and points beyond it. Only in the kingdom of grace do prophecies receive full fulfillment... Not all prophecies have a direct messianic meaning, many directly point to the events of the Old Testament, but at the same time to those that are themselves types of the New Testament – types, and not only signs. In his interpretations, Theodoret relied on previous exegetes and owed much to them, but at the same time he remained independent and skillfully combined the truth of the Alexandrian and Antiochian schools. In this respect, he is close to Chrysostom, whom he directly followed in his interpretations of the Epistles of the Apostle Paul. It should be added that even in antiquity they were able to appreciate the language and style of the Theodorite interpretations, clear, concise and pure. 2. Among the successful works of Theodoret is his book against the pagans: "The Healing of Hellenic Diseases, or the Knowledge of the Gospel Truth, from Greek Philosophy". This is the last in a series of ancient "apologies". In the middle of the fifth century, paganism had not yet died, and it had to be seriously reckoned with in pastoral life. Theodoret often refers to his meetings and clashes with "adherents of pagan mythology" who laughed at Christianity, and these ridicules did not pass harmlessly for weak people. In order to fight, Theodoret begins with a positive revelation of the truth of the Gospel, especially in questions that are difficult for the pagan consciousness, in order to eliminate enmity from ignorance. In contrast to Christianity, paganism is vividly exposed in its emptiness and weakness. Theodoret emphasizes his helpless contradictions, the fruitlessness and instability of pagan thought. His picture is gloomy and not without partiality, the whole history of Hellenism turns out to be a history of the continuous growth of evil, "for such is the cunning of falsehood that those who depart from one path pass on to another, even more dangerous." However, Theodoret stipulates that "those who lived before the coming of the Lord have some small excuse, because the sun of righteousness had not yet shone, and they walked as if in the darkness of the night, guided by nature alone"; its "God-inscribed writings of old" were erased from sin... But now the sun has risen and it is not fitting to be "blind at noon"... Repeating the former apologists, Clement of Alexandria, first of all, and Eusebius, Theodoret tries to find in the most pagan wisdom the reference and starting points for conversion to the true faith. He speaks of the ways of natural knowledge of God: "The generation of Abraham received the law and enjoyed prophetic grace, while the Ruler of all tongues led to godliness through nature and creation." "By guidance" the pagans could also ascend to the knowledge of the Creator. Theodoret also repeats the old idea about the borrowings of the Hellenic sages from Moses. In his presentation, Theodoret is not very independent. It is unlikely that he studied all the pagan authors to whom he refers directly. Or rather, that he used summaries and collections - Aetius, probably, probably both Plutarch and Porphyry. At the same time, Theodoret managed to arrange this alien material into a harmonious system, unlike his predecessors. Ten long words "On Providence" are attached to this apologetic work. Theodoret's writings "Against the Magi" and "Against the Jews" have not come down to us. 3. Of great value are the historical works of Theodoret, his "Church History", first of all. It begins with the "madness of Arius" and ends with "the death of the laudable men Theodore and Theodotus" (Bishop of Antioch), approximately in the years 428-429. It was written around 449-450, but it must be assumed that Theodoret began to work on it and collect materials much earlier. Theodoret continues Eusebius and sets himself the task of "describing what has been omitted"... The question of the sources of Theodorite's work remains controversial. There is no doubt that he used Eusebius, and very abundantly Rufinus, probably Philostorgius. It is unlikely that he used the books of Socrates and Sozomen. It is more difficult to determine the sources of his individual reports. There is no doubt that he made use of the historical works of Athanasius, extracted factual data from Chrysostom and Gregory the Theologian. In many respects, he relied on oral legends and stories. He treated the collected material with sufficient discernment, but his general ideas about the meaning and character of the historical process experienced by the Church during the century he depicts are perhaps too simple. He abuses providentialism and too often does not give either a pragmatic or a psychological analysis, which, however, could not be expected according to the historiographical skills of the time. For all that, in the ecclesiastical sense of the events described, he skillfully understands, and in this respect he surpasses Socrates. For Theodoret, history ceases to be only a chronicle – in the rhythm of events he sees a general meaning, depicts the past as the struggle of the Church with the heresy (Arian). The main value of the history of Theodorite for us is the documents preserved by him, only on Theodoret and known ones, including the well-known epistle of St. Alexander of Alexandria to Alexander of Thessalonica. Theodoret also preserved many details from the life of the East—he always speaks of the life of his native Church with warm feeling. Before the "Church History" Theodoret compiled the "History of the God-Lovers" – probably already in the first half of the forties. This is a series of images of ascetics (out of 36 three are dedicated to God-loving women) who made their way in the East, in Syria. Theodoret knew some personally, others he speaks of from the words of eyewitnesses, whom he sometimes calls by name. He also had some notes. Theodoret's stories have complete authenticity. But it must be remembered that he writes not history, but hagiographies, and strives not for biographical completeness and accuracy, but for the vividness of the image. He himself compares his characteristics with the memorable images that were erected to the Olympic winners. "We will not outline bodily features," he says, "but we will outline the thoughts of the invisible soul and show the invisible struggle and hidden feats." That is why he does not strive for completeness, but tries to go through "different ways of life" in order to give examples suitable for different situations. All Theodoret's attention is focused on the inner life of the ascetics he depicts, he gives few details about the external life, and is stingy with chronological indications. This does not violate the historical nature of his stories. He depicts living people, not typical images. In Theodorite's subsequent hagiographic writing, the "history of the God-lovers" enjoyed great attention, and Symeon Metaphrastes copied Theodoret almost verbatim. To the "History of the God-Lovers" adjoins the "Discourse on Divine and Holy Love," a kind of philosophical-theological conclusion to it. Theodoret wants to reveal the motive principle of the ascetic life and finds it in love. "Love for God makes ascetics capable of extending beyond the boundaries of nature" and attaining impassibility. "They receive from everywhere the wound of Divine love, and, despising everything, they impress upon their minds the Beloved, and before the expected incorruptibility they make their body spiritual"... This love draws them to Wisdom, and for Theodoret ascetics are first of all "worshippers of true wisdom." Finally, to the historical writings of Theodoret belongs his "Collection of Heretical Fables" in four books, compiled after the Council of Chalcedon. Theodoret made abundant use here of the preceding hereseologic literature, most of all Irenaeus, the history of Eusebius, perhaps the Philosopoumena, and in any case the "Code" (Syntagma) of Hippolytus, — in part, he also made use of heretical books, so he read the works of Bardesanes. Theodoret spoke about some heresies from personal experience, since in Syria he had to meet with the remnants of ancient heresies, for example, with the Marcionites. Theodoret is suspicious of the legendary stories about heretics and deliberately avoids conveying seductive details. In this respect he is the opposite of Epiphanius, whose work he apparently used. Theodoret brings the review of heresies to Eutyches, but the chapter on Nestorius, of course, presents a later insertion. There is little new material in Theodoret, the development of heresies is not visible in him at all, since he strives to give complete and immovable types of errors. He does not come up with a history, but a system of heresies, a consolidated image of the dark kingdom of falsehood rising up against the Kingdom of God. The historical value of the hereseology of Theodorite as a source is not great. 4. Theodoret argued about faith all his life. And all his dogmatic works had a polemical task and character. Apparently, in his early years he wrote much against the Arians, against Apollinarius, and against the Marcionites. In the surviving works of Theodoret there are not a few polemical excursions. Theodoret is the author of two treatises "On the Holy and Life-Giving Trinity" and "On the Incarnation", published by Card. A. Mai is among the works of St. Cyril, but certainly not belonging to him. In content and theological language they are very close to the indisputable works of Theodoret. And under the name of Theodoret, they are known and quoted by the famous Severus of Antioch. They should be attributed to the time before 430. To the epoch of the Nestorian controversies belong first of all the "Objections" of Theodoret to the "chapters" of St. Cyril. After the Council of Ephesus, Theodoret again wrote a large book of objections, of which only small fragments have survived, mainly by Marius Mercator. The famous publisher of Theodorite's works, the Jesuit Garnier, gave this book the title Pentalogue, based on the instructions of Marius Mercator. Only in fragments has the apology of Theodoret survived to us in defense of Theodore and Diodorus, against St. Cyril. Many letters of this time have a dogmatic content. To his later years belongs the most interesting dogmatic-polemical work of Theodoret: the Eranistes (or Rags), written in dialogical form. It was completed in 448. Theodoret here describes and refutes the nascent Monophysitism, and it is possible that he used some written Monophysite sources in doing so. By the very name Theodoret wants to define the meaning of the new heresy: έρανισής from έρανоν means a beggar and a beggar, who begs everywhere and from other people's scraps makes a motley and multicolored cloth. Theodoret sees such a "variegated and manifold wisdom" in Monophysitism. Against the "Yeranist" his Orthodox interlocutor defends the immutability and non-merging of the Divine-human union and the "non-suffering" of the Divinity in Christ. Theodoret tries to explain the real meaning of the judgments and sayings of St. Cyril and shows the incorrectness of the Monophysite interpretation of the "Cyrilian faith". In many ways, he directly repeats St. Cyril. In contrast to his earlier works, here Theodoret frees himself from the narrowness of the school and shows great theological insight. From the external side, the dialogue is distinguished by harmony and simplicity. In the last fourth word, Theodoret sums up the positive results of the dispute in a "syllogistic form". In collecting patristic testimonies, Theodoret probably used a compilation compiled in 430-431 by Helladius of Ptolemais. To these polemical works must be added the Abridgement of Divine Dogmas, which is the fifth book of the Cures of Hellenic Infirmities. This is a brief and complete sketch of Christian dogmatics, supported mainly by biblical texts. 5. Theodoret preached a lot and constantly from an early age. "He taught continuously," as he put it. He mentions his "conversations" more than once. As a preacher, he enjoyed great respect and honor. "Sometimes, at the end of the conversation, they hugged me, kissed my head, chest and hands. Some even touched my knees, calling my teaching apostolic," he recalled. It remains doubtful whether he wrote down his sermons himself; in any case, he himself never refers to his written sermons. None of his sermons has survived in their entirety. The references of his opponents to his expressions in sermons cannot be accepted without verification. Patriarch Photius read 5 "Homilies" of Theodoret in praise of Chrysostom, which in his opinion were immoderately laudatory, and preserved several fragments of them. Probably, from the church ambo the "Words on Providence" were spoken... 6. Theodoret's letters present rich biographical and general historical material. A lot of them have been preserved. There are not a few indications of the works of Theodoret that have not come down to us. The manuscript tradition of Theodoret's works has not been sufficiently critically examined. This is especially true of Syriac literature. In any case, Theodoret was one of the most prolific and versatile writers of antiquity. According to the judgment of Photius, he combined the simplicity of the syllable and its elegance, although he was not a Hellenic by birth.

III. Confession

1. In his Christological confession, Theodoret sought the "middle" way, the "path of the Gospel dogmas"... He tried to hold fast to tradition. But he had to theologize in the dispute. In this controversy he appears to be a representative of the Antiochian school, whose Christology was manifested from the very beginning by an intense repulsion from Apollinarianism. Theodoret gave the first exposition of his Christological views in the treatise "On the Incarnation of the Lord". In him one can feel a sharp repulsion from Apollinarius. Theodoret first of all shows the fullness of humanity in Christ, its immutability in unity. He proceeds from the fact of dispensation, as from the work and revelation of Divine mercy and love. Only by perceiving full humanity with a rational soul can salvation be attained. If the Savior had not been God, then salvation would not have been realized. And if he had not been a man, then His sufferings, His "saving passion," would have been useless to us. From here Theodoret comes to the confession of Christ as God and man... He thinks of the union of natures as inseparable. The two natures are united in one Person, in the unity of life, έν πρόσωπоν — it should be noted that Theodoret sharply distinguishes between the concepts of "persons" and "hypostases", and ύπόστασις for him remains synonymous with φύσις... Incarnation is perception, and perception of the whole man... Theodoret designates the image of the union of the "divine nature" or "form" (μρφή) with the human nature as indwelling, connection, communion, unity, ένоίκησις, συνάφεια, ένωσις. In man, in the "visible," the Word dwelt concealed, as in a temple, and manifested itself in him by its actions. The Divinity is inseparably united with humanity, but Theodoret first of all emphasizes the "distinction of nature", "the peculiarities of nature"... "We do not divide the economy into two persons, nor do we preach two sons instead of the Only-begotten, but we teach, as we have been taught, that there are two natures, δύо φύσεις, — for there is another Godhead and another humanity; another being and another having become, another image of God, and another human image, this One Who has received, this One who has been received"... Theodoret sharply distinguishes between these two sides. Thus he says of the temptation of Christ: "It is not God the Word that is being taught, but the temple received by God the Word from the seed of David," "the temple formed by the Spirit for God the Word in the Virgin"... That is why he calls the Most Holy Virgin both the Mother of God and the Mother of Man, "by the latter name because she really gave birth to one like herself, and by the first because the image of God was united with the image of a servant"... It seems to have seemed to Theodoret that only the union of the two names excludes any hint of an impious "fusion" of natures. In all these formulations, the peculiarity and independence of humanity in Christ, as it were, a special "man," is emphasized with excessive sharpness... At the same time, the concept of the "one Person" (έν πρόσωπоν) did not sufficiently express the fullness of union in the language of that time. Theodoret studiously avoided the "transfer of names". This made his negative attitude towards the anathemas of St. Cyril inevitable. 2. In his conclusions on the "chapters" of St. Cyril, Theodoret first of all objects to the concept of "hypostatic" or "natural" unity, and opposes to it the concept of confluence or union. Behind the "strange and alien" concept of "unity in hypostasis" he suspects the idea of a fusion that destroys the peculiarities of the uniting natures, of the emergence of something "intermediate between the flesh and the Divinity," so that God is no longer God and the temple perceived is not the temple. In the concept of "natural unity" Theodoret saw the subordination of the Deity to necessity. In the concept of "nature" (φύσις), the moment of inevitability and compulsion stood out sharply for him: "nature is, by his definition, something moved by necessity and devoid of freedom" — "by nature" that which is "not of the will" is accomplished... "If in this way there was a 'natural union' of the image of God and the image of the slave," Theodoret concludes, "then God the Word was compelled by necessity, and not moved by love for mankind, to unite with the image of the slave, and the Lawgiver is always in necessity to follow the laws (of nature)." In contrast to the concept of "natural union," Theodoret emphasizes the freedom of exhaustion of the Son of God, who "by intention" was united "with nature taken from us." A union presupposes a difference, those who are divided are united; and therefore Theodoret wonders how Cyril can refuse to "separate hypostases or natures." He overlooked what St. Cyril openly understood by "hypostasis" or "nature" – "person". Professing the "unity of the person," Theodoret did not draw all the necessary conclusions from this. By dividing the Gospel sayings between the "two natures," he weakened the truth of unity. He refers all derogatory utterances to the "image of a slave," and one gets the impression that he means a special "person," a special subject. This impression is strengthened by the fact that Theodoret insistently and constantly speaks of human nature as a "temple received." He only wanted to exclude all fusion, transformation or change. But in reality he said more than he wanted to say: he called Christ a "God-bearing man," stipulating, however, that he "wholly possesses the one Divinity of the Son"; "Therefore the child who is born is called Immanuel, both God who is not separated from human nature, and a man who is not alien to the Divine" — "The child is called Immanuel for the reason that he was perceived by God" — "The image of God took the form of a servant." Theodoret notes that "perception" coincides with conception. But at the same time he crosses the right line, allowing the parallelism of the expressions: "God, not separated from humanity" and "man, not alien to the Divine". In reality, these are opposite and incompatible relationships. In Theodoret, it remains unclear whether God took on the Word "human nature" or "man." He understood the former, confessing a single Person, but it could be understood rather in the second sense. In particular, this is reflected in Theodoret's objections to the X-th "chapter". He refuses to say that God the Word Himself was the High Priest and Advocate of our confession. "Who is this, who is accomplished by deeds of virtue, and not by nature? Who has discovered obedience without knowing it until it has experienced it? Who was it that lived in reverence, with a strong cry and with tears, offering prayers, not having the strength to save himself, but praying to Him who was able to save him and asking for deliverance from death?" asks Theodoret, and answers: "Not God the Word, Who is immortal, impassible, incorporeal... But that's what He received from the seed of David... It received the name of a priest after the order of Melchizedek, clothed in the weakness of our nature and is not the almighty Word of God... This is the one who came from the seed of David and, not participating in any sin, became our Holy Hierarch and Sacrifice, offering himself for us and already bearing within himself the Word of God, which is from God, united and inseparably linked with him"... "In this way," concludes Theodoret in his remarks on the 12th chapter, "it was not Christ who suffered, but man, who was received from us by the Word"... Theodoret defends here the indisputable truth about the non-participation of the Word in the sufferings and changes of the Divine, and this gives him the opportunity to reveal with perfect clarity the fullness and reality of human experience in Christ, to dispel even remote docetical shades. But at the same time, he does not sufficiently emphasize the unity of Christ, who exists "in the image of God" and endured the infirmities of the flesh in his own, truly assimilated human nature. In the depiction of Theodoret, humanity is as if isolated into a special subject, into a special high priest. Theodoret's objections to Cyril's chapters reveal the insufficiency of his theological language, and at the same time the fact that he is bound by terminology once learned, outside of which he can no longer think. School schemes deprive Theodoret of freedom, and the indistinctness of theological ideas is further intensified by a short-sighted suspicion of imaginary Apollinarian temptations. Theodoret did not notice, failed to notice, that both he and St. Cyril spoke of one and the same thing, of the true Christ who was equally believed, although they spoke in different ways. And carried away by the desire to emphasize the difference against the imaginary fusion, he did not see that the way of expressing St. Cyril made it possible to more clearly reveal the unity professed by Theodoret, for which Theodoret himself simply did not have enough words. This is connected with a significant difference in the way psychological facts are described. Cyril and Theodoret equally use the analogy of man united from soul and body into a single living being. But for St. Cyril this analogy explained unity, for Theodoret – duality. Later, Theodoret himself confessed that in his struggle with the enemy he fell into a certain "immoderation," into unevenness, but "that only necessity produced a certain immoderation in the division." He strove for excessive logical definiteness and did not sufficiently feel the antinomic nature of the Divine-human mystery. In the "chapters" of St. Cyril he did not understand everything; this is felt in many of his remarks, when he seems to be breaking into an open door, and this was already noticed by Cyril himself, in his analysis of Theodorite's objections: "I confess that at first I thought that he understood the meaning of the chapters and pretended to be ignorant and thus pleased someone; Now I know for sure that he really does not understand"... Immediately after the Council of Ephesus, Theodoret wrote an extensive dogmatic epistle to the monks of Euphratesia, Osroina, Syria, Cilicia and Phoenicia. In it, he bitterly complains about the "evil offspring of Egypt," which, in his opinion, came "from the bitter root of Apollinarius," and at the same time offers a completely accurate confession: "We confess our Lord Jesus Christ to be perfect God and perfect man, from a rational soul and body, born before the ages of the Father according to the Divinity, and in the last days for our sake and for our salvation from the Virgin Mary, of one and the same thing, consubstantial with the Father in Divinity, and of one essence with us in humanity: for the union of the two natures was accomplished... That is why we confess one Christ, one Son, one Lord. And we do not share the unity, but we believe that it has been accomplished unmerged. And we offer Him one worship, since we believe that the union took place in the womb of the Virgin from the very conception"... But in the chapters of St. Cyril he still continues to see "impious reasoning"... Theodoret stubbornly stood for the Antiochian usage. It is true that in many ways it preceded the Chalcedonian oros. But the Chalcedonian Fathers confessed the union of the two natures in "one person and one hypostasis," and with them the concept of "person" through direct identification with the concept of "hypostasis" was completely freed from the vagueness that was characteristic of it in the use of words at that time, and especially in the "Eastern" usage. In Theodoret, on the other hand, the duality of "natures" or "hypostases" is strongly expressed, and unity is indistinct, without definition, or as "unity of person," but not as "hypostasis." He introduced the same vagueness, constantly combining the names: the Mother of God and the Mother of God, not noticing that the latter expresses either something indisputable, or too much. 3. In the struggle against the nascent Monophysitism, Theodoret again expresses himself in his "Yeranist", and expresses himself more systematically and fully. The whole meaning of the mystery of the Incarnation is in the "perception of the flesh," without any inconceivable and impossible "change" in which God the Word would cease to be what He was. In Theodoret, the embodiment is thought of in a broad soteriological perspective. In order to renew the decayed image, the Creator had to take on the whole nature. And therefore Christ is the Second Adam, and His victory is our victory, and the new life imparted by union with God the Word, extends to the entire human race. The resurrection of Christ opens up freedom from death for all mankind... From this the necessity of the fullness of both natures and the reality of their union become clear. "The name man," Theodoret explains, "is the name of nature, and silence about it is the negation of this nature, and the denial of this nature is the annihilation of Christ's sufferings, and the annihilation of this makes salvation illusory"... Only through the perception of the image of the servant from us does Christ become the Mediator, "combining in the very union of natures that which was divided"... "Before the union there were not two natures, but only one," Theodoret justly asserts, "for mankind was not co-inherent in the Word from eternity, "but was formed together with the angelic greeting"; and before that there was one nature, always and eternally existing. Incarnation is perception in conception... At the same time, it is only in the confession of immutability that the fullness of the Godhead is preserved in Christ. In union "the natures were not merged, but remained whole"; but this duality does not break the unity of the person. By analogy with the human personality, Theodoret now even speaks of a "natural unity." In this unity, of course, the properties of each nature remain unchanged — τά τών φύσεων ϊδια... Theodoret explains this "natural union" into a "single person" in a certain way of red-hot iron, but "this close union, this completely, penetrating mixture, does not change the nature of iron"... And iron remains iron... Theodoret now speaks almost in the language of Cyril, and refers directly to him... Theodoret dwells in particular detail on the question of the sufferings of Christ. "And we do not say that anyone else (and not the Son of God) suffered, but at the same time we know from the Divine Scriptures that the nature of the Godhead is impassible. Thus, when we hear about impassibility and suffering, and about the union of the Divinity and humanity, we say that suffering belongs to the passionate body, and we confess the impassible nature to be free from suffering." But this body is not the body of a simple man, but the body of the Only-begotten... And, "because of unity, the face of Christ takes on all that is proper to each nature" — both the Divine and the Human are said to be of one person... In suffering and death the inseparable unity of natures was not broken, and from the passionate flesh "the Divine nature was inseparable," both in the tomb and on the cross, although it did not accept suffering itself. "By nature the flesh suffered, but God the Word appropriated to Himself its sufferings as to His own flesh"... Through this "assimilation" the impassibility of the Divinity and the suffering of humanity are invariably united, and the sufferings are not imputed to the Divine nature itself, although they are the sufferings of the "body of God the Word." In the resurrection, the Lord's flesh remains impassible and incorruptible, but "remains within the limits of nature and retains the qualities of humanity." Already after the Ephesian "murder," Theodoret repeated: "Confessing Christ to be immutable, impassible, and immortal, we cannot assimilate to His own nature either transmutation, suffering, or death. And if it is said that God can do whatever He wills, then it should be said that He does not want that which is inconsistent with His nature... Since He has an immortal nature, He also took on a body capable of suffering, and together with the body the human soul. And although the body of the only-begotten Son of God is called the body received, yet He attributes the sufferings of the body to Himself." Theodoret approaches the concept of the "transfer of names", substantiating it by the unity of the person; "union makes names common, but community of names does not confuse the natures themselves"; "the union did not produce a fusion of the peculiarities of nature," and they are clearly distinguishable and perceived. "For gold, when in contact with fire, takes on the color and action of fire, but does not lose its nature, but remains gold, although it acts like fire. In the same way, the body of the Lord is a body, but (after ascending into heaven) unsuffering, incorruptible, immortal, sovereign, divine, and glorified by Divine glory. It is not separated from the Godhead and is not the body of anyone else, but the only-begotten Son of God. It does not reveal to us any other person, but the Only-begotten Himself, Who took on our nature"... Theodoret now speaks somewhat differently than before, but he also speaks. Suspicious prejudices were dispelled and his theological contemplation became clearer and more precise. In him, as before, he no longer feels the school limitation. And at the Council of Chalcedon he approved, albeit in a general form, the previously disputed epistles of St. Cyril... Now he understood the "chapters" of St. Cyril... This does not mean that he has abandoned his type of theology, but that he has ceased to insist on its exclusivity. Shortly before the council, he recalled the "poison contained in the 12 chapters," but he did not attribute the impious conclusions from them to St. Cyril, who only put forward his "chapters" against Nestorius, not claiming to exhaust the mystery of the Incarnation in them. As an antithesis to Nestorianism, they must be accepted, not as a complete confession: it is given in the Chalcedonian creed. By this time, terminological differences had been clarified, the basic Christological concepts had been established, and it became possible to confess the two natures in one person or hypostasis of the Incarnate Word without ambiguity. But until the very end, Theodoret thought in his own way. "The Word was made flesh," such is the Christology of St. Cyril, "Jesus of Nazareth, the Man testified to you from God by powers and wonders and signs, which God has wrought through Him among you, as you yourselves know, this ... you took and nailed the wicked with the hands of the wicked, and killed; but God raised Him up" (Acts 2:22-24) — this is the Christology of Blessed Theodoret.

Corpus Areopagiticum

1. In his Christological confession, Theodoret sought the "middle" way, the "path of the Gospel dogmas"... He tried to hold fast to tradition. But he had to theologize in the dispute. In this controversy he appears to be a representative of the Antiochian school, whose Christology was manifested from the very beginning by an intense repulsion from Apollinarianism. Theodoret gave the first exposition of his Christological views in the treatise "On the Incarnation of the Lord". In him one can feel a sharp repulsion from Apollinarius. Theodoret first of all shows the fullness of humanity in Christ, its immutability in unity. He proceeds from the fact of dispensation, as from the work and revelation of Divine mercy and love. Only by perceiving full humanity with a rational soul can salvation be attained. If the Savior had not been God, then salvation would not have been realized. And if he had not been a man, then His sufferings, His "saving passion," would have been useless to us. From here Theodoret comes to the confession of Christ as God and man... He thinks of the union of natures as inseparable. The two natures are united in one Person, in the unity of life, έν πρόσωπоν — it should be noted that Theodoret sharply distinguishes between the concepts of "persons" and "hypostases", and ύπόστασις for him remains synonymous with φύσις... Incarnation is perception, and perception of the whole man... Theodoret designates the image of the union of the "divine nature" or "form" (μρφή) with the human nature as indwelling, connection, communion, unity, ένоίκησις, συνάφεια, ένωσις. In man, in the "visible," the Word dwelt concealed, as in a temple, and manifested itself in him by its actions. The Divinity is inseparably united with humanity, but Theodoret first of all emphasizes the "distinction of nature", "the peculiarities of nature"... "We do not divide the economy into two persons, nor do we preach two sons instead of the Only-begotten, but we teach, as we have been taught, that there are two natures, δύо φύσεις, — for there is another Godhead and another humanity; another being and another having become, another image of God, and another human image, this One Who has received, this One who has been received"... Theodoret sharply distinguishes between these two sides. Thus he says of the temptation of Christ: "It is not God the Word that is being taught, but the temple received by God the Word from the seed of David," "the temple formed by the Spirit for God the Word in the Virgin"... That is why he calls the Most Holy Virgin both the Mother of God and the Mother of Man, "by the latter name because she really gave birth to one like herself, and by the first because the image of God was united with the image of a servant"... It seems to have seemed to Theodoret that only the union of the two names excludes any hint of an impious "fusion" of natures. In all these formulations, the peculiarity and independence of humanity in Christ, as it were, a special "man," is emphasized with excessive sharpness... At the same time, the concept of the "one Person" (έν πρόσωπоν) did not sufficiently express the fullness of union in the language of that time. Theodoret studiously avoided the "transfer of names". This made his negative attitude towards the anathemas of St. Cyril inevitable. 2. In his conclusions on the "chapters" of St. Cyril, Theodoret first of all objects to the concept of "hypostatic" or "natural" unity, and opposes to it the concept of confluence or union. Behind the "strange and alien" concept of "unity in hypostasis" he suspects the idea of a fusion that destroys the peculiarities of the uniting natures, of the emergence of something "intermediate between the flesh and the Divinity," so that God is no longer God and the temple perceived is not the temple. In the concept of "natural unity" Theodoret saw the subordination of the Deity to necessity. In the concept of "nature" (φύσις), the moment of inevitability and compulsion stood out sharply for him: "nature is, by his definition, something moved by necessity and devoid of freedom" — "by nature" that which is "not of the will" is accomplished... "If in this way there was a 'natural union' of the image of God and the image of the slave," Theodoret concludes, "then God the Word was compelled by necessity, and not moved by love for mankind, to unite with the image of the slave, and the Lawgiver is always in necessity to follow the laws (of nature)." In contrast to the concept of "natural union," Theodoret emphasizes the freedom of exhaustion of the Son of God, who "by intention" was united "with nature taken from us." A union presupposes a difference, those who are divided are united; and therefore Theodoret wonders how Cyril can refuse to "separate hypostases or natures." He overlooked what St. Cyril openly understood by "hypostasis" or "nature" – "person". Professing the "unity of the person," Theodoret did not draw all the necessary conclusions from this. By dividing the Gospel sayings between the "two natures," he weakened the truth of unity. He refers all derogatory utterances to the "image of a slave," and one gets the impression that he means a special "person," a special subject. This impression is strengthened by the fact that Theodoret insistently and constantly speaks of human nature as a "temple received." He only wanted to exclude all fusion, transformation or change. But in reality he said more than he wanted to say: he called Christ a "God-bearing man," stipulating, however, that he "wholly possesses the one Divinity of the Son"; "Therefore the child who is born is called Immanuel, both God who is not separated from human nature, and a man who is not alien to the Divine" — "The child is called Immanuel for the reason that he was perceived by God" — "The image of God took the form of a servant." Theodoret notes that "perception" coincides with conception. But at the same time he crosses the right line, allowing the parallelism of the expressions: "God, not separated from humanity" and "man, not alien to the Divine". In reality, these are opposite and incompatible relationships. In Theodoret, it remains unclear whether God took on the Word "human nature" or "man." He understood the former, confessing a single Person, but it could be understood rather in the second sense. In particular, this is reflected in Theodoret's objections to the X-th "chapter". He refuses to say that God the Word Himself was the High Priest and Advocate of our confession. "Who is this, who is accomplished by deeds of virtue, and not by nature? Who has discovered obedience without knowing it until it has experienced it? Who was it that lived in reverence, with a strong cry and with tears, offering prayers, not having the strength to save himself, but praying to Him who was able to save him and asking for deliverance from death?" asks Theodoret, and answers: "Not God the Word, Who is immortal, impassible, incorporeal... But that's what He received from the seed of David... It received the name of a priest after the order of Melchizedek, clothed in the weakness of our nature and is not the almighty Word of God... This is the one who came from the seed of David and, not participating in any sin, became our Holy Hierarch and Sacrifice, offering himself for us and already bearing within himself the Word of God, which is from God, united and inseparably linked with him"... "In this way," concludes Theodoret in his remarks on the 12th chapter, "it was not Christ who suffered, but man, who was received from us by the Word"... Theodoret defends here the indisputable truth about the non-participation of the Word in the sufferings and changes of the Divine, and this gives him the opportunity to reveal with perfect clarity the fullness and reality of human experience in Christ, to dispel even remote docetical shades. But at the same time, he does not sufficiently emphasize the unity of Christ, who exists "in the image of God" and endured the infirmities of the flesh in his own, truly assimilated human nature. In the depiction of Theodoret, humanity is as if isolated into a special subject, into a special high priest. Theodoret's objections to Cyril's chapters reveal the insufficiency of his theological language, and at the same time the fact that he is bound by terminology once learned, outside of which he can no longer think. School schemes deprive Theodoret of freedom, and the indistinctness of theological ideas is further intensified by a short-sighted suspicion of imaginary Apollinarian temptations. Theodoret did not notice, failed to notice, that both he and St. Cyril spoke of one and the same thing, of the true Christ who was equally believed, although they spoke in different ways. And carried away by the desire to emphasize the difference against the imaginary fusion, he did not see that the way of expressing St. Cyril made it possible to more clearly reveal the unity professed by Theodoret, for which Theodoret himself simply did not have enough words. This is connected with a significant difference in the way psychological facts are described. Cyril and Theodoret equally use the analogy of man united from soul and body into a single living being. But for St. Cyril this analogy explained unity, for Theodoret – duality. Later, Theodoret himself confessed that in his struggle with the enemy he fell into a certain "immoderation," into unevenness, but "that only necessity produced a certain immoderation in the division." He strove for excessive logical definiteness and did not sufficiently feel the antinomic nature of the Divine-human mystery. In the "chapters" of St. Cyril he did not understand everything; this is felt in many of his remarks, when he seems to be breaking into an open door, and this was already noticed by Cyril himself, in his analysis of Theodorite's objections: "I confess that at first I thought that he understood the meaning of the chapters and pretended to be ignorant and thus pleased someone; Now I know for sure that he really does not understand"... Immediately after the Council of Ephesus, Theodoret wrote an extensive dogmatic epistle to the monks of Euphratesia, Osroina, Syria, Cilicia and Phoenicia. In it, he bitterly complains about the "evil offspring of Egypt," which, in his opinion, came "from the bitter root of Apollinarius," and at the same time offers a completely accurate confession: "We confess our Lord Jesus Christ to be perfect God and perfect man, from a rational soul and body, born before the ages of the Father according to the Divinity, and in the last days for our sake and for our salvation from the Virgin Mary, of one and the same thing, consubstantial with the Father in Divinity, and of one essence with us in humanity: for the union of the two natures was accomplished... That is why we confess one Christ, one Son, one Lord. And we do not share the unity, but we believe that it has been accomplished unmerged. And we offer Him one worship, since we believe that the union took place in the womb of the Virgin from the very conception"... But in the chapters of St. Cyril he still continues to see "impious reasoning"... Theodoret stubbornly stood for the Antiochian usage. It is true that in many ways it preceded the Chalcedonian oros. But the Chalcedonian Fathers confessed the union of the two natures in "one person and one hypostasis," and with them the concept of "person" through direct identification with the concept of "hypostasis" was completely freed from the vagueness that was characteristic of it in the use of words at that time, and especially in the "Eastern" usage. In Theodoret, on the other hand, the duality of "natures" or "hypostases" is strongly expressed, and unity is indistinct, without definition, or as "unity of person," but not as "hypostasis." He introduced the same vagueness, constantly combining the names: the Mother of God and the Mother of God, not noticing that the latter expresses either something indisputable, or too much. 3. In the struggle against the nascent Monophysitism, Theodoret again expresses himself in his "Yeranist", and expresses himself more systematically and fully. The whole meaning of the mystery of the Incarnation is in the "perception of the flesh," without any inconceivable and impossible "change" in which God the Word would cease to be what He was. In Theodoret, the embodiment is thought of in a broad soteriological perspective. In order to renew the decayed image, the Creator had to take on the whole nature. And therefore Christ is the Second Adam, and His victory is our victory, and the new life imparted by union with God the Word, extends to the entire human race. The resurrection of Christ opens up freedom from death for all mankind... From this the necessity of the fullness of both natures and the reality of their union become clear. "The name man," Theodoret explains, "is the name of nature, and silence about it is the negation of this nature, and the denial of this nature is the annihilation of Christ's sufferings, and the annihilation of this makes salvation illusory"... Only through the perception of the image of the servant from us does Christ become the Mediator, "combining in the very union of natures that which was divided"... "Before the union there were not two natures, but only one," Theodoret justly asserts, "for mankind was not co-inherent in the Word from eternity, "but was formed together with the angelic greeting"; and before that there was one nature, always and eternally existing. Incarnation is perception in conception... At the same time, it is only in the confession of immutability that the fullness of the Godhead is preserved in Christ. In union "the natures were not merged, but remained whole"; but this duality does not break the unity of the person. By analogy with the human personality, Theodoret now even speaks of a "natural unity." In this unity, of course, the properties of each nature remain unchanged — τά τών φύσεων ϊδια... Theodoret explains this "natural union" into a "single person" in a certain way of red-hot iron, but "this close union, this completely, penetrating mixture, does not change the nature of iron"... And iron remains iron... Theodoret now speaks almost in the language of Cyril, and refers directly to him... Theodoret dwells in particular detail on the question of the sufferings of Christ. "And we do not say that anyone else (and not the Son of God) suffered, but at the same time we know from the Divine Scriptures that the nature of the Godhead is impassible. Thus, when we hear about impassibility and suffering, and about the union of the Divinity and humanity, we say that suffering belongs to the passionate body, and we confess the impassible nature to be free from suffering." But this body is not the body of a simple man, but the body of the Only-begotten... And, "because of unity, the face of Christ takes on all that is proper to each nature" — both the Divine and the Human are said to be of one person... In suffering and death the inseparable unity of natures was not broken, and from the passionate flesh "the Divine nature was inseparable," both in the tomb and on the cross, although it did not accept suffering itself. "By nature the flesh suffered, but God the Word appropriated to Himself its sufferings as to His own flesh"... Through this "assimilation" the impassibility of the Divinity and the suffering of humanity are invariably united, and the sufferings are not imputed to the Divine nature itself, although they are the sufferings of the "body of God the Word." In the resurrection, the Lord's flesh remains impassible and incorruptible, but "remains within the limits of nature and retains the qualities of humanity." Already after the Ephesian "murder," Theodoret repeated: "Confessing Christ to be immutable, impassible, and immortal, we cannot assimilate to His own nature either transmutation, suffering, or death. And if it is said that God can do whatever He wills, then it should be said that He does not want that which is inconsistent with His nature... Since He has an immortal nature, He also took on a body capable of suffering, and together with the body the human soul. And although the body of the only-begotten Son of God is called the body received, yet He attributes the sufferings of the body to Himself." Theodoret approaches the concept of the "transfer of names", substantiating it by the unity of the person; "union makes names common, but community of names does not confuse the natures themselves"; "the union did not produce a fusion of the peculiarities of nature," and they are clearly distinguishable and perceived. "For gold, when in contact with fire, takes on the color and action of fire, but does not lose its nature, but remains gold, although it acts like fire. In the same way, the body of the Lord is a body, but (after ascending into heaven) unsuffering, incorruptible, immortal, sovereign, divine, and glorified by Divine glory. It is not separated from the Godhead and is not the body of anyone else, but the only-begotten Son of God. It does not reveal to us any other person, but the Only-begotten Himself, Who took on our nature"... Theodoret now speaks somewhat differently than before, but he also speaks. Suspicious prejudices were dispelled and his theological contemplation became clearer and more precise. In him, as before, he no longer feels the school limitation. And at the Council of Chalcedon he approved, albeit in a general form, the previously disputed epistles of St. Cyril... Now he understood the "chapters" of St. Cyril... This does not mean that he has abandoned his type of theology, but that he has ceased to insist on its exclusivity. Shortly before the council, he recalled the "poison contained in the 12 chapters," but he did not attribute the impious conclusions from them to St. Cyril, who only put forward his "chapters" against Nestorius, not claiming to exhaust the mystery of the Incarnation in them. As an antithesis to Nestorianism, they must be accepted, not as a complete confession: it is given in the Chalcedonian creed. By this time, terminological differences had been clarified, the basic Christological concepts had been established, and it became possible to confess the two natures in one person or hypostasis of the Incarnate Word without ambiguity. But until the very end, Theodoret thought in his own way. "The Word was made flesh," such is the Christology of St. Cyril, "Jesus of Nazareth, the Man testified to you from God by powers and wonders and signs, which God has wrought through Him among you, as you yourselves know, this ... you took and nailed the wicked with the hands of the wicked, and killed; but God raised Him up" (Acts 2:22-24) — this is the Christology of Blessed Theodoret.

I. Nature of the monument